Obamacare wins!...(never mind that nobody wants it)

Obamacare…The “left” doesn’t want it passed. “The fundamental failing of the newest Senate proposal (on healthcare) is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance, but does nothing to rein in what insurance companies can charge. There is nothing to stop spiraling health care costs from eating up an ever increasing percentage of our national productivity.” Huffington Post 12/15/09. Wow! That’s the left wing stating that this bill doesn’t help, but hurts the cost issue! The Huffington Post goes on to say “ What the Senate is currently discussing will make health care more expensive for individuals, families and businesses, with no check on the insurance companies…they’re on track to make the problems worse rather than better.” That’s the left wing, Washington insider, Obama supporting Huffington Post.

The “right” doesn’t want it passed. “All Republican Senators now oppose the bill…” WSJ. (So much for the “post partisan era”).

The Independents don’t want the bill passed. Senator Lieberman has been widely quoted as saying that he won’t support the bill with a public option or a Medicare buy down to age 55. (So Majority Leader Reid reportedly took those critical parts of the left agenda out of the bill to win a vote for something). The Independent, Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders said that his vote was “not certain” because the bill needed “a lot of work”. Brattleboro.com.

The past head of the Democratic National Committee (and a doctor) doesn’t want the bill passed. Howard Dean said “This is essentially the collapse of healthcare reform in the Senate and, honestly, the best thing to do right now is to kill the Senate bill.” ABC Morning News 12/15/09.

The American people don’t want the bill passed. The latest (Obama supporting) CNN poll (12/10/09) shows that 61% of Americans oppose the bill. 61%!!
The bill doesn’t meet any of the stated objectives. The latest CBO estimates for the Senate bill say that a family of four with a household income of $54,000/year should expect to pay 17% of their gross income on healthcare…that’s about $9,000/year. Wait a minute…that’s more than the average cost today (about $7,700/year)! So much for the “affordable healthcare for all”, and the portion of the uninsured because they can’t afford healthcare on moderate incomes.

The CMS (Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services) analysis reported (Dec.14th) that the Senate bill would cause total health expenditures to increase by $234 billion between 2010 and 2019. So much for “bending the cost curve down”.

The CBO estimates that the 15% of the population without health insurance will drop to (at best) 6% if the Senate bill were implemented. So much for “covering all Americans”.

But it will pass and become law for two reasons. The Democrats have a filibuster proof Congress that will pass something, anything, out of loyalty to the party and political payoffs that trump any loyalty to the citizens who voted for them or their own values. Senator Mary Landrieu is an excellent example. She bragged about her payoff, correcting a reporter when he suggested that it was worth $200 million for her to take home to Louisiana, she said “it’s closer to $300 million”. Anyone think she won’t vote “yes” in the final hour, no matter what’s in the bill?

The last few Senators will have their crafted objections overcome in the last hours (we have to have some drama) with broken armed analysts re-assessing the costs more favorably (or just saying it will cost less “cause Obama say so”); or Clintonian parsing of definitions, so that only dollars with even serial numbers can be used to fund abortion. Then there will be tears and a big celebration of the historic moment when the government started to take over another part of our lives.

The Old Man

Obama Tells Old Man not to breathe!

Okay, maybe the title was a little overstated. President Obama didn’t say the official EPA ruling declaring CO2 emissions are bad for the planet meant that I couldn’t breathe…he just said I couldn’t exhale. I guess this is one of the “half truths” he accuses us who have different views of propagating. And clearly, there are options if I cannot, in my selfish, capitalist body, do what’s good for the planet. I am looking into surgical procedures to implant a CO2 converter into my sinus passages, so that after taking in good oxygen, only innocuous, although odious, gases are emitted back into the air. I do, however, worry that this would make me a politician.
I am also waiting to see if this surgery is covered under Obamacare, or covered by a grant from the Cap and Trade bill. I am considering another alternative by exercising my lungs to see if I can build them up so that I can only inhale in the U.S. and exhale when I get to a country that gets paid by the global warming initiative, because it is poor and is exempted from limits on CO2 emissions. They will welcome me, I suppose, because this will increase that country’s CO2 emissions, qualifying them for more funds from the concerned global community. I’ve already heard rumors that some countries are planning special discount travel packages for “exhalers”.
There are other alternatives being proposed by the administration, to be fair, that would allow me to exhale here at home. After all, the president doesn’t really want me to leave, I pay a lot of taxes and he plans for me to pay more. Further, he loses a convenient enemy if I leave. So, the plan would allow me to have a “carbon offset” to compensate for my selfish, greedy pollution by paying China or India to plant a tree to offset their pollution. And I can feel good about that innocent tree having a better chance at survival in China, where there will be some CO2 left that it needs to survive. (China and India have asked, however, that I pay for that tree in something other than U.S. dollars).
So, maybe I overreacted a little. I think I’ll just suck it up and get on board with this great social cause

The Old Man

Shut up and Support the President

Shut up and Support the President!

I as a capitalist, a free enterprise devotee, a fiscal conservative, and a believer in a much smaller, less intrusive federal government whose primary roles are national defense, enforcement of a constructionist view of the Constitution for all of its’ citizens, and allowing free interstate commerce…have deep disagreements in many areas with the Marxist policies and “”one world” views of President Obama.
However, regarding the President’s speech last night on Afghanistan, I have a message for my colleagues who usually disagree with him. This is especially offered to those political leaders and pundits who call themselves conservatives, or view themselves as “loyal opposition”.
This message is (with all due respect): Shut up (the carping) and support the President. Leave the carping to the liberals, that’s what they do. This is War.

You wanted the President to stand up against terrorism, and commit to fight it to make us safer.
He just did.
You wanted the President to say that winning this war was vital to our national security, and that Pakistan and Afghanistan are important to us.
He just did.
You wanted him to “listen to the (military) commanders on the ground”.
He just did.
You wanted him to show courage and stand up to the left wing of his own party.
He just did.
Okay, we’re unhappy about setting a timeline (but with an out to assess conditions on the ground). And you’re not sure how he’ll deliver on his plan. But the President stood up, spoke up, and “manned up” in a difficult situation. We didn’t like it when others criticized the former president during war, showing the world and our enemies a divided country. There are legitimate arguments against being in a war in Afghanistan. There are legitimate arguments about how he will prosecute this war. But the President, for all intents and purposes, made the basic decision you thought he should make, and, so, if we're truly loyal opposition,…this is war…stand together, support the President.
The Old Man

Response to "Obamacare 2"

JRB,

Good to hear from you again, as always!  Don't worry -- I totally forgive you for the incendiary nature of your polemics.  (Okay, so maybe I slide into polemics too, every now and then, haha).  You are right, opinions can change as life unfolds.  (It's never too late, you know!)  I would be quite religious and conservative today if I couldn't change my mind.  Let me know when you start trying to persuade me.

By the way, may I make a suggestion?  Your post title needs a subtitle.  I was thinking along the lines of "Obamacare 2:  Blood Harvest".  Or maybe "Obamacare 2:  Rise of the Machines".

Okay ... seriously now, kidding aside ... I do have to ask:  are the irrelevant insults about the sexual orientation and gender of Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi really necessary?  Why do you keep bringing it up in your first post?  I don't get it.  Anyway, on to the points:

• You are right, the public option is in the House bill and now the Senate bill.  Excuse me a moment . . . . *celebratory dance* . . . . ahem, okay then.

• The argument of Frank and people who want single-payer someday is that people will flock to public insurance because it will be much cheaper, secure, efficient, etc.  If public insurance is better than private insurance, that's competition for you, don't hate the player hate the game.
  

• You say low profit margins derive from competition.  Of course.  But we have Aetna, B.C.B.S., WellPoint, Cigna, WellCare, United, Humana just to name the biggest insurers....they aren't competing with each other?  There's no competition?  The primary competition that is lacking is competition between private and public insurance.  And at some point, isn't too much competition a bad thing when it comes to insurance (i.e. more insurers, and therefore smaller pools of shared risk)?
  

• The Commerce Clause:  but interstate insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield are interstate commerce.  No?
  

• "If you don't like their prohibitions/exclusions, don't engage them ... they'll soon be out of business".  Not sure what that means.  If you have a preexisting condition or if you can't afford to pay, they probably don't want your business anyway.
  

• Amendment IX:  See my response to Fred under the comments to "Obamacare (Guest Post)" Oct. 24, 2009.

• Please be specific on how the bill excludes Congress, unions, etc.  If you're in a union you won't have a public option?

• Death Panels:  For goodness' sake, I was being facetious!  There are no government-run death panels in Britain which would deny needed care to a person with muscular dystrophy, as our privately-owned death panels do.  The quote from Stephen Hawking is an actual quote.

• My health insurance: comes from an employer-sponsored insurance program.

Finally:  my perspective has changed a lot.  I voted for Bush in 2004 and believed America would never torture captured enemy combatants.  Then my youthful idealism confronted reality.  Of COURSE I'm open to changing my mind.  And I'm sure you are as well ... right? : )

Obamacare 2 (Guest Post)

Note:This is a guest post by JRB

To quote the OLD MAN’s Shakepeare (Hamlet, ACT III, Scene II),

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks!”

Responding to your posts, each in turn:

First, if you check the current legislative initiatives, the Government-run public option is back in, just as I predicted.

Second, if you read Congressman Frank’s public blitherings, he clearly states that a public option is the one sure way to achieve a single-payer (i.e., government run) system. Why? Because the mandates within the legislation will force people who change jobs into the public option, as will definitions which exclude private alternatives. These weaseling maneuvers, which Congress hopes the public won’t recognize, resurrect the old Henry Ford dictum. I.e., “you can have any color you want, so long as it’s black.”

Third, “King Herod” (the insurance industry) generally makes about a 2-3% profit margin on its product sales. That’s $20-30mm per billion in sales, or $12-18mm after the government exacts their levy. Large grocery chains make about 1% on sales. The low margins, and ergo prices, derive directly from competition, that horrible, blood-sucking capitalistic invention.

Fourth, you are spot-on w.r.t. the Patriot Act’s constitutional violations. It authorizes, among other things, self-authorized search warrants by the FBI without judicial approval. This is a clear violation of the Constitution (Amendment IV).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv).

I never stated, or implied, that Obama or the DUMBocrats had a monopoly on constitutional misogyny.

Fifth, your interaction with your physician regarding a health issue isn’t an interstate transaction; ergo it’s not covered under the seventeen specifically allowed federal prerogatives. Indeed the Framer’s original intent, within the Commerce Clause, was to ensure that one state did not prohibit another state from offering products & services to the first state’s citizenry.

Sixth, Aetna & CIGNA have no God-given rights (I’m glad you capitalized God; your parents clearly did something right!). If you don’t like their prohibitions/exclusions, don’t engage them. If they’re so dismissive of the public good, and a myriad of people agree with you, they’ll soon be out of business, just another of those awful characteristics of capitalism.

Seventh, Amendment IX, as you correctly quote, says that unenumerated rights “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amen to that! Please focus on the last three words, “by the people.” The people retain such rights, not the government. Nowhere does it state, or imply, that the federal government shall assume the administration of these rights on behalf of the people. If anything, it confers the securing of such rights to the states, but only after sanctioning by the citizenry. Ergo, the “explosion” you reference seems to be a “dud”.

Eighth, note who the current legislation excludes:
• Congress
• Government employees
• Union members
Is there anything in this “fraternity” that inspires consternation? Please tell me why any of these group deserves exemption from the laws they are set to impose on the rest of us.

Ninth, there is a delicious irony in your comment that,

“the government-run Death Panels are slow and inefficient by American standards”

while advocating that we have government run health care. So, you admit that the government has “death panels”, and, by logical extension, your proposition is that it’s better to have a slow and inefficiently run system, which delays poor decisions, rather than have a faster and more efficient system that engenders good decisions. Sounds like a pyrrhic trade off to me.

Tenth, pray tell, do you have health care, and from whence does it derive?

Lastly, please keep the incendiary nature of these polemics in perspective. I have known you since you were born. You are an intelligent, passionate, accomplished and articulate young man. I am as proud of you as are your parents, and as if you were my own progeny. Your views may change as life unfolds. Simply leave yourself open that one’s perspective may be altered as youthful idealism confronts reality.

Britain's government Death Panels keep disabled waiting longer, less efficient than than America's private insurance Death Panels

The private insurance company Guardian deemed its reported 2008 profit margin of 4.2% too slim, and hired private investigators to look for any reason to drop customers with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, brain injury, and paralysis.  When this strategy failed, Guardian's Death Panels-- which referred to its disabled customers as "dogs" and "trainwrecks" in internal memos released by court order --launched its "Moving Forward" campaign to drop their coverage anyway.  Ian Pearl, a man born with muscular dystrophy who became ventillator-dependent in 1991, and requires constant nursing care to keep him alive, writes that for him this is a death sentence.  The private insurance Death Panels will drop his coverage effective December 1, 2009 -- a mere 18 years after Pearl became dependent on full-time nursing care.

Meanwhile, British physicist Stephen Hawking continues to wait for his government-issued execution orders.  Like Pearl, Hawking was born with muscular dystrophy.  But in Britain, the government-run Death Panels are slow and inefficient by American standards, and long death sentence wait times are common.  Hawking has been waiting for Death Panel review for nearly 24 years since he became dependent on full-time nursing care for survival. 

Referring to the British National Health System (NHS), Hawking blamed government ineptitude for the delay.  "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he said. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

Obamacare (Guest Post )

FREY vs FREY

Before I respond to FreyGuy’s defense of the ever-changing Health Care Legislation, especially his predilection for a so-called “public option”, I’ll first throw a giant monkey wrench into all the prior arguments. However, before I do that, I would note, by analogy, to which a future physicist can relate, that the legislative initiatives seem to come and go so fast, that were they mapped mathematically, the curve would more resemble a continuous function, rather than a discrete set of points.

Get ready, here’s the monkey wrench!

Congress has no authority under the Constitution to regulate health care.

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html)

Congress is relying – mistakenly – on a liberal interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1)

which states:

[Congress shall have the power] “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

This clause is among seventeen powers specifically ascribed to the federal government under Section 8. If a power is not so contained among the seventeen it is expressly reserved to the states (AMENDMENT X):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentx

Thus the Framers, even in their most soaring flights of fancy, never envisioned that 1/6th of the Nation’s economy would be subject to federal regulation. So, even if a poll showed that 100% of the people favored federal government run health care, the Constitution does not allow it. Poll results, however, change significantly when the question posed expressly adds a proviso that asks their opinion if added taxes or other confiscatory measures are placed upon the respondent.

However, for the sake of pure argument, let us wave an arbitrary hand and grant that, in a prolonged fit of legislative insanity, such powers did indeed reside within the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest deliberative body.” (As an aside, if this is the world’s greatest deliberative body, with average IQ less than 100, and nary a one above 125, then I shudder to imagine the acumen of a lesser deliberative body).

Now let us examine whether universal health care is an idea with merit.

First, let us set forth a few maxims which should govern the discussion:

• All insurance, whether auto, life, home, health, etc., and regardless of who delivers it, represents, by definition, a risk sharing pool. I.e., each participant puts his or her small amount of cash in a pool to provide protection against calamitous events which will be paid from the moneys supplied by other members of the pool (as well as earnings retained from prior activities of the insurance provider).

• Save for the auto segment, insurance is elective. In the case of auto insurance, it is mandatory not to protect you from others, but to protect others from you. In addition, the mandate comes not from the federal government, but from each of the 50 states. Health care insurance is to protect you. And to silence another oft –used, but ill-informed parallel, that home insurance is mandatory, it is not. It is only mandatory if you have a mortgage, which is required by the lender to protect his collateral. If you own your house outright, you can elect to insure it or not.

• Health care, under the Constitution, is not a right. It may be a compassionate thing to do, but it is not a natural right. Natural rights are a philosophical construct put forth by Thomas Jefferson who decreed that such rights are “endowed by the Creator” as opposed to the Adamsonian school, which argued that they were conferred “by the consent of the governed.” While both phrases are contained in the Declaration of Independence, a simple reading of the document, as well as scholarly review, admit that Jefferson’s take precedence. (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm)

Your natural rights are spelled out in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, proposed by James Madison in 1789 and enacted into law in 1791. There is no mention of a ‘Right’ to health care in the Bill of Rights.

Thus, any insurance product represents a potential redistribution of wealth from those who have no claims to those who do, as well as the wealth of the insurance provider in case the premium pool (plus earnings thereon) is insufficient to cover claims. It is potential, because, if there are no claims, then, at least in the case of mutual insurance companies, excess moneys are returned to the policy holders in the form of dividends, as they are the owners of the company.

The difference between a private plan and a public one is that, in the former, the wealth redistribution takes place voluntarily between the participants in the risk sharing pool (and potentially the insurance company), whereas, with a public plan, the redistribution occurs involuntarily, from all taxpayers to those covered under the plan. Now, I don’t know about you, but when a governmental body tells me I have to do something, especially when their authority to do so is highly questionable, my natural inclination is to respond, UP YOURS!

Below are the issues I have with nationalized health care, at least in its current form. If anyone can offer reasonable assurance that these allegations have any factual basis, I’d feel more sanguine about climbing aboard the OBAMAWAGON.

1. Nationalized Health Care Won’t Cost Anything.
There are six dimensions to this facade. Four purportedly raise revenue; two reduce costs. Here they are:
• Revenue components
o Raise taxes on employers
Employers will raise prices on their goods & services, so this tax will be passed on to the consumer.
o Raise taxes on individuals
This is simply wealth redistribution, a veritable staple in the liberal/socialist financial cupboard, which is trying to turn America from a land of equal opportunity to a land of equal financial outcomes.
o Tax the insurance benefit (a 2nd tax)
Now here’s a novel idea. Presumably, if you receive health coverage from a private group plan offered and partially subsidized by your employer, the government wants to tax the benefit represented by the difference you pay under the group plan vs. the bucks you’d pay if you obtained the coverage outside the group plan. The problem is that, when filing your tax return, the IRS rules require that your income and expenses be cash-based. This is not a cash benefit, so the IRS would have to impute a non-cash value to this benefit, abrogating its own rules. Nice!
o Mandatory insurance
Forces the young & healthy, who don’t need coverage, to subsidize those who do (see#9 below)
• Cost saving components
o Reduce payments to doctors
This is a real savings, unless doctors begin leaving the profession in droves. If you coupled it with tort reform (see below) there’s real potential here.
o Reduce Medicare benefits
This is a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It saves no money, just transfers wealth from one pocket (senior citizens) to another (the uninsured).
There’s also a real cost saving conspicuous by its absence: tort reform. I.e., rein in the ambulance chasing legal bottom-dwellers. Given the American Bar Association donates overwhelmingly to the Democratic party, this is as likely to occur as the sun is to revolve around the Earth.
2. There will be no Health Care Rationing
This is simple supply & demand economics. If there is more demand for a product or service and/or less supply, the price will rise. But if we mandate more people be insured and slash moneys paid to providers, the system enters disequilibrium and service queues form until supply/demand equilibrium is re-established. England and Canada are prime examples. This is rationing by delay rather than by financial wherewithal. To paraphrase an old legal adage, “healthcare delayed is healthcare denied.”
3. The Government can Efficiently Run a National Health Care System
OK, let’s look at the record:
• Social Security – BROKE!
• Medicare – BROKE!
• Medicaid – BROKE!
• AMTRAK – BROKE!
• Post Office - BROKE!
• The Federal Budget - BROKE!
Do we detect a pattern here?! If so, why would we expect different results in a Nationalized Health Care System? Isn’t one of the classic definitions of insanity to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?
4. Our Congressmen Know What’s in the Bill
Be serious! The bill stretches beyond 1,000 pages. Indeed, the bill likely emanating from a congressional conference committee is estimated at 2,300 pages. Congress hasn’t read that much of anything in their collective lifetime. Their staffs prepare summaries for them. Most staffers are 22-25 years of age, fresh out of college with liberal arts degrees, rendering them largely uneducated.

An example should suffice to lay this myth to rest. When the Patriot Act, pushed by then president Bush, was signed into law in OCT 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) , Congress, via their internal intranet, had no access to the Bill until 15 minutes before the roll call. It was 315 pages long. There was no time to read it before the vote. Therefore, they were completely unaware of its contents when they voted overwhelmingly to enact it. This will be no different, except that the Healthcare Bill is three to eight times the length and even less likely to be read and understood.
5. The Bill Won’t Change at the Last Minute
Yes it will! Messrs. Reid and Pelosi (that’s right, I’m not sure Pelosi is a real woman, just as I’m uncertain that Barney Frank is a real man) have already said it will, and one of those changes they’ve alluded to will be a public option. Congressman Frank wants to use the public option to get to a Government run single-payer system and has publicly said so.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&feature=related).

Single-payer means there is no insurance provider save the federal government.

(BTW, do you recall when Congressman Frank, at his own town hall meeting, dissed a constituent by asking what planet she was from, forgetting, in the process, that he was there to serve them, and not vice-versa. What she should have responded was, “I’m from Mother Earth, but, based on your nocturnal proclivities, I’m pretty sure you’re not.”)
6. There will be no Pork in the Bill
Really?! Please comb the public record and find a single bill that didn’t include congressional pork.
7. Illegal Immigrants won’t be Covered by the Legislation
Uhhh, …, I don’t think so! While both House and Senate proposals purportedly exclude illegal aliens, they purposely exempt any requirement for such a person to provide identification. Republican amendments to require picture IDs from public option health care recipients have been defeated by Democratic party-line vote. This is the type of weaseling which makes people circumspect about how Congress operates and the degree of trust they should be accorded.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner~y2009m8d3-Illegal-aliens-will-be-covered-under-Obamas-healthcare-bill
8. The Public Option Won’t Squeeze Out Private Alternatives
By the Bill’s provisions, it will by statistical osmosis. I.e., if you’re covered by a private group plan, and leave that employer, you can’t enroll in a new employer’s group plan; you must go into the public option. Since most people change jobs during their careers, all those will be forced into the public option.

In addition, a private plan must meet the definition of being “qualified”. I.e., based on yet-to-be-determined government rules, if your employer’s private plan doesn’t meet the government’s standards, you’ll be forced into a public option, like it or not.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm
9. Insurance Coverage is not Mandatory.
It will be mandatory; that’s one of the ways to cover costs. Young adults, who are healthy, and may not see a doctor for years, will be required to join simply to subsidize others who need health services. In fact the more recent legislative versions allow the IRS to levy a penalty and the Justice Department to throw you in jail if you refuse to join. Now, I can tell you most assuredly that were I a young person (which I’m not, to which the OLD MAN can, and most enthusiastically would, attest), and were I to want the insurance, I would refuse it just to be able to tell the IRS to stick it where the sun don’t shine. And if the Justice Department comes ‘a-callin’, I’m going to invoke my 2nd Amendment rights.
10. If Additional Taxes on Companies and Individuals Exceed Claims, the Gub’mint will Return our Money
BWAHAHAHA! This supposition is so preposterous it deserves no reply!
11. The Federal Government has the Authority to Nationalize Health Care
No it doesn’t! We’ve already slain that beast in the preamble to this missive.

Finally, isn’t it heartening and inspiring to know that Congress, in a true egalitarian spirit, and with a deep and abiding concern for the constituencies who elected them, has not exempted its own members from the very law it purports to impose upon the rest of us?

OH, WAIT!! THEY DID!!

(http://kingsrightsite.blogspot.com/2009/07/end-congressional-exemption-from-obama.html)

(http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50756)


Guest Post by JR Berger

Obama: "Silence the critics, I say!"

I've been trying to figure out if it's scary or just silly. Maybe it's both. The president of the United States has (clearly) instructed his minions to go out and try to silence and/or discredit the only news station that commits the egregious sin of sometimes disagreeing with his policies, or, even worse, criticizing him. Anyone who believes that this is not an Obama approved (or directed) assault is...well, naive to the extreme. David Axelrod states (on a carefully picked TV cast) that Fox news is not a news operation, and should not be viewed as such. Anita(don't you just love Mao?)Dunn attacks Fox news for mistruths (without stating any). Robert Gibbs, repeats the attacks on Fox, while Rahm (The Enforcer) Emanuel, strongly suggests that other news networks not run anything that is on Fox (am I making myself clear?). All this in the space of a few days.


All presidents have had spats with, and complained about the media at some time during their tenures. But this is unprecedented. This is a thinly veiled, coordinated, president approved initiative to discredit, intimidate and shut off dissent. This is unamerican, strikes at the heart of freedom (free speech and dissent), and should be publicly rebuked, especially by those liberals who hate Fox News, but love free speech. To be a credible advocate of free speech and dissent, one must vigorously defend those rights for those with whom one disagrees.

The Old Man

Obama Voted Homecoming King!

It would be nice if a so called "prestigious" award, presented in the name of one of man's highest ideals, was conferred after serious deliberations with rigorous standards. But the selection of President Obama, eight months into office, with his biggest peace accomplishment being gaining a fragile truce between a professor and a police officer over a beer, exposes the Nobel peace award process for what it is...a popularity contest. This is not unlike a high school Homecoming King and Queen vote, the attractive, popular kids get elected. I suppose we Americans could be happy that at least it says that they like our president...if it weren't for the fact that they like him for apologizing for the rest of us.

The Old Man

Reading Comprehension

The argument in "Obama Math" follows from the following false premises: the uninsured are comprised of the following roughly equal groups,

1. Illegal immigrants
2. People eligible for public insurance, but not reached by them
3. People who have access to prive insurance but decide it is too expensive
   

These premises are contradicted by the very study cited, so the argument that rests on them can be dismissed.

In fact, it is not possible for these premises to be more thoroughly opposite what the Kaiser study actually says. Anyone with basic, grade-school level reading comprehension skills can discover this by reading the study, "The Uninsured: A Primer: Key facts about Americans without health insurance", Kaiser Family Foundation, 2008 (pdf). Or you can read the Senate Testimony from the Kaiser Foundation in 2009. Or read the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine 2009 report "America's Uninsured Crisis". I have cited all these studies before.

But let me address the above false premises in turn.

1. Illegal immigrants

There is brief mention of citizenship in the Kaiser study:

"The large majority of the uninsured (79%) are native or naturalized U.S. citizens."

The remaining 21% are explicitly identified as non-citizens. There is no mention of illegal immigrants. So much for premise (1).

2. Eligible, but not reached by public programs

There is zero mention in the study of people who are enrolled in public programs, but who nevertheless are not "reached", that is, do not receive due coverage. So the only viable interpretation of premise (2) is that one-third of the uninsured are eligible for public insurance, but not enrolled.

(By the way, reaching all those enrolled is quite an accomplishment for a supposedly inefficient government program. I wonder how many people are enrolled in private insurance who do not receive or are denied due coverage?)

There is one single mention of the enrollment issue in the 31-page Kaiser study:

"Medicaid and SCHIP cover half of all low-income children. These programs have played a critical role in improving access to care for children. Still, two-thirds of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but are not enrolled.43 Some families are not aware of the availability of the programs or may not believe their children are eligible. But, many families face barriers to enrolling and keeping their children in public programs, including rules that require U.S. citizens to document their citizenship and identity when applying for Medicaid or renewing their coverage."

But only 20% of the uninsured are children to begin with, so we are talking about less than 14% of people being uninsured due to failure to enroll in public insurance. So much for premise (2).

If we care to take a brief stroll through the real world, the real study explicitly repeats, for 31 pages, the problem of ineligibility:

"Medicaid covers some parents and low-income individuals with disabilities, but most adults without dependent children—regardless of how poor—are ineligible for Medicaid. As a result, over 40% of poor parents and adults without children are uninsured (Figure 19)."

"Adults make up more than their share of the uninsured because they are less likely than children to be eligible for Medicaid"

"Public coverage had also increased among adults between 2000 and 2004, but with Medicaid’s limits on adult eligibility, it was not enough to buffer the loss of job-based coverage. "

"The near-poor (those with incomes between 100% and 199% of the poverty level) also run a high risk of being uninsured (29%), in part, because they are less likely to be eligible for Medicaid. "

"When people are unable to obtain employer-sponsored coverage and are ineligible for Medicaid, they may be left uninsured for long periods of time if individual coverage is either unaffordable or unavailable due to their health status."

"For example, a parent in a family of three working full-time at the minimum wage could not qualify for Medicaid in 29 states in 2007.44"

Ineligible. Not "eligible, but not being reached". Ineligible.

It's striking that this group of people, constantly referred to in these studies, is absent from premises (1) (2) and (3).

Of course, we could expand public programs to make more poor people eligible, a strategy which has insured millions of adults and children in the past, according to the study. We could even eliminate the minor enrollment problem by making public insurance available to everyone. Few people scratch their heads trying to figure out if they are poor enough to "qualify" for public libraries, museums, parks, or schools. I think that's because these are free, public services, there are no complicated rules designed to exclude most people and protect private sector profits.

But that would mean more of the bad kind of spending, and less of the good kind of spending, like the premiums we all pay and the taxes we all pay to subsidize private insurance profits right now, which the Kaiser study also discusses. Anyway, on to premise (3).

3. One third of the uninsured have access to private insurance, but decide it's too expensive

I'll just quote the study. See the actual study for nifty pie graphs. Keywords: afford, unaffordable, poor:

"Despite strong ties to the workforce—over eight in ten uninsured come from working families—about two-thirds of the uninsured are individuals and families who are poor (incomes less than the federal poverty level or $21,203 for a family of four in 2007) or near-poor (with incomes between one and two times the poverty level). "

"For many of the uninsured, the costs of health insurance and medical care are weighed against equally essential needs. The uninsured are about three times as likely as those with health coverage to live in a household that is having difficulty paying monthly expenses as basic as rent, food, and utilities.20"

"In 2007, 58% of all low-income employees were offered and eligible for employer-sponsored coverage, leaving more than four in ten without access to this coverage (Figure 16)."

"Despite having lower incomes and thus typically fewer resources to pay for necessities, 62% of low-income employees who are eligible for employer-sponsored coverage choose to enroll."

And just for fun, a quote from the Institute of Medicine 2009 report (cited above):

"Overall, fewer workers, particularly those with lower wages, are offered employer-sponsored insurance, and fewer among the workers that are offered such insurance can afford the premiums. ... For many individuals and families without employer-sponsored group coverage, nongroup coverage is unaffordable."

Unaffordable. Not "they had access, but decided not to get private insurance". Unaffordable.
So much for premise (3).

Should Obama have accepted the Nobel peace prize?

From the Philadelphia Inquirer ,

WASHINGTON - President Obama yesterday won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, bringing the relatively novice leader a new measure of prestige on the world stage but also potential complications in carrying out a foreign policy that includes managing two wars.

This is a joke, right? Please tell me this is Norwegian humor.

Obama Math

It’s been a long time since I took math in school, and President Obama did promise change. So it’s not surprising, I guess, that his approach to math never seems to add up to me. The first example follows.

The highly respected Kaiser study on health insurance, published a few years ago, broke the approximately 15% of Americans without health insurance into almost equal three parts. The first were illegal immigrants; the second were Medicaid and state assistance eligible people who had not been reached by, or didn’t know how to effectively get government health care; and the third were people who had access to private insurance, but opted out because they decided it was too expensive. The president has now stated publicly, in an address to congress, that no illegal immigrants will have access to his new health care plan. Okay, that solves about one third of the problem, but I fail to see what’s happened positively in that part of the decision. President Obama has also endorsed a plan making its’ way through the Senate, that will force all people not eligible for a government plan (like Medicaid or Medicare) to purchase a private health plan or be assessed $1,900 of a non tax to pay for their health insurance. Let me understand this better. The roughly one third of Americans without health insurance because they opted out…didn’t want to pay the premiums…will be solved by…effectively making them pay the premiums! As the cartoon character on a commercial says…Brilliant! As for the last third, those currently eligible for government aid and/or health insurance, the new plan will…offer them government aid and/or health insurance. Again…Brilliant!

So, all people will have health insurance. The illegal immigrants who don’t have health insurance today, won’t have it in the new plan either, but they won’t count now (‘cause Obama say so). Therefore these numbers, used to inflate the overall uninsured numbers to invoke “crisis”, will be eliminated and immediately bring the uninsured numbers down to about 36 million from the 47 million bandied about in the crusade to save America from the uninsured healthcare “crisis”. (See, success already). As a matter of fact, Administration supporters, since the startling revelation to liberals that it will cost more to add 47 million people to the health care system, have already started to say in the media that “nobody ever planned to add anything like 47 million people to the health care system.

The roughly one third uninsured who are currently eligible for state or Medicaid health insurance (but don’t sign up) will still have the same programs. But there’s a big difference. Now they’ll be told to sign up, or it’s not the governments’ fault, and they’ll count as covered, even though they don’t sign up or use the program (‘cause Obama say so). Whew! We’re down to about 5% of Americans without health insurance now, but that was hard work.

But we won’t rest with our lofty compassion, until we solve the health care “crisis” for the last third of the uninsured. This is the problem of the people we feel the worst about. People who said they can’t afford to pay for health insurance, even though it is available to them. They will be pleased that the new health care plan has a solution for them…Pay! Either pay your health insurance, or we’ll assess it from you (in a non tax, of course). If you don’t pay the assessment, we have the right to put you in jail.

Now that we have everyone covered, we have to manage this little issue of cost. So, we’ll save hundreds of millions by…taking away benefits from Medicare and Medicaid! Second, the government will reduce costs by weeding out hundreds of millions of dollars of waste and fraud in…the government run programs! Then we’ll add dozens of government agencies that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to oversee these programs.

I can’t put my finger on it, but something just doesn’t add up to me. I’ll just have to learn Obama math, I guess.

The Old Man

Is President Obama racist? (Jimmy carter, Discrimination and Racism 2)

It was widely reported (e.g. in the NY Times), that President Obama recently pressured Governor Paterson (of NY) not to run for re-election. The president, when asked, has refused publicly to endorse Governor Paterson. This strikes me as odd. Governor Paterson is the first black American to be Governor of New York, is a Democrat, and has liberal views not unlike the president's. Why would President Obama not support the first black governor of New York? Could it be racism? Does he believe that a black man isn't fit to be governor of such an important state? Could it be that he doesn't think Governor Paterson can win, and winning trumps ideals about political views, overcoming adversity (Governor Paterson is legally blind, and was the first disabled student at Hempstead High School), and the example the Governor sets for black Americans and disabled young people (he also ran the NYC marathon). And...if winning trumps ideals and inspiration...what does that say about the president's character?

Does this make President Obama a racist? I don't know...I guess I'll have to ask Jimmy carter.

The Old Man
By the way...Governor Paterson graduated from Columbia just like you know who.

Right, wrong, or just missing the mark? (part 2)

The problems with the anti-reform movement, if you like, are encapsulated in the man who stood up at a town hall meeting and told Rep. Robert Inglis (Republican, S.C.) to "keep your government hands off my Medicare".

But let me first say this: I think it's great that so many people have been showing up at town hall meetings, and the Tea Party protests. That's democracy in action. I disagree with the agenda to kill public health insurance, but I love the method: people getting informed and getting active; bringing their kids, too. I love the method just as much when it happens to be a massive anti-war protest involving hundreds of thousands of people and no corporate sponsors or primetime cable network to cheerlead for it. (Like this one, this one, this one, and this one.)

The problem with the Tea Party / town hall activities is that the bulk of the people involved--average people with genuine concerns--were whipped into fearful hysteria by public relations firms hired by corporations, who spread lies and propaganda and deliberately sabotaged meaningful discussion.

Two of the main groups behind the Tea Parties are corporate front-groups FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity (AFP). Their astro-turfing shenanigans have been well documented. The Wall Street Journal detailed FreedomWorks' phony "grassroots" website AngryRenter.com over a year ago.

A political action committee called Right Prinicples, whose founder Bob MacGuffie is involved with many tea party groups (AFP, teapartypatriots.com ("collaborator" of FreedomWorks), the Media Research Center's NewsBusters) released a memo recommending the tactics of shouting, disrupting, and inflating their numbers at town halls:

“The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

Read it yourself here. Listen to him defend the memo on the Alan Colmes show here. As you can see in all the videos and reports of the town halls, the advice was put to good use.

Glenn Beck's influence can't be overlooked. (You know, that guy who hates socialism and loves Thomas Paine, but apparently never read Paine's essays. The guy who admitted on The View he makes stuff up, that he is not an investigative reporter, doesn't check facts, just "commentates on life". The guy who said Obama is a racist who hates white people.) This nutty dude spearheaded the 9/12 project and spent a lot of time cheerleading for the Tea Parties on primetime cable. So did the rest of Fox News, whose boss, tabloid dispenser Rupert Murdoch, stated at the World Economic Forum that he uses his media empire to try to shape the public agenda. Fox News' promotion of the Tea Parties was, as always, good for a laugh, but it's even funnier when contrasted with their past coverage of anti-war protests.

While I expect anchors on Fox News to clown around buffoonishly for my amusement, it is surprising to witness Beck-level inanity spewing from more respectable conservative sources. Investors Business Daily (IBD), for example, dishonestly smeared the British National Health Service (NHS), saying:

"The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script...people such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Stephen Hawking, who has lived in the UK all his life and unlike many Americans enjoys free healthcare, responded that he "wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS". The writers at IBD might consider whether a person with Mr. Hawking's disability and a modest salary would "have a chance" dealing with Aetna or Blue Cross Blue Shield instead of the NHS. Maybe we should ask the families of the 18,000 Americans who die each year due to lack of coverage. (By the way, I was treated at one of Britain's public hospitals once. Ask me if I survived.)

IBD might also consider the "horror movie script" character of the deluded fantasies of people who have been scared out of their wits by hysterical accusations Obama is a Nazi. Or Stalinist. Or anti-Christ. And he wants to euthanize grandma or send Glenn Beck's disabled daughter to a concentration camp.

So, to answer the question posed in my previous post: How do you shift longstanding popular opinion nearly 20 percentage points, in a matter of weeks? Step 1: spend millions of dollars on advertizing. Step 2: lie to people.

Right, wrong, or just missing the mark?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Old Man and I have a lot in common in terms of our basic assumptions and values, and our goals. However, we disagree on certain facts, and their proportions. So, while we stand together and aim for the same targets--what we perceive to be anti-democratic trends, corrupt power, and distortion of the truth--a different understanding of what is factually true nudges our shots apart. I often think his targets are legitimate ones, but what he regards as a ten-point buck looks like a rubber ducky to me, and vice-versa.

Whose facts are right? I don't know. I think mine are, but I could be mistaken. I've cited sources so you can check for yourself.

There's a lot of truth in the Old Man's post "Obama and the Ruling Class", but in my opinion, that truth is sort of hidden underneath his intended argument. There are connections between Obama and the ruling class. Those connections are best captured by the Wall Street Journal, which reported health insurance stocks have gone up since lobbyists negotiated at the White House weeks ago, reaching a closed-doors agreement that may force people to buy the expensive, inefficient, unreliable private health insurance they despise, with no choice of a public option. Even if we elect a liberal President and a majority of Democrats, the lobbyists have stacked the deck against health reform because they pay major Dems, too.

A note on the czar issue: as we all know, comrades, historically presidents have appointed special advisers, often called "czars", to deal with major issues or new crises. Sometimes, so-called czars are confirmed by the Senate. Sometimes they are not, however, and in those cases, there is a serious question of constitutionality. Former president Bush filled over thirty "czar" posts, apparently an unprecedented number. Unfortunately, President Obama has taken advantage of the crises and continued this trend.

This brings me to Mark Lloyd: conservatives have made much of so-called "Diversity Czar" of the FCC Mark Lloyd's comments about Venezuela. Conservative sites like NewsBusters posted a short 39-second clip of Lloyd's comments, taking them entirely out of context. NewsBusters is one of many projects of the Media Research Center, which receives millions of dollars in funding from the same few corporate funds that prop up so many "think tanks" (conservative and liberal). You can listen to Lloyd's full comments, in context, here.

Lloyd says state-monopolized radio enabled the genocide in Rwanda. He says corporate domination of Venezuelan media usurped democracy. His very basic, obvious point is that in a democracy we don't want a monopoly over communication, by state or corporate power. He wants diversity. Hence his job title. He gives an EXCELLENT summary of the problems with American media here.

Personally, I don't support the Fairness Doctrine, but I do think a limited natural resource like radio frequencies should be owned by local people, only rented to private power. Same goes for the oil resources in Venezuela. Mark Lloyd correctly and bravely described the people's revolution which reinstated the democratic government there "incredible". He did not call Chavez' media policies "incredible" but did not call them all bad, either, for good reasons.

A bit of history: the mass, and largely peaceful uprising in Venezuela was in response to a 2002 military coup (sadly, with tacit U.S. support) which kidnapped the president, disbanded parliament, nulled their constitution and -- revealingly -- declared a reversal of oil policy. All in one day. (Source, source, source).

The coup was supported by media networks dominated by the Venezuelan oligarchy which lied, saying President Chavez had resigned, etc. Imagine if Al-Jazeera successfully kidnapped our president and dissolved the U.S. Congress, then tried to mislead us as we took to the streets to reclaim our democracy. We would shut down their stations instantly, their executives would be executed for high treason. The Venezuelan government, for its part, encouraged reconciliation, did not renew broadcasting licenses to two networks that supported the coup, started a pro-government media outlet, and launched investigations five years later. Not the mass kidnapping/killings and assassination of editors and Catholic priests that were carried out by U.S.-backed South American dictatorships. Investigations. Whooptey-doo.

I take that back, there was at least one assassination: the chief prosecutor investigating the shooting of civilians by coup supporters was assassinated. My mistake.

Okay: there are serious issues surrounding Hugo Chavez and free speech. But again, the real issues are buried under the intended point of the Old Man's post.

Same goes for the point about the mainstream media's coverage of the Tea Party protests. The coverage WAS amusing, on all networks. But there is no evidence the crowd was in the millions, contrary to what conservative blogs and British tabloids have claimed. FactCheck.org and Politifact.com have laid out the evidence. It was a huge crowd. Just not as big as the millions who gathered in the D.C. Mall for President Obama's inauguration, which was the largest crowd there, ever (check out the satellite photos).

Let's get some perspective: Americans right now are sharply divided on the proposed healthcare reforms, according to Gallup. This is quite interesting, because a solid majority of Americans favored passing a major health reform bill, with higher taxes and expanded government insurance coverage all the way up to July. So what happened in the space of a few months to cause decades-old popular support for healthcare reform to drop 16 to 20 points, so that opposition now has a small majority? Stay tuned, folks!

Jimmy carter, Discrimination and Politics

Former President Jimmy Carter (whose accomplishments in race relations as president escape me at the moment), declared the other day that most of the opposition to President Obama's policies and beliefs are driven by racism.

I agree that there are small minded people, who inject some form of discrimination into all of their views. This is true of Southerners and Northerners, New Yorkers and people from the Mid West. Do you know any white people from the North, and/or Media people, who almost instinctively lower their assessments of someone's IQ because that someone speaks with a southern accent? How many people stereotype people from the deep South as racist or ignorant? I grew up in New York, where many people referred to the part of the country where we live (middle America) as "the flyover zone", with a disdainful stereotyping of the people "out there" as not very intelligent, and the whole area as not worth stopping in on your way to the other cultured part of the country (California). Jews, homosexuals and blacks are still discriminated against in this society, as are most of us, by some, for one reason or another. Some types of discrimination have been much worse than others, for sure.

But, the point is that the discrimination against Jews, black Americans and homosexuals, while still painful and wrong, has diminished to the point that it is a very small obstacle to success, and almost irrelevant in political discussion. Further, it has gotten to a point where overemphasis is deleterious to those groups, rather than helpful. From the President of the U.S., to the supreme court, to Secretaries of State, to sports and media, to Oprah, to the corporate heads of giants like American Express and Wall Street firms to college admissions, to being lawyers or doctors...to owning homes or starting businesses...these three groups do better in America than anywhere else in the world, and their ethnic or sexual or religious grouping now amounts to a speed bump in the pursuit of success. Yes, my liberal friends (and I mean that), as you often say...let's debate "...President Obama about his beliefs and policies..", and not whip out the race card as soon as someone disagrees with those beliefs and policies, trying to marginalize disagreement by calling it racism.

As for Jimmy Carter...yes you do know about him...if you don't, look it up, it's a matter of public record. It is not just that President Carter's church "…didn't have any black members." It's that the church (Plains Baptist) actively voted to not allow blacks to be members (1976 or 1977), while Carter was president (not something from when he was in college or in his twenties), and while he was a Deacon and Elder (leader) in that church!! This is significantly different than attending a church where there were no black members. Some of his own family members quit that church in protest and started a new church…but not the holier than thou Jimmy. This makes him a bona fide hypocrite, and not worth listening to.


Th Old Man

Obama and the Ruling Class

Obama and the Ruling Class in America

To paraphrase a Ross Perot quote about NAFTA, don’t look now, but that sucking sound you hear might be your voice in government being taken away. The administration’s race toward socialist programs, massive and irresponsible spending, and government intrusion into citizen’s lives, overshadows an even more alarming pattern… the growing efforts to control media and what the people hear.

Before you dismiss this as over-reacting, consider the quotes from Mark Lloyd, an Obama appointed, unelected Czar of “Diversity in media”. The “Diversity Czar” has been assigned the task of assuring there is the right balance of reporting in the news media. “Right balance”, according to whom? Since when did the State have the right to monitor and regulate political content in the media? Mr. Lloyd has suggested assessing 100% of the total operating budget as a fee on radio shows with political content that is too unbalanced, and use this money to see that “public” (read State run) radio has “at least as much, if not more” funding and air time. He said “Part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads upset is our suggestion that the (private) commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay.” Too unbalanced according to…You got it, the State. Whose rules... you got it, the State. By the way, if Mr. Lloyd and the State take money from the private radio shows and dole it out to the “public” radio…do you think they’ll have any influence on political content? Keep in mind, the “public” radio station is specifically being set up and funded to counterbalance what Mr. Lloyd and the State believe to be unbalanced or not giving the “correct” view of the issues. Mr. Lloyd called Hugo Chavez takeover “…an incredible revolution.” He went on to praise Chavez, saying that “Chavez began to take very seriously the Media in his country” and dealt with it. Please note that Chavez “dealing with it”, meant he shut down over 200 radio stations and now has the State regulate the political content of television broadcasts. This is the approach publically praised by the Administration’s unelected “Radio Ruler”. Go on the internet…look it up. I know it sounds crazy….I think it is crazy…but it’s actually being proposed by the Administration.

Another aspect of this issue is the management of television media. Here it is much easier, because most of the TV media is following the Obama rhetoric like sailors following the Sirens. This weekend’s march on the capitol is an excellent example. The pictures from overhead and aerial videos are dramatic. (See one example below).











This is clearly one of the biggest marches ever on the capitol, and a huge protest. Yet, most of the TV media gave it only passing mention and print media tried to downplay the size, estimating the crowd as “thousands” or “tens of thousands”. Clearly, when the videos and overhead shots are put together, this is hundreds of thousands of people. The MSNBC reporter at the scene gushed “but or own people estimate the crowd at hundreds of thousands” (wonder if he’ll ever be heard from again).
The more shocking part is the reaction of the Ruling Class (otherwise known as Congress and the Adminstration). Think about it…with hundreds of thousands of people in the capitol, trying to make their voices heard to their supposed representatives…the President was spirited off (his helicopter flew over the advancing crowd) to attend a managed friendly crowd safely in the Target Center. He was, of course, cheered by that crowd (of about 15 thousand), boosting his impression that most Americans are wildly enthusiastic about his programs. That speech received much more press coverage than hundreds of thousands of citizens protesting their government. Even worse, Congressman after Congressman criticized and demonized the protesters, and vowed not to listen to them! Congressmen were publically quoted saying things like “I’m not going to put up with them (the protesters)”, and “This is my town hall meeting”, and “I’m not going to give them (that would be the voters) a forum”. One even talked on her cell phone disdainfully while one of “them” tried to ask a question of her.

There’s an old Buffalo Springfield song, “For What it’s Worth”, that has lyrics that just might apply again today.

There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear,
I think it’s time we stop children, what’s that sound,
Everybody look what’s going down.
There’s battle lines being drawn, nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.
(Some) people speaking their minds, getting so much resistance from behind.
What a field day for the heat, a thousand people in the street,
Singing songs and they’re carrying signs…

I don’t know if this protest movement will succeed in causing political change as the one that did when that song was written, but either way, our system is at an inflection point, and the direction of the curve will change.

The Old Man

Utah Governor: Equal Rights = "Special Rights"

Utah governor: No special rights for gay people

By BROCK VERGAKIS (AP) – 3 days ago

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said Thursday that discriminating against gay people shouldn't be illegal, although he would prefer it if everyone were treated with respect.

In his most definitive comments yet on gay rights, Herbert told reporters he doesn't believe sexual orientation should be a protected class in the way that race, gender and religion are.

"We don't have to have a rule for everybody to do the right thing. We ought to just do the right thing because it's the right thing to do and we don't have to have a law that punishes us if we don't," Herbert said in his first monthly KUED news conference.

In Utah, it is legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender. The gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah has been trying to change state law for several years but has always been rebuffed by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

....

"I agree that we ought to be able to just do the right thing. Unfortunately, the Salt Lake City Human Rights Commission makes it clear that not all employers are doing the right thing," he said, referencing a city report released earlier this summer that said discrimination was rampant.

Follow the link for the whole article.

Equal rights are not "special rights"

The Old Man,

First of all: would you mind please answering the non-rhetorical, earnest questions I posed? They are in italics, towards the end of my last post.

Secondly: I feel like we're talking past each other. I say something like, "Everyone should have equal rights" and you reply, "No one should have special rights". Er, yes, I agree with you, no one is entitled to special rights. I absolutely concede that point to you. Now, can we address the issues I raised?

Thirdly: I mentioned some very specific policies: the Defense of Marriage Act, the many state laws/amendments which outlaw gay marriage, civil unions, and adoption, Don't Ask Don't Tell. A straightforward response to this would be to say whether you A) think these policies are discriminatory, or B) do not. Instead, you point out that everybody is discriminated against. That's true as far as it goes, but as far as I am aware there is no state amendment prohibiting red-haired people or Mormons from adopting children. Just gay people. And if there were such discriminatory policies against so many groups of people -- all the more reason to discuss them, and rally opposition against them.

I am flabbergasted that you have so little to say about these discriminatory policies, and so much to say about hypothetical legislation that might force us to tolerate gay people and give them "special rights". You seem pretty worried about the "victim status" caused by flagrant discrimination, but not too worried about the discrimination itself.

Your response is doubly strange, because earlier your feathers were a little ruffled by words I wrote on this blog criticizing conservative Christians (talk about "victim status"). But critical words are nothing compared to, say, a state amendment prohibiting child adoption passed by 70% of the voters. Imagine if such an amendment was passed, prohibiting Christians from adopting children. Even if it only happened in one state, I think you would be outraged by the discrimination itself. Yet, as we speak, equally outrageous discrimination is being leveled against gay people, in not one but several states. Most of the measures passed recently, they are not relics from the past but new developments. Where is your outrage? Honestly, your concerns about the "victim status" and hypothetical "special rights" of gays and so forth seem like convenient distractions.

Let me make the points where we agree explicit, so it won't be necessary to bring them up again. I, along with most gay people I know, agree with you on the following points:

1. Nobody needs "special rights". Just regular, plain ol' equal rights will do.
   
2. All groups of people should try to move beyond a "victim status". One way of doing this is by changing state policies which flagrantly discriminate against them. This will discourage a "victim status".
   
3. We should not "legislate what people must think and believe". This includes legislating that people must think and believe marriage is between one man, one woman only.

So now let's apply the principles you, me, and most gay and transgendered people agree on to the Defense of Marriage Act; the many state laws and amendments which outlaw gay marriage and civil unions and adoption; and Don't Ask Don't Tell. I reach the conclusion that these measures are attacks on equality and basic human dignity. What conclusions do you reach?

I want to end with a thought-experiment: if the exact same policies were applied to Christians, I would find them equally intolerable and remain outraged. Would you call criticism of these policies a "red herring" and remain as unmoved as you seem to be now? Come on.

Marriage

The point is not that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against, or even that they are not. They are discriminated against, and so is every other group by some people. The point is, when a group has overcome discrimination and that discrimination is no longer an impediment to education, wealth, jobs, home ownership, safety, etc., anymore than the average of other groups, it is time to move on from the "victim" status requiring special rights and trying to legislate what people must think and believe. That doesn't mean that a society shouldn't continue education and values of all people being treated equally.

The Old Man

Response: Marriage

The Old Man,

Let me see if I understand your logic:

1. Gay people have higher income and education;
2. Therefore, they must not be discriminated against in any way;
3. Therefore, the gay marriage issue is a red herring.
   

Hmm, I am not seeing how that logic follows. Maybe it would help to apply it to a specific example:

1. Two lesbian women, who were getting married in a California courthouse the morning after Prop 8 passed, were statistically more likely to have higher education and income than heterosexuals;
2. Therefore, they can never be discriminated against for being gay;
3. Therefore, when a state official barged into the room and halted the ceremony, ruining what should have been the happiest day of their lives in front of dozens of family and friends, specifically because they are gay, that was not discrimination;
4. Therefore, the gay marriage issue is a red herring.
   

Nope, still doesn't make any sense to me.

Moving on, you are mistaken that Christian conservatives are my favorite target. Honestly. I have read how, in Egypt and Saudi Arabi, highly orthodox (and presumably quite conservative) Christians are discriminated against, and I wholeheartedly support their struggle for equality. I am simply against social bullying and legal discrimination. It happens that in this country, so-called conservative Christians are preventing gay people from getting married, not the other way around. Some of the people affected are my good friends, friends who have come to our house and spoken with you and Mom for an hour or more, friends who you have described as a "great kid".

Now look at what you wrote in the fourth paragraph: you speak of a group's culture being "impinged on" and "attacked". This is what I was talking about in my original post: you have completely inverted the situation, you call attack "defense" and defense "attack". Specifically, all of the following constitute attacks on the marriage, beliefs, culture, and families of certain groups of people:

• The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Republicans passed and Clinton signed, serves to (borrowing your words) "impinge on and attack the culture and beliefs of a group ... by telling them that they cannot have a rite or belief that is defined other than how the State tells them to define it". I'm amazed that you described DOMA so perfectly, and then applied that description to those seeking to overturn it. Specifically, DOMA serves to deny many benefits including Social Security benefits to lifelong partners.
  
• Many state laws and amendments deny worthy gay couples the right to adopt children.
• Many same-sex partners are forced to pay legal fees and jump through hoops to get some basic protections, and even then they are still sometimes denied the right to visit each other in the hospital when they are sick and dying; and denied custody of the children.
• Focus on the Family opposes school policies to combat bullying, including bullying based on sexual orientation. Even though gay teens are notoriously targeted and bullied at school.
• Preachers bellow that gays are going to Hell.
  

Again, these actions constitute attacks. These actions cannot be compared to non-violent defenses against them. For example, when I simply write words on a page, and those words criticize the attacks and the homophobic ideology which supports them, I am not attacking anyone or being intolerant. I am defending, without violence or coercion, "the culture and beliefs of a group" (using your words) from state- and church-sponsored bigotry.

Let me make my point clear by using a concrete example: when an Episcopelian priest, in an Episcopelian church, oversees the holy union of two people who happen to be same-sex, according to their beliefs and rites; and furthermore, when this union is treated equally under the law as any other between consenting adults; how is this an attack? Who, specifically, has been attacked here, and how?

Seriously. That's not rhetorical. Who has been attacked? How?

And, to continue with this example: when some stranger steps in, and prevents that marriage from being recognized equally under the law because the newlyweds are gay; and when that person publicly calls it sinful and a danger to children, because they are gay; what is this, if not an attack and an imposition -- on the priest, the newlyweds, gay people, transgendered people, their family and friends? If they have one ounce of self-respect are they not entitled to defend their culture, beliefs and values, through non-violent self-expression?

Again, not rhetorical. Is that not an attack? Are they not entitled to stick up for themselves?

You say you support civil unions. Separate, but equal. So far, that principle has worked out like it did last time: we have the separate part. Just not the equal part.

You ended on a promising note: you said "let's stop trying to legislate beliefs and values". Right. So tell conservatives to stop doing it, then.

Marriage

I see the homosexual marriage issue as somewhat of a red herring. The grad student goes on and on about discrimination against homosexuals in ancient societies, fascist governments, and, of course, his favorite double target, Christian Conservatives (or, as liberals are wont to say, “right-wing Christians”). As an aside, that reminds me of how often supposedly tolerant liberals are indignant about stereotyping unless they’re doing the stereotyping.

The reason I view this issue as a red herring is well documented in the grad student’s diatribe. Homosexuals have suffered terrible abuse and prejudice throughout history, but are better accepted and more successful in current American society than in most societies in history (including our own, if we go back some years). This group has higher education levels than average, as well as above average home ownership, and about the same income levels as heterosexuals. Indeed, one survey noted that “…“status income” levels were slightly higher on average for gays…” The report tried to assign status to different occupations, and noted that relatively more from this group entered the educational profession, which had status, but lower pay than the average college degreed profession. So, there is no statistical evidence that discrimination has limited people in housing, education, wealth or legal status.

Further, nobody stops homosexuals from living together or becoming partners. There are very few restrictions on Wills, powers of attorney, visitation rights, assignment of benefits or life insurance for homosexuals, if those are documented. Civil unions solve the remaining few, and, as the grad student knows, I am for those (as are most Americans).

But marriage is, to me, as President Obama says, “between a man and a woman”. It is a rite, not a right. It is wholly unnecessary to impinge on and attack the culture and beliefs of a group (even the majority group) by telling them that they cannot have a rite or belief that is defined other than how the State tells them to define it. The grad student rails that those of us who want to continue to define marriage as between a man and a woman, cannot adequately prove that consenting to marriage for homosexuals would damage heterosexual marriages or families. But in a late night (for me) debate he couldn’t demonstrate how homosexuals, once allowed legal status of civil unions, would be harmed by not having the rite of marriage attached to that legal position.

The truth is, it is all about legislating acceptance and winning votes by convincing a group that they are victims and need the patronizing politician to protect them. Homosexuals have been discriminated against, and laws should be blind to sexuality. I think they are now in the vast majority of cases. There will always be prejudice against some against all…sexuality, races, religions, you, me…all of us. But this is a pretty free and pretty much equal opportunity society in my view. It’s time to move on from the politically contrived victim industry. My Christianity teaches me to try to love all, and not appoint myself as judge of others. Let’s try to be sure that our laws allow equal opportunity and our education mitigates hatred and prejudice. But let’s stop trying to legislate beliefs and values.

The Old Man

"Mawwiage"

Mawwiage.

For some strange reason, I've been thinking a lot lately about marriage. And that gets me thinking about gay marriage.

Actually, forget gay people for a second: just consider transgendered people / hermaphrodites. I suppose right-wing Christians believe God created intersex people to test our faith--you know, the same reason He created fossils, and Jews. Nevertheless, for some people, the terribly inconvenient facts of biology do not allow them to fit neatly into traditional definitions of male and female. In some cases, a decision was made at birth to assign a person's gender through surgery. If that decision turns out to have been hasty, and a transgendered person ends up feeling an undeniable attraction towards the same (?) sex, who are we to judge?

The ambiguity of some peoples' gender, by itself, should be a good enough moral and legal reason to allow people to choose a same-sex spouse if they wish. (At present, Dick Cheney seems to understand this; President Obama does not.) A common objection is, well, why not let people marry their pets, then? Great question. The common-sense answer is that an animal cannot consent to such an arrangement, can't be the executor of a will, can't make life-or-death hospital decisions, etc. For some reason, these painfully basic considerations hardly make a dent in gay marriage opposition. In fact, in my experience, the strongest gay marriage opponents tend to be the least intellectually curious about the actual facts of biology and sexuality; they cannot articulate concretely, specifically, how gays corrupt straight people, children, and puppies, but they nevertheless feel certain this is the case. Why?

In my opinion, these are the tell-tale symptoms of prejudice. It's interesting to observe the same symptoms in what opponents to inter-racial marriage were saying, decades ago: they were simply defending themselves from black activists who were trying to corrupt white purity, to force us to accept them, etc. Today, after decades of soul-searching, most of us realize that was just a lame excuse for prejudice. The same is true of gay marriage opposition: it's not really about "defending the family", or even defending "marriage". Gently examine, probe, dissect those claims, and they fall apart. The truth is, it is the right-wing that wants to demean and bully other peoples' families, other peoples' marriages. "Defending marriage" is just a lame excuse for what is today a lingering prejudice in most of America, a prejudice that was once part of a strong global tradition of homophobia, a prejudice which has dwindled and retreated under the hammer-blows of ethical and scientific progress. To see this, we have to examine the forms "defending the family" has taken globally and historically.

Like antisemitism, homophobia is symptomatic of authoritarian societies. It is well-known that homosexuals were targeted by the Nazis, to protect the "healthy sensibility" of the German people, Christian civilization, and so on. It probably comes as no shock that these sentiments were shared by their allies, the Italian and Spanish fascists. And of course, as we all know, sexual hysteria and homophobia go back to the Middle Ages, the Church, and ancient Israel. But I was intrigued to discover that homosexuals were also demeaned and bullied in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Castro's Cuba. In those contexts, homophobia was couched in terms of safegaurding the masculine ethic of the workers from the intrusion of the effeminate tendencies of the evil capitalists. In the McCarthy-era U.S., on the other hand, homosexuality was associated with communism. Today, our planet's most enthusiastic homophobes are the Islamists, such as the Taliban and their ilk. (I hasten to add that many Muslims are bitterly opposed to the Islamists.) North Korea probably ranks highly as well.

So that's a rather charming group we have there. Contrast it with the nations and movements that have been relatively tolerant of gays: Rome, Greece, and China at the peak of their enlightened civilizations; and the modern, Western democracies.

Now, I do not want to exaggerate the similarities between the American anti-gay movement and its analogues in fascist and theocratic regimes. Obviously, there is no equivalence between the right wing in Iran (for example) and the right wing in the U.S. However, in spite of differences in severity and intensity, there are some fascinating common threads.

There's plain ignorance, of course, like when conservatives suggest that gays "choose" to be sexually and emotionally attracted to the same gender. This issue was settled long ago among scientists, heterosexuals do not (and cannot) choose to dilate their pupils, or show other involuntary signs of arousal, when shown provocative photos of the opposite gender; and the same is true for homosexuals, who respond this way when shown photos of the same gender. The funniest (saddest?) example of homophobic ignorance was when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed there are no gay people in all of Iran. Now, ignorance is not necessarily anything to be ashamed of. It can be easily corrected if the facts are available, and if a person is intellectually curious. But prejudice has a way of dulling one's curiosity.

Then there's the idea that gays are boogeymen who will bring about the destruction of everything we hold dear...somehow. The late Jerry Falwell for instance felt sure the tragedies of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina were expressions of God's just wrath against gays (and feminists, etc). This takes on a milder form when mainstream gay marriage opponents speak in abstract terms about how treating gays equally will destroy "the family" or "marriage". How? Somehow.

This leads naturally to the notion that attacking gays is, in fact, defense. I find the thinking behind this notion utterly fascinating. It seems that gay people, like all people, wish to be socially accepted and tolerated, as well as treated equally under the law. This is regarded as a fiendish assault which must be defended against. So for example, when a state official interrupted a same-sex wedding ceremony that was taking place in a California courtroom, the morning after Proposition 8 passed, in front of dozens of supportive family and friends, that was an attack on a family. But gay marriage opponents consider that action to be a defense of "the family" (if they bother to consider it). They consider it to be a defense of religious freedom, too, when in reality it is an attack on the freedom of Unitarians, Episcopelians, and many other religious/non-religious people who believe in the sacredness and worth of same-sex marriage. Presumably, when the Obama administration fired Dan Choi, a West Point grad and fluent Arab speaker who had been to Iraq, because he came out of the closet, that somehow defended our entire nation. These are remarkable feats of Orwellian doublethink, and it takes a well-trained intellect not to notice the obvious contradictions.

Speaking of contradiction -- in anti-gay movements, this sometimes borders on full-blown schizophrenia. It's quite interesting how, among those who preach against homosexuality, so many turn out to be gay, or pedophiles, or adulterers themselves. Maybe they should take counsel from G. W. Bush's favorite philosopher, Jesus, who said "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Boo-yah!

Remarkably, many conservatives excuse homophobia on "moral" grounds, i.e. the Bible (which in my opinion is often morally bankrupt to start with). This claim is almost too funny to be true. Anyone who has glanced at the Bible for a nanosecond will double over with laughter at the idea that the mainstream conservative agenda is Bible-based. If they want gay marriage to be illegal because of what it says in the Bible, then they ought to want all marriage outside the Church, divorce, and military service to be illegal, too. They ought to be liberal bleeding-hearts who give all their belongings to the poor, and who advocate "turning the other cheek" over pre-emptive war. They ought to believe in exorcism and speaking in tongues. Now, some conservatives, like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, are slightly more consistent in these matters than most. But those cases cause one to double over with laughter for other reasons.

And this brings me to, in my opinion, the most universal and most fundamental characteristic of homophobia: its deep connections to organized dogmatism. Homophobia as dogma goes back as far as ancient Israel, continues through the Inquisition, and leads up to the rise of secular religions (like communism) and Islamism today. In Jerusalem, the Holiest place on Earth (not to be confused with Disney Land, which is merely the Happiest place on Earth), about the only thing that arouses the united voice of the Orthodox Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious leaders is their opposition to a gay pride parade.

Why is this important? Because the unstated basis for American conservative opposition to gay marriage, today, is a remnant of this powerful prejudice. It's based on an unquestionable dogma: homosexuality is wrong. Because God says so. Normally, we don't accept that kind of statement. So for example, anyone who claimed today "watching movies is wrong, God says so" would be challenged to back up that assertion. Asking a conservative the exact same question about homosexuality, on the other hand, is unthinkable. That question is declared to be out-of-bounds, and for good cause: you can't justify prejudice.

So this is what it feels like to have a prejudice: it feels like being certain of something, but being unable to articulate good reasons for it; being un-curious about relevant facts, and consequences surrounding the issue.

I think I can say this, because I myself used to be strongly opposed to gay marriage. Like many straight men, I felt some disgust at the idea of male-male homosexuality. I think this can be forgiven. But you know what? I suppose I also feel some disgust at the idea of my parents', or grandparents' sexuality. In fact, I'm not enthusiastic about the sex lives of most people I see walking down the street. A mature person, however, can appreciate the fact that two people love and care for each other, and have committed themselves to another person for life. Personally, I find happiness in the fact that they have found happiness. And when it comes to their sex lives, I mind my own damn business.

The good news is this prejudice has been chipped away at for so long, it is no longer about remotely-plausible goals like defending civilization, or family, or the Bible. In America, it has been reduced to defending a word. The word "marriage". That's like opposing interracial dating in defense of the word "white". So the rational basis for the anti-gay marriage position has never been flimsier. The prejudice is still hanging on by a thread. But I think as more gay people openly demonstrate the dignity and love of their commitments, and how they are just regular people; and as more straight Americans look in the mirror, and forgive themselves for the prejudice they see; and as the younger generation grows up; then that thread will finally snap.