A recent Facebook poll asked if the words "under God" should be omitted from the Pledge of Allegiance. While I really wish they were never put there in the first place, since we've had the Pledge in its current form for more than 50 years, it's probably too late to excise those words now. The firestorm and widespread lunacy that would follow this comparatively trivial action would make the cost of doing so prohibitive. If you think the right wing is in high dudgeon now, you ain't seen nothing yet!
The original Pledge, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a socialist and Baptist pastor read as follows: "I Pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all." In the 1920s, over Bellamy's objections, the Pledge was changed to include the words United States of America. Finally, after a six-year campaign coinciding with the Korean War and the constant fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, the phrase "under God" was inserted in 1954. Lobbyists argued convincingly that patriotic speeches made by godless communists sounded too much like our Pledge as it then stood.
First of all, I'm still not sure exactly what "under God" means. Yes, I get that it's a vague reference somehow tying our country to God, unlike them godless commies, but what does the phrase really mean? Under God's command and control? God's law? God's watchful eye? Does it mean under God physically, because as we all know God sits on a throne, which in turn sits on a cloud? Since we never aspired to be a theocracy and I doubt we want a monument to the stunning lack of imagination that compels us to believe God has furniture, I'm not sure what legitimate purpose is served by adding the phrase.
More importantly, this alteration of the Pledge troubles me for a few reasons. First, the colossal irony of quite literally splitting up "one Nation indivisible" in order to inject something as divisive as religion would be hilarious if it weren't disturbing. We had already seen Supreme Court cases in which forcing children to recite the Pledge and/or salute the flag ran afoul of some devout American Christians' religious beliefs. That alone, if common sense and casual observation weren't enough, should have taught us that pushing one religious tradition on a pluralistic society is antithetical to the cause of indivisibility. Secondly, I don't like this change to the Pledge against the backdrop of the Cold War. The looming specter of war being married to the belief that God is on my side against the infidel chills me to the bone. I don't like the "Jesus loves me but He can't stand you" crowd viewing their weapons of mass destruction as the right arm of the Lord for the same reason that I don't like suicide bombers.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Lion Sleeps Tonight
A few hours ago, Senator Ted Kennedy lost his battle with brain cancer. The "Lion of the Senate", despite being a child of wealth, power and privilege, was one of the best friends that the poor, the powerless and the underprivileged would ever know. He was a tireless and singularly effective advocate in the Senate for those who sought nothing more from their country than the justice for all that it purports to offer.
The study in contradictions that is Senator Edward Moore Kennedy extends well beyond being powerful yet devoting his career to fighting for the little guy. He was one of the last unreconstructed liberals in the Senate, yet no one was more effective at reaching across the aisle and cooperating with conservative Republicans to get things done. Also, despite whatever shortcomings he may have had in his personal behavior, he was revered by other Senators of every political stripe for being a man of his word. If he made a deal, he stuck to it. While that may sound unremarkable, it's a sad truth that unflagging integrity like that is all too rare in or out of Congress (but especially in).
For his work on health care, civil rights, education, and his efforts to improve the lives of people with disabilities, those earning minimum wage, and the disenfranchised who asked for nothing more than to be treated fairly, America owes Senator Kennedy an enormous debt of gratitude.
Rest in peace, Senator -- and thank you.
The study in contradictions that is Senator Edward Moore Kennedy extends well beyond being powerful yet devoting his career to fighting for the little guy. He was one of the last unreconstructed liberals in the Senate, yet no one was more effective at reaching across the aisle and cooperating with conservative Republicans to get things done. Also, despite whatever shortcomings he may have had in his personal behavior, he was revered by other Senators of every political stripe for being a man of his word. If he made a deal, he stuck to it. While that may sound unremarkable, it's a sad truth that unflagging integrity like that is all too rare in or out of Congress (but especially in).
For his work on health care, civil rights, education, and his efforts to improve the lives of people with disabilities, those earning minimum wage, and the disenfranchised who asked for nothing more than to be treated fairly, America owes Senator Kennedy an enormous debt of gratitude.
Rest in peace, Senator -- and thank you.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Demagogues, Death Panels and Dunces
The now infamous warning that a government health care system would be "downright evil" largely because of its "death panel", was given to us by Sarah Palin, the former Governor and current dear God, would you please just go away already! of Alaska. This should take its rightful place in the Fear-Mongering Hall of Shame beside the image Joe McCarthy holding a piece of paper he claimed to be a list of 205 known communists working in the State Department. Unfortunately, in times such as these, when anxiety is running rampant, ridiculous claims gain traction. Forget the people who are born gullible and will die gullible, when there is widespread insecurity, even more discerning people are susceptible to being terrified of whatever bogeyman du jour is being injected into the conversation. There will always be a lunatic fringe making wild accusations, but in better times, we laugh them off and broadly agree that when we need serious thinkers to weigh in on complicated issues, such people are up way past their bedtime and should be sent upstairs while the grownups figure things out.
There is nothing wrong with honest disagreement, in fact, while discord may feel uncomfortable at times, we are much better off because we have people vehemently pushing conflicting ideas, allowing society to ultimately sort out their respective merits. Demagoguery, however, is another matter altogether. We should give no quarter to people who know the truth but feign ignorance in order to exploit the feeble-minded and people whose ability to think clearly has been hampered by fear. The demagogues have come out in force concerning a provision that allows health insurance to pay for physician counseling regarding end of life decisions. Politicians who look people in the eye and suggest this is designed for the wholesale slaughter of the elderly and sick are stupid if they don't know better, dishonest if they do. So, which is it?
In 2003 the Senate passed legislation that, among other things, provides for paying physicians for counseling with respect to end of life decisions. The bill received 54 votes, 42 of them Republican. Among those voting Yea was Senator Grassley of Iowa, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, who recently made headlines for more or less fueling the public's wholly unfounded fear of a provision that's roughly the same as the one he voted for a few years ago. He's not stupid; he's just counting on you to be stupid.
Now let's look at Sarah Palin's 2008 proclamation of Healthcare Decisions Day, designed to encourage doctors and others to inform people and increase the number of citizens with advance directives regarding end of life decisions. Of course, to be fair, I have read Palin's infamous Facebook rant, and the basis for her accusation may not be the controversial end of life counseling provision. She may very well have just made the whole thing up in her head. She simply declared that the government would refuse to pay for care, and that less productive people would be dragged before the death panel for a thumbs up or thumbs down. It may be unfair to accuse her of deliberately misleading people. She may simply lack the intellect required for meaningful understanding of a complicated issue. There is certainly more than ample evidence that she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt on that score.
There is nothing wrong with honest disagreement, in fact, while discord may feel uncomfortable at times, we are much better off because we have people vehemently pushing conflicting ideas, allowing society to ultimately sort out their respective merits. Demagoguery, however, is another matter altogether. We should give no quarter to people who know the truth but feign ignorance in order to exploit the feeble-minded and people whose ability to think clearly has been hampered by fear. The demagogues have come out in force concerning a provision that allows health insurance to pay for physician counseling regarding end of life decisions. Politicians who look people in the eye and suggest this is designed for the wholesale slaughter of the elderly and sick are stupid if they don't know better, dishonest if they do. So, which is it?
In 2003 the Senate passed legislation that, among other things, provides for paying physicians for counseling with respect to end of life decisions. The bill received 54 votes, 42 of them Republican. Among those voting Yea was Senator Grassley of Iowa, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, who recently made headlines for more or less fueling the public's wholly unfounded fear of a provision that's roughly the same as the one he voted for a few years ago. He's not stupid; he's just counting on you to be stupid.
Now let's look at Sarah Palin's 2008 proclamation of Healthcare Decisions Day, designed to encourage doctors and others to inform people and increase the number of citizens with advance directives regarding end of life decisions. Of course, to be fair, I have read Palin's infamous Facebook rant, and the basis for her accusation may not be the controversial end of life counseling provision. She may very well have just made the whole thing up in her head. She simply declared that the government would refuse to pay for care, and that less productive people would be dragged before the death panel for a thumbs up or thumbs down. It may be unfair to accuse her of deliberately misleading people. She may simply lack the intellect required for meaningful understanding of a complicated issue. There is certainly more than ample evidence that she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt on that score.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Game On
There was a West Wing rerun on Bravo this morning that in some ways fits current events. In that episode, entitled "Game On", fictional President Bartlett was preparing for, then participating in, a debate with his Republican challenger. A great deal of time and energy was devoted to picking out the right tie and trying to find 10-word sound bites for complicated issues. The idea was to cultivate broad superficial support and offend as few as possible. Senior staff, however, feared that this "Uncle Fluffy" approach would be a mistake. To his staff's delight, the president went after his opponent hammer and tong, and ultimately showed why he was the better candidate. President Bartlett pointed out that instances of absolute right and absolute wrong are rare and almost always include body counts. There are few un-nuanced moments in leading a country that's way too big for 10-word answers. We later learn that polls showed no matter what he did, President Bartlett would be seen as arrogant. With nothing to lose, he was free to be himself without fear or consequence.
That should be a lesson for both President Obama and his opponents. If Republicans choose to favor misinformation and demagoguery over acting in good faith, then the president will have no incentive to participate in the charade that the other side of the aisle, as a whole, is interested in serving the interest of the American people on this issue, as they will have chosen instead to deliberately mislead and frighten an already unsettled populace for their own Machiavellian gain. Those who tacitly endorse the lies in the hope of reaping some benefit are every bit as guilty as those who spread them. Still, the most important word above is "if". Unless the president can be certain that all hope of reasonable cooperation is lost, something as big as health care reform shouldn't be done on a purely partisan basis.
For what it's worth, I still can't believe what I'm seeing. I feel as though I'm watching the chess club kid with the taped up glasses and the pocket protector adorning his 30 inch chest somehow managing to bully the biggest guy on the football team. Democrats hold the White House and significant margins in both the House and Senate, yet, perhaps out of force of habit, they are cowering in the corner begging not to be stuffed in a locker. However, should they elect to fight back and fight to win, they can make the Republicans painfully regret the day they thought the "death panel" gambit was a good idea. It entails some risk, but again, not if there is nothing to lose.
That should be a lesson for both President Obama and his opponents. If Republicans choose to favor misinformation and demagoguery over acting in good faith, then the president will have no incentive to participate in the charade that the other side of the aisle, as a whole, is interested in serving the interest of the American people on this issue, as they will have chosen instead to deliberately mislead and frighten an already unsettled populace for their own Machiavellian gain. Those who tacitly endorse the lies in the hope of reaping some benefit are every bit as guilty as those who spread them. Still, the most important word above is "if". Unless the president can be certain that all hope of reasonable cooperation is lost, something as big as health care reform shouldn't be done on a purely partisan basis.
For what it's worth, I still can't believe what I'm seeing. I feel as though I'm watching the chess club kid with the taped up glasses and the pocket protector adorning his 30 inch chest somehow managing to bully the biggest guy on the football team. Democrats hold the White House and significant margins in both the House and Senate, yet, perhaps out of force of habit, they are cowering in the corner begging not to be stuffed in a locker. However, should they elect to fight back and fight to win, they can make the Republicans painfully regret the day they thought the "death panel" gambit was a good idea. It entails some risk, but again, not if there is nothing to lose.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Game Is Easy from the Cheap Seats.
I can't seem to get off the topic of the health care debate, perhaps because it's brought larger issues to the fore. I'm bothered by those who have become whipped into a frenzy, admonishing elected officials to read the Constitution, as though it contained a bright-line prohibition against health care reform. These people are apparently operating on the premise that the federal government is forbidden to do anything not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. This must also mean that spending taxpayer money on microphones for the House and Senate chambers, or on coffee for cabinet meetings is unconstitutional since the Constitution is silent on both electronic sound reinforcement and hot beverage service.
As I have said in earlier posts, people may very well have a legitimate beef with what's being proposed, and those who are capable of understanding complex issues should by all means bring their objections to light. However, 220 years of history and common sense suggest that the Constitution contains certain broad principles and not just an exhaustive list of precisely what the government can do. This makes our democracy great, but also challenging. Since it's also true that broad language is not a blank check for unlimited federal power, we have to exercise judgment, and a quick glance at the inside of the box top won't always reveal the clear and indisputable answer. Sadly, this is lost on some people just as the difference between periwinkle and teal is lost on Stevie Wonder.
Pop quiz: Which state did Thomas Jefferson represent at the Constitutional Convention? For those of you who said Virginia, thanks for playing our game; we have some lovely gifts for you backstage. It's a trick question. Jefferson wasn't there; he was in France. That hasn't stopped people from quoting him as a framer of the Constitution, and worse, the definitive word on exactly what the framers meant. Jefferson was an ardent supporter of strong states and a weak central government, while others, such as Alexander Hamilton, were believers in a strong federal government. Jefferson was brilliant, but very much a partisan regarding the power of the central government and his strong opinions are certainly not the final word on contentious issues ultimately resolved by compromise.
Apart from being endlessly quoted by those who are against the proposed health care reform, Jefferson is relevant to this discussion for a couple of reasons. First, there was a protester in New Hampshire outside President Obama's town hall meeting. He had a gun strapped to his leg and a sign saying it was time to water the tree of liberty. This is a reference to Jefferson's quote that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That is a chilling image when you consider how feverishly the right wing media have worked to terrify the simple minded and inflame the passions of the already angry and frustrated. I see this as the most monumentally irresponsible smear campaign since the Red Scare of McCarthyism.
While I understand how easy it is to foment irrational thought and behavior during trying and uncertain times, I'm still perplexed by some things I've seen. For instance, most or all of us have seen footage of the man warning Senator Specter that God is "Gonna judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill -- and then you will get your just desserts." I don't know what Arlen Specter has done in his life, but I know that if my immortal soul were imperiled, it wouldn't be because I wanted all citizens of the richest country on earth to have appropriate access to health care. My search for the New Testament passage in which Jesus commands us to be greedy and selfish or face eternal damnation has thus far been in vain.
Getting back to Jefferson, when he was President and actually had to govern, he was faced with a quandary. To make a long story short, there were great concerns about Napoleon controlling the Port of New Orleans. Jefferson wanted that land or at least a guaranteed right to freely navigate the Mississippi. He wound up buying land from France for $15 million, doubling the size of the country at the time. The Louisiana Purchase gave us what is essentially the middle third of the current United States. Here's Jefferson's problem: He knew it was a no-brainer since he was prepared to go as high as $10 million for a relatively tiny piece of land, and for only $5 million more he could make the deal of the century. However, he had always railed against the central government overstepping its expressly granted authority, and here was the mother of all examples in the young country's history.
This provides us with the object lesson that the game is easy from the cheap seats. Waxing philosophical is easy; governing a democracy is hard. Jefferson swallowed his pride and made the deal. Now I'm neither advocating doing something wrong because there is a potential payoff, nor suggesting that inviolable principles should be sacrificed on the altar of expediency, but sometimes when tough choices have to be made, careful inspection reveals shades of gray that appear as only black and white to casual observers.
As I have said in earlier posts, people may very well have a legitimate beef with what's being proposed, and those who are capable of understanding complex issues should by all means bring their objections to light. However, 220 years of history and common sense suggest that the Constitution contains certain broad principles and not just an exhaustive list of precisely what the government can do. This makes our democracy great, but also challenging. Since it's also true that broad language is not a blank check for unlimited federal power, we have to exercise judgment, and a quick glance at the inside of the box top won't always reveal the clear and indisputable answer. Sadly, this is lost on some people just as the difference between periwinkle and teal is lost on Stevie Wonder.
Pop quiz: Which state did Thomas Jefferson represent at the Constitutional Convention? For those of you who said Virginia, thanks for playing our game; we have some lovely gifts for you backstage. It's a trick question. Jefferson wasn't there; he was in France. That hasn't stopped people from quoting him as a framer of the Constitution, and worse, the definitive word on exactly what the framers meant. Jefferson was an ardent supporter of strong states and a weak central government, while others, such as Alexander Hamilton, were believers in a strong federal government. Jefferson was brilliant, but very much a partisan regarding the power of the central government and his strong opinions are certainly not the final word on contentious issues ultimately resolved by compromise.
Apart from being endlessly quoted by those who are against the proposed health care reform, Jefferson is relevant to this discussion for a couple of reasons. First, there was a protester in New Hampshire outside President Obama's town hall meeting. He had a gun strapped to his leg and a sign saying it was time to water the tree of liberty. This is a reference to Jefferson's quote that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That is a chilling image when you consider how feverishly the right wing media have worked to terrify the simple minded and inflame the passions of the already angry and frustrated. I see this as the most monumentally irresponsible smear campaign since the Red Scare of McCarthyism.
While I understand how easy it is to foment irrational thought and behavior during trying and uncertain times, I'm still perplexed by some things I've seen. For instance, most or all of us have seen footage of the man warning Senator Specter that God is "Gonna judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill -- and then you will get your just desserts." I don't know what Arlen Specter has done in his life, but I know that if my immortal soul were imperiled, it wouldn't be because I wanted all citizens of the richest country on earth to have appropriate access to health care. My search for the New Testament passage in which Jesus commands us to be greedy and selfish or face eternal damnation has thus far been in vain.
Getting back to Jefferson, when he was President and actually had to govern, he was faced with a quandary. To make a long story short, there were great concerns about Napoleon controlling the Port of New Orleans. Jefferson wanted that land or at least a guaranteed right to freely navigate the Mississippi. He wound up buying land from France for $15 million, doubling the size of the country at the time. The Louisiana Purchase gave us what is essentially the middle third of the current United States. Here's Jefferson's problem: He knew it was a no-brainer since he was prepared to go as high as $10 million for a relatively tiny piece of land, and for only $5 million more he could make the deal of the century. However, he had always railed against the central government overstepping its expressly granted authority, and here was the mother of all examples in the young country's history.
This provides us with the object lesson that the game is easy from the cheap seats. Waxing philosophical is easy; governing a democracy is hard. Jefferson swallowed his pride and made the deal. Now I'm neither advocating doing something wrong because there is a potential payoff, nor suggesting that inviolable principles should be sacrificed on the altar of expediency, but sometimes when tough choices have to be made, careful inspection reveals shades of gray that appear as only black and white to casual observers.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Emotion over Reason
When the betting line opened this morning, Emotion was a 16 1/2 point favorite over Reason. That merely reflects the way we human beings are wired. In the book Freakinomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, the authors cite Peter Sandman, who makes his living essentially getting people who are freaking out to calm down or getting people who are calm to freak out, depending on who is signing his check. Mr. Sandman (bring me a dream - I know, too easy but I couldn't help myself) deals in risk communication, and his formula is that risk = hazard (i.e. real danger) + outrage. When hazard is high and outrage is low, people underreact; when hazard is low and outrage is high, people overreact. Thus, the guy who tips the scales at 395 and whose blood pressure rivals that of a giraffe has little fear of the heart attack that is very likely in his future, but he is terrified of the dirty bomb Osama bin Laden might unleash on his remote trailer park, killing all 419 residents.
Please understand, I am absolutely, positively NOT suggesting that one side of the health care debate is based on reason while the other is based on mushy headed emotion. Both sides have compelling, well-reasoned arguments, and both sides also appeal to emotion as well as logic. However, the momentum shift in the debate seems to be based more on emotion, rage, anger, and particularly fear than on cogency. I think that's unfortunate -- predictable, but unfortunate nonetheless. Proponents of the plan have been put back on their heels playing defense, forced to counter fear and misinformation with what they claim to be the facts. Even leaving the essential and understandable element of mistrust out of the equation, in a case such as this, even if the proponents' claims were somehow provable, I fear that facts still might not have a fighting chance against misinformation heavily laden with emotion.
My father, a devout Catholic who was very much in the sanctity of life camp, chose hospice care for his final days. I was there. Though his body was weak, he held court in his bedroom all weekend as everyone came by to visit. We were laughing, enjoying one another and valuing the time we still had together. Tuesday morning he peacefully slipped away. No "death panel" had him make that decision. A health plan that allows coverage for physician counseling with respect to end of life options is no more forced genocide of the elderly than the status quo where insurance companies pay for vasectomies and tubal ligation is forced sterilization of everyone who doesn't conform to some ideal. The government already insures millions of elderly Americans, and there is no evidence whatsoever of any designs to kick Aunt Myrtle's plug out of the wall, but that is the power of emotion over reason.
The biggest winner so far in this whole sordid affair is the insurance industry. Through the miracle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend", insurance companies have pulled off a major coup. Privately, their executives must be enjoying a belly laugh as they watch the raucous applause from the same people when speakers alternately rail against the government getting involved because they just spend, spend, spend without any concern for how much debt they run up, and because they are so miserly that to save money, they will deny care to the less productive. The insurers should drop to their knees and thank God these people somehow can't see that those two things are mutually exclusive and the latter is pretty far-fetched. Checking sports, Emotion 51 Reason 9. If the insurance companies can somehow manage to be perceived as money-be-damned altruists who just want to help people, maybe the government can steal a page from their playbook. Perhaps Press Secretary Robert Gibbs should be replaced by a tiny lizard who sounds eerily like David Beckham.
Please understand, I am absolutely, positively NOT suggesting that one side of the health care debate is based on reason while the other is based on mushy headed emotion. Both sides have compelling, well-reasoned arguments, and both sides also appeal to emotion as well as logic. However, the momentum shift in the debate seems to be based more on emotion, rage, anger, and particularly fear than on cogency. I think that's unfortunate -- predictable, but unfortunate nonetheless. Proponents of the plan have been put back on their heels playing defense, forced to counter fear and misinformation with what they claim to be the facts. Even leaving the essential and understandable element of mistrust out of the equation, in a case such as this, even if the proponents' claims were somehow provable, I fear that facts still might not have a fighting chance against misinformation heavily laden with emotion.
My father, a devout Catholic who was very much in the sanctity of life camp, chose hospice care for his final days. I was there. Though his body was weak, he held court in his bedroom all weekend as everyone came by to visit. We were laughing, enjoying one another and valuing the time we still had together. Tuesday morning he peacefully slipped away. No "death panel" had him make that decision. A health plan that allows coverage for physician counseling with respect to end of life options is no more forced genocide of the elderly than the status quo where insurance companies pay for vasectomies and tubal ligation is forced sterilization of everyone who doesn't conform to some ideal. The government already insures millions of elderly Americans, and there is no evidence whatsoever of any designs to kick Aunt Myrtle's plug out of the wall, but that is the power of emotion over reason.
The biggest winner so far in this whole sordid affair is the insurance industry. Through the miracle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend", insurance companies have pulled off a major coup. Privately, their executives must be enjoying a belly laugh as they watch the raucous applause from the same people when speakers alternately rail against the government getting involved because they just spend, spend, spend without any concern for how much debt they run up, and because they are so miserly that to save money, they will deny care to the less productive. The insurers should drop to their knees and thank God these people somehow can't see that those two things are mutually exclusive and the latter is pretty far-fetched. Checking sports, Emotion 51 Reason 9. If the insurance companies can somehow manage to be perceived as money-be-damned altruists who just want to help people, maybe the government can steal a page from their playbook. Perhaps Press Secretary Robert Gibbs should be replaced by a tiny lizard who sounds eerily like David Beckham.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Never Send a Boy to Do a Man's Job
Now, as much as ever, we need grownups to step up and lead us through some challenging times. I remain optimistic as I watch the health care reform debacle play out, but I really find some things puzzling. Why is a segment of the media celebrating rage supplanting intelligent discourse on complex issues? Although I have no idea how many times I've lost my temper, I know precisely how many times I've been proud of it. It's the same number of times I've beaten Tiger Woods at golf or been elevated to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Why would anyone dole out badges of honor to adults for stamping their feet and throwing their toys?
There is plenty of room for legitimate dissent and even anger, but someone blowing a gasket at a forum designed for an open exchange of ideas is certainly not something in and of itself to applaud. Someone who is legitimately outraged for a variety of valid reasons is in a very different position from someone who is furious because he or she swallowed a preposterous claim by a fear-mongering demagogue. With respect to the latter, none of us is totally invulnerable to being duped, but there is still a difference between falling prey to a well disguised computer virus and giving your bank account information to that "African prince" who will share his fortune with you. To anyone who is really that easy a mark, all I can say is that a fool of that magnitude and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.
We are the richest country in the world, yet our health care system has very serious problems. Moreover, we spend more on health care both in terms of raw dollars and share of GDP than many countries with better care. In short, we're paying for a new Bentley but driving a blue Yugo with one orange door. Ultimately, we would be well served by fixing health care problems, but there is a fair and reasonable argument that what is being proposed could be the wrong plan and/or done at the wrong time. That's a serious debate for serious people and all voices are welcome and encouraged.
Which brings me back to the need for grownups. The first and last quatrains of Rudyard Kipling's poem, "If" seem apropos.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowances for their doubting too
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it
And--which is more--you'll be a Man my son!
There is plenty of room for legitimate dissent and even anger, but someone blowing a gasket at a forum designed for an open exchange of ideas is certainly not something in and of itself to applaud. Someone who is legitimately outraged for a variety of valid reasons is in a very different position from someone who is furious because he or she swallowed a preposterous claim by a fear-mongering demagogue. With respect to the latter, none of us is totally invulnerable to being duped, but there is still a difference between falling prey to a well disguised computer virus and giving your bank account information to that "African prince" who will share his fortune with you. To anyone who is really that easy a mark, all I can say is that a fool of that magnitude and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.
We are the richest country in the world, yet our health care system has very serious problems. Moreover, we spend more on health care both in terms of raw dollars and share of GDP than many countries with better care. In short, we're paying for a new Bentley but driving a blue Yugo with one orange door. Ultimately, we would be well served by fixing health care problems, but there is a fair and reasonable argument that what is being proposed could be the wrong plan and/or done at the wrong time. That's a serious debate for serious people and all voices are welcome and encouraged.
Which brings me back to the need for grownups. The first and last quatrains of Rudyard Kipling's poem, "If" seem apropos.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowances for their doubting too
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it
And--which is more--you'll be a Man my son!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)