The Tea Party network got the word out that there would be a rally Friday, January 29th on Federal Plaza in Chicago in support of Republican Gubernatorial candidate Adam Andrezejewski.
Andrezejewski is gaining steam in the upcoming primary here in Illinois. He has a shot at taking the nomination away from a crowded field of mostly establishment-backed go-along Rinos. The issue in Illinois, besides a pestilence of corruption, is the State’s lousy financial situation. A “combine” of Dems and Repubs, has left the treasury looted and the state with an $14 billion budget hole. Unfunded pension liability for State workers is $89 billion and counting. Click here. Only California has a worse Moody's credit rating.
As is typical in January, downtown Chicago was no place for the lightly dressed. The wind-chill factor made for a single-digit, ear flaps-down temperature. No reason to wonder why The Machine scheduled the primary election for the first Tuesday in February.
The real draw for the rally was former President of Poland, and founder of Solidarity, Lech Walesa, who was in Illinois to announce his support for Andrezejewski – by the way, the pronunciation is simpler than it looks: Just say N-G-F and put a Ski on the end. N-G-F-Ski. Repeat it three times and you’ll sound like a real Chicagoan.
Here is a video link to the whole of Walesa’s remarks, and some of Andrezejewski’s, both of whom were brief – they were frozen, too. Click here.
I brought along my wife’s digital camera but didn’t use it. Instead, fingers numb, I shot a few 3-D views with my trusty Stereo Realist (which I mention in my “revisionist” Plumwood Road review of the movie Avatar, posted January 28th).
What was my impression of the rally? Honestly, just between us? Hmmm…I know a lot of Tea Party people who are very impressed with Andrezejewski, and it was easy to see why: He speaks well on the stump, he was sharp and crisp in front of the media, he is gaining experience, but clearly a work in progress. By next fall he could be fantastic. Most importantly, he has a simple, compelling campaign message: “Open the Books”. When I heard those three words, I knew he was in possession of the political equivalent of The Bomb. And, I could see it in his eyes; he’ll use it.
The first thing Governor Andrezejewski will do is circumvent the Democrat and old-boy Republicans and issue an executive order calling for a complete audit of the State of Illinois; where have all those billions of dollars gone? Let’s “Open the Books” and find out whose pockets are getting stuffed. A hint of where that question may lead was given by another speaker, John Bambeneck, who is involved professionally in investigating internet crime. “And, when you are talking about internet crime in Illinois,” Bambeneck said, “You are talking about Organized Crime.” Message received.
Did I see any problems with Andrezejewski? Yes, and a pretty big one: campaign organization. He is young and he needs an experienced hand guiding him and training a rebel band of organizers. And he needs somebody to take charge of the schedule.
The event was set to kick off at 2:30. Andrezejewski and Walesa arrived 40 minutes late. That left a lot of filling to do at the podium as well as 150 supporters standing in the cold. Luckily for the candidate, the people in the cold were dedicated activists. They are the kind of people who are ready to rock. The first of the “filler” speakers was a flag-carrying retired 20-year Marine. This man knew a crowd of volunteers could get little restless. With just a few words, he had us standing straight and focused. “Let me hear an Ooh-Rah!” And he heard one.
But Andrezejewski can’t let this happen again, not when he has a crowd of curious or undecided voters. Write that down, somebody, and get it to him.
Will I vote for Andrezejewski on Tuesday? Most likely. I had previously been leaning toward Dan Proft, another fire-ball conservative, but N-G-F-Ski’s “Open the Books” theme is brilliant. If he gets the nomination, there are going to be a lot of nervous politicians in Illinois.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
AVATAR - a story behind the story
Avatar, in little more than a month after its release, has become the number one box-office money maker of all time. That's a lot of tickets sold. The film is a visually arresting piece, having been photographed in a breakthrough stereographic 3-D process that literally opens the screen and delivers the audience to the planet Pandora, light years away.
It was the buzz that Avatar was like no other 3-D film ever made that got me into the theater. For more than two decades I’ve shot virtually all of my personal photographs with a 1952 Stereo Realist camera. It’s not exactly a cutting edge piece of equipment but solidly reliable and designed to capture terrific stereo images.
The 3-D medium is challenging and endlessly fascinating, dealing as it does with compositional elements in all three visual dimensions. The rules of conventional photography apply, and then some. In contrast to a conventional photograph, instead of looking “at” the picture, you look “through” a stereograph into a perfectly frozen instant of time. The eye is invited to roam around within the frame, or, “window” as it is called, picking out stray bits of detail an ordinary camera would gloss over. I have taken thousands of stereos over the years in which I attempt to capture a person or place with the “you are there” quality that only 3-D can deliver. When successful, the results are magnetic. Further, unlike conventional photographs which tend to sit in a drawer, stereos are looked at and shared. Not a week goes by that I do not pull a few stereos out to enjoy.
However, and stereo photography enthusiasts freely admit this, aside from a couple interesting 3-D films made back in the 50s, Hollywood’s use of the medium has rarely gotten past the cheesiness of rubber sharks, or the eyestrain of occasional bad projection. The movies always seem to treat 3-D as a side-show attraction.
The astounding impact of Avatar is due entirely to its breakthrough stereographic photography. Filmed conventionally, it would be a nothing more than another over-produced action flick. Until now, the 3-D equipment available to film makers was heavy and cumbersome; too limiting to be of general production use. But, computer graphics, digital imaging, and modern optics now enable a level of 3-D cinematography that was impossible using the refrigerator-size camera that Alfred Hitchcock used to film Dial M for Murder in 1954. In Avatar, when the ship from earth lands on Pandora and the doors open, the audience finds itself on another world.
However, when it comes to story, Avatar is “all meat and no potatoes”. It's little more than a ramped up remake of Flash Gordon’s Trip to Mars. Well, that’s not quite accurate. Flash Gordon would be fun updated and in 3-D. No, this is Flash Gordon after he's spent a little time in a re-education camp.
Within the first ten minutes, about the length of time it takes to forget you’re wearing 3-D glasses, savvy movie-goers can see what’s about to come down the pike: a nice, gooey Leftist lecture. How do you figure this out? Easy: counter to Hollywood convention, the majority of the earthmen in the film’s cast look like they’re from Suburban-America. How long has it been since a crew of movie space travelers has been portrayed as anything other than a rainbow of diversity? Thirty or forty years? The dramatic reasoning for this is obvious: these are B-A-D Earth People, and they’ve traveled to Pandora to do bad things.
There is no need here to count the ways Avatar neglects presenting a plausible and imaginative picture of mankind and society in the year 2154, and instead relies on recycled Viet Nam imagery and sets out to grate on the sensibilities of present day conservatives, libertarians, and military veterans.
There is a purposeful dismissive insult built into the story from the start: a greedy Earth Corporation, backed by the US Marines – the scum of the universe – conspires to elbow the indigenous residents of Pandora, the Na’vi, out of the way in order to strip mine the planet of its valuable mineral resources. It’s no more subtle than that.
Even the scientists and techies aboard the ship are portrayed as weaseley sell-outs, the kind of hacks who would fake Global Warming evidence if there was a paycheck in it. Imagine what it must be like to be shut up in hyper-space for a few light years with these guys.
The message behind Avatar is simple: America Bad, Capitalism Worse. Yes, I loved the 3-D photography, but it was irritating to have to put up with a bunch of Leftist sing-song in order to partake of the visual marvels.
But – and here is the neat part – about half way into the movie I realized I was rooting for the Na’vi against the Earth Vermin.
At one point the Marine Colonel in charge of operations complains that he’s tried everything to get these yokels to cooperate. He offered to build schools, roads and hospitals in exchange for the mineral rights, but the Na’vi turned him down. They said they wanted to be left alone and in peace.
As tensions rose and the Suburban-Americans plotted what to do next, I turned to my wife and whispered “They should offer ‘universal health care for all’ – and then promise to raise taxes on the creatures over on the next planet to pay for it.”
And that was all it took. The Leftist spell was broken. I had discovered the “key” to understanding and enjoying Avatar.
Seen properly, Avatar is not just a prattle-headed space opera, rather it is a clever retelling of contemporary events back here on earth. It brings to mind the US Supreme Court 5-4 “Kelo Decision” a few years ago which allowed a cabal of business and government officials in New London, Connecticut, to muscle Susette Kelo out of her house in order to squeeze more tax revenue from the property. Remember that? Not long ago Fox News ran a five years-later follow-up report that showed everything about Kelo has turned into a disaster: Mrs. Kelo’s home was demolished, the real estate market tanked, the developer split town, New London is stuck with a vacant lot, and local taxpayers are holding the bag. In Avatar audiences watch a similar game on Pandora being played against the Na’vi.
When you look at them, the Suburban-Americans portrayed in Avatar are the same kind of officials who rushed through the TARP deal, the auto bail-out and the bank take-over; who designed the $780 billion dollar Stimulus Bill and loaded it up with earmarks and pork; who stuff pending Health Care legislation with Corn Husker Kick-Backs and Louisiana Re-purchases then call it "reform".
As for Eywa, Pandora’s mystical Tree of Life, which the Suburban-Americans were willing to destroy in their quest…that is clearly a symbolic representation of the fruitful tree of our own economy, Capitalism – famously called “the invisible hand”. We are daily watching it being hacked and chopped and bombed in a quest for what? Votes? Power and influence over citizens?
In a nutshell, here’s the problem with Avatar: James Cameron set out to portray the plundering of Pandora through the lens of Progressive Liberalism. In Hollywood it's as easy as 1-2-3; pull an old script off the studio shelf, fill in the blanks with Leftist assumptions and be sure your tuxedo is back from the cleaners in time for Oscar night. What could be easier? But this kind of paint-by-numbers film making rendered a flat, cardboard cut-out picture, a weak portrayal of Capitalism as something small and greedy and remote from the needs of real people. In effect, what James Cameron did was give us a view of Pandora through the wrong end of the telescope. When we turn the lens around and look through the other end we see a clearer picture.
When we watch Avatar through the correct end of the lens we begin to see that the problems of the Na’vi are very much like our own. Like the Na’vi, we are being offered a bag of worthless goodies we don’t want from a government that has not earned our trust. We watch in stunned horror as people from Planet Washington plot behind closed doors to pass a massive Health Care Plan that we know will damage the Tree of our economy. Like the Na’vi, we have listened as representatives at first promised, pleaded and cajoled…then insulted, lied and finally threatened (Rahm Emanuel, “Don’t think we’re not keeping score”)in order to force a deal on us. And, like the Na’vi, we’re not buying into the sell.
It’s all there in the movie. There is even a stirring scene where thousands of Pandora’s residents rally together in what can only be seen as an intergalactic Tea Party; a “Tea Party from Outer Space”. And, finally, there’s the climactic battle – Election Day – where the bad guys are tossed out of office and off the planet.
Viewed through the right end of the telescope Avatar is a pretty good movie. And, for the price of admission you can see it all, in Glorious 3-D.
It was the buzz that Avatar was like no other 3-D film ever made that got me into the theater. For more than two decades I’ve shot virtually all of my personal photographs with a 1952 Stereo Realist camera. It’s not exactly a cutting edge piece of equipment but solidly reliable and designed to capture terrific stereo images.
The 3-D medium is challenging and endlessly fascinating, dealing as it does with compositional elements in all three visual dimensions. The rules of conventional photography apply, and then some. In contrast to a conventional photograph, instead of looking “at” the picture, you look “through” a stereograph into a perfectly frozen instant of time. The eye is invited to roam around within the frame, or, “window” as it is called, picking out stray bits of detail an ordinary camera would gloss over. I have taken thousands of stereos over the years in which I attempt to capture a person or place with the “you are there” quality that only 3-D can deliver. When successful, the results are magnetic. Further, unlike conventional photographs which tend to sit in a drawer, stereos are looked at and shared. Not a week goes by that I do not pull a few stereos out to enjoy.
However, and stereo photography enthusiasts freely admit this, aside from a couple interesting 3-D films made back in the 50s, Hollywood’s use of the medium has rarely gotten past the cheesiness of rubber sharks, or the eyestrain of occasional bad projection. The movies always seem to treat 3-D as a side-show attraction.
The astounding impact of Avatar is due entirely to its breakthrough stereographic photography. Filmed conventionally, it would be a nothing more than another over-produced action flick. Until now, the 3-D equipment available to film makers was heavy and cumbersome; too limiting to be of general production use. But, computer graphics, digital imaging, and modern optics now enable a level of 3-D cinematography that was impossible using the refrigerator-size camera that Alfred Hitchcock used to film Dial M for Murder in 1954. In Avatar, when the ship from earth lands on Pandora and the doors open, the audience finds itself on another world.
However, when it comes to story, Avatar is “all meat and no potatoes”. It's little more than a ramped up remake of Flash Gordon’s Trip to Mars. Well, that’s not quite accurate. Flash Gordon would be fun updated and in 3-D. No, this is Flash Gordon after he's spent a little time in a re-education camp.
Within the first ten minutes, about the length of time it takes to forget you’re wearing 3-D glasses, savvy movie-goers can see what’s about to come down the pike: a nice, gooey Leftist lecture. How do you figure this out? Easy: counter to Hollywood convention, the majority of the earthmen in the film’s cast look like they’re from Suburban-America. How long has it been since a crew of movie space travelers has been portrayed as anything other than a rainbow of diversity? Thirty or forty years? The dramatic reasoning for this is obvious: these are B-A-D Earth People, and they’ve traveled to Pandora to do bad things.
There is no need here to count the ways Avatar neglects presenting a plausible and imaginative picture of mankind and society in the year 2154, and instead relies on recycled Viet Nam imagery and sets out to grate on the sensibilities of present day conservatives, libertarians, and military veterans.
There is a purposeful dismissive insult built into the story from the start: a greedy Earth Corporation, backed by the US Marines – the scum of the universe – conspires to elbow the indigenous residents of Pandora, the Na’vi, out of the way in order to strip mine the planet of its valuable mineral resources. It’s no more subtle than that.
Even the scientists and techies aboard the ship are portrayed as weaseley sell-outs, the kind of hacks who would fake Global Warming evidence if there was a paycheck in it. Imagine what it must be like to be shut up in hyper-space for a few light years with these guys.
The message behind Avatar is simple: America Bad, Capitalism Worse. Yes, I loved the 3-D photography, but it was irritating to have to put up with a bunch of Leftist sing-song in order to partake of the visual marvels.
But – and here is the neat part – about half way into the movie I realized I was rooting for the Na’vi against the Earth Vermin.
At one point the Marine Colonel in charge of operations complains that he’s tried everything to get these yokels to cooperate. He offered to build schools, roads and hospitals in exchange for the mineral rights, but the Na’vi turned him down. They said they wanted to be left alone and in peace.
As tensions rose and the Suburban-Americans plotted what to do next, I turned to my wife and whispered “They should offer ‘universal health care for all’ – and then promise to raise taxes on the creatures over on the next planet to pay for it.”
And that was all it took. The Leftist spell was broken. I had discovered the “key” to understanding and enjoying Avatar.
Seen properly, Avatar is not just a prattle-headed space opera, rather it is a clever retelling of contemporary events back here on earth. It brings to mind the US Supreme Court 5-4 “Kelo Decision” a few years ago which allowed a cabal of business and government officials in New London, Connecticut, to muscle Susette Kelo out of her house in order to squeeze more tax revenue from the property. Remember that? Not long ago Fox News ran a five years-later follow-up report that showed everything about Kelo has turned into a disaster: Mrs. Kelo’s home was demolished, the real estate market tanked, the developer split town, New London is stuck with a vacant lot, and local taxpayers are holding the bag. In Avatar audiences watch a similar game on Pandora being played against the Na’vi.
When you look at them, the Suburban-Americans portrayed in Avatar are the same kind of officials who rushed through the TARP deal, the auto bail-out and the bank take-over; who designed the $780 billion dollar Stimulus Bill and loaded it up with earmarks and pork; who stuff pending Health Care legislation with Corn Husker Kick-Backs and Louisiana Re-purchases then call it "reform".
As for Eywa, Pandora’s mystical Tree of Life, which the Suburban-Americans were willing to destroy in their quest…that is clearly a symbolic representation of the fruitful tree of our own economy, Capitalism – famously called “the invisible hand”. We are daily watching it being hacked and chopped and bombed in a quest for what? Votes? Power and influence over citizens?
In a nutshell, here’s the problem with Avatar: James Cameron set out to portray the plundering of Pandora through the lens of Progressive Liberalism. In Hollywood it's as easy as 1-2-3; pull an old script off the studio shelf, fill in the blanks with Leftist assumptions and be sure your tuxedo is back from the cleaners in time for Oscar night. What could be easier? But this kind of paint-by-numbers film making rendered a flat, cardboard cut-out picture, a weak portrayal of Capitalism as something small and greedy and remote from the needs of real people. In effect, what James Cameron did was give us a view of Pandora through the wrong end of the telescope. When we turn the lens around and look through the other end we see a clearer picture.
When we watch Avatar through the correct end of the lens we begin to see that the problems of the Na’vi are very much like our own. Like the Na’vi, we are being offered a bag of worthless goodies we don’t want from a government that has not earned our trust. We watch in stunned horror as people from Planet Washington plot behind closed doors to pass a massive Health Care Plan that we know will damage the Tree of our economy. Like the Na’vi, we have listened as representatives at first promised, pleaded and cajoled…then insulted, lied and finally threatened (Rahm Emanuel, “Don’t think we’re not keeping score”)in order to force a deal on us. And, like the Na’vi, we’re not buying into the sell.
It’s all there in the movie. There is even a stirring scene where thousands of Pandora’s residents rally together in what can only be seen as an intergalactic Tea Party; a “Tea Party from Outer Space”. And, finally, there’s the climactic battle – Election Day – where the bad guys are tossed out of office and off the planet.
Viewed through the right end of the telescope Avatar is a pretty good movie. And, for the price of admission you can see it all, in Glorious 3-D.
Monday, December 21, 2009
You've Just Crossed Over Into ... THE TWILIGHT ZONE
It is an occasional custom of mine: I often get home from work late at night, around eleven or twelve o’clock. Karen is usually fast asleep. The house is quiet. And from time to time, after greeting the dog and one of the cats who always comes to the door, I fix a bowl of pretzels, open a beer, pop a disk into the DVD player and relax with an episode from the old TV series The Twilight Zone. It is a nice way to unwind.
The Twilight Zone first hit the air October 2, 1959. I was in grade school at the time and became fan right from the start. The series was the invention of Rod Serling, one of the great writers of television drama back in the days of “live” programming in the 1950s. Serling wrote most of the Twilight Zone episodes himself along with Richard Matheson, Earl Hamner, Charles Beaumont and the inimitable Ray Bradbury.
It is a continual marvel and a testament to the quality of the writing and production that so many of the episodes, especially from the first two or three seasons, are still so satisfying. Much of the enduring impact of this fifty year-old television series is due to the fact that no matter how fanciful or far-fetched the series was, many of its best episodes managed to accurately -- and eerily -- reflect human life down here on Terra Firma.
This morning I recalled a particular episode. Perhaps you have seen it: A space craft lands with visitors from another world. Aliens are seemingly friendly and charming creatures who, despite their otherworldly appearance present themselves as benevolent beings who love the human race. They just want to help. In fact, they are found to be carrying a book titled To Serve Man. How lovely. Their stated mission is to seek recruits to take along on their ship back to their own planet.
Serling’s opening comments set the stage:
“Respectfully submitted for your perusal --- a Kanamit. Height: a little over nine feet. Weight: in the neighborhood of three hundred and fifty pounds. Origin: unknown. Motives? Therein hangs the tale…This is the Twilight Zone.”
Yes indeed, fans; a nice, crisp presentation of the crux of the story: "therein hangs the tale."
The program moves smartly along as thousands of awed and, as it turns out, gullible earthlings flock to secure passage to a promised-land of intergalactic paradise. Meanwhile a doubtful skeptic feverishly works to translate the mysterious text contained in the pages of To Serve Man.
The story concludes as the mass of humanity crowds aboard. As the hatch it closed the translation arrives with a patented Twilight Zone twist.
How does this relate to anything in today’s universe? At one o’clock Sunday morning the United States Senate pulled the 2,000 page healthcare bill everyone has been fighting over, and replaced it with a different, new, 2,000 page bill no one has seen or read…and in that hour voted 60-40 to end debate.
As the space craft sails off, bound for a dinner table in another galaxy, Serling’s concluding commentary is apropos.
“…simply stated, the evolution of man…the metamorphosis from being the ruler of a planet to an ingredient in someone’s soup. It’ tonight’s bill of fare on The Twilight Zone.”
The Twilight Zone first hit the air October 2, 1959. I was in grade school at the time and became fan right from the start. The series was the invention of Rod Serling, one of the great writers of television drama back in the days of “live” programming in the 1950s. Serling wrote most of the Twilight Zone episodes himself along with Richard Matheson, Earl Hamner, Charles Beaumont and the inimitable Ray Bradbury.
It is a continual marvel and a testament to the quality of the writing and production that so many of the episodes, especially from the first two or three seasons, are still so satisfying. Much of the enduring impact of this fifty year-old television series is due to the fact that no matter how fanciful or far-fetched the series was, many of its best episodes managed to accurately -- and eerily -- reflect human life down here on Terra Firma.
This morning I recalled a particular episode. Perhaps you have seen it: A space craft lands with visitors from another world. Aliens are seemingly friendly and charming creatures who, despite their otherworldly appearance present themselves as benevolent beings who love the human race. They just want to help. In fact, they are found to be carrying a book titled To Serve Man. How lovely. Their stated mission is to seek recruits to take along on their ship back to their own planet.
Serling’s opening comments set the stage:
“Respectfully submitted for your perusal --- a Kanamit. Height: a little over nine feet. Weight: in the neighborhood of three hundred and fifty pounds. Origin: unknown. Motives? Therein hangs the tale…This is the Twilight Zone.”
Yes indeed, fans; a nice, crisp presentation of the crux of the story: "therein hangs the tale."
The program moves smartly along as thousands of awed and, as it turns out, gullible earthlings flock to secure passage to a promised-land of intergalactic paradise. Meanwhile a doubtful skeptic feverishly works to translate the mysterious text contained in the pages of To Serve Man.
The story concludes as the mass of humanity crowds aboard. As the hatch it closed the translation arrives with a patented Twilight Zone twist.
How does this relate to anything in today’s universe? At one o’clock Sunday morning the United States Senate pulled the 2,000 page healthcare bill everyone has been fighting over, and replaced it with a different, new, 2,000 page bill no one has seen or read…and in that hour voted 60-40 to end debate.
As the space craft sails off, bound for a dinner table in another galaxy, Serling’s concluding commentary is apropos.
“…simply stated, the evolution of man…the metamorphosis from being the ruler of a planet to an ingredient in someone’s soup. It’ tonight’s bill of fare on The Twilight Zone.”
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
HEALTH CARE; FIX IT ONCE, FIX IT RIGHT
Last September I was asked to write a piece for a local Democratic Party publication.
The parameters were simple:"No Republican propaganda, No Rush Limbaugh rants...just what you think."
I wrote it and submitted it, but in the end, the editorial review board rejected the essay.
Well, it's their loss. Here it is for PlumwoodRoad readers who may find it offers a useful perspective that they haven't heard elsewhere:
IF IT’S WORTH DOING, IT’S WORTH DOING RIGHT
By Jed Skillman
Many post-WWII Boomers can remember falling out of a tree, getting cut by a garden tool, or coming down with a bad case of flu, then getting hauled off to see the doctor. Later, while on the way out of the doctor’s office, Mom or Dad would stop at the nurse’s desk and write a check. In those days the American health care system was a relatively simple and low cost proposition.
It was common, well into the ‘60s for doctors to work out of a room in back of their homes, or in an office across the hall from an insurance agent. A doctor set broken bones, stitched bad cuts, gave tetanus or small-pox shots, and frequently advised “take two aspirin and call me in the morning”. Americans went to the hospital if they were injured in an accident, or to have an appendix removed, get a hernia repaired, or deliver a baby. Following invasive surgery, patients were often laid up in bed for days. There was little in the way of out patient surgery. People who went into the hospital for more serious illnesses, like cancer, likely didn’t come out at all.
Americans of that era had different expectations of their health care system. “Modern medicine” had brought clean drinking water, advances in hygiene as well as an end to the use of mustard plasters, cod liver oil and Epsom salts. Penicillin had been around for a while. Treatment for tuberculosis was new, as was vaccination against polio.
In 1965 the US male/female life expectancy had risen to a very impressive 69 years. This still left a lot of room for improvement. I can remember attending a cook-out where a doctor friend of my Dad’s, old Doc Ritz, stood behind the grill smoking a cigarette while serving hotdogs to us kids. Ah, the good old days.
But that was then; this is now.
Over the past few decades the advancements in the science and art of medicine have been phenomenal. In the year 2009 Americans have access to a fast, efficient medical system. It is important for us to keep in mind all the good that our current system provides. There are problems, yes, but every one of us personally knows someone who was diagnosed with a serious medical problem and began receiving treatment within hours. The lump was discovered on Tuesday; the operation was on Thursday.
The American people benefit from thousands of new tools and techniques that were unimagined a few decades ago. This is nothing to be taken for granted. There are MRIs, CTs, artificial replacements, stints, angioplasties, colonoscopies, mammograms, radiation seeds, arthroscopic surgical techniques and vastly improved pharmaceuticals in use every day. These things didn’t just invent themselves. Highly educated, highly creative people conceived, refined and marketed those new medicines and tools.
The results are obvious. The US life expectancy today stands at just under 79 years, almost 10 years more than in 1965. And, not only are Americans living longer we’re living better, with more pain-free, more active, and more productive lives. How many times have we heard the phrase “80 is the new 60, and 50 is the new 40”?
Medical progress is not a problem. The debate over Health Care Reform should focus on the one single sore point: cost. As we have all seen, medical related expenses have blown through the roof. In recent decades they have increased 300-400%. Some years have seen insurance rates increase 20%, one year to the next. What has gone wrong with pricing?
That is the question. If we answer it correctly we’re on our way to curing the problem. Get it wrong and we will make things even worse.
So far, the only answer coming our of Official Washington is buried somewhere in the tattered pages of that 1000+ page health care bill that the House of Representatives was ready to vote on earlier in the summer. They were ready to vote on it, largely unread.
Note: Since I wrote this essay in September, the House bill has grown to over 1,700 pages and the Senate bill has drifted out beyond 2,100 page reef. This thing has grown to such colossal proportions that it sounds like something out of a cheesy sci/fi movie; Attack of the 50-Foot Health Care Bill
Recently, in news stories and at town hall meetings, The Public started asking questions: does the bill allow for portability? Will the nation’s 1,300 health insurance companies be able to compete across state lines same as auto and home insurance companies? Will individuals be allowed to take a tax deduction for privately purchased coverage, like businesses do? Will there be meaningful tort reform and the elimination of “junk” malpractice suits?
Those questions, which have gone largely unanswered or ignored, are key to any successful reform of health care. And those are the easy questions.
The tough questions cut closer to the bone when it comes to personal beliefs and values: Will tax money be used to pay for abortions? Will tax money pay for the 12 to 20 million illegal residents? And, what’s the difference between a Health Care Resource Allocation Review Committee and a “Death Panel”? Those questions have not been ignored, they have been reviled.
This much is clear; mixing Medicine and politics is dangerous. This bill does not represent a search for practical solutions. What we are witnessing is a Congress tinkering around with Life. We see Washington sawing and chopping and patching together some Frankenstein of a bill that they hope will rise off the slab and grab enough votes by the throat to pass. But with every passing day Administration leaders telegraph the fact that they don’t have a clue what they are doing. There is a reason that of the 525 members of the House and Senate, only three got through medical school.
Since the days of the Ancient Greeks the primary rule for physicians has been “First, do no harm”. Before Congress prescribes – and imposes – a cure for our ills, they owe us a fair and unbiased examination. They have a responsibility to offer the public an honest consultation with no hidden agendas and no CYAs. And we have the right to seek a second opinion. Anything less is pure quackery.
The parameters were simple:"No Republican propaganda, No Rush Limbaugh rants...just what you think."
I wrote it and submitted it, but in the end, the editorial review board rejected the essay.
Well, it's their loss. Here it is for PlumwoodRoad readers who may find it offers a useful perspective that they haven't heard elsewhere:
IF IT’S WORTH DOING, IT’S WORTH DOING RIGHT
By Jed Skillman
Many post-WWII Boomers can remember falling out of a tree, getting cut by a garden tool, or coming down with a bad case of flu, then getting hauled off to see the doctor. Later, while on the way out of the doctor’s office, Mom or Dad would stop at the nurse’s desk and write a check. In those days the American health care system was a relatively simple and low cost proposition.
It was common, well into the ‘60s for doctors to work out of a room in back of their homes, or in an office across the hall from an insurance agent. A doctor set broken bones, stitched bad cuts, gave tetanus or small-pox shots, and frequently advised “take two aspirin and call me in the morning”. Americans went to the hospital if they were injured in an accident, or to have an appendix removed, get a hernia repaired, or deliver a baby. Following invasive surgery, patients were often laid up in bed for days. There was little in the way of out patient surgery. People who went into the hospital for more serious illnesses, like cancer, likely didn’t come out at all.
Americans of that era had different expectations of their health care system. “Modern medicine” had brought clean drinking water, advances in hygiene as well as an end to the use of mustard plasters, cod liver oil and Epsom salts. Penicillin had been around for a while. Treatment for tuberculosis was new, as was vaccination against polio.
In 1965 the US male/female life expectancy had risen to a very impressive 69 years. This still left a lot of room for improvement. I can remember attending a cook-out where a doctor friend of my Dad’s, old Doc Ritz, stood behind the grill smoking a cigarette while serving hotdogs to us kids. Ah, the good old days.
But that was then; this is now.
Over the past few decades the advancements in the science and art of medicine have been phenomenal. In the year 2009 Americans have access to a fast, efficient medical system. It is important for us to keep in mind all the good that our current system provides. There are problems, yes, but every one of us personally knows someone who was diagnosed with a serious medical problem and began receiving treatment within hours. The lump was discovered on Tuesday; the operation was on Thursday.
The American people benefit from thousands of new tools and techniques that were unimagined a few decades ago. This is nothing to be taken for granted. There are MRIs, CTs, artificial replacements, stints, angioplasties, colonoscopies, mammograms, radiation seeds, arthroscopic surgical techniques and vastly improved pharmaceuticals in use every day. These things didn’t just invent themselves. Highly educated, highly creative people conceived, refined and marketed those new medicines and tools.
The results are obvious. The US life expectancy today stands at just under 79 years, almost 10 years more than in 1965. And, not only are Americans living longer we’re living better, with more pain-free, more active, and more productive lives. How many times have we heard the phrase “80 is the new 60, and 50 is the new 40”?
Medical progress is not a problem. The debate over Health Care Reform should focus on the one single sore point: cost. As we have all seen, medical related expenses have blown through the roof. In recent decades they have increased 300-400%. Some years have seen insurance rates increase 20%, one year to the next. What has gone wrong with pricing?
That is the question. If we answer it correctly we’re on our way to curing the problem. Get it wrong and we will make things even worse.
So far, the only answer coming our of Official Washington is buried somewhere in the tattered pages of that 1000+ page health care bill that the House of Representatives was ready to vote on earlier in the summer. They were ready to vote on it, largely unread.
Note: Since I wrote this essay in September, the House bill has grown to over 1,700 pages and the Senate bill has drifted out beyond 2,100 page reef. This thing has grown to such colossal proportions that it sounds like something out of a cheesy sci/fi movie; Attack of the 50-Foot Health Care Bill
Recently, in news stories and at town hall meetings, The Public started asking questions: does the bill allow for portability? Will the nation’s 1,300 health insurance companies be able to compete across state lines same as auto and home insurance companies? Will individuals be allowed to take a tax deduction for privately purchased coverage, like businesses do? Will there be meaningful tort reform and the elimination of “junk” malpractice suits?
Those questions, which have gone largely unanswered or ignored, are key to any successful reform of health care. And those are the easy questions.
The tough questions cut closer to the bone when it comes to personal beliefs and values: Will tax money be used to pay for abortions? Will tax money pay for the 12 to 20 million illegal residents? And, what’s the difference between a Health Care Resource Allocation Review Committee and a “Death Panel”? Those questions have not been ignored, they have been reviled.
This much is clear; mixing Medicine and politics is dangerous. This bill does not represent a search for practical solutions. What we are witnessing is a Congress tinkering around with Life. We see Washington sawing and chopping and patching together some Frankenstein of a bill that they hope will rise off the slab and grab enough votes by the throat to pass. But with every passing day Administration leaders telegraph the fact that they don’t have a clue what they are doing. There is a reason that of the 525 members of the House and Senate, only three got through medical school.
Since the days of the Ancient Greeks the primary rule for physicians has been “First, do no harm”. Before Congress prescribes – and imposes – a cure for our ills, they owe us a fair and unbiased examination. They have a responsibility to offer the public an honest consultation with no hidden agendas and no CYAs. And we have the right to seek a second opinion. Anything less is pure quackery.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
My Mamma Done Tol' Me
If you’re like me sometimes you think the political world is a pretty grim place; as in “no fun”, “a complete drag”.
Watching this Administration paddle the country toward an economic waterfall is very tiring, especially when you see how persistent they are. It gets a fellow plum tuckered out. There’s only so much you can take.
Last evening, for instance, I was home. While fixing a sandwich I turned on the television, but instead of tuning in to O'Reilly or Hannity I clicked on TCM and found Clint Eastwood’s documentary about songwriter Johnny Mercer. In a few seconds I was hooked. I stood there in the kitchen for an hour and a half and watched the whole thing, start to finish, "from Natchez to Mobile, from Memphis to St. Joe".
It was a very good film, not as good as Johnny Mercer’s songs or Mercer’s own delivery of those songs on the occasions when he sang them himself instead of letting people like Bing Crosby, or Frank Sinatra, or Cab Calloway sing them. Still, it was a very good film. I enjoyed it immensely.
Mercer’s lyrics are so rich, so pleasant and sophisticated in construction that they feel like a warm summer day; like a natural pleasure that we take for granted until its gone and we find ourselves in the cold looking back wondering where it went. They are full of crisp, original observations, of saucy romance and wistful regret, all told with easy Southern humor.
Listening, Mercer’s tunes erased all the concerns in my mind about how those corrupt fixers in Washington are working to rig the American health care system so that it’s a duplicate of any other public facility, be it public education or the DMV. But isn't that sense of sunny transportation part of what made those old songs and shows work so well, that sense of leaving your cares behind and stopping in on another world?
Here’s just a small sample of the hundreds of songs Johnny Mercer wrote: Blues In the Night, Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive, Fools Rush In, I’m Old Fashioned, Moon River, One For My Baby (and One More for the Road), Jeepers Creepers, That Old Black Magic, I Want To Be Around To Pick Up the Pieces, By the River Sainte Marie, Lazy Bones…..and on and on….
I went to bed happy and rested.
When I got up this morning it was back to the real world. I fixed a cup of coffee, scanned a few internet news sites and found this gem of a story.
They never stop, do they, that curious bunch of people running the government. It must be in their blood; for night and day, around the clock somebody in a Federal office building is trying to figure how to spend large sums of money. The article in question is a shopping list of goodies tucked into the so-called “Stimulus Plan”, the plan our tax dollars are paying for. Reading the piece I cruised down the page but didn’t notice any golf courses or merry-go-round museums this time, never the less there are some interesting items to be spending money on, regardless of current economic conditions. Here are a couple:
$300 Thousand for a helicopter to track radio active rabbit droppings near a nuke plant. How did we ever get along without that?
$6 Million earmarked for a snow-making machine in Duluth, Minnesota, which needs snow the way Florida needs sunshine or Seattle needs rain.
And, there's $11 Million to build a bridge over a freeway between two Microsoft corporate buildings. How did Microsoft end up with corporate buildings on either side of a freeway? Were they too busy running down the bugs in Windows “Vista” to notice? As a business, Microsoft is famous for “creating more millionaires than any other company in the world.” Okay. Why not get eleven of them to chip in for the bridge and leave taxpayers alone?
But my favorite – gather ‘round fellas – is this one: The Stimulus Bill actually provides the University of Syracuse with $219 Thousand to study “the sex lives of freshman women”. Who do they think they’re kidding? They’ll hang a few sign-up sheets around campus and get a bunch of interested volunteers who will do the research for free. Then, the $219 Thousand will get funneled through to ACORN workers to teach hookers how to cheat on their taxes.
Reading all this at quarter after seven in the morning reminded me of another Mercer song; The Country’s In the Very Best of Hands.
Gone over thirty years but in that homely Southern drawl Johnny Mercer still sings to us from the Great Beyond. Makes me wonder what he could do with material like he'd find today.
Yes, indeedee, "My Mama Done Tol' Me", alright.
Watching this Administration paddle the country toward an economic waterfall is very tiring, especially when you see how persistent they are. It gets a fellow plum tuckered out. There’s only so much you can take.
Last evening, for instance, I was home. While fixing a sandwich I turned on the television, but instead of tuning in to O'Reilly or Hannity I clicked on TCM and found Clint Eastwood’s documentary about songwriter Johnny Mercer. In a few seconds I was hooked. I stood there in the kitchen for an hour and a half and watched the whole thing, start to finish, "from Natchez to Mobile, from Memphis to St. Joe".
It was a very good film, not as good as Johnny Mercer’s songs or Mercer’s own delivery of those songs on the occasions when he sang them himself instead of letting people like Bing Crosby, or Frank Sinatra, or Cab Calloway sing them. Still, it was a very good film. I enjoyed it immensely.
Mercer’s lyrics are so rich, so pleasant and sophisticated in construction that they feel like a warm summer day; like a natural pleasure that we take for granted until its gone and we find ourselves in the cold looking back wondering where it went. They are full of crisp, original observations, of saucy romance and wistful regret, all told with easy Southern humor.
Listening, Mercer’s tunes erased all the concerns in my mind about how those corrupt fixers in Washington are working to rig the American health care system so that it’s a duplicate of any other public facility, be it public education or the DMV. But isn't that sense of sunny transportation part of what made those old songs and shows work so well, that sense of leaving your cares behind and stopping in on another world?
Here’s just a small sample of the hundreds of songs Johnny Mercer wrote: Blues In the Night, Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive, Fools Rush In, I’m Old Fashioned, Moon River, One For My Baby (and One More for the Road), Jeepers Creepers, That Old Black Magic, I Want To Be Around To Pick Up the Pieces, By the River Sainte Marie, Lazy Bones…..and on and on….
I went to bed happy and rested.
When I got up this morning it was back to the real world. I fixed a cup of coffee, scanned a few internet news sites and found this gem of a story.
They never stop, do they, that curious bunch of people running the government. It must be in their blood; for night and day, around the clock somebody in a Federal office building is trying to figure how to spend large sums of money. The article in question is a shopping list of goodies tucked into the so-called “Stimulus Plan”, the plan our tax dollars are paying for. Reading the piece I cruised down the page but didn’t notice any golf courses or merry-go-round museums this time, never the less there are some interesting items to be spending money on, regardless of current economic conditions. Here are a couple:
$300 Thousand for a helicopter to track radio active rabbit droppings near a nuke plant. How did we ever get along without that?
$6 Million earmarked for a snow-making machine in Duluth, Minnesota, which needs snow the way Florida needs sunshine or Seattle needs rain.
And, there's $11 Million to build a bridge over a freeway between two Microsoft corporate buildings. How did Microsoft end up with corporate buildings on either side of a freeway? Were they too busy running down the bugs in Windows “Vista” to notice? As a business, Microsoft is famous for “creating more millionaires than any other company in the world.” Okay. Why not get eleven of them to chip in for the bridge and leave taxpayers alone?
But my favorite – gather ‘round fellas – is this one: The Stimulus Bill actually provides the University of Syracuse with $219 Thousand to study “the sex lives of freshman women”. Who do they think they’re kidding? They’ll hang a few sign-up sheets around campus and get a bunch of interested volunteers who will do the research for free. Then, the $219 Thousand will get funneled through to ACORN workers to teach hookers how to cheat on their taxes.
Reading all this at quarter after seven in the morning reminded me of another Mercer song; The Country’s In the Very Best of Hands.
Gone over thirty years but in that homely Southern drawl Johnny Mercer still sings to us from the Great Beyond. Makes me wonder what he could do with material like he'd find today.
Yes, indeedee, "My Mama Done Tol' Me", alright.
Monday, October 19, 2009
"YOUR INDEPENDENT VOICE IN WASHINGTON"
Let's assume you are a conservative or libertarian-leaning voter, a Constitutionalist if you will. And further, let's assume you live in a Congressional district usually represented by Republicans, but you found conditions last year, or during the ’06 election, to be such that you were open to considering casting your vote elsewhere, rather than for your usual tired choice. I'm not asking for a show of hands, but just between us, does that sound a little familiar? If so, it’s Okay. A lot of us can identify.
On one hand, you wanted a change from the ineffective K Street-compromised Republican Party. But, on the other hand voting for a candidate steeped in the post-modern, big-government Democratic belief system didn’t have much appeal either.
You faced a tough choice. You watched, aghast, while the Republican controlled House ran the deficit up, but you knew that putting Democrats in charge would likely make fiscal problems worse. Similarly, while you were losing patience with the war in Iraq, you were disturbed by the fact that the official Democratic Party was talking openly about packing up and moving the war into Afghanistan. Democrats haven’t run a war-to-win since the days of Give ‘em Hell Harry.
You were appalled by Republican scandals involving everything from sexual impropriety to outright bribery. But in the back of your mind a little voice kept reminding you that Democrats wrote the book when it came to sleaze, whether it was banging interns or stashing envelopes of cash in the freezer. Some of it, back in places like Chicago, was worse than that.
No, the fact was no matter how upset voters had become, many weren’t quite willing to “Vote Democratic.”
Enter, the Blue Dogs.
Democrats, while they may not share in them, at least understand what the nation’s beliefs are. They are constantly polling, market testing and focus-grouping. They understand that this is essentially a conservative-leaning country. They know it but they don't like it. Every time you hear one of them derisively complain about the “hicks” and “rednecks” that run the country, they are, in effect, acknowledging that fact.
Knowing how weary voters were becoming with Republicans, yet realizing the limited appeal the Democratic message has in much of America, Party leaders lead by current White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, went on a talent search. They combed the wobbly toss-up districts looking for nice, straight, church-going, flag-waving Democrats who would not scare-off conservative voters, and who would be willing to run for office. They sought squeaky-clean candidates who might offer a comfortable alternative to simmering Republican discontent on one hand and a plunge into economic radicalism on the other.
One thing I can attest, having worked both sides of the political street over the years, Democrats are a visceral, two-fisted party. No matter what set of beliefs they have followed in any given era of our Nation’s history, be it Jim Crow, the New Deal, Vietnam – at first pro, then anti – or nationalized health care, they are a sharp, hard-case party and have been since the days of Andrew Jackson. I have known Democrats at their best; warm, humorous and steely at the same time. My Dad was a Democrat in his heart until the day he died, although he officially switched with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
The plan Rahm Emanuel presented was simple: The Party supplied cash and campaign expertise, and the candidates, if elected, would be allowed to vote their conscience. All Emanuel claimed to want was a Democratic Majority running things. Thus, beginning with the 2006 election, there were Democrats running for Congress who were pro-life, who were members of the NRA, who knew what running a small business was all about.
This strategy extended the Democratic Party reach beyond Union-dominated wards and dying rust belt cities, beyond Hollywood and the arts-community, beyond the campus ivory towers and up-scale “latte towns”. The independent message of the Blue Dogs carried the Democratic Party right into the heart of the country. These were Democrats who were not at all like the screaming protesters camped out in front of W’s Texas ranch, or the radicals throwing concrete blocks through storefront windows in riots across the nation, or the ones scrawling assassination threats on washroom stalls.
No, these Democrats were presented as a safe, reasonable alternative to the bla-bla-bla of the Republicans. These were Blue Dog Democrats.
And across the nation, in district after district, these candidates looked straight into the television cameras and told voters:
“I will be your independent voice in Washington.”
And it worked, at least as far as getting elected was concerned.
Voters in those Uber-Liberal parts of the country where family-values, so called, are viewed as a quaint memory from America's socially repressive past continued to vote for the usual flock of standard-issue Democrats. No surprises there.
But Blue Dogs helped the Democrats win a bare House majority in '06. Then, when the dust finally settled after the '08 election many more conservative districts elected Blue Dogs. There are now 56 of them in Congress. In fact, they provide entirely the comfortable majority that the Democratic Party now enjoys.
The roots of the original Blue Dog Democrats go back to the mid-1990s when the size and cost of government was an issue that cut across party lines. Their website states:
“The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.”
While the Blue Dogs were effective fifteen years ago in helping get spending under control, balance the budget and trim down government, the fact is that they, like many Republicans (which is another story), have compromised their beliefs. When it comes to challenging modern era core-Democratic doctrine they have lost their bite, and they don’t have much bark left either.
That promise to “vote their conscience”, well, the minute they were sworn in that went away. Twenty-two of the Blue Dogs voted for the job-killing “Cap and Trade” Bill which was supposedly designed to halt Global Warming. And, fifty of them voted “yes” on the pork-packed, ear mark-laden $800 Billion Dollar stimulus bill. The Blue Dogs ran out of gas about the time Independents and restive Republicans voted for them.
Over the last few months health care reform, this Administration's keystone issue, has devolved into a Washington Melodrama. A confusing mess. On one side we see a driven, grimly determined Administration. They are bent on winning at any cost, but they are not explaining "Winning what?" On the other side are a growing list of “enemies”; the “mobs”, the “tea-partiers”, talk radio, Fox News commentators, the greedy doctors and insurance people, along with an increasing majority of the American Population.
“Any nation that can’t maintain clean public restrooms shouldn't try to run a socialized healthcare system,” P. J. O’Rourke said. Many people think he’s on to something. How will this turn out? Hard to say.
Right now as you read this, those Blue Dogs are getting plenty of advice on how to vote when the plan comes up. They are being told that “This bill is too big to let personal opinions about fiscal responsibility or concerns about the proper role of government get in the way. You don’t have to read it, you don’t have to understand it, you don’t have to like it. You just have to vote ‘yes’.” Your “independent voice in Washington” is barely a whisper.
Knowing, as we do, the nature of power politics, especially Chicago power politics which is what we now have in Washington, it is safe to say that these private conversations are especially pointed. It is being intimated to the Blue Dogs that their future personal fortunes and happiness depends on how they vote.
“We know that certain segments of the population do not favor this plan and will work hard to defeat you in next year’s election. If you vote “yes”, you will have our full support. In the event you lose re-election you will be looked after. It is a tough economy out there, you’ll need friends. Your wife and family will need friends. We can see to it that doors are held open for you. We’ll help you find employment; in a federal agency, in a State House, a University, in banking, the auto industry, advertising, some tax-free foundation.
“If you cast any other than a “yes” vote, you will be finished. You will be cut from the herd and shunned.”
In short, the Blue Dogs are not facing a choice on how they wish to vote on health care. They are being offered a choice on what kind of personal future they wish to have.
“Your Independent voice in Washington” is up against it right now. The Blue Dogs didn’t bargain for any of this in the sunnier days of last year’s election or in the warm glow of victory, but that’s what they have got.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. For years books will be written about it.
On one hand, you wanted a change from the ineffective K Street-compromised Republican Party. But, on the other hand voting for a candidate steeped in the post-modern, big-government Democratic belief system didn’t have much appeal either.
You faced a tough choice. You watched, aghast, while the Republican controlled House ran the deficit up, but you knew that putting Democrats in charge would likely make fiscal problems worse. Similarly, while you were losing patience with the war in Iraq, you were disturbed by the fact that the official Democratic Party was talking openly about packing up and moving the war into Afghanistan. Democrats haven’t run a war-to-win since the days of Give ‘em Hell Harry.
You were appalled by Republican scandals involving everything from sexual impropriety to outright bribery. But in the back of your mind a little voice kept reminding you that Democrats wrote the book when it came to sleaze, whether it was banging interns or stashing envelopes of cash in the freezer. Some of it, back in places like Chicago, was worse than that.
No, the fact was no matter how upset voters had become, many weren’t quite willing to “Vote Democratic.”
Enter, the Blue Dogs.
Democrats, while they may not share in them, at least understand what the nation’s beliefs are. They are constantly polling, market testing and focus-grouping. They understand that this is essentially a conservative-leaning country. They know it but they don't like it. Every time you hear one of them derisively complain about the “hicks” and “rednecks” that run the country, they are, in effect, acknowledging that fact.
Knowing how weary voters were becoming with Republicans, yet realizing the limited appeal the Democratic message has in much of America, Party leaders lead by current White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, went on a talent search. They combed the wobbly toss-up districts looking for nice, straight, church-going, flag-waving Democrats who would not scare-off conservative voters, and who would be willing to run for office. They sought squeaky-clean candidates who might offer a comfortable alternative to simmering Republican discontent on one hand and a plunge into economic radicalism on the other.
One thing I can attest, having worked both sides of the political street over the years, Democrats are a visceral, two-fisted party. No matter what set of beliefs they have followed in any given era of our Nation’s history, be it Jim Crow, the New Deal, Vietnam – at first pro, then anti – or nationalized health care, they are a sharp, hard-case party and have been since the days of Andrew Jackson. I have known Democrats at their best; warm, humorous and steely at the same time. My Dad was a Democrat in his heart until the day he died, although he officially switched with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
The plan Rahm Emanuel presented was simple: The Party supplied cash and campaign expertise, and the candidates, if elected, would be allowed to vote their conscience. All Emanuel claimed to want was a Democratic Majority running things. Thus, beginning with the 2006 election, there were Democrats running for Congress who were pro-life, who were members of the NRA, who knew what running a small business was all about.
This strategy extended the Democratic Party reach beyond Union-dominated wards and dying rust belt cities, beyond Hollywood and the arts-community, beyond the campus ivory towers and up-scale “latte towns”. The independent message of the Blue Dogs carried the Democratic Party right into the heart of the country. These were Democrats who were not at all like the screaming protesters camped out in front of W’s Texas ranch, or the radicals throwing concrete blocks through storefront windows in riots across the nation, or the ones scrawling assassination threats on washroom stalls.
No, these Democrats were presented as a safe, reasonable alternative to the bla-bla-bla of the Republicans. These were Blue Dog Democrats.
And across the nation, in district after district, these candidates looked straight into the television cameras and told voters:
“I will be your independent voice in Washington.”
And it worked, at least as far as getting elected was concerned.
Voters in those Uber-Liberal parts of the country where family-values, so called, are viewed as a quaint memory from America's socially repressive past continued to vote for the usual flock of standard-issue Democrats. No surprises there.
But Blue Dogs helped the Democrats win a bare House majority in '06. Then, when the dust finally settled after the '08 election many more conservative districts elected Blue Dogs. There are now 56 of them in Congress. In fact, they provide entirely the comfortable majority that the Democratic Party now enjoys.
The roots of the original Blue Dog Democrats go back to the mid-1990s when the size and cost of government was an issue that cut across party lines. Their website states:
“The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.”
While the Blue Dogs were effective fifteen years ago in helping get spending under control, balance the budget and trim down government, the fact is that they, like many Republicans (which is another story), have compromised their beliefs. When it comes to challenging modern era core-Democratic doctrine they have lost their bite, and they don’t have much bark left either.
That promise to “vote their conscience”, well, the minute they were sworn in that went away. Twenty-two of the Blue Dogs voted for the job-killing “Cap and Trade” Bill which was supposedly designed to halt Global Warming. And, fifty of them voted “yes” on the pork-packed, ear mark-laden $800 Billion Dollar stimulus bill. The Blue Dogs ran out of gas about the time Independents and restive Republicans voted for them.
Over the last few months health care reform, this Administration's keystone issue, has devolved into a Washington Melodrama. A confusing mess. On one side we see a driven, grimly determined Administration. They are bent on winning at any cost, but they are not explaining "Winning what?" On the other side are a growing list of “enemies”; the “mobs”, the “tea-partiers”, talk radio, Fox News commentators, the greedy doctors and insurance people, along with an increasing majority of the American Population.
“Any nation that can’t maintain clean public restrooms shouldn't try to run a socialized healthcare system,” P. J. O’Rourke said. Many people think he’s on to something. How will this turn out? Hard to say.
Right now as you read this, those Blue Dogs are getting plenty of advice on how to vote when the plan comes up. They are being told that “This bill is too big to let personal opinions about fiscal responsibility or concerns about the proper role of government get in the way. You don’t have to read it, you don’t have to understand it, you don’t have to like it. You just have to vote ‘yes’.” Your “independent voice in Washington” is barely a whisper.
Knowing, as we do, the nature of power politics, especially Chicago power politics which is what we now have in Washington, it is safe to say that these private conversations are especially pointed. It is being intimated to the Blue Dogs that their future personal fortunes and happiness depends on how they vote.
“We know that certain segments of the population do not favor this plan and will work hard to defeat you in next year’s election. If you vote “yes”, you will have our full support. In the event you lose re-election you will be looked after. It is a tough economy out there, you’ll need friends. Your wife and family will need friends. We can see to it that doors are held open for you. We’ll help you find employment; in a federal agency, in a State House, a University, in banking, the auto industry, advertising, some tax-free foundation.
“If you cast any other than a “yes” vote, you will be finished. You will be cut from the herd and shunned.”
In short, the Blue Dogs are not facing a choice on how they wish to vote on health care. They are being offered a choice on what kind of personal future they wish to have.
“Your Independent voice in Washington” is up against it right now. The Blue Dogs didn’t bargain for any of this in the sunnier days of last year’s election or in the warm glow of victory, but that’s what they have got.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. For years books will be written about it.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
HAIRCUT
“Never trust a barber who says you need a haircut", Anonymous
The wisdom offered in that quote seems pretty obvious. The referenced barber isn’t thinking about what you need. He’s thinking about what he needs.
I recalled this recently while watching a couple government officials on television tell each other how much America needs that nebulously defined Health Care Reform bill or what-ever-it-is that’s in those 1,114 pages. Notice, by the way, they keep telling us how much we need it, but they don’t tell us what’s in it. We have to depend on other sources for that.
A little hint came just the other day. An insurance industry group hired one of the Big-Four accounting firms, Price Waterhouse - Coopers, to work up some numbers on how much the plan will potentially cost individuals in additional annual health care expense – that is, money on top of what people already pay. On Monday morning, October 12th, they released their report: $1,700 – $4,000 per year was the range of numbers I heard. By 10:00am, the White House was firing back. Without refuting the claim, spokesperson Linda Douglas called the report “self-serving”.
“It comes on the eve of a vote that will reduce the industry’s profits,” she said.
The Administration was eager to shoot the messenger, but it didn’t sound like anyone had read the report and double-checked the figures, just to be sure.
Consequently, while the insurance business got bashed around some more, their numbers, $1,700 - $4,000 remained standing. If the problem with health care is the expense, why is fixing the problem going to result in even more expense? Again, no answer.
In Washington, in the back rooms where the deals are made, the word “haircut” is a euphemism. A fly on the wall during recent Senate Finance Committee meetings might have heard the word used in a sentence like “In order to pay for all of this we’re going to have to give Joe Public a ‘haircut’” or, “We need to carve out a 'doughnut' for Nevada because the Senate Majority leader will not allow the people of his state to take a ‘haircut’”.
No, “haircut” is not a happy word. Nor does it imply that Joe Public will have any say in the matter. That’s the distressing part.
Examples of the “haircut” can take various forms and are found at all levels of government. Basically, it is the legal deal elected officials concoct that trims, even scalps, one individual or group in order to pay for some program or project that benefits some other. Invariably, that “other” is connected to the politicians doing the barbering.
While the scale of operation changes to suit the level of government involved, the step-by-step procedure involved is generally the same.
So, to illustrate in a way that puts the meaning of the word in our own backyards, let us suppose that within recent memory you’ve received a “haircut” from your local municipal government.
If you were paying close attention to the play-by-play, perhaps events transpired something like this: The majority on your Town Council got cozy with a developer. They let a choice piece of property slip away to become part of the developer’s proposed strip mall or apartment complex. People in your community got wind of what was in store and began attending Council meetings and asking questions, much like those who attended the “Town Hall” meetings and Tea Parties of recent months. You joined neighbors and wrote letters, signed petitions, and hosted meetings of your own, all to no avail. In effect, you spoke, but were not heard. You found yourselves on the receiving end of some bad publicly in your local Gazette. You were vilified as a mob of selfish, no-growth NIMBYs who want local schools to crumble. Council clearly had their minds made up from the start. It was a done- deal. When the official vote was taken you and your community were on the losing end.
“It was a tough vote,” you were all told in consolation. “But there were just too many benefits to turn down.”
Then, a year or so later, after things had progressed, you learned that it was worse than you imagined: Yes, trees were cut down, and there was increased noise and congestion, and the promised tax benefits never quite materialized – just as you and other residents had predicted. But you had no idea how much worse it was going to be. It turned out State Law mandates that you and other taxpayers are going to have to pony up for new fire engine in order to service that new development. Not only will traffic lights will have to be added to accommodate the increased traffic, but the main street through town will have to be widened. And, now, due to all the construction, every time it rains back yards flood.
Yes, this is a small-scale hypothetical case, but events exactly like this happen in communities every day. This is an illustration of the classic “haircut”. Somebody with connections gets the gold mine, and the general public gets the shaft.
But, when we talk about health care reform we are not talking about some ill-conceived comb-over that leads to traffic snarls and a bump in property taxes. We are talking about a big-government imposed “fix” that, once enacted, will pretty much be set in bureaucratic stone. The “haircut” we need to be concerned with is the Big Haircut that is barreling through both houses of Congress, headed for a rubber-stamp vote by Thanksgiving and a nice signing ceremony by Christmas.
It is impossible for anything as massive as comprehensive health care reform to be properly planned in this kind of hurry. If we’re going to fix America’s health care problems, we need to do it right. Congress needs to post all information and answer all the questions. This is one haircut where the old physician’s rule should apply: First, do no harm.
The wisdom offered in that quote seems pretty obvious. The referenced barber isn’t thinking about what you need. He’s thinking about what he needs.
I recalled this recently while watching a couple government officials on television tell each other how much America needs that nebulously defined Health Care Reform bill or what-ever-it-is that’s in those 1,114 pages. Notice, by the way, they keep telling us how much we need it, but they don’t tell us what’s in it. We have to depend on other sources for that.
A little hint came just the other day. An insurance industry group hired one of the Big-Four accounting firms, Price Waterhouse - Coopers, to work up some numbers on how much the plan will potentially cost individuals in additional annual health care expense – that is, money on top of what people already pay. On Monday morning, October 12th, they released their report: $1,700 – $4,000 per year was the range of numbers I heard. By 10:00am, the White House was firing back. Without refuting the claim, spokesperson Linda Douglas called the report “self-serving”.
“It comes on the eve of a vote that will reduce the industry’s profits,” she said.
The Administration was eager to shoot the messenger, but it didn’t sound like anyone had read the report and double-checked the figures, just to be sure.
Consequently, while the insurance business got bashed around some more, their numbers, $1,700 - $4,000 remained standing. If the problem with health care is the expense, why is fixing the problem going to result in even more expense? Again, no answer.
In Washington, in the back rooms where the deals are made, the word “haircut” is a euphemism. A fly on the wall during recent Senate Finance Committee meetings might have heard the word used in a sentence like “In order to pay for all of this we’re going to have to give Joe Public a ‘haircut’” or, “We need to carve out a 'doughnut' for Nevada because the Senate Majority leader will not allow the people of his state to take a ‘haircut’”.
No, “haircut” is not a happy word. Nor does it imply that Joe Public will have any say in the matter. That’s the distressing part.
Examples of the “haircut” can take various forms and are found at all levels of government. Basically, it is the legal deal elected officials concoct that trims, even scalps, one individual or group in order to pay for some program or project that benefits some other. Invariably, that “other” is connected to the politicians doing the barbering.
While the scale of operation changes to suit the level of government involved, the step-by-step procedure involved is generally the same.
So, to illustrate in a way that puts the meaning of the word in our own backyards, let us suppose that within recent memory you’ve received a “haircut” from your local municipal government.
If you were paying close attention to the play-by-play, perhaps events transpired something like this: The majority on your Town Council got cozy with a developer. They let a choice piece of property slip away to become part of the developer’s proposed strip mall or apartment complex. People in your community got wind of what was in store and began attending Council meetings and asking questions, much like those who attended the “Town Hall” meetings and Tea Parties of recent months. You joined neighbors and wrote letters, signed petitions, and hosted meetings of your own, all to no avail. In effect, you spoke, but were not heard. You found yourselves on the receiving end of some bad publicly in your local Gazette. You were vilified as a mob of selfish, no-growth NIMBYs who want local schools to crumble. Council clearly had their minds made up from the start. It was a done- deal. When the official vote was taken you and your community were on the losing end.
“It was a tough vote,” you were all told in consolation. “But there were just too many benefits to turn down.”
Then, a year or so later, after things had progressed, you learned that it was worse than you imagined: Yes, trees were cut down, and there was increased noise and congestion, and the promised tax benefits never quite materialized – just as you and other residents had predicted. But you had no idea how much worse it was going to be. It turned out State Law mandates that you and other taxpayers are going to have to pony up for new fire engine in order to service that new development. Not only will traffic lights will have to be added to accommodate the increased traffic, but the main street through town will have to be widened. And, now, due to all the construction, every time it rains back yards flood.
Yes, this is a small-scale hypothetical case, but events exactly like this happen in communities every day. This is an illustration of the classic “haircut”. Somebody with connections gets the gold mine, and the general public gets the shaft.
But, when we talk about health care reform we are not talking about some ill-conceived comb-over that leads to traffic snarls and a bump in property taxes. We are talking about a big-government imposed “fix” that, once enacted, will pretty much be set in bureaucratic stone. The “haircut” we need to be concerned with is the Big Haircut that is barreling through both houses of Congress, headed for a rubber-stamp vote by Thanksgiving and a nice signing ceremony by Christmas.
It is impossible for anything as massive as comprehensive health care reform to be properly planned in this kind of hurry. If we’re going to fix America’s health care problems, we need to do it right. Congress needs to post all information and answer all the questions. This is one haircut where the old physician’s rule should apply: First, do no harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
