Fox News to public: If anyone out there still takes us seriously, we'll show YOU!

Welcome back dear fans. It's been a while and though I did miss all three of you, it's Fox News that brought me back.

In case there was anyone out there who still took them seriously, they hired WHO?! You've got to be FKM! I get that networks hire folks with ratings in mind, but no real NEWS network would do that to the point of hiring someone completely unqualified to read news, would they? Oh wait, nevermind, it's Fox. Of course they would because they don't expect to be taken seriously.

I joked during the presidential election that I was more qualified to be a vice president than Fox's newest commentator, but geez ow! If you're here, reading this, then this time you know this 'blog alone is proof that I'm not joking when I say I think I've really got her beat in the qualifications department. You betcha.

Think about it:

-I spout off un- or ill-formed opinions with little basis in reality

-I used to be able to see Canada from my back porch

-I once edited a newspaper

-I'm professionally trained in communications

True, I'm no Joe Beercan. I'm happily married. My spouse has a degree and a better job than I do and no one in our family has supported a bridge to nowhere or been involved in domestic disputes. I was never in a beauty contest. I'm actually a veteran. In fact, I prefer thinking for myself... occasionally even before I speak!

Now, I should mention (not in the name of fairness, cuz let's face it, that has no business anywhere near this discussion) that Mrs. Palin and I do have some things in common. I've already mentioned the thinking for myself and the being able to see a foreign country from the back porch, but there 's more. I too once ran for a local public office. I too questioned why Americans should be sent to Iraq (though I wasn't referring only to an immediate family member at the time). I too believe in smaller government, although my version of it would mean gov't keeping its hands out of our wombs and weddings and coroporate sponsorship... and maybe out of marijuana enforcement! I too believe in evolution, no wait....

Look, I'm sure Mrs. Palin is a great gal and just like W, she's probably great to have a beer with, but if that's the qualification for high profile jobs these days, then I went to college with some great potential commentators and U.S. presidents even if some of them never finished. In fact many of the ones who were most fun to have a beer with didn't make it past Thanksgiving of our freshman year!

I also understand that both Fox and Palin have their loyal followers - MILLIONS on Twitter!! - but this really comes down to one of those things where you can't have it both ways. Either Fox News is serious about being a news channel, or they're not. If they were serious, they'd hire professional journalists rather than just ratings grabbers. Likewise, I think the Republicans need to decide if they're serious about a candidate to run against Obama. If they think like Fox, they can only be serious about giving Obama a second term!

Luth,

Out

If Obama said it, it's wrong

"...the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties."

Judge William Young said this to shoe bomber, Richard Reid, before sentencing him to several life sentences for attempting to blow up an American passenger plane with plastic explosives in his shoes. Here's how we treated him: humanely... including a fair trial, defense, the whole nine. The life sentences prevented him from becoming a martyr and this example of American justice did more to unite the nation and the world than just about anything since. And then, just as Judge Young predicted, we all forgot all about it.

The rest of Judge Young's speech is available here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/31/reid.transcript/ I defy you to read it without getting goosebumps... without being proud of this country and how our justice system - not "revenge" system - represents us. It's even available on Snopes.com too 'cuz apparently not too many people believe in our justice system enough to believe this story can be true. At the time, Rudy Giuliani believed in it wholeheartedly. Jeff Sessions praised the outcome as well.

A few years later, 9/11 co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, fell victim to a similar example of American justice. Again, his tirade at the judge was ignored, a jury spared him the death penalty and he too was prevented from being held up as a martyer among his supporters, and in spite of our having invaded Iraq in the time between these two trials, many throughout the world felt these verdicts were a true symbol of what America is really about: freedom, fairness, individual justice, to use Judge Young's words.

Giuliani praised both verdicts, although he did say he thought Moussaoui should have been sentenced to death, but he had no qualms with both trials being held in civilian courts. (He apparently wanted to grant Moussaoui martyrdom) As a matter of fact, Senator Sessions praised the outcomes of both trials as well. Now they've changed their minds about trying terrorists in U.S. Courts. As have a lot of others from their camp.

So tell me: what's changed other than the fact that the guy suggesting Moussaoui's boss be tried in a civilian court is an Obama appointee?

I hate to play the cynic card here but let's face it, justice IS what the American justice system says it is. Something tells me legal technicalities won't get this guy off. For that matter, military trials have their own brand of technicalities as well. Sessions is either naive or stupid to suggest we can't predict an outcome to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial. I'll give Sessions the "naive" option if he really believes otherwise, but he's stupid for forcing us to admit it up front.

So let's just admit it now: if KSM gets the same treatment as Moussaoui and Reid, (and Vegas odds say he will) and especially if the judge is able to rip off a Young-like speech at the sentencing hearing, all will agree it's a great idea. The only thing stopping some people from admitting it now is that the idea came from the Obama camp.

That's starting to get old.

Luth

Out

Fair and Balanced White House Press Policy

As a teenager, I was a bit of a rebellious sort. I spent most of my idle time pushing the boundaries of what a kid might get away with without actually breaking any laws or at least without getting caught. At some point I learned that when you live your life dangerously close to those boundaries, a lot of people are watching you just waiting for you to slip over that line, no matter how innocently or accidentally. When you do, they pounce and make an example of you.

It’s not necessarily fair… ok, maybe it is fair. After all, while the slip may have been innocent and accidental, toeing the line was very much on purpose! Either way, the reaction is certainly to be expected. One might even say I was asking for it. No adult wants to be made a fool by some smart assed high school kid! And you can bet that if you practice like I did, there’s someone practicing just as hard to nail your ass at the first opportunity. Tough lesson, maybe, but one we tend to have to learn for ourselves.

That’s what happened with Fox News’s access to the White House. And since Fox News, ostensibly, is comprised of grown-ups who should have learned this lesson at least back when I did, I’m a little surprised at their whining about it.

Sure, there are fans of Fox out there who will argue that this is a form of censorship, or ask, “who are they to determine what a ‘news agency’ is or who produces ‘real news?!’” But there’s an easy answer to that one… THEY are the White House Press Secretary, and determining who is and isn’t a legitimate news agency and thus who gets access to the White House – whether they are right or wrong about it – is exactly “their” job.

But there’s also another, simple answer even if a number of folks won’t to hear it: Fox really is no more a news agency than The Daily Show or The National Enquirer. Do they have White House access?

IMHO, this particular press secretary isn’t guilty of any of the things of which Fox fans accuse him. He simply said out loud what a lot of folks, including Fox, per their own propaganda, have known but been afraid to say for a long time. They enjoyed quite a run, but it’s finally ended. They can now choose to drop their single-minded agenda and operate as a real news agency, or they can assume their rightful place among the other less-than actual news agencies.

Don’t buy that? Here’s the argument:

Fox was created, by their own account, to counter what they perceived as a liberal bias among mainstream media. This bias however, only existed if Fox twisted what was actually meant by the word “liberal” as it applies to the media. Here’s what I mean by that: as applied to the press, “liberal” is actually a fundamental requirement of journalists… or should be. It means that a reporter extends all the rights of citizenship to the subject of his or her story. It means assuming a suspect’s innocence until that suspect is proven guilty. It means reporting the facts of a story and accounting for as many possible perspectives on it as may exist. It means NOT creating a story where there is none, making oneself the story, or pushing an agenda onto the story or shaping the story to fit an agenda.

This kind of fundamental journalism is sometimes perceived as having undue sympathy toward a suspect or subject of a big story, but it’s actually rather patriotic to assume a fellow citizen should be given the rights and protections promised in our Constitution. You’d think Fox would be all over that, but no, they weren’t. Instead they played upon this notion that a well-trained reporter is overly sympathetic to the evils that plague society (simply because that reporter didn’t act as judge, jury and executioner). This play on the real meaning of liberal was then mixed in with how the word also tends to be associated with a particular political party and wham, bam, Fox’s self-professed reason for existing translates into them being a tool of the Republican Party.

First they twist the definition of liberal (as it applied to journalism) into a political meaning, then they falsely assert that when folks describe journalists as liberals, folks mean “Democratic-leaning” (a premise neither proved nor accepted) and they then use this overly simplified and invalid argument to justify their Republican propaganda. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. They’ve done it for years. Most of the time they brag about doing it. I was initially impressed by the balls it took to try to get away with it.

In fact, I’d be completely sympathetic to there being just another opinion out there or another perspective on a particular news story, but that’s not what Fox says they do. They say, “we’re bringing our bias… to counter someone else’s bias, but still, we’re biased… we admit it, hell, we brag about it. It’s been our business model for years. We’ve succeeded on it as a form of entertainment to the point where our market share allowed to us into the real news arena and before anyone realized what was going on, our news people were right beside the network news people at all the big events! And then, because we’d portrayed this false “left-leaning bias” myth for so long, folks were afraid to point out that we weren’t ever really a “news” organization except in the sense that we reported bad news about Dems and good news about Repubs and there we were. Deal with us.”

But the Obama White House, bringing the change they promised, dealt with it.

Sorry boys, your charade is over. You can argue that the White House can’t tell the difference between opinion pieces and regular news all you want. Just like you can’t shake the Devil’s hand and say you’re only kidding - if Glenn and Rush and Bill and folks like them dominate your airtime, then they are what your network represents just as stories about fallen celebrities and alien probes ARE what the Enquirer represents.

It’s not a matter of the White House getting to decide what is or isn’t real news (although that IS the job of the White House Press Secretary) it’s about Fox getting away with being so close to the line for so long that they forgot there was a line until they got caught standing way on the other side of it. You sowed, you reaped. Congrats. Now quit yer whinin’

Luth

Out

Ohio's Gamble

If we saved all the money that the two sides on the Ohio gambling issue have spent in the last (what seems like) 20 elections, we probably wouldn't have a recession in Ohio. My favorite pro-gambling commercial shows two "corn-fed" (typical, healthy) middle-aged Ohio women sitting on a tour bus explaining that they're old high school classmates and that they've been getting together for years for this gambling trip to a neighboring state.

They make clear that they are upstanding, moral citizens (though they stop just short of calling themselves good Christians) who think it's silly that they have to take their money elsewhere for this annual get together.

It's cute, probably effective but it just emphasizes that the money behind it and the pro-gambling side comes from deep, generally out of Ohio pockets and thus, that most of the profits from any future legalized gambling here will end up back in those already deep, out of Ohio pockets.

I don't care about any of that. If you want to toss your money away in a casino, more power to ya... and yeah, I feel for you having to drive all that way to do it. Maybe you should be able to do it in Ohio. What do I care - as long as it's not in my neighborhood because I do know that I do not want my neighborhood to end up looking like the neighborhoods surrounding the strip in Vegas or Atlantic City, but there are plenty of places in Ohio where even THAT would be an improvement. The only concern I have is that details in this and past proposals seem to favor a specific out of state company who already has permits in place for construction that may never happen. That just strikes me as a little odd... a little not right.

But the real reason I'm posting about this commercial is because of a thought that makes me laugh every time I see it. Whenever I hear these two women pleading their innocence and the absurdity of having to drive elsewhere to gamble, I can't help but projecting other stories of "vice" into that commercial. I had hoped to find time to actually write little screenplays for my own versions, but that ain't gonna happen so instead, I'll just drop some little variants proposals on you and see if maybe it doesn't make you think about the topic before you vote in a couple of weeks:

OK, so instead of two middle aged women dressed conservatively, casually, riding a nice charter bus to Indiana or Detroit/Windsor or Erie or Buffalo to gamble... picture this:

Two slacker college kids on a flight bound for Amsterdam where they must fly to buy good, legal pot. They'd love to spend their money vacationing right here in Cleveland, but, darn it, the prudes here in the US won't legalize it so all that money and all those jobs are only on the other side of the ocean. If only we could pass issue 3 and keep that money and those jobs right here in Ohio!

Or how about two business men on a flight to Tokyo, Frankfurt (or maybe even parts of Nevada, Honduras, Mexico?? I really don't know much about this issue) because these two high school classmates, husbands, fathers, upstanding community members, active in local community organizations, just can't find local, legal prostitutes in Ohio like they can elsewhere. If we could all join them in passing issue 69, they could keep their money and all those jobs right here in Ohio! How silly is it that they must fly overseas or out of state for their once a year prostitute weekends?!

I'm sure you get the picture by now but let's throw one more in there: This time 4 friends wait on a small, remote, rural air strip in Texas as a less than poorly maintained looking commuter plane makes its approach to land. As the plane taxis toward the 4 guys they explain how they went to college together and now all have families and responsibilities - they're great guys! - who get together once a year for this trip to Columbia... just to maintain the bond of their friendship... and to snort coke all weekend long. They'd love to be able to do this back in Ohio, supporting small business airports, dealers, hotels and restaurants, but those darned prudes in Ohio just won't legalize coke and bring up to 50,000 jobs back to the heartland. Join these 4 guys in voting YES on issue 3. Bring those jobs back to Ohio!

As I mentioned, I have no moral qualms with legalizing gambling in Ohio... or drugs or prostitution for that matter! Just as long as it's not in my backyard. AND like most of my conservative friends, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on that matter and just buy a big enough backyard that I don't have to worry about it. After all, why should government tell us what kind of business we should run. We're capitalists and we oppose big government/socialist intervention!

If gambling is good enough to provide fundraising for schools and churches, it's good enough for the rest of us and big gov should keep its hands off!

Luth

Out

Peggy Venable's Flawed Complaint

Check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/03/peggy-venable-obama-speech-school-children/

…or rather, let me save you some time…

Aside from sounding like a letter you might read on the local paper opinion page during that time of year when high school government students are required to write a letter to the editor, there are a number of salient flaws in an opinion piece Fox news ran from former Reagan education liaison, Peggy Venable.

First of all, her “professional” opinion assures her, with certainty, that what Obama proposes in his school visits is “indoctrination” and “an abuse of power.”  This is based on a suggested lesson plan the president’s education staff has forwarded to schools wherein the following questions might be posed for discussion:

-why should we listen to elected officials?

-why is what they say important?

Ms. Venable, I hate to break this to you but:

1) Asking questions for discussion is NOT indoctrination or an abuse of power. In fact, most people would argue that discussions (especially rational ones, as opposed to fallacy or repeated BS) foster just the opposite of abuses of power or indoctrination and...

2) This lesson plan is merely offered to schools who CHOOSE to use it after CHOOSING to air the president’s speech to their students. (choice is generally considered antithetical to indoctrination)

Venable claims that schools never used to encourage kids to respect the president. 

Let that sink in for a minute.  Read it again.  

Never used to encourage kids to respect the president?  

Someone’s been drinking too much Kool-Aid!  And as long as I’m dropping clichés, may I go so far as to say that the conservatives have officially jumped the shark?

Unless she grew up in some liberal enclave or a commune, I seriously doubt this is consistent with her experience.  I’m not saying she’s lying, necessarily, but only that she apparently missed out on anything public education did since George Washington was our president.  Kids have ALWAYS been encouraged to respect the president in school.  I don't ever recall that being considered indoctrination even if it was.  It's nothing new.  

Furthermore, many presidents have spoken in public schools before and to say Obama is the first to do so with an ulterior motive is selective memory at its best. (or would that be worst?)  Wasn’t that W reading to kids while the Twin Towers were felled on his watch?  Are you suggesting, Ms. Venable, that they ran out of substitutes that day and called in the president since he's a public employee anyway?!  (Hint:  NO, dumbass, he was there for the photo opp, an ulterior motive! in support of his No Child Left Behind agenda)

Venable claims that rather than schools teaching kids to be obedient to elected officials, they should teach that “our system is based on the rule of law, and a robust tradition of loyal opposition, not blind support for the president in power.”  Seems like just a few years ago, a retired General Clark was chastised, characterized as a disgruntled former employee of the W Administration for suggesting such blasphemy!

She’s sounding awfully liberal for a Fox opinon page contributor.  In fact, if that’s not liberal enough for you, check out this entitlement-laden plea in her final paragraphs:

“All parents should be able to make the choice Obama made for his own children to send them to a private school if that best suits their needs. Until that day happens...”  (cuz, you know, lots of parents are the first black family in the White House and share similar secret service security concerns, right?)

Whoa there!  What’s with this “until that day” crap?  Wouldn’t the conservative response to this quote normally be something like:  that day HAS come… every parent HAS that option right now… it’s called get a job, pay the tuition and your kid CAN go to a private school.  Ms. Venable seems to suggest that all kids are ENTITLED to have their private school tuition paid by someone else… which would make it kind of like public school, socialist even.  But she’d never suggest that, would she?

I feel bad for these people whose memories are so short and who have been so indoctrinated by their party of hate propaganda that nothing this president ever does will be good enough for them… and that no amount of absurdism can ever be detected in their own illogical bile.

I hope I’ve firmly established that I too have some problems with the current administration’s proposals (cap & trade is a waste of $ and effort for what it MIGHT deliver decades from now and to go $1.8 trillion in debt by the end of the year for it and a severe compromise on healthcare reform is outrageous), but c’mon… if the best you can do is find new ways to use words like “socialism” or “indoctrination” in an article about a president’s attempt to make a visit to schools more than just a photo opp, then grow the F up. 

He’s OUR president now.  America… love it or leave it.  Remember that?  I heard it a lot during the 2000-2008 stretch.  How about some constructive criticism rather than sound bite sniping.  How about respectfully tolerating some new ideas until it’s time to vote again.  How about remembering that in this civilized country, we rule by ballot box, peaceful assembly, debate, compromise, democracy… you know... all that crap these folks seemingly want to do away with all of a sudden.

Now that I think about it, maybe the fact that someone who writes a letter like this served on the Reagan administration as a White House Liaison to the Dept. of Education explains why she so favors private education now!

Luth

Out

War is cheap compared to Obama's plan

Up until recently, I couldn't figure out why Repubs were so concerned with spending all of the sudden when they'd backed the lighting afire of so many billions for so many years in Iraq.  After all, a lot of what Obama is spending is simply the clean up costs of the 8-year bash we all enjoyed since 2000.   

Strangely, I recently ran across an old college chum who just happens to have served on Bush 43's Council of Economic Advisors.  Since we were roomies many years ago, I'd had plenty of civilized, if not always sober discussions with him on issues far more complex than I'd ever run into in the classroom back in those days.  So I asked him: what's up with this short memory?  I promised I'd save the debate for when we next had a beverage together, that I was truly curious to hear his much better informed opinion on this issue.

Before he could answer, and in fact, about the time I figured I wouldn't hear from him again for another 15 years, I ran across this article:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

(sorry, you'll have to cut and paste it... I'm still too lazy to paste in the code to make it a link)

Anyhoo, what this article points out is that while W left office with a $500 billion deficit after his 8 years, and yes, that's SPENDING, so it includes the un-budgeted war costs as well as the budgeted stuff, Obama proposes $1.75 TRILLION THIS YEAR.  (The CBO predicts $1.85 trillion, but what's a hundred billion between friends... let's give big O the benefit of the doubt here)

As promised, Obama predicts cutting THAT deficit in half by 2012, trimming it down to a nice lean $600 billion.  Which, for those of you who can't think beyond a sound bite or remember three paragraphs ago, is still $100 billion more than the what W left him in terms of deficit.  So far, I'm cool with that... progress ain't cheap.

Now I know what you're thinking:  give him a second term and that will take care of it... he'll leave office with the budget evened up again.   (or, more likely, you're thinking, did Luth fall down and bump his head?!)  WROOONG! (on both)  Projected out to 2016, O's own numbers approach $700 billion while the CBO's projection reaches $900 billion.  In fact, O's friends at the Heritage Foundation and Washington Post project the results of his spending out to 2019 (not sure why or how) where it locks in at around $1.2 trillion, breaking the "t" barrier once again.

That's a lot of dough.  

If I knew it would buy my kids and their kids healthcare or electric cars or jobs, I might be willing to risk what that would do to what's left of our economy, but if we've pulled the public option off the table and I still can't buy a half ton pickup with a 4-cylinder diesel engine that gets 20 mpg while towing, I'm out.  I don't see what's in it for me.  I still like the fact that the current guy with the launch codes can actually pronounce the word nuclear.  I still like him better than the last guy, but liking the guy won't get him another vote in 2012.  I know when to jump off the runaway train.

The last time I was in Windsor, Ontario, I was amazed at how much it resembled the midwest. I could live there... the other side of Lake Erie is almost as cool as this side!  Or Tirennia, Italy, now there's a coastal town for me!  

Luth,

Out

Socialize It

The last great Republican, Abe Lincoln, said the nation needed, “…to care for him who shall have born the battle and his widow and his orphan."

 President Lincoln was talking about socialized medicine for veterans.  In fact, he rattled off a list of a number of functions a government should provide for its people.

 The biggest problem with Obama’s proposed healthcare solution is that he’s dropped a single-payer, government-run option from the list – it’s not socialized enough.  That’s right, I’m talking all out socialist, government-run healthcare, not an insurance plan or government managed HMO type thing, but actual public healthcare, just like VHA here in America, and like just about every other civilized country in the world.   Not only do effective government-run programs exist as a model for this, but history has taught us that our for-profit system doesn’t serve the vast majority of users very well.

 Before you go repeating what someone told you about how the government can’t run anything, consider a few real life examples: 

1.  VHA – the nation’s highest quality, most efficient healthcare system

2.  The USPS – still the cheapest way to get a letter across the nation and self-sustaining

3.  public schools

4.  roads, bridges, electrical, water and sewer infrastructure

 Not only have these government created, run or maintained examples served us well, but no one has come along offering a better option at a better price.  I hear the murmurs already about how crappy our public school system is and yet its graduates are still the best educated people in the world.  It’s the one thing immigrants still come to this country to take part in.  Despite all the whining about it, no private options, charter schools or other wacko reform movements have come along to successfully replace it on a massive scale.  Sure there have been exceptions here and there, but none have played by the same rules, and served the massive range of students that the public schools have served.  

 I can also hear the murmurs about how crazy USPS employees are but that’s a cheap argument based on anecdotal incidents.  In fact, the USPS example also demonstrates that public and private entities can work together in a free market.  FedEx, UPS and other parcel delivery and expediting services coexist quite nicely with the USPS.  So the argument against that is a fallacy as well. 

 Once you cut through the bull you have to admit that a for-profit system of healthcare will do exactly as it has and get us exactly what we’ve got: max profit, minimal healthcare, minimal control, minimal choice.  It would be easier to accept if any of that profit went to or if any of the actual decision making on how to spend it was actually made by health care professionals but no, sadly, that’s not the case.  It goes to insurance companies, claims processing companies, drug companies, who have shown us over the last 20 years where their priorities are.  Hint:  It’s not keeping you healthy.

 I’m not opposed to anyone earning a profit, but if conservatives who cite Adam Smith as their bright star of free markets and laissez-faire would actually read what he said, they’d understand that he too advocated for government-provided services.  He noted a distinction between services and products and often favored governments as providers of commonly used services.  The idea that government should be the provider of certain services is rarely questioned when it comes to things that the right doesn’t want to have to pay for: cleaning up their environmental messes, hiding their profits offshore, building roads, power grids and other infrastructure that allows them to get rich.

 So if government sponsored services like roads and other infrastructure are best left to government, then why is healthcare any different.  Consider the approach to healthcare most providers/insurance companies take today:  sell services that maximize profit in the short term without regard to a patient’s health in the long term.  After all, the typical patient’s long term health will be someone else’s problem as soon as he loses his job or changes jobs and falls under a new insurance provider.  Under this model, providers have no incentive to invest in long term wellness, computerized records, or even fixing the obvious flaws in their own systems. 

 A single payer on the other hand knows that the overall wellness of a patient over the long haul will be cheaper for them AND better for the patient. 

 I’m not saying we should hand over VHA care to all Americans, but it does serve as a model of how healthcare could work in this country – the only remaining developed country (and the richest) where public healthcare is not an option.  So before you believe the horror stories about public healthcare, make sure you’ve also heard from the satisfied customers. 

 VHA isn’t the only socialized medicine in America that customers are happy with.  Here’s an article titled, “Hey, Don’t Save Me From Government Healthcare,” by an actual Army troop who claims that his government-run TriCare plan is great:

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/hey-dont-save-me-from-gov_b_264098.html 

 Don’t buy the crap about Canada or England either.  For every horror story anecdote you hear repeated over and over, there are thousands of quietly content customers.  We even sneak into Canada and Mexico to use their pharmacies!  How pathetic must our open market be? And both countries rank well above America when it comes to the healthcare available to their citizens.

 Remember, the status quo being defended right now is a system that was ranked 37th in the world… just two countries ahead of Cuba… by the World Health Organization.  CUBA!  That’s right, the richest nation in the world can’t even provide healthcare –for those who still can afford it- better than Fidel Castro has provided the people of Cuba. And that’s what we’re defending now?!  Here are some other places who rank well ahead of us:  Oman, Costa Rica, Columbia!?  Malta, France… you know how we love to hate them.  I guess we hate them for their healthcare freedom!

 Listen, the right will tell you that this is just one more attempt for government to interfere with and control your lives and force you to give up specific freedoms.  Don’t believe the concept and don’t believe the confessor.  They’ll quote an old Reagan speech wherein the actor/president spelled out this very sales pitch.  But think about the freedoms we’ve given up, or rather, that the right has given up for us.  We gave up the right to private phone calls overseas under the right’s rule.  We gave up the right of habeus corpus under the right’s rule.  Some Americans gave up the right to a speedy trial or the protections against illegal search, seizure and imprisonment.  We gave our lives over to the nation’s largest corporations.  Then their CEOs, under reduced regulation at the hands of the right, ran off with our life savings.  Let’s not forget that it was still under the right’s rule that we then PAID for this privilege with the first wave of bailouts!  ALL under the right’s rule.

I’m not sure what kind of freedom President Reagan was talking about Perhaps it comes from the same mythical source as the right’s arbitrary ideas on morality and family values.  Perhaps he meant the freedom to go bankrupt the next time you get sick.  Perhaps he meant the freedom to buy your drugs in Canada – no, wait, W made that illegal too!

 When it comes to healthcare, thanks to the current system, more than half of the people in this country are just one serious illness, one accident, one extended hospital stay away from bankruptcy.  Don’t let that happen to you and don’t be fooled into thinking it can’t.  If you don’t like the current president’s plan, and let me here repeat: I don’t either – it’s not socialist enough!  Then get to work on fixing it, but don’t buy the bullshit that the right has spread only because they can’t be bothered to come up with something better. 

Luth

Out

Values

Chapter 1 - Measuring Value

I've drooled buckets over the nation of Bhutan's paradigm-bursting declaration of measuring Gross National Happiness rather than Gross National Product. And I know most of you will say, yeah, but how else do you measure a nation's worth... that's just pie in the sky crap, Luth.

But let me ask you this: Isn't Gross National Product - a method of determining the "value" of something wherein the dollar value of units produced is divided by the number of people there - a kind of disturbing, even perverse way of calculating the "value" of anything?

Seriously.

Is that how you determine the "value" of your kids? Your memories? Your musical or athletic ability? The last good meal you had? Anything of any real importance to you?

Didn't think so. So it's not just me and my liberal ideas... it's not just pie in the sky. GNP is pretty arbitrary and if the past ten or so years have taught us anything, it's that dollar values don't measure the true value of anything worth having. Dollar values, my friend, are the real pie in the sky. Just ask Lehmann Bros.

Chapter 2 - Family Values

All right, how many more times do we have to hear that a leader from the party of family values is actually a normal human being with normal human instincts, and, like most normal humans, fallible?

I don't care if a senator found a boyfriend in an airport bathroom via his wide stance, or a governor met his girlfriend online... it's none of my business and it's none of yours unless you're that governor or senator's spouse.

No, that doesn't bother me in the least and it certainly doesn't say anything about their ability to govern. The problem with both instances... and any others I've left out, is the hypocrisy of those particular folks. Both criticized a sitting president for the exact same behavior as though it had never occurred to them and could never happen to them... as if they themselves weren't also human.

Why is it that the party who implies that they've got the most authoritative command of Christian values is the first to judge (rather than forgive - very UN-Christian, by the way) UNTIL one of their own gets caught?

I'll tell you why: when that's what you build your platform on, you've got no choice but to pretend you are in fact holier than thou and thus set yourself up for just such a fall. It's simple really, when you espouse moral superiority via standards, etched in stone, which violate your human instincts, you are by necessity, definititon and design establishing standards by which no one can measure up. You then either have to admit that you're just like the other guy and are only saying things that you know sound good and will get you elected (so you're a liar, a panderer and a hypocrite) OR that you're JUST a hypocrite. Time will prove one or the other in every case. What's that you say? They're the same conclusion? Yep, and time has proven them.

So give it up party of values, party of "no." Either get in the game with some alternatives to what you don't like about the majority in power, or jump on the party train and enjoy it, cuz it left the station about 160 days ago.

Chapter 3 - The Value of Free Markets

Why is it that the party of free markets is so opposed to a little government competition in health care? Isn't competition good for the market? To hear them say it, no government organization could ever win such a competition anyway. So why not give it a shot. And I'll head you off at the pass before you whine that such an experiment would be a waste of tax money because there are plenty of folks who said the same thing about the Iraq war, but that sure as hell didn't even slow it down. If we've got two billion a week to blow on experiments, let's at least get something out of it. After all, aren't they quick to say things like: do you really want the people who brought you the post office to provide your medical care?

Let's think about that question for a minute. The one known government entity that generates its own income and will get something delivered from coast to coast in about a day and a half for 40 fricking cents is the one they use as an example of inefficiency?

Yeah, I'd do that. How bad could it be. The USPS has managed to be self-sustaining since they replaced the friggin Pony Express... through all kinds of markets, through all kinds of setbacks, still chugging after the telephone AND the Internet were going to shut them down instantly.

Seriously, offer a friend, or the UPS guy 40 cents to get something to LA or Baghdad for you before next week and watch how they respond. The USPS ROCKS!

I'd say if there was a health insurance company, or a healthcare network that could perform and deliver as efficiently as the USPS does (for 40 cents a pop!) then I'd trade my plan for it in a minute. And you would too... don't lie.

And then there's the Veterans Health Administration, lauded by Fortune reporters, authors, Business Week, Time, and just about every other news organization for being the best healthcare system in the country and among the best in the world. Yep... right here in our own little government. How do they do it? Well, by focusing on lifelong wellness vs. selling profitable treatments until you change jobs and move on to become some other insurance company's problem for one. By establishing the nation's first nationwide electronic health records (with peerless security, by the way) allowing displaced Katrina victims to receive uninterrupted care no matter where they ended up and allowing their new providers access to their complete histories for another.

Sure they make some mistakes - you'll have that in the nations largest healthcare network - but unlike their commercial competition, VHA SHARES its mistakes publicly and immediately in order to remedy and prevent repeats across the country. Private providers surround mistakes with lawyers and you never hear about them until someone you know dies. (Until they call VHA hospital directors and say, "I've got this friend who wants to prevent this thing from happening in HER hospital... I've read you've dealt with it... what can you tell me, I mean, my friend about it?")

Surprise! There's a government-created and managed healthcare model just waiting to be tapped right there under our noses but someone out there doesn't want us to try it. VHA didn't get invited to the table to discuss healthcare reform with the new administration?! Hell, the Clinton administration even got a Republican congress to approve sufficient budgeting to cover EVERY U.S. veteran and their families FOR LIFE through VHA because the facts showed it would save billions compared to providing the far less efficient Medicare and Medicaid for those same veterans currently not covered. Imagine that, the Gingrich House and the Dole Senate actually agreed with a Clinton proposal to spend money on what these days is considered "socialized" healthcare. VHA must have been pretty damned good for that to happen! Of course, W wiped that budget out and pushed VHA back to the antiquated system of prioritizing only battle-injured veterans in spite of the promises made upon enlistment, in order to fund his war. But hey, the Value of Healthcare is another chapter.

The point is, if government is so inefficient, and free markets/open competition is so great, then what's there to lose by allowing the government to enter that competition. Give them a fair shot in the free and open market... or isn't that what you mean by "free" and "open?"

Chapter 4 - The Value of Being the Victim

Charles Swindoll (yes, Ray, I know he was a pastor!) says that life is only 10% what happens to us and 90% how we react - the attitude we CHOOSE to adopt regarding that 10%. I believe that to be fact... though I might suggest the ratio would be even more lopsided.

Not only is attitude THAT important. Not only do we CHOOSE the attitude we wear, but Attitude is THE ONLY thing we choose FREELY. We must die, pay taxes and all of the other inevitabilities in life, but how we feel about all of these things is entirely up to us. We can say, "that guy in traffic pissed me off after a really bad day" but no one can reach inside your head and activate that part of your brain but YOU. If you're pissed as a result of something that guy did, then it's because YOU decided to be pissed... not that guy. He can't decide that for you.

When it comes to values discussion, this fact of life effects everyone regardless of party affiliation, social or economic status... heck, I believe it's what got us into this economic mess (though it was steered a little by the runaway spending of the previous administration).

Here's what I mean: back in the golden age... the Reagan years, Wall Street big wheels were victims of too much regulation. By playing that victim, they pushed to have all that regulation lifted beyond all common sense. I mean, c'mon - blind, naked short selling? Even if you don't know what that is, it just sounds like something that should be regulated if not banned outright. If you do know what it is, then you know it's a little like selling something you've never owned, without any knowledge, consent, permission or proceeds of/to the rightful owner, but you keep all those proceeds. Now, describe for me any place in the world where that would be considered an above board, proper activity... aside from Wall Street since the 80's that is. Example #2: Bernie Madoff, no explanation necessary, I hope.

So anyway, those victims got most of the finance regulation lifted by playing the victim and promising that if only that heavy jackboot of basic common sense regulation were lifted from their throats, they could get the nation's economy back on the right foot. And it worked! (while the economic cycle was on an upswing and until the cycle shifted back downward and then until we started dumping unbudgeted billions into Iraq) Then they were victims again and needed more of the jackboot removed cuz even though they were growing richer and richer off of the nation's investments, the investors themselves had experienced a bit of a free market correction - meaning that while the brokers' fees and the house shares remained VERY lucrative, most investors' account values dropped nearly in half.

Now we'll add the investors to the list of victims - oblivious to the cyclical market, and wanting desperatly to earn something for nothing by just dumping some money into a fund and forgetting it until they were millionaires come retirment time at age 50, they too repeated the mantra: lift the regulation... cuz that's what my rich broker said and I want to be rich just like him (or her) and the only way I'll ever get there (according to surveys of Americans during this wonderful era) is to win the lottery or win a lawsuit, or to get ridiculous returns on my 401k that can only be possible through a) miracles and b) total deregulation of the financial industry. For the love of Pete, we can't actually be expected to WORK for a living and SAVE our money for retirement... we're victims here!

As the victims succeeded in relaxing all the rules, new investment strategies followed, like the highly successful junk bond market, the savings and loan industry, and the securitized debt trade. Victims of their own success, the sky became the limit. The first million wasn't enough. Now we need the second. A bedroom and bathroom for every person in my household isn't enough. I now need two for each! 3500 square feet in a 10 year old house isn't enough... I need 5000 in a brand new house! A car that gets me to work and back isn't enough, it needs to take up most of the road and proclaim my status to the world and burn a gallon of fuel for every thousand feet, because I can and I am a victim and I am entitled to that.

Victims all. If that's what we choose to be, then that's what we are, which brings us to...

Chapter 5 - The Value of Perspective

The week before we went on vacation, the brake/shift lever interlock switch on our 6-year old Honda Odyssey went out for good, moments after I'd arrived at work 30 miles away. This $9 part that I eventually swapped out in the dealer parking lot where I bought the replacement, caused my wife to be late for her last day of work before the vacation.

On the third day after our return a piece of metal, consistent with that prevalent in the wife's work parking lot, caused a flat tire on said van that was discovered as my wife came out to leave for work one morning.... moments after I'd arrived at work... 30 miles away. My brother came over and plugged the tire for her, but not until she was late for work again for the second time in about four days of work.

My wife and my daughter both made comments suggesting it might be time to replace said van... as though these two minor incidents costing less than $12 and 15 minutes to remedy (total) were an indication that the quality of the vehicle were somehow suddenly called into question. Mind you, this is a six year-old, completely paid for van that safely carried my family and friends over 130,000 trouble free miles getting 20-25 mpg along the way.

They could have decided that either my wife or I should stop going to work - that's a perspective that's at least as logical as the bad van theory. They could also have decided I should buy a motorcycle since only two wheels reduces the chances of another flat by 50%, but we're not big on statistics.

I don't tell this story to make fun of my beloved wife or daughter - given the situation my wife found herself in twice in a two week span... and a span of only four work days... I can certainly understand her frustration. I tell this story simply to point out how a different perspective changes what we determine to be "the truth."

For instance, when the Bush administration opened up the floodgates of the bailout by handing over the first $700 billion, including $20 billion to GM and Chrylser, the "truth" was that this necessary influx was the right thing to do for such important American industries. But now that we're 160 days into Obama's task of sorting out how to guarantee the conditions of those loans are met, suddenly the "truth" has taken on a slightly different interpretation. What was once a solid move is now a socialist agenda and runaway spending. Nevemind that Bush offering bailout money is kind of like Jose Cuervo paying for alcohol rehab. Nevermind that Obama was handed this mess but is now being blamed for causing it. Nevermind that he's been in office all of 5 months.

Perspective changes the truth - even for people who claim that "situational ethics" is a horrible thing.

Which brings us to...

Chapter 6 (or "Conclusion" if you prefer) - The Value of a Short Memory

I remember W coming in to office with the first federal budget surplus in my lifetime. I remember him telling us first that we invaded Iraq because that's where the 911 terrorists were, then because they had weapons of mass destruction, then because Saddam was an out of control dictator, and then because the Iraqis (apparently more than people in any other nation) sought democracy. I remember him telling the world the mission in Iraq had been accomplished. I remember when we started spending $2 billion a week there. I remember W initiating the bailout. I remember W leaving office with the highest deficit in American history. And I have a vague memory of those same people who support the continued spending of that unbudgeted $2 billion per week suddenly worrying about spending money right here in America.

I wish my memory were as short as the memories of others.

I'd value that.

Then again, who am I?

Luth,

that's who.