The Democrats just don't get it. People want MORE action, not less. They want extreme, decisive solutions.
I believe Obama did have to dance that dance in order to get enough votes to pass some version of health care, but only because the senators and congressmen were too stupid and frightened to recognize that -- Republican rhetoric aside -- the people wanted them to do MORE.
That's what Obama's election was about. And that's what this new guy's election -- or more properly, Madam Coakley's repudiation -- is about.
But the Dems will take the wrong message. And do less.
Or do things wrong and seem complicit with the powers that have always been.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Monday, 14 December 2009
Lieberman's Extremities
In a more normal world, you would not filibuster your own party's premiere legislative priority and expect no consequences. As I've written, a filibuster is (designed to be) an extreme, "man against the machine" remedy in the service of deep belief; something that is,in reality, a risk. Take the risk if you want to, Joe, but expect real consequences.
Oh, wait. We live in a less-than-normal world.
Forget what I said. Harry told me to tell you you can do what you want.
Oh, wait. We live in a less-than-normal world.
Forget what I said. Harry told me to tell you you can do what you want.
Monday, 23 November 2009
Isn't a filibuster
supposed to be an extraordinary action that takes extraordinary effort?
What's the deal?
What's the deal?
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Political Belief Systems
Republican politicians believe they see the truth.
Democratic politicians believe they see the truth.
Republican politicians believe everyone sees same the truth they see. Except for Democrats.
Democratic politicians believe everyone sees the same truth Republicans see. Except for them.
They believe that only they can see the real truth and fear they'll be held accountable by citizens who only see Republican truth. They're burdened by the curse that is this ability to see. They feel they have to trick people with a timid and delicate dance into accepting just a smidgen of what they know to be right. Even when the evidence shows the people believe as they do.
They don't believe it.
Neither do Republicans.
True bipartisanship
Democratic politicians believe they see the truth.
Republican politicians believe everyone sees same the truth they see. Except for Democrats.
Democratic politicians believe everyone sees the same truth Republicans see. Except for them.
They believe that only they can see the real truth and fear they'll be held accountable by citizens who only see Republican truth. They're burdened by the curse that is this ability to see. They feel they have to trick people with a timid and delicate dance into accepting just a smidgen of what they know to be right. Even when the evidence shows the people believe as they do.
They don't believe it.
Neither do Republicans.
True bipartisanship
Angela Merkel, You're a Gas!
National stereotypes are the meat and potatoes of comedy. (Not quite a nice piece of fish at any rate.) Combine that with the "Who do you support?" sensibility of English yobs and you end up with the 2 guys at the comedy club door the other night who gave me shit for being American when I turned them away.
"Thanks for that Iraq thing," one of them said, but it wasn't a political comment. It was team identity sloganeering, as if I were a fan of Manchester United and he "supported" Fulham. (Are those actual teams? Do they play each other? In what sport?)
A few moments later (or thereabouts), the MC -- someone I like -- said to an American in the audience something about making him or her feel at home by letting him (or her) invade something or somewhere (or some similar notion). How they all laughed. And I thought, this is what gives ammunition to those brainless competitors. Popular cliches that, in this case anyway, aren't even true.
Is it really an American tradition to "invade" places? Iraq, yes. Various locales during the Spanish-American War about a hundred years earlier. And, um . . . Grenada?
I do, however, know of a nation with a tradition of invading places. It is now better known for its drunken yobs.
I mean, at least get your stereotypes right.
"Thanks for that Iraq thing," one of them said, but it wasn't a political comment. It was team identity sloganeering, as if I were a fan of Manchester United and he "supported" Fulham. (Are those actual teams? Do they play each other? In what sport?)
A few moments later (or thereabouts), the MC -- someone I like -- said to an American in the audience something about making him or her feel at home by letting him (or her) invade something or somewhere (or some similar notion). How they all laughed. And I thought, this is what gives ammunition to those brainless competitors. Popular cliches that, in this case anyway, aren't even true.
Is it really an American tradition to "invade" places? Iraq, yes. Various locales during the Spanish-American War about a hundred years earlier. And, um . . . Grenada?
I do, however, know of a nation with a tradition of invading places. It is now better known for its drunken yobs.
I mean, at least get your stereotypes right.
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Obvious?
I apologize if (once again?) I'm stating the obvious, but is not Obama's strategy re health care to pass a bill -- almost any bill -- that establishes a precedent of (more or less) universal health care as (gulp) an entitlement? To set a precedent from which we are unlikely to ever retreat? And isn't this, given the climate of fear on the part of Democratic legislators (mystifying, really) a pretty sound strategy?
I'm not saying people shouldn't fight for a bill that's actually good. Of course, they should.
But still, I'm not sure Obama's stance isn't both visionary and pragmatic at the same time.
Protecting the future with timidity.
I'm not saying people shouldn't fight for a bill that's actually good. Of course, they should.
But still, I'm not sure Obama's stance isn't both visionary and pragmatic at the same time.
Protecting the future with timidity.
Friday, 13 November 2009
Fraud!
Is it true that businesses exist, by definition, to make as much money as they possibly can? People seem to think so.
But was it always true? Did people always believe this?
Businesses exist to make money, sure -- among other things. But plenty of businesses -- either because of the people who ran them or the nature of their products and services -- have existed to make money, but not solely for that purpose.
And certainly, not to make ALL the money.
Yes, plenty of businesses,have been maximally rapacious, but capitalism does not REQUIRE them to take all the cash. So, health insurers have only themselves if to blame their bottom lines are hurt by congressional reform. Their mission was not just to make money but to provide a critical service in exchange for this reward. Still, they wanted to make ALL the money, even if that meant condemning paying customers to illness and death.
These companies are not exonerated by the fact that they're in business and that this is what businesses do. Because their business is insuring that their customers get health care. And in not always doing so, they are guilty of fraud.
A health insurance company that drops customers who become ill is the equivalent of a furniture company that refuses to deliver your already-purchased couch because it would be bad for its bottom line. So what if the companies make less money than they have in the past? If they make enough money to stay in business and fulfill their mandate, they are a success!
If they make even more money but do not fulfill their mandate, they are a failure.
Why have we lost sight of this truth?
But was it always true? Did people always believe this?
Businesses exist to make money, sure -- among other things. But plenty of businesses -- either because of the people who ran them or the nature of their products and services -- have existed to make money, but not solely for that purpose.
And certainly, not to make ALL the money.
Yes, plenty of businesses,have been maximally rapacious, but capitalism does not REQUIRE them to take all the cash. So, health insurers have only themselves if to blame their bottom lines are hurt by congressional reform. Their mission was not just to make money but to provide a critical service in exchange for this reward. Still, they wanted to make ALL the money, even if that meant condemning paying customers to illness and death.
These companies are not exonerated by the fact that they're in business and that this is what businesses do. Because their business is insuring that their customers get health care. And in not always doing so, they are guilty of fraud.
A health insurance company that drops customers who become ill is the equivalent of a furniture company that refuses to deliver your already-purchased couch because it would be bad for its bottom line. So what if the companies make less money than they have in the past? If they make enough money to stay in business and fulfill their mandate, they are a success!
If they make even more money but do not fulfill their mandate, they are a failure.
Why have we lost sight of this truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
