Isn't a filibuster

supposed to be an extraordinary action that takes extraordinary effort?

What's the deal?

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

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.

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.

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?

It's Veteran's Day!!!

That happiest of days.

Of course, in reality, it's Armistice Day, the day that marks the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, with its visionary provisions for the preparation and mounting of a World War "II". Basically, the first war was so popular ("great", the critics called it) that a sequel was immediately contracted for. It may be Veterans Day in the States but elsewhere it's Remembrance Day or still Armistice Day or whatever.

In England, for the whole month and then some), people -- respectable types, even -- walk around with paper poppies on their lapels (or lapel surrogates), remembering lost heroes and battles fought and, you know, the kaiser.

And in the spirit of the day (or month) I very much enjoyed an article I saw (this week, I think) in an English paper (the Daily Mail?). It was a piece detailing several things an Afghan government should have to agree to before Britain would send more troops. One of them was an opium-free economy.

The article was illustrated with a photo of the graves of soldiers lost in Afghanistan.

Each headstone was adorned with a paper poppy.

A Very Special Anniversary

Twenty years ago today, a process began, with the falling of the Berlin Wall, that ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, marking, as a respected commentator noted at the time, "the end of history." The United States and the Soviet empire were, of course, the ultimate in human social evolution and the epic battle between them and their spheres of influence represented the final step in the history of mankind.

As we know (and as was predicted by men who make far more money than I and whose words are heeded by academics and officials alike) nothing of consequence has happened since that time; our now-permanent state of security was, naturally, not in any danger from irrelevant, lesser forces in bizarre corners of the world.

And the money freed up when military budgets became unnecessary has brought about this blessed utopia in which we now all live.

My Short E-Mail to Harry Reid

"What good is Lieberman to the Democratic caucus, 60 votes or not, if he won't be part of that 60 votes? We need this health care bill and we need it with a, preferably robust (since pegging reimbursements to Medicare is the only way to make it work in terms of putting pressure on private insurers) public option. You have leverage over Lieberman -- his committee chairmanships. if he sinks this bill, he should be stripped of them. And he should know that this is what he faces. If there's a justification for him keeping these powerful positions, I wish you would tell me what it is."