l'auberge enplumé

Corporatism and Executive Salaries

2009-10-28T12:43:00.000-05:00

Many people like to assert that “companies have the right to pay their people whatever they wish”, and then go on to quote the Wall Street line that “we have to retain talent”.

The people who accept this tenet don’t seem, however, to understand that it is not “the company” which determines corporate top-level-executive salaries; it’s the Board of Directors, which usually consists of CEOs from other corporations. This turns into a case of “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours”, in that any Board member who rejects a request for exorbitant salary increases risks having his (or, rarely, her) own salary brought back down to earth. This is something that's usually not discussed, and is typically only discovered by gaining access to the "upper echelons" of a company.

The second point is illustrated by the following articles:
“GMAC boss pockets $11.6 million”
http://www.caradvice.com.au/24536/gmac-boss-pockets-116-million/
and, from CNBC (by no means a “Liberal news source!)
“Treasury talks to GMAC about more cash” which, the body of the articles notes, “…already has received $12.5 billion of taxpayer funds.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33500790/for/cnbc/

In other words, all too often, these Boards of Directors completely ignore the actual company; both success, and abject failure, are rewarded multi-million-dollar per year salaries and perquisites. This is not about rewarding or retaining “talent”; it’s about a collusion between people who posses such immense hubris, and have such an excessive sense of personal entitlement, that they view entire corporations as little more than a personal ATM machine.

The central issue, however, is not the salaries per se, but rather, the mechanism by which they are obtained, a mechanism that has made the complete severing of financial reward from actual accomplishment not only all too common, but worse, entirely expected.

So, yes, a company should indeed be able to set the salary levels for its employees – but a Board of Directors is in no way related to, or a part of, the company. I even heard one long-term Board member of a company say, “Oh, so that’s what this company actually does…” It’s stunning (and not in a good way) that this same person had, for several years, been involved in making financial and other decision for a company about which he knew virtually nothing – but from which he obtained a great deal of financial reward simply for being on the Board.

I think of him whenever I hear some Average Joe make the assertion quoted at the beginning of this comment, and I really almost envy the sheer manipulative abilities, the cold Machiavellian genius for calculated information-filtering, of the people who have managed to actually convince said Average Joe that his repetition of their self-serving Corporatist mantra is somehow a cry for Liberty, for the choice and inventiveness encouraged by a Free Market. That grudging admiration is completely tempered by the sadness I feel knowing that Average Joe doesn’t, and probably never will, understand that Corporatism, and its sense of entitlement, has about as much to do with a Free Market as did the Soviet Union’s Five Year Plans for the economy. Central planning has more than one form; the Soviet form was merely the one that is patently obvious to even the casual observer. The Corporatist form seems to be a uniquely American innovation – and it’s not the innovation that I personally would like to have this Nation best-known for developing.

Decibels Versus Democracy?

2009-10-13T14:46:00.002-05:00

Some people like to claim that they, and they alone, have the authority to define the concept of “patriotism”, and to say who is, and more pointedly, who is not, a “real American”. Between that, and all the other loose usage of words, all the other twisting of concepts, to the extent nothing means anything any more, I’ve lost my interest in commonly-used terms, in sound bites, in trite comparisons, in the snobbery of ignorance.

I have heard combat veterans called “unpatriotic” for expressing their belief that rights, all rights, should belong equally to all citizens. I’ve heard other people who have, in their own way, served to defend the Constitution – the entire Constitution, not only a few specific snippets and amendments – told that they are “not real Americans” merely because they don’t claim adherence to the “right” religion, or because they don’t love the “right” person, or don’t live in the “right” sort of town, or have the “right” sort of job, and for any of a thousand other “un-right” things that, in years past, were simply considered to be different ways of being an American.

I have been also been told that I’m “not a real American”, because of my geographic origin, because of my education, because I was one of those people who tried to do my part to defend the entire Constitution - and even because I’m too busy trying to live my own life, and trying to be the best Human Being I’m capable of being, to spend any time caring about, never mind sitting in judgement over, the probability that my neighbors live differently from me. They are generally quiet, they generally do not intrude upon my privacy or peace, they generally keep their properties in decent order and appearance, they don’t trash my property, and they are reasonably pleasant. Beyond those things, what they do in private, or what they enjoy doing with their free time, simply is none of my business, and does not occupy my thoughts. (Precisely how those things make me, as some people claim, "not a real" American, or "unpatriotic", is beyond my comprehension, so I've stopped trying to figure it out; it's more likely that I'll be able to figure out the nature of Gravity and why it affects time and bends space!)

According to some people, that "insufficient" judgementalism in and of itself makes me “unpatriotic”, because to some people, “patriotism” means fighting to make a certain social group “more equal”, as George Orwell famously expressed it, than all other groups. According to some people, a person is both un-American, and “condemned to Hell”, based penultimately, not upon the amount of harm they’ve done to others, but rather, based solely upon whom they love. According to some people…well, whatever nugget of denigration one looks at, what it boils down to is that, to some people, they and they alone are the pinnacle of Creation, the best of the best, more equal than anyone else, and to such people, anyone who is not exactly like them is not a “real“ American, not patriotic – in short, not fully human, but rather some form of lesser being, a creature with no claim to decent treatment, never mind rights.

It seems like such people have been multiplying like flies in a cow pasture.

But is that, in fact, the truth?

One realization that has not yet struck many people is the fact that the internet has allowed tiny groups, or even the proverbial “lone wolf”, to set up multiple websites, multiple blogs, multiple email accounts, multiple accounts under various user-Ids in various “social media” networks – in other words, allowing a person to become, quite literally, an “army of one” so as to manufacture support for this or that agenda, and Democracy be damned. I’ve seen individuals hounded off of internet groups by what seemed to be hoards of people inundating them with childish name-calling and “accusations” that, in decades past, were usually attributable to grade-schoolers. Bullies have sought to destroy civil discourse by turning meetings into chaotic shouting-matches, destroy facts by using the internet to multiply fables, destroy democracy by denigrating the very learning and rational thinking that allow it to function.

Noise is always distracting to thought, and what more people need to realize is that, the more they allow this discordant cacophony of divisiveness, egotism, fear-mongering, and other such bully-tactics to become part of their own mental processes, the more degraded both those thought-processes, and eventually people’s actually lives, will become.

How many of us had grandmothers who, when we were children, wisely counseled us to ignore name-callers because they only made fun of other kids because they themselves were cowards who could only make themselves look better by tearing other kids down? I think it’s time we remember that wise counsel, and redirect our energies away from those who seek to destroy, and back towards building, solving, inventing, caring, and generally striving to fulfill the promise that is truly America.

The Economics of Callousness in the Health Care Debate

2009-10-01T13:43:00.006-05:00

The general Republican platform regarding health care and, most especially, health insurance reform was exemplified most clearly and recently by Eric Cantor’s “advice” to a constituent that an uninsured relative with cancer should sell everything they had (meaning, bankrupt themselves and enter a state of poverty) to pay for their cancer care, and then they would qualify for Medicaid. (I won’t mention charities because, although Cantor also mentioned something about “charities”, I’m not personally aware of charities that assist adults with cancer care; as far as I know, Saint Jude’s and The Shriners assist children.)

Most of the response to this statement dealt with the sheer callousness of it, especially in light of the fact that, as a member of Congress, Cantor has access to one of the very best, and most expensive, health care plane in the USA.

What nobody seems to have mentioned, however, is the sheer absurdity of pretending that it is somehow better for the economy to have people going into bankruptcy and sinking into economic poverty, and then qualifying for Medicaid, than it is to, first, make the insurance industry (whose policies of under-payment are largely responsible for the geometric increases in health-care costs) subject to the same anti-trust laws with which other industries must comply; second, eliminate government subsidies to insurance companies and instead pay health care providers directly; and third, extend Medicare/Medicaid to people who are either denied insurance because of even the most minor “pre-existing condition”, or simply cannot afford insurance unless they take Cantor’s advice and end up on welfare and Medicaid.

To begin with, from what I’ve read, the Federal health insurance plan costs approximately $20,000 per congressional position; since all Federal employees are, as far as I know, under the same plan, that means it’s the same cost for every Federal employee. Given this fact, it is especially reprehensible for members of either the House or the Senate to label any insurance plan costing more than $6000 per annum as a “Cadillac” plan; contrary to their claims, even a $10,000/year so-called “Cadillac” plan does not cover a nose job or other non-necessary plastic surgery; many don’t even cover reconstructive surgery following major tissue removal as part of cancer treatment. To consider oneself, as an employee of the populace, to be better then, and thus entitled to more and better everything, than one’s employer is nothing more than egotistical self-entitlement.

Second, once cannot claim, with even a single shred of honesty or believability, to favor both freedom of purchasing choice and a “free market”, yet continue to support the insurance industry’s exemption from anti-trust laws – just like claiming to be a vegan while eagerly and happily devouring 2 pounds of grilled sirloin, such a merely proves that one is either a liar, or an utter dunce.

Third, an individual who goes into bankruptcy is by no means whatsoever the only person affected by tat drop in economic status. Bankruptcy is most often precipitated by either loss, or significant reduction, of income, so that person loses most of his or her ability to purchase manufactured goods. Although it’s easy to sneer that one “loser” doesn’t make much of a dent in the national GDP figures, it’s impossible to sneer (unless on is either delusional, or intellectually deficient) when that loss is multiplied by the current millions of people who’ve lost their jobs. Added to that is the fact that the tax burden on the remaining workers (so as to allow the government to continue its payouts) is increased as people file for unemployment, or lose their unemployment and, still unable to find work, file for both welfare and Medicaid. According to what I could find on Google, in 2007, welfare cost $23.03 billion per month, and Medicaid cost $24.5 billion per month; and New York City alone had at least 1.1 million welfare recipients. The unemployment rate for December 2007 was 4.5%. With unemployment currently edging towards 10%, how much higher are those payouts? Additionally, given that medical costs have risen faster than the rate of inflation, the percentage increase in Medicaid costs would be even greater per person, and that would then be multiplied by the additional numbers of the unemployed whose unemployment benefits have expired.

Last but certainly not least is that a declaration of bankruptcy means that a person’s debt-load is nullified. In other words, whatever unpaid loans, credit card balances, or other debt the individual was carrying no longer need to be paid back; the banks and other lenders have to eat the loss – which merely means that they 1) declare the unpaid debt as a business loss and receive a tax-deduction for part of that loss, and 2) raise various fees paid by the remaining customers. This in turn leads to a lowering of the tax revenue received by the government from those lenders, and a reduction of some spending power by the remaining customers.

Despite the fact that any and all insurance payouts are drawn from the pool created by those who purchase the insurance, some people, such as Cantor, are very fond of asking “who will pay for” a public option (and let's remember that "option" means "The power or freedom to choose") in the immediate short-term - and yet remain utterly oblivious to the longer-term economic end-results of retaining a system wherein individual bankruptcy, and subsequent poverty, is deemed not merely acceptable, but inevitable.

At this point, the question of whether this is hubris that’s almost criminal in its disregard for the nation’s interest so as to favor individual and party interests, or whether it’s some variant of plain simple-mindedness, is irrelevant – the only relevant point is that, for all of the criticisms about the callousness of such a system and its proponents, nobody seems to be addressing the fact that the economic practicalities of “advice” such as Cantor’s recent missive have very real, and long-reaching, negative consequences. Hopefully, someone with a talent for number-crunching will be able to increase the value of this blog entry by adding some real statistical or other numerical comparisons into the Comments section, because it seems obvious that such data might be valuable for the voting public.

The end of history?

2009-09-22T13:57:00.001-05:00

One of the problems that the USA currently has is the rather recent, and increasing, insistence upon viewing history as nothing more than a buck-passing blame-game. Too many people (including, or perhaps even especially, those to whom we turn to receive information about the world beyond out own front doors) are closing their minds before opening their mouths, and once side-effect of that is an ever-diminishing comprehension of the fact that history is supposed to be based upon the facts of events, NOT solely upon the opinions of those who are looking back at those events.

Sometimes, history is revised as new facts come to light, however, this is far different from the increasingly-common revisionist "history" that selects only the facts that support this or that agenda or political platform. Although objectivity is difficult to achieve, the open mind has no difficulty spotting an all-out abandonment of any attempt at objectivity.

Unfortunately, facts tend to speak quietly, whereas opinions and agendas and platforms tend to be communicated at a volume that'd drown out a 747 at takeoff. In the also-increasing competition among the media to pump out sensationalism and lurid details faster and faster, the noise level is approaching an incoherent roar.

We see this screamed blame-game at its most absurd in the arena of politics. The various factions' elected so-called "representatives" and self-proclaimed "pundits" hack and slash at one-another in a wild melee, ignoble would-be gladiators seeing who can soak the sand with the largest quantities of the "enemy's" blood, while the crowd bellows its approval like a giant herd of cattle in synchronized heat. The rare individual who realizes that this contest is merely a meaningless distraction speaks up either to no avail, or at the risk of drawing the hoard's anger (since nobody likes to be told that their unbridled passion or fury is misdirected).

What is the solution? I wish I knew. The Roman gladiatorial fights-to-the-death seemed to only be stopped when Rome itself finally crumbled from within. One has to wonder whether this nation is on a similar downward spiral, albeit at a greatly accelerated rate, as the voices of reason are out-shouted by the howls of the antagonists and the roared cheers and jeers of self-mesmerized spectators.

"The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

2009-08-20T15:14:00.002-05:00

~
I assume that all people capable of reading a blog are familiar with the cautionary moral story, disguised as a children’s fairy-tale, of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

This story came to my mind as I read the recent disclosures by Tom Ridge that terror alerts were used by the Bush Administration for the purpose of political manipulation. This made me quite angry, but not because of indignation regarding political manipulation – that part was by no means unexpected.

No, it was something else that got my ire up. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I spent a few years as an Intelligence Analyst, and the significance in this context is that I know for a fact that there have been, and are, a variety of very real and nasty threats to our security and populace. The irksome part of the above disclosure is that, like all of the other high-decibel hyperbole (and outright fantasy) we’ve been inundated with over the media, the use of exaggeration as a cheap form of manipulation never remains unveiled for long, and its buffoonery has the very real and very dangerous consequence of utterly trivializing the events and concepts which it picks up and twists.

What we end up with is a situation wherein not only the past atrocities of actual tyrants, but also real threats against our own nation, end up being presented as little more than gas-filled balloons twisted into vague abstract representations of cartoon animals at the hands of some creepy clown.

Although there is certainly room for "fun and games" in politics, this sort of trivialization-for-political-gain is a symptom of a serious illness in our political system; serious matters deserve to be treated seriously and respectfully, because they are, in fact, matters of human life and human death. When a society allows those to those become mere props in political circus-acts, it shows a deep-seated illness, a lack of heartfelt respect for Life, is infecting that society.

~

The error of "I got mine!" politics a' la' Hagar the Horrible

2009-08-14T13:51:00.006-05:00

~
This is something I'd posted elsewhere some time ago, with a few changes and typo corrections.
I've decided to repost it here.

---------

I'm often told that I have somewhat "conservative" views: I believe in hard work, in "being all you can be" (to borrow the Army's phrase and be a bit hokey). I believe that serious decisions should be given serious thought. In my view, we are all created equal, but we are not equivalent, meaning, we are not all identical clones of one another: we have different abilities, and different levels of abilities; and different ways in which we can achieve beauty, especially beauty of the spirit. Some of us are extremely gifted in one or more ways; others of us have "only" the gift of strong hands and the will to endure crushing labor for the sake of a dream, a hope for a better future - if not for ourselves, than for our children.

Now, for the sake of honesty, I need to note that, no, I was not blessed with children. But that in no way precludes my understanding of the love, and the dreams, that people have for, and invest in, their children.

I mention that to make a specific point, that being: compassion, literally, "feeling with" another human being, relating one's own emotional experiences to theirs, and the fact that one person does not have to be "exactly like" another in order to have compassion for that other.

To be honest, I despise labels and pigeonholes. I have no idea what "liberal" or "conservative" really mean, what constitutes their actual substance, because bothe words have been so overused and, most especially, misused. The definitions seem to be considered to be merely a matter of viewpoint, thus arbitrary. At what point does "conservative" come to mean "recidivist", "back to the days of plantations and robber barons"? At what point does "liberal" come to mean "everyone but you has a right to the results of your efforts"?

I don't know the answers to those philosophical questions, although the way I learned it, neither extremeist useage is at all accurate. What I do know - or at least have deduced I know - is that, although I do have the right of ownership of the fruits of my labors, I also realize that a necessary component of survival is compassion. Setting aside the moral and philosophical aspects of this issue, if we have no compassion for the downtrodden, for the hungry, they will eventually fulfill their needs by force - the history of revolutions has shown time and time again that, if the well-off sit on high and drone "if they've no bread, let them eat cake", said drones are likely to find themselves becoming well-acquainted with the business end of a pitchfork, symbolically speaking but more ominously, perhaps in physical actuality.

I hear people say they "feel sorry" for others, but in order for the human race to survive its own exploding population, compassion must, to at least some degree, be reified, translated into action, given substance. To punish a lackadaisical mother by allowing her children to be abused and hungry, and eventually driven into the hard arms of violent gangs, not only does not work - it's actually rather stupid, because it's much shooting oneself in the proverbial foot, especially given that violent gangs are expanding their operations into "exclusive" neighborhoods which used to be considered "safe" because of their distance from areas with endemic and seemingly unsolvable poverty. In a sense, every home invasion in an "exclusive" neighborood is the fruit of a shortfall of societal compassion and a rejection of the lessons of history.

Hope lies in the reification of compassion; hope does not lie in us each building bunkers surrounded by razor-wire and collecting weaponry and canned goods, but rather, in building bridges, in building a different future both on our small planet, and in space. Hagar the Horrible politics, which boasts "I got MINE!" with all the hubris of an aristocracy which claims it is entitled because it is supposedly "superior", might satiate individual appetites for the short term, but it is destructive in the long run, if only because its proponents will eventually run out of space to build the many mini-fortresses, and more to the point, if these mini-fortresses begin to over-run farmland and pastureland and watersheds, it will all become moot, because that destruction will destroy all of us. And worse, possibly most other species as well. More immediately, however, the proliferation and nation-wide migration of violent gangs is proving the fundamental error of imagining that distance equals safety. That was only true to any extent as long as things like cars and long-distance weaponry remained confined to a small segment of the population.

And so, this somewhat-misanthropic, somewhat-crotchety old introvert sits here and cites compassion. But not because it's the warm-fuzzy, Disney-cartoon-cute, naively-idealistic thing to do, but because, in the end, it's necessary to the survival of our species. We can be individuals, yet still work together to try to make the world more of a place where poeple do not feel the need to turn to violence merely to gain the reasonably-decent life.

Sadly, the politics of fear and selfishnes remains powerful, seeking to assert its dominence - even if it has to do so by force of arms.
~

Why be proud to claim "#iamthemob"...?

2009-08-11T10:59:00.009-05:00

~
I don't know how many individuals use twitter (not to be confused with the number if identities on twitter, since one individual can have multiple identities to the extent of creating "an army of one"...), but there is a sort of discussion list, akin (for those of your who don't tweet) to the "threaded topics" on Usenet, called "#iamthemob". As far as I can tell, its raison d'être is to oppose, regardless of merit, any-and-all health care reform proposals made by non-Republicans.

The "mob" epithet, one should note, was directed towards a minority of people who do not attend town halls so as to participate in question-and-answer opportunities, or even to debate, but rather, to stop the democratic process by simply generating enough noise to drown out anyone who is either genuinely seeking answers to their health-care questions, or who favors any sort of health care reform. (I won't list links, because these are so easily discovered by a spending a very few minutes on http://www.google.com and/or other search engines.) Unfortunately, since that group was opposing something about which a number of poeple also felt concern, what arose was a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" view, and some poeple jumped onjto the bandwagon and proclaimed their membership in the mob.

Now, granted I am only an eggplant, but I personally would much prefer to be a part of something called #IAmTheCogentOppossition. (If you don't know the meaning of the word "cogent", that's OK, this should help you out: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cogent+defin.)

Although it's always dangerous to assume, I do assume that at least some people feel that "iamthemob" is supposed to protest the oversimplistic generalizing of any and all conservatives as being part of the above-referenced raucous group. The problem with that is, the only thing others can actually observe is behavior, not intent, and adopting mob behavior, or even a mob epithet, is not very condusive to having one's views perceived as being worth consideration. It's simply the nature of human nature that people tend to look askance at those who choose to associate themself with something that's widely perceived as being negative.

The fact is that many, and perhaps even most, people do have some legitimate concerns over various issues related to the different iterations of the proposed health care bill, but the way to have one's concerns heard is not to merely shout at the top of one's lungs along with some number of other people who are simultaneously shouting other things at the top of their lungs . That is what mobs do.

The plain fact is that there is a difference between debate, even passionate debate, and mob behavior. There is also a very real difference between people who have specific concerns about health care reform, and those who simply want to halt any process that might include opinions which differ from their own.

I personally don't give a hang whether people who behave like a mob are organized or not, are funded by insurance companies or not; I don't care what politicas a mob participant claims to esposue, or what car they drive, or whetehr they never ever pick their nose. In practical reality, what is relevant is not their intent, but whether their behavior infringes upon everyone else's freedom of expression, everyone else's right to have their concerns heard and taken into consideration by their duely-elected officials. If it is the case that such infringement occurs, and most especially if it is deliberate, then yes, it's mob behavior, regardless of each participating individual's intent. And no, saying that does not "pass judgement" on any individual - as stated, all that anyone can observe is behavior, and let's be honest: nobody is "perfect", and even the most patient, caring, "good" person can sometimes fall into bad behaviors, and criticizing thse bad behaviors is in no way a "judement" that the individual is "a bad person". (I only mention that fact because the difference, although important, seems to increasingly be overlooked, resulting in an increase in, well, bad behavior. )

Perhaps the saddest part of mob behavior is that the above-mentioned infringement also affects people who might have been potential allies, but who instead become disgusted with the tactics of intmidation and bullying that characterize a mob.

And so, I don't understand why or how it would be a point of pride to voluntarily associate oneself with any mob, regardless of its supposed political leanings, because ultimately, a mob is not about views or concerns or thoughts - a mob is about raw unfiltered negative passion, and no mob has ever solved any problem; the only thing a mob can do is bulldoze, and possibly destroy completely, something which exists - solutions only come later, after the blood has soaked into the ground and tempers have become exhausted.

What exists is at least some measure of a democratic process, the liberty to debate issues. If this is being bulldozed, what is supposed take its place?

I think this is a question each individual should aske before proudly stating that he or she "is the mob", and then consider the possibility that it is perhaps better to dissociate from any mob, and participate in cogent debate rather than exercise censorship-by-noise.

Of course, again, I'm only an eggplant, so...
~

What, exactly, is so "evil" about Palliative Care...?

2009-08-11T09:40:00.006-05:00

We’ve heard a great deal of sturm und drang regarding the supposed "evils" of a Health Care Plan that would pay for end-of-life palliative care in-home or in a hospice, in addition to its hospital counterpart.

I don’t know about most people, but I have direct family experience with both.

In the first instance, when my Grandmother had her final recurrence of ovarian cancer, she was able to return home under the care of her own family and died surrounded by love in familiar surroundings – the family members who were with her at the end said that she passed on smiling at them.

In the second case, my Sister died due to hepatitis (a former nurse, she contracted it when an unruly patient lurched and stabbed her with his contaminated needle). Even though there was nothing that could be done, and she was unconscious, she had to remain in the hospital because no in-home care was covered; she’d been on Disability for some time, her husband did not make a good salary, and their home (which they paid off after many years) was a humble trailer out in the country. Her husband could barely afford to have her cremated and buried her ashes in the back yard under a tall tree that she’d always loved – he had to declare bankruptcy and also take legal measures to be sure he didn’t lose their home. Nonetheless, he still had to pay medical bills that crippled him financially, and the rest of the family couldn’t afford to do much for him.

Recently, we've been hearing many people asserting (often with great volume and aggression) that having the option of spending one’s last days in one’s own home is somehow some sort of "death-squad denial of care"; we also hear that the very wise (and physician-encouraged) idea of end-of-life planning, also called a "living will", somehow falls into the same category. I can't fathom the logic of that, and I can’t help but wonder: How many of the people who opine that insurance coverage for these choices is equivalent to a "death panel", actually has had direct experience with palliative care, especially at-home? Do they seriously believe that it’s preferable to be forced to remain in a hospital (because that is all the insurance will cover, and at that, it certainly will not cover 100% of the costs), despite the likelihood that it will further burden a family with financial ruin? Even more to the point, do they seriously believe that a dying person is somehow comforted by knowing that their family is likely to end up being driven into bankruptcy or downright poverty by the inevitable medical bills? Many of these protesters speak as though it's somehow crass to do end-of-life planning and include finances as part of that process, but that seems to me to merely be a denial of both the inevitible, and of the fact that resources must be devoted to good care for the dying person, regardless of whether the individual chooses to remain at home, go to a hospice, or remain in a hospital. The only thing that's worse than death, it seems to me, would be to die knowing that your loved ones will be financially devastated by your final medical bills.

The main thing people should be worrying about, as I see it, is freedom of choice, which includes taking responsibility for handling their own end-of-life wishes. I don't want to think that rejection of that choice is based upon a mere refusal to take responsibilities inherent to any choice - but that refusal is, in the end, also a choice: a choice to leave the final decisions up to others.

The distressing fact is that we will all inevitably die, and I cannot comprehend why some people are so adamantly opposed to a legal provision that, if they have been paying into insurance, be it private or some form of public, this insurance will allow their family to both care for their loved one as that individual has chosen, and avoid financial ruin whichever choice the individual makes regarding his or her final days.

Of course, I am only an eggplant, so...

It's not just about health care any more...

2009-08-10T10:23:00.007-05:00

I am a political Independent, beholden to no party platform (i.e. no partisan dogma) and to no "special interests", so my thoughts and comments are, for better or worse, my own.

As someone with a political science (as well as hard science) background, and as both a former intelligence analyst dealing with aspects of the Soviet Union, and someone who lived in Canada for quite a few years, I learned what terms like "socialism", Soviet-style "communism", and "tyranny" mean, so I of course have a few comments regarding the exaggerations and the outright lies being told about certain aspects of Health Care Reform.

First of all, I cannot think of any successfully functioning democratic nation that does not include some aspects of what is *erroneously* labeled "socialism" (commonly meaning any program which collects taxes, then applies the funds to actions which may or may not *directly* benefit, but hopefully do *indirectly* benefit) everyone from whom the taxes are collected; this is fundamental to democratic governments because one of the recognized functions of such a government, including the Constitutional provisions of the US government, is to foster conditions that allow its citizens - *all* of its citizens - the opportunity to prosper, and to achieve some level of personal fulfillment. This principle is highly practical in that reasonable prosperity and personal fulfillment are the main ways by which citizens feel that they have a stake in preserving the freedoms - AND the responsibilities - that allow them to enjoy these benefits. The US currently has a number of erroneously-labeled-"socialistic" programs and functions, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Veteran's Administration. The US government also administers the health plan offered to Federal employees, including Senators and Congressional representatives, a plan which is not available to other Americans, so the claim that reform will allow them to have care unava8ilable to other Americans is absurd, since this situation already exists and is the template for the Public Option - it exists, and it works, and it is *not* socialism.

While it's fully understandable (and known) why certain members of the House and Senate seek to derail meaningful health care and health insurance reform, the incomprehensible thing is why so many Republicans seem compelled to reject cogent opposition in favor of exaggerations and outright lies, and compelled to reject civil discourse for shouting, screaming, bullying, and even, as we've recently learned, outright death threats against those who recognize that the current escalation of both health care costs and insurance rate increases (along with DEcreasing coverage) is both economically unsustainable, and will contribute to increasing civil unrest. What it amounts to is a rejection of the electoral process. But worst is the fact that this rejection is not based on facts and rational analysis, but upon the most ridiculous of lies (such as the supposed "death panels" irresponsibly referenced in Sarah Palin's blog). Firstly, one *can* make a case that administering a public health insurance option is Constitutional, especially given the above-mentioned existence of Medicare, the VA, and the government-administered Federal health plan. Secondly, "optional end-of-life planning" has been recognized by health care providers *for years* as an important aspect of health care, because it deals with thing such as Power of Attorney and the specification of one's own wishes. It's sheer idiocy, and dangerous hate-flaming rabble-rousing, to *suddenly* pervert that into nonsense such as "death panels".

The fact is that there is no longer a *discussion* about health care and insurance reform - the majority of Americans see the necessity for it, and those opposed to it (based upon deliberate disinformation circulated by those who profit greatly from the current inequities) merely try to over-shout anything that resembles discussion. They claim to want answers, and I know that there *are* people who are concerned over what they've heard and do want answers, however, far too many people (albeit still a *minority*) do not want answers, but rather, want to shut down the democratic process by infringing upon other people's right to free speech in an attempt to bully Washington into setting-aside the will of the majority, and instead give the minority its way. In essence, it becomes censorship by white-noise, and victory through intimidation and even, as we've been increasingly seeing, threats to duely-elected officials' property, families, and even lives - in short, anti-democracy.

The ultimate point is that this goes far beyond the specific issue of Health Care; the fundamental choice facing the nation is evolving into lawmakers having to choose between two unsavory possibilities, between the proverbial "rock and a hard place", these being:1) the possibility of a small but well-armed insurrection by a relatively small, but highly aggressive, people who reject the democratic electoral process merely because they feel that this iteration of it went "against them",versus2) the possibility that bulldozing the will of the majority if favor of special interests and especially of a loud and highly-aggressive minority will lead to this majority feeling utterly disenfranchised, possibly resulting in an even larger set of sociopolitical and economic disruption. I do not envy lawmakers for having to choose between those two possibilities. But choose they must, and their choice might very well change the entire landscape and direction of the nation.

Racism, or not...?

2009-07-16T12:35:00.003-05:00

I am not going to say I have "lots of Black friends". I don't. (I don't have "lots of friends" period, since I'm private nearly to the extent of being a recluse.)

I'm also not going to say that "I've never had a racist thought in my life". The fact is, I was raised to be racist. I grew up hearing my "loving" mother blither that "Hitler had the right idea" about all sorts of "undesireables" (which tended to include the entire group or sub-culture of whomever she imagined had somhow, at some time,"slighted" her). I grew up hearing her spit the epithet "ni**er!" every single time a Black person showed up on the television, or had the misfortune of coming into her field of vision.

Not even a fundamentally decent person has that sort of shrieking pounded into thier brain from birth, pretty much day in and day out, without ending up needing to re-hink and re-learn pretty much most of the things that were taken on faith while a mere child.

The benefits of these efforts at self-improvement have been a wide variety, and increased depth, of experience and human interaction than I would have had if I'd merely accepted my mother's knee-jerk hatreds. An additional benefit is a reduction in stress, because it's exhausting to live in a constant state of fight-or-flight paranoia. Reducing that stress and fear therefore frees up a great deal of emotional and physical energy which can then be applied to creativity and enjoyment. All of this also makes one a more civil and likable person, with the various associated social benefits.

That being said, what thoroughly disgusts me is that certain members of certian political leanings demand that their views be respected, when their unwillingness to do the above-mentioned rethinking and relearning is so blatantly obvious that much of what they say drips hypocrisy the way venom drips from a yawning rattlesnake's fangs. Worst of all is when they are also the elected officials who have sworn to defend and protect the Constitution, meaning, the rights and freedoms of all U.S. citizens.

Unlike such people, I do not, and cannot, assert that I am not racist - all I can assert is that I have tried, and continue to try, to cleanse my mind of my mother's arrogant and narcissistic prejudices, and see all people as being just that - people, fellow Human Beings, who should be taken on their own merits, not on the ill deeds of this or that other individual. I've long striven to bring my scientific objectivity to my examinations of the human condition, and avoid the simplistic fear-or-food bare-survival impulses of my mind's primitive "reptile brain". In the end, although I have not been able to purge that shrill, nasty voice from my mind, I at least know what it is and, like a puppy that's peed on the carpet, can relegate it to the mud room and get on with better things.

In the end, then, although I cannot and do not claim to be angelic or "perfect", I do emotionally and even physically cringe when I hear people who swear up and down and sideways that they "are not racist", yet turn around and say things that lead me to feel embarassed and even ashamed to be a blue-eyed blonde. And isn't that what racism is all about, an attempt to make people ashamed of their skin and eye color...regardless of one's intended target?

Just a Haiku: "Neda"

2009-06-25T16:23:00.003-05:00

-

Dreamer of freedom,

small fledgling dove - who tyrants

so feared, they killed her.

-

I am an eggplant?

2009-06-25T13:35:00.001-05:00

Why "An Eggplant Full of Feathers"?

Maybe to inspire questions?
Maybe to jog the reasder's minds to consider symbologies?
Maybe because it's weird enough for even me to remember ;) ?
Maybe as a koan? (http://www.answers.com/topic/koan)

Or maybe it's up to each person to decide ;)

These will be some of my intermittant mental meanderings. Enjoy!