My Letter to The New Yorker Concerning Legislative Management of Health Care Reform

Hendrik Herzberg's comments on opposition to the Obama health insurance reform plans (September 21st New Yorker) was classic, well crafted Hertzberg angst, but misses the core issue surrounding the opposition's (thus far) success. The President has chosen to preside over a mischief laden congressional effort to draft health insurance reform. The thousand page flagship bill in that effort is nearly incomprehensible, as a whole, to any ordinary person. I'm sure that every legislative aid who has inserted a particular pet rock into the bill understands the language of his or her particular pet, but making the overall bill as abstruse as it is leaves its interpretation to the high priests of politics, whether they be Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, or Nancy Pelosi. If the President had been both serious about achieving reform, and as good a leader as he is a speaker, he might have pushed legislative leaders to craft a crisp bill, of a few hundred pages, free of mischief, and readily understandable. This would have taken the interpretive role away from those who are so anxious to “shape the debate.” That doesn't seem to be the way we do it anymore. The segment of society that chooses to participate in the political process is so polarized, that placing highly controversial provisions into massive bills, where they can slip in under the radar, has become the norm. Avoiding this, in order to achieve something so important, presented an opportunity for extraordinary leadership to the President. Sadly, he has chosen to play it using conventional political methods. Perhaps Hillary Clinton was right when she alluded to Mr. Obama's lack of experience, or perhaps only the train wreck that is the current future of the U.S. Health care system will be sufficient to bring change.

A Political Paradox

Recently, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), proved himself one of the more boorish members of the House when he uttered "you lie" to President Barack Obama, during Obama's address to a joint session of Congress. Since the President was speaking when Wilson laid his insult upon the table, meaning that his lips were moving, and since the President is a politician, clearly Wilson's charge was correct.

However, Wilson is also a politician, and his lips must have been moving when he uttered "you lie" (I have confirmed that Wilson is not a trained ventriloquist). In accordance with generally accepted rules of political discourse, Wilson must also be lying. If Wilson's "you lie" was a lie, then the President must have been telling the truth. At the risked of being repetitive, however, you'll remember that the President is a politician, and his lips were moving. Q.E.D.

Both men cannot have been lying, yet there appears to be strong, cumulative evidence that they were. Therein is the paradox. It cries out to be solved. No partisans need attempt a solution; only a trained, non-partisan logician is qualified to solve this. One can only hope that such a man is lingering close by, however, some less complex paradoxes have waited centuries for resolution, so an answer may not be close at hand.

A Life Well Lived - Reflections on The High Holy Days, 2009

In a speech at the Copley Plaza Hotel, on June 7th, 1945, General George S. Patton said of those who had died in battle in World War II: “It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.” D-Day was but a year and a day in the past, and Germany's surrender less than a month, when he gave that speech, and our gratitude to those who had sacrificed had been recently burnt deep into the national consciousness, for they had given something of incalculable value.

Now, let's jump to the present, and note the passing of:

Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who founded the Special Olympics, not as part of a committee, but solely of her own volition;

John Hope Franklin, a historian of slavery and reconstruction, whose work changed how we look at those areas;

Dr. Willem J. Kolff, a Dutch physician who invented the first artificial kidney, in a rural hospital, during World War II, using sausage casings and orange juice cans, and went on to build the first artificial heart;

Norman Ernest Borlaug, an American agronomist, who has been called the father of the Green Revolution. His discoveries have been estimated to have saved over 245 million lives.

With the exception of Eunice Shriver, none of these peoples' names were exactly household words. If Mrs. Shriver hadn't been born a Kennedy, she might very well have been as obscure as the rest.

If we review a compilation of people of note who have died in the past year, we find a list mostly populated by celebrities – actors, sports stars, singers, authors. In the world of celebrity, the term “great” is bandied about with little regard for its true meaning, and the “greatness” of celebrity fades quickly. How many amongst us are familiar with Ida Cox (blues singer), Elmer Lach (winger on the best line in hockey), or... for the benefit of my book club members, Lev Nussimbaum.

What distinguishes Shriver, Franklin, Kolff, and Borlung is the fact that they all left humanity much better off than they found it, but with the exception of Mrs. Shriver, none of them rose out of general obscurity. Their other distinguishing characteristic is that their good works didn't consist solely of giving money or other material things. They gave of themselves – they gave the products of their intellect, and their time. We may not be familiar with their names, but as with those who hit the beaches on D-Day in 1944, we should thank God that they lived.

We do not need fame to have lived a worthwhile life. Within our own families and communities, there are needs that will only be met if someone in that family or community comes forward, of their own volition, for in today's era, in which many former elements of civic America seem to have disappeared, many individual and community needs go unmet, especially in the current recession.

About fifty miles south of here lies an old church, with a small congregation. Several years ago a fire destroyed the church's interior; they were able to save only a few pews. A man not of their faith read of the fire, and gave them a considerable (to them) sum of money to help rebuild. Since that man was not of their faith, his gestured puzzled them, but when they asked him why he would do such a thing, he simply said “because”. The truth was that the man was following the example of his father, who had done a similar thing. So, the father's act, decades ago, had not only been an act of charity to those in need, but an inspiration to his son. If we teach our children thus, our good works can live on well beyond their initial effect, as they inspire future generations.

We have all lost friends or loved ones. Those who are gone, who have inspired us to help others, live on in the good works we do, just as we may live on in the good works of our children. That example, that inspiration to do good works, not just those things that are advantageous to us, is a gift that will serve our children long after the shine has faded from any material possessions we may bestow upon them.

In that speech some sixty-nine years ago, General Patton closed by saying: "Like the old soldier of the ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty..." So it is with us. No matter what we may do for a living, no matter how busy, full and complicated our lives may be, God commands us to do good works, and if we fulfill that command, then we surely will have left our world a better place, for our time, and for future generations.

May you have a healthy and prosperous New Year.

Thoughts On 17 September 2009

Lest I be tempted to sugar coat things, I'll begin by stating that both sides in the current health care debate are lying. Yup, they sure are. Going in order of seniority:

Those in favor of “health care reform” want to get us to a single payer system. That's what liberal,s do – they work to have the nanny state expanded. It proves to them that thney are superior, because they care. The rest of the “pro” positions are a smoke screen. It's a necessary smoke screen,m since the for-profit health insurance industry is such a large portion of the economy. If the “pros” were serious about reform without mischief, they wouldn't have a 1000 page reform bill on the table. If they were serious, they might have put a 200 page bill on the table – one that anyone could understand. I suppose that would be out of the question.

Republicans: Brain Dead One Trick Ponies

That's right folks, the Republicans are pretty much brain dead. They really have two tricks, though: tax cuts and banning abortion. I won't take a position on abortion, except to say that their pursuit of it has gone beyond common sense.

Tax cuts, however, should be easy enough to evaluate by any fool (even a congressman) with a spreadsheet. Folks, could we just get a few adults in Congress who want to balance the budget? Right now we have those who want to spend and tax, and those who want to spend and cut taxes. If Congress needs specialized help, I'd be happy to show them how I've kept my budget balanced for the last 37 years. Someone has to blink on this.

Trouble With The Truth?

One of the great strengths of western civilization has been a strong conceptual model of truth. What is happening to that strength? The health care debate has gone beyond the partisan, beyond the ideological, to the realm of the worthless.

The Republicans cling to the bizarre "death panel" fable, while the Democrats insist that they can wring big savings from Medicare, a program that is funded at 80 per cent of costs. What's really happening here? We are seeing the Democrats attempting to please their various constituencies, while the Republicans try, by any means possible, to head off a program that will almost certainly be the initial precursor of a single payer national health insurance system. The Democrats just want to get something in place, however impractical. When that's done, and the program is bleeding the country white, they figure they can "fix" it to get what they really want, whatever that is, because there will be no turning back.

So, what are we really seeing? You could say politics as usual, but in reality, you are seeing the complete moral bankruptcy of the press. Observation of the last three weeks of Sunday talking head shows suggests that the national press is more interested in taking sides than in clarifying the critical issues. It's not that the critical issues haven't been mentioned, but rather, that they are mentioned in passing, as the press returns to refereeing this national food fight. There's not all that much liberal bias here - just bad journalism.

I'm a big believer in the second amendment, but it's hardly worth keeping, given the service that we're getting from those that it "protects". Sad, very sad.

Moral Hazard Is An Understatement

Remember “moral hazard?” We heard a lot about it when our government was contemplating the big bank bail out. Now, all we hear is about all those bankers and industrialists who must be given our money, lest their self imposed failure bring the United States to its knees (hey, some of us bought knee pads when the price was low). No more moral hazard for us – don’t mind the fact that we are handing our money to the managers who ran their firms into the ground. Keep every last thieving one of ‘em working. A CEO in the unemployment line would add way too much narcissism to the welfare roles.

CEOs in this country live in a world of zero risk (to themselves). After taking over a firm, they stuff the board with compliant people and cronies, then collect their bonuses whether the firm does well or tanks. They “shoot the moon,” that is, the take enormous risks. If the risks pan out, the CEO gets remarkably generous incentive pay. If the risk destroys the firm, the CEO walks away with only a small bonus for the year, and goes on to another firm.

Stockholder power has been emasculated by US laws that were necessitated by political activists who would buy a few shares of a compnay, then try to push the company into left wing agendas that weren’t at all in the companies’ interests.

The country is fast becoming a parody of itself, as more and more firms, and even municipalities, are begging for a “bail out.” Disgust is the appropriate word.