We'll See

Parents are deep wells of wisdom.

That fact seems to usually go unrecognized until the children themselves are in the parent stage. I have found that even though I certainly gave lip service to my mother's wisdom, as I move down the slippery slope -- getting within spitting distance now of the AARP -- I see it more clearly.

As a child I would ask my Mom if we could do something in the future. "Can we go to Benson's Animal Farm this summer?"  "Can we go to the beach next week?"

Her inevitable answer would be "We'll see."

It was a source of great frustration for me. Yes or no. "We'll see" just did not cut it.

Now I watch the check and balance action going back and forth between Congress, Senate and the Executive Branch of the federal government. Competing theories of what needs doing and how to do it -- mow it all down or just a little pruning here and there. Competing theories of what will happen -- total apocalypse or a slight bump in the road.

And no news outlet seems to be able to actually explain the issues. They are great on the play by play, (Boehner jabs, he weaves, Obama with a right cross, and OH! Boehner lands a solid blow to the kidneys. Obama shakes it off...) but no one seem to be able to clarify the issues at hand.

So...I find myself, like my Mom, just watching it all and saying..."Well -- we'll see."

Wisdom. I see it now.

Black Kettles and Ebony Pots

There is no doubt the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is deplorable. Awful. Terrible. Disastrous.

And BP screwed up. Monumentally.

But....

These congressional dog and pony shows make me want to throw up. Documentaries often seem to like talking about how back in the day, hundreds of people would show up for a public hanging. It was great entertainment. Of course, today we don't do that because we are so much more sensitive and civilized than our primitive ancestors of 120 years ago.

Instead we pay actors to pretend to be violent.

And we watch our elected officials publicly and loudly flog the nearest dog they can put their hands on. Millions gather via the glowing screen to see the officials strut and pontificate -- as if they had nothing to do with it.

Here's the problem. BP screwed up, but the oil is on our hands. They were just the delivery boys.

We need to stop being so self-righteous about where our petroleum comes from.

Paglia on Pelosi. Holy Hygeia!!

Taking a brief break from burning logs to mention this column on Salon.com regarding the pending bill on national health care (among other topics). The column is written by Camille Paglia. Yes, that Camille Paglia, the she wolf herself.

She is well known for her lefty liberal stances on...well...just about everything, but at least she serves them up with real style and thoughtfulness. Surprisingly, in this column entry, she offers a harsh, if not overly detailed, criticism of the bill that many of her liberalistic colleagues are having orgasms over. It sounds like Camille has a headache and would just rather do something else.

Read it here.

The Tyrant's Forge

Much to think about in this short quote. Read it three times. I found that in a single reading I tended to catch only the buzzwords, but not some of the more fundamental ideas.

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

-Patrick Henry

National Dyspepsia and Me

I’ve been thinking much lately of the national discussion shaping up around national health care programs (or not). It’s been fascinating for me to watch my own thinking, as limited and clumsy as it is, developing on that topic. I have always listed myself as Independent (in New Hampshire, this is my actual registered "party" affliation) while definitely leaning toward the conservative republicanish column. I am finding such labels less and less useful. To be honest, my current political position seems to mesh liberal amounts of libertarian gush with sizable piles of communitarian hoohah, a few globs of personal pork, and good dash of wwjd philosophy. That odd blend tends to create a certain degree of dyspepsia. When I apply it to the healthcare debate, I find myself in places I never thought I would.

Republican objections that I have heard seem more knee-jerk than thoughtful and substantive. Hysterics about bureaucrats taking away your ability to decide about your health care when such decisions should be “left up to you and your doctor” just strike a false note with me coming from these corners. You can’t accuse the Democrats of using that as a smoke screen to push through abortion legislation, and then use it as your own smokescreen. And the warnings about “rationing” are a bruised reed. Healthcare is already rationed, just not in a rational way. It is rationed by chance and circumstance. In the aggregate, you might barely be able to argue that it works, but if you look at the direction of the aggregate is actually going now, indications seem to be that it is not working.

It could be that I listen to NPR way too much. I’m hearing words like “unsustainable” and “untenable.” These could also be hysterics, but the seem right to me. This may be in part because my own view is skewed heavily by my own currently unsustainable and untenable economic condition – and the economics of my personal and family healthcare are a big part of that. I am paying easily 20-40% of my monthly income (my monthly income varies) toward just my insurance. This does not include actually paying for any actual healthcare we receive. Needless to say, I don’t go to the dentist very often.

The argument I hear most speaking against some form of consistent national health plan is that it is not the responsibility of government to provide such a service. I can see that argument. The constitution clearly delineates the role of the federal government and that of the states. Providing an army for the national defense is in there. Providing health care is not. And yet I think this may be placing the emphasis on the wrong principle. A national health care plan is not forbidden by the constitution. Such a need could not have been envisioned by the founding fathers to either forbid or recommend. We have to find our own way.

Let’s stipulate for a second that providing health care is not rightfully a responsibility of government. So then, whose is it? Right now it falls to business. But why does it make any more sense, on principle, for business to be saddled with that responsibility. It is the job of business to provide value for customers through products and services, and value to shareholders through profits, and value to employees through pay for services rendered. Who says this OUGHT to rightfully include health care? What does Acme Plumbing know about health insurance? What does Atomic Widgets know about managed care? There is a strong argument to be made that business should be freed from this additional burden so that our economy can grow.

Oh…but if government takes over managing healthcare then we are “letting employers walk away from their responsibility.” First, I would dispute that is really their responsibility. Second, they are already walking away from it by cutting their own costs, reducing benefits, pushing premiums onto the individual. That is the irrational rationing I spoke of earlier.

Will it be expensive? Oh, certainly. But what costs are we bearing now that are not accounted for? And wouldn’t a healthy population become part of our common wealth. We invest in roads and sewers because we all benefit. Such infrastructure helps us to conduct our lives, exercise out liberty and pursue all that happiness. If providing more consistent and rational healthcare coverage would move us in that direction, I think I’d be for it.

I also think that it is possible to design a system that could do that. It won’t be perfect, but I think it can be done. We’ll see. 

Two Sides of a Coin

I’ve learned that it takes a lot to get me exercised about politics. Mostly, I just like to sit on the outside and watch other people jump up and down and get all histrionic. I’m not above throwing a comment or question in just to instigate more fireworks. I’m really more of a spectator, although I do enjoy a good show.

Other people find certainty much easier to come by. I am simply not convinced that Obama is going to turn the U.S. into a socialist state all by himself. I’m pretty sure that we won’t all be muslims by 2012. I doubt that some kind of government sponsored health care plan will be a complete and utter disaster for our nation -- and I suspect that a good one might actually help.

Although I love to listen to Mr. Obama speak, and I am a sucker for powerful oratory and poetic, majestic themes, I don’t mistake those for the day to day grind of running a government, and I simply am waiting to see how he manages that.

On the other hand, although I voted for McCain, I was not convinced that his plans to lower taxes, offer health care rebates, and appoint “conservative” justices would usher in the New Jerusalem either. Nor would he launch the country into a tyrannical police state.

The peculiar thing is that although the President wields tremendous influence on the shape of future events, that manner in which their actions actually shape those events is much more difficult to predict. It must be a corollary to Murphy’s Law that if any unintended consequences to a decision, regulation, or law is possible, it will almost certainly come to pass. I suspect that in the long run, most consequences are unintended, most blessing unlooked for and most disaster will take us by surprise.

GWB certainly was a man of decision. He was very clear in his own mind. His world is a very simple place, a matter of black and white, yes and no. No compromise, and no wavering. This was his great strength, and turned out to be his downfall. It is common for a man’s weakness to be the obverse of his greatest strength -- 2 sides of a coin. I can only imagine how surprised he has been by the consequences of his actions. I don’t think this has turned out at all the way he expected.

So now we will get to see what Obama’s greatest strengths are, and in time how they also reveal his great weaknesses. When 4 years (or eight) are past, we will see whether it all played out as Mr. Obama expected…and all his supporters as well.

Personally, I hope it all works out great, and all the most noble visions of Mr. Obama come to pass. We’ll see how noble are the outcomes the grow from his ideals.

What is Good Law?

What is the government's proper role? This is really the pivotal question defining this election.

Ron Jung put it well in an earlier comment on the debate. It was so well put that I want to bring it out here into the light of day.

The Feds should make good law and be the enforcer of the laws. Once the Feds are the ones in charge, who regulates them? What accountability do they have? We need a WALL OF SEPERATION between the business/education/medical world and the government. The Gov. should be the bad guy heavies enforcing good law PERIOD.

Making the laws that channel the activity of the people is not the same thing as making laws the do things for the people. Good law, well enforced, makes a strong civilization.

 

So how do we define what is GOOD LAW?

Do Gooders

Not a HUGE fan of Thoreau. A few quotes, too often repeated, and usually in a manner that suggests that they must contain such wisdom as will answer all questions. Nevertheless, every once in a while I come across something surprising and revealing.

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life...There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve. ... Do not ... be an overseer of the poor, but endeavor to become one of the worthies of the world.

From Walden by Henry David Thoreau