Actually, I am left to wonder how many people even know who Big Brother is or the reference in pop culture. As I talk with people, I have come to realize that many of them understand the Big Brother refers to an overly intrusive government but many fewer know where the term first originated. I guess that 1984 is not necessarily required reading these days. It almost makes me feel old since it was required reading when I was in school. But on the flip side, it gives a very gripping picture of life under a very controlling and authoritarian government. It is not something to which many Americans are accustomed, especially those who were born or grew up after the end of the Cold War. But it is something that seems to is generating a new level of attention within the parameters of the Obama administration and the recent health care debate. A major part of the debate concerning health care relates to the concerns of a large, intrusive government running the medical system.
This concern may seem to be overblown to supporters of the proposed reform, but is it? I received a link to an interesting site that was sent under the aegis of opposing President Obama's proposed reforms. What struck me as interesting, aside from the humor within the site itself, was that it was under the ACLU banner - a group that is not known as a supporter of conservative causes. Is it possible that data will be stored in the manner indicated in that site? Certainly. Is it possible that it can be used in such a manner as indicated in that site? Maybe. It does seem a bit far-fetched at the moment but it is never beyond human nature to misuse information to gain or maintain power.
Frankly, the best way to prevent the abuse of power by a government is to prevent the government from amassing too much power in the first place. Granting government additional power, even in the guise of helping its citizens in the form of guaranteed medical care, may simply be an inevitable progression in the existence of the US. But for a nation that was built upon the basis of individual liberties and rights, abrogating those rights for any reason, regardless of how reasonable it seems on the surface, may not serve the longer-term interest. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Health Care Reform
I have to admit that I am curious as to the definition of health care reform. Is it changing how health care is performed? The method by which the financial aspects are handled? Using new technology to improve health care standards? Providing a minimum level of subsidized care to everyone in the country? Some other definition that I have not noted here?
And I should provide a disclaimer here - I have not read any of the pending legislation because, quite honestly, I have a life where I work and have a family with whom I want to spend time (which is also why this blog gets updated only once or twice a week) and do not have the time necessary to read through the legislation.
But I think the crux of the issue for many people is that there does not appear to be a universal definition of health care reform. People call for it without specifically stating what they mean. Some people call for creating new efficiencies in the practice of health care. Others call for providing free medical care for everyone. Some call for a single payer system whereby all health care bills are paid for by the government (which will inevitably require higher taxes on a portion - if not all - of the taxpayers). Some are calling for the increased use of technology both in the provision of health care (better technology to prevent and cure illnesses) as well as in the business side (to reduce the costs of having to manually track patient records instead of having them digitized or speeding up the process between insurance, provider and patient in terms of medical billing among other ideas). Other definitions are also bandied about by various interest groups but there does not appear to yet be a coherent picture of what "reform" is actually about. At least not something that is readily accessible to the average US citizen via their news networks.
This is usually the point at which I would launch into a tirade against the news media and its fascination for all things related to "Jon & Kate", "Michael Jackson's death" or "Octo-Mom", but I believe I've covered that before. If not, I will most certainly cover it later. But I digress...
So, we have a portion of the population hollering for wholesale changes to the the medical care system. We have a portion of the population adamantly against any changes whatsoever to the best medical care system in the world. And a larger portion who would like to have the issue explained in simple terms that would allow for sensible debate to occur and sensible decisions to be made.
Does the US have the best medical care system in the world? If not the best, certainly one of the best (depending upon the metrics being used). Is it expensive and even inefficient? Probably, especially when measured in monetary terms within a cost-benefit analysis (I think I need to find some data on this). Could it be improved? Sure, along with almost every other aspect of life within the US. But two sides yelling at each other with no room for compromise is going to lead to wholesale changes that will likely prove to be more detrimental than helpful or no change at all which certainly will not prove to be very helpful in the future.
But to get started on the right road, we must first determine what the definition of the reforms needed are and then map out possible solutions from there. If we cannot accurately define the problems, then any solutions will prove useless at best, detrimental at worst.
And I should provide a disclaimer here - I have not read any of the pending legislation because, quite honestly, I have a life where I work and have a family with whom I want to spend time (which is also why this blog gets updated only once or twice a week) and do not have the time necessary to read through the legislation.
But I think the crux of the issue for many people is that there does not appear to be a universal definition of health care reform. People call for it without specifically stating what they mean. Some people call for creating new efficiencies in the practice of health care. Others call for providing free medical care for everyone. Some call for a single payer system whereby all health care bills are paid for by the government (which will inevitably require higher taxes on a portion - if not all - of the taxpayers). Some are calling for the increased use of technology both in the provision of health care (better technology to prevent and cure illnesses) as well as in the business side (to reduce the costs of having to manually track patient records instead of having them digitized or speeding up the process between insurance, provider and patient in terms of medical billing among other ideas). Other definitions are also bandied about by various interest groups but there does not appear to yet be a coherent picture of what "reform" is actually about. At least not something that is readily accessible to the average US citizen via their news networks.
This is usually the point at which I would launch into a tirade against the news media and its fascination for all things related to "Jon & Kate", "Michael Jackson's death" or "Octo-Mom", but I believe I've covered that before. If not, I will most certainly cover it later. But I digress...
So, we have a portion of the population hollering for wholesale changes to the the medical care system. We have a portion of the population adamantly against any changes whatsoever to the best medical care system in the world. And a larger portion who would like to have the issue explained in simple terms that would allow for sensible debate to occur and sensible decisions to be made.
Does the US have the best medical care system in the world? If not the best, certainly one of the best (depending upon the metrics being used). Is it expensive and even inefficient? Probably, especially when measured in monetary terms within a cost-benefit analysis (I think I need to find some data on this). Could it be improved? Sure, along with almost every other aspect of life within the US. But two sides yelling at each other with no room for compromise is going to lead to wholesale changes that will likely prove to be more detrimental than helpful or no change at all which certainly will not prove to be very helpful in the future.
But to get started on the right road, we must first determine what the definition of the reforms needed are and then map out possible solutions from there. If we cannot accurately define the problems, then any solutions will prove useless at best, detrimental at worst.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Cult of Personality
I have to admit that Cult of Personality is one of my favorite songs. It has been ever since it first came out by the band Living Colour. I enjoyed it not only for the style of music but also for its political commentary - which makes sense when I tend to associate almost everything to politics somehow.
I was reminded of this recently as I was thinking about the Obama effect. More precisely, the effect that he has apparently had on a new generation of young voters and supporters. While Bill Clinton enjoyed a certain amount of popularity, particularly among women voters, his overall effect was comparatively small when compared to the first black president of the United States. In an era where people seem to be increasingly judged upon their appeal and popularity, President Obama enjoys a tremendous amount of support. His appearances both on the campaign trail during the election last year attained the status of rock concerts with women swooning as soon as he appeared onstage. Since his election, his popularity has seemingly not waned. While there are many people who do not agree with his policies, none can deny the effect his appearance has had on not just Americans but people all over the world. Whereas his predecessor had engendered a great deal of derision for his policies and sometimes questionable decisions, Obama has just the opposite effect.
His appeal is not hard to understand. He is well-spoken, intelligent, cultured (though that is a subjective term) and good-looking (well, at least that is what I've heard women say). And to become the first black president in a country that is deservedly lambasted for its past with blacks has given him a special position in history that cannot be denied. However, at times, it seems that his appeal has also granted him a sort of invulnerability to criticism that is somewhat disturbing. While Janeane Garofalo is a somewhat extreme example of his supporters, it is rather representative of the beliefs of those who will defend him from any criticism, whether deserved or not. Essentially, the assertion by his backers is that those who would criticize him is that they are all racist regardless of whatever the criticism may be. They assign motive to his critics - something that is simply not possible for it would require the ability to read minds.
And, to be fair, it should be pointed out that such tactics are not only on one side of the political spectrum, as commentary from the other side was equally brutal during the previous administration. But a crucial difference is how Obama is held in regard by his supporters versus the supporters of President Bush, or any others for that matter. There is an almost reverent belief among his followers that he will make everything better. Like the pied piper leading his charges through his musical pipe, President Obama's supporters want to believe and thus they do, without reservation or question. Any critical analysis or advice given is automatically discarded because it does not conform to the hope being offered by the pied piper.
History has shown that blind belief without rational analysis, especially when applied to a charismatic leader, can often have disastrous consequences. Indeed, it is replete with many examples, both elected and not. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini are a few among many. And these examples are only within the last century!
I should caveat that this is not necessarily to infer that President Obama is the same as any of the aforementioned notorious rulers. It is meant merely to demonstrate how the power of wanting to believe in something can lead people to follow leaders whose leadership abilities is questionable at best, disastrous and deadly at worst.
It is not wrong to hope that a man can make a situation better. It is wrong to unquestioningly believe everything that a man may say. And for a great many people who were willing to not only question the abilities of his predecessor but to openly associate him with many of the aforementioned rulers, it seems particularly amazing that they are so blindly willing to follow the current leader without question or reservation.
I was reminded of this recently as I was thinking about the Obama effect. More precisely, the effect that he has apparently had on a new generation of young voters and supporters. While Bill Clinton enjoyed a certain amount of popularity, particularly among women voters, his overall effect was comparatively small when compared to the first black president of the United States. In an era where people seem to be increasingly judged upon their appeal and popularity, President Obama enjoys a tremendous amount of support. His appearances both on the campaign trail during the election last year attained the status of rock concerts with women swooning as soon as he appeared onstage. Since his election, his popularity has seemingly not waned. While there are many people who do not agree with his policies, none can deny the effect his appearance has had on not just Americans but people all over the world. Whereas his predecessor had engendered a great deal of derision for his policies and sometimes questionable decisions, Obama has just the opposite effect.
His appeal is not hard to understand. He is well-spoken, intelligent, cultured (though that is a subjective term) and good-looking (well, at least that is what I've heard women say). And to become the first black president in a country that is deservedly lambasted for its past with blacks has given him a special position in history that cannot be denied. However, at times, it seems that his appeal has also granted him a sort of invulnerability to criticism that is somewhat disturbing. While Janeane Garofalo is a somewhat extreme example of his supporters, it is rather representative of the beliefs of those who will defend him from any criticism, whether deserved or not. Essentially, the assertion by his backers is that those who would criticize him is that they are all racist regardless of whatever the criticism may be. They assign motive to his critics - something that is simply not possible for it would require the ability to read minds.
And, to be fair, it should be pointed out that such tactics are not only on one side of the political spectrum, as commentary from the other side was equally brutal during the previous administration. But a crucial difference is how Obama is held in regard by his supporters versus the supporters of President Bush, or any others for that matter. There is an almost reverent belief among his followers that he will make everything better. Like the pied piper leading his charges through his musical pipe, President Obama's supporters want to believe and thus they do, without reservation or question. Any critical analysis or advice given is automatically discarded because it does not conform to the hope being offered by the pied piper.
History has shown that blind belief without rational analysis, especially when applied to a charismatic leader, can often have disastrous consequences. Indeed, it is replete with many examples, both elected and not. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini are a few among many. And these examples are only within the last century!
I should caveat that this is not necessarily to infer that President Obama is the same as any of the aforementioned notorious rulers. It is meant merely to demonstrate how the power of wanting to believe in something can lead people to follow leaders whose leadership abilities is questionable at best, disastrous and deadly at worst.
It is not wrong to hope that a man can make a situation better. It is wrong to unquestioningly believe everything that a man may say. And for a great many people who were willing to not only question the abilities of his predecessor but to openly associate him with many of the aforementioned rulers, it seems particularly amazing that they are so blindly willing to follow the current leader without question or reservation.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Town Hall Protests
With the failure by Congress to pass legislation regarding changes to health care in the US, the congressional summer break has allowed for time for members of Congress to return to their respective districts and talk with their constituents about the proposed legislation. However, there has been an outbreak of dissension at various town halls conducted by some of the Democratic members of Congress. Perhaps dissension is putting it euphemistically. There has been vociferous opposition at those meetings to the proposed health care proposals being put forth by the Congress.
But it is not the health care debate that has generated headlines at these meetings but the turmoil resulting from them - and the possible causes of the turmoil. Namely, the charge by Democrats that the opposition is being organized and possibly even bused in by conservative lobbyists and other supporters. The charge itself is almost amusing in how it seems reminiscent of similar charges made against authoritarian regimes who claim popular support through similar measures of busing in supporters to demonstrations in their favor - except now it is the regime in power that is complaining about it from the opposition. The Republicans, in defense of the tactics being used by their supporters, claim that the opposition is to the administration's support and almost-unilateral push for changes to the health-care system and is entirely home-grown.
The end result is yet to be determined. In all likelihood, the Democrats will push through a package of changes (one man's "reform" is another man's unwanted or unnecessary change) for the health-care system. But the Republicans may have won the battle here by shifting the conversation away from a rational discussion of the issues to coverage of the meetings and the turmoil resulting from them. Whatever changes go through will please neither side (though it could be argued that the whole point of a good compromise is that both sides are equally unhappy) and likely will not resolve the issues relating to the problems in the health care system. But, so long as it is used as a political football that can be used to benefit a given party, expect nothing more.
But it is not the health care debate that has generated headlines at these meetings but the turmoil resulting from them - and the possible causes of the turmoil. Namely, the charge by Democrats that the opposition is being organized and possibly even bused in by conservative lobbyists and other supporters. The charge itself is almost amusing in how it seems reminiscent of similar charges made against authoritarian regimes who claim popular support through similar measures of busing in supporters to demonstrations in their favor - except now it is the regime in power that is complaining about it from the opposition. The Republicans, in defense of the tactics being used by their supporters, claim that the opposition is to the administration's support and almost-unilateral push for changes to the health-care system and is entirely home-grown.
The end result is yet to be determined. In all likelihood, the Democrats will push through a package of changes (one man's "reform" is another man's unwanted or unnecessary change) for the health-care system. But the Republicans may have won the battle here by shifting the conversation away from a rational discussion of the issues to coverage of the meetings and the turmoil resulting from them. Whatever changes go through will please neither side (though it could be argued that the whole point of a good compromise is that both sides are equally unhappy) and likely will not resolve the issues relating to the problems in the health care system. But, so long as it is used as a political football that can be used to benefit a given party, expect nothing more.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
North Korean hostages
What to make of the two female reporters who were released by the North Korean government as a goodwill gesture after Bill Clinton's sudden appearance in Pyongyang? It is certainly good that the women were allowed to leave, but the political farce is likely just beginning. The North Korean media have reported that, as a sign of their magnanimity after Clinton apologized on behalf of the US, they granted a pardon to the women. The Obama administration has stated that this was a private visit by former President Clinton and that there were no messages - and therefore no apology - delivered from the administration.
First, it is impossible that Clinton went to North Korea without the full knowledge and approval of the Obama administration. Clearly a deal was worked out beforehand that his simply showing up for essentially a photo op was sufficient to have the reporters released. So what do the two sides gain from it? Obviously, North Korea gets pictures of Bill Clinton sitting (rather stone-faced) next to Dear Leader and to trumpet that the women were pardoned after Clinton apologized (for what?!). Nobody except the North Koreans (and likely not even a majority of them) believe the propaganda put out by the Dear Leader and his cronies but it makes for a lot of publicity. Essentially, they have proven Hillary's point that they were nothing more than a whiny child wanting attention. And the best way to get back at her for such comments was to have her husband go and kowtow down to them (regardless of whatever spin anyone puts on it on the US side). It seems it worked rather well for North Korea.
For the US, the only true benefit seems to have been the release of the two women. The Obama administration can protest all it wants that it was not involved but no one outside of the deliberately obtuse will rationally believe it. The logistics alone preclude that as a possibility (the South Koreans have their fishing ships taken prisoner for straying into North Korean waters, so how would a US airplane get to Pyongyang without prior agreement?). It is highly unlikely that any apology was delivered and almost as likely that any message was delivered by Clinton himself. If any message was delivered, it was during the negotiations leading up to Clinton's visit. But, the US does stand somewhat humiliated by this action. Now, any country that wants to get US attention simply has to get its hands on some US nationals and then make whatever demands they want. In the eyes of most Americans - and I am not offering judgment one way or another - a single American life is worth more than a hundred from almost any other nation. (If you don't believe it, ask anyone how many US service members have been killed in Iraq, then ask them how many Iraqis.) So, want to distract attention from the nuclear proliferation issue, just capture a few American civilians and then you can distract them with loud calls about how they're going to be punished and everyone will demand that the government cave in to whatever demands to get them released.
Say, come to think of it, this sounds like Iran now (except they have three instead of two).
And in both cases, how exactly did they end up in North Korea or Iran, anyway?
First, it is impossible that Clinton went to North Korea without the full knowledge and approval of the Obama administration. Clearly a deal was worked out beforehand that his simply showing up for essentially a photo op was sufficient to have the reporters released. So what do the two sides gain from it? Obviously, North Korea gets pictures of Bill Clinton sitting (rather stone-faced) next to Dear Leader and to trumpet that the women were pardoned after Clinton apologized (for what?!). Nobody except the North Koreans (and likely not even a majority of them) believe the propaganda put out by the Dear Leader and his cronies but it makes for a lot of publicity. Essentially, they have proven Hillary's point that they were nothing more than a whiny child wanting attention. And the best way to get back at her for such comments was to have her husband go and kowtow down to them (regardless of whatever spin anyone puts on it on the US side). It seems it worked rather well for North Korea.
For the US, the only true benefit seems to have been the release of the two women. The Obama administration can protest all it wants that it was not involved but no one outside of the deliberately obtuse will rationally believe it. The logistics alone preclude that as a possibility (the South Koreans have their fishing ships taken prisoner for straying into North Korean waters, so how would a US airplane get to Pyongyang without prior agreement?). It is highly unlikely that any apology was delivered and almost as likely that any message was delivered by Clinton himself. If any message was delivered, it was during the negotiations leading up to Clinton's visit. But, the US does stand somewhat humiliated by this action. Now, any country that wants to get US attention simply has to get its hands on some US nationals and then make whatever demands they want. In the eyes of most Americans - and I am not offering judgment one way or another - a single American life is worth more than a hundred from almost any other nation. (If you don't believe it, ask anyone how many US service members have been killed in Iraq, then ask them how many Iraqis.) So, want to distract attention from the nuclear proliferation issue, just capture a few American civilians and then you can distract them with loud calls about how they're going to be punished and everyone will demand that the government cave in to whatever demands to get them released.
Say, come to think of it, this sounds like Iran now (except they have three instead of two).
And in both cases, how exactly did they end up in North Korea or Iran, anyway?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)