Getting Fixed

Cross-posted at The Exchange.


Much is being made of Health Care/Insurance reform of late. Look on any major news site, op-ed page or political blog and you’ll run into several pieces posted just this week covering the breaking news! over Blue Dog Dems dealing or Obama pushing or Republicans pushing back, not to mention the pontificating on both sides of the aisle over what “reform” really means for health care in America, co-op vs. public option…and the shouting at Town Halls! It’s more than part of the news cycle – it’s a key argument about our future.

It’s the first major legislative battle Obama has had to fight, and for the Democratic Party, it’s a chance to reverse a fifteen-year-old loss. More than these, it is a new theatre of war in the battle for our civil liberties.

The Bush Administration is still fresh in our minds. How many readers have lamented that since 9/11 (or afterwards, when the Patriot Act was passed), our civil liberties have been trampled on/infringed upon/lost? It’s a common topic that talks of the individual freedoms we hold valuable in our country.

(Less directly, those voicing dissent were also realizing a harsh reality: that these “truths we hold to be self-evident” and divinely-granted exist only due to the government’s benevolent, diverse structure and state.)

The thinking is this: we have a measure of control (freedoms) over our personal lives (and by extension, choices) that cannot be impugned by any governmental body. The most common freedom referenced is that of Speech, tying into the freedom to disagree with the government and its members.

So were our freedoms infringed upon over the last seven and change years? And how does this factor into health care?!

Short answer: 1) no, and 2) health care reform as exists in draft form (ObamaCare) is a direct interference in our lives, a diluting of our personal liberties.

Not-as-short answer, we’ll talk first about Bush (yay, that hasn’t been done a lot!).

Aside from the flag-draped coffins arriving in cargo planes, the biggest uniquely “American” tragedy of the recent Bush years is the “loss” of civil liberties/personal freedoms. But let’s take a look further. Yes, the TSA interrupted our travel, causing frustration. We were also limited in the quantity of cosmetics we could bring on planes (still no guns). Regarding dissent – freedom of speech in general – if anything, Bush’s time in office saw a flowering of free speech. Having worked in a book store, I witnessed firsthand the number of anti-Administration books that were published – harsh tomes that didn’t hold their punches and outright derided, accused and insulted most of the top officials. Few were spared. One novel, by Nicholson Baker, had its main character fantasizing about killing Bush (though he was talked out of it).

In the theatres, we saw the scathing documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which took aim at the Administration’s run-up to and early execution of the War in Iraq (as well as the handling of 9/11 itself). “Critical” is an understatement. And how many times did we tune in to a left-leaning pundit, talk show host or guest lambasting Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld as evil, fascist, corrupt, or at the least questionable in their morality?

Is this provocative newsmaking? Strict journalism? No, much of what was published, printed, screened or screamed by the cable punditry was personal opinion, heavily biased and often filled with fervent desire to see those in power toppled like an Iraqi statue, i.e., brought low by impeachment. While this never happened, “administration change” was a stated policy goal of many armchair politicians.

So freedom of speech. Freedom to (angrily) travel. Abortion and gay-related issues existed at the end of term where they were at the beginning, from a national perspective. Your taxes went down (yes, for all of you; a new lower bracket was even created). Your incomes may also have gone down, or your home values or 401(k)’s; insurance premiums did rise. But those aren’t “freedoms,” but rather a part of living in a capitalist, largely market-driven society.

More importantly, during this time your freedom of choice wasn’t altered. Choice to drink or smoke, to have a hamburger, to drive an SUV.

To not be insured.

We require our drivers to get car insurance, mainly to pay for repairs when that other guy hits you while turning left out of a Taco Bell parking lot. It’s a safety net for those responsible in traffic accidents, so they don’t go broke when their ’89 Civic rear-ends a Bentley. There are multiple parties involved.

Health insurance is a different beast. It’s about you and your body. It’s a choice you make about protecting that body and your pocketbook in case of injury or serious illness. We don’t cover ourselves to pay for cold medicine; as John Stossel said recently, insurance isn’t welfare, but instead coverage for a potential catastrophic incident. It secures against the potential maladies that can’t be solved by a trip to CVS or Walgreens, those things that cost a lot to fix.

But we still – as of this writing, and since insurance was invented – have a choice whether or not to buy it.

Our employers might cover us. They certainly don’t need to provide insurance. Tying your health care to where you work has shackled many to careers they’d rather not have. But we expect it, don’t we? It’s taken for granted that if you work for a major corporation, “benefits” will be included – benefits being medical coverage, dental, vision, emergency room service, etc. When it’s not offered, many throw their hands up and moan. What am I going to do? they cry.

In the case you don’t have employer-provided coverage, you can buy insurance (as the company is doing for its employees) from a provider, paying semi-annually to maintain the safety net against grievous injury or sickness.

But, again, you don’t have to; there is no requirement. If we’re not careful, however, there could be.

For lack of a better term, I’ll call what’s coming out of the Democratic Caucuses “ObamaCare,” and in its purest form it approaches a single-payer (that payer being the gov’t) system that many in America don’t understand, but also recoil from when it’s mentioned. As is being drafted currently, ObamaCare would include a requirement – punishable, if violated – for all employers to buy their employees health care and for all individuals to somehow have coverage, buying it if is not provided otherwise. A mandate.

So be healthy, or pay a fine. Or another way to look at it, Dear Leader says buy our healthcare.

It’s just a matter of time, if ObamaCare is passed, before the single-payer option is introduced in some pilot phase. We have a debate now between a government insurance program (the “public” option; run & owned by the gov’t and funded with your tax dollars) and the co-op (a member-owned group that uses their purchasing power to get lower costs collectively than alone).

(I’m more for the latter, predominantly because I think small businesses should have the option – should they choose – of collective bargaining that we think only unionistas are entitled.)

Public or co-op, under ObamaCare one way has to be in the bill to ensure “lower” cost insurance options, as we would all need to have something under pain of high fines. And here’s where the freedom of choice goes away.

We should not be forced by a governmental body to buy health insurance, something that affects solely the individual (if I punch you, and you need dental work, no health care plan of mine in the capitalist world would pay your bill). It’s our choice.

Many of those that are uninsured are post-college adults who either don’t have the job that supplies insurance or choose not to be covered, as they are young and healthy. Catastrophic risk is low for them, as relates to illness (we all can fall victim to accidents & injuries).

Why are we seeing a party that champions individual choice (we can cut to the quick with one word: abortion) refusing to allow the same regarding health care coverage?

This is a step toward a nanny state, and what do nannies do but take away the choices of the child.

If we are soon mandated to have health insurance, how long before fast food joints are fined for serving real beef burgers (too fatty!) instead of veggie burgers? Or bread producers (and their supporting farmers) ordered to make only gluten-free products, as some claim our bodies aren’t supposed to handle the stuff? Or regular pop – or pop in general, as diet might possibly in an alternate world lead to cancer! It’s all unhealthy, right? We shouldn’t consume these products, as they’d raise the potential for future maladies (and jack up costs)…right, Dear Leader?

What about the “legalize” movement, predominantly supported by the same left-leaning people who voted Obama into office? It’ll be a cold day before pot is legalized; in fact, it’s more likely that cigarettes face a 100% national tax – punishing smokers, isolating them, even more – on their way to an eventual banning.

And then there’s that can of beer you drink while watching a game. Prohibition was a failure, and it was the result of a religious-backed temperance movement that saw it pass. Well, “health care reform” advocates want your body to be insured and in tip-top shape; liquor doesn’t factor into that equation. Look for higher sales taxes, more restrictions on purchases by individuals and establishments, neighborhood bar & grill closures.

Because you have to be as healthy as the government says. There is no more room for personal choice when it comes to our bodies, right? That’s what I’m hearing with ObamaCare. Health care reform is no longer an issue of children being without insurance or the homeless being denied care. We’re not talking about lowering costs so the woman working two jobs can afford coverage to combat her returned cancer.

No, we’re skipping the true “need” aspect of health care (that being low, market-driven costs with state restrictions eliminated, co-op pools for small businesses, et al) for the ideological stance of a small group of policy makers too enamored with the concept of “universal coverage” to realize the dread cost to the end-consumer or the country as a whole.

The potential for failure to reform health care – to make it affordable for all – is high. No one likes to hear the tragic stories where if they had coverage Bobby would be alive, or little Susie’s heart valve defect would’ve been detected in utero, avoiding frantic emergency surgery, or Ted wouldn’t have gone bankrupt paying for his wife’s caner medication and treatment. Those stories will compound if nothing is done.

But the right action isn’t necessarily the one presented, and I’m not saying it’s 100% the Grumbling Opposition Party’s way either. What I do fervently believe is that we need to be mindful of the individual’s right to choose – and the related personal freedoms that could be endangered should we lose that right.

Our civil liberties come in many forms. A woman’s right to choose is not the only heath care choice we have the “right” to make. If we want to create a society that lets the person and not the government make the choice in the vast majority of cases, we cannot allow ourselves to turn a deaf ear when protest is raised on a topic we feel strongly about.

Take a few steps back. Slow down the process. Reform the health care system, but don’t devolve our rights in the process.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

TPH Returns - "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Realistic"

The Political Hoedown returns, now with no foolhardy attempt at regularity.

*Is there room in the US for a moderate party? Can self-styled "progressive" or reform Republicans (think Teddy Roosevelt or *gasp* Barry Goldwater?!) and, in their own way, "Blue Dog" Democrats (who're fighting DNC leaders about the Health Care reform bill as currently drafted) find a common slogan to rally behind?

*Palin-tology: the future of our maverick-y sled dog.

*Today's polls mean little for next year's mid-term. No big expansion on that point; just don't trust them. …okay, I'll expand a little.

***
I don't mean to alarm you, but there's a lot of partisanship these days. The situation isn't as bad as 2006; that was a bitter election year, especially with Iraq still in "quagmire" territory. Both sides emerged calcified and eager for a full-fledged electoral tussle in '08.

Now that we've had that brutal fight, with the GOP emerging battered and the "conservative" agenda at risk of fracturing amidst regionalization, you'd think the winners would be magnanimous. Not so, dear friends.

Legislation is veering sharply Left - for good or bad, as it veered Right during Bush's first term - and one sees the image of a steamroller driven by a donkey chasing an elephant. For nearly all bills can now be passed without a single Republican vote, and it's not healing the wounds of the last eight years to go about business as though 40% of the government doesn't exist.

And by ignoring the opposition, diminished as it greatly is, one also ignores its agenda items. Not every piece of conservative/Right/Republican policy calls for prayer in school while Gay heavy metal CDs are melted in a bonfire lit by Jerry Falwell's ghost.

So some Democrats are coming to remember.

They are called "Blue Dog" Democrats, and they represent the fiscally conservative, if socially liberal (or middle-left), wing of the DNC. There are currently 52 Blue Dogs between House and Senate: 16.6% of the total Dems in Congress, no small number. Currently they're up in arms about the Democrat-drafted health care reform bill and their objections are those of fiscal conservatives - traditionally the Republican stance.

In the Republican camp, there's been a war brewing for three years (or maybe since Teddy Roosevelt broke ranks in 1912) between those who place social conservatism ahead of economic conservatism and vice versa. Is this a time when a "Blue Dog" type Republican might emerge - moderate socially, economically Conservative? I, of course, refer to these as "Reform" or "Progressive Republicans," as these moderates have a forward view on science & technology, and the private lives of US citizens.

And if this other caucus-within-a-caucus is born, will our great Union witness another?

A national third party is the dream of pundits, basically a massive monkey wrench in the gears of "politics as normal." There are two possible breakaways* that could be formed: the above mentioned "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Realistic" (moderate, in other words) party, similarly to Libertarians; and the "Moral Right," which is the Palin wing of the GOP along with a few "Christian Democrats," those who are part of the Religious Right but have a (D) after their name.

The Republican Party is in shambles, leaderless and objectiveless. Their only collective, coherent thought is to block Obama if at all possible. But as the Democrats found out in 2004, when they ran on an "Anything is Better than Bush" platform, hate doesn't drive success. Ideas (and Roveian campaigning) do.


*(of course, really four if you count the Independence movements in Alaska and Texas, stronger than they have been in years.)

***

Palinpalooza!

By now, we all know that Sarah Palin has announced 1) she's not running for reelection as Governor of Alaska and that 2) she will resign July 26th, handing the reins over to her Lt. Gov Sean Parnell. There's still well over a year of her term left.

What's shocking is that there are some out there who think she still has a chance at the 2012 Republican nomination. In fact, they say this move will help her chances. I hope I can pop this little bubble of electoral hope: she's finished.

Arguably more of a lightning rod during the last election than even Obama, Palin entered the national political stage in a whirlwind of pit bulls and hockey sticks and knocked-up teens. She would go on to win the hearts of a chunk of Americans and the scorn of many more. In a nutshell, she's divisive, seen as flighty and in no ways a candidate that can capture a national majority.

So she's done, effectively. While there will be people who rally to whatever cause she takes up, and as we gear up for the 2012 primaries, listen to her, the citizenry as a whole do not endorse a political future for this woman. Who she eventually supports will turn into the early frontrunner (I don't buy her as a kingmaker, but she will bring publicity), though that person will take on all the negative connotations of "Sarah Palin's Pick."

The resignation is good for all parties: she gets to reevaluate her life, spend time with family and maybe salvage her image. The DNC gets fodder for the mid-terms ("Why elect member of the party that chose a QUITTER for their VP?!") and media drones. The GOP clears an ugly debit off its books and can really go about reforming and reorganizing the party.

She's headed off to write a book, and after that stump for those candidates who share her views on certain issues (Democrat of Republican). How many times do you think she'll hear "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't make it" ?

***

Right, those polls. Rasmussen has Obama's "strongly disapprove" rating higher than his "strongly approve" (though his overall number is still greater than 50%); they also show (R)s leading (D)s in eight of ten key issues, with the gap closing on the remainder. This is a two-week running affair, the GOP getting the upper hand on issues, but it means next to nil.

We are a year from serious mid-term campaigning and two and a half years until the 2012 primary season. A lot can change. Look at the political landscape last year. Few could map that twisted path from Obama's Iowa blowout to the reversal in New Hampshire, McCain's gradual rise, the most drawn out Democratic presidential primary in recent memory, Sarah Palin, the economic disaster. There was no crystal ball for those events.

we need to remember that going forward. Follow the legislation that's been introduced since Election Day, the Obama-backed stuff. He'll sink or swim on the last eight months' worth of policy from his proxies and party. Health Care can get reformed, Iraq solved but if the economy is in ruin in early 2012 (or late 2011), he'll face stiff GOP opposition (with the winds of anger at their back) or potential insurrection in the DNC.

Democrats haven't had a dynastic period in the White House since FDR got in. Republicans have won all but three elections since 1968. They want to win, and Obama might pull a "I've accomplished all I set out to do" speech if the stimulus packages and spending choices (blunders) fall flat.

***

Next time...who knows?

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

AIG executives are a sore substitute for real justice...

(A guest piece!)

The persecution of corporations for exorbitant executive compensation (with or without government funds) is shortsighted and may in the long run hurt the movement for economic justice. While I am angry that executives are rewarding themselves for their foolishness, I recognize that retribution plays to my basest instincts. People interested in furthering their economic freedom have a better chance to get a stable economy by channeling their anger into a campaign around regulating financial derivatives and other unsound financial practices.

Indifferent government (yes, we're talking Democrats here too) enabled Chairman Greenspan and financial service and other corporate interest groups to thwart regulation of financial derivatives. Advocates have a prime opportunity to redirect public outrage away from executive compensation to the urgency of clipping the wings of executives greed: unregulated, unsound financial practices.

Corporate apologists who claim that regulation inhibits economic growth need no further shaming than to be shown the previous week's deflation of the asset-price bubble. These corporate apologists confused overcapacity with growth, for whose mistake you and I are taking a hit in the pocketbook. Let your Congressperson know you're mad.

-Matthew H Griffin

Read on, faithful few!

Mixed Signals

A few thoughts regarding the proposed Illinois crosswalk/pedestrian law that would require cars to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk:

To be clear, I have no issue with a law on our books stating that for the crosswalk going with the flow of traffic, the pedestrians should have right-of-way vs. turning cars. That's common sense.

However, entering into law the notion that a driver would be legally responsible to stop (therefore in the wrong, in case of an accident) when a pedestrian uses the crosswalk that runs against the flow of traffic is more than just bad legislation. It's dangerous.

We have walk/don't walk signals at all stop-light controlled intersections. This lets pedestrians know when it is safe to freely cross (walk), when discretion is required (don't walk-flashing) or when it is unsafe and then can't/shouldn't walk (don't walk-solid). When traffic is flowing, say, east-west, the north-south crosswalk signals show a "don't walk" sign, the equivalent of a pedestrian's "red light." They know not to cross, as they would be going against the flow of traffic and, as such, in the wrong for any accident. It all has to do with respecting those with whom you share the road - cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, rickshaw drivers (Chinatown), etc.

If the law, as proposed, is passed, that "don't walk" signal becomes meaningless. Now, pedestrians no longer have any legal obligation (only mortal) to not cross against traffic. Why should they? The law says they are in the right and cars must yield to them. It's hazardous for their lives and the motorists and is bad form when held against the rules of the road and all the safety skills we had drilled into us at Safety Village.

In a perfect metropolis, the only big vehicles on the roads would electric street cars, with bike lanes and better sidewalks. But we don't live in this semi-science fiction world. We have cars, and must deal with their presence not with hostility but respect, as we want them to respect us, the pedestrians. Violating the crosswalk signals places us in mortal danger, as it does those cars headed towards us.

A new law on the books would also add undue mental distress to motorists who would face not only the physical and mental damage of hitting a dumb guy who saunters across the road in clear ignorance of the "don't walk" solid signal, but also new legal woes. Moving forward with what is presented, we're treating motorists as health advocates treat smokers - not deserving of equal treatment.

I'd urge you to push for a change to this crosswalk law, to contact your state congressmen and senators and see some positive amendments put in place. If not that, I would implore you to think through the ramifications of this law in all their forms.

More information can be obtained by talking to the Active Transportation Alliance, a great non-profit promoting "better biking, walking and transit."

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

"...and you smell like one, too."

A brief aside, before the main event:

Tolerance is a nasty word and a bad habit. Tolerate someone, we are taught, but that doesn't mean like them. Instead of trying to understand a person or an action, we are asked simply to tolerate its existence. This, in turn, will lead to a more harmonious society.

But tolerance, as defined, is not acceptance. Accept someone, and you embrace the idea that they are different from you - or their actions are - and can rationalize their worldview with your own. Shouldn't we be preaching acceptance, which would lead to the artificial barriers of color being toppled? Isn't that the next step in this ongoing discussion of racism?

I only bring this up in light of the recent backlash against a New York Post cartoon that some are saying is of a racist nature.

So to the point. Sean Delonas drew a cartoon that has drawn a lot of heat and carried several news cycles, roping in some pretty big names along the way. Here it is:

Now, both paper and illustrator point out that the cartoon references two recent news events: the stimulus bill passage and the killing of a rampaging chimp in suburban Connecticut. Most people living in the CT/NY/NJ region of the country have been inundated with stories about the savage beating a woman received at the hands of a once-docile, 200 lb. pet chimp. Likewise, we all know about the stimulus bill and its struggle in Congress. The message, they say, is to reflect that the bill was written so poorly, a monkey 1) could've written it/or better or 2) would've written the next one, as the first was pretty inadequate. The death of the monkey means someone else will need to write the bill. Clear on the intent? It plays with the phrase "so easy a monkey could do it."

So the cartoonist makes the assumption that we have knowledge of 1) the chimp story, to get the shooting; 2) the stimulus bill, it's hang-ups, troubles, etc; 3) that "so easy a monkey could do it" phrase/idea.

Obviously, the cartoonist overestimated our intelligence.

Instead, the negative criticism, started in the black community and carried further by PC fanatics, is that the monkey is Obama. So that means one of two things: 1) Obama is as dumb as a monkey, as the bill is a pile of crap; 2) Obama is a "monkey," in the most racially denigrating slang usage of the word. Is this grasping at straws? Making a story out of nothing?

The monkey has no sign around its neck, claiming it to be someone or some group, nor does it look like anything other than a dead chimp. This is not a caricature of actual people.

I will give the critics one small grace, that the cartoonist should've been smart enough to think - for just a second - that people would make the similar link between a black man as President and the racially-charged slang usage of "monkey" indicating black people. Really, Mr. Delonas, you should've thought of that.

But more to the point of intent, what we should be looking at - Sean Delonas did not set out to make a racist cartoon. He made, technically, three cultural references (perhaps erroneously together) that were aimed at underlying the stimulus bill, claiming it to be no better than the work of a monkey.

That's not terrible. It's humorous. Were Bush in office, or Clinton or Reagan, there would be no story. (Case in point, GW Bush was repeatedly drawn as a monkey to demean or show his true his intelligence; can't we do the same with Obama?) The Link is made, however, and Delonas is tarred and feathered as a narrow-minded, Obama-hating racist. Should we view this criticism as fair or the overreaction of a segment of society that has, in the past, been treating shamefully?

What I see in all of this is the spectre of racism, but not foisted by Delonas. It's the Al Sharptons of the country, the Jesse Jacksons and Eric Holders (the new Attorney General; black) who decide to make race an issue and throw up barriers between people based solely on skin color. That's racism. It's promoting racism and division. In a way, letting them start a discussion on race relations based on the criticism of this cartoon is re-segregating society.

You white person cannot draw this cartoon, as there is an association with black people and monkeys. This is artistic expression closed to you, irregardless of your intent. Why? You are not black.

I stand by the argument that, while there are some racist individuals in the country, most racism comes from the group that feels derided and victimized. It's not the other guys. Anything can be made about race, if you look hard enough. When neither side makes the effort to accept the other and view their actions through a monochromal lens we just end up with more reactions like we had last week. It's a self-fulfillnig prophecy - you want me to step on your toes - think I already am - so you wait until I'm not looking and slip your foot under mine.

Delonas isn't a villain in all of this. Maybe he didn't think through the ramifications of the image, the links that can be made where people are desparate for them to exist. The fight for civil rights was won, decades ago, and though there are bigoted holdovers that exist across the country, not every set of sheets in a white guy's house has a dual purpose. The assumption by Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and others that every action is or could be racist demeans their fellow citizens and their own intelligence.

Race relations are in a different, better place now than the (19- or 18-) '60s. The best sign of progress is a white guy drawing a cartoon featuring a monkey that lightly criticizes a black man's actions and doesn't take a shot at race.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

Bits & Pieces + The Obamacorps

So how much money does it cost to follow Bernie Madoff around via helicopter as he moves between home and court? While it isn't close to what he lost his investors, it's a shame that we waste so much money publicizing his celebrity. Principle, people!

***

Bill Richardson withdrew as Commerce Secretary nominee, which is probably the last nail in the coffin for his national political career resurgence. It's a shame. Far more than any other Democratic presidential hopeful, he actually had experience across all areas of government (well...save judicial). Sure, he wasn't as inspiring in his words as Obama or as well known as Hillary. No one will call him a pretty boy; tubby with a few chins to spare, his was the antithesis of the modern (Democratic) political image.

So goodbye, Billy and enjoy New Mexico, the last stop of your political life.

***

Obama 2.0 (or the Obamacorps, as I shall call it) is the new beast all Democratic (and later, Republican) politicians need to fear:

Obama's team would use the [existing campaign] network in part to pressure lawmakers -- particularly wavering Democrats -- to help him pass complex legislation on the economy, healthcare and energy.

What does this mean for you, the average voter?

If you contributed to Obama and provided his campaign with your contact info, expect phone calls, e-mails or hard copy documents to descend whenever a political issue arises where Obama stands on one side and your local Congressman (or Senator) is on the other. Maybe a touch of hyperbole, but the gist is the same.

Now, this "perpetual campaign" - founded in 21st Century technology, staffed by the vibrant young, able to reach literally millions - will exist to always bring issues to the fore in a professional, organized method. It's Grassroots Inc, essentially, the perfect melding of politics (lobbying) + business (Inc.) + idealism (Hope). Anonymous sources say it will run inside the DNC proper, yet who thinks it will answer to the chair? It's ultimate directives will come from the Oval Office, the weekly YouTube briefings, the slightest offhand comment by Barry O.

To say it is unprecedented really underestimates the long-term effect of this sort of organization on US soil. It's another vast political body that will try to force an opinion on you (the lawmaker) or you (the unconvinced citizen). This Obamacorps cannot be a good turn for Democracy. While yes, it brings grassroots politics (populist-level politics) to the state- and national-level spotlight through a coherent (D) group, the aims are partisan. It pushes on us the Party's thoughts, the Leader's view of What Is Right and How Things Should Be.

I'm no radical independent that's against political parties or parties organizing effectively. But I do not like to see this sort of an organization (that feels so much like something from a fascist or communist country) take such prominence in the greater political discussion. I'm for PACs and lobbying organizations (separate from the parties), but this consolidation of political heft that has the potential to browbeat free-thinking Governors and Congressmen and Senators and us, the citizens...well, that dog don't hunt.

Read on, faithful few!

Appreciation? F**k that!

Dec. 09, 2008 was a day like any other in Illinois. The wind blew steadily through the city. Crisp weather proved unable to deter Christmas shoppers. The FBI was arresting the governor.

If you've lived in Illinois for only a few months, maybe a year, you don't know the great history you're missing. We've sent five of our last fifteen governors to defend their honor in court, with the sixth, Gov. Rod Blagojevich going through this standard process as we speak.

I'd like to say these have all been cases of political infighting, false charges levied for partisan reasons. Truthfully, there is no way to come close to saying that. Illinois - Chicago particularly - has been awash in corruption and scandal, but this go around is special. It involves not only the same old sick crew, but now the creeping vines are growing through the cracks of Obama's transition team - a presidential-level tie to our state's tradition of corruption.

Allegations that Obama would bring our homegrown bent for graft and deviant behavior to Washington are, in my opinion, partisan and unfounded. He's too shrewd of a politician to know, overtly, what is going on behind the scenes in Chicago and Illinois, especially within his own party, supported as it is by one of the last great political machines in the country. In the back of his mind, I have little doubt the man understands the political garbage dump he climbed out of smelling like roses, washed clean in his historic win. Was there any question that during his rise he participated, if only through ignorance, in "Chicago"-style politics? No, but there is little to the argument that he actively participated.

There: exoneration.

But there's none of that for Rod.

He knowingly abused his office, and for any one of a number of charges, he should be stripped of his 1) job, 2) pension and 3) freedom, through imprisonment. The actions he took, or tried to take, did not result in the loss of life like George Ryan's foolhardy driver's license scandal, but the damage done is vaster in scope and long-term impact.

The casualty of his actions is the credibility of government and its officials. We've seen scandals come and go, usually circling around some sexual proclivities or other debauchery, often linked to monetary greed. This is all the latter, and to the nth degree.

He's shaking down organizations and people for campaign contributions to secure state funding.

He's pressuring the free press to censure itself - to fire employees - because they have been critical of him.

He is quite literally selling a seat in our nation's government.

Nothing he's done in his six years in office have made me think he's a decent governor. A great politician? Yeah, of course. To get to where he is, to win numerous popular elections, you've got to be a crafty pol. But he has time and again alienated the state house and the people, pitted factions against each other and sought, wherever possible, to further hoist his own star above everyone else's. He's, in a word, shameless.

The evidence Patrick Fitzgerald has amassed is, hopefully, enough to seal Blago's coffin. The volume of recorded conversations alone, those profanity-laced tirades that even go after Obama and feature Illinois' salty-mouthed First Lady Patti Blagojevich, prove illuminating and entertaining. A little sad, too. There's a smallness in these people at the pinnacle of Illinois' mountain of dirt. We know they wanted so much more from their lives than to go down as scoundrels selling government for crass personal gain.

As this scandal unfolds, and more start to fall with Blagojevich (Jesse Jackson, Jr., Rahm Emanuel, perhaps even Sec. of Education nom Arne Duncan, etc.), I'll see what I can whip together to keep things straight and let you know just how great we have it here in the Land of Lincoln.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

It took long enough.

Operation: Board Games? Is that the name of the plan that placed IL Governor Rod Blagojevich in the hoosegow?

It was a long time coming, but any straight-thinking Illinoisan knew the man was filthier than a hooker's sheets. The big question now is how far-reaching is this corruption? Does it affect our President-elect, Barack Obama?

Probably not. I think Obama is too smart to get entangled in Rod's dirt.

We'll follow the story as it unfolds.

-Hooper
Posted from my G1

Read on, faithful few!

A Forest Fire: Reform & the UN

The United Nations: highlighted when GWBush appointed John Bolton the US Ambassador to the UN (in a sneaky and brilliant move), the antipathy of the US towards the UN hasn't been mentioned much recently, nor will it under an internationalist administration.

As a governing body, the UN is terribly run and anything but democratic. It is governed by a collective of nations that declared themselves the most important and powerful some sixty years ago, ignores military crises unless they happen on the civilized world's backdoor (Balkans) and is propped up by the one nation it is growing to balance.

It is not in the nation's best interest to remain a part of the UN, as it is currently structured. Purely looking at the UN's military history, it has underperformed at best, relying on the US for the bulk of its armed forces (it has no neutral military of its own, soldiers dedicated solely to the UN and no other flag). The supposed nature of this body is mediation, bringing countries to the table before bloodshed, or after it first breaks out, to avoid a larger theatre of war. One could argue that under its watch, much of Africa has become a theatre of war, with petty dictators and racially-, culturally- or ethnically-charged militias terrorizing millions across the continent. And what is done? Where is the justice for those in Rwanda or Darfur or the Congo or Somalia?

Inside its own walls, the UN is as corrupt as the worst Chicago wards bossed by the local Democratic machine. There is little personal accountability in this "august" body, leaving it a squabbling band of diplomats out still for their own good, ignoring the greater good. Because of the corruption and deadlock, rogue nations can do what they want with no fear or consequence. It's what got us into Iraq, with the US playing police where they shouldn't have (at least alone). We could discuss the oil-for-food fiasco or how Russia, quickly becoming autocratic again, is facing no sanctions or recriminations for its actions against its own citizens. Nevermind China!

John Bolton dislikes the UN and what it currently stands for. He was a risky appointment that, as we know, didn't pass muster when his executive appointment was up. But it's that voice that needs to be heard. Reform! No one seriously talks about reform within the UN anymore, as though it's hopeless to expect change there. What I'd like to see from Obama is a US Ambassador to the UN who actively hates that organization and wants to see it torn down and rebuilt, closer to the original intent.

Obama has announced Susan Rice as his nominee for Ambassador to the UN, making it also a cabinet post. Though admirably resolute, Ms. Rice is a proponent of the UN and, in the past, served as President Clinton's Asst. Secretary of State for African Affairs. Her intellectual vigor cannot be doubted, but as many critics will point out with (fellow Stanford alum) Condoleezza Rice, a terrific mind doesn't make up for practical experience and real accomplishment. I do not believe this appointment will advance the idea of radical change within the UN.

And isn't that what this boils down to - change? So concerned are we with ousting anything smelling of Bush that we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Few good things are remaining, and the intangible stance, the controversial but correct idea that the UN needs a good forest fire to fertilize the ground for fresh growth, is being lost. Much as the tree of liberty requires the blood of patriots from time to time, so too does the forest need to be razed so it can grow taller, else you have old growth smothering new.

It is a fallacy to believe that because other countries support something that we or Bush doesn't, it's automatically right. Admitting other countries can make errors in judgement is the first step in reforming the UN.

Ten bucks says in four years the UN is the same as now or worse, more corrupt and disjointed, more confused in the face of crisis.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

Bleeding Detroit

Do we need to bail out the auto industry...again?

I know, the last major bailout was nearly thirty years ago, but the situation in Detroit isn't really any better. US car manufacturers have been losing market share and money - hemorrhaging might be a better term - amidst a market changing from oil-centric to eco-friendly.

Back in September, $25B was approved for a bailout, but that money is gone, or close to it. The plan Obama supports, along with Congressional Democrats, calls for part of the $700B financial industry rescue package to be applied to the automakers, essentially giving the US government (and by extension, taxpayers) a share of those companies.

Is that really the best course?

We know our auto industry has been flagging over the last few decades in the face of increased global competition and car line-ups that do little to address the public's growing clamor for alternative-fuel cars (electric, fuel cell, bio-diesel). Hybrid cars are purchased as fast as they can be produced, but Detroit is stuck with lots full of SUVs due to at-one-time great demand that has just collapsed over the last eighteen months (high gas prices, cheaper options, no or few hybrid options). Now they have to convert those SUV plants over to Something New.

So should we just give them money to do that, subsidizing their R&D and day-to-day operations? What's to stop them from seeking more and more every few months? GM and Ford have both burned through billions in the last quarter, coming perilously close to running out of cash (Ford's cash supply might only last until April, if things continue as they have). I'm sure the desire to profit is there, but what evidence do we have?

I would propose a different approach.

1) Eliminate their corporate taxes for fiscal years 2008-9, refunding anything already paid. Corporate taxes increase the cost of their goods, making the end product on the showroom floor all the less desirable by the consumer. This lowers '09, '10 and probably '11 model-year price tags, making them more competitive in the traditional fuel market.

2) As part of Obama's NuEnergy push, provided he can get it passed, set aside a chunk for R&D credits for companies that show marked improvement towards utilizing green tech now, in the short term, not five or ten years from now. It's another way to funnel smaller amounts of cash to targeted areas of the company. We want to promote profit, not just slow the descent into oblivion. The way to do that is to help Detroit capture more of the green market in the mid- and long-term (5 and 10 years out).

3) Perhaps some union busting is in order. If Obama is going to lower taxes, those union workers (Joe the Car Maker) will be getting more scratch from their paycheck at the end of the month. Constant renegotiation for higher wages and health care coverage could be frozen to keep costs down, and they could allow qualified, non-union workers to be hired at various parts of the process. I guess this is a dream of mine, to offer jobs to people who need them for wages that are respectable rather than keep them out because they don't pay union dues. Free labor, right?

I don't doubt there are better ways still to make Detroit work again. Bottom line: they need abandon, by force, their old models (car, economic, labor) to prosper in this economy. Better availability of private-sector health insurance will help Detroit cut even more. Maybe the unions should use their clout to cut a good Blue Cross/Blue Shield deal outside of Gm, Chrysler and Ford. There's a better model out there, a more efficient way to run this industry while still rewarding the workers that make it great.

What the Democrats want to do is simply take money and try to stuff it in the cracks, hoping it'll keep the industry together. The problems (and I'll be saying this for the next four years) cannot be solved just with money but with corporate realignment.

It might almost be better to let one car company go into bankruptcy to prove that change isn't just needed in our legislative and executive bodies, but our economic and manufacturing ones as well.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!