Excellent speech. The team of Hillary and Barack (or Barack and Hillary?) is the right team to move this forward, and the President did an excellent job of framing the issues and providing the solutions. He deftly pointed to Iran, Yemen and Bahrain, putting everyone on notice that fundamental and democratic change was not going to stop. Also, he reminded that Israel – in order to maintain its democratic heritage – could not maintain dominance over another group. Mr. Obama let them all know that there is a peaceful and successful path. Great work!
Like George H.W. Bush and his team which handled the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Mr. Obama and his team are steering a very smart, steady and forward-looking path. From his speech in Cairo, to his subsequent actions, and to this speech and beyond, it is simply refreshing to hear a team speak about these things. These are momentous times, and we must tread carefully. This speech was a good start; now the team must successfully navigate some very tricky waters.
New York City Mayor Bloomberg has his critics, and many of them are Democrats. However, with regards to unions, collective bargaining, budget deficits and fairness, he is “on the money” with these comments:
While the proponents of the labor unions in Wisconsin have the right to protest, and their effort to challenge the shady tactics of Governor Walker is highly warranted, they should have the collective sense not to be hypocritical. Being a hypocrite does not make you a liar, and your view still can carry water, but the decision of many of the protesters in Madison to chant “Kill the Bill” shows very bad form and displays a level of hypocrisy which unfortunately is all too common in US politics. What were they thinking??
Just slightly over one month ago, in the wake of the shootings in Tucson, Arizona, which altered the life of Representative Gabrielle Giffords forever, national Democrats generated many sound bites to criticize the Republicans for using the work “kill” in legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Granted, that was using the word “kill” in formal legislation, but the point was not lost – interjecting the word “kill” into political discourse was probably an unnecessary tactic. Granted, the Republicans never changed the name of the bill, although from a public relations standpoint they did seem to try to moderate their language. There is a difference between inserting the word “kill” into a bill, but using it on placards and chanting it in the halls of a state capitol is not all that different.
Shame on the protesters. But long live their right and reason to protest.
As a proud resident of the State of Illinois, I am doubly proud that our state has been home to the Wisconsin state senators who did the only thing they could do to stop the steam-rolling of union rights in their state. So, welcome state senators! Try a Chicago hot dog in lieu of one of your delicious brats!
On the surface – if we believe Governor Walker – this is a fight about fiscal solvency and balanced budgets. However, coming from a state that actually is not all that bad off in terms of fiscal health, it is hard to swallow that the government needs to strip away the rights of its citizens to supposedly come up with a balanced budget. Spare us the cover story, governor. This is about politics, Republican “values,” and taking advantage of people and their weakened condition.
It is most interesting that Governor Scott Walker, newly elected governor of the Cheese State, is looking to crush the collective bargaining rights of certain state employees, like teachers and nurses, but is not touching the rights of police and firemen. Why is that? Do you think it is because he values police and firemen more? Maybe it’s because the police and firemen gave more to his campaign than did the teachers and nurses? Check the facts out. Just proves that this is more about politics than it is about sensible and fair policies. This is a watershed moment…similar steps are afoot in Ohio, Tennessee and elsewhere. Newly elected Republicans, claiming some sort of “slash and burn” mandate to reduce spending and keep taxes low (an untenable position), are using the financial difficulties of states to justify the un-democratic assault on unions and their workers.
In an interesting twist, even those unionized workers who are not being impacted today – including police and fire – are starting to join the protests against Governor Walker. This is nothing new for Scott Walker. Since his days in Milwaukee he has been the source of very strong measures and a lightening rod for some of the same people/issues that he has in Madison. It is a great tactic on his part, and clearly the result of deeply held beliefs, and we suspect that he will start to make the list of potential candidates for the Republican nomination in 2012. Don’t Tread on Him!
Yes, everyone needs to give something in these tights times. Salaries need to be reviewed. Pensions need to be reviewed, managed and saved. We should not have to rely solely on tax/fee increases to improve states’ financial pictures. If fiscal management requires all people (including union workers) to give more, then so be it. But using this logic to crush unions is bad politics and bad policy. Collective bargaining helps to protect workers’ rights, and it provides the less powerful a bit of a leg to stand on. Rather than try to crush the unions, Republicans should be trying to provide all workers a fair wage and a respectable position.
This is not about unions and education. It is not about arcane and bizarre work rules that unions somehow “impose” on employers. This is not about charter schools versus public schools. Those are different fights and should be waged out in the open. Unions are not perfect, but they are also not the cause of all of our problems. Yes, we need to examine unions, and unions need to adjust their tactics and goals, but subverting them in this way cannot be supported. Buck up Badgers, and hang in there! You are fighting the good fight.
I love this article (see below pictures) – partly because it shows that the Iraqi people finally have their country back, and can make their own decisions. More importantly, although quite scary, is that in the article a spokesman for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki actually compares the Victory Arch in Baghdad to the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and the Berlin Wall. He suggests that the Iraqi people are somehow “better” because they do not destroy their legacy. Interesting concept – did anyone suggest to the Germans that they ought to keep the Wall intact? Also, does anyone think that the Victory Arch in Baghdad equals in stature to the centuries-old Buddhist statues? Interesting….now that the Iraqis have their country back, what will they do? Apparently, they will not destroy their Hussein-era monuments. I suppose that is ok as long as they do not destroy their true legacy.
Remember Virginia Thomas’s early morning call to Anita Hill? She went out of her way to harass Ms. Hill, and now she is again taking an overly pro-active lead in consulting for ultra-conservative issues. While she has the right to do what she wants, and a woman should never have to subsume her career to that of her husband’s, Ms. Thomas’s activities ought to be tracked very closely. Her consulting firm is focused on her ability to be “an ‘ambassador’ between the new citizen activities (tea party movement), the established conservative movement the entrepreneurial class, the alternative media and principled statesmen and candidates.” Does Fox News count as the “alternative media?” The title of this post is taken from her bio found here.
I do not know “Ginny” Thomas, and can only read her husband’s opinions, but I get the sense that their behind-the-scenes activities are dove-tailed to make effective use of their positions and influence. This is the definition of a judge who is compromised and ought to limit his opinions to those where there is not a conflict. You cannot stop the husband-wife interaction and their general impact on events, but we can make sure that Justice Thomas does limited harm to our country.
The title of this post……it describes the ideal country, right? Modern infrastructure and economy. Moderate politics and foreign policy. Democratic institutions that help the people. In an interview with Anderson Cooper of CNN, the leader-in-waiting, Mohamed ElBaradei, proclaimed these to be his goals if he were to lead the country.
What a refreshing take on what is important to a country and what its leaders should fight to achieve. Is this Egypt today? Hardly. While Hosni Mubarak has brought security and limited economic progress, he has left a cesspool of discontent, economic malaise, and political upheaval in his wake.
For that reason, he must go. As of this writing, Mr. Mubarak seems to have received the message and does not plan on running for office again in September. Good riddance, say many in Egypt, but not fast enough. They want him gone now. On the other hand, there is a core group of constituents in Egypt which proclaims strong allegiance to Mr. Mubarak and will not be happy to see him go. Their voices have not been loudly heard, but expect to hear them shortly.
So will we see an Egypt which portrays ElBaradei’s hope? Will Egypt continue to remain a member of the list of stable countries throughout the world? Might this be another Iran? Might it be a Turkey? Do we really know?
We in the United States have a very particular vision of how this should evolve, and we likely share Mr. ElBaradei’s vision. However, are we ready for something that is different? Will we get a modern, moderate and democratic country?
What’s great about all of this? American political junkies now have a September 2011 election upon which to focus. Good practice for 2012!
When someone places Fareed Zakaria and Henry Kissinger in the same room and turns on the video recorder, you are bound to hear something unique and intriguing. Anyone paying attention to the news lately heard that China’s President Hu Jintao recently visited the United States, making stops in Washington, DC, and the great City of Chicago.
With all of the news coverage (and endless comments about Michelle Obama’s striking red dress) we heard much about the strained relations between both countries. China has grown increasingly active in their neck-of-the-woods, and has been more vocal about their criticisms towards the United States. This more assertive posture has caught many a diplomat’s attention, and has certainly raised a few eyebrows over at the Pentagon. Making news with a fighter jet with purported stealth capabilities will do that, especially when our defense chief is visiting. Although we know very little about its technical specifications, China merely exposing the potential for stealth warfare gets everyone excited. Coupled with their actions across Asia, many are worried and concerned about China’s intentions.
On top of that, of course, are the never-ending stories about how much smarter the Chinese students supposedly are when compared to the American educated class. No doubt, with 1.1+ billion humans in China, there are going to be quite a few smart people. It should be noted that many of those Chinese students still travel to the United States for higher education.
Now, let’s not even get started on the economy – with the U.S. suffering its worst economic downturn in 70 years, and China continuing to outperform many countries, some commentators would have you believe that we will soon be speaking Chinese and buying our Starbucks lattes in yuans.
But really, this post is not about the strained relations, the economic comparisons, and the educational demise of anyone. It’s about a step towards possibly understanding the Chinese, rather than thinking that they are out to get you at every turn.
So, what about Kissinger? And what about chess? When asked by Mr. Zakaria if the Chinese were decidedly “better” than the United States, Mr. Kissinger simply said they are “different.” How so?
In the United States, we favor chess; in China they favor an ancient game called Go. Huh? According to Mr. Kissinger – an esteemed China scholar and someone who has studied China most of his adult life – it comes down to board games?
Of course, not exactly just about board games, but he raises an interesting perspective. It’s one opinion for sure, but Mr. Kissinger’s comparison does give you something to think about, and potentially to better understand the Chinese when it comes to foreign affairs. He is not suggesting that Go is better than chess, or that Go players are smarter than chess players. He is just simply saying that they are different games, and those differences help elucidate an aspect of Chinese relations.
Both games are clearly higher-level thinking games (unlike, say, beer-pong), and rely on some specific rules for game play, but there are some stark differences to which Mr. Kissinger refers when using Go to explain Chinese diplomacy.
Chess: mainly tactical game, with fixed set of pieces defined by specific rules of movement. Object of the game is to beat down your opponent and destroy all of his (or her) pieces. You win by taking over and destroying.
Go: more strategic in nature, with thousands of more variations than a game of chess because the number of pieces is not fixed, and each turn introduces more pieces to the game board. Also, the object of the game is not to destroy, but to encircle your opponent and capture more territory. There is still a winner and a loser, but it is a more subtle and complex end-game.
Mr. Kissinger’s comparison gives some food for thought.
For some additional thoughts, albeit a little more dramatic in a History Channel sort-of-way, this video positions an interesting contrast between chess and Go in the context of the Vietnam War:
A bit ironic since it was Mr. Kissinger who – seeing no hope for the U.S. in Vietnam – negotiated the end-game with his Asian counterparts. Just some things to think about when eating your next batch of Chinese food!
So, let’s ask Ms. Bachmann how much she is spending of the government’s money to deliver this speech. The fact that the Republican majority in the House is allowing this to happen speaks to their complete and utter subservience to this fringe movement. This is just pathetic, and a complete show of disrespect to our President and her own party. Maybe Sarah Palin can write a rebuttal to Ms. Bachmann’s rebuttal?
Despite searching for ten minutes I could not locate any commentary on Ms. Bachmann’s speech on Fox News website (www.foxnews.com), only the video of the speech itself. Hmmm.
Ok, so I only live in the suburbs of one of the greatest cities on the planet. I do not pay city taxes – not even Cook County taxes (DuPage and Will Counties), and I have not ridden the El train regularly since 1991. However, I grew up in the Chicagoland area, live there now, and did live in the City of Chicago at one point earlier in my life. Even as a teacher back in the 1990s I assigned my high school students a project to locate a statue somewhere in the city and to write a short report about it. I compelled them to go into the city because so few of the suburban kids had ever been. Wow, did I ever get flak from some parents on that (you mean I need to drive my kid into the city?!?)!
So, needless to say, I do feel that I have the right to comment on issues around the Chicago mayoral race. After all, my evening news is full of Chicago political news, so I should have an interest in who is mayor. So it is clear, my interest lies with having Rahm Emanuel take the helm after the Daley reign. His chief opponents, Carol Moseley Braun and Gary Chico label Mr. Emanuel as “an outsider.” Precisely, and that is why he should lead. While Mr. Emanuel is hardly the “Washington outsider” that Moseley Braun labels him, Mr. Emanuel will bring a cosmopolitan style with him that is backed by significant experience in Washington DC. The last thing we need is some entrenched politico who lives and breathes the ethos of Chicago two-bit politics.
The most lively conspiracy theorists will see today’s appellate court decision as a dark-handed attempt to influence the outcome of the mayoral race and to prevent democracy from working. They may not be far off the mark, but that would be giving too much credit to those who are working to undermine the system. Those seeking to have Emanuel removed from the ballot are not capable enough to engineer such a surprising and arrogant decision as handed down by two of three appellate judges. The dissenting judge’s comments speak volumes (see link, pp. 25 on): “The majority’s new standard is ill-reasoned and unfair to the candidate, voters and those of us who are charged with applying the law [and] disenfranchises not just this particular candidate but every voter in Chicago who would consider voting for him.” Even those seeking Emanuel’s removal from the ballot were surprised by the decision. Bad judicial decisions generally are surprising. Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times agree.
The good news is that Mr. Emanuel is not quitting. He still plans on participating in an upcoming debate, and he has asked the Illinois Supreme Court for an emergency stay to prevent the printing of ballots without his name. He will fight unfairness with his bare knuckles if he has to. Frankly, that is why he should be mayor. Hopefully his ongoing efforts will upend the sleazy tactics of those around him. Maybe one day we will get the full story behind this challenge to Mr. Emanuel’s candidacy. In short, it is democratic cowardice, brought upon those who can muster neither the votes not the money to win fairly. Certainly, it was not simply a lawyer and his two clients labeled as “concerned citizens.” Chicago politics are too rough-and-tumble to believe that.
There are likely multiple reasons why MSNBC unceremoniously dumped Mr. Olbermann so suddenly: disagreements with management; Olbermann’s suspension late last year over his political contributions to Democratic candidates; the imminent take-over of NBC Universal by Comcast; even, possibly, that Olbermann’s ratings were in danger of upset by his own popular MSNBC colleagues, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell.
The list could probably go on. Officially, Comcast denies that Mr. Olbermann was dumped due to any of its influence, but it seems too much of a coincidence that the firing occurred so close to the announcement of the US government approval of the merger.
Maybe Mr. Olbermann’s ungracious fall is all related to the recent criticism of the pugilistic and rhetoric-driven nature of “opinion TV,” a negative light brought about by – among other events – Jon Stewart’s recent Rally to Restore Sanity and the horrific events in Tucson. Not likely, but one could hope. Other than the few moments when the hot rhetoric cooled off a bit after Tucson, we fully expect the negativity on the airways to continue and to generate high ratings on network and cable television. In an interesting twist, it was a political contribution to Ms. Giffords that resulted in Mr. Olbermann’s suspension last year.
So, we are left to ruminate and speculate about what happened at MSNBC and what is next for the TV personality. Mr. Olbermann has been prevented from speaking publicly about the ouster, and he has some restrictions as to what he can do next (ala Conan O’Brien deal with NBC).
Despite the tone of my earlier post about MSNBC, there was value to having Mr. Olbermann spouting his view on television every night. My whole point was that MSNBC should not pretend that they are too much different from Fox News. Just as the conservatives, Tea Partiers and other assorted characters need their daily dose of Hannity, Beck and Palin, it is important for the Left to have its own fighters and opinion-hawkers. MSNBC provided a strong balance. While CNN is often accused of being in service to the Left, their valiant – but unsuccessful – attempt to claim the Middle is very clear when you place the three networks together. Just look at the MSNBC line-up – Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow and O’Donnell. Talking about the “Lefty” assault brigade! But that was the whole point, right (or Left)? MSNBC ratings sky-rocketed the more opinionated its programs became. No surprise, reports are that Lawrence O’Donnell will take over the “Countdown” slot for MSNBC with his own program, “The Last Word.” No word yet of any other changes at MSNBC.
So what about Mr. Olbermann? Although he was a necessary defender of all things liberal, he too often came across as arrogant, spiteful and obsessed. Like too many other TV opinion-makers, he focused too many assaults on his competitors in the media. Sometimes it sounded like no more than a fearful rant against people with higher ratings. Every week that went by seemed to have Mr. Olbermann carrying on-and-on about Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity or one of the other Fox News commentators. That turned really old, really quickly. Viewers of Mr. Olbermann’s show already knew the deficiencies of the Fox News line-up; they did not need the constant reminders. True liberal commentary is much better spent on addressing topics of policy, politics and human rights. We want to hear about what the government is or is not doing for the people of this country; not who over at Fox was the most senseless of the bunch. Maybe it helped his ratings, but Mr. Olbermann did a disservice to the liberal agenda by focusing on the people rather than the policies.
Good riddance, yes – but come on back when you are ready to fight the good fight.
Update (1/23/2011): another article on what lead to the divorce from MSNBC…he was apparently a pain in the tuches…what a surprise!
Update (1/24/2011): a blog post that really tries to differentiate MSNBC, specifically Mr. Olbermann, from Fox, specifically Glenn Beck. Even though the post is full of way too many parenthetical comments (really), the blog post is a good one. However, the poster still gives too much credence to the concept that Mr. Olbermann’s were always based on facts and Mr. Beck’s never are based on reality. Both commentators mix truth and opinion too closely together. That said, I would absolutely agree that Mr. Olbermann is no Glenn Beck.
I almost felt as if it was not worth my time to post anything about the latest news around the Arizona shootings. As stated in a previous post, I made the case that rather than hammering each side about the cause of the event, we ought to be tracking the progress and challenges of Rep. Giffords’s recovery from traumatic brain injury. After all, her recovery will mirror the challenges associated with the recovery of the war wounds of our soldiers. However, as expected, the uncontrollable need for politicians to open their mouths on any issue has inevitably lead to more intellectual nonsense and non-sequitor arguments. The political commentary on the Right and the Left has been quick to show us how shallow is that commentary, and Sarah Palin’s reaction to it was again a reminder about how unprepared she is to be our leader in any sense.
Ms. Palin’s comments are well-known by now, and her use of the term “blood libel” has been roundly criticized. However, a sensible review of the situation leads us to believe that, while her use of the term was ill-advised, Ms. Palin did not commit an outright act of anti-Semitism. Of course, she does not deserve to lead this country, or even a congressional district within it, but she does have the right to voice her opinion. We may not like it, but does she like what we say?? Let the voters decide her fate, and let common sense eventually rule the day. Until then, let’s mourn the dead and hope for a speedy recovery of the wounded.
The less we pay attention to Ms. Palin, the faster she will fade into the ether with her shallow banter and one-track commentary. American history has had plenty of Palins, but they have never been named Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan or Clinton. She will go away. SO will her bulls-eyes.
This may be a stretch, but sometimes there are connections that can be made across what seem to be pretty disparate situations. While the Left embarrasses itself by immediately pointing fingers at Sarah Palin (they should wait until later), and the Right yet again proves itself unworthy to lead by holding to the belief that conceal/carry laws make us all safer, a woman lies in an Arizona hospital fighting for her life. The fact that she is alive is amazing enough, but the reported story that she was responsive to questions shortly after her surgery is doubly amazing. Or is it? Granted, the injury to Rep. Giffords (D-AZ) was not as devastating as originally thought (early reports had her dead), but her position as a semi-conscious patient speaks to the heroism of many and the hard work of even many more. It also speaks to what our medical community has learned when it comes to such injuries to the head and brain.
That is what needs to be the focus. Medical recovery and rehabilitation. Then, let the politics come back – as indeed they must because there are truly some issues to address in this country’s political debates. In the meantime, Rep. Giffords’s condition and her road ahead should be an ongoing story so that everyone can better understand what is means to sustain a brain injury, what the medical community can do to address the trauma, and what it will take her to recover. We have a good start here.
That road will not be easy. Recently, a family member of mine was involved in a skiing accident, and he ended up in the trauma center. Upon short order he was then sent to a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) rehabilitation center. I recently visited this family member at the rehab center, and for those who have seen others in similar circumstances, you will understand that my initial experience was rather disconcerting. Trauma units and rehabilitation hospitals have a way of putting us all in check about what can happen to people when misfortune strikes – whether by accident or human evil. Clearly, even though his injuries were not life threatening, my brother has a long road ahead on the way to some form of recovery. As our family understands more about what will heal our brother, and what challenges he may face, we have learned more and more about the impact of TBI and, to a lesser degree, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
While those terms are a bit scary to hear (it was just a skiing accident, right?), the reality is that these terms are being used more and more in our society to identify the varying afflictions that may arise from traumatic events. We have and will continue to hear about these afflictions related to the shootings in Tucson this past weekend. More often than not, of course, we are hearing this terminology because of the increasing reports about wounded veterans coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan who are having trouble re-integrating with society. That re-integration is made difficult due to either physical or mental wounds, or a combination of both. Typically, our soldiers’ challenges relate to either TBI or PTSD, or both.
To be clear, my brother is pretty lucky. His injuries, while significant, are “minor” compared to what hospitals encounter on a regular basis. While his road will be challenging, he should recover largely to his earlier state. How will Rep. Giffords do? Only time will tell…and it will require her perseverance, strong will, medical care and therapists.
Why all of this? My own experience, and the reports coming out of Tucson, provide an excellent and eye-opening opportunity to reflect on those veterans returning from war. It is not the first time our military has encountered such issues, as the term “shell-shocked” traces its lineage to at least the First World War. However, as the military becomes better at saving wounded soldiers in the field, they are more and more confronted with having to better understand the effects of TBI and PTSD and how to combat them. We have a long way to go before we know how to fully address these issues, but the military has taken great strides to understand the issues and to look for successful remedies and methods to prevent. This effort will help the broader medical community’s to respond to and care for injured patients in these circumstances.
As you hear the stories of medical advances and human resiliency from Tucson and other places, keep in mind what our military families are having to confront on a regular basis. We need to better understand, and we should – if circumstances permit – take an opportunity to reach out and help.
The following program, ABC News’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour, was aired on December 26th. It provides some good insight into what these soldiers have encountered, and it outlines some of the steps being taken by the military.
While the full program covers many bases, take a few moments to review these two segments (which begin after the annoying ad at the beginning):
Report by Bob Woodruff on homeless veterans (Woodruff was himself seriously wounded by a road-side bomb in Iraq): segment in video 2:36 – 13:48
Interview of Army Vice Chief of Staff, Peter Chiarelli: segment 13:49 – 25:00
I have to hand it to the wonderful leaders of our newly elected House of Representatives, members of the 112th Congress. In an attempt to somehow remind people of the importance of the Constitution, and seemingly to suggest that earlier Congresses were ignoring it, John Boehner and the Tea Party cabal decided to spend more money and time to read the entire document aloud on the floor of the House. Did anyone listen?
There are many aspects of this charade that were amusing, but what was downright eye-opening was that some of the original Constitution had to be skipped because words had been literally changed due to amendments offered across the years. So, Boehner and his team had to spend the time (and, again, the money) determining specifically which parts of the original text would be ignored so as not to confuse anyone. Could you imagine Representative John Lewis (D-GA), an African-American, reading about “3/5 of a person?”
The irony of this whole mockery is that the very people who most wanted it read aloud – Republicans and Tea Party representatives – would generally be the same people who would argue that we need to stay close to the “original intent” of the Framers of the Constitution. In this way, by reading the Constitution more literally, we could determine the “right thing to do” because the meaning was supposedly fixed and unchanging. “Original intent?” What was the original intent of the 3/5 of a person? Why 3/5?
Note to John Boehner….such was the design of the Founders – amendments could be offered precisely because they could not get it all correct. Since the Framers knew they could not predict everything, and they realized that people change their views, the writers of the Constitution allowed for change and interpretation to occur. So do not make it seem as though reading the document on the floor will somehow inspire your team to do something “right.” You will do what you want…at least the Senate and the President are still awake.
By the way, Mr. Boehner, how much have you spent so far in the 112th Congress?
So, this is just another great story. A thinner Dick Cheney out hunting and rousing up the Republican stalwarts to defeat all-things Obama. Although I do not wish any significant ill-will towards Mr. Cheney, maybe someone can regulate his blood flow with his heart pump so that he gets tired more easily and does not open his mouth as much. Just what we need – Dick Cheney – blathering about what is wrong with the current administration while trying to remind everyone what great things he (and Dubya) did all of those years. But of course, how easily we have forgotten those great things! Interestingly, he will soon visit Texas to enjoy a party hosted by the emir of Kuwait – a party that will celebrate the ousting of Saddam Hussein from the oil-rich emirate. That ousting was rather spectacular, but what did it gain the world?
Oh, and I would LOVE to hear about expansive insurance coverage that Mr. Cheney receives for all of this medical care – although I do realize that his great service to this nation affords him that more than others. Right?
So here we go again. The government, in trying to make some actual progress, is being hobbled by the potential negative influence of media outlets (namely, Fox News) and groups like the John Birch Society.
Appears as though the Obama Administration is trying to enact regulations in 2011 which will allow doctors and patients to engage in critical discussions regarding end-of-life decisions. The regulations will provide Medicare compensation to support these discussions, and the administration is taking the principled stand that these discussions are important.
However, according to one story, supporters of this move are trying to keep it somewhat quiet because they fear they will stoke the flames that raged when Mr. Obama tried to get this compensation into the health care legislation passed in 2009. What happened in 2009? Based on an initial statement by Sarah Palin and the immediate support she received, opponents of the health care law began to suggest that Mr. Obama and his “socialists” were trying to convene “death panels” which would decide who lives and who dies. Despite the fact that even Senator Grassley – no fan of Mr. Obama – admitted that such a concept was not part of the legislation (see video here), the rumors persisted. Mr. Obama had no choice but to remove this vital service from the legislation. Knowing what is right, however, has compelled the administration to execute a regulation that our legislators did not have the moxie to enact.
So why are supporters of the new regulations trying to fly under the radar on this?
Discussions like this or like this, on the so-called Fair-and-Balanced Fox News, will continue to distort the truth and confuse the people with the term “death panel.” Those same media outlets and related conservative organizations (and their puppet politicians) will continue to sow the insinuation that somehow the government will compel people to literally make choices between life and death. So much for reasoned and honorable debate.
My mom died on January 27, 2010. Her passing was certainly a very emotional event and a part of my life that I will never forget. Of course, you never forget the passing of your parent, and that is because it is traumatic, emotional and so final. All of the things she did for me come back in my memory and I realize (too late?) what a great influence she was on my development and progress in life. However, in this case, my mom’s passing was made more palatable by the fact that we (as a family) had discussed end-of-life options long before the final moment. In fact, between my parents, their doctors, and all of my siblings, we had a pretty good handle on my mom’s wishes, the medical options, and the alternative choices. Bottom line – we were well-informed.
That – in its essence – is what the Obama administration is trying to provide….a well-informed medical community and client population. We should all have the “luxury” of being able to walk through very gut-wrenching decisions and end-of-life discussions with this full knowledge and understanding. Such knowledge and understanding should be covered by medical insurance, whether Medicare, Medicaid or the best private insurance in the world. If we cannot have those discussions, or they can only be had by the ones who can afford them, we are doing a significant disservice to our human population and the values that hold this country together.
AMENDED Jan 5: unfortunately, politics, administrative process and an unwillingness of the Obama administration to stand up to the Republicans has pulled this regulation from the Medicare books. Too bad, really too bad. See here.
This is a great story – it shows that President Obama can set a course, develop a plan, and make it happen. The “Yes We Can” mantra is alive and well, and Mr. Obama is showing that he CAN work across the aisle, get Republicans to join him, and do it despite some resistance from members of his own party. The more we hear about Senator Reid, the less impressed I am. Since I was never that impressed to begin, then his stock is VERY low in my portfolio. On the other hand, former Senators Clinton and Biden, in their new roles in the administration, have shown that they can be worthy partners with the president – and they have the ability to pull some levers as well to make it happen. Nice job, team!
Good news! The Senate shows us that reasonable heads can prevail and that not all Republicans are out to get Obama. Maybe we cannot trust the Russians, but this treaty should allow us to keep a closer eye on nuclear weapons. We are safer because of it and because of the Democrats.
Posted by Matt S 
Status Mundi 
