There was a funny skit on Saturday Night Live in which a performer who resembles President Obama recited programs promised during the election campaign and then, one-by-one, said something like “that hasn’t happened.” Republicans have been making the same point, but, of course, without any humor. It is with ill grace that a party that has filibustered almost every initiative introduced by the President in Congress, now complains that many of the initiatives have not been enacted.
The Obama Administration has, as I said in my last commentary, saved this country from total financial collapse. The Republicans in Congress could not care less. Their aim is not the economic recovery of their country, but rather, regaining control of Congress and the White House. Some right-wing Republicans, like that buffoon Rush Limbaugh, would actually welcome the failure of our economy.
Many people who do not understand the financial basis of the American Economy are critical of the large amounts of money spent to bail-out the banks and Wall Street financial institutions. Those bail-outs were actually begun under the Bush Administration, which deserves credit for creating the TARP program and supplying needed funds to keep the financial institutions going. This effort was furthered by the Obama Administration with the approval of all major economic experts in America. If it had not been done, American would be an economic wasteland today.
Promptly after his inauguration, President Obama secured enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the “Stimulus Bill.” It is thanks in part to this bill, and its effect of creating or saving over 640,000 jobs, that the recession is now ending and our economy is returning to robust activity.
There have been many other accomplishments. On January 29, 2009, the President signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which reversed an obnoxious Supreme Court decision and made it possible for working women to bring suit for long-standing pay discrimination.
On February 4, 2009, the President signed the Children’s Health Reauthorization Act which reinstituted a program providing health insurance for millions of children from lower-income families.
On May 20, 2009, the President signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery act, two pieces of legislation intended to ameliorate the effect of massive foreclosures around the country. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act gives the federal government tools to crack-down on the kind of fraud that put thousands of hardworking families at risk of losing their homes despite doing everything right to live within their means.
On May 22, 2009, the President signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009. Congress has taken action to move-up the effective date of this law due to the fact that the banks have tried to avoid it by hastily raising interest charges.
Among other major legislative accomplishments of the Obama Administration there are the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act, the Cash for Clunkers Act, extensions of the Unemployment Insurance Program, The Hate Crimes Bill, and the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 (in which the President was able to cancel a number of programs and weapons systems unwanted by the Pentagon).
Aside from these and many other items of legislation, the President has accomplished a great deal by means of executive orders, including the outlaw of torture, the requirement that the federal government invest in energy efficiency, reversal of the Mexico City Policy, and reversal of many of Bush’s executive orders including one permitting a claim after an administration ends of executive privilege for presidential records. President Obama’s initiatives in foreign affairs have improved the standing of America throughout the world and earned him the Nobel Peace Prize.
If you think that the Obama Administration has no important accomplishments, think again.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Economy?
To my astonishment, one of the factors given for the Democratic losses in the November 3rd election of Republicans to the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey was the poor state of the economy. In surveys taken at polling places, 85 percent of voters in Virginia and 89 percent of voters in New Jersey said that they were worried about the economy. Apparently the high rate of unemployment is being blamed by some on President Obama, who has been in office for 10 months. It seems that people, egged-on by Republican leaders, blame the incumbents in office for the state of the economy even if it is not their fault. Moreover, Republican spin-doctors have tried to make the governors races a referendum, in part, on President Obama’s handling of the economy.
Let’s get a few things straight. President Obama inherited a disastrous recession from George W. Bush and the Republicans. The recession was largely the result of the Republican repeal of laws and regulations that would have prevented much of the predatory lending and Wall Street manipulation of derivatives that led to a national financial meltdown. The recession began in December, 2007, and by the time Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009, it was in full-swing. At its low point, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 6347. As of November 6, 2009, it stood at over 10,000. In January, 2009, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was down -6.2 percent. As of September, 2009, it was up +3.6 percent. That’s a 9.8 percent improvement in the GDP in just 9 months.
When President Obama took-over the government, America’s major banks and financial institutions were on the verge of total collapse. Such a collapse would have plunged this nation into depression and chaos. Over the objections of congressional Republicans, the President and his economic team were able to rescue the financial segment of our economy with TARP and other funds and were able to stem the tide of economic disaster with a major stimulus bill.
Those who accuse the Obama Administration of doing nothing should stop and think. All they have done to date is save this country from utter financial devastation. If you think we have high unemployment now, imagine what it would be like in a real depression. During the great depression of the 1930’s it was as much as 25 percent.
As of October, 2009, the stimulus had created or saved over 640,000 jobs. The U.S. manufacturing sector grew in August for the first time in 19 months. It continued to grow in September and October. According The Institute for Supply Management in its monthly Report on Business, the US manufacturing industry is hiring more aggressively than at any time since 2006. The Institute’s index for employment increased by 6.9 percentage points in October, 2009.
On November 2, 2009, The National Association of Realtors said pending home sales rose again, marking eight consecutive monthly gains – the longest streak since measurement began in 2001.
October, 2009, was far and away the best month American retailers have had since consumers put the brakes on spending last autumn. Major categories had robust sales growth for the first time in more than a year. In October, 2009, apparel sales increased 3.4 percent compared with the same period a year ago, luxury goods rose 6.5 percent, and jewelry increased 7.2 percent.
Despite the fact that there is still high unemployment, most leading economists have declared the recession to be over. It will take time to get back the jobs that were lost during the Bush recession, but they will come back—perhaps slowly. The absence of a genuine depression and the continued improvement in the economy is thanks to the steps taken by the Obama Administration and opposed by the Republicans.
Let’s get a few things straight. President Obama inherited a disastrous recession from George W. Bush and the Republicans. The recession was largely the result of the Republican repeal of laws and regulations that would have prevented much of the predatory lending and Wall Street manipulation of derivatives that led to a national financial meltdown. The recession began in December, 2007, and by the time Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009, it was in full-swing. At its low point, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 6347. As of November 6, 2009, it stood at over 10,000. In January, 2009, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was down -6.2 percent. As of September, 2009, it was up +3.6 percent. That’s a 9.8 percent improvement in the GDP in just 9 months.
When President Obama took-over the government, America’s major banks and financial institutions were on the verge of total collapse. Such a collapse would have plunged this nation into depression and chaos. Over the objections of congressional Republicans, the President and his economic team were able to rescue the financial segment of our economy with TARP and other funds and were able to stem the tide of economic disaster with a major stimulus bill.
Those who accuse the Obama Administration of doing nothing should stop and think. All they have done to date is save this country from utter financial devastation. If you think we have high unemployment now, imagine what it would be like in a real depression. During the great depression of the 1930’s it was as much as 25 percent.
As of October, 2009, the stimulus had created or saved over 640,000 jobs. The U.S. manufacturing sector grew in August for the first time in 19 months. It continued to grow in September and October. According The Institute for Supply Management in its monthly Report on Business, the US manufacturing industry is hiring more aggressively than at any time since 2006. The Institute’s index for employment increased by 6.9 percentage points in October, 2009.
On November 2, 2009, The National Association of Realtors said pending home sales rose again, marking eight consecutive monthly gains – the longest streak since measurement began in 2001.
October, 2009, was far and away the best month American retailers have had since consumers put the brakes on spending last autumn. Major categories had robust sales growth for the first time in more than a year. In October, 2009, apparel sales increased 3.4 percent compared with the same period a year ago, luxury goods rose 6.5 percent, and jewelry increased 7.2 percent.
Despite the fact that there is still high unemployment, most leading economists have declared the recession to be over. It will take time to get back the jobs that were lost during the Bush recession, but they will come back—perhaps slowly. The absence of a genuine depression and the continued improvement in the economy is thanks to the steps taken by the Obama Administration and opposed by the Republicans.
Monday, November 9, 2009
More on Intelligence, Education, and Elitism
A recent letter to the editor reminded me that there are still morons out there writing letters to the editor. Some letters are so illiterate you would think that the writers would be ashamed to send them in. This one was full of grammatical errors, but I will not repeat them all. The writer referred to my column as being filled with "miss-information," which I assume is information for unmarried women. The writer has no clue as to how to punctuate, constantly leaving his commas outside the quotation marks, and referring to me as "one of the 'State Controlled Media' wannabe's'." This moron has written many letters to the editor, and each one is filled with grammatical errors. He displays his ignorance without realizing that educated people are aware of his inability to write in the english language.
When I wrote a column discussing the lack of education found in conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and compared it with the educational accomplishments of liberal news people, the letters poured in calling me an “elitist.” I also contrasted the low educational achievements of Bush Administration officials with the extraordinary accomplishments of President Obama and his team. This seemed to outrage the right-wing people who responded to my column by saying that we would be far better-off in Washington with less educated people.
It seems that there is a kind of class hatred by conservatives toward liberals and toward the generally higher level of liberals’ education. Conservatives feel that they are looked down upon by more intellectual liberals. It is not unlike the deep resentment felt by lower class people toward wealthy and sophisticated people. That kind of resentment has fueled violent revolutions.
I probably am an elitist. I believe that when it comes to news commentators, the truth is more likely to be heard from highly educated people than from uneducated people. I believe that the best people to run a government are the most highly educated and intelligent people. I simply cannot understand people’s claim that we need uneducated people running this country. When G. Harrold Carswell was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court, Democrats charged that he was a mediocre judge. In defense, Senator Hruska of Nebraska said: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance.” I don’t know if he was kidding or not.
The last thing you want on the Supreme Court is a mediocre judge. The most important attribute of any Supreme Court justice must be intelligence. If I am an elitist because I want my Supreme Court justices to be highly educated intellectuals, so be it. The same applies to the President and his Administration. I want the very brightest people running the country. If this is discrimination against not-so-bright people, so be it. I realize that highly educated people can make major mistakes. A good example would be the list of mistakes involving Viet Nam described in "The Best and The Brightest" by David Halberstam. I realize that all governments make mistakes, but I want those decisions being made by educated and intelligent people, not dunderheads.
I am firmly convinced that there is a wide gap in education and intelligence between liberals and conservatives. This is proven not only by the difference between liberal and conservative media commentators and the difference between liberal and conservative governmental officials, but also by the people one meets everyday. I realize that many poor minority people can be considered liberal, and that many of them do not have extensive education, but when I speak of liberals and conservatives, I am speaking of the middle and upper-class people of all races who do not suffer from the obstacles that confront the poor people.
My thesis is proven by the letters to the editor opposing my columns. It is surprising that people writing to the editor are willing to have such illiterate letters published for all the public to see. The letters are not only substantively stupid, but are filled with grammatical and spelling errors. In some cases it is almost as if the writer was a secret liberal trying to make conservative letter-writers look foolish.
The same letter-writer that I referred to above was incensed that I dared to criticize the far right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. He started a sentence, “The vitrol language you have used…” The remainder of his letter is long, ungrammatical, and unintelligible. His other letters are equally dumb. Another letter-writer penned the following brilliant remark about me: “It’s not hard to see nor read he truly doesn’t know what he is talking about nor does he speak for Americans.” The same writer recently wrote, and repeated, that President Barack Obama is a “Muslin.” I suggested to the editor of the paper that perhaps we should call President Obama the “Commander in sheets.”
I also notice that even the letters that are not illiterate show a high degree of stupidity. It is as if such writers did not actually read my column and are responding to some other commentary. I wrote a column carefully examining why some female voters who had supported Hillary Clinton refused to vote for Barack Obama, and suggested that some, not all, might be doing so because of racism. One writer complained that I was painting all people who switched from Clinton to John McCain as racists. In my column I had gone out of my way to say the opposite. In another column I expressed concern that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin had once called the head librarian in town to inquire about censoring some books. I was careful to note that no books were actually removed. Nevertheless, one writer complained that I had accused Palin of book-burning. This kind of thing has happened repeatedly.
I recently wrote a column describing the stupidity of ultra right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. I did so hoping to draw some Klan sympathizers out of the woodwork. One of my frequent critics took the bait and wrote a letter to the editor in which he accused me of “defiling” myself. I assume that, unless he is a secret liberal trying to make conservatives look like idiots, he is a Klan or militia sympathizer. He has now walked into my trap and exposed his true beliefs for everybody to see.
I have noticed that southwest Ohio is heavily populated by far right-wing types. I assume that somehow, large numbers of Southern rednecks came up from the South and settled in this area. These are the least educated Americans. They are the most conservative, and in many cases, their conservatism spills over into extremism. When I use the term “redneck,” they complain because they identify with that term. They are proud to be gun-toting, rebel-flag-waving, Klan sympathizing, bigoted, uneducated, ignorant, repulsive rednecks. They know that they can never be intellectuals, so they wallow in their own ignorance.
When I wrote a column discussing the lack of education found in conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and compared it with the educational accomplishments of liberal news people, the letters poured in calling me an “elitist.” I also contrasted the low educational achievements of Bush Administration officials with the extraordinary accomplishments of President Obama and his team. This seemed to outrage the right-wing people who responded to my column by saying that we would be far better-off in Washington with less educated people.
It seems that there is a kind of class hatred by conservatives toward liberals and toward the generally higher level of liberals’ education. Conservatives feel that they are looked down upon by more intellectual liberals. It is not unlike the deep resentment felt by lower class people toward wealthy and sophisticated people. That kind of resentment has fueled violent revolutions.
I probably am an elitist. I believe that when it comes to news commentators, the truth is more likely to be heard from highly educated people than from uneducated people. I believe that the best people to run a government are the most highly educated and intelligent people. I simply cannot understand people’s claim that we need uneducated people running this country. When G. Harrold Carswell was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court, Democrats charged that he was a mediocre judge. In defense, Senator Hruska of Nebraska said: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance.” I don’t know if he was kidding or not.
The last thing you want on the Supreme Court is a mediocre judge. The most important attribute of any Supreme Court justice must be intelligence. If I am an elitist because I want my Supreme Court justices to be highly educated intellectuals, so be it. The same applies to the President and his Administration. I want the very brightest people running the country. If this is discrimination against not-so-bright people, so be it. I realize that highly educated people can make major mistakes. A good example would be the list of mistakes involving Viet Nam described in "The Best and The Brightest" by David Halberstam. I realize that all governments make mistakes, but I want those decisions being made by educated and intelligent people, not dunderheads.
I am firmly convinced that there is a wide gap in education and intelligence between liberals and conservatives. This is proven not only by the difference between liberal and conservative media commentators and the difference between liberal and conservative governmental officials, but also by the people one meets everyday. I realize that many poor minority people can be considered liberal, and that many of them do not have extensive education, but when I speak of liberals and conservatives, I am speaking of the middle and upper-class people of all races who do not suffer from the obstacles that confront the poor people.
My thesis is proven by the letters to the editor opposing my columns. It is surprising that people writing to the editor are willing to have such illiterate letters published for all the public to see. The letters are not only substantively stupid, but are filled with grammatical and spelling errors. In some cases it is almost as if the writer was a secret liberal trying to make conservative letter-writers look foolish.
The same letter-writer that I referred to above was incensed that I dared to criticize the far right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. He started a sentence, “The vitrol language you have used…” The remainder of his letter is long, ungrammatical, and unintelligible. His other letters are equally dumb. Another letter-writer penned the following brilliant remark about me: “It’s not hard to see nor read he truly doesn’t know what he is talking about nor does he speak for Americans.” The same writer recently wrote, and repeated, that President Barack Obama is a “Muslin.” I suggested to the editor of the paper that perhaps we should call President Obama the “Commander in sheets.”
I also notice that even the letters that are not illiterate show a high degree of stupidity. It is as if such writers did not actually read my column and are responding to some other commentary. I wrote a column carefully examining why some female voters who had supported Hillary Clinton refused to vote for Barack Obama, and suggested that some, not all, might be doing so because of racism. One writer complained that I was painting all people who switched from Clinton to John McCain as racists. In my column I had gone out of my way to say the opposite. In another column I expressed concern that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin had once called the head librarian in town to inquire about censoring some books. I was careful to note that no books were actually removed. Nevertheless, one writer complained that I had accused Palin of book-burning. This kind of thing has happened repeatedly.
I recently wrote a column describing the stupidity of ultra right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. I did so hoping to draw some Klan sympathizers out of the woodwork. One of my frequent critics took the bait and wrote a letter to the editor in which he accused me of “defiling” myself. I assume that, unless he is a secret liberal trying to make conservatives look like idiots, he is a Klan or militia sympathizer. He has now walked into my trap and exposed his true beliefs for everybody to see.
I have noticed that southwest Ohio is heavily populated by far right-wing types. I assume that somehow, large numbers of Southern rednecks came up from the South and settled in this area. These are the least educated Americans. They are the most conservative, and in many cases, their conservatism spills over into extremism. When I use the term “redneck,” they complain because they identify with that term. They are proud to be gun-toting, rebel-flag-waving, Klan sympathizing, bigoted, uneducated, ignorant, repulsive rednecks. They know that they can never be intellectuals, so they wallow in their own ignorance.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Hate Crimes Bill
On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The Act expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crimes law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. This was the law that was so forcefully opposed by James Dobson and Focus on the Family. It has long been opposed by Republicans and supported by Democrats. Now, by tying it to a Defense appropriation bill, the Democrats were able to get it passed.
In signing the bill the President pointed-out why this law was a necessary addition to regular laws against violent attacks: “You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits -- not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear. You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights -- both from unjust laws and violent acts. And you understand how necessary this law continues to be....we sense where such cruelty begins: the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity -- the very moment when we fail to recognize in a person the same fears and hopes, the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share.”
Thirty-five Senate Republicans voted against passage of the defense authorization bill because it also contained this hate crimes legislation. Only Senators George Voinovich, Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins voted with Democrats to move the legislation to a final vote.
House Minority Leader, John Boehner, opposed the bill saying: "All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance. The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others.” The bill, however, does not prosecute “thought crimes.” It explicitly states that "Nothing in this Act...shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Boehner and the right-wingers have not given the real reason for their opposition. The real reason is that they hate homosexuals and do not want to have laws protecting them from the army of homophobic bigots out there who would gladly attack and kill them. They think that gays are evil. They stupidly believe that gays have chosen their sexual orientation, and that such choice should be punished.
Boehner claims that the hate-crimes bill singles out one group and provides it with special protection. I wonder how he and his cohorts would feel if the law singled-out combat veterans and provided them with special protection against attack. They would be falling all-over each-other to support such a bill. But we all know that criminals do not attack veterans just because they are veterans. On the other hand, thousands of gays and transgender people have been deliberately attacked, injured, and murdered because of their sexual identity.
Matthew Shepard was tortured, tied to a fence, and murdered in 1998 near Laramie, Wyoming, because he was perceived to be gay. James Byrd, Jr. was an African-American man who was tied to a truck by two known white supremacists, dragged by it, and decapitated in Jasper, Texas in 1998. There were no applicable hate crime laws in Wyoming and Texas at the time of the murders.
Right-wingers like John Boehner use mealy-mouthed excuses for their prejudice against gays. All hatred of gays is unpardonable bigotry. All bigotry is ignorance. Organizations that claim to be religious, but cry-out against the rights of homosexuals, should be denounced. And the right-wingers in Congress, by catering to this barbarian segment of the populace, deserve to be condemned.
In signing the bill the President pointed-out why this law was a necessary addition to regular laws against violent attacks: “You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits -- not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear. You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights -- both from unjust laws and violent acts. And you understand how necessary this law continues to be....we sense where such cruelty begins: the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity -- the very moment when we fail to recognize in a person the same fears and hopes, the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share.”
Thirty-five Senate Republicans voted against passage of the defense authorization bill because it also contained this hate crimes legislation. Only Senators George Voinovich, Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins voted with Democrats to move the legislation to a final vote.
House Minority Leader, John Boehner, opposed the bill saying: "All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance. The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others.” The bill, however, does not prosecute “thought crimes.” It explicitly states that "Nothing in this Act...shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Boehner and the right-wingers have not given the real reason for their opposition. The real reason is that they hate homosexuals and do not want to have laws protecting them from the army of homophobic bigots out there who would gladly attack and kill them. They think that gays are evil. They stupidly believe that gays have chosen their sexual orientation, and that such choice should be punished.
Boehner claims that the hate-crimes bill singles out one group and provides it with special protection. I wonder how he and his cohorts would feel if the law singled-out combat veterans and provided them with special protection against attack. They would be falling all-over each-other to support such a bill. But we all know that criminals do not attack veterans just because they are veterans. On the other hand, thousands of gays and transgender people have been deliberately attacked, injured, and murdered because of their sexual identity.
Matthew Shepard was tortured, tied to a fence, and murdered in 1998 near Laramie, Wyoming, because he was perceived to be gay. James Byrd, Jr. was an African-American man who was tied to a truck by two known white supremacists, dragged by it, and decapitated in Jasper, Texas in 1998. There were no applicable hate crime laws in Wyoming and Texas at the time of the murders.
Right-wingers like John Boehner use mealy-mouthed excuses for their prejudice against gays. All hatred of gays is unpardonable bigotry. All bigotry is ignorance. Organizations that claim to be religious, but cry-out against the rights of homosexuals, should be denounced. And the right-wingers in Congress, by catering to this barbarian segment of the populace, deserve to be condemned.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Sweat Lodges and Our Aching Need for Answers
That was not a bunch of snake-handling hillbillies in the sweat lodge in Sedona Arizona. That was a group of well-heeled business and professional people seeking spiritual rebirth from a charismatic new-age guru named James Arthur Ray. They had paid over $9,600 each to be packed into an unlit tent-like structure covered with blankets and plastic and heated with fiery rocks in the hot Arizona desert.
A spiritual ceremony was conducted. Ray sat by the tent-flap door, which remained sealed except for pauses when additional rocks, which had been heated in an outdoor fire, were brought in. The heat became overwhelming. About 90 minutes into the ceremony, someone yelled in the darkness that a woman had passed-out. Dr. Beverley Bunn, 43, an orthodontist from Texas, who struggled to remain conscious in the sweat lodge, said that “there were people throwing-up everywhere.” Some of the people throwing-up had just completed a 36-hour “vision quest” in which they fasted alone in the desert.
By the end of the ordeal, emergency crews had taken 21 people to hospitals. Three died.
Mr. Ray’s company, James Ray International, made $9.4 million in 2008 from weekend seminars, videos, and books, including the 2008 best-seller: “Harmonic Wealth: The Secret of Attracting the Life You Want.”
Participants at the sweat lodge retreats described a game in which Mr. Ray wore white robes and played God, ordering some participants to commit mock suicide. It reminded me of the late protestant minister Jim Jones who took his congregation to Guyana and had them commit mass suicide by drinking Kool-Aid laced with cyanide.
What is it about these charismatic spiritual leaders that they are able to motivate people to acts of insanity? Marshall Applewhite was able to convince 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult to commit suicide in order to join-up with a spacecraft which he said was trailing the Hale-Bopp comet. David Koresh suceeded in persuading members of the Branch Davidian sect that he was the Son of God and that they should allow their wives and daughters to have sex with him. What is it?
Many if not most people are fragile and insecure, seeking answers to the big questions about how to be happy, assertive, serene, and successful. They are easy prey for the brash, daring few people who attract followers through the strength of their magnetic personalities. I do not know what it is that makes so many people self-doubting while a small number of others are supremely self-assured.
It is likely that those highly attractive, self-confident people learn as they grow-up that they have the power to influence people. I have known a few such people in my life, and have seen that many of them use their powerful personalities to manipulate others. They are often good public speakers and are drawn to occupations such as religious leaders or self-help gurus. Their gift for oratory is mistaken as knowledge of the truth. Many televangelists are great speakers, but if you listen closely, much of what they say is gibberish.
These charismatic types also learn early-on that they can parlay their personalities into wealth and power. James Arthur Ray has been able to earn millions of dollars encouraging people to do bizarre acts like suffer in packed, unlit furnaces in the desert. Televangelists, whose sole claim to spiritual prominence is the ability to glibly string words and sentences together, are able to gain fabulous wealth by encouraging watchers to contribute “seed” money which they assure their sheep-like listeners will be repaid a hundredfold by God. You can be sure it never is.
We have an aching need for answers, but too often the people who are most willing to supply those answers are smooth-talking, charismatic, money-hungry con-men whose answers empty our wallets and our souls.
A spiritual ceremony was conducted. Ray sat by the tent-flap door, which remained sealed except for pauses when additional rocks, which had been heated in an outdoor fire, were brought in. The heat became overwhelming. About 90 minutes into the ceremony, someone yelled in the darkness that a woman had passed-out. Dr. Beverley Bunn, 43, an orthodontist from Texas, who struggled to remain conscious in the sweat lodge, said that “there were people throwing-up everywhere.” Some of the people throwing-up had just completed a 36-hour “vision quest” in which they fasted alone in the desert.
By the end of the ordeal, emergency crews had taken 21 people to hospitals. Three died.
Mr. Ray’s company, James Ray International, made $9.4 million in 2008 from weekend seminars, videos, and books, including the 2008 best-seller: “Harmonic Wealth: The Secret of Attracting the Life You Want.”
Participants at the sweat lodge retreats described a game in which Mr. Ray wore white robes and played God, ordering some participants to commit mock suicide. It reminded me of the late protestant minister Jim Jones who took his congregation to Guyana and had them commit mass suicide by drinking Kool-Aid laced with cyanide.
What is it about these charismatic spiritual leaders that they are able to motivate people to acts of insanity? Marshall Applewhite was able to convince 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult to commit suicide in order to join-up with a spacecraft which he said was trailing the Hale-Bopp comet. David Koresh suceeded in persuading members of the Branch Davidian sect that he was the Son of God and that they should allow their wives and daughters to have sex with him. What is it?
Many if not most people are fragile and insecure, seeking answers to the big questions about how to be happy, assertive, serene, and successful. They are easy prey for the brash, daring few people who attract followers through the strength of their magnetic personalities. I do not know what it is that makes so many people self-doubting while a small number of others are supremely self-assured.
It is likely that those highly attractive, self-confident people learn as they grow-up that they have the power to influence people. I have known a few such people in my life, and have seen that many of them use their powerful personalities to manipulate others. They are often good public speakers and are drawn to occupations such as religious leaders or self-help gurus. Their gift for oratory is mistaken as knowledge of the truth. Many televangelists are great speakers, but if you listen closely, much of what they say is gibberish.
These charismatic types also learn early-on that they can parlay their personalities into wealth and power. James Arthur Ray has been able to earn millions of dollars encouraging people to do bizarre acts like suffer in packed, unlit furnaces in the desert. Televangelists, whose sole claim to spiritual prominence is the ability to glibly string words and sentences together, are able to gain fabulous wealth by encouraging watchers to contribute “seed” money which they assure their sheep-like listeners will be repaid a hundredfold by God. You can be sure it never is.
We have an aching need for answers, but too often the people who are most willing to supply those answers are smooth-talking, charismatic, money-hungry con-men whose answers empty our wallets and our souls.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Health Insurance Industry Report
When the health insurance executives met with President Obama earlier this year to assure him that they were going to take steps to lower health care costs, I warned that they were lying. Shortly after the meeting, they backed-out of their commitments and began preparing television ads attacking health care reform. Now they have come-out with a report prepared by flunkies which claims that health care reform as envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee bill will actually raise premiums for most Americans. Richard Kirsch of Health Care for America Now responded to the report, saying: "The idea that the insurance industry would complain about high premiums is like the Yankees complaining that they're hitting too many home runs. It's totally preposterous."
Senate Finance Committee spokesman Scott Mulhauser called the report "a health insurance company hatchet job -- plain and simple." The report has been ripped to shreds by experts. It deliberately ignores all of the provisions of the bill that will bring large savings to health care recipients. It ignores the proposed subsidies that would help millions of people to buy their own insurance. Jonathan Gruber, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and director of the health care program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, says that the Finance Committee plan will not raise premiums but will substantially lower the cost of health insurance.
The obvious purpose of the report is for the insurance industry to make a nasty threat to raise premiums if Congress reduces Medicare payments to hospitals and compels insurance companies to cover people who are ill or who have prior medical conditions. The answer to such a threat is to enact a public option.
The behavior of the health insurance industry during this fight over reform has been an example of American business at its most reprehensible. It is worse even than the behavior of the oil, pharmaceutical, and other miscreant industries. I previously quoted the figure of 18,000 people who die each year due to lack of health insurance. Now, because of the policies of the health insurance industry, the figure for those who die each year because of lack of health insurance has risen to 45,000. That is a national disgrace. The argument is no longer political. It is moral.
Wendell Potter, a former insurance company executive turned whistle-blower, said the report is aimed to shape reform "for their (insurance companies’) benefit and the benefit of Wall Street shareholders, more than Americans. This is a desperation move on the part of the insurance industry, because analysts are now somewhat concerned ... that the bill may not be absolutely everything that the industry wants”
The bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee is designed to lower, not raise, health insurance premiums. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office analysis shows that the bill will reduce the national deficit by more than $80 billion over the next decade, provide insurance to an additional 29 million people, and extend coverage to 94 percent of the country's non-elderly population.
The Senate Finance Committee bill is highly imperfect. It does not contain a public option. It weakens the mandate that individuals carry health insurance. That is not the end of the matter, however. That bill is likely to be combined with a bill that does have a public option. The individual mandate will probably be strengthened in a combined bill. If the public option is not in the final Senate bill, it will be in the final bill coming out of the Senate-House Conference. It will then be voted on by both the Senate and the House. If the Senate Republicans filibuster the final vote, the Democrats have the option of treating the legislation as budget reconciliation legislation requiring only 51 votes for passage.
Senate Finance Committee spokesman Scott Mulhauser called the report "a health insurance company hatchet job -- plain and simple." The report has been ripped to shreds by experts. It deliberately ignores all of the provisions of the bill that will bring large savings to health care recipients. It ignores the proposed subsidies that would help millions of people to buy their own insurance. Jonathan Gruber, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and director of the health care program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, says that the Finance Committee plan will not raise premiums but will substantially lower the cost of health insurance.
The obvious purpose of the report is for the insurance industry to make a nasty threat to raise premiums if Congress reduces Medicare payments to hospitals and compels insurance companies to cover people who are ill or who have prior medical conditions. The answer to such a threat is to enact a public option.
The behavior of the health insurance industry during this fight over reform has been an example of American business at its most reprehensible. It is worse even than the behavior of the oil, pharmaceutical, and other miscreant industries. I previously quoted the figure of 18,000 people who die each year due to lack of health insurance. Now, because of the policies of the health insurance industry, the figure for those who die each year because of lack of health insurance has risen to 45,000. That is a national disgrace. The argument is no longer political. It is moral.
Wendell Potter, a former insurance company executive turned whistle-blower, said the report is aimed to shape reform "for their (insurance companies’) benefit and the benefit of Wall Street shareholders, more than Americans. This is a desperation move on the part of the insurance industry, because analysts are now somewhat concerned ... that the bill may not be absolutely everything that the industry wants”
The bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee is designed to lower, not raise, health insurance premiums. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office analysis shows that the bill will reduce the national deficit by more than $80 billion over the next decade, provide insurance to an additional 29 million people, and extend coverage to 94 percent of the country's non-elderly population.
The Senate Finance Committee bill is highly imperfect. It does not contain a public option. It weakens the mandate that individuals carry health insurance. That is not the end of the matter, however. That bill is likely to be combined with a bill that does have a public option. The individual mandate will probably be strengthened in a combined bill. If the public option is not in the final Senate bill, it will be in the final bill coming out of the Senate-House Conference. It will then be voted on by both the Senate and the House. If the Senate Republicans filibuster the final vote, the Democrats have the option of treating the legislation as budget reconciliation legislation requiring only 51 votes for passage.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Life of the Mind
People have often told me that I should not just sit around reading books. I should get out. My former wife used to criticize me for not having any outside activities. She said that I needed to get a life. I told her that I had a life of the mind. She would stare at me in mute incomprehension.
When you immerse yourself in books, you go through a door into a different world. It not only gives a kind of pleasure, it gives life. I cannot say that reading has brought me great happiness. By chemistry and disposition I am a less than cheerful person. I would like to be happier, but I would not give up reading to gain that end. Perhaps reading has deepened my melancholy. Profound research into the absence of God and the meaninglessness of life has not cheered my soul. But knowledge is its own reward.
Stanley Fish, a college professor, literary critic, and columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote a column on the question of whether the humanities do anything to help humanity. His conclusion was--no. He said: “To the question ‘of what use are the humanities?’ the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good. There is nothing more to say, and anything that is said ….diminishes the object of its supposed praise.”
I agree.
I have spent much of my life reading. It has given me knowledge of literature, history, philosophy, theology, psychology and other fields of learning. I do not have a brilliant mind. What I have that the average person does not have is a passion for learning. Since I graduated from college I have never stopped reading books. I am not a fast reader, but I am a constant reader. I am an autodidact, a self-educated person. I spent most of my high school years studying the parabolas of girls’ chests and most of my college education studying the trajectories of basketballs. When I graduated, I realized that I did not know very much. For some reason, I wanted to learn, so that is when I started reading in earnest.
Many years ago I wanted to understand the reason why civilizations, nations, and cultures developed the way they did. I decided to read history and other subjects in the humanities. I read many multi-volume books on the history of civilization. After a lifetime of reading, I still do not have the answers. But I do have some ideas, and I can converse about them. I have tried to learn about subjects beyond literature, history, philosophy, and theology; subjects like music, art, and science. I have only a layman’s knowledge of these fields, but I probably know far more than most people. As I’ve gotten older I find that I love listening to beautiful classical music. I also love reading books about art and looking up artists’ works on the computer. Almost every day I choose an artist and search for him or her online.
I discovered early in my marriage that my wife did not appreciate it if I went into the bedroom in the evening and started reading. She wanted me to watch television with her. This bothered me and probably contributed to the eventual downfall of our marriage. I looked upon the watching of television as a waste of time and a non-social event. We sat and stared blankly at the screen without engaging in any conversation. The material on television was pathetic. I hated watching, but felt that it was the only way to appease my wife. When children came along, they wanted their daddy to play with them. I loved playing with my children but it was impossible to read after coming home from work. In addition, my work was demanding and I often did not get home until later. By the time I got home I would be tired, too tired to read.
I started getting up very early in the morning. I discovered that if I arose around 5:30 a.m. I would be able to read for several hours without interference. Moreover, I would be awake and alert. I could read and understand the more difficult books without developing that sleepiness that accompanies most attempts to read recondite material.
Each morning I would get up and go make coffee. I would sit and luxuriate over the coffee while I began reading some book of history, philosophy, theology, literature or such. Sometimes I could not understand a word of what I was reading, but I did not give up. I would read and reread pages until I began to comprehend what the writer was saying. As I read more and more books, I understood more and more.
Sometimes I would be struck by what I was reading. Some writer would connect with my mind so deeply that chills would run down my spine. I have had the same experience with music and art. When I first saw Velazquez’s “Waterseller of Seville,” I was deeply moved and tears came to my eyes. I couldn’t comprehend the genius it must have taken to paint such a masterpiece! I have had the same experience when hearing some pieces of music. I felt a deep thrill when I first heard the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. This has happened many times.
I would have liked to have had a consistently happy life. But I realize that for some people, like me, happiness consists of fleeting moments. Sometimes it is just time with my children and grandchildren, time with my sweet Julie, a great book, a beautiful day, beautiful scenery, magnificent music, wonderful art, a glorious poem, or a penetrating thought. It is through such things that I have experienced much of the happiness in my life.
When you immerse yourself in books, you go through a door into a different world. It not only gives a kind of pleasure, it gives life. I cannot say that reading has brought me great happiness. By chemistry and disposition I am a less than cheerful person. I would like to be happier, but I would not give up reading to gain that end. Perhaps reading has deepened my melancholy. Profound research into the absence of God and the meaninglessness of life has not cheered my soul. But knowledge is its own reward.
Stanley Fish, a college professor, literary critic, and columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote a column on the question of whether the humanities do anything to help humanity. His conclusion was--no. He said: “To the question ‘of what use are the humanities?’ the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good. There is nothing more to say, and anything that is said ….diminishes the object of its supposed praise.”
I agree.
I have spent much of my life reading. It has given me knowledge of literature, history, philosophy, theology, psychology and other fields of learning. I do not have a brilliant mind. What I have that the average person does not have is a passion for learning. Since I graduated from college I have never stopped reading books. I am not a fast reader, but I am a constant reader. I am an autodidact, a self-educated person. I spent most of my high school years studying the parabolas of girls’ chests and most of my college education studying the trajectories of basketballs. When I graduated, I realized that I did not know very much. For some reason, I wanted to learn, so that is when I started reading in earnest.
Many years ago I wanted to understand the reason why civilizations, nations, and cultures developed the way they did. I decided to read history and other subjects in the humanities. I read many multi-volume books on the history of civilization. After a lifetime of reading, I still do not have the answers. But I do have some ideas, and I can converse about them. I have tried to learn about subjects beyond literature, history, philosophy, and theology; subjects like music, art, and science. I have only a layman’s knowledge of these fields, but I probably know far more than most people. As I’ve gotten older I find that I love listening to beautiful classical music. I also love reading books about art and looking up artists’ works on the computer. Almost every day I choose an artist and search for him or her online.
I discovered early in my marriage that my wife did not appreciate it if I went into the bedroom in the evening and started reading. She wanted me to watch television with her. This bothered me and probably contributed to the eventual downfall of our marriage. I looked upon the watching of television as a waste of time and a non-social event. We sat and stared blankly at the screen without engaging in any conversation. The material on television was pathetic. I hated watching, but felt that it was the only way to appease my wife. When children came along, they wanted their daddy to play with them. I loved playing with my children but it was impossible to read after coming home from work. In addition, my work was demanding and I often did not get home until later. By the time I got home I would be tired, too tired to read.
I started getting up very early in the morning. I discovered that if I arose around 5:30 a.m. I would be able to read for several hours without interference. Moreover, I would be awake and alert. I could read and understand the more difficult books without developing that sleepiness that accompanies most attempts to read recondite material.
Each morning I would get up and go make coffee. I would sit and luxuriate over the coffee while I began reading some book of history, philosophy, theology, literature or such. Sometimes I could not understand a word of what I was reading, but I did not give up. I would read and reread pages until I began to comprehend what the writer was saying. As I read more and more books, I understood more and more.
Sometimes I would be struck by what I was reading. Some writer would connect with my mind so deeply that chills would run down my spine. I have had the same experience with music and art. When I first saw Velazquez’s “Waterseller of Seville,” I was deeply moved and tears came to my eyes. I couldn’t comprehend the genius it must have taken to paint such a masterpiece! I have had the same experience when hearing some pieces of music. I felt a deep thrill when I first heard the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. This has happened many times.
I would have liked to have had a consistently happy life. But I realize that for some people, like me, happiness consists of fleeting moments. Sometimes it is just time with my children and grandchildren, time with my sweet Julie, a great book, a beautiful day, beautiful scenery, magnificent music, wonderful art, a glorious poem, or a penetrating thought. It is through such things that I have experienced much of the happiness in my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
