Don't you get tired of those goofball Americans, who are fortunate enough to have health care coverage, complaining about the national effort to provide health care for those who don't have coverage? Wow, I do.
They apparently don't care about fellow Americans. Then they also have fits about any notion of health care coverage for illegal immigrants, though those workers are probably here for the financial advantage of the conservative, capitalist (and likely Republican) corporations and farms that can get away with paying them low wages and not supplying any benefits.
I was thinking that it is too bad a bunch of those "screamers" at the town hall meetings for health care reform aren't invited to a doctor's office where a sick child of either uninsured Americans or illegal immigrant workers could stand before them in need of health and medical care. Then, after they deny care to the child, thereby showing that they favor the rationing of health care, someone could turn to the group and say, "Well, look who's part of the Sarah Palin death panel now."
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Worldwide attitudes...
Interesting numbers from Pew Global Attitudes Survey of July 2009, as noted by the McLaughlin Group tonight:
According to the survey, U.S. favorability in other countries was the following:
According to the survey, U.S. favorability in other countries was the following:
- For the United Kingdom: 53 percent in 2008, 69 percent in 2009.
- For Germany: 33 percent in 2008, 64 percent in 2009.
- For France: 42 percent in 2008, 75 percent in 2009.
Also, according to the poll, here are the popularity percentages for Presidents Bush and Obama in other countries:
- Britain: 16 percent for Bush, 86 percent for Obama.
- France: 15 percent for Bush, 91 percent for Obama.
- Germany: 14 percent for Bush, 93 percent for Obama.
- Turkey: 2 percent for Bush, 33 percent for Obama.
- Russia: 22 percent for Bush, 37 percent for Obama.
- China: 30 percent for Bush, 62 percent for Obama.
- Japan: 25 percent for Bush, 85 percent for Obama.
- Brazil: 17 percent for Bush, 76 percent for Obama.
- Mexico: 16 percent for Bush, 55 percent for Obama.
- Argentina: 7 percent for Bush, 61 percent for Obama.
The only country, mentioned on the program, that gave a sliver of the edge to Bush over Obama was Israel, with 57 percent for Bush and 56 percent for Obama.
Even in the United States, the popularity poll noted 37 percent for Bush and 74 percent for Obama. Obama's popularity has dropped in the latest U.S. polls, but that is probably because he recently annoyed his progressive base on the left with talk of allowing the public option in health care reform to be eliminated. He needs to make sure the public option is part of the health care reform and then the progressives will happily herald an increase in his poll numbers.
Of course, I can completely understand the Pew survey numbers concerning worldwide attitudes about Bush and Obama. George Bush was a disaster in all kinds of ways. As I have said often, I think George W. Bush was the worst president so far in my lifetime and, remember, I was around when the awful administrations of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were leading the country.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Quotable quotes...
Some quotable quotes...
"It's just four little words: Tell me a story." -- Don Hewitt, describing the essence of journalism. Hewitt (1922-2009) died today. Hewitt worked with journalist Edward R. Murrow, directed the program for the first TV presidential debate (involving Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon), and created and produced the news program "60 Minutes."
"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" -- Congressman Barney Frank at the town hall meeting in answer to a nutty woman who compared Obama's health care reform plan to policies of Hitler and the Nazis.
(Note: I know what planet that woman probably spent her time on...It's the crazy, stupid, ridiculous place called Fox planet.)
"Wisdom will be our hammer. Prudence will be our rail. When men build lives from honest toil, courage never fails." -- A line from the 2006 movie "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale."
From the TV comedy show "Parks and Recreation" starring Amy Poehler:
About an upcoming newspaper interview by a reporter, Poehler's character asked, "What do you think she's going to ask me first?" Another character answered, "How you spell your name."
In another scene from the show, Poehler character said, "The press is weapon and you can use it to kill people or to feed people."
"It's just four little words: Tell me a story." -- Don Hewitt, describing the essence of journalism. Hewitt (1922-2009) died today. Hewitt worked with journalist Edward R. Murrow, directed the program for the first TV presidential debate (involving Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon), and created and produced the news program "60 Minutes."
"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" -- Congressman Barney Frank at the town hall meeting in answer to a nutty woman who compared Obama's health care reform plan to policies of Hitler and the Nazis.
(Note: I know what planet that woman probably spent her time on...It's the crazy, stupid, ridiculous place called Fox planet.)
"Wisdom will be our hammer. Prudence will be our rail. When men build lives from honest toil, courage never fails." -- A line from the 2006 movie "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale."
From the TV comedy show "Parks and Recreation" starring Amy Poehler:
About an upcoming newspaper interview by a reporter, Poehler's character asked, "What do you think she's going to ask me first?" Another character answered, "How you spell your name."
In another scene from the show, Poehler character said, "The press is weapon and you can use it to kill people or to feed people."
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
People at public rallies...
If ever something fit the description of a "pig in a parlor," it would be the people who take guns to public rallies. They should play "Clint Eastwood" somewhere else. (They could volunteer to take the place of a soldier who's been deployed too many times in two wars in the Middle East.)
A public forum is for voice, not for the instruments of violence and intimidation. And all the "gunslingers" I have seen on TV segments are guys, of course. Oh, a gun is macho to men who worship them. But I have always thought the more courageous people are often the ones who braved the world without the need for either weapons or violence. That certainly was the case for peaceful protestors at rallies during the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War protest days. And for people who had to carry guns, in the course of war, a lot of veterans gladly left their guns behind when they left the wars, relieved that they lived in a society of peace and civility. Even in the Old West, many towns with marshals had laws that prohibited people from bringing guns into the city limits. They didn't want cowboys at the saloon getting rowdy and dangerous with firearms. It really would be a sad day if it were common to see people carrying guns around, like the views we get from some foreign countries.
When I lived in Medicine Bow, Wyoming, a small town of less than 1,000 people, for more than a decade, there were periods of time when the town didn't have any law enforcement officers. One time for nearly half a year or more. Let me tell you, that can be a bit disconcerting for a newspaper editor who, on occasion, reports stories or writes commentaries that make some people mad as hornets. I remember one day that a group of us were talking about the fact of living 55 miles away from any police protection, and someone wondered about acquiring guns, for security reasons. A friend, with a wife and three young children, was quite definite. "No way," he answered, saying he would never ever have a gun in his house and mainly because he had children. You might think that, in having a family, his paternal instincts would rear a fearful notion. But he said statistically it was more likely that guns in homes would fall into the hands of children, with the result of tragic accidents, than be needed for the threat of an intruder.
That's true of statistics to this day. With 30,000 gun deaths and 400,000 gun assaults in America becoming the yearly totals, it is also correct that if you have a gun in your home, it is 22 percent more likely that it will kill a family member than an intruding stranger.
But it isn't much better when the show-offs with guns take them out of their homes to public rallies. They think they are sending some strange message about Second Amendment rights. There's no need to send that message, as the Second Amendment is alive and well, despite fools who try to shoot down its reach through reckless acts.
Public rallies are about the First Amendment rights to free speech and to assemble "peaceably," as the First Amendment qualifies. Who wants to go to a rally where some malcontented extremist is bringing a gun? And yes, I think you are an extremist if you are wearing a gun in public and you're not in law enforcement. It's a pig in a parlor.
A public forum is for voice, not for the instruments of violence and intimidation. And all the "gunslingers" I have seen on TV segments are guys, of course. Oh, a gun is macho to men who worship them. But I have always thought the more courageous people are often the ones who braved the world without the need for either weapons or violence. That certainly was the case for peaceful protestors at rallies during the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War protest days. And for people who had to carry guns, in the course of war, a lot of veterans gladly left their guns behind when they left the wars, relieved that they lived in a society of peace and civility. Even in the Old West, many towns with marshals had laws that prohibited people from bringing guns into the city limits. They didn't want cowboys at the saloon getting rowdy and dangerous with firearms. It really would be a sad day if it were common to see people carrying guns around, like the views we get from some foreign countries.
When I lived in Medicine Bow, Wyoming, a small town of less than 1,000 people, for more than a decade, there were periods of time when the town didn't have any law enforcement officers. One time for nearly half a year or more. Let me tell you, that can be a bit disconcerting for a newspaper editor who, on occasion, reports stories or writes commentaries that make some people mad as hornets. I remember one day that a group of us were talking about the fact of living 55 miles away from any police protection, and someone wondered about acquiring guns, for security reasons. A friend, with a wife and three young children, was quite definite. "No way," he answered, saying he would never ever have a gun in his house and mainly because he had children. You might think that, in having a family, his paternal instincts would rear a fearful notion. But he said statistically it was more likely that guns in homes would fall into the hands of children, with the result of tragic accidents, than be needed for the threat of an intruder.
That's true of statistics to this day. With 30,000 gun deaths and 400,000 gun assaults in America becoming the yearly totals, it is also correct that if you have a gun in your home, it is 22 percent more likely that it will kill a family member than an intruding stranger.
But it isn't much better when the show-offs with guns take them out of their homes to public rallies. They think they are sending some strange message about Second Amendment rights. There's no need to send that message, as the Second Amendment is alive and well, despite fools who try to shoot down its reach through reckless acts.
Public rallies are about the First Amendment rights to free speech and to assemble "peaceably," as the First Amendment qualifies. Who wants to go to a rally where some malcontented extremist is bringing a gun? And yes, I think you are an extremist if you are wearing a gun in public and you're not in law enforcement. It's a pig in a parlor.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Health care needs and policies...
President Obama was in Montana and Colorado this weekend, answering questions about health care reform. Here are some of my comments pertaining to questions and answers...
To the question about private insurance companies competing with the public option, which means a governmental program:
1). There are 46 million Americans who don't currently have health care insurance, many who can't afford it, so they are not adding to the revenues of the insurance companies anyway. If they are allowed into a public program, then they will finally get coverage. About 14,000 people lose their health care insurance each day. I suspect much of that is because of job loss. So, the insurance companies are already losing customers. Are they losing profits? I don't hear of insurance companies going broke because of the loss or absence of customers.
2). The insurance companies don't just cover health care. They cover the insurance for car ownership, floods, and other areas including life insurance. My state forces me to find and pay for car insurance, though my driving record has been excellent for decades. I pay into the insurance pool for all those reckless teenagers and accident-prone jerks using cell phones while they drive. Talk about a "socialist" system. Why am I forced to get insurance for my car when I don't abuse its use or endanger others? Do any of those Republicans who are against the public option in health care complain about mandatory car insurance? And do you think there's a rat's whisker of difference in coverage costs within the so-called marketplace of insurance companies? If there is, I haven't discovered it. The insurance companies should have never been part of the health care system in the first place.
Why should Obama and Democrats like Senator McCaskill support a public option and make sure it's in the final plan?
Here's the deal. I voted for Obama and McCaskill in 2008. Obama's race wasn't close, but he certainly benefited by having a large amount of support from progressives (that means liberals). McCaskill's race went into the early hours of the next morning. That's how close it was. A nearly 50/50 race. I would prefer a single-payer system, like other great industrial democracies. At the very least, I expect a public option to be available in the health care plan. See the relationship. I voted for Obama; I want a public option. On the other hand, there are Republicans generally who don't want a public option and, for the most part, they didn't vote for Obama. So, who should Obama and McCaskill listen to? If Obama and the Democrats satisfy the conservatives, by caving on the public option, I hope they have calculated how many of those people who never voted for them before are suddenly going to vote for them in 2012 to replace the absent votes from progressives who are disgusted.
I voted for a Democratic president and Democratic senators and representatives. And they all won. I had to put up with Republican policies for the last eight years. Republicans got their two wars, their water-boarding, and their tax cuts for the rich. I sure as heck am not going to put up with more Republican policies from a Democratic-controlled government. There is a Democratic majority in Congress. So, I expect to see Democratic policies, not Republican or watered-down bipartisan policies. If they can't deliver, having the current Democratic majorities, then they probably will never deliver. They need to deliver it and, in so doing, make good on the promises for those of us who voted for them. We expect them to deliver Democratic policies. It shouldn't be all that difficult, as they would be keeping their voting constituency happy.
To the question about private insurance companies competing with the public option, which means a governmental program:
1). There are 46 million Americans who don't currently have health care insurance, many who can't afford it, so they are not adding to the revenues of the insurance companies anyway. If they are allowed into a public program, then they will finally get coverage. About 14,000 people lose their health care insurance each day. I suspect much of that is because of job loss. So, the insurance companies are already losing customers. Are they losing profits? I don't hear of insurance companies going broke because of the loss or absence of customers.
2). The insurance companies don't just cover health care. They cover the insurance for car ownership, floods, and other areas including life insurance. My state forces me to find and pay for car insurance, though my driving record has been excellent for decades. I pay into the insurance pool for all those reckless teenagers and accident-prone jerks using cell phones while they drive. Talk about a "socialist" system. Why am I forced to get insurance for my car when I don't abuse its use or endanger others? Do any of those Republicans who are against the public option in health care complain about mandatory car insurance? And do you think there's a rat's whisker of difference in coverage costs within the so-called marketplace of insurance companies? If there is, I haven't discovered it. The insurance companies should have never been part of the health care system in the first place.
Why should Obama and Democrats like Senator McCaskill support a public option and make sure it's in the final plan?
Here's the deal. I voted for Obama and McCaskill in 2008. Obama's race wasn't close, but he certainly benefited by having a large amount of support from progressives (that means liberals). McCaskill's race went into the early hours of the next morning. That's how close it was. A nearly 50/50 race. I would prefer a single-payer system, like other great industrial democracies. At the very least, I expect a public option to be available in the health care plan. See the relationship. I voted for Obama; I want a public option. On the other hand, there are Republicans generally who don't want a public option and, for the most part, they didn't vote for Obama. So, who should Obama and McCaskill listen to? If Obama and the Democrats satisfy the conservatives, by caving on the public option, I hope they have calculated how many of those people who never voted for them before are suddenly going to vote for them in 2012 to replace the absent votes from progressives who are disgusted.
I voted for a Democratic president and Democratic senators and representatives. And they all won. I had to put up with Republican policies for the last eight years. Republicans got their two wars, their water-boarding, and their tax cuts for the rich. I sure as heck am not going to put up with more Republican policies from a Democratic-controlled government. There is a Democratic majority in Congress. So, I expect to see Democratic policies, not Republican or watered-down bipartisan policies. If they can't deliver, having the current Democratic majorities, then they probably will never deliver. They need to deliver it and, in so doing, make good on the promises for those of us who voted for them. We expect them to deliver Democratic policies. It shouldn't be all that difficult, as they would be keeping their voting constituency happy.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Palin provided the low point so far...
Without a doubt, the most irresponsible moment in the national health care reform debate so far was when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin prominently inserted the term "death panel."
That moment was selfishly political, absolutely misinformational, and completely laughable if it weren't so callous in terms of failing to add one degree of intellectual quality toward the much needed solution to a sobering national health problem.
It tells me, though I knew it before, that Palin is no serious thinker. She doesn't have the intellect to heighten the discussion, but she had the reckless nerve to distort and lie. She's a demagogue for the simple-minded.
In the meantime, thousands of people attended a free medical and dental makeshift clinic in the Los Angeles area this week, hoping to get help when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it.
That moment was selfishly political, absolutely misinformational, and completely laughable if it weren't so callous in terms of failing to add one degree of intellectual quality toward the much needed solution to a sobering national health problem.
It tells me, though I knew it before, that Palin is no serious thinker. She doesn't have the intellect to heighten the discussion, but she had the reckless nerve to distort and lie. She's a demagogue for the simple-minded.
In the meantime, thousands of people attended a free medical and dental makeshift clinic in the Los Angeles area this week, hoping to get help when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I want an electric car one day...
The information from GM about the Chevy Volt electric car was certainly interesting. The company says the car will have a gasoline-gallon equivalent of going 230 miles per gallon. The car also has zero emissions for the environment. I hope my next car is an electric car. If GM, Ford, and other car companies can get the cost down to an affordable price for middle-class Americans, then the whole picture of the U.S. automobile and fuel will change dramatically. And Americans can wave good-bye to the Saudis and other oil cartels.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
News at 10...
This just in:
Some screaming Republican shills were arrested today after they confused the location of Mary Alice's Tupperware party for a health care reform town hall, disrupting it with screams, wild accusations, and tantrums. Screamed one screamer, "The Founding Fathers didn't use snap-top cannisters!" Screamed another screamer, "Plastic is socialism!"
The Belfry family of Militia, Arkansas, is barricaded inside the family's mobile home, refusing to come out until they receive word that the government will not pull the plug on grandma. Said son Bats, "We're trying to figure out right now where the plug for Grandma is supposed to go. And after we figure that out, we'll be ready to fight to keep bureaucrats from pulling it."
Glenn Beck reports that he will no longer suggest that various people should die because he doesn't want to be drafted to serve on the federal death panel, even if it is named for Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin has broken with the NRA because of its expansive view of firearms use. She stated, "I'm for the right to bear arms, but not to arm bears. Kodiak bears with assault rifles would turn flag-waving, gun-totting, dope-smoking Alaskan hunters into sitting ducks."
You've heard of birthers, who doubt President Obama's birthplace. You've heard of deathers, who think the government wants to kill the elderly. Now, there are whiters. They refuse to believe that Obama is half-black and half-white until he shows them his white parts.
Warren won the office pool today at the Center for Frightening Senior Citizens by correctly identifying that Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, would do his best to scare the bejesus out of seniors, children, puppies, Lutherans, zookeepers, truck drivers, substitute teachers, and people who walk really slow.
MSNBC's Saturday programming will feature a day-long series about serial killers who everyone wanted to forget.
A man in Froth, Kentucky, was treated for injuries after his step-children threw him into an alley garbage barrel. The kids said their mom told them to take out the trash. The mother said that she didn't mean "white" trash.
A Blue-Dog Democrat today had to be treated for fleas. Said the veterinarian, "Quit hanging out with Republicans."
Former President Bill Clinton made it clear today that he is not the Secretary of State. He said, "I'm just the great diplomatic hero who brought back the two ladies held captive in North Korea."
Banks today in appreciation of the huge taxpayer bailouts that saved them earlier this year cut their credit card rates by one-sixteenth of one percent to show their generous gratitude to the tax-paying consumers.
Insurance companies are now offering to cover of cost of flea powder if Blue-Dog Democrats will continue to hang out with Republicans and bury that public option like a chewed-up meat bone.
Some screaming Republican shills were arrested today after they confused the location of Mary Alice's Tupperware party for a health care reform town hall, disrupting it with screams, wild accusations, and tantrums. Screamed one screamer, "The Founding Fathers didn't use snap-top cannisters!" Screamed another screamer, "Plastic is socialism!"
The Belfry family of Militia, Arkansas, is barricaded inside the family's mobile home, refusing to come out until they receive word that the government will not pull the plug on grandma. Said son Bats, "We're trying to figure out right now where the plug for Grandma is supposed to go. And after we figure that out, we'll be ready to fight to keep bureaucrats from pulling it."
Glenn Beck reports that he will no longer suggest that various people should die because he doesn't want to be drafted to serve on the federal death panel, even if it is named for Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin has broken with the NRA because of its expansive view of firearms use. She stated, "I'm for the right to bear arms, but not to arm bears. Kodiak bears with assault rifles would turn flag-waving, gun-totting, dope-smoking Alaskan hunters into sitting ducks."
You've heard of birthers, who doubt President Obama's birthplace. You've heard of deathers, who think the government wants to kill the elderly. Now, there are whiters. They refuse to believe that Obama is half-black and half-white until he shows them his white parts.
Warren won the office pool today at the Center for Frightening Senior Citizens by correctly identifying that Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, would do his best to scare the bejesus out of seniors, children, puppies, Lutherans, zookeepers, truck drivers, substitute teachers, and people who walk really slow.
MSNBC's Saturday programming will feature a day-long series about serial killers who everyone wanted to forget.
A man in Froth, Kentucky, was treated for injuries after his step-children threw him into an alley garbage barrel. The kids said their mom told them to take out the trash. The mother said that she didn't mean "white" trash.
A Blue-Dog Democrat today had to be treated for fleas. Said the veterinarian, "Quit hanging out with Republicans."
Former President Bill Clinton made it clear today that he is not the Secretary of State. He said, "I'm just the great diplomatic hero who brought back the two ladies held captive in North Korea."
Banks today in appreciation of the huge taxpayer bailouts that saved them earlier this year cut their credit card rates by one-sixteenth of one percent to show their generous gratitude to the tax-paying consumers.
Insurance companies are now offering to cover of cost of flea powder if Blue-Dog Democrats will continue to hang out with Republicans and bury that public option like a chewed-up meat bone.
Public option in health care needed...
Well, I just watched a clip of Sen. Grassley of Iowa responding to people at a health care reform gathering. One woman noted that she'd checked the insurance companies in Iowa and the cheapest cost she could find for insuring herself, her husband, and their three children, without a $10,000 deductible, was $830 (per month) and she said they couldn't afford that. Grassley didn't answer her question. He talked about pre-existing illness discrimination that would be ended and assistance for people below the poverty line. Well, that's no answer to regular middle-class Americans trying to figure out how to afford insurance costs. Grassley, as a Republican, of course avoided the issue of the public option. That's the only chance, by way of government competition, that citizens have for insurance companies keeping costs down. Otherwise, they don't have to, do they?
Then the next guy asking Grassley a question wondered something like, "If government-run programs like Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office are going broke, why should we trust that the government would do better for health care?" Wow, Grassley really dodged that question, telling the guy how more people should come to meetings and that they should write more letters to their Congressional representatives. Like we all know that works!!! NOT!!! One of my responses to the guy would have been, "Well, maybe if we didn't have two endless costly wars, this country would have some money for other programs." Of course, Grassley couldn't say that, because Republicans and Democrats spend like drunken sailors on the military, which, by the way, is a socialized program, too.
If there is no public option to keep insurance companies from continuing to increase monthly costs, while the rest of us chisel our coverage down to nothingness with high deductibles (trying to keeping something in case of catastrophic illness), the health care problems in America won't get solved.
Then the next guy asking Grassley a question wondered something like, "If government-run programs like Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office are going broke, why should we trust that the government would do better for health care?" Wow, Grassley really dodged that question, telling the guy how more people should come to meetings and that they should write more letters to their Congressional representatives. Like we all know that works!!! NOT!!! One of my responses to the guy would have been, "Well, maybe if we didn't have two endless costly wars, this country would have some money for other programs." Of course, Grassley couldn't say that, because Republicans and Democrats spend like drunken sailors on the military, which, by the way, is a socialized program, too.
If there is no public option to keep insurance companies from continuing to increase monthly costs, while the rest of us chisel our coverage down to nothingness with high deductibles (trying to keeping something in case of catastrophic illness), the health care problems in America won't get solved.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Quotes about rights, health care, and education...
As a believer in people's rights, I found quite a few interesting quotes relating to rights during the past week...
About Eunice Kennedy Shriver (1921-2009), the founder of Special Olympics, who died this week, and the rights of the intellectually disabled:
About Eunice Kennedy Shriver (1921-2009), the founder of Special Olympics, who died this week, and the rights of the intellectually disabled:
"Most of all, I see from Mrs. Shriver that I have rights." --A student with an intellectual disability at a Special Olympics.
"She was up against ignorance. She was up against stigma. She was up against prejudice. And because, at her heart, she cared about social justice, she saw disability issues through a prism of civil rights. And many, many Americans, when she started doing this work, didn't see it that way. They saw it as a charity or an issue of health care or medicine. They didn't see it as civil rights...She was helping sensitize Americans that this is part of human diversity that we have not done a good job of embracing, and I think she was very effective." --Andrew Imparato, American Association of People With Disabilities, on PBS NewsHour, Aug. 11, 2009.
"She never ran for office, but changed the world." --A member of the Kennedy family.
About the upcoming documentary "Sick for Profit" and the health rights of Americans:
"Profit should not be built into the fire department or the police department, anymore than it should be in health care." --The filmmaker of "Sick for Profit" documentary on CNN, Aug. 11, 2009.
"Every time he says 'no' to health care for someone, he and his company make money." -- The documentary filmmaker talking about one insurance company CEO who has a salary of $3.2 million per year.
About actor Brad Pitt, his relationship with actress Angelina Jolie, and his support for gay rights:
"I have love in my life, a soul mate--absolutely. When someone asked me why Angie and I don't get married, I replied, 'Maybe we'll get married when it's legal for everyone else.' I stand by that, although I took a lot of flak for saying it--hate mail from religious groups. I believe everyone should have the same rights. They say gay marriage ruins families and hurts kids. Well, I've had the privilege of seeing my gay friends being parents and watching their kids grow up in a loving environment." -- Actor Brad Pitt, quoted on the website PopEater, Aug. 6, 2009.
About President Barack Obama and his proposal for health care reform with a public option:
"No one in America should go broke because they get sick." -- President Obama at the Portsmouth, N.H., town hall meeting, Aug. 11, 2009. He also noted how his mother, when she was fighting cancer, worried about what her insurance would cover.
"In the past three years, over 12 million were discriminated against by insurance companies in providing their coverage." -- President Obama in New Hampshire.
"Change is hard." -- President Obama in New Hampshire.
About the value of education and the view of change, as quoted in the 2006 book "A Thomas Jefferson Education" by Oliver Van DeMille:
"Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave." -- Lord Brougham, quoted in "A Thomas Jefferson Education."
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- India leader Mahatma Gandhi.
Monday, August 10, 2009
U.S. health care is a poor model...
For people who think the current U.S. health care system is the best in the world, here's your assignment: Watch the PBS Frontline documentary called "Sick Around the World" and then watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" documentary. Another option would be: Talk to a citizen from Canada, Norway, or other industrialized democracies about their health care system.
Then, after that, if you still think the U.S. health care system is the best in the world, you need to check into a mental hospital, because you must be wacky and need help.
In other countries, people have their health care covered from cradle to grave. In other countries, people are guaranteed health care even if they lose their jobs. In other countries, people don't go bankrupt because of huge medical bills and debts. Don't dare tell me America measures up to the best in the world, until those features are part of living in America.
It bothers me that, as an American, I always hope that we treat our people best and seek what's best in order to be a model for the rest of the world. With health care, that certainly is a myth. But it also occurs to me that I will probably never see this country with a single-payer (the best) system in my lifetime. Too many spineless politicians or ones that prefer lobbyist money more, too many lobbyists from the big industries, too many satisified members of the media who think they are supposed to preserve the status quo, and too many ignorant citizens easily fooled by the special interests of big business.
It is hard to get excited about the current health care reform proposal when the best that it will offer is a public option (government alternative), which could be weakened to nothing by the time Congress and the Republicans and the Blue-Dog Democrats get through messing with it. And if Congress eliminates the public option altogether, then the whole proposal is a joke and a sham. It is just a cash cow for the insurance industry.
Free market people and those who like free world trade always say that we shouldn't interfere with business. Well, if we get no single-payer system or no decent public option, then I'd like to be able to seek health care options beyond the borders of America. What would be ideal would be the possibility of somehow, some way, joining the Canadian health care system--I'd just as soon make a deal with Canada for something that would give me lifetime coverage than to continue to have to pay for something from the U.S. insurance industry that gives me partial coverage, high deductibles, and only coverage as long as I have a job to afford it. Open up the borders then for health care, if the U.S. isn't going to give its citizens the best coverage for care. Then watch the flood.
Then, after that, if you still think the U.S. health care system is the best in the world, you need to check into a mental hospital, because you must be wacky and need help.
In other countries, people have their health care covered from cradle to grave. In other countries, people are guaranteed health care even if they lose their jobs. In other countries, people don't go bankrupt because of huge medical bills and debts. Don't dare tell me America measures up to the best in the world, until those features are part of living in America.
It bothers me that, as an American, I always hope that we treat our people best and seek what's best in order to be a model for the rest of the world. With health care, that certainly is a myth. But it also occurs to me that I will probably never see this country with a single-payer (the best) system in my lifetime. Too many spineless politicians or ones that prefer lobbyist money more, too many lobbyists from the big industries, too many satisified members of the media who think they are supposed to preserve the status quo, and too many ignorant citizens easily fooled by the special interests of big business.
It is hard to get excited about the current health care reform proposal when the best that it will offer is a public option (government alternative), which could be weakened to nothing by the time Congress and the Republicans and the Blue-Dog Democrats get through messing with it. And if Congress eliminates the public option altogether, then the whole proposal is a joke and a sham. It is just a cash cow for the insurance industry.
Free market people and those who like free world trade always say that we shouldn't interfere with business. Well, if we get no single-payer system or no decent public option, then I'd like to be able to seek health care options beyond the borders of America. What would be ideal would be the possibility of somehow, some way, joining the Canadian health care system--I'd just as soon make a deal with Canada for something that would give me lifetime coverage than to continue to have to pay for something from the U.S. insurance industry that gives me partial coverage, high deductibles, and only coverage as long as I have a job to afford it. Open up the borders then for health care, if the U.S. isn't going to give its citizens the best coverage for care. Then watch the flood.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
My mother's birthday...
On August 9 in the year of 1917, my mother, LaVerne Elizabeth (Johns) Roberts, was born in Blair, Nebraska. She died in 2000. In remembrance of my mom on her birthday, here are 10 easily remembered features about her:
- The love.
- The family. (Nothing was more important to her than family. She would rather be with family than do anything else. She loved family gatherings and visits with family. Family photos were abundant and cherished.)
- Her smile. (Including her smiling eyes. I remember my Dad saying that, no matter where he was or how he was feeling, he always looked for the smile on my mother's face because it always made him feel good.)
- The dinner table. (The food was great. The conversation was great. We always gathered around the table, before or after watching the TV evening news. We referred to the three meals of the day as breakfast, dinner, and supper.)
- Her cooking. (No matter what was left in the kitchen cabinets--and sometimes there probably wasn't much--she always had the ability to make a great meal out it, and there were specific food items that are particularly memorable, like cherry pies. There were numerous food items that only she could make. To this day, I miss her cherry pies. They weren't precisely store-like. They were just the opposite--Very runny and drippy, more sour than sweet, but very delicious. I have aunts that make wonderfully delicious pies, but I have yet to find any cherry pie anywhere exactly like the way my Mom made it.)
- Her belief in education. (Though she never went to college, she loved the aspects of learning. A set of encyclopedias was the major occupant and reference point in our living room bookcase. Other than church, the library was the main place I visited in my youth because of her encouragement. She insisted that her sons go to college.)
- Sundays, church, and car rides. (Every Sunday didn't seem complete without first attending church. Congregational, Presbyterian, or Methodist--whichever church was located in the town that moved to. She enjoyed singing in the church choirs. She had taught Sunday school classes. Most of my spiritual and social beliefs involving peace and goodwill toward all and treating others as I would want to be treated and other qualities were nurtured by my mom. One of my best memories in Scotland was attending a service at St. Giles Presbyterian Church with her. As inexpensive entertainment, my parents enjoyed taking us children for car rides, often on Sunday afternoons. My Dad would drive--my Mom never learned to drive a car--and we would go out into the country or just around town, usually stopping for an ice cream cone at the end of the trip. Throughout her life, my Mom enjoyed the adventure and journey of a car ride. Even when she rode in a wheelchair for easy transportation in her later years, she wanted it to move with speed. I imagine the view of me trotting, as I pushed my Mom in her wheelchair down a sidewalk and she enjoyed the breezes in her hair was a memorable sight for others.)
- Her help. (Whether it was in reading books--she would read many children's books to me--or with my homework--though that didn't include modern math--or proof-reading for my newspaper in Medicine Bow--she was the best speller I have ever known--or volunteering at a museum or other projects--she enjoyed helping.)
- Our trip to Scotland. (When my brothers and I took my mom, then elderly, to Scotland, it was fun and very memorable.)
- The moments and stories. (Everyone has moments and family stories about their parents, grandparents, or others. For my Mom, there were many, including in her last 10 years when her health conditions were like a rollercoaster. It's nice to know that, within the long course of a lifetime, the good and special moments stand out so clearly and joyfully.)
Thanks, Mom! I love you!
Sotomayor and history...
When Sonia Sotomayor officially became the first Hispanic woman on the U.S. Supreme Court this week, it was a great historical moment for America.
Sotomayor is the 111th Supreme Court justice. She is the third woman appointed to the court, following Sandra Day O'Connor (1981) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993). There have been only two black justices: Thurgood Marshall (1967) and Clarence Thomas (1991).
I am amazed that the majority of Republican senators chose to vote against Sotomayor's confirmation. Wouldn't you think that they would look at the moment historically and want to be a supportive part of it? Wouldn't you think that they would want to tell their grandchildren and thus allow their grandchildren to tell even their grandchildren that their grandparent and ancestor voted for the first Hispanic woman to the U.S. Supreme Court? Instead, they let the moment of history escaped them. They were truly foolish and short-sighted.
It seems to me that the Republicans have put Obama in a great position for his next Supreme Court nominee. If I were him, I would nominate the most liberal and progressive Hispanic male judge I could find. The Republicans, of course, would go into convultions, but so what? What ultimately would they do?...Vote again against another Hispanic nominee? What would the Hispanic population, the largest growing minority group in America, think about that?
As it is, the pup tent of the Republican Party continues to shrink. Can a political party sustain itself with the composition mainly of grumpy, old, rich, white men, like Rush Limbaugh? Eventually, I would think it has to either find an honest respect for diversity or pull up the stakes.
Sotomayor is the 111th Supreme Court justice. She is the third woman appointed to the court, following Sandra Day O'Connor (1981) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993). There have been only two black justices: Thurgood Marshall (1967) and Clarence Thomas (1991).
I am amazed that the majority of Republican senators chose to vote against Sotomayor's confirmation. Wouldn't you think that they would look at the moment historically and want to be a supportive part of it? Wouldn't you think that they would want to tell their grandchildren and thus allow their grandchildren to tell even their grandchildren that their grandparent and ancestor voted for the first Hispanic woman to the U.S. Supreme Court? Instead, they let the moment of history escaped them. They were truly foolish and short-sighted.
It seems to me that the Republicans have put Obama in a great position for his next Supreme Court nominee. If I were him, I would nominate the most liberal and progressive Hispanic male judge I could find. The Republicans, of course, would go into convultions, but so what? What ultimately would they do?...Vote again against another Hispanic nominee? What would the Hispanic population, the largest growing minority group in America, think about that?
As it is, the pup tent of the Republican Party continues to shrink. Can a political party sustain itself with the composition mainly of grumpy, old, rich, white men, like Rush Limbaugh? Eventually, I would think it has to either find an honest respect for diversity or pull up the stakes.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Information Station about health...
Here are some quick facts that I noted from books, TV news, or the Internet:.
- Every day, 14,000 people lose their health insurance in the United States.
- Eight million children in America, along with 12.5 million women of reproductive age, have no health insurance.
- Before Medicare, 40 percent of senior citizens didn't have health insurance coverage. (Medicare and Social Security are socialized programs and benefit a lot of Americans. Another socialized program, by the way, is the U.S. military which benefits a lot of soldiers, veterans, and their families.)
- Each year, 40,000 people die of breast cancer. It is the highest cause of cancer deaths for women.
- One in nine Americans are using food stamps. (July 2009)
- Eighteen percent of U.S. children under 18 years of age live in poverty.
- The United States ranks 29th out of the 30 industrial nations for infant mortality.
- The United States ranks 24th out of 30 industrial nations for life expectancy.
So, why are those ignorant people at the health care reform town meetings screaming about leaving U.S. health care to the free markets, which actually means leaving it to the "costly" determination of the private insurance companies?
Book review...
BOOK: "Nothing to Fear, FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days That Created Modern America" by Adam Cohen, 2009.
As we all know, America can be divided historically into two time periods. One time period is "Before FDR" and one time period, the more fortunate era for us all, is "After FDR." Of course, after FDR and his huge jobs creation effort, America then had safety nets and prudent economic security measures for many Americans, including Social Security, FDIC, and others.
But before FDR, when the Great Depression almost collapsed the nation, with one-fourth of American workers without jobs, bank failures, farm foreclosures, soup lines and "Hoovervilles" involving needy and homeless people, the times were grim for Americans.
To get a sense of it, here is an excerpt from the "Nothing to Fear" book:
Edmund Wilson, the well-known writer, toured Chicago in 1932 and found a "sea of misery." On one stop, he saw an old Polish immigrant "dying of a tumor, with no heat in the house, on a cold day." In the city's flophouses, Wilson encountered "a great deal of tuberculosis" and "spinal meningitis." Worst of all were the garbage dumps, "diligently haunted by the hungry." In the summer heat, when "the flies were thick," a hundred people descended on one dump, "falling on the refuse as soon as the truck had pulled out and digging in it with sticks and hands." Even spoiled meat was claimed, since the desperate foragers could "cut out the worst parts" or "scald it and sprinkle it with soda to neutralize the taste and smell." A widowed housekeeper who was unable to find work showed up with her 14-year-old son. "Before she picked up the meat," Wilson wrote, "she would always take off her glasses so that she would not be able to see the maggots."
As we all know, America can be divided historically into two time periods. One time period is "Before FDR" and one time period, the more fortunate era for us all, is "After FDR." Of course, after FDR and his huge jobs creation effort, America then had safety nets and prudent economic security measures for many Americans, including Social Security, FDIC, and others.
But before FDR, when the Great Depression almost collapsed the nation, with one-fourth of American workers without jobs, bank failures, farm foreclosures, soup lines and "Hoovervilles" involving needy and homeless people, the times were grim for Americans.
To get a sense of it, here is an excerpt from the "Nothing to Fear" book:
Edmund Wilson, the well-known writer, toured Chicago in 1932 and found a "sea of misery." On one stop, he saw an old Polish immigrant "dying of a tumor, with no heat in the house, on a cold day." In the city's flophouses, Wilson encountered "a great deal of tuberculosis" and "spinal meningitis." Worst of all were the garbage dumps, "diligently haunted by the hungry." In the summer heat, when "the flies were thick," a hundred people descended on one dump, "falling on the refuse as soon as the truck had pulled out and digging in it with sticks and hands." Even spoiled meat was claimed, since the desperate foragers could "cut out the worst parts" or "scald it and sprinkle it with soda to neutralize the taste and smell." A widowed housekeeper who was unable to find work showed up with her 14-year-old son. "Before she picked up the meat," Wilson wrote, "she would always take off her glasses so that she would not be able to see the maggots."
Book review...
BOOK: "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi, 2003.
In light of the recent protests in Iran, which have gone from the issue of the election to the greater issue of freedom, rights, and treatment of people, one interesting book is "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi (2003). The author, who eventually flees to America, was an English professor in Iran who finally quit her job, unwilling to accept the ongoing restrictions on education and social life that was imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini (the first Iranian ayatollah leader) and the Islamic republic's theocratic rule.
Then, as a very dangerous act at the time, she began conducting secret book-club reading sessions for some of her women students in her home. The women read "subversive" books by Jane Austen and F. Scott Fitzgerald. And another book was "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov.
Now, I have long followed the arguments by American professors of English about the value and quality of the book "Lolita." In some classes, I have shown the opening scene from the two movie versions of "Lolita," in order to contrast how movies have become more provocative. As you can imagine, the presentation of sexuality in the 1990s version is more explicit than the 1950s version, though the first one was the more controversial because of the times. I also wondered what we, as readers or watchers, were supposed to learn because the story is quite awful, a story about a middle-aged pedophile who obsesses over and eventually rapes a 12-year-old girl. To this day, it is controversial book in America, let alone in Iran and the other dictatorships of the Middle East.
So, I was intrigued that author Nafisi put "Lolita" in the title of her book. Nafisi wrote, "Teaching in the Islamic Republic, like any other vocation, was subservient to politics and subject to arbitrary rules. Always, the joy of teaching was marred by diversions and considerations forced on us by the regime--how well could one teach when the main concern of university officials was not the quality of one's work but the color of one's lips, the subversive potential of a single strand of hair? Could one really concentrate on one's job when what preoccupied the faculty was how to excise the word 'wine' from a Hemingway story, when they decided not to teach Bronte because she appeared to condone adultery?"
In the novel "Lolita," the pedophile Humbert obsesses over the girl. In Iran, the regime with its clergy as leaders obsesses over Iranian women. The women can't show hair strands because that tempts men. The women can't wear lipstick because that tempts men. On and on and on, women can't because of what it will do to them, the men. Obsession.
In the novel, the pedophile Humbert also rapes Lolita. Does the Iranian Islamic government "rape" figuratively (or, in some cases, literally, because of the male-dominated dogma and discriminatory laws) the women of Iran by denying them freedom and equality? That's a dangerous comparison for an Iranian author to make, but I think it is accurate as we see the restrictive and brutal actions of the Iranian government and its Baiji thugs.
Nafisi confuses me a little when she says in the book that Humbert and Lolita aren't meant to represent a country or regime or society or women, but then, in more recent TV interviews, she says that's exactly what they represent. I think the latter is correct, probably because the former was stated within the book at a publication time when any author might wonder if such statements could lead to bounty retribution, as was the case for novelist Salmon Rushdie.
Obsession seems most likely part of the rule of law there, as the Iranian regime wants to turn its people into figaments of its highest religious leader's own narrow imagination. Said one of the women students in Nafisi's reading club, "Everything is offensive to them. It's either politically or sexually incorrect." Said another student, "There must be some blasted space in life where we can be offensive." Thus, readers can learn from "Lolita" that obsession and rape is not just practiced by pedophiles. Totalitarian and theocratic regimes are masters of it, too.
Nafisi also noted Nabokov's book "Invitation to a Beheading," which is written from "the point of view of the victim, one who ultimately sees the absurd sham of his persecutors and who must retreat into himself in order to survive."
Nafisi wrote, "Those of us living in the Islamic Republic of Iran grasped both the tragedy and absurdity of the cruelty to which we were subjected...What Nabokov captured was the texture of life in a totalitarian society, where you are completely alone in an illusory world full of false promises, where you can no longer differentiate between your savior and your executioner."
In light of the recent protests in Iran, which have gone from the issue of the election to the greater issue of freedom, rights, and treatment of people, one interesting book is "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi (2003). The author, who eventually flees to America, was an English professor in Iran who finally quit her job, unwilling to accept the ongoing restrictions on education and social life that was imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini (the first Iranian ayatollah leader) and the Islamic republic's theocratic rule.
Then, as a very dangerous act at the time, she began conducting secret book-club reading sessions for some of her women students in her home. The women read "subversive" books by Jane Austen and F. Scott Fitzgerald. And another book was "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov.
Now, I have long followed the arguments by American professors of English about the value and quality of the book "Lolita." In some classes, I have shown the opening scene from the two movie versions of "Lolita," in order to contrast how movies have become more provocative. As you can imagine, the presentation of sexuality in the 1990s version is more explicit than the 1950s version, though the first one was the more controversial because of the times. I also wondered what we, as readers or watchers, were supposed to learn because the story is quite awful, a story about a middle-aged pedophile who obsesses over and eventually rapes a 12-year-old girl. To this day, it is controversial book in America, let alone in Iran and the other dictatorships of the Middle East.
So, I was intrigued that author Nafisi put "Lolita" in the title of her book. Nafisi wrote, "Teaching in the Islamic Republic, like any other vocation, was subservient to politics and subject to arbitrary rules. Always, the joy of teaching was marred by diversions and considerations forced on us by the regime--how well could one teach when the main concern of university officials was not the quality of one's work but the color of one's lips, the subversive potential of a single strand of hair? Could one really concentrate on one's job when what preoccupied the faculty was how to excise the word 'wine' from a Hemingway story, when they decided not to teach Bronte because she appeared to condone adultery?"
In the novel "Lolita," the pedophile Humbert obsesses over the girl. In Iran, the regime with its clergy as leaders obsesses over Iranian women. The women can't show hair strands because that tempts men. The women can't wear lipstick because that tempts men. On and on and on, women can't because of what it will do to them, the men. Obsession.
In the novel, the pedophile Humbert also rapes Lolita. Does the Iranian Islamic government "rape" figuratively (or, in some cases, literally, because of the male-dominated dogma and discriminatory laws) the women of Iran by denying them freedom and equality? That's a dangerous comparison for an Iranian author to make, but I think it is accurate as we see the restrictive and brutal actions of the Iranian government and its Baiji thugs.
Nafisi confuses me a little when she says in the book that Humbert and Lolita aren't meant to represent a country or regime or society or women, but then, in more recent TV interviews, she says that's exactly what they represent. I think the latter is correct, probably because the former was stated within the book at a publication time when any author might wonder if such statements could lead to bounty retribution, as was the case for novelist Salmon Rushdie.
Obsession seems most likely part of the rule of law there, as the Iranian regime wants to turn its people into figaments of its highest religious leader's own narrow imagination. Said one of the women students in Nafisi's reading club, "Everything is offensive to them. It's either politically or sexually incorrect." Said another student, "There must be some blasted space in life where we can be offensive." Thus, readers can learn from "Lolita" that obsession and rape is not just practiced by pedophiles. Totalitarian and theocratic regimes are masters of it, too.
Nafisi also noted Nabokov's book "Invitation to a Beheading," which is written from "the point of view of the victim, one who ultimately sees the absurd sham of his persecutors and who must retreat into himself in order to survive."
Nafisi wrote, "Those of us living in the Islamic Republic of Iran grasped both the tragedy and absurdity of the cruelty to which we were subjected...What Nabokov captured was the texture of life in a totalitarian society, where you are completely alone in an illusory world full of false promises, where you can no longer differentiate between your savior and your executioner."
Dealing with hunger...
I was so disgusted about comments made by a Missouri state representative named Cynthia Davis in July concerning the free school lunch program. Yes, she's a Republican, of course, and from her Republican DNA, she had real problems with the idea that hungry children in Missouri would get free lunches. She made startling stupid comments about "hunger being a great motivator" and implied that children should instead get jobs at McDonald's.
The free school lunch program is probably the best national and worldwide effort to reduce hunger and advance education. It provides hungry children with at least one good meal per day, which helps them concentrate and learn better in school. It encourages parents to keep their children in school. The longer a child stays in school, the less likely that child will end up having children at an early age and continuing the cycle of poverty. And children who stay in school and get an education are more likely to move out of poverty, becoming more productive citizens.
Davis should have expanded her brain cells with a little research. She should have responded as U.S. Senator George McGovern responded, when he wrote about hunger in his book "The Third Freedom" and a scene he particularly remembered.
McGovern wrote: The scene that especially moved me was filmed in a school that required all the students to go to the cafeteria at lunchtime, including those unable to eat because they didn't have the money to pay for lunch. The federal school lunch program had been operating since 1946, but as recently as 1968, it did not provide lunches to the poorest children, who could not pay the modest cost. The cameraman focused on a little boy of 9 or 10 who was standing at the rear of the cafeteria watching the other children eat. "What do you think standing here while your classmates are eating?" asked the TV reporter. Lowering his head and looking at the floor, the boy replied softly, "I'm ashamed." "Why are you ashamed?" the reporter asked. "Because," the boy said, "I ain't got no money." That night, sitting in my comfortable home in northwest Washington with my wife and children nearby, I, too, was ashamed. I was ashamed because I hadn't known more about hunger in my own land. I was ashamed that a federal program I was supposed to know all about permitted youngsters to go hungry even as they watched paying classmates eat before their eyes. It was not the little boy who should feel ashamed, I thought. It was I, a U.S. senator living in comfort, who should feel ashamed that there are hungry people--young and old--in my own beloved country.
Now, the difference between Davis' view (that the hunger of children is the responsibility of themselves or their parents) and McGovern's view (that hunger is a problem that needs the wider action of society, including those who are well-fed) is the fundamental difference between the political ideologies and the range of public servants within our system. To me, "public servant" should mean "servant" to the public, serving the public. And I would say that Davis, with her flippant and uninformed remarks, failed and shamed the role of "servant-to-the-people."
The free school lunch program is probably the best national and worldwide effort to reduce hunger and advance education. It provides hungry children with at least one good meal per day, which helps them concentrate and learn better in school. It encourages parents to keep their children in school. The longer a child stays in school, the less likely that child will end up having children at an early age and continuing the cycle of poverty. And children who stay in school and get an education are more likely to move out of poverty, becoming more productive citizens.
Davis should have expanded her brain cells with a little research. She should have responded as U.S. Senator George McGovern responded, when he wrote about hunger in his book "The Third Freedom" and a scene he particularly remembered.
McGovern wrote: The scene that especially moved me was filmed in a school that required all the students to go to the cafeteria at lunchtime, including those unable to eat because they didn't have the money to pay for lunch. The federal school lunch program had been operating since 1946, but as recently as 1968, it did not provide lunches to the poorest children, who could not pay the modest cost. The cameraman focused on a little boy of 9 or 10 who was standing at the rear of the cafeteria watching the other children eat. "What do you think standing here while your classmates are eating?" asked the TV reporter. Lowering his head and looking at the floor, the boy replied softly, "I'm ashamed." "Why are you ashamed?" the reporter asked. "Because," the boy said, "I ain't got no money." That night, sitting in my comfortable home in northwest Washington with my wife and children nearby, I, too, was ashamed. I was ashamed because I hadn't known more about hunger in my own land. I was ashamed that a federal program I was supposed to know all about permitted youngsters to go hungry even as they watched paying classmates eat before their eyes. It was not the little boy who should feel ashamed, I thought. It was I, a U.S. senator living in comfort, who should feel ashamed that there are hungry people--young and old--in my own beloved country.
Now, the difference between Davis' view (that the hunger of children is the responsibility of themselves or their parents) and McGovern's view (that hunger is a problem that needs the wider action of society, including those who are well-fed) is the fundamental difference between the political ideologies and the range of public servants within our system. To me, "public servant" should mean "servant" to the public, serving the public. And I would say that Davis, with her flippant and uninformed remarks, failed and shamed the role of "servant-to-the-people."
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Preparing for Twitter...
A friend e-mailed me about my new venture into blogging, noting that my next step then should be Twitter. He "tweets" and apparently leads and follows. Sounds like he's dancing and probably, figuratively, he is--with words and messages. Anyway, I went to his Twitter website page with full intentions of tweeting at him, or at least chirping, but I got scared. I felt like a Baptist in a tattoo parlor. I didn't know what to do! Can I use Twitter with just a computer? Or do I have to have a cell phone or one of those Strawberries? I only have a land-line phone. Yes, that phone is so old that now it is accepted by the Amish. I will probably be the last person on earth to have a cell phone...and, frankly, that's O.K. with me.
I watch college students trying to peck out messages, spelling like pirates, on itsy-bitsy keyboard buttons on those annoying hand-held devices. My fingers are too big for those buttons. Of course, the students can only play with their toys before or after class or otherwise my mood changes from pleasant to...well, let's just say it changes. But I still would like to follow the news and activities of friends, including with the use of Twitter, as long as I can do it with just a computer, and even if it means I may risk the cancellation of my Luddite lifetime membership. I was on line (not online) to being inducted into the Luddite Hall of Fame. But my blog and surely a journey into Twitter would change that status. My friend said that once I get used to Twitter, I will like it. He said it is a great "news service," faster than the New York Times online, if you can cut through the clutter. So, I am getting up my nerve for Twitter, though I still don't know the actual process.
Twitter requires short messages. Very short. A sentence or phrases and weird, awful Internet-type "spelng." So, in the meantime, I will practice writing in single sentences--that alone will be a challenge for me. Here are some "practice" messages:
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream.
Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern.
The new gnu knew new Nu news.
I wanted to explain to you the Theory of Relativity, but, sorry, I ran out of space. Check out the definition in the next 1,000 tweets.
Here are some short quotes I have thrown at college students:
There's a "sour" in Missouri, but make sure it's not you.
What nation should you never want to live in? DiscrimiNATION.
Some people go to the bar. I try to raise it.
How about a real short message? Like this one...
I C U R A Tweeter. I M 2. (Translation: I see you are a Tweeter. I am, too.)
O.K., do you all think I am ready for Twitter?
I watch college students trying to peck out messages, spelling like pirates, on itsy-bitsy keyboard buttons on those annoying hand-held devices. My fingers are too big for those buttons. Of course, the students can only play with their toys before or after class or otherwise my mood changes from pleasant to...well, let's just say it changes. But I still would like to follow the news and activities of friends, including with the use of Twitter, as long as I can do it with just a computer, and even if it means I may risk the cancellation of my Luddite lifetime membership. I was on line (not online) to being inducted into the Luddite Hall of Fame. But my blog and surely a journey into Twitter would change that status. My friend said that once I get used to Twitter, I will like it. He said it is a great "news service," faster than the New York Times online, if you can cut through the clutter. So, I am getting up my nerve for Twitter, though I still don't know the actual process.
Twitter requires short messages. Very short. A sentence or phrases and weird, awful Internet-type "spelng." So, in the meantime, I will practice writing in single sentences--that alone will be a challenge for me. Here are some "practice" messages:
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream.
Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern.
The new gnu knew new Nu news.
I wanted to explain to you the Theory of Relativity, but, sorry, I ran out of space. Check out the definition in the next 1,000 tweets.
Here are some short quotes I have thrown at college students:
There's a "sour" in Missouri, but make sure it's not you.
What nation should you never want to live in? DiscrimiNATION.
Some people go to the bar. I try to raise it.
How about a real short message? Like this one...
I C U R A Tweeter. I M 2. (Translation: I see you are a Tweeter. I am, too.)
O.K., do you all think I am ready for Twitter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
