While the death of the great Ted Kennedy has left many of us in mourning, and put the state of healthcare and many bipartisan efforts in jeopardy, there is another sad day coming up that needs to be remembered. Today, August 29th, 2009 is the 4 year anniversary of the landfall of Hurricane Katrina, a Category 5 Hurricane that put New Orleans underwater and caused the death of over 1,800 people in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Ohio, Kentucky and Georgia and caused $89.6 billion in damages. The images of people stranded on rooftops, sleeping the Superdome and being washed away by torrents of debris and corpses is something that should be engrained in the minds of every American. The tragedy of New Orleans was not its natural element (Hurricanes happen on the Gulf Coast every year), but the failure on many levels of response, and the realization that years of political corruption in Louisiana had led to inadequate safety measures and ineffective levee systems.
Here are some brief points about the failures that ensued before Katrina, and their effects coupled with the failure of the Bush White House to quickly respond:
1. The Levee System was inadequate: Partly due to embezzlement and corruption in Louisiana politics and partly due to bad engineering, the Levees were built too shallow. The Army Corps of Engineers suggested a “T-Shape” form for the Levees and that they built on 72 ft support pylons. The Levee board, local to Louisiana prevailed in its cost cutting, and made the Levees in a different design (I Shape), with 24 ft support pylons. The levees were also designed by local construction firms, who won out bids from the local Levee boards. In other words, politics and corruption won over safety and prevention, and the Army Corps of Engineers could do nothing to ensure safe levee construction. The result was not only the cracking and complete destruction of the levees after both the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain flooded in, but the inundation of the supports of the Levees, which stood on a foundation of 24 ft, instead of a 72 ft recommended by the Corps of Engineers. The result of this was that some of the levees actually toppled forward from water inundated soil below them, and water seeping below the base.
The Solution: Build better levees, and reform Louisiana politics.
2. Oil Production on the Gulf Coast: Yup…all problems eventually point to sweet, crude. Oil on the Gulf Coast is a huge industry and offers a large supply of our domestic oil. There is no surprise that the first major spike in Gasoline prices at the pump was as a result of Hurricane Katrina and the closing and damaging of oil platforms on the gulf. But, how did oil production create a vulnerable environment and allow for Katrina to be so strong, when it hit landfall? First, Katrina was a powerful storm to begin with. But, that has nothing to do with oil production. But, in order to get the unbelievably large oil carrying tankers into the Gulf, the marshes, floodplains and natural barriers needed to be dredged. But, there is a reason they call them floodplains and barriers. These are nature’s self defense from itself. What I mean to say is: these formations are effective at dissipating the strength, and bearing the brunt of hurricanes, allowing them to slow before they hit landfall. But, without them, you have a clear path to destruction. This is probably why California has passed Zoning laws for areas coded “F” for protected floodplains. If levees on the West Coast near the San Joaquin valley fail, there goes nearly 20% of the nation’s produce. Solution: Put the marshes, floodplains and natural barriers back in and use smaller ships for oil transport.
3. Failure to Respond: The government, under President Bush, failed in both PR and adequate response to the flood. Bush’s ill-fated and ill-chosen head of FEMA, Michael Brown, became the early poster-child for failure, as his resume (picked because of his experience with Arabian Horses) lacked experience and his reaction to the disaster was slow and clumsy. A PR failure of Bush’s was also his “flyover” of the disaster in Air Force One. On the ground in New Orleans National guardsmen were instituting curfews, young men were being shot trying to commit robberies, fires were burning, people were dying, disease was rampant and the ultimate conclusion was that, somehow, the president felt it was necessary not to try to raise spirits as he did after September 11th. The image of Bush standing on the rubble of World Trade Towers vowing to hunt down the “evil doers” was a 4 year old ghost, and all that stood in his place was a lame flyover. Other failures included FEMA’s handling of emergency supplies and its inability to grasp the enormity of the tragedy. People were sleeping in the Superdome, using buckets for toilets and writing prayers and messages of help in their rooftops was FEMA was still trying to plan any kind of recovery action.
While these are the three main failures that allowed for Katrina to be so devastating, there are many more inadequacies that occurred in relation to both government action and local politics that highlighted the ultimate failure to respond.
Next, I want those who read this to try to understand the feeling one gets when they make a difference in someone’s life. But, mostly I want the readers to take away the stories I am about to relate as a motivation towards cherishing the life you have, the people who love you and all that you own. Because, in a single day, as these people experienced, it can be taken away, and that feeling of emptiness, not just from the loss of your livelihood, but from the belief that people have forgotten about you, can be devastating. But, once many of these residents lost everything, they realized how vulnerable life can be, and they began to appreciate any shred of hope, any effort of assistance and every open-mind who would listen to their story. While people may step back and criticize all types of policies, they will not understand the true impact until they have experienced it first-hand.
When I was in my sophomore year at UCLA, I decided to go on a Hillel Alternative Spring Break to New Orleans. Hillel, being the intricate and well-funded institution it is, subsidized most of the cost, and it became my responsibility to cover only $250. This was truly amazing. To be able to help residents of New Orleans and do it on a short expense was something unreal. But, I left for the airport at 3am with a “blank slate” of expectations. I was in Brazil when Hurricane Katrina made landfall, and I had doubted up until my trip to New Orleans one-and-a-half years later, the type of devastation that had taken place. It just wasn’t being reported. It wasn’t breaking news, so I had concluded that progress was being made. C’mon….this is America. Isn’t it?
I arrived by bus through the sweltering humidity to an AmeriCorps camp in quaint Kiln, Mississippi in March, 2007. I arrived with fellow Hillel participants from Kent State, Stanford, Harvard, UCSB, Santa Barbara City College and Delaware. I was very enthusiastic about the trip, because I had just started my minor in Urban and Regional Planning, and New Orleans represented a blank-slate for city planners. It could be, as Greenfield, KS was after a devastating tornado, a new, improved and much more efficient city.
The house I worked on for the majority of the trip was in Saint Bernard Parish, a middle class neighborhood which had seen about 15 ft of water. The first job was to take out all the drywall nails from the house, which had been fumigated and almost gutted. I took an entire 8 hour day with the help of our group to take out many of the drywall nails. Next, I was in charge of destroying all the fuse boxes. I took a hammer and a sledgehammer to every single fuse box in the house, even getting my face on the front cover the Harvard Crimson the following week. My last job at the house was the clear out the attic and the closets of all belongings left when the house was evacuated. This is where I began to realize that my job was not just cleaning out the house to be rebuilt, but it was to preserve the life and story of the family I was helping. As I dug through the closet and the attic, I found mementos and personal objects that told this families’ story. I found a Time Picayune from when we landed on the Moon, and from Kennedy’s assassination. I found a hunting trophy, an 8mm camera and a bunch of checks. I found a folded up American flag and I found a 1960s Porsche in the garage, still intact. I found pictures, diaries, money, wedding certificates, records, fine china, a music box, church clothes, running clothes, hunting clothes and a set of utensils. Most importantly, our group saved everything to be picked up by the family when they returned.
In order to allow us to fully comprehend the damage of Katrina, we took a bus tour through the upper and lower 9th ward, the poorest and hardest hit areas of the city. This is where the pictures of devastation came from in the days after Katrina, and these pictures remained wholly unchanged when I experienced them first-hand. There were houses, half destroyed, with pitched roofs spray painted with the appropriate “X” marking that they had been checked by National Guardsmen. The “X” always had a couple of symbols and numbers, one indicating the State of origin for the National Guard unit the amount of dead found. Where we worked, the number was always 0 or 1. As soon as you entered the lower 9th ward, the numbers rose significantly. I saw a house with “11” on it, meaning 11 people had died in that house. Most of these people had tried to huddle together for shelter and comfort, and their house had been destroyed. I saw a patch of green-space which looked like a park, which was amazing to me. Later I was informed that that area used to be apartments, and all that was left was the green-space and a set of concrete stairs. Images like this were not uncommon. In the days following the tour we were able to look through a house that had not been touched by recovery teams. We walked inside, with respirators on to avoid toxic mold. Furniture and debris lay all over the floor and most of the doors had been knocked off their hinges. There was a dark line just below the rooftop, where the water level had risen to: 10 ft or so. In the corner a case of eerie looking porcelain dolls and a cross lay intact on the wall. Everything else was upended by the flood waters. As I left the house, I looked across the street to see “HELP” written on the rooftop.
Next, I want to relate a couple stories of people we met in St Bernard Parish:
Johnny G - One of the first people we met there was a man we all called Johnny G. Johnny G was a former Navy SEAL, served his country, and decided to go back to New Orleans on a volunteer basis to help with assistance and cleanup. But, the job that he was given by the Navy was something that fit his qualifications as a Navy SEAL, and ended up being one of the worst jobs, in my opinion, anyone would have taken. I applaud, and always have shown reverence to those people who do the jobs that I cannot physically and/or mentally complete. He told us he received a call from the Navy right after Katrina hit landfall, asking to re-enlist temporarily and help out with the rescue and cleanup effort. He decided not to re-enlist, but to take up the job on a volunteer basis. When he got there, he was supplied with supplies that resembled a cross between a HAZMAT suit and a diver’s outfit. His job: He had to dive into the dirty, murky water that covered these homes and look for corpses. His only assistance was the diving suit, to prevent from coming into contact with any hazardous material, and a flashlight. Eventually, he said, they had to create a system for it, because without a system, the job would be way to taxing on the psyche. In his words…”I reached out for something soft.” Johnny G ended up being our coordinator for the house we worked on, and was our enthusiastic supporter throughout the whole trip, even teaching us how to eat crawfish properly.
Federal Judge – Down the street from the house we worked at, a Federal Judge from New Orleans was fixing up his house. He was incredibly delighted to see volunteers working on the houses in his neighborhood, and, one day, decided to relate to us his story after we had finished working. Like grandchildren collecting around their wise grandfather, we crowded around him in front of the house we were working on to listen. His house has been completely flooded up to the 2nd floor. We saw the watermark, and it was about 12-15 ft up. He was able to get many people in his neighborhood into his house for safety as the flood water rose. The power was out, and toilets didn’t work, so they had to use buckets. Eventually rescuers came to their aid and everyone was evacuated. Later, he had to fight the insurance company to even get a percentage of the money owed to him for damage done to his house. The problem during Katrina was that insurance companies decided that a lot of the damage was “wind damage” and was not covered under flood insurance. This was coupled with the fact that many people could not afford, or did not have flood insurance to begin with. But, he was able to get some money to fix his house, the rest which he had to pay for himself. He was nice enough to offer us drinks at his house, after we were done working. We were able to look through his house and see how it was being rebuilt. We thanked him by going to his house when he was at work and rebuilding his fence before he got home. Although it wasn’t completed, he was grateful and offered to helm a BBQ before we left.
A Mother and Her Son – After touring the untouched house, a woman came up to us and asked about what we were doing. When she heard we were a volunteer group rebuilding homes, she immediately began to heap on gratitude and compliments. She told us that her house was destroyed by the flood waters, and that she was living in a FEMA trailer. In order to supplement her income, she was collecting scrap metal from local trash piles and selling it to local utilities. She told us that it was something to keep her busy and it taught her son some responsibility, and got him out of trouble. At the end of her story, she broke down, trying to explain to us the importance of our work. I understood, in retrospect, that she might have lost everything, but in losing everything, she gained a respect for the life she had. The fact that we were giving up our time to help people like her, on a volunteer basis, was a kindness that she appreciated and took personally, which led to this outpouring of emotion.
The Former Electrician – When we were working at the house, a man drove by on one of the days and asked if he could take some of the metal parts and material from the scrap pile. We allowed him to do so, and we even told him we would separate the metal parts so that he could come by every day and pick from what he wanted. We also helped him load in an old air conditioning system to sell for spare parts. His story was that he was an electrician hired by FEMA to work in houses, stripping some of the wiring out. One day he was working in an attack and he came into contact with a corpse that had not been cleared. This was so emotionally devastating to him, that he immediately quit, and was collecting scrap metal for money. He told us that he didn’t have a good education, and wished that someone had told him that education was important. But, he vowed to us that his son, who was a couple years old, would be successful and go to college. He told us that the kid was a genius already.
The Stuck Car - On one of our working days, we heard of a woman down the street who needed help with her car. We sent some people over, and we were able to help her. She then inquired about what we were doing. We told her that we were a Jewish group working in New Orleans to help the local community while on our Spring Break. From what I heard, she got really excited. It turned out that she was a Palestinian, and that her father, who owned property in New Orleans, was a full believer in peace between Israel and the Palestinian authority. It was a inspirational coincidence.
I went to New Orleans a couple of weeks before the holiday of Passover. This had great meaning to me, as the purpose of my trip and the lessons of Passover are intertwined. The value of Passover is to instill the value of sympathy and empathy for those in need. The lesson is that, while you relax and dine during the Passover Seder, you should consider yourself as once Israelites under the yoke of Pharaoh in Egypt. And, like the Israelites, you should consider yourself lucky to have been freed by g-d with “an outstretched arm.” The point is to feel as if this devastation happened to you, as if you were there. This is why Hillel chose New Orleans. In order to understand the plight of those who lost everything in the hurricane, we had to experience it for ourselves, and too feel the same emotions and to see the destruction. After the trip was over, I felt a need to make sure that everyone I knew understood the destruction that I saw there. Like the Passover Seder reminds us, if we do not tell the story of the Exodus every year, or the stories of the survivors of the Holocaust, then it will be forgotten and lost in history. I feel the same way with Katrina. If they hadn’t challenged me, as I challenged my family during the Seder, to not forget what I saw and heard, it would have been lost to me, and it would have been lost to the world.
Now, we look back at New Orleans 4 years later, and I regret to write that it is being forgotten. The death and destruction that resulted from Katrina is only thought about once a year, and then is quickly lost. My message two-and-a-half years ago was that we have to remain firm in our mind that no one forget New Orleans, and we have to make it clear that everyone should know that New Orleans is not anywhere close to full recovery. But, this is lost. President Obama isn’t even visiting New Orleans on the 4th anniversary. It isn't America when we ignore or fail to help our fellow citizens hurt by this storm. When I stepped into New Orleans, I had stepped out of America, and into a situation that I never want to see. This is why I doubted where I was, and why, after describing the conditions, asked my family where they thought I was. But, I remain steadfast in my hope that America will realize that this fault in our judgment that produced such a devastating effect can never be thrown away, and that eventually New Orleans, with some help and ingenuity, will return to the great city it used to be. Until then, we still have a lot of work to do.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The “Lion” of the Senate: What We Can Learn From Ted Kennedy
This morning, at around 2am, Ted Kennedy, last of the original Kennedy Dynasty, died. He was suffering from complications from a malignant brain tumor that was discovered after a stroke in late 2008. He served in the Senate for 47 years, having the ability to reach across the aisle to get some of the most important legislation passed. Even with his exemplary record of service, his career was haunted by his accident in Chappaquiddick and the constant personal attacks by his political opponents. But, at the time of his death, with the outpouring of sentiment comes from both sides of the aisle, we can learn tremendously from Sen. Kennedy’s life and from his work in the Senate.
1. Civil Rights and Education – In 1982, he extended the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and was a contributor to the Voting Civil Rights Act of 1991 which made it easier for minorities to win lawsuits against their employers for employment discrimination. He helped pass the Americans with Disabilities Act and was a contributor in some way to most of the educational reform bills that came out of the Senate in the 1960s. He also championed Maternity Leave and worked with President George W Bush on the No Child Left Behind Act. He was very much a legacy of his brother John, who, in his short tenure as president encouraged public service, volunteerism and educational reform.
2. Healthcare – Kennedy worked alongside Republican Senators in order to pass a healthcare reform bill that ensured Americans the right to buy healthcare, and limited denying claims based on pre-existing conditions. He was able to extend to the disabled the ability to keep Medicare for disabilities, even after they started working. He also championed access to healthcare for children, the elderly, the poor and the disabled.
3. Bipartisan Support – Kennedy’s title as the “lion” of the Senate was something he lived up to. While he was considered the liberal poster-child for attacks by conservatives, he was able to extend his hand and negotiation power to the other side of the aisle. He was able to work with Republican Senators on energy reform, healthcare, educational reform, taxes and the raising of the minimum wage. This section is the most important for today because we have seen recently the type of hindrance that comes from partisan politics. Kennedy, a champion of healthcare reform, was not able to be present in the Healthcare committee he was a part of because of his cancer. While the affect of his presence is all speculation, I believe that he could have been a unifying force. With uncompromising messages coming from the Republican party, and the inability of the President to unite factional sections of the Democrats in the House and Senate, both healthcare and energy reform look like they will fall plague to partisan politics. To make an issue partisan when it has implications that are beyond its political meaning is something that Kennedy tried to do when he reached out to Republicans. This is exemplified in the kind of sentimental outpouring that has come from Republicans like John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, George W Bush and Nancy Regan, just to name a few. These comforting messages were not just because his family was so influential, of or that it is courteous to comfort loved ones during loss, but they were more significant. Many of these messages emphasized Kennedy’s ability work alongside his political opponents and put the problems that he thought were most affecting America before his political leanings. This kind of ideal is present in Senators like John McCain who are willing, in his words, “to make concessions” when it comes down to negotiating for what is best for the country.
4. Work in Ireland – His international work made him a respected figure amongst both the Irish and British governments. He was able to use his Irish-Catholic background to negotiate a stable, united government in Northern Ireland that was wracked by civil strife between Protestants and Catholics. He was also able to help leaders of the Irish Republican Army gain some political recognition, when the British government branded them as terrorists. The outpouring of Sentiment from former Prime Minister Tony Blair, current Prime Minister Gordon Brown and leaders in Ireland have shown that his legacy is a lasting one overseas.
All of these examples are just a part of his political career and the difference he made in Congress in his 47 year tenure. The lessons we can learn from Kennedy’s life can be found squarely in his ability to work across the aisle in politics. The issues that have divided our country since Barak Obama was elected are issues of great importance, a majority of which transcend their political meanings. On many conservative blogs, many hateful people have commented that they were in delight in Kennedy’s passing, as he was an impediment to their personal or political beliefs. Ignoring the fact that these messages are blatantly rude and self serving, this kind of polarization with issues that affect all Americans is something that Kennedy worked at preventing. He worked tirelessly to solve the moral, social and political problems of his time with the mind of a progressive reformer first, and a liberal politician second. Hard line Republicans in the Senate, whose only compromise on the Healthcare bill is a resounding “NO” can learn from this mandate. Healthcare, something that Kennedy had championed for most of his tenure in the Senate, is a problem that should be worked on in a bipartisan basis. There have been some progress made with bipartisan groups, like the “gang of six,” but the grassroots protests and the inability to compromise on both sides of the aisle have seriously hurt the progress of healthcare reform. Senators and Representatives need to sit down, and as John McCain had said “make some concessions” for the greater good of American healthcare. That is something that Kennedy would have wanted.
1. Civil Rights and Education – In 1982, he extended the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and was a contributor to the Voting Civil Rights Act of 1991 which made it easier for minorities to win lawsuits against their employers for employment discrimination. He helped pass the Americans with Disabilities Act and was a contributor in some way to most of the educational reform bills that came out of the Senate in the 1960s. He also championed Maternity Leave and worked with President George W Bush on the No Child Left Behind Act. He was very much a legacy of his brother John, who, in his short tenure as president encouraged public service, volunteerism and educational reform.
2. Healthcare – Kennedy worked alongside Republican Senators in order to pass a healthcare reform bill that ensured Americans the right to buy healthcare, and limited denying claims based on pre-existing conditions. He was able to extend to the disabled the ability to keep Medicare for disabilities, even after they started working. He also championed access to healthcare for children, the elderly, the poor and the disabled.
3. Bipartisan Support – Kennedy’s title as the “lion” of the Senate was something he lived up to. While he was considered the liberal poster-child for attacks by conservatives, he was able to extend his hand and negotiation power to the other side of the aisle. He was able to work with Republican Senators on energy reform, healthcare, educational reform, taxes and the raising of the minimum wage. This section is the most important for today because we have seen recently the type of hindrance that comes from partisan politics. Kennedy, a champion of healthcare reform, was not able to be present in the Healthcare committee he was a part of because of his cancer. While the affect of his presence is all speculation, I believe that he could have been a unifying force. With uncompromising messages coming from the Republican party, and the inability of the President to unite factional sections of the Democrats in the House and Senate, both healthcare and energy reform look like they will fall plague to partisan politics. To make an issue partisan when it has implications that are beyond its political meaning is something that Kennedy tried to do when he reached out to Republicans. This is exemplified in the kind of sentimental outpouring that has come from Republicans like John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, George W Bush and Nancy Regan, just to name a few. These comforting messages were not just because his family was so influential, of or that it is courteous to comfort loved ones during loss, but they were more significant. Many of these messages emphasized Kennedy’s ability work alongside his political opponents and put the problems that he thought were most affecting America before his political leanings. This kind of ideal is present in Senators like John McCain who are willing, in his words, “to make concessions” when it comes down to negotiating for what is best for the country.
4. Work in Ireland – His international work made him a respected figure amongst both the Irish and British governments. He was able to use his Irish-Catholic background to negotiate a stable, united government in Northern Ireland that was wracked by civil strife between Protestants and Catholics. He was also able to help leaders of the Irish Republican Army gain some political recognition, when the British government branded them as terrorists. The outpouring of Sentiment from former Prime Minister Tony Blair, current Prime Minister Gordon Brown and leaders in Ireland have shown that his legacy is a lasting one overseas.
All of these examples are just a part of his political career and the difference he made in Congress in his 47 year tenure. The lessons we can learn from Kennedy’s life can be found squarely in his ability to work across the aisle in politics. The issues that have divided our country since Barak Obama was elected are issues of great importance, a majority of which transcend their political meanings. On many conservative blogs, many hateful people have commented that they were in delight in Kennedy’s passing, as he was an impediment to their personal or political beliefs. Ignoring the fact that these messages are blatantly rude and self serving, this kind of polarization with issues that affect all Americans is something that Kennedy worked at preventing. He worked tirelessly to solve the moral, social and political problems of his time with the mind of a progressive reformer first, and a liberal politician second. Hard line Republicans in the Senate, whose only compromise on the Healthcare bill is a resounding “NO” can learn from this mandate. Healthcare, something that Kennedy had championed for most of his tenure in the Senate, is a problem that should be worked on in a bipartisan basis. There have been some progress made with bipartisan groups, like the “gang of six,” but the grassroots protests and the inability to compromise on both sides of the aisle have seriously hurt the progress of healthcare reform. Senators and Representatives need to sit down, and as John McCain had said “make some concessions” for the greater good of American healthcare. That is something that Kennedy would have wanted.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Movie Reviews: Alien Apartheid and Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France
I am going to stray a little from my usual posts about issues of great importance, and write about movies. I think this is very appropriate because I did see two movies this weekend. I liked one better than the other, but I found both of them to be extremely entertaining, in different ways. One is Neil Blompkamp and Peter Jackson’s District 9 and the other is (highly-anticipated) Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds.
I did not include full summaries of the movies, as that might ruin it for people interested in reviews, who haven’t seen the movie.
Part 1: Alien Apartheid: District 9 (SPOILERS)
District 9 is about a group of aliens who mysteriously show up in a giant ship over Johannesburg, South Africa. These Aliens are malnourished, and suffering, and, as the movie shows, the human race takes the humanitarian route and brings them off the ship and into Johannesburg. But, the aliens are eventually mistrusted and harassed. They react to this harassment through petty crimes and general vandalism. Eventually, all 1.8 million aliens are put in a slum area, called District 9. District 9 resembles the slums of Africa or the Favella of Brazil. They have rickety housing, hardly any running water, crime is rampant and the aliens are being exploited by outsiders, primarily Nigerians.
This movie was an entertaining science fiction movie, with something that many science-fiction films lack: character development and a realistic, human side. This was made possible by the documentary-news-like footage in the beginning. The accessibility of this movie comes from its ability to relate to stories and historical legacies we see today. This movie has the basic story line that a character, who is callous and unsympathetic, learns his lesson and develops a new-found appreciation for the “other” because he is forced into their perspective. But, it transcends that foundation and draws the audience in with its relevance to stories that people might see on the news.
The movie is about segregation, and the treatment of the “other.” It appeals to the generation that protested against the oppression of African Americans, and the detriments of segregation, including poverty, living condition degradation and harassment. It also appeals to the generation who rallied against apartheid in Africa, and the inequality that existed between whites and blacks in South Africa. And, it also appeals to the new generation, who sees inequality, poverty and harassment everyday, on the news stands and on television. Those who protest the wall in the US Southwest and the fence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority can also appreciate this movie. The movie is about aliens, but those aliens could have easily been any marginalized group. The movie also highlights the shock when affluent, western thought is met with the realities of the developing world, and the perceived exoticism and caution when experiencing the world of extreme poverty. I think the only movie to come close to that in the recent decade has been City of God.
Part II: Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France: Inglorious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino presents, writes and directs the epic WWII-epic (that’s right, I said epic twice) Inglorious Basterds. For me, this might have been enough, seeing as I have enjoyed Tarantino’s slate of movies. Some of these movies he wrote (True Romance, Natural Born Killers) and others he wrote and directed (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, etc). But, I was disappointed with Four Rooms, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill and Death Proof. Nonetheless, he has had an impressive career, as he is given good budgets, good actors and he rarely makes his money back on movie sales. He is the master of self promotion, and the king of fan-boys all over the world. But, he has something over the fan-boy loved directors, like George Lucas and Sam Raimi. He is a fan-boy himself. And, this movie, along with Death Proof and Kill Bill, shows that he is ready and willing to adapt his love of exploitation cinema, samurai and western films to his own universe. And, since Inglorious Basterds came out, I say…keep on doing it!
I found cinematic substance in the violence, gore and revisionist history of Inglorious Basterds. The dialogue and scenes were true Tarantino, filled with intense close-ups, slow and moving tracking shots and fun ramblings. Whether it was about rats, or a weird German accent, the dialogue worked well. And, each scene’s tension was brought to a climax through some sort of action, which fit well with the scheme of the movie. And, of course I got a satisfaction out of seeing Nazis being scalped, beaten and pumped full of lead. It was a satisfying ending to a very well directed cinematic experience. WWII History according to Quentin Tarantino is well worth it.
But, Tarantino does not stray from his fan-boy roots. Inglorious Basterds is more of a Spaghetti Western than it is a World War II epic. Each major character and scene could have been transported to the desert of the Southwest, and with a little costume change, no one would have noticed the difference. And, the score was adapted from the great Western master himself, Ennio Morricone. To me, Tarantino wanted to stray into new scenery, but without losing the Western feel. This is why one of the working titled passed around was Once Upon a Time In Nazi-Occupied France. One is not meant to analyze the realism of this movie, like they might have in District 9. The over-the-top dialogue and the revisionist history are just elements of the “Great War” according to Tarantino. This is not a history lesson, but more of a welcomed romp through the Tarantino universe.
PS. For some more revisionist Nazi history, take a look at the upcoming "Iron Sky." It is about...yup...you guessed it...NAZIS IN SPACE! Google it for a synopsis.
I did not include full summaries of the movies, as that might ruin it for people interested in reviews, who haven’t seen the movie.
Part 1: Alien Apartheid: District 9 (SPOILERS)
District 9 is about a group of aliens who mysteriously show up in a giant ship over Johannesburg, South Africa. These Aliens are malnourished, and suffering, and, as the movie shows, the human race takes the humanitarian route and brings them off the ship and into Johannesburg. But, the aliens are eventually mistrusted and harassed. They react to this harassment through petty crimes and general vandalism. Eventually, all 1.8 million aliens are put in a slum area, called District 9. District 9 resembles the slums of Africa or the Favella of Brazil. They have rickety housing, hardly any running water, crime is rampant and the aliens are being exploited by outsiders, primarily Nigerians.
This movie was an entertaining science fiction movie, with something that many science-fiction films lack: character development and a realistic, human side. This was made possible by the documentary-news-like footage in the beginning. The accessibility of this movie comes from its ability to relate to stories and historical legacies we see today. This movie has the basic story line that a character, who is callous and unsympathetic, learns his lesson and develops a new-found appreciation for the “other” because he is forced into their perspective. But, it transcends that foundation and draws the audience in with its relevance to stories that people might see on the news.
The movie is about segregation, and the treatment of the “other.” It appeals to the generation that protested against the oppression of African Americans, and the detriments of segregation, including poverty, living condition degradation and harassment. It also appeals to the generation who rallied against apartheid in Africa, and the inequality that existed between whites and blacks in South Africa. And, it also appeals to the new generation, who sees inequality, poverty and harassment everyday, on the news stands and on television. Those who protest the wall in the US Southwest and the fence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority can also appreciate this movie. The movie is about aliens, but those aliens could have easily been any marginalized group. The movie also highlights the shock when affluent, western thought is met with the realities of the developing world, and the perceived exoticism and caution when experiencing the world of extreme poverty. I think the only movie to come close to that in the recent decade has been City of God.
Part II: Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France: Inglorious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino presents, writes and directs the epic WWII-epic (that’s right, I said epic twice) Inglorious Basterds. For me, this might have been enough, seeing as I have enjoyed Tarantino’s slate of movies. Some of these movies he wrote (True Romance, Natural Born Killers) and others he wrote and directed (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, etc). But, I was disappointed with Four Rooms, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill and Death Proof. Nonetheless, he has had an impressive career, as he is given good budgets, good actors and he rarely makes his money back on movie sales. He is the master of self promotion, and the king of fan-boys all over the world. But, he has something over the fan-boy loved directors, like George Lucas and Sam Raimi. He is a fan-boy himself. And, this movie, along with Death Proof and Kill Bill, shows that he is ready and willing to adapt his love of exploitation cinema, samurai and western films to his own universe. And, since Inglorious Basterds came out, I say…keep on doing it!
I found cinematic substance in the violence, gore and revisionist history of Inglorious Basterds. The dialogue and scenes were true Tarantino, filled with intense close-ups, slow and moving tracking shots and fun ramblings. Whether it was about rats, or a weird German accent, the dialogue worked well. And, each scene’s tension was brought to a climax through some sort of action, which fit well with the scheme of the movie. And, of course I got a satisfaction out of seeing Nazis being scalped, beaten and pumped full of lead. It was a satisfying ending to a very well directed cinematic experience. WWII History according to Quentin Tarantino is well worth it.
But, Tarantino does not stray from his fan-boy roots. Inglorious Basterds is more of a Spaghetti Western than it is a World War II epic. Each major character and scene could have been transported to the desert of the Southwest, and with a little costume change, no one would have noticed the difference. And, the score was adapted from the great Western master himself, Ennio Morricone. To me, Tarantino wanted to stray into new scenery, but without losing the Western feel. This is why one of the working titled passed around was Once Upon a Time In Nazi-Occupied France. One is not meant to analyze the realism of this movie, like they might have in District 9. The over-the-top dialogue and the revisionist history are just elements of the “Great War” according to Tarantino. This is not a history lesson, but more of a welcomed romp through the Tarantino universe.
PS. For some more revisionist Nazi history, take a look at the upcoming "Iron Sky." It is about...yup...you guessed it...NAZIS IN SPACE! Google it for a synopsis.
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Problems that Arise from “Diversity”: New UC Admissions Policy and Prop 209, 13 Years Later
Recently, I read an article about the cash-strapped University of California system, and its problem with the idea of a “diverse” student body. I recently graduated from UCLA, and I know full-well the implications and backlash from using a “less-than-perfect” admissions system. That is to say: a system that does not allow for admissions to reflect the diversity of the city that the school is located in. UCLA had a backlash going into my sophomore year when they only accepted 49 African American students for the class of 2010. For much of the student body in the school year 2006-2007, this was the first time they heard the buzzwords of admissions, especially regarding the idea of representing the community. Some of these were: “Proposition 209” “Diversity” “Holistic” “Objective” “Subjective” “Race Based” “Quota”
Many of these words stir up emotion on both sides of the argument. These sides usually place themselves in favor of or against Proposition 209. Proposition 209, passed in 1996 was a ballot initiative that passed by a 54% vote that prohibited the consideration of race, ethnicity and gender for admissions to public schools, like the University of California system. Here is the text from section (a) of the proposition:
“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
The aim of proposition 209 was right in its text. It tried to eradicate the age old problem of increasing presence and diversity amongst the graduating class of public schools in California, and thus trying to reverse the many years of social inequality felt by underrepresented groups. It has effectively increased the graduation rates of African Americans at universities like UC Berkeley and UC San Diego. These are statistics that pro-209 people will site to make themselves feel proud that they have put another nail in the coffin of inequality and provided another booster shot for diversity. The sloping rates of underrepresented groups gaining admissions to the University of California is something that opponents of prop 209 can site, saying that program will damage programs within the university that are aimed at recruiting underrepresented minorities for admissions, and giving them avenues to learn more about the advantages of college. Both of these arguments are valid.
Recently, Marc B. Haefele wrote an article about a new idea that the UC system had to increase diversity in its admissions. To some, Prop 209 has stifled the ability for the university to make itself a microcosm of California. An admissions rule for the University of California has been that the top 12.5% of all graduating seniors get a guaranteed admission to a UC school, and the top 4% of all schools have an assured spot. This new plan would combine those two to create a new rule that makes the top 9% of all students at all schools in the state guaranteed admissions considerations to a UC school. But, this is not guaranteed admissions; it is only creating a larger pool of applicants for consideration. According to Haefele, they must maintain a 3.0 and take the SATs, but do not have to take any SAT II subject tests, as they are less likely to be taken by underrepresented students like Blacks and Latinos.
But, like any decision, there is no free lunch. The top 4% guaranteed admission element would be eliminated, and along with it, a huge population of Asian students. Anyone who has gone to UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and most of the other UCs has seen the large population of Asian students. They are well qualified, and function well in the fields they enter. I agree with some of the opponents of the change, as it will not significantly change the admissions amounts for Blacks and Latinos and it will be an admissions burden on the Asian community. There should never be an ethnic or racial trade off when it comes to admissions policies. That is what Prop 209 was instituted to prevent, and unfortunately, that is what Prop 209 is doing well.
When you get into the “diversity” of admissions, you walk a thin line of rhetoric, emotion and tedium. That is, the ethical dilemma associated with “diverse” admissions is the behemoth, 300-pound gorilla called Affirmative Action. It was set in place, like prop 209, to try to create microcosms of the community in public institutions. The admissions to law schools, higher education, business schools and the completion of high school was low for minority communities, like Blacks and Latinos. This was, of course, in comparison to Whites and Asians, who were very much represented amongst the graduating classes of prestigious institutions like UCLA. This, as assumed, was from a legacy of segregation, oppression, racism, classicism and social inequality. The Brown v Board decision was only 24 years old when the Bakke decision regarding Affirmative Action was decided. African Americans have only had “equal” rights to public education institutions for about 55 years. Even after the Brown decision was announced, it took another Supreme Court ruling and decades of enforcement to actually desegregate (Think George Wallace, 1958, U of Alabama). This legacy of separatism and “less-worth” has psychological affects on children, as Thurgood Marshall argued in 1954, and those create an atmosphere of unequal access. It’s true that in years following the Plessy v Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, the conditions were certainly separate, but were not equal. This inequality has a legacy, which is something that Affirmative Action tries to stop.
But, when does “leveling the playing field” cause the field tip the other way? Is there a point where those in the majority are held to an unequal standard because there is too many of them? “Victims” of affirmative action, as they might call themselves, might be those White or Asians who are not considered for admissions because they fit the profile too well. They have extra-curricular activities, they have a good SAT score, good GPA and a strong personal statement, but their situation is not wanting. They have not overcome terrible obstacles, been in a gang, and lived under a bridge or anything that sets them apart from the rest of the “regular” applicants. Maybe it’s like what Berkeley uses in their admissions: They look at the “potential” for an applicant to succeed in the Berkeley environment. Is this why my friend, who got into MIT, Cornell and Duke, was rejected from UCLA? Was she too much like everyone else?
Here is where the “diversity” becomes hazy and way too subjective. But, why use “diversity” in the first place? Why don’t we just drop the word and consider the person? Who made race, ethnicity and gender a consideration in anything? Let’s make this a Rawlsian experiment, and put up the Veil of Ignorance over Race, Ethnicity and Gender and consider their social situation. As Walter Benn Michaels would say, the trouble with diversity is that we celebrate and cheer it, when, in this modern world, there are much more pressing matters. Yes, racism still exists in the United States. But, poverty and income inequality are more rampant than racial or ethnic inequality. The ethnic and racial component of this is that the highest represented races and ethnicity that live under the poverty line are those who are underrepresented, like Blacks and Latinos. In admissions, along with test scores and other objective criteria, there should be a consideration for social status and condition, but not for race, ethnicity or gender. You cannot help that you are black, white, Asian or Latino, and therefore those things should not be considered in your admissions, as they don’t LITERALLY hold you back. But, social inequality and unequal access to the ability to go to college is something that is often outside of the applicants control, something that will affect them psychologically and something that will hold them back from college admissions. So, the argument about admissions will always be circular. If you consider social status and condition, you will be targeting Blacks and Latinos, primarily. And, when pro-209 people see this, they will have a fit about how their proposition is being violated by considering race and ethnicity. As you see, this is a tedious situation with no easy answer. But, here is one anyways.
My solution: You must increase the presence of college admissions programs in secondary education, as early as kindergarten. Teach at high schools and middle schools how, no matter your financial situation, you will be able to come to the University of California. Teach that no matter your race, ethnicity, and gender or whether you live in a 1 bedroom apartment in East LA with 6 people or a McMansion off of Sunset in Brentwood, you have the right to go to an Public Institution. Give them the resources and tools to make an informed decision about their educational future. Persuade, prod and pull them out of their condition and make them believe that regardless of their social condition, they can succeed at a UC school. With money flowing to programs for these purposes, I would say with high certitude that you will have more Blacks and Latinos at public schools.
(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-haefele18-2009aug18,0,3817202.story)
Many of these words stir up emotion on both sides of the argument. These sides usually place themselves in favor of or against Proposition 209. Proposition 209, passed in 1996 was a ballot initiative that passed by a 54% vote that prohibited the consideration of race, ethnicity and gender for admissions to public schools, like the University of California system. Here is the text from section (a) of the proposition:
“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
The aim of proposition 209 was right in its text. It tried to eradicate the age old problem of increasing presence and diversity amongst the graduating class of public schools in California, and thus trying to reverse the many years of social inequality felt by underrepresented groups. It has effectively increased the graduation rates of African Americans at universities like UC Berkeley and UC San Diego. These are statistics that pro-209 people will site to make themselves feel proud that they have put another nail in the coffin of inequality and provided another booster shot for diversity. The sloping rates of underrepresented groups gaining admissions to the University of California is something that opponents of prop 209 can site, saying that program will damage programs within the university that are aimed at recruiting underrepresented minorities for admissions, and giving them avenues to learn more about the advantages of college. Both of these arguments are valid.
Recently, Marc B. Haefele wrote an article about a new idea that the UC system had to increase diversity in its admissions. To some, Prop 209 has stifled the ability for the university to make itself a microcosm of California. An admissions rule for the University of California has been that the top 12.5% of all graduating seniors get a guaranteed admission to a UC school, and the top 4% of all schools have an assured spot. This new plan would combine those two to create a new rule that makes the top 9% of all students at all schools in the state guaranteed admissions considerations to a UC school. But, this is not guaranteed admissions; it is only creating a larger pool of applicants for consideration. According to Haefele, they must maintain a 3.0 and take the SATs, but do not have to take any SAT II subject tests, as they are less likely to be taken by underrepresented students like Blacks and Latinos.
But, like any decision, there is no free lunch. The top 4% guaranteed admission element would be eliminated, and along with it, a huge population of Asian students. Anyone who has gone to UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego and most of the other UCs has seen the large population of Asian students. They are well qualified, and function well in the fields they enter. I agree with some of the opponents of the change, as it will not significantly change the admissions amounts for Blacks and Latinos and it will be an admissions burden on the Asian community. There should never be an ethnic or racial trade off when it comes to admissions policies. That is what Prop 209 was instituted to prevent, and unfortunately, that is what Prop 209 is doing well.
When you get into the “diversity” of admissions, you walk a thin line of rhetoric, emotion and tedium. That is, the ethical dilemma associated with “diverse” admissions is the behemoth, 300-pound gorilla called Affirmative Action. It was set in place, like prop 209, to try to create microcosms of the community in public institutions. The admissions to law schools, higher education, business schools and the completion of high school was low for minority communities, like Blacks and Latinos. This was, of course, in comparison to Whites and Asians, who were very much represented amongst the graduating classes of prestigious institutions like UCLA. This, as assumed, was from a legacy of segregation, oppression, racism, classicism and social inequality. The Brown v Board decision was only 24 years old when the Bakke decision regarding Affirmative Action was decided. African Americans have only had “equal” rights to public education institutions for about 55 years. Even after the Brown decision was announced, it took another Supreme Court ruling and decades of enforcement to actually desegregate (Think George Wallace, 1958, U of Alabama). This legacy of separatism and “less-worth” has psychological affects on children, as Thurgood Marshall argued in 1954, and those create an atmosphere of unequal access. It’s true that in years following the Plessy v Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, the conditions were certainly separate, but were not equal. This inequality has a legacy, which is something that Affirmative Action tries to stop.
But, when does “leveling the playing field” cause the field tip the other way? Is there a point where those in the majority are held to an unequal standard because there is too many of them? “Victims” of affirmative action, as they might call themselves, might be those White or Asians who are not considered for admissions because they fit the profile too well. They have extra-curricular activities, they have a good SAT score, good GPA and a strong personal statement, but their situation is not wanting. They have not overcome terrible obstacles, been in a gang, and lived under a bridge or anything that sets them apart from the rest of the “regular” applicants. Maybe it’s like what Berkeley uses in their admissions: They look at the “potential” for an applicant to succeed in the Berkeley environment. Is this why my friend, who got into MIT, Cornell and Duke, was rejected from UCLA? Was she too much like everyone else?
Here is where the “diversity” becomes hazy and way too subjective. But, why use “diversity” in the first place? Why don’t we just drop the word and consider the person? Who made race, ethnicity and gender a consideration in anything? Let’s make this a Rawlsian experiment, and put up the Veil of Ignorance over Race, Ethnicity and Gender and consider their social situation. As Walter Benn Michaels would say, the trouble with diversity is that we celebrate and cheer it, when, in this modern world, there are much more pressing matters. Yes, racism still exists in the United States. But, poverty and income inequality are more rampant than racial or ethnic inequality. The ethnic and racial component of this is that the highest represented races and ethnicity that live under the poverty line are those who are underrepresented, like Blacks and Latinos. In admissions, along with test scores and other objective criteria, there should be a consideration for social status and condition, but not for race, ethnicity or gender. You cannot help that you are black, white, Asian or Latino, and therefore those things should not be considered in your admissions, as they don’t LITERALLY hold you back. But, social inequality and unequal access to the ability to go to college is something that is often outside of the applicants control, something that will affect them psychologically and something that will hold them back from college admissions. So, the argument about admissions will always be circular. If you consider social status and condition, you will be targeting Blacks and Latinos, primarily. And, when pro-209 people see this, they will have a fit about how their proposition is being violated by considering race and ethnicity. As you see, this is a tedious situation with no easy answer. But, here is one anyways.
My solution: You must increase the presence of college admissions programs in secondary education, as early as kindergarten. Teach at high schools and middle schools how, no matter your financial situation, you will be able to come to the University of California. Teach that no matter your race, ethnicity, and gender or whether you live in a 1 bedroom apartment in East LA with 6 people or a McMansion off of Sunset in Brentwood, you have the right to go to an Public Institution. Give them the resources and tools to make an informed decision about their educational future. Persuade, prod and pull them out of their condition and make them believe that regardless of their social condition, they can succeed at a UC school. With money flowing to programs for these purposes, I would say with high certitude that you will have more Blacks and Latinos at public schools.
(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-haefele18-2009aug18,0,3817202.story)
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A Message to the Fringe: Calm Down! Lets Talk (Your Guns Are Safe, Don’t Worry)
“Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool
now angry mob mentality's no longer the exception, it's the rule…”
-NoFx “The Idiots are Taking Over”
“In Hagerstown, Md., last week, a man appeared at a town hall meeting hosted by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) with a sign that read "’Death to Obama’" and "‘Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids.’"
-Tim Rutten, Op-Ed “America the Delusional”
These quotes are both scary and relevant. As per my last topic, we have seen the rise in mob mentality in relation to the healthcare reform debate, and the slow, but assured loss of any kind of civilized debate. But, as I skimmed through the Lehrer Hour, CNN, Fox News and the Onion, I found that these verbally abusive protests have been only one element of the healthcare debate. From the footage I saw on these shows, there actually have been some clean, problem-solving town hall debates that have asked the right questions and received due diligent answers from their representatives. That is, people asked to be recognized, received the floor, inquired about their grievance and were answered by their representative. This is how someone should voice their opposition or support, and this is how constituencies should be addressed, in the town-hall meeting setting. Responsibility to create effective programs and governance is not 100% on the shoulders of representatives. If the people want their concerns voiced, they should take the initiative, and do it in a way that is civilized and stimulates discourse.
But, that is not the case for a fringe of the protest movement. There are some serious questions I would like to be answered by these fringe groups:
-Do you think you will gain credibility by associating Obama with Hitler? Hitler murdered 20 million people, including 80% of Poland’s Jewish community. He was an extreme nationalist. You call Obama un-American and not a citizen, and listen to Rush Limbaugh saying it would be good for America if he failed. How does this compare?
-Do you think people will believe you if you call Obama a Fascist or a Socialist? Do you even know the difference between Fascism and Socialism, or even what each of those government models entail?
-Do you really think Obama is going to take away your guns?
-Do you really believe Obama was not born in the US?
-Will you ever take what the President says seriously?
-Is there any way that the President can assuage your problems?
-What is your goal when you shout, boo, turn your back on and ignore your representatives?
-Do you know that pundits make a lot of money (10-100 times what you make), and yet you think they can talk to you on the same level? Do you know they’re talking to make money, not dispense information? Why do you think Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have merchandise stores and Sean Hannity has a (pay-for-membership) dating site?
-How do you define a “true” American?
I know I won’t get answers to these questions. But, if I got 30 minutes to interrogate a group of these protesters, I would like to know what they are thinking. What goes on in side their head when they take the time to create a poster with Obama next to Hitler?
(Before you get all “you’re a hypocrite” on me, I would like to make something clear. I never supported, and never thought that protestors comparing George W Bush to Hitler had any substance at all. I think the comparison, then, was stupid and I think the comparison, now, is stupid. I hold both sides with the same regard: Ignoramuses.)
But, what is worse about these recent protests is their inability to progress. We do not progress on healthcare when you yell about birth certificates. We do not progress when you yell about fascism. We do not progress when you shout about teabags and taxes. But, there is a violent imagery and a scary foreshadowing that is accompanying these protests, and a lot of that has to do with the belief that Obama is going to take away people’s guns. A couple articles and op-ed pieces have covered the group of protesters who “carried” to an Obama speech in Phoenix, AZ. Arizona is a state where you can carry a concealed, or not concealed (depending on your mood, I suppose), weapon in a public place and not have a permit. This is very scary to me.
Let me tirade about gun issues for a second. I believe 100% that everyone in the United States has the right to own a gun. The government will not, and should not, completely restrict or take away anyone’s guns. With that said, there has to be standards and regulations that are put in place to ensure that people know how to use their guns, and ensure that those guns will not be used to break the law in any way, shape or form. These should not just include “safety tests” and background checks, but should include psychological evaluations and extensive review of person’s intentions to buy the gun. There needs to be oversight. Next, I have become appalled that the one thing that people in America are willing to fight and put so much effort into has been the right to own and carry guns. Think for a second, readers….OK? Ready for a forced revelation? GUNS ARE DANGEROUS OBJECTS! Yes, people are dangerous too, and people do kill people through other means, but guns, specifically are a medium of violence. How can such a large population of people be so passionate about something so inherently negative? How did America become defined by its gun ownership? What about knives, flame throwers, SAM missiles or mustard gas? Was it the second amendment? Do we just love to bear arms? Was it the belief that some huge force, invisible to see, overshadowing our rights, is going to come down and control our lives, so we better hoard our guns and wait for a “last-stand-in-front-of-the-bar” shootout like we see in countless movies? I have no idea.
Back to Phoenix. Yes, the law in Arizona says that you can carry a gun in a public place, so you have the right to do so. And, the law says you can carry that gun in a public place, even without a permit. So, you have the right to do so. But, this is a speech that is going to be made by the President of the United States. Coming to a Presidential speech with a gun will secure your right to be harassed. Get this into your thick skull: OBAMA IS NOT TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY!!! And, heed Johnny Cash’s words: “Don’t take your guns to town, son. Leave your guns at home…”
Will these protests push a good debate into the dirges of hysteria? I believe we are on our way. Conservative talk show hosts and pundits are firing on all cylinders and bringing out the big guns (no pun intended) in order to dilute this healthcare push with irrelevant issues and false, hyperbolized statements about re-education camps for the overweight, killing grandma and Obama-the-Muslim so that any progress towards helping improve the health of Americans becomes as likely as Rush Limbaugh getting a brain (or losing weight). Will this help the Republican Party in the interim election? I believe it most likely will. But, will that help us reform our healthcare system, fight the war in Afghanistan, grow a Clean Energy economic sector, fix the economy and progress as a people. Absolutely NOT!
(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten19-2009aug19,0,3225096.column) (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guns18-2009aug18,0,2649181.story?track=rss) (NoFx, “The Idiots Are Taking Over”)
PS. Here's another fact. The guy who created those "Joker" pictures of Obama did not intend to have "SOCIALISM" written on them. They were co-opted by some wingnut who put the Socialism message on him/herself. The artist was even quoted as saying that it was immature to call Obama a Socialist. He even questioned who made it a sudden norm to characterize Socialism as evil.
(SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-poster19-2009aug19,0,1347679.story)
now angry mob mentality's no longer the exception, it's the rule…”
-NoFx “The Idiots are Taking Over”
“In Hagerstown, Md., last week, a man appeared at a town hall meeting hosted by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) with a sign that read "’Death to Obama’" and "‘Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids.’"
-Tim Rutten, Op-Ed “America the Delusional”
These quotes are both scary and relevant. As per my last topic, we have seen the rise in mob mentality in relation to the healthcare reform debate, and the slow, but assured loss of any kind of civilized debate. But, as I skimmed through the Lehrer Hour, CNN, Fox News and the Onion, I found that these verbally abusive protests have been only one element of the healthcare debate. From the footage I saw on these shows, there actually have been some clean, problem-solving town hall debates that have asked the right questions and received due diligent answers from their representatives. That is, people asked to be recognized, received the floor, inquired about their grievance and were answered by their representative. This is how someone should voice their opposition or support, and this is how constituencies should be addressed, in the town-hall meeting setting. Responsibility to create effective programs and governance is not 100% on the shoulders of representatives. If the people want their concerns voiced, they should take the initiative, and do it in a way that is civilized and stimulates discourse.
But, that is not the case for a fringe of the protest movement. There are some serious questions I would like to be answered by these fringe groups:
-Do you think you will gain credibility by associating Obama with Hitler? Hitler murdered 20 million people, including 80% of Poland’s Jewish community. He was an extreme nationalist. You call Obama un-American and not a citizen, and listen to Rush Limbaugh saying it would be good for America if he failed. How does this compare?
-Do you think people will believe you if you call Obama a Fascist or a Socialist? Do you even know the difference between Fascism and Socialism, or even what each of those government models entail?
-Do you really think Obama is going to take away your guns?
-Do you really believe Obama was not born in the US?
-Will you ever take what the President says seriously?
-Is there any way that the President can assuage your problems?
-What is your goal when you shout, boo, turn your back on and ignore your representatives?
-Do you know that pundits make a lot of money (10-100 times what you make), and yet you think they can talk to you on the same level? Do you know they’re talking to make money, not dispense information? Why do you think Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have merchandise stores and Sean Hannity has a (pay-for-membership) dating site?
-How do you define a “true” American?
I know I won’t get answers to these questions. But, if I got 30 minutes to interrogate a group of these protesters, I would like to know what they are thinking. What goes on in side their head when they take the time to create a poster with Obama next to Hitler?
(Before you get all “you’re a hypocrite” on me, I would like to make something clear. I never supported, and never thought that protestors comparing George W Bush to Hitler had any substance at all. I think the comparison, then, was stupid and I think the comparison, now, is stupid. I hold both sides with the same regard: Ignoramuses.)
But, what is worse about these recent protests is their inability to progress. We do not progress on healthcare when you yell about birth certificates. We do not progress when you yell about fascism. We do not progress when you shout about teabags and taxes. But, there is a violent imagery and a scary foreshadowing that is accompanying these protests, and a lot of that has to do with the belief that Obama is going to take away people’s guns. A couple articles and op-ed pieces have covered the group of protesters who “carried” to an Obama speech in Phoenix, AZ. Arizona is a state where you can carry a concealed, or not concealed (depending on your mood, I suppose), weapon in a public place and not have a permit. This is very scary to me.
Let me tirade about gun issues for a second. I believe 100% that everyone in the United States has the right to own a gun. The government will not, and should not, completely restrict or take away anyone’s guns. With that said, there has to be standards and regulations that are put in place to ensure that people know how to use their guns, and ensure that those guns will not be used to break the law in any way, shape or form. These should not just include “safety tests” and background checks, but should include psychological evaluations and extensive review of person’s intentions to buy the gun. There needs to be oversight. Next, I have become appalled that the one thing that people in America are willing to fight and put so much effort into has been the right to own and carry guns. Think for a second, readers….OK? Ready for a forced revelation? GUNS ARE DANGEROUS OBJECTS! Yes, people are dangerous too, and people do kill people through other means, but guns, specifically are a medium of violence. How can such a large population of people be so passionate about something so inherently negative? How did America become defined by its gun ownership? What about knives, flame throwers, SAM missiles or mustard gas? Was it the second amendment? Do we just love to bear arms? Was it the belief that some huge force, invisible to see, overshadowing our rights, is going to come down and control our lives, so we better hoard our guns and wait for a “last-stand-in-front-of-the-bar” shootout like we see in countless movies? I have no idea.
Back to Phoenix. Yes, the law in Arizona says that you can carry a gun in a public place, so you have the right to do so. And, the law says you can carry that gun in a public place, even without a permit. So, you have the right to do so. But, this is a speech that is going to be made by the President of the United States. Coming to a Presidential speech with a gun will secure your right to be harassed. Get this into your thick skull: OBAMA IS NOT TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY!!! And, heed Johnny Cash’s words: “Don’t take your guns to town, son. Leave your guns at home…”
Will these protests push a good debate into the dirges of hysteria? I believe we are on our way. Conservative talk show hosts and pundits are firing on all cylinders and bringing out the big guns (no pun intended) in order to dilute this healthcare push with irrelevant issues and false, hyperbolized statements about re-education camps for the overweight, killing grandma and Obama-the-Muslim so that any progress towards helping improve the health of Americans becomes as likely as Rush Limbaugh getting a brain (or losing weight). Will this help the Republican Party in the interim election? I believe it most likely will. But, will that help us reform our healthcare system, fight the war in Afghanistan, grow a Clean Energy economic sector, fix the economy and progress as a people. Absolutely NOT!
(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten19-2009aug19,0,3225096.column) (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guns18-2009aug18,0,2649181.story?track=rss) (NoFx, “The Idiots Are Taking Over”)
PS. Here's another fact. The guy who created those "Joker" pictures of Obama did not intend to have "SOCIALISM" written on them. They were co-opted by some wingnut who put the Socialism message on him/herself. The artist was even quoted as saying that it was immature to call Obama a Socialist. He even questioned who made it a sudden norm to characterize Socialism as evil.
(SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-poster19-2009aug19,0,1347679.story)
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health Care: Protesting our Way to the Bottom
A couple of posts ago, I touched upon the subject of the right to dissent if you believe your government is not doing enough to serve your needs. I believe the government is there to protect the people and their well being and health, and allow for free competition that gives everyone the chance to succeed. In this post, I am taking aim at the behemoth problem of health care. This is directly related to both the right to dissent and the role of government, not as working within the parameters of a defined role, but how a healthcare overhaul might affect the its image in the eyes of average Americans. It will also refer back to my post about punditry and doing your own research. That section, of course, will take aim at the recent “grassroots” protests at local town hall meetings. Lastly, I will consider some things I have read about healthcare in relation to California and its budget crises, including some scary statistics.
Let’s start by taking a swing at the left. This is of course regarding the Op-Ed piece that Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote to the Washington Post. In this Op-Ed she said that the disruptions at the town hall meetings were “Un-American.” Bad move, Pelosi. I think your intentions were spot on, but your wording was off by a mile. These protests and dissents are the epitome of what it means to be American. You cannot, and should not berate dissenters as un-American. The act of protesting, as I have said in the aforementioned passage, it’s a right that is ensured under the Constitution, and a medium through which people can voice their discontent with the administration’s health care plan. With that said, Pelosi should have gone about it a different way. Pelosi should have explained that the protesters were rude and inconsiderate and shouted down any chance for their representatives to help assuage their problems. Shouting down your Senators, when they are trying to help you, is something that Glenn Beck would do to a guest he has on his show who disagrees with him. She also should have taken aim at the fact that many of the protesters were either uninformed people who just shouted irrelevant messages about stimulus funding and socialism, were paid Republican staffers or were subsidized by private medical insurance companies. But, they are certainly NOT Un-American.
But, the dissent has a very irking characteristic to it. That characteristic is the unorganized, chaotic, disrespectful, mobbing, unintelligible and disunity of the message that the health care uprising has included at its rallies. This mob is has not taken sides or shown any kind of coherence of message in their uprisings. That is, they attack both Democrats and Republicans at their town hall meetings for a various host of issues, all of which have nothing to do with healthcare. Birthers, Anti-Tax, Anti-Bailout, Anti-Global Warming and Nazi graffiti have all been characteristics of these town hall meetings, which were aimed at a spirited discussion about healthcare. If these people want transparency and an active role in having their opinions taken seriously, they should be doing it in a fashion where their opinions can be respected and heard. Booing and talking over your representatives does not produce such a result. Being angry and yelling does not produce such a result. Asking for Obama’s birth certificate does not produce such a result. Spray painting a swastika on a sign for a town hall meeting does not produce such a result. Calling Obama a fascist, socialist or Hitler does not produce such a result. Here are some examples of mob rule that has unfortunately characterized our “dialogue” with the people:
1. Sen Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) was shouted down and booed at a town hall meeting after he tried to talk to his constituents about health care. Some attacked him personally for switching parties, while some yelled about “restoring the country” to what the Constitution had envisioned. Of course the Constitution had wanted to keep health care a private, for profit business. The Constitution was a “bundle of compromises” and if these people are not willing to compromise on their manner of speech to get an agenda through, then their opinions are mute in the healthcare issue. Of course, amidst the booing, healthcare was hardly brought up.
2. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), a relatively centrist Democrat who is known for being a moderator between the parties, was shouted at, booed and drowned out by the mob. She expressed her concern that the debate was not about “who was the loudest.” At one point she tried to talk to the crowd about healthcare, was shouted down and threatened to leave the meeting.
3. David Scott (D-Georgia), also a relatively centrist politician, had a town hall meeting in an Atlanta suburb, and a swastika was spray painted on a sign outside of the town hall meeting. I didn’t know the likes of Hitler had anything to do with Healthcare. I didn’t know trying to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare was a Nazi idea. Oh yah…their just being racist and unbelievably ignorant. Nothing to do with healthcare.
4. Sen John Cornyn (R-Texas), a reliable conservative and head of the GOP Senate Campaign Committee, was booed down in a teabaggers rally for supporting the Bail out. Of course this was a tax-based rally, not a healthcare town hall. But, booing him for voting for the bailout at an anti-tax rally does not produce tax reform, and certainly does not paint his constituency as reliable.
5. Bob Inglis (R-South Carolina), the most reliable conservative in the GOP, was yelled at and shouted over about vaccines for swine flu and his criticism of a conservative broadcaster (probably Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage or one of their cohorts). Angered, he was later quoted as saying that these protestors cannot build a base off of unsubstantiated and false claims. And, of course this goes to show you that these people eat up the bullshit that pundits and broadcasters tell them, and revolt with furious anger over such bullshit as if it were god’s truth.
6. J Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) was booed down, and had backs turned to him at an anti-tax rally in April for voting for a 2008 bailout. He tried to plead with the crowd, citing his conservative record and his devotion to the “conservative cause” but was not taken seriously. Again, while this does not have to do with healthcare, it shows you how the protesters don’t understand how they need the support of their representatives to pass legislation that is to their desires. They can’t just boo and yell and expect something to get done.
7. Michael N Castle (R-Delaware) was asked repeatedly during a town hall meeting on why there has not been an investigation into Obama’s birth certificate. These questions elicited boos and shots in support from the audience. Yes, let’s waste the valuable time of our Congress to find out the obvious fact that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Wait…who gives a shit? He was voted in, and given the confidence of the office of president by a mandate. Bringing up the “Birther” issue does not solve the problems of Healthcare, bailouts, two wars, global warming and all other RELEVENT problems facing the country.
(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-gop16-2009aug16,0,5794904.story?page=2&track=rss
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/town-hall-anger-why-we-love-to-hate-our-politicians.html)
But, LA Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez brings up a good point (http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-rodriguez17-2009aug17,0,4516013.column) He says that the right to dissent and challenging authority is much older than the United States, but is also a characteristic of democracy. He comes to conclusion after going through Alexis de Tocqueville's “Democracy in America.” His dilemma is that once you look down upon or consider these protests to be not wholly American, you put at risk not only a characteristic of American democracy, but you put at risk a tenet Democracy as a whole. But, one question he leaves unanswered is what happens when the innovation that comes from challenging opinions produces anti-intellectualism and a “sheople” mentality. This is definitely reflected in the uninformed protesters at these town hall meetings and their reliance on punditry to challenge their representatives. Nonetheless, I agree with his points that challenging authority is a very American characteristic and must be protected, like any other part of American democracy.
Now, let’s look at some scary examples of how healthcare reform needs to be instituted. These come from California, whose budget compromise has put a huge burden on healthcare, especially for those who can barely afford it, or depend on state and federal programs. Steve Lopez of the LA Times has been following the trials of volunteer workers and uninsured patients at a clinic in Los Angeles. Thousands of uninsured patients have got treatment through a nonprofit called Remote Area Medical for anything from root canals to diabetes medication. Lopez’s recent article is called “At a Free Clinic, Scenes from the Third World.” He has some testimony from a dentist from Westwood. CA who worked in Brazil, who said that their free healthcare and clinics cause a waiting period, but not as bad as it is in the United States. Most of the patients have Medicare, and many need small operations, medications and eyewear that Medicare does not cover. And, with the budget cuts to state supported healthcare, that coverage list might get smaller and smaller.
(SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez16-2009aug16,0,3959652.column?page=2)
Another example is a legacy of the budget cuts to California, but also resembles the need for a base standard for healthcare. The Healthy Families program of Los Angeles will have to cut insurance to 60,000 children from its program. These children come from poor families and are often times disabled. Without funding for the program, 670,000 children will have to be dropped by June, 2010. This is unbearable to think about, mostly because these Children had nothing to do with the budget crises, and their circumstances are beyond their control. They are being punished for the actions of others, and they do not have the political power to do anything about it. This is a prime example of a healthcare system gone awry, not just in California, but in the nation.
(SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-budget14-2009aug14,0,6580131.story)
We need to step back from our hooting and hollering, our anger and distaste and our need to vent and take a long, concentrated look at our healthcare system. 47 million uninsured, poor and disabled children in the hundreds of thousands being dropped from insurance and free health clinic resembling third world countries are not hallmarks of the most powerful and influential nation in the world. If nations like Brazil can offer better healthcare for children and Mexico begins to offer free healthcare for tourists, then we certainly have a big issue on our hand. Minimal healthcare must be provided for everyone. This is not socialism, fascism, Nazism, but it’s a product of the concern for the health and safety of our citizens. You may have the right to protest Obama’s birth certificate, taxes, global warming and waste tea while you do it. But, while you yell and scream, some uninsured person is costing you as a taxpayer a lot of money because they hurt themselves working to make America what it is. Everyday, the working men and women that these “Grassroots” protests represent work preserving the American entrepreneurship spirit, and yet they cannot afford healthcare and became the same burdens on taxes that these protesters decry. Maybe it’s the recession? Maybe a whole lot of uninsured, unemployed people have to vent their frustration at a situation that was most likely beyond their control. They were employed at steady jobs before an irresponsible bank sector, housing market policy and credit system crippled the economy causing massive layoffs. Now, they look at the administration in its promises of new jobs as the culprit of misinformation and bad policy. But, some of these people are leading unhealthy, unsustainable lifestyles that they aren’t willing to give up, which also puts a burden on the healthcare system.
But, you know who else suffers because of your principles? The poor, the low income, the disabled, all who depend on an equitable healthcare system and to be treated with respect and dignity, like all Americans should be. Their situations are often beyond their control, but they don’t have the means to voice their opinions, or their struggles. They are the result, the end-product and the poster child for policies. But, in the end they are not helped. In the end, the healthcare issue is not resolved. In the end, the time-wasting, shouting, booing, inconsistent, disorganized, mob-mentality of these “grassroots” protests does not make the situation any better for them. You act on the principles of America, and yet you fail to recognize or respect those who are truly struggling. So, abandon your quest for an Obama birth certificate and start thinking about other people for a change. Then, maybe you will realize that this healthcare system needs a change. It does not necessarily have to be the same policy that Obama wants, but it should include a minimum standard. We should strive to help as many as we can with a new healthcare system. The well being and health of ALL Americans should and always be a priority.
Let’s start by taking a swing at the left. This is of course regarding the Op-Ed piece that Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote to the Washington Post. In this Op-Ed she said that the disruptions at the town hall meetings were “Un-American.” Bad move, Pelosi. I think your intentions were spot on, but your wording was off by a mile. These protests and dissents are the epitome of what it means to be American. You cannot, and should not berate dissenters as un-American. The act of protesting, as I have said in the aforementioned passage, it’s a right that is ensured under the Constitution, and a medium through which people can voice their discontent with the administration’s health care plan. With that said, Pelosi should have gone about it a different way. Pelosi should have explained that the protesters were rude and inconsiderate and shouted down any chance for their representatives to help assuage their problems. Shouting down your Senators, when they are trying to help you, is something that Glenn Beck would do to a guest he has on his show who disagrees with him. She also should have taken aim at the fact that many of the protesters were either uninformed people who just shouted irrelevant messages about stimulus funding and socialism, were paid Republican staffers or were subsidized by private medical insurance companies. But, they are certainly NOT Un-American.
But, the dissent has a very irking characteristic to it. That characteristic is the unorganized, chaotic, disrespectful, mobbing, unintelligible and disunity of the message that the health care uprising has included at its rallies. This mob is has not taken sides or shown any kind of coherence of message in their uprisings. That is, they attack both Democrats and Republicans at their town hall meetings for a various host of issues, all of which have nothing to do with healthcare. Birthers, Anti-Tax, Anti-Bailout, Anti-Global Warming and Nazi graffiti have all been characteristics of these town hall meetings, which were aimed at a spirited discussion about healthcare. If these people want transparency and an active role in having their opinions taken seriously, they should be doing it in a fashion where their opinions can be respected and heard. Booing and talking over your representatives does not produce such a result. Being angry and yelling does not produce such a result. Asking for Obama’s birth certificate does not produce such a result. Spray painting a swastika on a sign for a town hall meeting does not produce such a result. Calling Obama a fascist, socialist or Hitler does not produce such a result. Here are some examples of mob rule that has unfortunately characterized our “dialogue” with the people:
1. Sen Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) was shouted down and booed at a town hall meeting after he tried to talk to his constituents about health care. Some attacked him personally for switching parties, while some yelled about “restoring the country” to what the Constitution had envisioned. Of course the Constitution had wanted to keep health care a private, for profit business. The Constitution was a “bundle of compromises” and if these people are not willing to compromise on their manner of speech to get an agenda through, then their opinions are mute in the healthcare issue. Of course, amidst the booing, healthcare was hardly brought up.
2. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), a relatively centrist Democrat who is known for being a moderator between the parties, was shouted at, booed and drowned out by the mob. She expressed her concern that the debate was not about “who was the loudest.” At one point she tried to talk to the crowd about healthcare, was shouted down and threatened to leave the meeting.
3. David Scott (D-Georgia), also a relatively centrist politician, had a town hall meeting in an Atlanta suburb, and a swastika was spray painted on a sign outside of the town hall meeting. I didn’t know the likes of Hitler had anything to do with Healthcare. I didn’t know trying to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare was a Nazi idea. Oh yah…their just being racist and unbelievably ignorant. Nothing to do with healthcare.
4. Sen John Cornyn (R-Texas), a reliable conservative and head of the GOP Senate Campaign Committee, was booed down in a teabaggers rally for supporting the Bail out. Of course this was a tax-based rally, not a healthcare town hall. But, booing him for voting for the bailout at an anti-tax rally does not produce tax reform, and certainly does not paint his constituency as reliable.
5. Bob Inglis (R-South Carolina), the most reliable conservative in the GOP, was yelled at and shouted over about vaccines for swine flu and his criticism of a conservative broadcaster (probably Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage or one of their cohorts). Angered, he was later quoted as saying that these protestors cannot build a base off of unsubstantiated and false claims. And, of course this goes to show you that these people eat up the bullshit that pundits and broadcasters tell them, and revolt with furious anger over such bullshit as if it were god’s truth.
6. J Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) was booed down, and had backs turned to him at an anti-tax rally in April for voting for a 2008 bailout. He tried to plead with the crowd, citing his conservative record and his devotion to the “conservative cause” but was not taken seriously. Again, while this does not have to do with healthcare, it shows you how the protesters don’t understand how they need the support of their representatives to pass legislation that is to their desires. They can’t just boo and yell and expect something to get done.
7. Michael N Castle (R-Delaware) was asked repeatedly during a town hall meeting on why there has not been an investigation into Obama’s birth certificate. These questions elicited boos and shots in support from the audience. Yes, let’s waste the valuable time of our Congress to find out the obvious fact that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Wait…who gives a shit? He was voted in, and given the confidence of the office of president by a mandate. Bringing up the “Birther” issue does not solve the problems of Healthcare, bailouts, two wars, global warming and all other RELEVENT problems facing the country.
(SOURCES: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-gop16-2009aug16,0,5794904.story?page=2&track=rss
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/town-hall-anger-why-we-love-to-hate-our-politicians.html)
But, LA Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez brings up a good point (http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-rodriguez17-2009aug17,0,4516013.column) He says that the right to dissent and challenging authority is much older than the United States, but is also a characteristic of democracy. He comes to conclusion after going through Alexis de Tocqueville's “Democracy in America.” His dilemma is that once you look down upon or consider these protests to be not wholly American, you put at risk not only a characteristic of American democracy, but you put at risk a tenet Democracy as a whole. But, one question he leaves unanswered is what happens when the innovation that comes from challenging opinions produces anti-intellectualism and a “sheople” mentality. This is definitely reflected in the uninformed protesters at these town hall meetings and their reliance on punditry to challenge their representatives. Nonetheless, I agree with his points that challenging authority is a very American characteristic and must be protected, like any other part of American democracy.
Now, let’s look at some scary examples of how healthcare reform needs to be instituted. These come from California, whose budget compromise has put a huge burden on healthcare, especially for those who can barely afford it, or depend on state and federal programs. Steve Lopez of the LA Times has been following the trials of volunteer workers and uninsured patients at a clinic in Los Angeles. Thousands of uninsured patients have got treatment through a nonprofit called Remote Area Medical for anything from root canals to diabetes medication. Lopez’s recent article is called “At a Free Clinic, Scenes from the Third World.” He has some testimony from a dentist from Westwood. CA who worked in Brazil, who said that their free healthcare and clinics cause a waiting period, but not as bad as it is in the United States. Most of the patients have Medicare, and many need small operations, medications and eyewear that Medicare does not cover. And, with the budget cuts to state supported healthcare, that coverage list might get smaller and smaller.
(SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez16-2009aug16,0,3959652.column?page=2)
Another example is a legacy of the budget cuts to California, but also resembles the need for a base standard for healthcare. The Healthy Families program of Los Angeles will have to cut insurance to 60,000 children from its program. These children come from poor families and are often times disabled. Without funding for the program, 670,000 children will have to be dropped by June, 2010. This is unbearable to think about, mostly because these Children had nothing to do with the budget crises, and their circumstances are beyond their control. They are being punished for the actions of others, and they do not have the political power to do anything about it. This is a prime example of a healthcare system gone awry, not just in California, but in the nation.
(SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-budget14-2009aug14,0,6580131.story)
We need to step back from our hooting and hollering, our anger and distaste and our need to vent and take a long, concentrated look at our healthcare system. 47 million uninsured, poor and disabled children in the hundreds of thousands being dropped from insurance and free health clinic resembling third world countries are not hallmarks of the most powerful and influential nation in the world. If nations like Brazil can offer better healthcare for children and Mexico begins to offer free healthcare for tourists, then we certainly have a big issue on our hand. Minimal healthcare must be provided for everyone. This is not socialism, fascism, Nazism, but it’s a product of the concern for the health and safety of our citizens. You may have the right to protest Obama’s birth certificate, taxes, global warming and waste tea while you do it. But, while you yell and scream, some uninsured person is costing you as a taxpayer a lot of money because they hurt themselves working to make America what it is. Everyday, the working men and women that these “Grassroots” protests represent work preserving the American entrepreneurship spirit, and yet they cannot afford healthcare and became the same burdens on taxes that these protesters decry. Maybe it’s the recession? Maybe a whole lot of uninsured, unemployed people have to vent their frustration at a situation that was most likely beyond their control. They were employed at steady jobs before an irresponsible bank sector, housing market policy and credit system crippled the economy causing massive layoffs. Now, they look at the administration in its promises of new jobs as the culprit of misinformation and bad policy. But, some of these people are leading unhealthy, unsustainable lifestyles that they aren’t willing to give up, which also puts a burden on the healthcare system.
But, you know who else suffers because of your principles? The poor, the low income, the disabled, all who depend on an equitable healthcare system and to be treated with respect and dignity, like all Americans should be. Their situations are often beyond their control, but they don’t have the means to voice their opinions, or their struggles. They are the result, the end-product and the poster child for policies. But, in the end they are not helped. In the end, the healthcare issue is not resolved. In the end, the time-wasting, shouting, booing, inconsistent, disorganized, mob-mentality of these “grassroots” protests does not make the situation any better for them. You act on the principles of America, and yet you fail to recognize or respect those who are truly struggling. So, abandon your quest for an Obama birth certificate and start thinking about other people for a change. Then, maybe you will realize that this healthcare system needs a change. It does not necessarily have to be the same policy that Obama wants, but it should include a minimum standard. We should strive to help as many as we can with a new healthcare system. The well being and health of ALL Americans should and always be a priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)