Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
On the State of the Union
The President's State of the Union Speech is the Big Speech of the year. Yet there is never an opportunity either for the press or the citizenry to promptly follow up with any questions or requests for clarifications. As a result, doubt and misunderstandings fester.
Watching President Obama's speech the other evening before a joint session of vociferous members of Congress, quiet Supreme Court Justices and military brass, I jotted down a few items for the White House to consider.
First, Mr. Obama cited the Senate's inaction four times in contrast to the House of Representatives. To add to his frustration, he cited the Republican leadership for insisting that "sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town." What he did not do was to urge his fellow Democrats to change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote.
As a legal expert, Tom Geoghegan wrote to Senate majority leader Harry Reid (Dem. Nev) this week, "the Senate can act to change its rules, any rule, by majority vote, even a rule requiring a greater one." That means that the Democrats can change this rule with only 51 of their 59 votes in the Senate and get these bills passed.
Why President Obama did not tell tens of millions of Americans Wednesday evening about how to break the logjam, the gridlock on health insurance, energy, jobs, financial reform and other measures, that they dislike, is a question only he can answer. "Certainly Senate Rule 22 itself should be changed, so that there is ultimately a simple majority for a cloture limiting debate vote," according to Geoghegan.
Second, since dollars invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy have greater, safer, returns than money going into what Mr. Obama calls “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants and clean coal technologies,(which require heavy government subsidies), why did he accord the latter the same priority as the former?
Third, President Obama promised to double our exports over the next five years. This really raised eyebrows, leading New York Times reporter Helene Cooper to write that this highly ambitious goal would require him to persuade China to revalue its currency by 40 percent, "get global economic growth to outperform the salad days from 2003 to 2007 and lower taxes for American companies that do business abroad," plus "forget about strengthening the dollar." He left his own supporters wondering how he could perform this miracle and not forget his campaign promise to revise NAFTA.
Fourth, on health insurance reform, Mr. Obama said: "If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know." Well, Mr. President, try what you supported before you became a Presidential candidate--single payer, full Medicare for all, with free choice of doctor and hospital. Remember you did not allow single payer adherents to have a seat at the table, the way the CEO of Aetna did five times in the White House. (For more see SinglePayerAction.org)
Fifth, you alluded as one reason for the multi-trillion dollar deficits you inherited from the Bush regime was "not paying for two wars." Well, you also are not pressing for a war tax to pay for your two wars, as Rep. David Obey (Dem. Wisc) urged you and other Democrats to do a few months ago. What is the difference and why?
Sixth, the President asserted the need to freeze government spending for three years, but excluded the well-documented, bloated, wasteful, redundant Pentagon budget. He also did not go after the huge corporate welfare budget of subsidies, handouts, giveaways and bailouts. Instead, he left many civic groups wondering what cuts might be coming for programs relating to food, auto, job and environmental safety.
Seventh, his brief words of foreign and military policy came across as Bush redux trying to show how tough he is. He compared notches on his belt in terms of the number of captured or slain "Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates." He, of course, did not make any comparisons with the far greater number of innocent civilian causalities from drones and other bombings.
These were strange phrasings from a recent Nobel Peace Prize winner who managed to ignore completely the peace process for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There was not one sentence on, arguably, the core issue in that tumultuous region.
Eighth, on the Iraq war, he went over the top, declaring "make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home." Not really. Both Bush and Obama have concluded that 50,000 soldiers will remain in Iraq indefinitely, with many more in the Persian Gulf region.
American taxpayers will be paying nearly $800 million a year just to guard the U.S. Embassy and its personnel in Baghdad. That sum alone is greater than either the annual budgets of OSHA ($502 million to deal with 58,000 work related deaths in America) or NHTSA ($730 million to deal with over 40,000 road fatalities.)
I'm sending this column to the White House. You also may wish to send your observations to President Obama. Citizens should be more than spectators to the annual state of the union spectacle.
180 Comments so far
Show All"Why President Obama did not tell tens of millions of Americans Wednesday evening about how to break the logjam, the gridlock on health insurance, energy, jobs, financial reform and other measures, that they dislike, is a question only he can answer."
Why? This is the time for the Dems to practice the good old "Stall Mode". Spin the wheels, faster and faster but have the front wheels locked up. They don't want change. Their corporate masters don't want change. Stall long enough untill the bald faced hornets of the Repubs can get back into power and create some more real change without having to blow their "good cop" cover.
I have e-mailed my self-styled liberal Democratic Party US Senator (who is not considered a blue-dog and is up for re-election in Nov.) expressing my opinion on nearly every major issue during the past two years.
Judging from the pathetic Obamaspeak canned responses I get (even though I mark the "no response required" box), most of the "liberal" US Senators have been veal penned by Rahm and his gunner (Obama).
During the past year I have prefixed my messages with "Don't let Obama drag you down". Fair warning that I won't be voting for many, if any Democrats in 2010.
I have now reached the point that I believe any effort to communicate with Obama or the Senate is a waste of energy and third party is the only hope heretofore.
That's great. As long as right-wingers take political action and progressives don't, Obama will remain inside his political-bubble and continue taking us for granted while reaching out to Republicans.
I wonder what MLK would have said about that plan? We shall NOT overcome?
Martin Luther King rallied people to his cause first before turning to the idea of putting pressure on Washington. He knew that Congress would listen up to a point. If he were alive today, here's what he would have said. He would said that we have a two party duopoly that counts on people clinging to the fallacious notion that their voices will be heard. Martin Luther King would have turned his support to progressive independent minded parties and people. He would have directed African Americans towards listening to Ralph Nader by the usual rallies he formed back when he was raising awareness on the need to heal the racial divide. Obama is not listening to Republicans or Democrats. He is listening to plans that support the corporate interests. If he had listened to the Republicans, he would not have pushed for corporate bailouts or the economic stimulus package which is adding to the nation's debt. I am afraid that you are misunderstanding Martin Luther King. He would have motivated people to think it through before calling them lazy. Great actions require great thinking and planning. Obama is a conservative Democrat which means that no matter how many phone calls, emails, and letters you send him, he will not listen.
Obama is a moderate Democrat, not conservative. Naturally didn't say that we shouldn't think. The thinking exists but what's missing is the action and he's right. Even the most popular conservative blogs don't receive as many comments as most liberal blogs because the right wingers are busy putting pressure on both the Republicans and Democrats to listen to them. If there are more right wingers putting pressure on Obama compared to the left wingers, then Obama is correct to assume that the public is still not ready to move radically left. For 8 years, the nation has moved to the right so you can't expect change to happen in one year and without enough pressure from the left to change the president's assumption on which direction change the nation is prepared to accept. I have kept in touch with the president and members of Congress and I always get responses even if some are delayed.
"I have kept in touch with the president and members of Congress and I always get responses even if some are delayed..."
Might they be so responsive because you are, as stated in another post, a wealthy businessman in the insurance industry?
When I write my congressman regarding the apalling state of US healthcare and expressing my supporting single payer, I get a canned letter response like this:
Dear [constiuent],
I likewise share your concern about big government taking over our healthcare system...etc...etc...
Sincerely,
Tim Murphy
Pennsylvania 18th
None of the letters they write back to me show that they know of my former jobs and professions prior to retirement. They could look me up in a database possibly if they wanted to but I don't see any evidence in their replies of their having done so.
Congressman Murphy's response sounds interesting. If you wrote him a letter concerning big government taking over the health care system, then that response should be expected. If he is a Blue Dog Democrat, he has to make some serious compromises otherwise he won't be reelected. I don't know Congressman Murphy very well but if you are requesting him to support single payer then his response should be totally different.
*** Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy. ***
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
Spare me your tripe about Jews on Wall St. You're no better than any redneck racist or tea-bagger.
"Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy."
And thank you for it.
The public is not ready for single payer. The public is still open to a public option where government and private companies can compete so that we can see who turns out better. If government wins, then single payer peacefully and automatically wins. I agree with Nader that Obama is making a mistake of marginalizing clean alternatives but I also understand that we have to keep up with the energy demands so coal, nuclear, and more drilling are here to stay. I don't agree with Nader on issuing a war tax because I can easily exploit that tax. Obama cannot reduce military spending because 80% of the public demands national security be kept and improved. Defense spending could go down if only government and private contractors were allowed to compete so that the public can decide which is better.
I may not have supported a Ralph Nader presidency but he is right on one thing. People need to let the president know what they think and they can do it without getting into trouble with the law. I sent my letters to the president and he responds. People who complain that Obama never responds never sent him their feedback.
The public IS ready for single-payer. Insurance executives pulling down 8 figure salaries and flying around in private jets will NEVER be ready for single-payer. Single-payer is an issue of strategy as much as substance, something anybody who took (and stayed awake through)a basic negotiation, debating or rhetoric class understands.
Had the single-payer advocates been allowed at the table, we might have ended up at public option or lowering medicare eligibility to age 60 or 55, either of which woukd have been steps forward. Unfortunately, the public option was a nebulous concept, kept in the background from the beginning, therby assuring the debate would start at the marginal compromise stage and end up in full capitulation, three steps backward from the last time healt care reform advanced in 1965.
Health care is a mess but you can't blame it on the insurance companies alone. Medical errors, poor trained or unethical nurses and doctors, expensive lawsuits, and lack of nutrition is also to blame. Single payer sounds good but the reason I say that the public isn't ready for it is that if private companies are going to be replaced with the government then it's just one monopoly replacing another. The public option is appealing because it allows both the government and the private companies to compete so that people can see which side turns out better. The public option is being taken out because the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats want Obama to fail. I hope that the Senate can put it back on or I will join in disapproving of this bill. Neither private companies nor the government should be given monopolistic powers on health care. The German health care system is a hybrid of government provided health care coverage and private companies providing insurance.
A combination public option and private health insurance system will not work. All the poorest sickest people will be dumped into the public option. It will soon be overloaded, with long waits and cuts in services. It will then be used to make the argument that "government provided health care does not work" and we will be at least another generation farther away from a single payer system. The combination system has a clear record in the U.S., failing in every state in which it has been tried.
Some European nations do a hybrid of government run and private company run health care. Germany is a successful example. The USA does not have a combination system. Private companies are the monopolists here. Government run health care is fine but they don't deserve to be monopolist either. Both should compete so that people can pick their preference. Pro-choice, no?
raydelcamino
I totally agree. I believe the country was ready. But Nancy and Harry's dishonesty in this bill, the secret negotiation, payoffs and outright bribes turned the country against it. They will not consider it now.
If Obama and his hounds had been honest about this, I believe we would be celebrating health care for every American. Damn them. Damn the whole dishonest, selfish, arrogant bunch.
This old Indian's solution is just pay my "bills" and die. What a crock. Always laugh at Chief Seattle saying he couldn't figure out what it was the white man wanted. I think, but I am not sure, it was more of an observational statement than a racial statement.
What ever is they wanted this is what it turned into.
Cash registers from sea to shining sea...
When Shadowdancer first mentioned that , I thought it the most accurate of descriptions in the fewest words.
Nader: Eighth, on the Iraq war, he went over the top, declaring "make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home." Not really. Both Bush and Obama have concluded that 50,000 soldiers will remain in Iraq indefinitely, with many more in the Persian Gulf region.
Response:
1) Good article by Nader.
2) Obama is playing word games with the public by not calling the remaining 50,000 soldiers in Iraq "troops". MSM stenographically repeats without critique.
The American people are stupid, uninformed and gullible.
How vapid are we?
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/poll-americans-pretty-clueless-politics-world/
The public isn't ready for single payer health care or giving up national security. That doesn't make them stupid. The poll was just another skew.
EncionM declares that "The public isn't ready for single payer health care or giving up national security." This sounds similar to what was said during the 1950s and earlier when the rednecks and racists said that Negroes were not quite ready to eat with white Americans at restaurants or to drink from the same water fountains as other Americans or to vote without being harassed [or to be able to vote at all] or to attend public schools with other Americans. America is considered pretty much the laughing stock of other democratic countries in Europe as the European countries spend about half, if not less, on their military budgets as compared to the U.S. while making sure that their citizens are afforded basic health care through their universal health care plans [as well as having excellent mass transit, the choice of selecting and electing candidates from more than just two parties, decent pensions, paid sick leaves, unemployment insurance, even paid vacation time, etc., as compared to the United States which ranks near the middle or at the bottom of the heap].
EncinoM is correct when he says that it "doesn't make them [the public] stupid]." It does, however, make its leaders quite stupid for not implementing these policies for the benefit of the American people.
Lets withdraw our military and let them spend more on their military, shall we?
Sure and then you'll come begging for the military to save you when you can no longer take security for granted.
EncinoM
Please explain to me how withdrawing our military protection to other countries would in any way endanger our own security?
Your post makes no sense as I read it.
You said withdraw our military but you didn't specify other countries. I can agree that it is safe to withdraw our bases from Europe but not all nations will go along with it. Some nations would go kicking and screaming if we withdrew our military bases that they depend on. For some countries such as Afghanistan, military presence is necessary to prevent the Taliban from coming to power. The Afghan civilians depend on military presence for their own security. Obama would not think of sending troops into Afghanistan if they didn't and if Afghanistan would clean up government corruption.
EncinoM
"You said withdraw our military but you didn't specify other countries."
Oops! I was speaking to errols comment about European nations spending a lot less on their military. I was just pointing out that because we provide the bulk of their protection they are able to do that. He's right, we should close down and let them cover their own costs.
"Some nations would go kicking and screaming if we withdrew our military bases that they depend on."
Thats Gospel truth. Every time closure for a base in most countries has been suggested, the government and business's scream bloody murder. There are some counteries that would like our bases closed and we should oblige them immediately as we did in closing Subic Bay.
"For some countries such as Afghanistan, military presence is necessary to prevent the Taliban from coming to power."
Here we part company. The Taliban are Afghani's problem, not ours. If they want to be ruled by a bunch of fanatics and live under rules from the middle ages, its OK with me. Nor should it be our responsibility to provide security for its citizens.
For my own curiosity, why would you care if the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan?
WE simply have no business there or in Iraq. We should be focused on Al-Qaeda and all the terroist groups like them. Thats we should be spending out time and money.
Last I heard, Al-Queda is in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"For my own curiosity, why would you care if the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan?"
That's what we thought before 9/11 happened thanks to the Taliban in Afghanistan giving aid to Osama bin Laden. The Afghan natives are the biggest victims of the Taliban but nobody cared until 9/11. Keeping the Taliban out of power would have prevented 9/11.
"That's what we thought before 9/11 happened thanks to the Taliban in Afghanistan giving aid to Osama bin Laden."
AS far as I know the Taliban haven't had any particular affinity for Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda.
Marine intelligence confirms what every other agency says, Osama bin Laden had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. No evidence at all links him to it. Seems to have been an operation mostly funded by Saudi money and the only link with Afghanistan was that they trained there mostly in camps that had no connection with the Taliban.
The Taliban are indeed a nasty bunch and Afghans do indeed suffer under their rule, but shouldn't that be the Afghans problem? Its their country. In any case the Taliban are not al-Qaeda.
Recent events tell us all that today's threats are not coming from Afghanistan, but from Yemen, Syria, Iran and others sympathetic to their Jihad. Should we not be following them there? Keeping an eye on them and removing them when the opportunity presents? And bringing our kids home and removing targets, talking points and the cause of unintended deaths in one fell swoop? Keep our military home to recover from their misuse over there?
Remember, the Taliban were preferred by the US, until the pipeline deal came along. And, they did offer to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, so long as evidence of his involvement in 9/11/2001 was supplied, but Bush refused his offer because he wanted war far more than he wanted bin Laden. The US support for the quisling Karzai government is what gives the Taliban its claim to political legitimacy.
The US military should have defense of the US as its top priority. Instead, it threatens US security by inciting armed response. The official 9/11/2001 story is that it was retaliation for actions carried out by the US military, including US military bases in Arabia and military support of Israel's long term war against Palestinian Arabs. And of course, the US military had killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs and others in Iraq in the previous decade plus, with the intentional major rise in infant and young child mortality a sadistic (and very unlikely to succeed) ploy to get the Iraqi people to achieve the prime US objective of the war against Iraq: the murder of Saddam Hussein. Thus, if you are ticked off about the 9/11/2001 attacks, "thank" a US military veteran. (I grant that the official story of 9/11/2001 is preposterous, but the hatred is real.)
Now, the largest part of al Qaida is in Iraq, a nation closed to terrorist NGOs before the US invasion. This is an entirely new terrorist organization. Tens of millions in the Islamic world truly hate the US, because of the actions of the US military. They should hate the US, and any real patriot would agree: Don't Tread on Me.
The US military has never defended the US against unprovoked foreign attack; it has always committed acts of war first. (Yes, the US military deliberately provoked, and refused to defend against, the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941.) The US military has killed more in the US than any other nation's military, by far. (Yes, the US military deliberately provoked, and refused to defend against prior to its guaranteed success, the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941.) And the history of the Cold War is a story of continued US aggressive acts against Russia/CCCP, beginning with the twin invasions at the end of WW1, which still threatens the lives of all Americans.
True "national security" does not start and end with military toys. The strength and resilience of a nation depends on the daily well-being of ALL its citizens. But of course, the right wing ruling class can only reign by dividing and by preserving the insecurities at the heart of every struggling America.
The US depends on the military for national security. Without defense, you wouldn't be taking security for granted. The right wing only wants to abuse the military. Abolishing the military would only make the US the perfect target for terrorists.
EncionM
Wonderful straw man argument. No one ever said anything about "abolishing the military." What was said was that the military budget could be reduced by as much as half of its present amount. The second half of your last sentence should also not be ignored as it is the ubiquitous presence of the U.S. military in the Middle East that is causing more "terrorists" to flock to their cause. It should also be noted that the "war on terrorism" is one of the most egregious examples of fear mongering and hysteria that one could cite in the course of American, if not world, history.
The US military presence is going down in Iraq but sometimes it's necessary if insurgents keep causing trouble on both the civilians and the troops. The US military is trying to keep the terrorists down in the Middle East but the insurgents and Islamic militants are brainwashing and exploiting the poor to use for weapon fodder. Without the US military presence, it would be worse. Military presence in Afghanistan is necessary to protect women and children from the Taliban. The US military may not be perfect but they're not oppressive like the Taliban and they're fighting the terrorists over there so that none of us have to fight them here. You should be grateful for the US military protecting your security and freedom. Iraq was a mistake and Obama is correcting that but we still have to win the global war on terror.
EncinoM
Should you not be commenting on one of the more jingoistic, neoconservative, flag-waving web sites? I am about as grateful for the US military protecting our security and freedom as I was thankful when I was in Vietnam those many years ago supposedly protecting the Vietnamese and the American public from the communist hordes.
You bizarrely claim that "without the US military presence, it would be worse." You may wish to explain that bit of patriotic drivel to those people whose families were slaughtered by 500 lb. American bombs. And of course, your beloved US military tries to justify those murders by claiming that the children and the grandmothers that they ripped apart were all "terrorists." I think not.
I served in the first Gulf War and was a mercenary after that before I returned to being a civilian but I'm not a jingoist neoconservative. I know that the US military makes mistakes and they apologize when innocent civilians accidentally lose their lives but sacrifices happen and sometimes tough maneuvers are necessary to smash the criminals. Bombs are not made in the US alone so the blame on manufacturing the bombs can't be placed on the US alone. The US could stop making bombs but Canada and China will continue. I agree that prolonging Vietnam was a mistake as was the second Iraq war but the US military was being controlled by drunken warlords in Washington who got it wrong.
Erroll
You have a problem with our flag? Or someone that respects it? I know you don't. Why not just say right wing or neoconservative rather than the jingoistic "flag waving"
And as you know there's plenty of "Jingoism" on this site, just a different kind.
And I also know you do respect our military and you also are fully aware we need it. Just not what we have now. Or how its being misused now.
EncinoM happens to disagree with you on this point about our military in Afghanistan, you think he is mistaken to think we should be there and I agree with you. That doesn't mean he should go somewhere else does it? Wouldn't everyone be better served if you explained that the Taliban are not al-Qaeda and that there are many small terroist organizations besides al-Qaeda that everyone lumps in with them?
Would it be better if there was only an echo chamber here? Everyone sees everything the same way? None of us would learn much that way.
Couldn't you explain to him about why we shouldn't be there, that it serves no viable purpose nor the stated purpose? You were in Viet Nam, you know how hard it is for anyone to understand what combat is like or how truly horrible war is if they haven't experienced it. You know damn well what they were telling us then....what people are hearing now sound familiar?
Don't mean this as anything but a question/suggestion as I was in a similar discussion below with EncinoM.
Caligula
You raise a number of interesting points. I attempted to explain to him that "we shouldn't be there" but I suspect that my explanations fell upon deaf ears. However, there a couple of points that you bring up that I strongly disagree with. You inquire: "You have a problem with our flag"? I certainly do have a problem with it. One of my neighbors in my small, rural, conservative town has a large American flag on one of his flag poles in the front of his house. Each time that I pass that flag I am almost sure that this is a person [I have never met or talked to him] who simply swears blind allegiance to his country. It also reminds me of the bumper sticker that I had seen after I had returned to this country from being overseas which said: America: Love It or Leave It. These people who display these symbols have allowed their emotions to overrule what little brains that they may have in their heads.
You assume that I respect someone who displays an American flag. Please explain to me, in intellectual terms if you can, why I should possibly respect someone who does that since, to me, that flag is a representation of war and destruction that the United States has wrought upon so many people around the world. That flag, which you seem to hold so dear, represents a country that has not even come close to implementing a universal health care system for its citizens. My wife has Parkinson's Disease. In no other advanced country in the world would she have to be concerned about whether she would receive medical treatment because she has a "pre-existing condition." Under the Democrats' puny health care proposal, those type of conditions would be covered. But the premiums for anyone who has what is termed a pre-existing condition [such as people with Alzheimer's, MS, ALS, etc.] could very well be increased by as much as 50 per cent. Again, no other advanced country in the world would think of doing something like this. If that happens, she would have to do without her health insurance because the costs would simply become prohibitive. And when that happens, she would then have to do without the medications which help to control her tremors and her ever present fatigue [Or would you be willing to pay for her medications that she would no longer be able to afford in this alleged great country of ours?] No democratic country in Europe can lay claim to doing this to its citizens. This is the same country that allows, according to a Sept. 2009 study by the Harvard Medical School, approximately 45,000 Americans to die because they have to do without health insurance. No other industrialized country can make that claim. 700,000 Americans are forced to declare bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills. No other democratic county on this planet can make that claim.
The second point is to your belief that I supposedly "respect our military." Apparently this will come as a shock to you but I do not respect or honor anyone who is in the United States military. The people that I do respect are those people who were in the military and have come to the realization that they were part of an organization that is suppressing, harassing, torturing, raping, killing, bombing people in under developed countries overseas for absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever. The GI rebellion happened during the Vietnam War and it is happening today [though in more minuscule numbers as compared to the soldiers who protested against the Vietnam War] with the emergence of the IVAW. Those are the people whom I respect a great deal as compared to the loathing that I feel to those who are in the U.S. military.
USA! USA! USA! You and other Americans may wish to participate in that mindless chanting but it is extremely doubtful if I will ever allow myself to succumb to that type of, as I mentioned before, patriotic drivel.
#1 "Love It or Leave It"
WE both know that the "Love It or Leave It" types are complete assholes and are the ones you were referring to on some other sites. We also know that 99% of them never saw combat, the Cheney's of the world. The first prerogative of an American is the freedom, I'd say almost the duty to critique what we are doing. To raise hell with the government thats not doing its job. To raise hell if we are doing wrong.
"Each time that I pass that flag I am almost sure that this is a person [I have never met or talked to him] who simply swears blind allegiance to his country."
Could be, there are those. But what if you are wrong. What if he is like most that simply honor those that came before, the ones that really did fight for freedom (unlike our little southeast vacation) or simply thinks that they are lucky to have been born Americans (and we are, you know what a lot of the rest of the world is like) or like most are simply glad of what that flag really stand for.
I love our country and one of the reasons is exactly what you are saying to me now. I have been in far too many countries where we could not have this conversation. I have been in countries where if you said what you have here about that country as a citizen, they would arrest you and you might not come back. When I was on embassy duty in Nicaragua I can tell you it happened and it wasn't unusual.
"Please explain to me, in intellectual terms if you can, why I should possibly respect someone who does that since, to me, that flag is a representation of war and destruction that the United States has wrought upon so many people around the world."
I'll try my best, but remember I'm challenged when it comes to expressing things in writing, I pretty much write as I speak. I'm not gifted as many of you are.
In the first place the United States has not wrought any where near the amount of "war and destruction that the United States has wrought upon so many people around the world." claimed. More than enough, but as the "World Leader" not nearly as much as England did or the French or the Germans or Japanese. The Chinese and Russians have a much, much bloodier history. The Muslims/Arabs gave it a real go. So in the great scheme of things we aren't nearly as bad. Currently, we are the worst. We have no business in Iraq or Afghanistan as you well know. But there is no other country I know of that is any more perfect than we are. But to me, the important thing is what will we be from now on.
"My wife has Parkinson's Disease. In no other advanced country in the world would she have to be concerned about whether she would receive medical treatment because she has a "preexisting condition."
I was aware of that and while not exactly true that in no other country would you have to worry about treatment, its damn sure close enough and a damn disgrace that you have to in our country.
Erroll
#2 Long Winded SOB Aren't I?
As to the democratic proposals...they are pure bull shit. No other description fits. They wouldn't help you or anyone else. Its sort of like many of the European countries, yes, you are entitled to that coverage, but you may or may not get it. You would however most assuredly get drugs and at a cost that is less than here. Much less. But thats not America, thats the corporate scum at the drug companies.
"[Or would you be willing to pay for her medications that she would no longer be able to afford in this alleged great country of ours?]"
I would, but my puny contribution won't get you far. Its available though. We are still paying off my wife's $10,273 hospital bill from last year. But many others here (in our country) would help. I see time after time how caring and generous most Americans are.
"45,000 Americans to die because they have to do without health insurance"
Here I would say to you that their methodology simply counted you as dying (because of) when you simply died without insurance. No matter if you were getting or had gotten treatment. Gotta watch those tricky numbers!
Now, all that said, if I was in the position you just described for your wife...its hard enough to deal with the illness, without having to deal with that...I'd be just as pissed as you are that we don't have the health care system our citizens deserve and should have. I'd want to hang Pelosi and Reid and everybody else that screwed this up by their genitalia.
As to our soldiers, you are correct. I am surprised. You of all people should know we need our armed forces. You said as much in another post I believe. As you know we need them, I'm surprised you can't separate the soldiers from the bastards that sent them there. But you earned the right to your feelings and I can respect them.
"USA! USA! USA! You and other Americans may wish to participate in that mindless chanting but it is extremely doubtful if I will ever allow myself to succumb to that type of, as I mentioned before, patriotic drivel"
There is nothing "mindless" about my patriotism nor do I fly a flag in front of my home (except on Memorial Day and veteran's day to honor the guy's that I left behind, my father and his buddies and the others I didn't know but didn't come home either) nor do I chant...USA...USA...USA. I know full well the failures, the stupidities of our country, our mistakes, the way corporations and our government have betrayed us, all those things. Sending our young people out to foolish wars because we choose the wrong leaders and have again.
But I also know that there is not another country that offers what America has, would allow someone like me to move in two generations from 6th grade dropouts to college graduates, to open a business and do well. Thats why so many in the world come here and so many more want to. No matter what many have said here, the fact is those people know what its really like to live in a fascist country, to be oppressed, to be really poor, to face real racism and to live in a country where there is a real lack of freedom, real dangers from being a woman, gay, the wrong religion, etc.
Think about this, you can move to Japan and become a citizen, but you will never be a Japanese, same for China, France, Italy, etc. But any of them can be an American and no one is surprised. We have come a long way and we have as long a journey left to reach our final destination, but I have absolutely no doubt we will get there.
We all feel how we feel and I wish you felt the love for our country I do (not sure you don't),as you cannot be proud of someone but still love them.
In any case my friend, my respects and though we may differ, we live somewhere where we can have different opinions without going berserk. My best to your wife and may God grant her success in dealing with her trial. My mother-in-law had Parkinson's so I somewhat understand. I hope I made sense.
Peaceful nights brother.
Caligula
Thank you for the kind words concerning my wife. But I must disagree with you about a number of points. On your previous post, you claim that it is "not exactly true that in no other country would you have to worry about treatment" who has Parkinson's Disease. You left out the part where I mentioned the part of a pre-existing condition. The for-profit insurance companies in the U.S. most certainly discriminate against people whom they label as having a pre-existing condition. Even though you seem not to believe it, it is most certainly true that insurance companies in Europe do NOT bar people from coverage because they have a "pre-existing condition." That is because in Europe those countries, unlike the United States, are non-profit entities.
The second disagreement that I have is when you start off your post by saying that "As to the democratic proposals... they are pure bull shit." You also bizarrely say that "... you are entitled to that coverage but you may or may not get it." Despite your less than eloquent way of expressing yourself, your statements are totally false. I strongly suggest that if you have any semblance of an open mind that you pick up Steven Hill's excellent book Europe's Promise: Why The European Way Is The Best Hope In An Insecure Age. If you were to do that you would discover that this country which you seem to believe is so great and democratic is not able to live up to your expectations. Hill methodically and persuasively points out how so many European countries are so much more ahead of this country when compared to the less than egalitarian system of the United States. Despite the fact that the United States is supposed to be the best democracy on earth, it, unlike Europe, does not guarantee some form of paid maternity leave. In the U.S., as Hill points out, "compared to Europe, child care in the United States is hard to find, of mediocre quality, and prohibitively expensive." He gives examples of countries in Europe which back up his claims. In Europe parents receive what Hill calls kiddie stipends which assist parents in their child's needs and early development while in the U.S. working families are left to fend for themselves with little gov't. assistance to help them out. Americans break their backs working an astonishing 1,976 hours per year while "German and French workers average 400 fewer hours." European countries, as Hill notes, "also have mandatory sick leave" while the U.S. is "still one of only a handful of nations that have no national law guaranteeing paid sick leave, leaving some sixty million workers without paid sick days." Europe, as Hill tells his readers, "spends nearly 25 percent more per capita of public money on old age care than the U.S. spends." In Europe the cost of higher education is free or nearly free while many students in the U.S., unlike in Europe, are saddled with enormous debts after they graduate college. As Hill observes, "marginal people, who in the United States end up homeless, are provided basic housing, food clothing, medical care, and, if they need it, psychological counseling." In Europe, "the unemployed have access to what is truly a safety net, while the unemployed in the United States live a meager, marginal existence." In the U.S., "the unemployed are subject to a rather cruel irony: they are dropped from the ranks of the uninsured at the moment when they are most vulnerable and can least afford to get sick." And of course there is the matter of health care where Europe's citizens are, unlike in the U.S., protected by universal health care.
Please do not attempt to claim that these policies in Europe "wouldn't help you or anyone else" as I and practically everyone else on this site knows that that is a total falsehood. If Europe can take care of its citizens [and Steven Hill's book certainly proves the validity of that statement] then what is alleged to be the best democracy on the face of the earth, the United States of America, should also do the same thing for its citizens.
Erroll #1
"You left out the part where I mentioned the part of a pre-existing condition. The for-profit insurance companies in the U.S. most certainly discriminate against people whom they label as having a pre-existing condition."
Absolutely correct and simply an oversight on my part. That is something that can still be corrected and more than likely will be even though the democrats trashed any hope of total reform. That was certainly not what I meant about the European health care. I know that, it was just a lapse...remember I told you I was challanged when writing instead of speaking!
"he second disagreement that I have is when you start off your post by saying that "As to the democratic proposals... they are pure bull shit." You also bizarrely say that "... you are entitled to that coverage but you may or may not get it." Despite your less than eloquent way of expressing yourself, your statements are totally false."
I don't see how you believe that the democratic health care proposals would have helped you or anyone in the least. There would have been no public option, the cost would have been far higher, all the exemptions of people put in guaranteed that. Single Payer is the only real answer to our problem here. Any other way and the insurance companies just get more profit just as they would have with the democrats bill. I just do not favor it, I thinks it a terrible bill, but if you like it, we'll just disagree on that one.
I don't disagree with anything you said and I am quite well aware of all those things. Remember I said its not that I don't know we have faults, I'm not blind at all to our mistakes, problems and general screw ups or about what we should have and don't.
"In Europe the cost of higher education is free or nearly free while many students in the U.S., unlike in Europe, are saddled with enormous debts after they graduate college"
This is something that makes me want to strangle a bunch of academics. There is no reason why a good college education should cost any more today than ours did back then. Except that a bunch of academics pay themselves absurd salaries while not even teaching a full day of classes and administrators live the good life.
I said that "you are entitled to that coverage but you may or may not get it" about European health care simply because iots a fact. They are having trouble delivering all thats promised. Europe has plenty of problems, different ones, but severe ones. Their system is being crunched by numbers and how to pay for all the goodies promised.
Erroll #2
I know its popular (and in some cases justified) to praise Europen Social Democracies, but it simply wouldn't work here. (another discussion altogether)
In France recently, I saw homeless people on the streets, in the parks, graffeti everywhere. My friends told me you get three weeks unemployment and thats it. Illegals can no longer access the health care system, etc.
Health care is something else. I've looked at all of the systems and I think the French system is the best for health care that I've seen. I want to be clear that we do not disagree about the need for health care coverage and protability in our country. Health care tied to a job is yesterdays news.
"Please do not attempt to claim that these policies in Europe "wouldn't help you or anyone else" as I and practically everyone else on this site knows that that is a total falsehood. If Europe can take care of its citizens [and Steven Hill's book certainly proves the validity of that statement] then what is alleged to be the best democracy on the face of the earth, the United States of America, should also do the same thing for its citizens"
I don't. What I do say is that the whole system won't work here and I'd say they are having great problems going forward because of the changing demographics. But there is no reason we can't take the best parts of their systems, from all countries, heck, lets steal the best.
"then what is alleged to be the best democracy on the face of the earth, the United States of America, should also do the same thing for its citizens"
When we come to this we agree except we cannot supply all the benefits granted to Europeans for the moment, because it would break us as its going to break them. Especially if we pull out of Europe.
I will certainly read the book you recommended (amazon used, here I come), sounds interesting...I never discount the possibility I might be wrong about something I don't know for a fact, nor that I'm too old to learn.
Something I am certain about is that having been all over the world, seen every system at work, I can assure you, we are the freest country with the most opportunity in the world. But I don't think for a minuter we are anywhere near
perfect or our way is the only way. For other people, for all I know, their system may suit them. None of my business anyway what other people do. And it should become none of Americas business either. Time to take care of America and keep our nose out of other peoples business...except in things like Haiti.
I will pray for your wife and I hope you hold up. The caregiver takes quite a beating I happen to know.
We may not agree on everything, but we certainly do some things. I look forward to your saying "have you lost your mind you idiot" when you think I'm off track! Keep me learning!
We survived Nam my friend and many of our friends did not. At least we know for sure what our country should not be doing in that area for sure.
Peaceful Nights Brother
'Should you not be commenting on one of the more jingoistic, neoconservative, flag-waving web sites?"
If I may speak up for encino. NO he should be right here sharing his thoughts,this is where he/or she belongs. Nothing is absolute, there is some truth in what she/he says. The world scene, people, are not all they seem to be, There are gray areas in all this.
I get these same reactions on the conservative sites that I get from Erroll and others but that's understandable. I am quasi-conservative, quasi-libertarian but I am open to progressive ideas as long as they're not proposed in radical fashion. I don't see things in black and white but in gray. Thanks for bringing that up.
If I could have written the SOTU for Obama it would look like this: I refuse to be disingenuious with the American people so tonight I am announcing that the military budget is no longer off the table, also I am reining in the CIA and they will no longer have a covert budget, so I am proposing a 50% reduction and with that substantial savings we will have universal healthcare for all with $ to spare. We will end the conflicts and the military spending for nefarious and offensive purposes around the world. I need to look backward at the war crimes and torture of the previous administration, so am proposing an independent commission with subpeona powers for that purpose. I am well aware that these decisions put my life in danger, but in the spirit of Martin Luther King jr. that doesn't matter to me now.
(deleted by author)
This is the best critique I've seen of the president's speech. Nader shows that his powers of observation, ability to pull out essential hypocrisies as well as important things left unmentioned, and ability to cite pertinent specifics, are all still razor-sharp.
Read David Michael Green's essay, posted here today. It is a more incisive critique.