Into The Lion's Den

Oh my stars and garters...where to begin?

The beginning, naturally.

In breif, Fearless Leader was invited to attend and address the House Republican retreat in Baltimore Friday, the 29th of January, 2010. In a surprise move, Obama demonstrated the very trait of fearlessness and spent more than an hour, going over his time, to take questions directly from the gathered Republican House members...and their follow-ups, which he also answered. Fearless Leader indeed.

So the first point I want to make here is that the POTUS and his hosts were all quite cordial and even at the most heated moments nobody at all broke from the sctrictest good grace and decorum. Thus we demonstrate that yes, yes our leaders can conduct themselves in a civil manner and that they can have a serious discussion about policy issues without degenerating into bombast or hysterics. Now moving on to the substance of it.

In the first place, let's don't assume the entire event was nothing but creased brows and pursed lips:

Obama: I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your
introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know
what they say, "Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every
few months."

The traditional breaking of the ice accomplished, we move on to the substance of the address:

Obama: Part of the reason I accepted your
invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not
just to all of you. So I'm looking forward to taking your questions and having a
real conversation in a few moments. And I hope that the conversation we begin
here doesn't end here; that we can continue our dialogue in the days
ahead.

The message here should be obvious, "This a conversation, not a monologue; I expect it to continue beyond this moment." The importance of this cannot be understated; most Americans will agree, I think, that the primary difficulty in getting anything useful or meaningful done in government is the massive partisan gridlock. Neither party is willing to even enter into discussion with the other. The motives for this are specifically addressed further down, but for now let's settle for the basic fact.

Obama: But I don't believe that the American
people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job
security. I don't think they want more gridlock. I don't think they want more
partisanship. I don't think they want more obstruction. They didn't send us to
Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel-cage match to see
who comes out alive. That's not what they want. They sent us to Washington to
work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they're
grappling with every single day.

Here he addresses the single most important motivation in creating the afore-mentioned gridlock. Much further below he states, in a simple, straight-forward and matter-of-fact manner how this motivation, which is not entirely unreasonable in its own right, because horribly warped and perverted to defeat itself.

Obama: And I think your constituents would want
to know that despite the fact it doesn't get a lot of attention, you and I have
actually worked together on a number of occasions. There have been times where
we've acted in a bipartisan fashion. And I want to thank you and your Democratic
colleagues for reaching across the aisle. There has been, for example, broad
support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda safe
haven, to break the Taliban's momentum, and to train Afghan security forces.
There's been broad support for disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda.
And I know that we're all united in our admiration of our
troops.

The basic translation of this is, "We can cooperate. We have cooperated. You know it, I know it and more importantly your constuents know it." He goes on to breifly describe some specific examples of such cooperation followed some very high-profile subjects where the party-line vote has, in his own words, "been disappointing". I won't waste time listing each, I want to get to the underlying point (going to start jumping around a little bit, so bear with me):

Obama: I'm not suggesting
that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy
or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the
Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in
every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of
room to negotiate with me.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many
of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically
vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very
little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling
your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to
destroy America.
And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It's
not just on your side, by the way -- it's on our side, as well. This is part of
what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that
when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to
do.

This came as part of a response in the Q&A that followed the scripted address. While not the only thing of importance that was said, it is, I think, the single most important point raised. The undeniable fact is that while demonizing the opposition is a great way to get elected, it makes it impossible for you compromise with them without looking like a sell-out, thereby getting yourself voted out by your own constituents; a vicious cycle there ensues, with new rounds of angry, uncompromising ideolouges renewing the cycle and enforcing the general grid-lock.

Now look, I'm not a huge fan of Reagan or O'Neil...but for all their differences and rhetoric, at the end of the day they could sit down and hammer out some sort of agreement that was, if not universally satisfactory, at least (more-or-less) universally acceptable. I was talking about this a year ago.

The second most important thing in the whole event was, in my own opinion, the President's push-back on Republican talking points. As demonstrated most visibly in this exchange:

Congressman Hensarling: Jeb, Mr.
President.

Obama: How are
you?

Congressman Hensarling: I'm doing
well. Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the
national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small
children.

Obama: Absolutely.

Congressman Hensarling: And I left
that conversation really feeling your sincere commitment to ensuring that our
children, our nation's children, do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know
that under current law, that government -- the cost of government is due to grow
from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy, right about the
time our children are leaving college and getting that first job.
Mr.
President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed
a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical
standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately
non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately
what was enacted into law, and unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored.
And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under
Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national
debt has increased 30 percent.
Now, Mr. President, I know you believe -- and
I understand the argument, and I respect the view that the spending is necessary
due to the recession; many of us believe, frankly, it's part of the problem, not
part of the solution. But I understand and I respect your view. But this is what
I don't understand, Mr. President. After that discussion, your administration
proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years --
surely you don't believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this
recession -- and propose new entitlement spending and move the cost of
government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy.
Now, very soon, Mr.
President, you're due to submit a new budget. And my question is
--

Obama: Jeb, I know there's a
question in there somewhere, because you're making a whole bunch of assertions,
half of which I disagree with, and I'm having to sit here listening to them. At
some point I know you're going to let me answer. All
right.

Congressman Hensarling: That's the question. You
are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your
old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of
increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That's
the question, Mr. President.

Can you see what's wrong with this? I can tell you in one sentence; the Congressman prefaced a simple, direct, relevant single-sentence question with a two paragraph talking point, making an tangential, opinion based assertion as if it were fact. This isn't conversation. This isn't reasoned, respectful discourse in the interest of solving problems. This is pure political gamesmanship. This tactical manuevering to score political points:

Obama: Jeb, with all due
respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very
hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the
whole question was structured as a talking point for running a
campaign.

The last thing I want to bring to bear is the whole issue of bipartisanship itself:

Obama: You know, Mike, I've
read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff -- and the good ideas
we take. But here's -- here's the thing -- here's the thing that I guess all of
us have to be mindful of, it can't be all or nothing, one way or the other. And
what I mean by that is this: If we put together a stimulus package in which a
third of it are tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for
states and the unemployed, and helping people stay on COBRA that your governors
certainly would support -- Democrat or a Republican; and then you've got some
infrastructure, and maybe there's some things in there that you don't like in
terms of infrastructure, or you think the bill should have been $500 billion
instead of $700 billion or there's this provision or that provision that you
don't like. If there's uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn't
get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it's going to be hard to
get a deal done. That's because that's not how democracy works.
So my hope
would be that we can look at some of these component parts of what we're doing
and maybe we break some of them up on different policy issues. So if the good
congressman from Utah has a particular issue on lobbying reform that he wants to
work with us on, we may not able to agree on a comprehensive package on
everything but there may be some component parts that we can work on.
You
may not support our overall jobs package, but if you look at the tax credit that
we're proposing for small businesses right now, it is consistent with a lot of
what you guys have said in the past. And just the fact that it's my
administration that's proposing it shouldn't prevent you from supporting it.
That's my point.

Again, I have covered this before. I have said repeatedly that this was happening and what would result:

• The Howling
• War Of Attrition
• Hannibal

In any case, I've said my piece. In case you didn't catch the whole thing on your own, I strongly advise you to follow this link and do so. Before I go however, I would like to point out two things.

First is the fact that this sort of Q&A session is the Parliamentary norm in the United Kingdom. Second is that, as suggested by Mr. Llewelyn King, the goodness and excellence of this event was its unscripted nature and, while it is highly desirable that it happen again, regularly, the high probability is that in such case, it would become scripted, like the rest of the political-media circus we presently endure.

Emerson, Lake and Palmer: Prophets

Just when you think you've seen it all.

The first thing that came to mind when I encountered this was the title of Dawkins' newest book: The Greatest Show On Earth. While I could happily launch into a monologue about evolutionary biology, I think for the moment I'm going to simply bask in the magnificence of this discovery and hope for a new encore.

...although, I should relate a comment made by a certain Canadian of my acquaintance, "Right now, millions of Japanese are wondering what it tastes like."

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends

We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside

There behind a glass stands a realblade of grass

Be careful as you pass, move along, move along"

And Now, A Word From Our Sponsors!

Money. Like radiation, it is in its way absolutely vital to the function of the system it occupies. Also like radiation, it utterly destroys and mutates everything it touches when introduced in the wrong amounts, in the wrong places.

The latest ruling of the Supreme Court cannot bode well for American civil society. Things were bad enough when they could only donate limited amounts of money to particular candidates. Now, in this single stroke, it has been made legal for corporations to spend, freely, as much as they like on advertising for political agents and actions. Considering the current practice of such advertising (Freudian manipulation to elicit exclusively emmotinal behavior) what horrors must now await us? Thinking of the irrational behavior and emmoting fostered by FNC, this sort of thing is only going to encourage more people to completely ignore reality in favor of what makes them feel good.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, these are the same people who want to sell cigarettes with cartoon characters.

Makin a M*A*S*H of things, pt. II

Words almost fail me. After a year...another year, if we think back to the previous attempt in the 90's, we still can't seem to bring ourselves to say that human beings have a right to be alive. Yes, I'm taking that tack, because that is the most basic point addressed in the conversation about health care reform. The obstructionists appear to have won. Again.

Let me just summarize the condition being enforced by conservatives: "You have rights; particularly, you have the right to choose between living in poverty, or dying in poverty."

I am thoroughly disgusted with Republicans and conservatives in general for deciding that the profits of insurance companies are more important than the lives of human beings. I am thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic leadership for putting their own political careers over and above the interests of the people they claim to represent. As of this moment, I see only one recourse for the current majority to salvage it's honor and the remnants of it's integrity. As has been voiced by Rep. Clyburn of South Carolina, the only viable path to genuine reforms now is to use the Budget Reconciliation process.

Clyburn today advised, in an interview on POTUS (XM130) that the best option remaining would be to strip out the reform issues from the bill, use the Reconciliation process, then force votes on a handful of individual reform points; Tort reform, coverage withdrawal, pre-existing conditions, etc. I don't especially like this method but for the sake of getting the results we need, I can get fully behind it.

I'm not sure why I feel like I should post this, but I suppose it doesn't hurt: I donated to the Red Cross in responce to the earthquake in Haiti. I'm not saying this to suggest my superiority (which you should by now know to be true anyway) although I will take a moment to point out that there are at least two..."persons" (at the moment I am disinclined to call them human beings) who seem to have very skewed perspectives of the situation.

First there is that paragon of civic virtue, the beacon of truth and pillar of integrity El Rushbo. Given his expressed opinion on the subject, both regarding Fearless Leader's motives and actions, I cannot understand how this bastard manages to stay solvent. In first place I could never see myself adverising on his time and in the second, he should be up to his eyeballs in defamation suits.

I think Mr. Ebert said it best:

You should be horse-whipped for the insult you have paid to the
highest office of our nation.

Having followed President Obama's suggestion and donated money
to the Red Cross for relief in Haiti, I was offended to hear you suggest the
President might be a thief capable of stealing money intended for the earthquake
victims.
Here is a transcript from your program on Thursday:

Justin of Raleigh, North Carolina: "Why does Obama say if you want to donate some money, you could go to whitehouse.gov to direct you how to do so? If I wanted to donate to the
Red Cross, why do I have to go to the White House page to donate?"

Limbaugh: "Exactly. Would you trust the money's gonna go to Haiti?"

Justin: "No.

"Rush: "But would you trust that your name's gonna end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes?"

Justin: "Absolutely!"

Limbaugh: "Absolutely!"

That's what was said.

Unlike you and Justin of Raleigh, I went to Obama's web site, and discovered the link there leads directly to the Red Cross. I can think of a reason why anyone might want to go via the White House. That way they can be absolutely sure they're clicking on the Red Cross and not a fake site set up to exploit the tragedy.

But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that Obama might steal money intended or the Red Cross to help the wretched of Haiti.

This conversation came 48 hours after many of us had seen pitiful sights from Port au Prince. Tens of thousands are believed still alive beneath the rubble. You twisted their suffering into an opportunity to demean the character of the President of the United States.

This cannot have been an accident. A day earlier, in a sound bite from your show, you said "this will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, 'credibility' with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black ommunity in this country. It's made-to-order for them."

Setting aside your riff on Harry Reid, consider what you imply. Obama will aid Haiti to please African-Americans. Haiti has lost untold thousands of lives. One third of the population has lost its homes. Countless people are still buried in the rubble. Every American president would act quickly to help our neighbor. You are so cynical and heartless as to explain Obama's action in a way that unpleasantly suggests how your mind works. You have a sizable listening audience. You apparently know how to please them. Anybody given a $400 million contract must know what he is doing.

That's what offends me. You know exactly what you're doing.

Second, let me direct you to the loving charity and compassion that is Pat Robertson. Some people are willing to write him off as a crazy person...I can't bring myself to believe that he isn't knowingly and with malice of forethought saying and promoting this sort of vileness. Like others, I'd like to know why other high-profile X-ian preachers don't make a concerted effort to shut him down; he only brings their entire cult into terrible disrepute:

ME: Any idea why Ratzinger won't denounce this loony tune? I tell you no lie,
I don't like the old Nazi, but this would go a long one towards improving my
opinion of him. And I don't mean some wishy-washy "arrogance" finger wagging; I
want to hear him just come out, full-bore Teutonic Blitzkreiger Rotteweiler,
"You. You don't know a god-dammed thing about what you are saying. Shut up, shit
down and thank God you aren't them you supersilious, self-serving, arrogant,
ignorant, manipulative pig-dog."

BILL: I don't really see why the pope needs to say STFU to a random guy. I
know we are a rather insulated country and all, but I can hardly believe Patty
is the only crazy 'b-lieve in jeebis' leader of notoriety; I'd imagine there are
quite a number of them. If the pope had to renounce every dumb thing every one
of them said, it would take up a lot of time.Now, I see no reason why someone in
Rome couldn't throw us a bone and say 'If that's his opinion, then he doesn't
get God', but to expect that from the Pope?

ME: I can see your point and in the case of a random local loony toon I can
even agree...but Brother Pat is a national figure, and even a (very) minor
figure on the international stage. I respect that Ratzinger has other
responsibilities, but I submit that the office of the papacy, if it has any
integrity or at all values its claims for it's own authority or obligations to
it's deity, Christendom or even general humanity then Ratzinger must offer
battle to the likes of Robertson...at least when they venure out from their
personal squallors and into the public arena.

Recurrent Billing

A very interesting discussion recently broke out on the StandUp! forum; one which I felt obliged to join in on, adding my own thoughts.

The essence of what is being discussed here is the debate between the rights of individual people and the rights of the people as a whole, further seen through the filter of what the individual and collective obligations in guaranteeing those rights may be. The issue is not cut and dry and, as we have seen demonstrated above, there is plenty of room for complete and total misunderstanding, which as we all know is so easy as to be almost unavoidable in what is (to anyone who actually understands it) a complex, subtle and yet emotionally supercharged issue; a bit like trying to put out a birthday cake candle with a fire hose. You all by now know my style; straight-line computation on the basis of salient facts and don't-waste-time-with-emotive-fluff. So I hope you'll take it to heart when I say that any attempt to cut hard and fast lines through this particular morass is doomed to failure; the plethora of special cases and nearly limitless variables makes it impossible.What we can do though is establish a certain number of flexible guidelines, which we have, as a nation, been pretty damned good at doing historically. Its really only in the last 20 years or so that the sort of hyper-partisan crap we're seeing right now has taken firm root. The Tea baggers (love that!) are deluding themselves if they think they are the inheritors of the Reagan Era; Tip & Ronnie may not have been drinking buddies but they understood the necessity of compromise in keeping the peace in a democracy.

I know I've discussed this before, but it seems to be worth repeating:

• How Jesus Killed The Elephants
• The Howling
• Hannibal
• The Lunch That Faced A Thousand Bleeps

I think the first thing to do here is to go back to the idea behind the Bill of Rights and re-evaluate our collective idea of what exactly the inalienable rights of the lawful citizen in our society are. Obviously we aren't going to strike anything currently in place, but it is an undeniable fact that the situation has changed since the 18th century and we need to acknowledge that certain options (go west, young man) aren't there any more. We also need to acknowledge that certain less-than-humane practices based on practical reality aren't valid any more; can anyone think of any reason to deny healthcare, shelter or food that doesn't revolve around "me", "gawd!" or "soshulizum"? This is an example of addressing individuals, but our society as a whole has requirements as well.

I would suggest that anything necessary to the systemic functioning of our nation, as a whole, should never be in the hands of any private interest or private interest in general. Period. Once upon a time, the list of those necessities was a great deal shorter; we have, however, increased the scope and scale of our society, creating layer upon organic layer of complex, interdependent systems upon which why now rely for every aspect of our daily business, even our survival. This is not a plea for "collectivism", so do not despair; while there is certainly much more which must be considered vital to the national interest, the list itself is still pretty short in absolute terms. Some of it is direct service, some of it regulatory in nature and we can undoubtedly argue for hours about what that list should actually contain...but that said list needs to be established is, I think, unarguable. In most respects I think this is a matter of metrics; people need to know where they stand, what they are getting for their tax dollars and what their obligations are.

So now you’re likely asking what exactly I think needs to be on the list of “items of national interest”; well I’ll make a few suggestions as to additions, which is not to be considered exhaustive:

1. Utilities - Water, sewage, power, and heat. Under no circumstances in this day and age should any home be without these. In the modern city, complex mechanism that it is, these are issues of survival, not only of individuals but of the community.
2. Healthcare - There are two aspects to this; maintaining public health in general, and providing for the care of persons born with disabilities. It is in the national interest to prevent outbreaks of disease, it is our obligation as human beings to care for our injured and disabled and no person born with otherwise fatal conditions should be required to pay more than any other person simply to continue living.
3. Transportation - It is absolutely vital that we enable as much as possible free movement within our own borders; it serves to conserve limited resources, improve our health and most importantly, it make our workforce more mobile. Persons who are able to get around quickly and efficiently can seek and meet employment opportunities in a wider area.
4. Employment - Modern America is a society much different from the bucolic era of the 18th century. We are no longer a nation of yeoman farmers, each unto himself alone. We live in cities and towns and people need work in order to provide for themselves and their families. Now under no circumstances should our public offices take over all employment; command economics was tried in Russia under the soviets and failed miserably. However there is always a demand for public service, from street cleaning to building infrastructure to the endless administrative paperwork at all levels. When all else fails, people need to know that they can find employment serving their communities at all levels in order to meet their needs.

Suicidal Cannibals

Of late I have discovered another little idea with big potential germinating in the back of my skull. A clever little beast, it seems to have inherited information from the generally poor (albeit improving) condition of our economy and the path by which it came to this state, the current gun-fight over universal health-care and my evolving understanding of the mechanisms of society.

Okay, short version: one the worst afflictions currently besetting our society is the practice among businesses of hiring only part-time staffers, in order to keep wages and benefits paid thereto as low as legally possible. The motivation is understandable, but nonetheless despicable; minimizing expenses in order to maximize profits. Aside from essentially forcing a significant portion of the population into virtual serfdom, this practice does nothing to encourage stability; the vast horde of job-hopping part-timers live in a state of perpetual fear and flux, being essentially unable to make long-term plans or invest time in bettering their situations, since all of their effort and time is taken up in holding down multiple part-time jobs, each of which demand to be "primary" and threaten to fire anyone who does not give them top-priority.

So how do we address this difficulty? I believe I have a solution, which can be directly tied to the current wrangling of health care legislation. Simply put, require all employers to provide full-time benefits to all employees, regardless of hours worked. Command Economics? Nay, True Believers, nay; read on.

The basic argument against this proposal is that it would cripple the ability of businesses to compete in the market...which would be true, if the measure was not applied universally. If all employers are required to do so however, then none of them is granted a position of advantage, maintaining the balance of power, as it were, while simultaneously giving all of these same employers a tremendous motivation to start hiring employees on a full-time basis. After all, if you have to spend that much on the staff, you should damned well get as much out of them as possible; given that salaries are a small cost compared to the benefits packages, it makes plenty of sense to maximise your productivity.

The direct effect would obviously be that incomes for a large number of wage earners would go up but, I think just as importantly, one of the indirect effects would be that restoration of confidence and stability in the general public. A population which feels stable and confident of its position is more inclined to invest in its own future, simply because it feels as though it has one. Nobody who doesn't know how they're going to stay in their home or put food on the table is going to pursue education or invest in new business.

I am not generally anti-capitalism but I am prepared to explore the idea that the fanatical pursuit of quarterly profits may have gone too far; you can only slash your expenses so far before you start cutting your own throat.