"Power Concentrated In The Hands Of A Few Is Toxic To Us All"

　
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.“ -- Lord Acton 1887


I do not think there is a more powerful or insidious force in the arena of human relationships than power itself. It is a force that should never be minimized. By the same token, should it be regarded as something not to be feared. It can seduce us so we lose all sense of perspective, compromise our sense of morality and set us on a course of covetousness that can eventually destroy us. By any measure, that is an awesome force not to be taken lightly.

That the Founding Fathers were judicious in their regard for the distribution of power is evident in the meticulous attention they gave to the wisdom inherent in the separation of powers between the institutions of government and the electorate, and the relationship between the powers of the federal government and those of the states.

I have great respect for the Founding Fathers and the vision they demonstrated as they struggled to put together the framework for a Republic that would ultimately become the model to be emulated by others struggling with democratic forms of government. I don’t necessarily agree that the end product of their endeavors has resulted in a perfect outcome, but it came pretty close. Like all fine instruments, a bit if fine tuning had to occur in the wake of ratification of their efforts. However, the guarantees and the separation of powers were right on the money. Any damage that may have occurred in the wake of their efforts has been brought about by imperfections within the human condition. We think and act as if we lived in a perfect world which, by our very nature, is impossible. That, in turn, leads to over-simplification and the extremes that follow.

I believe the greatest threats to our democracy are those posited by the centralization and concentration of power. We, as responsible citizens, have abdicated our sacred responsibility to remain ever vigilant over how and why power is acquired, and how it is exercised and retained. We are far too trusting. We much too readily acquiesce to ideologies and personalities, rather than keeping them at arms length, and constantly questioning their motives and actions. Those in office know this and are very adroit in exploiting it to further their own ambitions.

Except for the ideological bias individual justices may bring with them, I believe the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job of holding to the intent of the Founding Fathers, the rather blatant interference in the outcome of the election of 2000 not withstanding. That will be a blight on its record for all time to come. However, even in the chambers of this great body, the imperfections of our human nature serve to remind us of how elusive perfection actually is in the real world, and the need for all of us to never assume that only good will follow in the wake of our trust.

The Executive Branch has certainly had its share of megalomaniacs, some good and others not so good. The egos of a few have served to inspire us and lead us to new heights. Others have led us into the jaws of disaster with their imperious notions of a royal aura enveloping them. The last administration is a rather good example of the latter. There have been those who genuinely worked to improve our lot and others who have set themselves to plundering the country for their own benefit and that of their cronies. All said and done, it has been a rather mixed bag in my opinion. In the final analysis most of them have proven to be just another politician hoping to leave an historical legacy that extends beyond the presidential library. There are those few who should have been freeze-dried for political campaigns and ceremonial occasions, but most are best forgotten. We can learn a great deal from those few who set themselves above any sense of morality and accountability for their actions to those who put them in office. It should reinforce the notion that too much trust comes at one’s own peril. They are the ones that bear watching before, during and after their terms in office.

The House of Representatives is comprised of representatives elected by the voters in congressional districts within each state, apportioned by population. Their terms of office are for a 2-year period which, effectively, ties them rather closely to their respective constituencies. By definition, they are more attuned and responsive to the will of those who elected them to office. We now have what is probably the closest tie of accountability directly to the people of any arrangement now in effect. I regard this as the most analogous to the House of Commons in a Parliamentary System of Government. Two-year terms probably do the best job of limiting the extent to which influence can be peddled and the amount that can be stolen.

However (and this is very significant) senators were elected by the legislatures of each state, and were subject to recall by the legislatures of that state if he/she failed to represent their state’s interests at the federal level. Their very political survival was contingent upon their ability to advocate for their individual states. Their terms of office were for a period of 6 years; the longest term of any serving member in the Legislative Branch.

Then, in 1910 some self-styled expert decided to introduce the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which removed the election of Senators from the State Legislatures and transferred that power to the popular vote of the people within their respective states. The Amendment was ratified by the voters on April 18, 1913 and became law. That action cemented the federal monolith in Washington, D.C. and insulated them from any meaningful control by the individual states. Terms of six years each certainly gives one plenty of time to overcome the frailties of memory and, as a consequence, provides for far greater latitude in lacing their pockets with the largess that goes with the spoils of power, six-year terms of office and seniority. Much can be overlooked and much can be had with the passage of time. I would say they do a pretty damned good job of making hay while the sun shines. Not only do they become independently wealthy at the expense of the taxpayers, but they blatantly thumb their noses at us while they do it.

The result of passage of the 17th Amendment is, in my judgment, one of the two most glaring examples of how the popular mentality of the voters effectively destroyed the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. I cannot help but wonder how powerful and plentiful lobbyists would be today were it not for ratification of the 17th Amendment. I suspect they would be less akin to the House of Lords in a Parliamentary System of Government and more akin to an ambassador at the United Nations.

The power that was given to corporations by allowing them to be treated the same as individual citizens, with all of the rights and privileges thereto pertaining, has resulted in a concentration of power that most threatens our very existence as a democracy. No individual in our society can even hope to amass the financial and political power of the corporation. And, my dear friends, I would submit to you that it is a natural marriage for them to join forces with the political and economic establishment that now threatens the future of our very existence. We have effectively created a federal monolith with unlimited power over our lives, and destroyed the essence of a democratic form of government in favor of a plutocracy. Political and economic power is now effectively concentrated in Washington, D.C. and on Wall Street. We are the poorer for it and getting poorer by the day because of it. They all feed at the same trough of power, influence and money, all the while treating us like mushrooms by keeping us in the dark and feeding us bullshit. And what is worse, they are further enabled by our own self-imposed ignorance.

They pat us on the head and tell us to go outside and play as if we were a bunch of obedient children. How in the hell can power rest with the people, which is what a democracy is supposed to be, if we so willingly give it all up in exchange for the paltry favors with which they seduce us? If we won’t even take the time and effort to stay informed and take an interest in the issues of the day, how can we be anything but easy prey for their greed, avarice and lust for unlimited power?

Next to the 17th Amendment, the action of government that has most crippled our ability to be a healthy democracy is by allowing corporate ownership of the news media; the concentration of the power of information in the hands of a few very big organizations, all of which have motives contrary to those demanded by a viable democracy. What used to be healthy discourse has now morphed into passive participation in the intellectual equivalent of pabulum! But, how can a reporter be an adversary to ones he/she joins for cocktails in the evening? Just watch today’s reporters fawning over the power structure in the halls of power.

Another institution that, in my humble opinion, acts contrary to the best interests of a healthy democracy are those privately funded academic institutions of higher learning. They breed a brand of privilege and elitism that spawns the avaricious appetite for more and more power that is leading us inexorably down the road to ruin as a civilized society, a healthy democracy and a world power to be respected and revered. We are beholden far too much to their alums for the “expertise” we require in order to manage our affairs of state. Let us not forget that an expert is nothing more than one who is better organized and uses audio-visual aids. History clearly demonstrates that great wisdom is not complex and has been abundantly available to our nation in the hands of those often regarded as far too humble to grace the corridors of power.

They are now telling us that there are some institutions that are simply too big to fail. Too big to fail for whose benefit? If that is the case, isn’t it about time we set ourselves to the task of reducing the size of the political, economic and social institutions that have wrought such havoc on this country and, indeed, the world? I cannot think of a better way to start than ---

1. Repeal of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, restoring the election of senators to the power of state legislatures. Let’s do away with this imperious aura that breeds corruption and indifference at the expense of those whom they are supposed to serve.

2. Enact legislation that forbids corporate ownership of the news media. Set up franchised service areas for each newspaper, television and radio station and require that they be locally owned and operated. Limit today’s networks to a role as national and international news bureaus that sell their services to locally owned news outlets.

I have frankly had enough of the bovine scatology that the complexity of our nation and the world is beyond the comprehension of the average person. That is double-speak that is skillfully used to retain the power and influence that will ultimately lead us down the road to what William Grieder has termed, “corporate government.” If that term doesn’t have a sufficiently ominous ring to it, I don’t know what does.

I no longer trust Barack Obama because I haven’t heard any compelling reasons why he chose to reincarnate the Clinton Administration as his own. That doesn’t pass the smell test and is cause for me to wonder what kind of a bargain was struck during the primaries. Was it on the order of “If Hillary wins, this is Barack’s role in her administration with a guarantee that he would be the next “first” in 2016. If Barack wins, this is Hillary’s role in the next administration. Insofar as the occupants of key positions are concerned, they would essentially be identical in both of the administrations.” It is just a question of who plays first violin in Big Money’s Symphony Orchestra of unlimited and unbridled power, to be played at the requiem of a society that totally abdicated its fundamental responsibilities to the best democracy the world has ever seen - that of being intellectually curious, fully informed and totally involved. Complacency is the stuff of fools and saps the lifeblood out of the afflicted. Let that not be our ultimate failure.
　
Cowboy Bob
March 30, 2009

“A Rose By Any Other Name………….?”

The current controversy about the resignation of Charles Freeman, Chairman-Designate of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), has created quite a firestorm in the news media, and rightfully so. However, the issues surrounding his resignation are so convoluted that one needs to be very careful about drawing erroneous conclusions and a tendency towards stereotyping.

Suffice to say Charles Freeman is probably one of the most consummate diplomats in the business. He is extremely intelligent, has a wealth of experience, is forthcoming and has a keen ability to work collaboratively with others without compromising his principles. His decision to resign is a tremendous loss to the government and to the people of the United States, all because of a cadre of right-wing, neo-conservative Zionists who have long exerted far too much influence on our government in their zealous allegiance to their dreams of a pure Jewish State of Israel.

Given their control over the government of Israel, I regard their pursuits as that of a renegade state that is completely ruthless in the character assassination of anyone who dares to take issue with their pursuits. Among their most notable demonstrations of their loyalty to the United States, was an unprovoked attack on a United States naval vessel (USS Liberty) in international waters without provocation and consequence. They have spied on the United States with impunity and have effectively dominated U.S. foreign policy towards the State of Israel since its founding. Except for the death camps, their treatment of the Palestinians rivals anything the Third Reich inflicted on all sorts of those regarded as less than perfect specimens of humanity, not limited exclusively to the Jews. Anyone who fails to realize that their goal is an exclusively Jewish State is out to lunch. One only has to scratch the surface of their unrelenting land grab in the Palestinian Territories to readily see their ultimate objective. And who gets the blame for their ruthless pursuit of empire? God, of course. Now I ask you, what sane and rational person would believe that nonsense?

The endless rhetoric about a permanent peace and a two-state solution is nothing but smoke. It is a ruse to keep the United States placated so they can control the relationship and continue to receive untold billions of dollars in aid. And every politician since Harry S. Truman knew and knows it. The slightest criticism immediately causes a knee-jerk reaction resulting in their classic charge of anti-Semitism. A cursory attempt at a clear definition of that term reveals that for one to be a true anti-Semite, one would have to have an ingrained hatred of the Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Phoenicians - a tall order for the worst of bigots. Despite their best efforts to limit that term to anyone who disagrees with their aspirations of empire, they don’t have a claim to exclusivity on that one.

However, let us not equate the international Jewish community with the posturing of the government of Israel. Were it not for the fact that the Jews have always been a literate people and super-achievers in every academic, scientific and artistic discipline known to man, the rest of humanity would still be in caves. They have, also, historically been a peace-loving people opposed to violence and human injustice. They are generous to a fault in their support for the institutions and activities that enable civilized societies to flourish and prosper. The agenda of the majority of Jewish people is the complete antithesis to that of the neo-conservative Zionist zealots dominating the Government of Israel. The world owes them a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid, and we are still reaping the benefits of their talents and accomplishments that push the boundaries of knowledge and enlightenment ever forward into the future for the benefit of the world community. We, also, owe them our insistence on a balanced foreign policy by the United States towards the State of Israel, our role as an honest broker in a two-state solution, and the broker of an honest peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is time for the integrity of Palestinian lands to be restored and the brutality towards its rightful owners to cease.

The United States has the power to make it happen. But, in order for that to come about, those in power in Israel need to know that we regard their lobbying activities in the United States as direct interference in our internal affairs by a foreign power; something we would not tolerate from any other nation on earth.

The American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) changed its name to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, no doubt hoping to soften its image among American voters. However, its mission still remains that of the neo-conservative Zionists whose sole objective is a pure Jewish State. Does a tiger change his stripes? A rose by any other name? They have proven themselves to be consummate adversaries of the United States, to the extent we may have challenged their objectives and tactics.

We need a fair and balanced foreign policy in all our international relations. Sad to say, Charles Freeman is uniquely qualified to have had a profound influence in bringing about that balance, so urgently needed and so long overdue.

Cowboy Bob
March 19, 2009

"Today's Rant"

Following is an e-mail I recently received from a British national working in the Middle East.

Cowboy Bob

March 17, 2009

************************************************************************************

"Today's Rant - Inspired by news of the troop increase in Afghanistan."

So who's kidding who here? In this current age of excessive PC (political correctness) we all seem to have been consumed by the desire (imposed or voluntary) not to upset anyone over anything, for fear of being labeled as anything from uninformed to racist. In this mindless rush to protect the sensibilities of any group, or individual, whose agenda does not include criticism of any sort, we appear to have lost the right or the ability to call a spade a shovel.

Take Barack Obama for example (let me finish this sentence before jumping to incorrect conclusions); here is a new president, committed to bringing the 'Boys' home from Iraq as promised, suddenly wanting to increase the presence of US troops in Afghanistan. Now why would anyone who actually wants the troops out of harms way, want to immediately send them into a similarly dangerous area.

We know it isn't for their good, because they will certainly die and in probably higher numbers than the British and others are currently sustaining. This is the lot of the American GI. At some point during their training (one does assume that these bodies in uniform do get trained despite evidence that whatever they got didn't sink in) they appear to be taught that they are both invincible and at a higher point in the food chain than any national of any other country they are sent to protect, or fight. This unfortunate arrogance does tend to piss off a great deal of normally passive people, directly resulting in the average GI becoming the embodiment of everything everyone hates about America and Americans, and consequently a target.

(I diverge for a second, but can anyone tell me if the average American is deaf? There must be some explanation why they seem oblivious to their volume in a restaurant when the nearby tables are treated to their conversational prowess and opinions whether they want them or not.)

We also know that the western style of democracy just isn't applicable at the current stage of development of a country like Afghanistan. It's a bit like trying to impose this style of democracy on a tribe in the Amazonian rain forest. They already have a system that actually suits them well, but we - in our infinite wisdom - believe ours is better, without learning how theirs works. It is a bit like the British Raja 'educating' the natives, only to find themselves a hundred or more years later, mourning the loss of culture and heritage. Why do we fail to see, from the example of Saudi Arabia, that you can buy all the artifacts of civilization, but they are pretty useless without the two thousand years of experience to make them work?

It was only a few years ago that the British were being encouraged to leave Iraq to the USA (around the time of "to the victor goes the spoils" attitude of the US) when they thought it was still profitable to hang in there. The Brits were being 'given’ Afghanistan to play with. As usual they were being left something that was of no real value to the US - so what is new there?

So why this sudden interest in Afghanistan? Well actually, the sudden interest is in America. The land where deregulation of the financial sector allowed the spawning of the world's fiasco that will eventually affect every person on the planet (with the exception of the bastards who created it and who are now still receiving bonuses bigger than most of us earn in a lifetime). The very last thing that America needs right now is another two hundred thousand battle worn soldiers rucking up on their doorstep looking for their old jobs back (many of which no longer exist) and a heroes welcome. Where would Obama's rescue package go with a whole new army to feed back in the homeland? I doubt the DOD would roll over and transfer their costs to a domestic budget.

The obvious solution is to keep them as soldiers and send them far away from America where they can rustle up a bit of patriotic support for the new missionary mission to educate the savages into the ways of American democracy. Teaching them that if they are friendly to the US, buy all their products and basically toe the line - that is democracy US style.

The answer then is that the real reason is socio-economic, in America’s interest at this troubled time. There is no problem with that, every one is doing it, but then, please, don't try and kid the world that this is some new humanitarian mission to bring democracy to the bunch of warring tribes that have been kicking the shit out of each other for a few centuries (and will probably still be kicking the shit out of each other long after we have gone). It's all about money and unemployment figures, so stop asking the rest of the world to stump up more "help" for the American cause in Afghanistan, when all that is really meant is "please legitimize us being there in greater numbers".

I think we have all given legitimacy to America's abhorrent foreign policy for quite long enough. We backed the illegitimate war, we supported the thieving American Companies that delivered less than thirty percent of the value of their contracts to the Iraqis and now we are supposed to play second fiddle to the US because they have no where else to put their unemployment problem other than Afghanistan.

Grow a spine and admit that is the basis of the new frontline, and then pick up the tab - bodies and all.
--
Peter
Kuwait

“Will The Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up?”

I have to confess that Barack Obama is a real enigma to me. Try as I may I just can’t quite figure the guy out.

My first exposure to the man was his appearance at the 2004 Democratic Party Convention when he mesmerized the party with his Keynote Speech. Regardless of your political persuasion, you have to admit that was one fine oratorical performance. I felt then that he was presidential material and the brilliance of his charisma was almost blinding.

I was not the least bit surprised when he announced that he was running for president. I thought he demonstrated a keen sense of history by announcing his candidacy on the steps of the Old Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois, and carried over the theme of Lincoln’s influence throughout the campaign. However, as his run progressed and the histrionics of his speeches became more grandiose, rather than perceiving him as an inspired man, I came to see him for what should have been apparent from the outset. You don’t play in the ballpark of national politics without being very skilled in the art and science of politics. I am now more inclined to think everything he does stems from a strategic design as to what he perceives to be good politics and what is good for his personal ambitions.

He promised us change, when and if he came to Washington. Admittedly I am a simple man. But, to me, change implies new faces and new thinking on the national political scene. However, what we got was a massive resurrection of the Clinton Administration and the cronies who go with it. We got the same faces and the same loyalties we had with Billy Boy. From my perspective, that sure as hell isn’t change. It is simply more of the same repackaged, and I don’t think that is what the electorate wanted or expected.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that Bill Clinton was the sitting President with a Republican Congress when the financial industries were almost totally deregulated under the evil inspiration of Phil Gramm and the Senate Banking Committee. Bill Clinton could have, and should have, vetoed the legislation rather than signing it into law. Robert Rubin, as Secretary of the Treasury should have vehemently opposed it. That did not happen. So, try as the Obama Administration may, to hang total responsibility for the financial meltdown around the neck of George W. Bush, let us remember who opened the flood gates on this disaster.

I find it all rather interesting that, since leaving office, Bill Clinton has pocketed well over 100 million dollars from “speaking” engagements. God only knows, how much has found its way into the coffers of his foundation from the financial industries that he was instrumental in deregulating. Further, Chelsea finished college and promptly joined one of the largest hedge funds on Wall Street. Robert Rubin left the Clinton Administration to become CEO of one of the largest investment houses on Wall Street, with a very lucrative salary and bonus package. Is all of this coincidence that befell a few innocent bystanders? I think not. Let’s fix responsibility where it belongs. Bill Clinton had more of the characteristics of a liberal Republican than he ever did those of a centrist Democrat.

I am willing to concede, at this juncture, that Barack Obama seems to be a man of honor, as politicians go. He would have to get up early in the morning to get ahead of the Clintons, whose ideology I regard more as amoral than I do as matters of principle. Only after a lot of backdoor “negotiating” did Hillary agree to accept the nomination for Secretary of State and, you can be sure, with a lot of input from Billy Boy. However, I find it rather interesting that only yesterday did I notice a television journalists’ observation that, as of now, Hillary Clinton is the most powerful woman in the world. If that is indeed the case, how could any rational mind believe that she was first offered the position of Vice President? Anyone who knows anything about Hillary Clinton should not be the least bit surprised that she would much prefer the power of the Secretary of State than the ceremonial role of Vice President. Nice try, Mr. President.

Now, permit me to focus on the financial debacle staring us in the face. Despite attempts to convince us that Obama has surrounded himself with some of the finest financial and economic brains in the country, I am more inclined to think he suffers from the “old boys’ myopia.” Instead, we are stuck with retreads from the Clinton Administration who seem more inclined to play footsie with the rogues on Wall Street than to hold them accountable for their dastardly deeds of the last eight years. We have Larry Summers, who appears more like a bird drunk on overly ripe pyracantha berries than one of the more respected economists on the national scene. He is aligned with Tim Geithner who can’t even do his own income tax returns accurately, yet we are supposed to defer to him as one of the greatest financial minds in the business.

Obama has summarily dismissed a significant faction of economists who appears to be much more capable of “thinking out of the box,” than those he has gathered around him for advice and counsel. Some of the more notable ones are Jim Cramer on CNN, Joseph E. Stigler (Nobel Laureate), Paul Krugman (Nobel Laureate) and James K. Galbraith, Ph.D., School of Economics at the University of Texas, Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University, all of whom appear to be persona non grata at the White House. One who should not be overlooked is Professor Robert Reich at the University of California, Berkeley who served on President Obama‘s Transition Team but who seems to have been relegated to second string these days. All of these people are, essentially, saying that Obama is not doing enough to address the serious flaws inherent in the banking and investment houses, nor is he doing what needs to be done with the urgency and haste required. I don’t hear any of them advocating outright nationalizing of the banking industry. Rather, I hear them saying the government must take them over, clean up the mess they have created, and then sell them back to private investors under new management. In the meantime, the rogues who have done such an abysmal job of “managing” those houses and the investors who profited so handsomely from their shenanigans will take the hit that rightfully belongs to them, instead of the taxpayers.

I raise the question, is President Obama all that naïve, or is he taking care of his cronies who carry on their foul deeds in the canyons of New York City? Is he a dedicated statesman or a very calculating and skilled politician? If it is the latter, this is neither the time nor the place for paying back political favors.

Now, let me focus on a subject near and dear to my heart --- health care. The President has very skillfully avoided any national discourse on the merits of a single-payer healthcare system, and has focused almost entirely on his plan to work with insurance companies on a national health plan, despite national polls that show more than 60 percent of Americans favor the former. The preference for a single-payer system is underscored by some of the best minds and organizations in the country, one of the most prominent being the California Nurses Association. Who are the ones likely to benefit the most from Obama’s plan? I smell a rat.

Healthcare costs are the greatest single financial burden on businesses in this country, and the single largest impediment in their inability to fairly compete in the international marketplace. Further, the cost of providing healthcare has impoverished and deprived more citizens of access to healthcare in this country than any other industrial nation in the world. Why have costs escalated at such an astonishing rate? Principally because of the effective lobbying and unbridled greed of insurance companies, drug companies, organized medicine and overly zealous entrepreneurial efforts by hospital management companies. Their success at milking the golden cow in Washington, D.C. almost ranks right up there with Wall Street. Computerized medical records and working with insurance companies isn’t going to do the trick, no matter how much we get of the President’s finely tuned oratory and his ability to summarily dismiss the voices of real dissent. Experience on the world scene clearly demonstrates that a single-payer system will beat anything Obama is proposing, hands down. As a point of comparison, let us be mindful that the President is still stumping for “clean coal,” despite the legions of scientists and environmentalist who have labeled clean coal as nothing more than one grand oxymoron peddled by the coal industry! Where have you been on this one, Mr. President?

You, Mr. Obama, were elected to the Presidency of this great country because an overwhelming majority of Americans genuinely believe you will effect the changes necessary to meet the needs of those who are truly suffering because of the naïve philosophies and blatant corruption of previous administrations. These are tough times and not one when we should be “sampling” a lot of unproven alternatives. We need honest, bold, firm and inspired leadership rather than a holding of hands in a pathetic attempt to reach consensus on all issues. Time is of the essence.

Humility is one of the greatest of all human attributes. The time has come to back off from riding the coattails of Abraham Lincoln, the staged histrionics on the public stage and belaboring bipartisanship. You, Mr. President, need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask, “Who am I, really?” When you give your first State of the Union Address next January, we don’t need to see you coming down Pennsylvania Avenue in a golden chariot, pulled by six white horses. We don’t need to see you enter the chambers of the House of Representatives adorned in a white toga with a wreath of laurel on your head. Rather, we need to see, and indeed identify with, a strong and determined president who has the admiration and respect of every one in this country and around the world. We must know in our hearts you are one of us, with all the ideals, courage, honesty and integrity we all cherish and so desperately need, but which so few of us have. That is the ideal and the beacon of hope we most need.

The vast majority of us genuinely want to believe in you, Mr. President. You have captured our hearts. Don’t let us down. We may never get a second shot at this one.

All the best.

Cowboy Bob
March 5, 2009

"Obituary for Common Sense"

The following obituary is reputed to have been published in the recent past by the London Times. They deserve a few cudos for having done so. It is interesting and, sadly, is rather true.

Cowboy Bob, March 2, 2009

***********************************************************************************

"Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who
has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was,
since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He
will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the
worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more
than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in
charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy
charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended
from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the
job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly
children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental
consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but
could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to
have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses;
and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in
her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his
wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He
is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now,
Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone."

"Let's Give Real Meaning to Education"

“Education.” That is probably the most over-used and least understood word in the lexicon of the English language. It is the great promise and the big lie for the political establishment. When there are promises to be made that belie specifics, “education” is the fallback position of choice. Those who are vested with breathing life into that term are probably the most maligned professionals in our society for efforts that are largely the scorn of the many and the gratitude of the few.

Education, at any given point in history, is a reflection of the social and cultural mores of the time. However, sad to say, what was once a noble and respected professional calling, supported by the society of which it was a part, has morphed into an endeavor that must operate in a milieu that is void of controversy. They must be all things to all people, with significant contradictions in the perception of what education should be. School Administrators want to avoid offending the School Board, the PTA and parents, most of whom are convinced that the uniting of their individual sperm and ovum was ordained by the Divine hand itself, and inspired with the belief that their progeny are above the need for structure and discipline. The parents who believe it are pathetic and the children who are the product of those belief systems are insufferable.

If any reasonably inquisitive mind wants to understand contemporary educational systems, one need only embark on a rudimentary venture into an examination of the society around them. Today’s society is the culmination of more than a half-century of progressively greater permissiveness that has, in my humble opinion, brought us to the brink of total anarchy. Life and life’s values are whatever the traffic will bear. We are no longer shocked by anything. In fact, we have become too understanding and too tolerant. Mature and responsible adults become what they are by the limits that are placed and enforced on their behavior in the process of “growing up.” I don’t see much of that happening anymore.

Crime is at an all-time high. The types and numbers of crimes have increased in geometrical proportion. Drugs? Eh, what’s the big deal? Burglaries? Commonplace. Oh well, s--t happens. Juveniles murdering their classmates, their teachers, their parents? Ho hum. Violent sex offenders now reside among us in our neighborhoods. What’s the problem? We can’t restrict their civil rights! I could go on, but I have made my point, and it sure as hell isn‘t very pretty.

If one wants to piece together a collage of the values upon which a society rests, all he/she has to do is watch what we regard as entertainment such as movies, television programs, music, videos, advertising, etc. It is all about vanity, sexual prowess, eternal youth and the body beautiful. The preponderance of men are cast as completely obsessed with erectile dysfunction. Given the volume of exposure to what is regarded as fashionable by women, one could easily conclude that there is just a bit of the slut in the makeup of a large part of the female population. Whatever is considered fashionable is a must. Frankly, I am weary of the never-ending display of cleavage and pendulous breasts. Titillating though it all may be, few are outstanding examples of divine art. As a matter of fact, it is exhibitionism bordering on outright vulgarity. However, you can bet your bippy that, should any male make an off-color remark about the fashion statement of a female co-worker, he would be slapped with a sexual harassment suit so fast his head would reel! I shudder at the thought of what the male response would be if men’s fashions became as daring as those of the female of the species. God help us! Common decency requires that some aspects of our humanly conduct be within the realm of what is considered to be “private.” We need to refocus on common standards of decency rather than on what is “in.” But, that requires individual standards of conviction and the attendant courage that must of necessity go with them. There doesn’t seem to be much of that around anymore.

For a civilized society to exist, it must rest on a foundation of moral values. By “moral,” I am not limiting my definition to sexual mores (although that is usually the first thought that comes to mind nowadays). It refers to the character of the people who comprise that society. Character is a learned set of values, not genetic or inherited. Parents can teach character, but only the society of which they are a part can enforce the prevailing standards of morality that make a civil society possible.

I vividly recall, a few years ago, when I was invited to meet with a couple of classes at a local high school for the purpose of recounting and discussing my experiences from working and living in an Islamic country. As I walked into each of the classrooms, I was stunned to see the complete antithesis of what I had expected. There were no desk. Rather, there were circular tables around which was seated the biggest bunch of poorly groomed and disinterested young humanoids imaginable. There was no discipline and, obviously, no standards of conduct. Some were reclining in their chairs, others were slouched over with their heads resting on the tables. Others were distracted by electronic devices or other “toys,” with no indication of a modicum of interest in what the class was all about. However, what most negatively impressed me was how the teachers looked exactly like the students! All were wearing the uniform of the culture - blue jeans, athletic shoes and tops that looked as if they were purchased at a rummage sale. I could not help but wonder who convinced the educators that the only way to penetrate the calcified cranial tissue of the students was to look and act just like them. The entire scene was not only depressing, but more an exercise in assimilation than in discipline. Who decreed that youth has a corner on what is savvy and relevant, rather than the teachers who are supposedly educating them and shaping their minds? Who should be looking up to whom? There is no doubt that the students were getting short-changed, big time. I could find absolutely no semblance of what could remotely be called a role model that could and should command respect.

I believe that we, as a society, have a solemn obligation to clearly reflect on what we should mirror back to the youth of this country. By abdicating that responsibility to the media, celebrities, sports heroes, etc., we are surely well on the road to a lost civilization. We need to seriously reflect on what made this country great and how we got to where we are. It used to be that childhood and adolescence was the apprenticeship for adulthood. I think we have lost sight of that fact and now might just be the time to re-visit that concept, for our own individual and collective welfare, and that of our children standing on the threshold of inheriting all that we have wrought.

When it comes to education, there has to be a shared responsibility between parents, educators and society. We must all work in concert with each other in order to provide the stability and continuity required for a sound journey leading to a lasting set of values that will sustain our children from youth to and through adulthood. The hopes, dreams and successes of just one child is infinitely more important to the world than are all the diversions we set before them in the name of entertainment, and prematurely fostering independence long before it is wise to do so. There is more to life than having fun, hanging out and blankly staring into an electronic device that enables our children to isolate themselves from the world around them. The richness of this one life can only be found by raising our eyes and actively engaging our fellow human beings. To the extent that parents and teachers, working in concert with each other, foster that as something to be valued and cultivated, the destructive estrangement from all that is distinctive and wonderful about God’s greatest creation - people - will be lost and the world will be the poorer for it.

We cannot have a system of education that is not based on sound discipline. By “discipline,” I am not referring to fear and corporeal punishment. That is wholly inappropriate and is much too prone to excesses for any serious consideration. On the other hand, there should be a set of standards and expectations to which students, teachers and, yes, parents all subscribe. Instructors and staff should be required to dress as adults and to a standard that sets them apart from their students, and reflect the professionals they are.

There should be standards of conduct and expectations codified and committed to writing for the benefit of parents, students, teachers and school administrators. At the beginning of each academic year, that document should be executed with a clear understanding of the consequences for violating those standards. Parents should not be allowed to intimidate educators, but should be required to assume their rightful responsibilities as one part of the triumvirate shared by educators and school administrators for the benefit of the student. Teachers and educators deserve to be protected from the whimsical ignorance of doting parents.

I view the process of education as falling along a continuum from K through university, beginning with training, followed by teaching and leading to education. From basic skills to intellectual pursuits. For that to be a meaningful and developmental process, students and parents must, of necessity, defer to the professionals to whom we have entrusted that responsibility, at every step of the way. Parents do not tell NASA how to launch satellites into outer space, nor should they tell educators how to educate their children. The latter is no less a professional pursuit than the former. Realizing one’s own limitations is the surest sign of maturity, so parents “listen up!”

I believe there is much to be said about the European model of education where, at some point, by objective means, students are identified as having either an aptitude for vocational careers or academic pursuits. Further, the Europeans respect the value of vocational endeavors, far more than do we Americans. For example, I am at the mercy of every skilled tradesman there is. Am I suicidal because of it? No, but I certainly know and defer to my many limitations, and I am only too pleased to acknowledge what they have that I don’t.

Today, however, I see an erosion of the intellectual pursuits and ferment that should be at the apex of our college and university experiences. My fear is that we have become the means for a fast track to wealth (business schools) and hi-tech schools that are beholden to the engineering, electronics and information technologies at the expense of liberal arts and intellectual disciplines. I fear that studies of the knowledge and wisdom of the ages that have served as the basis for pushing back the barriers of ignorance and indifference are receiving scant attention in the priorities of academia. I would submit, do we need a foundation in government, ethics, philosophy, morality, logic, literature, etc., any less than in days gone by? The value of a liberal arts education is timeless and eternal. When it comes to those virtues, the world seems to be on a starvation diet. Doing is “in;” thinking is out. That is not only dangerous, but frightening to contemplate.

By the time students graduate from high school, they should be firmly grounded in a well-rounded education that prepares them to be knowledgeable and responsible citizens. They should, also, know that they are embarking on a path that will prepare them for a vocation or career in life that will develop their potential to the fullest for a rewarding life as responsible and valued members of society.

I recall once seeing a photocopy of a sign pinned to the bulletin board in the office of one of my colleagues that read, GOD DOESN’T MAKE JUNK! Reflecting on those words gives pause as to where we are and where we should be going. It is time we tore down the barriers that make so many of us believe that we are inherently better than others and, ipso facto, entitles us to a larger share of the pie. Better to embark on a goal of cleaning up the junkyards of humanity and open the doors to all who simply want a piece of the pie.


Cowboy Bob
February 27, 2009

“With All Due Respect …………….”

........ Mr. President. Who are you, really, and what do you stand for? After having watched your meteoric rise throughout the campaign and having shed tears of joy when you were elected, I now find myself totally bewildered as to who and what the real Barack Obama is. What do you represent? Where on the political spectrum are you?

I thought it was a bit imperious as I watched the series of your speeches that started with your run for the presidency on the steps of the Old Capital Building in Springfield, and culminating with your victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park. I first wrote them off as building momentum for the finish line. Then, I began to wonder if this guy believes his own press. Is he a man of the people or a front for the established political and economic influentials inside the Beltway? I am still uneasy and my unease is growing.

The appointments to your administration have raised even more questions and have deepened my doubts. It is almost as if the vestigial remnants of the Clinton Administration were freeze dried in 2000 only to be reconstituted in 2009. That scares me. Why do the Clintons seem to have a hold on positions of prominence in your administration? Where are all those people who were going to come riding into Washington on your coat tails, who think outside the box and who were going to help you bring about the sweeping changes you so eloquently promised over the preceding two years? I can’t put my finger on one.

I will admit to being a simple man. However, I come from the school that believes certain character traits are absolute, not situational or transitory. It is kind of like the old adage to the effect that a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either she is or she isn‘t. You are either a person of character or you are not. You are either squeaky clean or you are not. There are no shades of gray. I see several examples of people brought into your administration who have backgrounds that are cause for pause by those of us in the hinterlands and who are on the receiving end of what is wrought by the powers in Washington. Character and integrity that are solid foster confidence; those that are transitory do not. For example:

1. Bill Clinton signed into law the legislation that removed controls from the
Financial industries. He, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers aided and abetted Phil Gramm in letting the wild horses out of the corral. Robert Rubin, in particular, stands out as an opportunistic rogue. He left his post as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury for a lucrative job as CEO of Lehman Brothers, only to leave following the recent economic meltdown for a better deal at another Wall Street firm. It only stands to reason that, fortunately, he was only an advisor to you on your transition team. However, Larry Summers followed Rubin as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury and, voila, he is now your Chief Economic Advisor. How can you reconcile those disparities with the integrity your administration has led us to believe you hold inviolate?

2. Tom Daschle went down in flames, as he should have. There was nothing subtle as to how he capitalized on his years in the United States Senate after he was voted out. His role as a “consultant” was much more egregious than his failure to pay taxes, and would clearly have placed him in a conflict-of-interest position in his role as Secretary of Health & Human Services. His wife is an even more glaring example of how connections in Washington can be turned into pure gold.

3. Then there is the rather glaring example of Timothy Geithner, another
refugee from the Clinton Administration. He managed to squeak through despite his “mistake” in not paying his taxes. Another example of being a little bit pregnant, no doubt. There are still unanswered questions as to his relationship to Wall Street while he was head of the Fed in New York.

4. Another example of how fluid your standards seem to be is making an exception for a major lobbyist at Raytheon, a huge defense contractor, to serve in a position of prominence in the Defense Department. Are you not familiar with Dwight Eisenhower’s dire predictions of the dangers from a growing military-industrial complex? If there was ever a government agency that hemorrhages money, the Pentagon is surely at the top of the heap.

The foregoing are but a few examples of why I am inclined to believe your character may well be more a matter of ideals for public consumption, than they are principles which you hold to be inviolate. You have led us to believe there is only one standard of justice for all Americans. Yet, we see evidence that the old double standard that differentiates Washington from the rest of us is still very much alive and well. How can this be?

Why are we being led to believe that some of the exceptions in appointments to your cabinet and staff positions are because there are no others who are as well qualified? If anything is universally true, it is that there is no such thing as an indispensable man. Surely, you don’t believe otherwise.

Are you naïve or just another politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth, and whose principles are as fluid as the waters of the Potomac? Do you genuinely believe in change and the urgent need to fix the system, or do you, also, play to the entrenched interests and power structure so firmly ingrained in the Washington Establishment, New York Banking Houses and the Eastern Elite, all the while assuaging the heartland of American that any doubts it may be having about you have no foundation in fact. You profess to be one of them with their best interests at heart. On the other hand, credibility is when a person’s words are consistent with his deeds. I don’t see evidence to necessarily support that.

I genuinely commend you for your position on the bi-partisan effort to reach out to the Republicans and involve them in your efforts to turn the current economic catastrophe around. By meeting with them on Capital Hill, inviting them to the White House, etc. further demonstrate to me your sincerity in that regard. What have you gotten in return? A unified front against you and the Democratic majority in Congress on your efforts to attach any sense of urgency to your programs on behalf of the American people. They have failed to draft a comprehensive alternative plan that would provide some semblance of critical and creative thought. Rather, they nit-pick what is on the table, citing the old tired latitudes and platitudes as the end all for curing the nation’s ills -- tax cuts and an unencumbered free market. Where in God’s name have they been for the last 30 years?

You have performed within the context of the classic definition of an “appeaser.” You kept feeding the alligators hoping they would eat you last. As a result, you forfeited a significant part of your personal power and that of the office you hold. It will take some doing to get it back.

I think it is time for the Democrats to unite and play hardball. They need to understand that extending the presidential hand of kindness is not synonymous with weakness. Let them filibuster so the American public can see how little they have to offer, when all they are doing is obstructing and delaying the urgent relief needed for the nation, naively hoping it will enhance their chances for re-election in 2010. They don’t deserve compromise and assuaging in order to preserve what little image they still have, and to help them burnish their reputations for 2010. Better to leave that to Sarah Palin.

I carry one big disappointment specific to you, Mr. President. Progressives are a large part of the base of support that got you elected to the presidency. I expected to see that fact reflected in your administration, which is instead painfully absent. I think you owe us more. Although the ideals of Paul Wellstone may have long ago faded into the vastness of time, his was a vision that extended far into the future and deserves to be a part of the national discourse on what this country needs in order to thrive and prosper, now and into the future. I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that the advice and counsel from that school has been sought as part of your efforts at inclusiveness. If Honest Abe were at the helm, I rather imagine that school of thought would be prominent among those he would count among his collection of adversaries.

Progressives are, by nature, idealists. They have put a lot of stock in you. However, that idealism will only last so long and it will begin to evolve into cynicism. When that happens, those among them who are now prominent among your staunchest supporters will become your harshest critics. There are already indications that it may well have started.

Whether it is by choice or out of necessity, you appear to be a true centrist. Perhaps that is the only viable position most likely to survive within the insulated bubble of Washington, D.C. Why? Perhaps it is just a reflection of the tendency by those who go to the polls, crying for dramatic change, but all too willing to accept a state of equilibrium pegged at the lowest level of mediocrity. If that is indeed the case, we are all the poorer for it.

On second thought, is it not the mark of a true leader to raise the level of awareness among the common folks as to what is worth fighting for and is in their best interests and, hence, those of the nation? This is not a time for consensus building, but a time for bold and decisive leadership. Let that be the foundation upon which we build our future.


Cowboy Bob
February 13, 2009

"The Daschle Debacle"

I have to admit that I was more than surprised that Washington cronyism did not do a better job of insulating Tom Daschle in his bid to become the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. I really expected him to sail through to confirmation without a glitch. Hmmm. Was it just a minor mistake that he failed to pay $128,000 in overdue taxes or was there something more behind it all?

I am inclined to think it is something much more egregious than we are to believe. His many years as a “consultant” to healthcare and other clients since leaving his senate job have been a real boon to his net income. Why hasn’t there been greater exposure in the news media of this rather cozy relationship? I see an inherent conflict of interest in his consultancies and his ascension to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It would have been an interesting balancing act to witness.

As if all that wasn’t enough, his wife is, or was, a very prominent lobbyist in the corridors of power in Washington. No doubt, she benefited a great deal from her husband’s long-standing tenure in the U.S. Senate and the reputation he gleaned from those years of public service. It almost seems sordid to the point of being incestuous.

Have you ever noticed the fat cats living within the Beltway only commit mistakes, simply forget or overlook questionable behavior? On the other hand, some poor bastard who breaks the law is presumed to be a criminal, outright, no matter the severity of his mistake, forgetfulness or oversight which, at that level on the food chain, we refer to as ‘crimes.’ Kind of smarts of a double standard to me.

Daschle’s conduct must have really been something, compared to the newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury and the newly appointed Undersecretary of Defense, all of whom have compromised the standards of conduct we should expect of our public servants, and what I thought President Obama was going to require. I guess, rather than dealing in absolutes, what he meant was analogous to the notion that “it’s OK to be just a little bit pregnant.”

When it comes to certain human attributes, I tend to believe in absolutes. Either you are or you are not, and there is nothing in between. Unfortunately, we live with and accept a double standard when it comes to what we expect of family, friends and associates vs. what we will tolerate from our elected officials, the rich and the famous. That just doesn’t fly with me. Do phrases like “All men are created equal,” “No one is above the law,” “Justice is blind,” etc., only have transitory meaning when uttered within the context of lofty speeches and admonitions on ceremonial occasions? Were that the case, the whole concept of equality would ring hollow in the ears of us all. Therefore, why do we tolerate it, much less condone it?

Is that why, when someone kills numbers of people, he/she is a serial killer or mass murderer, destined for life without parole or death by lethal injection? On the other hand, when the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, their associates and minions consign thousands to an early death, or enable their cronies to engage in profiteering, torture, etc., they get a free pass. Are not their crimes just as abhorrent, or more so, than are those of petty criminals? Does justice not shout out for them to be held publicly accountable for their acts before the nation and, indeed, the world? However, our newly elected president has said he prefers to look to the future and not dwell on the past. Sounds like a free pass for some of the worst criminals in our national history. There is nothing fair, right or just about that position at all.

I was really pumped up during Barack Obama’s long journey to the White House. I really believed he was different from those who live within the bubble of our nation’s capitol. I truly believed he marched to a different drummer, and held himself to a higher standard than the run-of-the-mill politicians. It has taken just two short weeks for me to begin cooling on what I believed vs. what I am seeing. As far as I am concerned, the times call for strong and decisive leadership, consummate statesmanship, and an ironclad respect for and commitment to the rule of law. What I see in the President is more akin to the group facilitator in organizational development striving for consensus. That is not what we need and I am somewhat uncomfortable that isn’t what we are getting.

Another thing that sticks in my craw is, whenever there is a scandal or criminal conduct by one of our nation’s leaders, the excuse we are given for letting them off Scot-free or with a slap on the wrist, is that the nation cannot be put through the agony it would cause. That is nothing more than an unmitigated pile of crap. It is an insult to the savvy, moral stamina and inherent decency of the American people. We want justice and fairness for everyone, not just a select few. We don’t buy into the notion of privileged characters. We have the fortitude to bear adversity and carry burdens far greater than our elected elites give us credit for.

The time has come for those we put in office to stop blowing smoke up our asses, give us the respect we deserve and hold every damned one of us to the same standards of conduct and to the rule of law. You owe us more and we deserve no less.

Time to get real!

Cowboy Bob
February 3, 2009

"Hippocrats and Hypocrites"

I am watching, with utter fascination, as events unfold in Washington, D.C. re: the stimulus program and the politics surrounding it. In the background lurk the denizens of the financial industries with their insatiable appetites for more and more of the largesse from the national treasury, being aided and abetted by those suffering from the common malady of greed.

I wrote off the theory of trickle-down economics and free-market purists a long time ago as a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites who will screw the common man at every opportunity while they lace their own pockets with the spoils of their skullduggery. After what they did to this country during the last twenty plus years, their pathetic attempts to claim any credibility ring hollow. What they consistently fail to acknowledge is that, for such a system to work, everyone has to be squeaky-clean honest. The human race simply isn’t wired to that standard.

I really want to see Barack Obama succeed, but I have long had a haunting doubt as to where he really stands and who is likely to benefit the most from his programs. Given that he has only been in office for a little over a week, it is too early to tell, but I am not at all optimistic that those who need help the most are likely to receive the lion’s share of any stimulus package. What causes me to have these haunting doubts? The resurrection of members from the Clinton Administration brought in to fill so many key positions in Obama’s Administration. Some are the ones who, before leaving office, were party to setting the stage for the wholesale plundering of the treasury by the Bush Administration through de-regulation of the financial industriesoffice. Why does Billy Boy still get a free pass for this, plus NAFTA and CAFTA? The Harvard goon squad seems to be firmly ensconced and I am not so sure it will accrue to the benefit of the common folks of this country.

I don’t see that the barons of the financial industries have changed their stripes very much since this crisis was dumped into the laps of the American taxpayers. They are just as brazen as they ever were and seem to be getting away with it, save the token sacrifice of a 50 million dollar corporate jet and other lavish screw ups, when the heat is ratcheted up by the press. Mind you, nothing they do is a matter of conscience. Rather, it is whatever the traffic will bear.

The industry that irks me almost as much as the money men are the key players within the broad spectrum of those subsumed under the banner of healthcare. They are just as bad if not worse, in some instances, than the high-profile ones in the financial business. They are still screwing our economy and the consumer public with nary a hint of shame. They aren’t bad. They are absolutely obscene. Every licentious opportunity that was given to them by Billy Boy and Georgie Porgie are still intact and they are raking in untold millions of dollars they don’t deserve, all at the expense of a society (and indeed the world) so badly crippled by their antics.

The most glaring example of greed is on the part of the drug companies. The most recent example is the buy-out of Wyeth by Pfizer. There doesn’t seem to be any problem with getting the money they need to consummate this deal. And who will benefit the most from this move? You can bet your bippy it isn’t the consumer!

And where does Obama stand on all this? How compromised is he through his association with the high-powered associates of his wife, who was recently in a high-profile position at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics? Is that why he seems less than enthused at the notion of a single-payer national health plan? Rather, he seems to favor something short of that which will keep the “private” sector comfortably in the healthcare business?

I regard our healthcare system as one of the most self-serving and corrupt within the arena of our national economic structure. Talk about greed! They share the national spotlight with the bankers in that regard. Drug companies, hospital management companies, managed health care plans, etc. bleed the consumers for all they can get. And the most egregious accomplices to all this are senior executives in all sectors of the healthcare economy, making high six-figure salaries or more, all based on their “entrepreneurial” skills, and their ability to screw their victims without benefit of kiss.

Amid all this are what I regard as the most insidious and self-serving of the whole bunch - those esteemed practitioners of medicine - the good old doctor. They have come a long way since the days of driving a black Buick, carrying a black bag and making house calls. They have long maintained effective control over members of their elite club in order to ensure the viability of their own financial interests. They have manipulated private hospitals through their economic and political power. They have a history of an unhealthy relationship with drug companies by favoring and promoting brand-name drugs that are much more expensive than their generic equivalents. They scratch each other’s backs through their network of referrals to other physicians and healthcare practitioners. They do a damned good job of looking out for themselves, all the while basing their actions on what they profess to be “in the best interests of their patients.” Give me a break. Watch what they do when one of their patients falls on hard times, goes on Medicaid or Medicare or suffers some other financial misfortune. If these patients don’t have the money or insurance to pay full tab, the doctor dumps them as if they had the plague. My experience has been that damned few doctors give one hoot in hell about anyone except the patients who have the means to pay full price for the cost of the medical miracles they render. They do a good job of talking in lofty and noble terms. However, what they care most about is a healthy return on their revenue-generating capabilities.

Have you noticed, when you visit a doctor, a dentist and, yes, even your veterinarian, they all seem to have gone to the same charm school on how best to “market” their services and garner as much money as the traffic will bear? The first questions asked are most often those having to do with your ability to pay for their services. They all have the same phony lingo and fake sincerity that makes one want to rush to the nearest vomitorium!

Mind you, not all doctors are bad. There is a whole host of doctors and other healthcare professionals who are genuinely dedicated to helping suffering humanity. Unfortunately, most of them ply their skills outside the affluent environs of metropolitan practices, in government owned and controlled hospitals, in less than desirable geographical areas, inner-city clinics, etc., that pay far less than what they could command in a lucrative urban group practice. But, who said dedication is worth much in this industry? In the eyes of their cohorts who have made it in the profession and are regarded as the professional elite, these types don’t count for much and wield very little political and economic power within the circles of their profession.

As tattered as those at the bottom of the food chain may be, without the dedication of those who really do care and those who have given their lives in the service of humanity, I cannot imagine how much worse their lot in life would be.

Those who I hold in very high regard are the ones who live and work in the tier just below that of our esteemed medical practitioners. It is they who work with and enable the doctors to ply their trade. They are often the ones who catch the mistakes and who discreetly bring them to the attention of the “attending physician,” so he/she can continue to appear to be one in good standing among the lofty paragons of medical perfection. They are the nurses, the pharmacists, the therapists, the technicians, etc. who make up the bulk of the team that takes care of us when we seek medical care. And, from my perspective, they get far less in terms of money and recognition for all they do and what they genuinely deserve.

Those who have traditionally been the staunchest advocates for patients are nurses. Anyone who thinks they continue to play an active role in their profession for any reward other than their dedication isn’t very well informed. I have known damned few nurses whose primary reason for working was to make money. God knows they have had a long struggle towards economic equality, but through it all they have never abandoned their role as advocates for patients. They still hang in there despite the extent to which they have been taken for granted by medical practitioners, healthcare managers, boards of directors, etc. At the end of the day, they make them look far better than the majority of them deserve.

There is an urgent need to rectify the excesses that have created what seems to be a bottomless pit in the escalation of costs in the “healthcare industry.” It isn’t going to come about by allowing those who feed must gluttonously at the trough of unbridled greed in order to manipulate and control the system. Their rewards for “service to humanity” stand proudly with those of their financial counterparts on Wall Street. To continue with a fragmented healthcare system will only allow them to find new opportunities in their continued efforts to exploit the system for their own personal gain. It is like trying to squeeze a hand full of mercury. It can’t be done.

There are significant numbers of physicians who are actively supporting a national single payer healthcare system. They are to be commended for their tireless efforts in this regard. Unfortunately, they are still very much in the minority among their more conservative colleagues. After all, the AMA is probably one of the strongest unions and most powerful lobbying organizations in the country. As we all know, money and power talk - big time!

It is time for serious consideration of a single payer healthcare system. The California Nurses Association has recently put one of the best proposals on the table that I've seen. Not only will it improve access to the system, but it will create a huge number of new jobs that will serve to improve the economy at a time when we desperately need it. It deserves the attention and study of our political elites in Washington, D.C. As of this writing, I have seen precious little attention paid to it within the hallowed halls of our nation’s capital. It will pump billions of dollars into our economy. It will remove the burdensome cost of healthcare from the backs of industry and commerce, thereby enabling them to regain a more competitive edge in the international world of business and commerce.

All the while keeping an eye on them, the time has come to take some of our focus off Wall Street and shift it to the excesses and self-serving practices going on within our healthcare industry. It has been said of lawyers and physicians that they have purged two words from their vocabularies; ethics and economics. They have instead combined the two into just one word: Ethinomics!

Mind you, there are a lot of good and decent physicians out there who genuinely care about the issues of the day, and who are active in national healthcare agendas. However, those are not the ones with whom I am concerned. The ones who I regard as the most insidious are those who are members of the “club” that regularly meets in the doctor’s lounges and country clubs. As for those of us who are on the receiving end, persistence, good oversight and sound regulation are the only remedies we have. Otherwise, the fox will continue to guard the chicken coop at our collective peril.


Cowboy Bob
January 30, 2009

"Our Common Journey on the Road to Damascus"

I must confess that I was somewhat surprised by the passage of Proposition 8, amending the Constitution of the State of California to prohibit same sex marriages. I was even more surprised to note that the majority of support for passage of the proposition came from Latinos and Blacks, given their history of being marginalized within the context of the broader society.

I, also, find it all rather incredulous that any rational and enlightened person could buy into the belief that homosexuality is a choice. That is yet to be proven and, until it is, I regard it more as a societal prejudice that has absolutely no foundation in fact.

The person is yet to be born who would deliberately choose a life of ostracism, persecution, alienation and violence from their families, churches and society. I have known too many with the same sad tale. They realize they have a different sexual orientation at a formative age and struggle with what they suspect they are vs. what they feel they should be. They may go to churches where they are subjected to a tirade from the pulpit or the altar condemning their kind as an “abomination of God. “ When they do come out, there is often faint sympathy and little or no attempt at understanding and acceptance. A goodly number are literally thrown out of their homes and disowned by their families. They must either live the life of a hypocrite or seek acceptance within a community of their own that is rife with prejudices specific to their subculture. For some, the only way out is suicide.

It is yet to be proven that homosexuality is genetic, but it has not been conclusively proven that genetics does not play a part in it. Frankly, I am inclined to believe it has its roots in a combination of factors that causes them to be attracted to another person of the same sex. The scientific community needs to continue devoting the effort and resources necessary in order to resolve this question. Current scientific evidence suggests it may be a combination of genetics, environmental influences and family history.

When I was in college, I recall research conducted following WW II which focused on men in the armed forces who were isolated from the company of women for a sustained period of time. They found a greater incidence of homosexual behavior among men while they were isolated from women than was the case when they were not. Much the same findings were also found among male prison populations. However, when they returned to a normal environment, the majority of them reverted to heterosexual behavior, but a minority continued to prefer the company of men. The conclusions pointed not only to the strength of the male sex drive within the population but, also, to the identification of a minority who had a latent sexual orientation toward members of the same sex. As to the causal factors, as of today, that is yet to be conclusively determined.

Of course, we cannot leave out the religious institutions that believe they, and only they hold our salvation in their hands. Their personal and institutional hypocrisy knows no limits. They all rail on, in one form or another, about the evils of homosexuality, the remedies for which range from ecclesiastical condemnation to divinely ordained death. I am always amused by such invective when I hear of clergymen of professed piety sneaking out under the cover of darkness, or to the anonymity of a distant city, in order to procure the sexual favors of one of the same sex.

Then there is the issue of the rule of celibacy adopted and institutionalized by the Catholic Church, causing centuries of cover-up, denial and hypocrisy at what has gone on in parishes, orders and monastic orders. It will take a long time for the church to recover and, in my opinion that will only come about when celibacy is made optional. I just don’t believe it is possible to ignore and suppress one of man’s strongest and most basic biological needs without breeding hypocrisy on a grand scale. If the protestant faiths can support a married clergy, then I see no reason why the Catholic Church cannot do the same.

As for criminally and sexually predatory behavior, statistics show the incidence to be much less in a homosexual population than in the population at large. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that children adopted by gay couples have any greater proclivity to homosexuality as they mature than do those raised in heterosexual homes. The evidence thereby negates the prejudicial conclusion that such adoptions are likely to lead to some sort of a conversion from a heterosexual makeup to a homosexual lifestyle. Gay couples, generally, have shown themselves to be exemplary adoptive parents, who are actively involved in their children’s school and social activities.

Personally, I am put off by the overt and exaggerated expressions of being gay. I see no positive reasons for gay parades, and the antics and forms of dress likely to be found amid their protests. On the other hand, I can understand why they engage in such activities as one way of saying “f--- you” in response to the almost total ostracism and alienation the gay community at large must feel. At the end of the day, I think they would be better served by being accepted and assimilated into mainstream society. That, of course, presupposes an open minded society that still has a long way to go before reaching that objective.

As for sexual activity, it is pretty much a given that most people engage in such activity, be they straight or gay. When the clothes come off and people jump into the sack, it is at that point I believe we separate ourselves from the spiritual side of our nature to the physical, try as some may to think otherwise. Other than as it relates to the creation of life, I rather doubt that God has any interest in that activity, as well. I know of no Divine proscription as to style and conduct for sexual activity. I rather imagine, whether those involved are heterosexual or homosexual, the inclination to engage in variety is just as pronounced for one group as it is for the other.

I cannot imagine why any religion would want to concern itself with this aspect of our human nature, must less engage in elaborate prohibitions as to what is acceptable or unacceptable; what is normal vs. what is abnormal. However, as always, we have left those issues to the elders of the faith who have, historically, done a laudable job of subjective judgment and condemnation. The laity has also done a very good job of rising up in righteous indignation about such matters. Frankly, I don’t think God gives one hoot as to what two consenting adults do in privacy. What I do think He cares about is the moral dimension of it all which, as we all know, is based more on conjecture than on fact.

I believe what determines the morality of it all is whether it occurs within the context of a promiscuous relationship or within the context of a committed relationship. Lust vs. love. The same applies to heterosexuals as it does to homosexuals. That doesn’t mean some of us may not be weaker than others, but it doesn’t change the standard.

That marriage applies to the “union of a man and a woman,” is pretty clear in its definition and seems to be a generally accepted. Perhaps that is because only from the union of a man and a woman comes the power to create human life. I can think of no other rational explanation. If that is indeed the case, I will yield to that definition, and it seems rather futile to belabor the issue and prolong a long overdue reconciliation. Nothing will be solved by the conflict. It will only continue to separate the two sides of the issue without any meeting of the minds. In reality, is the prize really worth the price of the Cracker Jacks? What is of importance, from my perspective, is whether a union of two human beings occurs within the context of a loving and committed relationship. That can be accomplished by means other than labeling it as “marriage.” Why can we not accept that the traditional definition of “marriage” applies to the union of a man and a woman? On the other hand, the term “civil union” does sound overly legal and sterile in its connotation. Instead, why not consider “a pledge of commitment” between members of the same sex that can be legally performed in a ceremony, either by a religious cleric or a civil servant, just as a marriage ceremony may be for a man and a woman? If churches want to formally bless those unions, as I think they should, all the better.

To deny anyone who is striving to live a moral life from the life of a church, regardless of their religious persuasion, is self-defeating for the church and fosters an estrangement of millions of good and decent people from the fabric of our community simply because they happen to be gay. To continue to gore each other’s ox over the definition of “marriage” will only continue to separate us from each other. Nothing is to be gained from that posturing.

I believe the time has come for churches and religious clerics to heed their own counsel to “Judge not lest ye also be judged.” If anyone seeks to become a part of your community and comes to you with a sincere heart, then I think the only decent avenue for them to take is to set aside their own prejudices and welcome them into the fold. In the final analysis, it is a matter of the individual’s own conscience for which they, and only they, will be held to account before their Creator, not that of the church. That will be the Day of Judgment for each of them and, indeed, for us all.

Let’s face it, as long as we persist in having our own way we will never get to where we should be. At the end of the day, whether in the eyes of God or whatever higher power one may look to for spiritual guidance, we are one people. The time has come for us to divest ourselves of the petty prejudices that divide us from one another. We might just as well accept and make the most of who and what we are, for the sake of everyone. Why would the God of Love want to condemn any human being for the simple need to love and be loved?

At the end of the day, that which we must all share is our common journey on the road to Damascus.


Cowboy Bob
January 15, 2009