Charisma Is So "Third World" Indeed

Please. Leave this site right now. You've no right being here. The one place you should be, the "place" where you should be reading, is here. Please, read Fouad Ajami's essay "Obama's Summer of Discontent." When an essay has the subhead "The politics of charisma is so Third World," you know it's going to be good.

Buy That Extinguisher After Your House Burns

I love it when I hear Mr. Obama tell me that I can keep my health-care plan. If I like my plan, well, I can keep it. If I like my doctor, I can keep her, too. His words just make me feel so cared for, so protected.

But what I note rather quickly is that Mr. Obama never says I can actually keep my insurance. No, I can keep my "plan." What I take from this is that if I want to keep my plan, call it PLAN BILL provided by IFB: Insurance For Bloggers, the government will provide me with an identical PLAN BILL.

Seriously, Mr. Obama has never said I can keep my insurance. Not once. At least I've never heard him say that I can. I have instead heard him slide from discussing insurance reform into language about my health care "plan." Well, everyone knows, at least they should know, that there is a significant difference between the plans an insurer offers and the insurer itself.

Besides, if my insurance company has to be realigned according to Mr. Obama's new standards of efficiency and equity, then I can't keep my plan, can I? My insurance will change, at least that's what is promised by Mr. Obama. And this despite his promise that I can keep my plan -- if I like it. But Mr. Obama, don't you see that I do like it just the way it is?

Questions for the next White House press conference: Are you saying that if a person likes his health insurance and the company that provides it exactly as they are, he can keep them that way? If so, what does reform mean? If not, then why are you telling people that they can keep their "plans"? Or are you equivocating, shifting meaning, obfuscating for political gain?

___________

On a slightly different note, somewhere I spotted a comment in a blog post about health-care reform that made me shake my head incredulously at certain aspects of the reforms lately proposed to the country. The idea that a person should not be exempted from receiving health-care coverage because of a pre-existing condition prompted the commenter to note that this should mean people should simply purchase insurance once they are sick. The writer compared the whole thing to purchasing car insurance: just buy the insurance after your car has been wrecked. Or homeowners insurance: purchase protection after your house has been burglarized, torched, or crushed by a meteorite. Why have health-care coverage at all for anyone prior to illness or injury?

I guess it's a bit like asking for protection AFTER pregnancy. But wait. I guess there will be some insurance for that sort of thing, too.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Our Reasonable Leader

I wonder if readers happened to spot last week's editorial in the Wall Street Journal, "ObamaCare's Contradictions." Reading it is grand fun: it's delightful to see a major publication bring attention to what we all hear when Mr. Obama speaks: duplicity.

Check out the WSJ's editorial. It will take you three minutes to read.

My favorite color is red, though I prefer blue. I love to swim, especially where there is no water. You know I am telling the truth if I blink, but if I blink, then someone will probably tell you that I am lying. And they may be right. I blink all the time. We all do. So maybe I am telling the truth when your eyes are shut. Maybe.

Barack Obama Writes For The School Newspaper

I read Barack Obama's opinion piece in the New York Times reminding us all once again why we so desperately need the glories of his health care reforms, and I was left with one distinct impression: The man writes as if he is trying to drum up support in the high school cafeteria for better access to the nurse's office. It is pathetic. It is pure boilerplate, you know, the treacly stuff sensitive Democrats like to pen to tug at people's heartstrings, and then their purses. It's sophomorically sentimental; it's an appeal to sympathy, which is, to those of us familiar with logic, naught more than the fallacious use of language. It is meant to persuade the affections, not the mind. It is fodder for feel-good acts rather than effective acts that are well-conceived and well-designed.

Mr. Obama's first paragraph sets the tone for all that's to follow, with his sly fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam concealed as some sort of decisive syllogism that ends discussion: Don't you want to hear the voices of the "millions upon millions" of people who "quietly struggle"? Have you no pity?

Of course, I do have pity, pity for a president who would stoop to such vapid and pretentious arguments. He is, ironically, scare-monger in chief, creating anxiety not only about the uninsured, or the allegedly gross profits of insurance companies and their alleged penchant for rationing health care and discriminating against certain people, but about whether you are truly a decent, moral, and democratic American. Don't you know that the truly good would just accept what Mr. Obama says? Don't you really, really care? Are you one of the genuinely moral and compassionate souls? Or do you side with those who seek to profit from healing the sick by raising insurance premiums and rejecting the petitions of the many?

The editor of the high school paper has made his appeal. The cool kids know which side to take. They'll be blowing off the morning block tomorrow to protest outside the principal's office.

It's so bold, so trendy, and so very, very right. The good people will be there. Will you?

No?

Loser.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Busing In Support And Dissent: The Democracy Of Illusion

When former NH congressman Charles F. Bass first ran for the US House of Representatives, I followed him on Election Day, 1994, from the moment he awoke to the very end of his busy day. As a staff photographer for the local paper, I approached my editor with the idea; the goal would be to create a picture story of the aspiring congressman, the hometown boy who had done well in state politics.

While traveling in the Bass campaign RV through the southern and central sections of NH (2nd Cong. Dist.) visiting polling places, I learned what was then -- for me -- an astonishing fact. At that time in my life, I was entirely indifferent to politics; despite a couple of social issues on which I took a vague political stand, I actually hated ALL THINGS political until the 2000 election and 9/11 (and I probably still hate politics). I think many Americans who had been rather indifferent to politics suddenly took notice of what was happening in America during the Bush v. Gore showdown and, of course, after 9/11. Prior to those two events, I was steeped in a cynicism that led to indifference: in 1988, I did not vote for George H. W. Bush or Mike Dukakis. I wrote in Mother Teresa.

What I learned while traveling with Charles Bass only reinforced my cynicism, particularly regarding the Democratic Party, though I was not lacking cynicism toward ANY party or politician. But this one thing stood out.

You see, wherever we traveled we would find lots of supporters of Mr. Bass's opponent, the Democratic incumbent Dick Swett (absurd name, I know). At various intersections along our route, or at the polling places we'd visit, Dick Swett supporters would be doing their level best to influence the vote. Because he is an affable chap, Mr. Bass would jump right into the midst of the Swett supporters, greeting them cheerily, shaking hands, wishing them luck. Of course, as he did this sort of thing, I would be shooting away like mad, looking for decent juxtapositions between the candidate and his opposition.

When each photo-op was over, I would quickly ask the people I had photographed with Mr. Bass for their names and addresses. EVERY supporter of Mr. Bass would immediately and enthusiastically comply. But when I would ask those who were holding Swett signs, or other signs for Democratic Party candidates, I found that they mostly were resistant to giving me either their names or where they were from. Sometimes they'd tell me their names but, no matter how much I pleaded and pried, they would not give me their addresses (this stuff is kind of vital for a photojournalist for a number of reasons). One stubborn guy did finally tell me his name and his address; he was from Massachusetts, he said, but he did not really want his name in the paper.

After several frustrating hours of futility in gathering names and addresses of Dick Swett supporters, at least those gathered along the state's highways, I uttered my frustration aloud to Mr. Bass and his campaign manager. The two looked at me like I had fallen from the sky.

"Don't you know the vast majority of the people holding signs, particularly along the highway, are union workers?" said Mr. Bass. "They're shipped in from Massachusetts and Rhode Island and paid by their unions to support Democrats in seriously contested elections. They don't want to let on that they're not NH residents. Most of these folks don't even know who is running for what office. They just hold signs. Besides, most of them probably called in sick today and don't want to get busted by their bosses."

Now, it takes no degrees in political science to know one thing about American politics: Unions are almost solely the possession of the Democratic Party. These big corporations of labor are indeed big business. I at least knew this much when I heard what Mr. Bass and his manager were saying to me. But I never expected that the supporters lining the highways of southern NH were not New Hampshire residents.

So, when you hear that "Republicans" and special interest groups are "busing in" mad mobs of naysayers to town hall meetings around the country to dispense "disinformation" about Mr. Obama's allegedly just and pellucid health care plans, just remember who also buses folks in to sow "dissent" and "spread disinformation": The unions of the Democratic Party (or is that the Democratic Party of the unions?).

Those of us who witnessed the thousands of non-state "supporters" of Barack Obama descend upon NH during the last election cycle have seen first hand what bused-in mobs actually look like.

Really, it is all a big, sick joke.

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

"Now Let Me Be Perfectly Clear"

From Mr. Obama's speech yesterday in Elkhart County, Indiana [bold added for emphasis]:

"...let me just talk about the so-called stimulus package, or the Recovery Act, because there's been a lot of misinformation out there about the Recovery Act. Let me tell you what it is and what it's not.

"The plan was divided into three parts. One-third of the money has gone to tax relief for families and small businesses. One-third of the money is cutting people's taxes. For Americans struggling to pay rising bills with shrinking wages, we kept a campaign promise to put a middle-class tax cut in the pockets of 95 percent of working families -- (applause) -- a tax cut that began showing up in paychecks of 4.8 million Indiana households about three months ago.

"We also cut taxes for small businesses on the investments that they make. And more than 425 small businesses in Indiana have received SBA loans through the recovery package. So that's -- one-third of the money was tax cuts.

"Another third of the money in the Recovery Act has been for emergency relief that is helping folks who've borne the brunt of this recession. For Americans who were laid off, we expanded unemployment benefits –- and that's already made a difference for 12 million Americans, including 220,000 folks right here in Indiana. We're making health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families relying on COBRA while looking for work. Some of you know people who lost their jobs, were worried about losing their health care, couldn't afford COBRA -- we were able to reduce their costs by 65 percent so they could keep their health care while they looking for jobs.

"And for states facing historic budget shortfalls, we provided assistance that has saved the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers and public -- and police officers and other public servants so that you wouldn't see the recession get even worse.

"So that's the second half. First half, tax relief. Second half, support for individuals, small businesses, and states that had fallen on hard times.

"The last third of the Recovery Act -- and that's what we're going to talk about here today -- is for investments that are not only putting people back to work in the short term, but laying a new foundation for growth and prosperity in the long run."

I can't remember the exact line, but in a Seinfeld episode Jerry, smitten by a woman he bumps into in Monk's who says she likes his shirt, distractedly replies, "Thanks. It's 50% cotton, 50% silk, and 20% rayon." Obviously, Mr. Obama has ripped off Seinfeld.

I guess a case could be made that 1/3 of 3/3 is also 1/2 of 2/3 -- if 2/3 were actually 2/2 and 1/3 was 1/2. But Mr. Obama seems to imply that 2/3 is 1/2 of 3/3. No?

"Now let me be perfectly clear..."

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Transparency

______________

I hate this blog. I hate my voice. I hate my own words. I do not like the sort of writer I've become.

Over the past couple of years, my life has become increasingly focused on caregiving for my elderly mother. This focus has reached a rather acute point, as my days -- all seven of them each and every week -- place me at my mother's home caring for her nearly every need. I am a nurse, really. I've gone far beyond what I thought myself capable. I am hip-deep in disposable vinyl gloves, incontinence briefs, commode cleaning, barrier cream and personal-with-my-eyes-closed-hygiene. It is what I do. Everything else is just an aside.

This blog, being a part of everything else, is therefore one of those asides. In fact, I just fling off thoughts here with a few finger strokes. For a long time now I have not entered a string of sentences with anything approaching concentration. It's all more like playing a parlor game during a holiday party with family than anything else: you pay attention, but just enough to avoid seeming a party-pooping fool and just long enough to conceal the fact you'd like to go home. Keep to the surfaces, play the game, talk about the weather, ask about the kids, quickly assemble an opinion and hastily speak it toward the cacophony of interruptions. And then seek more wine.

My mother groans constantly.

I do have help -- finally. I've a nurse who visits at least once a week, and a physical therapist and a home health aide who show up twice a week. And I have found an adult care center for my mother that keeps her safe and occupied for 6 hours each Monday, Wednesday and Friday. While this day care service is a godsend, it is a bit like going into some sort of weird reverse gear; it seems not all that long ago I was bringing my son to day care, carrying his little bag, finding his little cubby. Now I do it for my mother. The only striking difference is that my son wasn't swearing at me.

And his diapers were a lot smaller.

I don't know. I hate to blame my mediocrity on my mother or my circumstances. Sometimes I wonder if blogging, and simply using the internet in general, have actually made me stupid. And if not stupid, well, clearly I have become stupider since immersing myself in the online world. Seriously, I simply feel dumb. Flat out, straight out, unadulteratedly and precipitously dumb. In fact, a confession: I am so dumb that when I approach any stop sign, I've been suddenly given to trying to stop the sign. Why shouldn't I? It says "STOP." And I do this even when I discover, after expending my vast muscular reserves, that stop signs are not actually moving all that fast.

But I digress. The fact is that blogging is to literacy what Madonna is to deep thought. Actually, blogging is not quite that bad. But MY blogging is. Or so it feels.

Tonight I have a few free minutes to tap out a few words, though I feel like a weak fighter tapping out of an UFC match. Oh well. I've become what I am. I can't do much about it, except, perhaps, throw in the towel. It's just so hard to catch my breath, to bring some new strength and vigor to the fight. I can play the rope-a-dope, I can bob and weave and pray for a break. But why bother? I am in the midst of real life, the real stuff. You know what I mean.

What can I change about the facts of life? This is biology, baby.

I've got the hand sanitizer to prove it.

________________

Contratimes Labeled A "SPAM" Blog: On Hold

In case readers have had a difficult time accessing this site, I have to report that BLOGGER contacted this writer at 11:34 AM to announce that Contratimes had been flagged as a SPAM blog and that it was subject to review. In fact, if I did not follow the link provided in the BLOGGER email body, Contratimes would be automatically deleted in 20 days.

Anyhow, my apologies if I've made access difficult for you.

I am guessing that this site was flagged because I posted three links to three separate and unrelated sites that also featured essays titled "Clunkers For Cash Hurts The Poor," or some variation thereof. I initially did this to show readers that my essay of the same title was indeed my own and yet the headline was rather common. To qualify as a SPAM blog, these links would be generated by some sort of spam-bot and would lead readers to just one place. My links were real and purposive; readers went to real links of sites managed by real individuals who were sharing real ideas.

It seems obvious that if BLOGGER chooses to recognize a blog as a spam blog or some such other deviation of the norm, it should do so based on better evidence than what is at hand here. BLOGGER is a Google subsidiary, and it seems to me that Google should be able to analyze, instantly, that Contratimes is not a SPAM blog, nor were my three links circular or self-looping in any way.

Needless to say, my initial visceral reaction was that I was being harassed; it FELT like harassment. That I can't post any essays or comments until BLOGGER clears me is really disconcerting. But, in the scheme of things, well, this is hardly a big deal.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Cash For Clunkers: Which Party's Constituents Are Participating?

As an addendum to my essay below, "Cash For Clunkers Hurts The Poor," I ask readers to consider -- for fun -- which political party's constituents are more likely to participate in the Cash For Clunkers program. I haven't the requisite skills or time to divine this sort of thing; perhaps no one does. But it would be interesting to see if this program attracts people from BOTH parties, or just one, and if only one, which one.

Cash For Clunkers Hurts The Poor

I am not the only person who thinks Cash for Clunkers is bad for poor people, but with all the recent analysis dispensed by the talking-head pundit-class seemingly ignoring this simple injustice, I am tempted to think I am among few who do. Clunkers, as you know, is part of an automobile industry stimulus plan signed into law by the Obama administration that enjoys bi-partisan support in both houses of Congress. It is officially called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS.

Apparently the program gained popularity after an op-ed by Alan S. Blinder appeared in the New York Times in July 2008. Mr. Blinder's essay was titled "A Modest Proposal: Eco-Friendly Stimulus."

Mr. Blinder (there's a name!) made three claims in his piece, first, that the plan would lead to a cleaner environment, second, that it would distribute income more equitably, and third, the plan would stimulate the economy.

Any reasonable person could doubt Mr. Blinder's claims, especially his claim that this plan would be good for poor people; that it would be "more equal":

"MORE EQUAL INCOME DISTRIBUTION It won’t surprise you to learn that the well-to-do own relatively few clunkers. Most are owned, instead, by low-income people. So if the government bought some of these vehicles at above-market prices, it would transfer a little purchasing power to the poor."

It seems to this writer that Mr. Blinder does not live in the real world. Who buys clunkers -- allegedly gas-guzzlers -- when they are new? The poor? Or the more "well-to-do"? That 1982 Cadillac that sits in the apartment complex in downtown Louisville; did a poor person buy that when it was new? The BMW 740s and the Chevrolet Suburbans and Ford Excursions; did poor people drive these off the lot when they first left the showroom? What about Hummers and Acura MDXs and Ford F-350s? None of these are particularly fuel efficient -- at least in a strict MPG comparison -- but surely it was the more affluent Americans who first drove these off the lot.

The same can be said for nearly any new car, especially the most fuel-efficient ones: Honda Civics are not cheap, at least compared to a lot of entry-level vehicles; and it is not the Honda Civic Hybrid that the poorest buyers purchase new, is it? See that 1998 Subaru wagon over there with temporary plates? That car was not recently bought by a rich person. (Well, in New Hampshire, where I am, one can never really tell.)

The fact is that almost every clunker on the road today that matters was purchased by someone who rather recently bought it used -- because a Clunker was all that person could afford. Cars trickle down just like technology trickles down: the safest, most fuel-efficient and technologically advanced cars NEVER start as entry-level offerings. Never. The best engineering always starts higher up. Yes, it is a sad irony that those who could benefit the most from a hybrid-like fuel mileage rating in their vehicles can't afford it. But that's the way of innovation.

And by the way, for most of my life I've been a Clunker driver. A used Clunker driver.

What does Cash For Clunkers do? It takes cars out of the marketplace that benefit the poor. To hell, really, with the idea that this "saves the environment." Poor people may drive inefficient cars, but they drive far fewer miles to begin with. Do readers know what happens to clunkers that are traded in for new cars? The auto dealership has to destroy the engine, and then crush the old clunker (fines WILL be levied if even certain parts from the clunkers are recirculated in a used-parts market). Just think of the economic foolishness this single fact represents. But think of the environmental impact as well: the auto industry and its parts-manufacturing complex have to deplete more of the earth's resources and consume more energy to create "new" stuff, all of which ARE the clunkers, or parts of the clunkers, of the future. Remember, that Toyota Prius you've got your eye on is a Clunker in the years ahead.

Who benefits economically from all of this? Not the poor, that's for sure. Mr. Jones, who has a Mercedes E-Class for himself, a BMW X5 for his wife, and an old Ford F-250 he uses around his gentleman's farm, will tool down to the nearest Clunker rebate center with his Clunker pick-up truck for the $4500 kickback he can use to get his 16-year-old daughter a brand new Honda Accord. But the poor man down the road who last year bought a dirt cheap Jeep Cherokee for his family will NEVER trade in his Clunker because he knows that even with a $4500 rebate he can't afford the monthly payments on a single new car that sits on the lot. And if he is approved for a line of credit, isn't he a high-risk borrower? Doesn't this perpetuate the sort of reckless lending and borrowing that have undeniably damaged the American economy?

Lest I give you the impression I am the only one thinking this way, let me cite "Marshall," who posted the following comment at Econbrowser:

One should consider the ever present unintended consequences [of the Clunkers program]. If the additional funds are approved, 750,000 usable cars that can be used by those who cannot afford a new one will be gone. How many additional people will be laid off from the auto replacement parts companies with a significant part of their customer base gone? Have an additional 750,000 people just taken on additional debt that they would not otherwise have done? How many additional foreclosures and cutbacks in spending in other areas will result? This crisis was caused by excessive leverage and this only intensifies the problem.

Cash for Clunkers is a NOT a good idea. It is NOT a good plan. It is really a stupid plan.

And it hurts the poor.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.