Confession: I Am Misunderstanding Something About Government

Perhaps I have this wrong. 

I swear I remember a time when novelists portrayed the life of the bureaucrat, politician, or prison guard as the bleakest of all vocations; barren, grey, full of the tedium of rules, regulations; of capricious changes in protocol. I swear such jobs were described as the very acme of inefficiency, laziness, and meaninglessness. And I swear that other storytellers talked about the dreariness of those bureaus that were indeed incredibly efficient, portraying them as mindless, soulless assembly lines of conformity, warning us all that the perfectly efficient world was a dead one. Like a concentration camp, full of mechanical, dehumanizing harmony. 

But perhaps I have this wrong. 

I swear I remember a time when being an employee of the state was something one admitted with reluctance, fearing embarrassment. Unless one was a governor, or some other such personage of apparent import (like a foreign diplomat), a person did not generally flaunt that he or she was on the public payrolls. After all, state workers were not just seen as poorly compensated. They were seen as somewhat incompetent.  Saying one worked in the public sector was not the sort of thing one boasted about at a dinner party, unless one simply meant to boast about job security or some other banality. 

But perhaps I have this wrong.

I have this vague but haunting recollection of teachers, singers, poets, rock stars and filmmakers, all warning me about the vapidity, the soul-stripping vapidity, of work in government, of employment in the wastelands of civil service where conformity is tantamount -- for the collective "good." I thought I was weaned on rebelling against this soul-robbing collectivization. Wasn't I? Wasn't I told that the public sector, that world encased in red-tape and regulations and reforms and agendas and referendums and motions and amendments, was a black hole of creativity? Wasn't I warned to flee such places? Weren't these places and jobs always portrayed as eternally dull and insipid, inspiring nothing but listlessness and ennui? What about "estrangement" and "alienation"? Weren't these the offspring of the government complexes epitomized in the flat cement of the Berlin Wall? Wasn't I told to dream big dreams, to be my own person, to find my own way, to be a free spirit creating my own meaning, my own value and art? Wasn't I told to cultivate my own sense of the beautiful? I swear I was told these things, and that the state, the enemy of beauty, was death, just like the state hospitals were death: that if you wanted the worst humanity had to offer, just turn to the government for a job, or real help, or some cure.  

But perhaps I have this wrong.

I can't tell you where these images come from, the ones I have in my head, of drab and pitted hallways, of neighborhoods and projects -- often the same thing -- stretched out in grotesque repetition, cut in perfect egalitarian geometry: of impersonal streets on which one could only see blank-eyed pedestrians, or bicyclists rolling toward some government factory. I don't know where I heard comics mock "Gubmint cheese" and other sub-standard "charitable" handouts. I don't know where I heard satirists sneering at military housing, or condemning the projects I saw as a kid in the south Bronx, Newark, Jersey City, or the fringes of Philly. And I swear I was told that a government-made vehicle was a "shit box," especially if it came from those places where government was at its most-controlling best. 

But perhaps I have this wrong. 

Where, I wonder, did I learn to cringe when that huge family in upstate Wherever -- where all of them were employed by the prison or state college -- told me that I ought to get a "real" job and "work for the state?" Somewhere I must have learned to recoil when I heard of some poor sap who had to go to the state hospital for surgery, but I don't know where. Surely I must have been told by someone that having a public defender instead of a private defense lawyer was for losers, that everyone knew great lawyers didn't defend the lower primates in district or county court. Somewhere along the way someone must have told me that the county nursing home was not where I wanted to live out my days. Didn't someone tell me these things? 

Where, oh, where did I learn to equate the state with mediocrity, and far worse? And where did I get the idea that the private sector was where the achievers were, where talent flourished, where the best of the best were allowed to innovate, to explore and create and create and create, and were then challenged to innovate even more? (Oh, yes, I am aware of the dehumanizing potential of the free market and unfettered industry, but I am not suggesting these are lovely, either. But I may be suggesting that they are lovelier.)

All I can conclude is that I invented this all by myself. This is my doing. I am just dreaming that school -- and art and music and film and literature and church and nature -- taught me that the labors of the state, when made the highest good of society, are hell on earth.

But perhaps I have this wrong, too. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

When Abraham Lincoln Sounds Hostile, Even Scary

In his Missouri speech to supporters of his health care reform projects a few days before those projects became federal law (alluded to earlier here), Barack Obama quoted, albeit brokenly, Abraham Lincoln. It is a quote he has used several times in speeches since his election. But in the wake of health reform legislation that was "historic" precisely because nothing like it (in sheer size and import) had been passed by such a partisan, ideologically-driven and emaciated majority, Mr. Lincoln's words in Mr. Obama's mouth have a very chilling, even dictatorial, quality. 

Here's Mr. Obama:

A big part of our campaign [for the presidency] was about changing the way Washington works.  It was about transforming a politics that's driven by cynicism and a 24-hour news cycle, and the cable chatter, and always focused on the next election instead of the next generation.  Our campaign was about meeting the looming challenges -- in education and in energy, in our health care system, in our financial system -- that helped bring about the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  And it still threatens our prosperity.  It was about making our government actually work for you, the people:  a government that lives up to its responsibilities, including the responsibility to live within its means. [...]

You know, President Lincoln said that “the legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not … do at all, or do so well, by themselves.”  That pretty much sums up my attitude.  You let people do for themselves what they can do for themselves; and then if there are some things that we do better together, we should do them together. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

It is reassuring to read Mr. Obama will "let" us do for ourselves what we can. I really do appreciate that he has given us his permission.

Here, by the way, is the Lincoln quote (notice how different it is from Mr. Obama's quotation; red letters added to emphasize that difference):

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Obama (perhaps in deference to various court orders that may be pending) will support those states, and even those individuals, who believe they can "individually do as well for themselves" in controlling, maintaining and paying for their own health care without federal involvement. Of course, we know his answer: Individuals and states can't do it "as well for themselves" as the federal government can do it for them. 

In the corporate world, what happened this past weekend regarding health care might be described as something akin to a hostile takeover. Despite overwhelming voter opposition, significant Democratic Party opposition (15% of house Democrats opposed the legislation) and complete Republican opposition, the WE-DO-BETTER-TOGETHER powers of the executive and legislative branches eked out a legislative "victory" regarding health care. 

That is historic, I guess. Of course, since there are some things I can't do all that well for myself, I will have to "let" the government tell me what is historic -- and why. Obviously, some of us can't even opine correctly -- for ourselves.

(Alas, Mr. Lincoln, if "all men were just" indeed.)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Barack Obama Calls For Civility, But What Is It?

Earlier this month, while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama urged Americans,  particularly prayerful Americans, to strive for civility.

"Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility."

"Stretching out of our dogmas, our prescribed roles along the political spectrum, that can help us regain a sense of civility."

"I know in difficult times like these -- when people are frustrated, when pundits start shouting and politicians start calling each other names -- it can seem like a return to civility is not possible, like the very idea is a relic of some bygone era. The word itself seems quaint -- civility."

In Mr. Obama's speech, he invoked "civil" or "civility" ten times. But what is civility? And what is the essential component that makes civility civil? Is civility nothing more than being kind, polite, well-mannered?

_________________________

A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON

Let me begin with negation. Civility is not courtesy. It is not good manners. It is not politeness. It is not a kind tone. It is not a strict adherence to protocol or deference to propriety. Of course, it feels like civility must contain all of these things, but it doesn't. If it does, however, these are only accidental. They are not essential.

Civil and civility derive from the Latin civilitas, which stems from civilis, which stems from civis, or "citizen." Civilis meant "relating to citizens" ("citizens" derived from civitas, the Latin word for "city").

I know, I know, this seems all rather academic, but there is a point, and that point is civility has not always meant courtesy or good manners. 

Here is how civility is currently defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary:

CIVILITY, n. formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech

But this note in the same dictionary is important:

In early use the term denoted the state of being a citizen and hence good citizenship or orderly behavior. The sense [politeness] arose in the mid 16th century.

In other words, the current use of civility -- politeness -- is a rather recent one.

This foray into etymology is not frivolous. It is important to note that civility is not essentially about being polite, or, more aptly, civility is not about being "polished or made smooth" (which is the meaning of the Latin root for polite). It is really about something else. Kind tones, nice words -- these are not essential to civility at all, especially when one considers that civilization is really the result of civility: civility creates a civilization. It is essential to it.

But if civility is not essentially about politeness or courtesy, what is it?

Answer: Civility is the honorable use of truth. If society is a marketplace, then those who exchange truth in an honorable way, are civil. Truth is the most essential currency, not only in actual financial markets -- the whole idea of honest scales comes to mind -- but in the marketplace of ideas. Those who refuse to transact in truth are not civil, nor are they civilized.

_________________________

POLITENESS DOTH NOT A CIVILIZATION MAKE

One can easily imagine a world of incredible politeness that does not exchange in truth. Such a world, however, could never be civilized. We all have witnessed incredibly polite people tell nothing but lies; from childhood to old age, we can see that politeness can often be a form of abuse, being little more than the packaging of really damaging goods. And where there is abuse, and where there is the neglect of truth, civilization falters, struggles, and even decays. It is impossible to build or sustain a civilization without truth, just like it is impossible to build anything -- at least anything that lasts -- without a firm foundation composed of truth, of the truth of the laws of physics and the rules of engineering. Imagine a set of architect's instructions -- meticulously spoken with perfect syntax, grammar and politely offered warnings -- and yet his words are filled with half-truths and falsehoods. Imagine travel directions given that are sweetly spoken and yet completely wrong. A perfectly polite world without truth or respect for truth would indeed be one where chaos reigns.

And one can easily imagine a civilization that thrives that is not one whit polite. Imagine an architect offering advice whose speech is laced with profane, crude and abusive language, and yet he is utterly precise in his designs, designs obedient to the laws of physics. Things would get built, and they would stand erect against all forces. A civilization need not be built on courtesy. It may help, but courtesy is tangential at best to the great arch of truth that holds a civilization upright.

As long as any civilization is committed to the honorable use of truth, then that civilization will be civil in the truest sense.

_________________________

THE BIFURCATED TONGUE IS SMOOTH

So why bother with all this? Simple, really. I find Barack Obama utterly polite, and yet frequently given to marketing falsehoods. He is obviously a courteous politician, polished and politic. But even the devil is polite. Even Wormtongue was "civil." Even the serpent hisses courteously.

No, I am not suggesting Mr. Obama is a devil. My point is too refined for that sort of garish accusation. I am saying that we must be careful. I am saying that we must be diligent. I am saying that we must not be swayed by smooth speech, or even kind words -- from anyone. What matters is not the delivery or tone or cosmetics. What matters is how truth is handled. What matters is how facts are shared. What matters is civility -- the honorable use of truth.

_________________________

MR. OBAMA: HOW HIS FAITH INFORMS HIM

Here is an example of the sort of truth-less currency with which Mr. Obama transacts; the quote is lifted directly from his speech at the prayer breakfast; Mr. Obama began that speech with a promise that he would speak of how his faith informs his presidency:

"God's grace, and the compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through the men and women like Corpsman Brossard.  It's expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces, through the efforts of our entire government, through similar efforts from Spain and other countries around the world.  It's also, as Secretary Clinton said, expressed through multiple faith-based efforts.  By evangelicals at World Relief.  By the American Jewish World Service.  By Hindu temples, and mainline Protestants, Catholic Relief Services, African American churches, the United Sikhs.  By Americans of every faith, and no faith, uniting around a common purpose, a higher purpose."†

This may seem utterly harmless; it may seem as innocuous and innocent as a child talking about fairies. But it isn't innocuous or harmless or innocent. It is grotesque. If it is not meant as deception and propaganda, then it is undeniably stupid. If it is propaganda, then it is an insult to all religions, and all atheists, and it is meant to deceive, confuse, and obfuscate. And what seems a mere sentimental passage in a forgettable speech is surely a celebration -- unwitting, perhaps, which thus confirms the charge of stupidity -- of Unitarian-Universalism, the creed-less church that attracts so many American liberals.

Pay attention! Just follow "God's grace." Look at what Mr. Obama claims expresses that grace: "God's grace ... it's expressed ... [b]y Americans of ... no faith." Imagine! Even the good actions of atheists are an act of God's grace. Moreover, God's grace is "expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces..." It is expressed in "Hindu temples." It is expressed through the Spanish government. But not only God's grace, but the "compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through ... Spain and other countries... ."

And, to top it all off, Barack Obama is celebrating that the religious and non-religious, all expressing God's grace, unite "around a common purpose, a higher purpose." Indeed, one wonders not only what he means, but whether Pope Benedict XVI knows anything about this "higher purpose."

In this speech on his faith, Mr. Obama declared "progress doesn't come when we demonize our opponents." I will spare readers the details of the times Mr. Obama has demonized his opponents; suffice it to say that when he makes such an exhortation he demonizes those who apparently demonize their opponents; he transcends such petty sins by sounding the noble call not to demonize, thus elevating himself, seeing himself as "above all that."

And he wraps up his speech with a quote from Martin Luther King: "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend." But such is simply not true: Truth can change an enemy into a friend (and some enemies become friends around a shared lie).

But what is most disturbing, perhaps, is this line that epitomizes Obama double-speak: "Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary." [emphasis mine]

In other words, calls for unity, civility, common ground: all vapid, empty. We can part ways -- "when necessary."

I began this essay on Wednesday. I did so in anticipation of Mr. Obama's healthcare "bi-partisan" summit, which is happening as I write this sentence. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Obama exchanges with his opponents the currency of truth; it will be interesting to see whether he demonizes his opponents using straw man fallacies, misrepresenting their views. And it will be interesting to see if he will find reasons to part ways, "when necessary."

Whatever happens, I am sure it will all be very polite.

___________________

†Let's examine this further. Mr. Obama seems to mean that God's grace is really some sort of Idealism, some 'spirit' that inheres in history: that history irresistibly flows towards a progressive end, and it is a shame to be on "the wrong side of history." Or, he is talking about pantheism, that "all" is God, and hence even the actions of an atheist are "God's grace." Or, he is conflating God with the will of the American people: what we will is God, and what we will is good (and spreads throughout all peoples). But these are all philosophically and theologically naive. Surely he cannot mean such things; surely he does not mean to supplant the dogmas of the earth's greatest religions with such bland pantheistic ideals. But if he does not mean them, or if he does not really understand what he is saying, what does this say about his intellectual capacities? And what if he REALLY does mean them? Do we not conclude that he is an intellectual child? And if he does not mean what he said, if he is merely reading words penned by a speechwriter, then is he not deceiving us, lying to us that this is how he feels, that this is how faith informs him as a man and as a president? In conclusion, we can only say that what he said is horrible, (and that he said it is horrible, too). 

©2010/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.

Why I Can't Vote For Democrats in '08 (And Neither Should You) -- Part 1: Health Care Hypocrisy

Let me begin this essay with a concession I've made before: Let it be conceded that only one major political party in America cares about the poor, and that party is the Democratic Party.

With that sweeping concession made, let me ask a question. Barack Obama has raised $450,000,000 this election cycle; he has spent nearly $400,000,000 thus far. I ask without flinching: Why isn't this money going to the poor?

What follows in part comes from an argument I presented in a lengthy series of essays published under the title of "Making Poverty History."

____________

In 2005, I wrote the following, and it is crucial to my own polemic against my voting for a Democrat this year:

I want to make one point about someone who remains arguably the figurehead of the Democratic Party, John Kerry. Mr. Kerry, in case you have forgotten, is a member of that class aptly called the super-rich, with he and his wife, Tereza Heinz, worth at least $500,000,000. (That Ms. Heinz' fortunes came through her previous marriage to a Republican is not really germane to this point, though it is curious in a gossipy sort of way.) And we will recall with ease that Mr. Kerry stood for political values that included rolling back the Bush tax cuts. To Mr. Kerry, the tax cuts did nothing to benefit the poor or middle classes.…

I am wondering if you knew that Mr. Kerry and his wife chose, in 2004, NOT to pay Massachusetts state income tax at an optional higher rate offered by the tax commission for those with high incomes. That this made a few New England papers, and the talkshow circuit in Boston, is about the broadest audience this tid-bit reached. Mr. Kerry and his wife, no doubt with the shrewdest of accountants at hand, chose to keep some of their earnings to themselves, choosing not to give extra money to the state coffers, money which could have been used, in part, to fund programs for the needy or less fortunate.

Mr. Kerry's actions, or inactions, are applauded by me as actions well within his right. I am glad that he was free to do with his money as he saw fit. But I can't help but note a bit of irony here: The super-rich gave themselves a tax cut though they appear to oppose cuts in government funding.

I hope you get the point: John Kerry ran a presidential campaign in 2004 which was critical of the Bush tax cuts and opposed to gross cuts in government spending. But privately, when offered a chance to actually increase government coffers, Mr. Kerry abstained during tax time. It is really a rather telling fact.

Readers attentive to the political hankerings over the last several election cycles know that universal health care coverage is a key item in the Democrat Party's legislative agenda. Hillary Clinton attempted to develop a health care plan during her husband's presidency; John Edwards was quite passionate about health care reform during this latest election cycle. It is a wildly popular idea: just last month, New York Times columnist and Democrat celebrant Paul Krugman waxed on giddily about the prospects of universal health coverage in the United States.

But let me make this point, one which to some will seem utterly vapid: the Democrats have themselves done nothing to provide health insurance for the uninsured, or coverage for the uncovered. And they have had every chance to; like John Kerry at tax time, Democrats have chosen to keep their money to themselves. Let me explain.

After John Kerry lost his presidential bid in 2004, there was much harumphing about the callousness of America, particularly toward the 40 million souls who had no health insurance.

In the wake of Kerry's failed bid, I wrote the following:

Please recall with me two things from the 2004 election. First, that the Democratic Party ran on a platform that included federally-funded health care for the 40 million Americans without any health insurance. That these 40,000,000 include 18-28 year-olds who generally don't even think about health care; the very rich who choose to finance their own medical care; and those folks who simply do not want such insurance is interesting to note: the 40,000,000 is not necessarily replete with ONLY poor people.

Second, recall that John Kerry received over 59,000,000 votes by Americans who shared his views about health care for "the poorest among us." Recall too, that as a result of Mr. Kerry's defeat by George W. Bush in that election, many Democratic leaders and pundits rebuked the pro-Bush electorate for being uncompassionate, "un-Christian", and uncaring vis-á-vis the less fortunate. There was from coast-to-coast, from C-Span to lowly newspaper editorial pages, an outrage and disgust at the moral callousness of the Bush administration and the Republicans' cold-heartedness. Many expressed that they wanted to leave America, as it was no longer a kind or generous place: America had closed its doors on the poor. (New Hampshire bumper sticker: Bush/Cheney '04 - Leave No Billionaire Behind.)

Let me ask: What has prevented the 59 MILLION Americans who voted for John Kerry from pooling their own resources together in a brilliant 501(c) and creating a health insurance program for the needy? What has hindered the 59 MILLION Americans who believe health insurance is of primary importance from creating even a temporary and private fund for health care? Surely the 59 MILLION Americans who voted for John Kerry and universal coverage could have donated at least $1 each; but knowing that most if not at all could donate $10 apiece, why did no one see that a $590 million private program to insure 40 million folks meant that there was a safety net of more than $10 million per uninsured person? Where is the Democratic Party compassion I so often hear touted?

Let us note that Barack Obama and his party are poised to raise and spend MORE than half a BILLION dollars on getting him elected, but have not raised a single penny in the last 15 years to help care for those without health insurance. Apparently the desperate needs of so many vulnerable souls is not all that desperate. No, no. The Democrats are only compassionate when they can, by FORCE OF LAW, have every wage earner pay for health care for others. The urgency is not particularly urgent; but what is urgent is grabbing by legislative fiat the wealth of others so the "desperate needy," that group ignored by Democrats during the off-season, can be treated "justly" and "compassionately."

This is one reason why I am not a Democrat. That the Democratic Party can raise and spend an obscene amount of money merely to promote the PROMISE of health care, without ANY guarantees that such promises will be kept or the election even secured, proves two damning things: The party does not REALLY believe in health care, or else it would offer it via private funding, which it could easily do (even if only temporary); and the party is really only interested in one truly urgent need -- gaining power. The uninsured poor? the vulnerable? the desperate? Well, they will just have to wait until the Democrats win the White House and procure sovereignty over the Congress. In the meantime, those who do not have what they so desperately need can comfort and console themselves by blaming those callous Republicans.

As an aside, how odd to see the "compassionate" squirm when they learn that conservatives actually give more to charity than liberals.

Food for thought, or not.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.