◊ A DEATH IN THE FAMILY: My mother passed away this past Saturday morning, in her own home. She was 87 years old. My brother was there with her (I wasn't). From what he reported, she died quickly and without struggle. It was probably the kindest type of death possible: quickly, at home, with a loved one near-by. Death is a thing you don't hope for, but “type of death” sometimes is. In this instance, my brother and I had our hopes fulfilled.

The social and religious death rituals are done, and my mother's remains now lie buried next to my father's. Back in the land of the living (living for now, anyway), I am currently dealing with the complex, powerful and sometimes contradictory emotions involved in losing a parent while in your mid-50s. Certainly I am glad for having known my mother for so long. But by the same token, having had her in my life for all these years, the loss is that much deeper. I was quite close to my mother as a child. She was anything but a distant parent. She was very warm and caring towards my brother and me. As young children, this certainly was nice.

Obviously, it became a problem in the teen years, when you want to carve out your own identity and independence. In the end, no permanent emotional damage was done between Mom and me or my brother, but many various kinds of angst were experienced as we transitioned from dependent children to independent, know-it-all young men. Although sex and girlfriends were more of an issue for my brother than me (given that I was more of a social “dork”), I became much more distant from my mother by the time I had finished college. The fact that I found a job after graduation in a distant city also contributed to our separation (my brother found work nearby and continued to live “at home” with Mom; this was good in that my father had died during my junior year).

I had all kinds of Barack Obama-like dreams of greatness and changing the world. And as with Barack, my own mother's needs would have to take a back seat to my own great plans. But fate eventually made it clear that it had other plans for me. I married an intelligent, literate woman of good education, and felt that I had made it into the world of culture and accomplishment. Unfortunately, she lacked parents like my own, parents who fully committed themselves to their children's proper rearing and well-being. Thus it was hard to fully commit herself to our marriage. After a few years we decided to separate, and she moved on to other relationships (actually, she started working on those relationships not too long after we took our vows).

I had hoped to continue working toward some type of “greatness”, and to find another partner in this quest. But as years became decades and “greatness” eluded me along with “a girl who understands me” (thinking here of a Warren Zevon song, “Desperadoes Under the Eaves”), I was living back on my ancestral turf again (good old northern New Jersey), and my mother was starting to decline physically. My brother was still living at home, and devoted himself to caring for her and keeping her out of a nursing home. This wasn't exactly what I had hoped to devote my life to, but over the years it became about the best cause I could involve myself in that might have positive, humane outcomes. (I never had or raised children, a cause in which many people find solace after their career dreams evaporate).

So, over the past 9 years, as my mother went from walking cane to walker to wheelchair to overhead hoist system to hospital bed (at home, mostly; but she did have two hospital stays earlier this year), I became more and more involved logistically and financially with my brother's cause of making my mother's declining years dignified. My brother remained the front-line guy; he lived with her and I didn't, so he had to take her to the doctor and change her urine-soaked clothing and oversee the thousand details involved in keeping her comfortable and involved in a family setting. My brother was also the lead-guy with respect to emotions. I talked with Mom and tried to be as friendly as possible, but my brother was the guy who kissed her and held her trembling hand as to help her eat while seated in a wheelchair at a restaurant. (Oh, and he bought and drove the wheelchair-lift van to get her there too).

So, it didn't seem as though I was “emotionally invested” in my mother; I didn't expect to experience much more than a sense of pity and a kind of nostalgia for earlier days once she finally left us. In a way, I thought this was good; why put your feelings on the line for what has to happen sooner or later anyway. I had fervently hoped that she would meet a peaceful ending, and certainly would have been upset if this hadn't happened; but as to feeling any big emotions about her no longer being in my life, I really wasn't expecting much.

But as they say about tidal waves, you hardly see them coming until they hit the shore. Mom is now gone, and I am about three-quarters sure that I am entitled to a “mission accomplished” feeling. She lasted to age 87, beating all her relatives (and even her in-laws). Even though I was mostly on the planning and strategy end of the operation, over the past few years my inputs and involvement seemed to grow (certainly my financial involvement grew). I was there on almost all of the major care decisions, and I think we got most of them right (still need to think a few through, though – not that it would do any good – but just for my own sense of closure and self-judgment).

Nonetheless, I've been dealing with some major emotional feelings since I arrived at my mother's house on Saturday morning and saw an EMS truck out front with local policemen near the door. Again, these are not guilty feelings. And a lot of these feelings have positive aspects (right now I'm feeling the kind of exhaustion you get after an intense effort at something that more or less comes out right, as my mother's funeral services did). But they also involve sadness and loneliness; they do at times make me think some not-entirely-logical thoughts, e.g. “too bad that a person like her has to die”. I mean, dying is just part of the deal for everyone, the just and the unjust. But that hasn't stopped my eyes from moistening and my throat from clenching now and then. Something big just happened to me, good or bad.

Hopefully it will mostly be good. I suspect that I'll get on with things and eventually find some new inspirations in life. Hopefully the goodness that was inherent in my mother will inspire me to find ways to share some of her goodness, some of her appreciation for simple being, that was so prevalent thorough out her life. I took a walk in the park this morning to reflect on this, and decided to engage in a mental exercise meant to achieve “fairness and balance”. I reminded myself of my mother's many faults, her clumsy and stupid moments, the times when I felt she had failed or disappointed me. There were such moments throughout the course of her life. She was not always even-tempered, and she did not share my penchant for intellectual discourse and critical thinking. She wasn't always supportive during my marriage, and didn't appreciate that my ex-wife hadn't know the caring environment that her own family always provided. (To be fair, my mother was quite sympathetic when my marriage finally fell apart).

But it was not an entirely easy exercise; I had to force myself to recall the bad moments, and even then they faded from mind quite quickly. In the final years, as my mother talked less, she seemed to accumulate a kind of peaceful wisdom, something beyond my scientific and philosophical thinking and also beyond the Catholic religious myths that she and my brother devoted themselves to. I may be imagining and projecting; this may all be wishful thinking on my part, but she seemed onto something “Buddha-like”. It occurred to me that we both grew over the years. She could (when she was still here) think about my own continued failings and lack of “world-class achievement” over the course of my adult years, as I could recall her own faults. But by the end, we both weren't the people we would have been thinking of. We were different, and hopefully better. Hopefully she's now in a more perfect realm, and I'm still here struggling with my earthly faults and failings.

So for now, I'm in a void. But it certainly wouldn't be my mother's intent to keep me there. Just the opposite, of course. I have faith that the seeds of inspiration and hope that she planted in my subconscious regarding life's deeper and ultimately positive dimensions will bear fruit, fruit to share with myself and with those around me. I believe that the world is a better place because of her, in a hard-to-fathom way (just like that tidal wave moving across the ocean). I hope that I yet find ways to share with the world some of the goodness that accumulated within the swirling patterns that were her life.

P.S., perhaps my mother represents another shred of evidence supporting the proposition that although the good do not always enjoy good lives, they die good deaths. ◊
posted by Jim at 6:58 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ Afghanistan: Vietnam Redux? I hate to say it, but I'm coming to agree with VP Joe Biden, that the USA should start throttling down its military effort in Afghanistan instead of ramping up as General McChrystal recommends. When our troops first went there in late 2001, it made lots of sense. We had an easy-to-understand mission (shut down the al Qaeda operations there and overthrow the Taliban government that was supporting it), and found some committed allies on the local level – i.e., the Northern Alliance.

What ever happened to the Northern Alliance? In a nutshell, the USA decided to go with democracy and side with whomever could rig – errr, win a nationwide election. That would be Hamid Karzai and company. Unfortunately, Karzai appears to be corrupt and increasingly unpopular. Any attempt at central government in Afghanistan has a rough field to hoe; but a corrupt one is probably an exercise in futility. The provinces aren't likely to be very enthusiastic about getting shook down in return for a national identity that they just aren't interested in. They just want to grow their goats and opium, there is hardly any national economy to get involved with.

I don't know the whole story about the Northern Alliance, but I suspect that they welcomed the US military because we were useful to them at the time. Al Qaeda is essentially an Arab tribe, and the N.A. represents the local Pashtuns and Tajiks who didn't like having all those Arabs on their turf. But once we pushed them over the Pakistan border, the tribes grew weary of all those Americans lecturing about representative central government. The tribes wanted to go back to their old ways.

As such, the whole Afghanistan thing is moving closer and closer to Vietnam. The Taliban, like the Viet Cong, are a cruel, authoritarian bunch willing to make their own kind suffer. Given a better option, the South Vietnamese would probably have rejected the VC and their North Vietnamese supporters. But the USA never found a better option. The central governments we cobbled together were all corrupt military regimes, willing to play our “election day” games. The villagers became tired of big American soldiers mucking up their rice paddies and bamboo shacks. They preferred a despotism run by locals, over a corrupt American-sponsored democracy. I believe that the same thing is now playing out in Afghanistan.

The remaining question is, does American military presence in Afghanistan have important strategic value to our nation? The answer is yes. Although we probably can't build a nation-state in Afghanistan, we can keep pressure on the Al Qaeda forces just across the border in Pakistan. Our troops, along with their drone attack aircraft, keep al Qaeda under cover despite the unofficial welcome granted by Pakistan. They haven't gotten much done, other than an occasional pompous video. We shouldn't give up on that, lest we risk more horror loosed in our cities in the name of a perverted Islamic ideal.

It sounds like Joe Biden wants to strike this balance; forget the Taliban in Afghanistan, let them have it if the people don't want to resist. But don't completely pull out of there, either; keep our special forces and our drone aircraft working in the eastern border provinces. Our failure to develop a strong central Afghan army would work for us; a hostile Taliban government couldn't kick us out of the east. About all they could do would be to make a lot of noise in the UN.

So again, as a geopolitical realist I find it strange to side with a liberal Democratic element. But as to surging our troops and attempting to stabilize a central democratic government in Afghanistan, I think we're wasting our time, money and manpower. It's time to cut our losses, while leaving just enough resources in the right places (welcome or unwelcome) to forward our key interests.

PS – It's interesting how the USA had success in nation-building efforts in countries where strong central governments existed. E.g., post-WW2 Japan, Germany, and now Iraq (hopefully). The previous governments there were TOO strong, but it got the citizenry used to big government and centralized economics. We had our worst fiasco in a place with little regard or tradition for central government and economy (Vietnam). So, if the USA has to go in and try to re-build a nation, it's best to find one with a strong existing governmental structure.

Iran? Well, certainly not if we keep so many of our troops and resources tied up in a no-win situation, such as Afghanistan has become. No, we couldn't think of invading Iran. And even if we were in better shape militarily, an offensive in Iran would be long and bloody; they wouldn't go down as quickly and painlessly for us as Saddam Hussein did. And the new Revolutionary Guard regime has not yet reached the unpopularity with the Iranian people that Saddam did in Iraq. So we would still be the more-hated party. But if present trends in Iran were to continue and the USA got its military mojo back – it might be thinkable. Except for the nuclear wildcard. So, you see why they want nukes; i.e. so they don't become the next plum for the US nation-builders to pick. ◊
posted by Jim at 10:27 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ Here's today's quiz question, and it's an easy one. Which field of professional study and practice gets the most interest and attention from the public? Nope, it's not otorhinolaryngology, not even limnology or soteriology.
As you probably guessed, it's PSYCHOLOGY. (Although maybe it should be soteriology).

Why? Well, you don't have to be a psychologist to figure out that we humans are very interested in ourselves. And psychology has a lot to say about ourselves. But as to how much of it is accurate and valuable, that is subject to debate. Nonetheless, there are lots of people out there who have taken some classes on the topic and have read-up on the literature, and just love to try out what they've learned on other people. That includes myself! Pop psychology is just another little tool we use in the great human task of getting along with each other. Or sometimes in sticking it to one another.

Whenever someone volunteers to psychoanalyze someone else, red lights should immediately start flashing and warning horns start beeping. DANGER! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON (for those of you old enough to remember “Lost In Space”). The voluntary analyst climbs a mount of claimed expertise and pseudo-objectivity, usually to mask his or her own agenda. The resulting analysis usually cites some line of fault, some theory of neurosis, some weakness stemming from the subject's alleged unhealthy sub-conscious response to past frustrations and denials.

This is fine, if the subject has requested it and has worked closely with the analyst in developing the facts and the background of the problem. But when volunteered by another, it often reflects mean and obnoxious motives on the analyst's part, craftily hidden behind a mantle of honest concern. I believe that the psychologists (or the pop-psychologists, anyway) call this “passive – aggressive” behavior.

An interesting example is an article published during last fall's presidential election campaign by alternate-health guru Dr. Deepak Chopra. Dr. Chopra's specialty is not psychiatry, but nonetheless he felt himself qualified to peer deep into the subconscious recesses of those who supported Sarah Palin. According to Dr. Chopra, to those who didn't want Barack Obama as their President, Palin represents “the shadow . . . that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of 'the other'.”

OK, so anyone who didn't vote for Obama is neurotic. This is all quite interesting and even a bit amusing. But whenever an uninvited analysis of “the psyche” is on offer, be it the national psyche or the individual, my own recommendation would be: doctor, heal thyself.

(And yes, let me 'fess up here – in writing this uninvited analysis of those who perform uninvited analysis, I'm playing the passive-aggressive game myself! Mea culpa.) ◊
posted by Jim at 1:47 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ It’s nice that President Obama unexpectedly won the Nobel Peace Prize, only a week or so after the unexpected rebuff from the Olympic Committee regarding Chicago’s bid for the 2016 summer games. Oslo giveth, Copenhagen taketh away. Various pundits have questioned this award, in that President Obama has only been in office for 9 months and hasn’t ended any conflicts or resolved any major international disputes yet. He has certainly expressed willingness to look at the world in a more open, cooperative way than the Bush Administration, and has taken steps to build bridges with the Muslim world. But as to what the fruits of his good faith will be in Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Israel-Palestine, Burma and other crisis spots, it remains to be seen.

President Obama certainly does deserve a prize for creating an air of worldly grandeur about himself. He certainly cuts a good figure and talks a good line, given his youth, stature, intelligence and diverse heritage. Both his campaign and his Administration staff have used this to good advantage. (His occasional attempts to seem homey and rub elbows with the red-state proletariat just add to the luster). In all my memories of televised political events going back to the Kennedy election of 1960, I never saw anything like Obama’s Denver nomination speech, with the Greek temple backdrop. Barack Obama certainly does bring a cosmopolitan perspective to the gritty reality of American politics.

Another unprecedented feature of the Obama campaign having an international flavor was its use of street artist Shepard Fairey’s “socialist realism” posters celebrating Obama’s major themes.

As a student of Twentieth Century history, these posters definitely caught my eye; there was a strong sense of déjà vu about them. And that turned out to be quite intentional; in a recent interview, Fairey said “I'm inspired by historical art from the Soviet Union”.

His Obama posters, especially the serious, visionary expression that he captures, clearly share a certain style and sensibility with images used by earlier idealistic political movements. As with Mr. Obama’s campaign, these movements were meant to bring social and economic change to powerful nation states. Just have a look:


I’ve intentionally selected the visual comparisons here so as to exclude any recognizable political leaders from these past movements. I don’t wish to associate President Obama with their many sins. I don’t intend to be incendiary. But the irony remains, given the failures of those internationalist regimes and the millions of lives lost or ruined in their rise and fall. I’m not suggesting that Obama will subject our nation to similar turmoil. But I am suggesting that despite the Nobel Committee’s high regard for Mr. Obama, he and his staff have not shown sufficient regard for the lessons of history.

After his upcoming return to northern Europe, President Obama needs to put his shiny international award away and get back down to the nitty-gritty of running a center-right nation facing a time of great and often distressing change. America certainly does need to change; it needs to make further accommodations with the rest of the planet, on which it increasingly depends.

But it cannot entirely give in to “international sensibility”. The USA has historically been a bit of a maverick, and in this ‘maverickdom’ has often stood for some of the better ideas devised by the human race. Perhaps America didn’t invent democracy and human rights and other accouterments of civilization, but it has done more than most to institute them and make them available to the masses in an otherwise violent, atavistic world. And it has sacrificed much in challenging some of humankind’s worst ideas and ideals, which have often infected “movements for change” inspired by good intentions. I hope that Mr. Obama will ultimately choose to affirm and re-energize this great heritage, while admitting to our nation’s inevitable mistakes. That would be his best gift to the international scene. ◊
posted by Jim at 10:48 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ Are we living in a time of "anomie"? Sociologist Emile Durkheim defined anomie as the time between the breakdown of one social order and the establishment of a new one. During times of anomie, people are often confused, as they lack clear rules on how to live and relate with each other.

I think that we are in such a time. I believe that until the 1970s there was a dominant social order in America built around the suburbs, the manufacturing economy, and advancing science and technology. Although we still have suburbs and advancing science and technology (the manufacturing economy was DOA by the mid 1980s), we aren't quite as enthused about them as we once were; we are no longer willing to build a social narrative around them.

The modernist suburban-industrial social order started breaking down in the mid 1960s with the urban riots and college unrest over Vietnam. It was prevented from healing by the oil shortages and economic strife of the 1970s and early 80s (not to mention Richard Nixon). Then came the Internet, and 9-11, and zing, we're not in Tullytown anymore. "My Three Sons" and "Ozzie and Harriet" are dead and gone, and there's a bit too much deviant crime (mother drowns newborn infant, stoned parent with 3 kids in car crashes into opposing traffic, gang beats teen to death on video, etc.). And a bit too much prurient interest in it.

Michael Jackson is also dead and gone, but the whole spectacle surrounding it just proves my point.

I think that our society and culture is presently in a conflict mode between two poles; one based on internationalism, ethnic diversity, educational achievement (not necessarily true education), and the embrace of user-friendly communications/entertainment technology; the other is based around more traditional values such as religion, family, small community, and individual triumph in gladiator-like arenas (e.g., NASCAR racing). Yes, the opposing icons are Barack Obama and Sarah Palin (hopefully she will eventually go away and allow Mike Huckabee to take the "red state" mantle). We're not sure just which one defines the accepted cultural norm; it keeps on flipping. Perhaps half of the population represent "true believers", committed to one lifestyle or the other; the other half drift around in a state of anomie.

Recently I found a picture that I took by accident, pressing the shudder unintentionally. I was going to ditch it, but something about it seemed interesting. It looked a bit like modern art. So I put it through some Photoshop hocus-pocus, and here's what I got. I call it, "Art for a Time of Anomie". Somewhat facetiously, of course. But here it is, nonetheless.

 ◊
posted by Jim at 4:48 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ I was thinking about fractals and life the other day. Fractals are an interesting part of the trend in mathematics and science over the past 20 years or so to better explain large scale, complex phenomenon like – well, like life itself. A key insight behind the concept of fractals is that some patterns repeat themselves at varying levels of size and organization. It's sort of like Russian dolls – you look inside the doll and you see a smaller doll, looking just like the big doll. Then inside that smaller doll, there's a smaller doll still, that looks like the bigger dolls. And on and on, until the dolls are microscopic in size, but still resembling the biggest doll and all others in-between.

Fractals have helped mathematicians come up with solutions to some problems for which math did NOT previously have anything useful to say, e.g. analysis of a rugged sea coast-line. Faster computers have made possible the application of fractals to a wide range of problems. You've probably watched a movie with a realistic-looking scene generated by a computer using fractal math; and you didn't even know it. That's the power of fractals.

My question is, just how powerful is the fractal concept in helping us to understand our own lives, our own sense of being? On that level, where computers aren't of much help, “fractalism” may or may not say anything relevant. But let's see. One implication is that the true nature of life is endless repetition. The more things change, the more they stay the same. There's nothing new under the sun. Our lives really are like the movie “Groundhog Day”; whatever novelty we perceive is just a bit of randomness on the fringe, while the bigger themes continue their endless cycle.

Perhaps the Buddhists are right; most of us are destined to cycle back and forth in a series of re-incarnated lives, lives of suffering and pain and ultimate meaninglessness. Very few will escape this fate, to achieve enlightenment and Nirvana, i.e. Buddhahood (or at least get to Feb. 3, as Bill Murray eventually did). It's close to what the ancient Greeks envisioned in the mythological story of Sisyphus.

As such, our own personalities in any one life are just a collection of incidental features, mostly accidents of fate. They aren't much different from the personality of a dog or a bug; in fact, we may have been dogs or bugs (or both) in past lives. As humans, we have the chance to attain the Buddha-wisdom that can break the cycle; but few do. So the fractal pattern repeats itself despite the evolutionary ascent of mind and self, from automon-like flies and mosquitoes to complex human beings.

But there's another way that fractals can be used to look at our selves. Perhaps the fractal is reflected in something essential about us; in contrast to the Buddhist view that self is mostly without true essence, at least until Buddha-wisdom is somehow attained (also contra the Christian view that life is subject to damnation unless salvation through Christ is achieved). Perhaps there is something that repeats itself throughout our lives, throughout the cycle of growth and changes spanning infancy through childhood, from the teen years to productive adulthood and into old age.

It's kind of hard to figure out just what that would be. We humans, especially we modern humans subject to so many different life experiences over time, change so much. It's hard sometimes to say just what our crazy teen years would have to do with our faltering fifties; our interests, perspectives, beliefs and desires can change so much. And what would we know in the innocence of youth that would still be a part of our not-so-innocent adulthood? Just how could our stages of life (remember “Passages” by Gail Sheehy?) be seen as Russian dolls, each new stage building around the earlier stage with an essential resemblance to it?

Certainly not in an immediate, physical sense. Humans change physically over the course of their lives almost as much as caterpillars / butterflies do. And thus do their psychologies and social adaptations, including their goals and beliefs. A little girl who wanted to be a pianist may turn out to be a successful stock broker. The Buddha might say there is nothing essentially common throughout a human life – except pain and suffering.

But wait; perhaps that provides a clue. Pain is a key example used in many philosophical discussions regarding the nature of human consciousness. Our consciousness of the world around us, and the feelings inside of us, are indeed quite constant throughout life (assuming a fairly normal brain and a body strong enough to support its functioning).

Consciousness is more than a set of signals from the environment along with our inner cogitations on how to best respond so as to protect our body and achieve our reproductive goals. Consciousness somehow sends us off into tangents of art and beauty and expressions of our awareness of being, of its existential significance. Consciousness encompasses good and bad, fear and love, rage and brotherhood, despair and hope. But the common thread, even in the contradictory act of suicide, is that being, and the conscious awareness of that being, is important (suicide might well be interpreted as a protest against the frustrating impairment of consciousness because of excruciating pain, hopeless suffering, cruel humiliation, etc.).

So, is consciousness the “fractal pattern” that makes our lives and our identities something special in the world? Or is there really not any sort of “ontological fractal” as I envision here – are we really just another manifestation of the processes already mostly known to our science? Should fractals be reserved for things like leaves and blood circulation systems and strange forms of computer-generated artwork? It's a question that people disagree on, quite legitimately. For now, I live in hope, hope that human consciousness and thus my own consciousness truly is a fractal response to a bigger reality, a reality that we don't see in the usual sense, and don't see at all other than through our awareness of being (and hopefully the reverent appreciation thereof). ◊
posted by Jim at 11:13 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ When you’re a teenager, you may hear lectures from civics teachers and other adults telling you that it will be your responsibility as an adult American citizen to become familiar with the great issues facing our nation and to express your opinion on them through voting, writing your representatives, speaking at townhall meetings, etc. But how many adults actually do this? In 2008, the year of Obama, 56.8% of the adult population voted, the highest percentage since 1968. That’s good, but it’s still not that much more than half-and-half.

As to townhall meetings, they made a comeback this past summer amidst the health care debate. But in reality, townhall debates are mostly a footnote to the overall political process in our country. The summer townhall discussions on health care were an interesting side show, a welcome news item for the media during the summer news lul. But in the end they didn't amount to much more than a rodeo clown along side the bulls and cowboys of health care politics. Ditto for letters (and now e-mails) and phone calls to your elected officials.

This stuff may have made a real difference in ancient Athens, the cradle of democracy. But in modern America, the bottom line question for our leaders is, what gets me elected and what expands my power. And in modern America, that amounts to big money, big media, and large-scale organization based around vested interests. Yes, vested interests – the nuclear power industry, labor unions, trial lawyers, fundamentalist Christians, insurance companies, the main-stream media, etc. Today we even have “big green”, i.e. increasingly powerful and established environmental lobbies. On the more local level – real estate developers and police unions hold sway, along with Wal Mart. These are the interests that can write the big checks and get out the vote. Your little e-mail to your local assemblyman or congressman might get a polite thank-you, but will be scattered in the dust as the big powers zoom past, getting the legislative provisions they want in return for the publicity that helps get or keep their patrons in office.

(And that hasn’t changed a whit with Barack Obama. I myself sent a few e-mails regarding policy issues to his campaign last year, and quickly received replies asking me to donate more cash.)

It makes me wonder sometimes, what can be done to move our political system and our government away from being a battle of the big interests and back to a process that ponders the long-term best interest for the masses, i.e. the “common – weal”. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to come up with much. When reading the other day about all the money that our Senators and Congressman get from the health care industry, I wondered why we couldn't have a blanket law outlawing all political contributions and lobbying from business corporations. Why should a corporate commercial entity be allowed to sway our leaders? These entities are artificial creations of law, not people. Why should they be allowed to mold our political processes, given the disproportionate level of resources at their disposal? They don’t get to vote; so why should they have so much control over who we human beings vote for and how we decide who to vote for (via big media and the big political machines they fund, e.g. TV ads, paid community organizers, control over what the reporters tell us and show us, etc.)?

Unfortunately, there won’t be any radical solutions. The courts have interpreted our Constitution as giving corporate bodies equal rights under the First Amendment. Corporations are seen as people who band together for a particular cause (usually making money); the Constitution cannot prevent a group of individuals from assembling to forward a common interest. About the best our system can do is to try to limit campaign contributions and make them open to the public.

So, if you as an individual still care, despite the fact that you don’t have much chance of having any real influence on how the US will deal with Iran or how we will solve the health care dilemma, you can at least find out how much cash your local leaders take from the big interests. One good source is a web site run by the Center for Responsible Politics called OpenSecrets.org. They have a lot of good info on who takes how much from whom, and also present nice summaries of political contributions from major industries over the past 20 years.

I was perusing these summaries the other day, which compare how much an industry or labor group gave to the major parties for each major election cycle since 1990. For instance, accountants and dentists and morticians have generally favored Republicans since 1996; auto dealers were solidly GOP from 1990 on. Ditto for mining companies, trucking companies and livestock producers. Lawyers and motion picture producers/distributors unabashedly favor the Dems, and software companies also give more to them. Pharmaceutical manufacturers seem to go the way the wind is blowing; during the Clinton years they gave evenly to both sides, then during the Bush era they went overwhelmingly with the Republicans. But in 2008, they evened it up again. Ditto for HMO/health service firms. Pretty much the same for telephone utilities. And savings and loan banks. And defense aerospace. And the airlines. And clothing manufacturers. And construction services.

What's also interesting is the growth in industry spending on politics. For instance, the coal mining industry went from $1,089,588 in 1992 (when Bill Clinton was elected) to $3,446,336 in 2008. Taking inflation into account, this still represents a 106% overall increase (i.e., a doubling in real spending). Religious and clergy organizations went from $358,345 in '92 to $3,101,412 in '08; in real dollars, this is a 464% overall increase (i.e., an increase to more then five and a half times the '92 level), making religion just about as politically important today as the coal industry.

Bottom line: most industries hedge their bets, but follow the trends. When the GOP is doing well, corporate support for them increases. When the Democrats get their groove back, as in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats accept more checks from big business. Very interesting. But as to having an open political process encouraging careful, thoughtful consideration of the issues leading to good policies favoring the general interests of the populace – well, Toto, we’re not in Athens anymore. ◊
posted by Jim at 7:49 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ MOVIE TIME: I don't get out to the movies much anymore; there just aren't many movies that I want to see. Back when I was in my late 30s and early 40s I dated some women, and thus became quite a movie maven. The movies all started blending into one another, though. So, for the past 15 years or so, I've rarely gotten out to a theater; a film really has to be special for me to go see it.

(I'm not into renting movies either; if there's a movie I do want to see, I would rather have the social experience of seeing the film with others, even if they're strangers. Seeing a movie in a theater is an important ritual, and every now and then it's good for me to participate in some kind of mythological social event. Every now and then.)

I recently decided to find out if the movie “Adam” was special enough for me. I'd read some reviews and knew that it was a romance story involving a young guy with Aspergers Syndrome. I only found out what Aspergers was about 5 years ago, and since then I've wondered if I myself have it. Some of it sounds very familiar (e.g., intense interests in technical subjects, difficulty in reading unspoken social signals from others, avoidance of eye contact, formation of routine life-habits that when disturbed cause angst); but other typical “Aspie” traits don't (monotone unemotional voice, frequent repetitive motions, avoidance of loud sounds, no tolerance and understanding when other people tell white lies or half-truths, general lack of awareness regarding others' feelings). I've taken some of those “Are You An Aspie” tests on the web, and what they tell me is not surprising: that I'm half-and-half, lying on the hazy border between Aspergers and “neurotypicality”. So perhaps I'm a half-ass Aspie, or a “half-Asp”.

I honestly don't know anyone else whom I can pin down with Aspergers, so I thought it would be interesting to see a movie version of an Aspie. The actor who portrayed Adam (Hugh Darcy) made a lot of effort to study Aspergers and spent time with young people who definitively do have it (according to their shrinks, anyway). Various web sources, including one citing Aspergers expert Dr. Tony Attwood, indicate that Darcy did a convincing job of portraying an Aspie – or more accurately, a credible version of an Aspie (there is no “gold standard Aspie” who defines the condition; relative to many “personality disorders”, Aspergers is harder to define and thus covers a broad range of behavioral traits and temperaments). So, I figured it was time to get a ten dollar bill out and put aside two hours for a theater visit.

Overall I enjoyed Adam and I'm glad that I broke out of my anti-movie rut for a day (even though it was hard; Aspies and even half-Asps like me have a hard time breaking out of ruts). It's the kind of movie that I'd like to see again (but that will have to wait, as I went on the last day it was showing in my town; there were only five other people watching Adam that day, so obviously it is not a blockbuster hit). As to what it told me about myself – well, not too much. I certainly can say that I was never quite like that; I'm no social butterfly, but even in my youth I had more “social grace” than Adam. And by the same token I never had Adam's better qualities either, i.e. his clumsy innocence and devotion to truth.

But then again, I really enjoyed Adam's babbling on and on with Beth, his new love-interest, about the formation of the universe. I didn't want him to stop. I'd really like to have a conversation with the dude about this. When he got all upset with the lawyer handling his late father's estate about having to move from his father's co-op apartment, I remembered how upset I got about possibly having to move from my own little apartment this November (luckily I got a year's extension on that). In general, his life mostly made sense to me, although I can see better than he what other people are thinking and feeling. And yet, my own “social radar” only goes so far; I clearly miss a lot of signals, or realize them only too late to do anything about them. It's the old “connotation versus denotation” problem of human interaction; a problem to Aspies, anyway.

The credibility of the plot was a bit strained, but not bad by Hollywood standards. The ending was bittersweet enough. If you plan to see Adam and don't want the ending spoiled, stop reading right here. But I myself don't think you'll go to see this movie for suspense and plot twists. Adam's new girlfriend has to make a decision whether to follow him to California, where he found a great new job after getting traumatically canned from his job in New York; or to stay in the East and help her mother after her wheeler-dealer father gets sent to a federal prison for financial fraud. Beth focuses on her own needs, her desire to find someone she can truly share emotions with. She concludes that Adam is not the guy for that. She asked him why he wanted her to go with him, and he said that he loved her; when asked to elaborate, it was clear that he loved her like a mother, as someone to take care of him in a scary new situation.

OK, so maybe Beth was right, despite her self-absorption. Beth's own mother suggested that perhaps she should do the noble thing and play Mother Theresa to Adam, just as she herself was standing by her dishonest husband who, in addition to getting nailed on federal charges, had also recently had an affair with another woman. But not many young people are ready to give up their emotional dreams like that (or old people either). And of course, there's a happy-enough ending, both despite and because of Beth. Adam does well in California and matures a bit, showing a bit more comfort and grace around others.

Adam and Beth had a short, conflicted and intense relationship, one that was doomed from the start; "star-crossed", appropriately enough, given Adam's obsession with astronomy. But they were both better off for it (on Beth's side, she used Adam's interest in the nocturnal raccoons in Central Park as inspiration for her first published children's book; of course she named the lead raccoon “Adam”).

Yea, I've been there; short, intense and tragic relationships that still leave you better off, although you won't know it for a while. But Adam went a bit further than I did; he made it to “geek heaven” (a high-tech job surrounded by lots of other geeky people like him), and from there made his accommodations with the majority of non-geeks. I tried to stay in the “neurotypical world” to do some good (law school, grantwriting for non-profits, government work), and got pushed aside. I didn't do that much good either (although they say that you never see the good you do).

But yes, Adam is a pleasant-enough movie, whether you're an Aspie (here's a review by one), or you're normal, or you're in-between (like me). I'm glad that I got out to see it and “got my geek on”. The next morning, it was back to work, back to being Mr. Almost Normal. Oh well, such is life. ◊
posted by Jim at 8:03 PM    2 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ ALINSKY and O'KEEFE: NICE WORK, YOU BASTARD: After hearing about the recent ACORN "video scandal" (whereby James O'Keefe, a conservative version of Michael Moore, walked into various ACORN offices posing as a pimp together with a young woman posing as a hooker, and requested info on how to bilk the government of home purchase subsidies), I couldn't help but wonder what Saul Alinsky would have said.

The late, great Alinsky was of course the father of community organizing and made his name vilifying the powerful and the rich. His first reaction, no doubt, would have been to bring fire down upon Glenn Beck and FOX News for airing the videos. He certainly would have cast them as lackeys of the wealthy, and would have defended the hapless ACORN workers who provided helpful suggestions on how a hooker and a pimp could put one over on the feds. He would have reminded us in no uncertain terms about the oppressed American underclass, which includes a lot of prostitutes and criminals.

Alinsky was a firebrand, the kind that is sorely missed today. Community organizing is not what it used to be; one of their own, Barack Obama, has become the most politically powerful man in the country and now has to compromise (and willingly DOES compromise) with the interests of the rich and the economically powerful (e.g., the much criticized bail-out of Wall Street). There was hardly anyone left who believed in the cause enough to defend ACORN on this one. Ah, the wages of dependence upon federal grants, of being co-opted.

However, I do think that Alinsky would have to had admired what O'Keefe did, which was to take Alinsky's rulebook and apply his own tactics. O'Keefe has said outright that he has read Alinsky's famous "Rules for Radicals" book and was inspired by those rules in what he did. Here are some of those "rules"; it seems pretty clear that O'Keefe's ideas on how to wage war against the liberals is indeed true to Alinsky.

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." (Obviously, ACORN is not an expert in protecting its grant funding by following all the rules).

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. (You can bet that other conservative commandos have been inspired are planning similar sting operations).

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Good timing -- the videos hit just as ACORN's absentee voter fraud was becoming old news.)

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (A video sting obviously was new to ACORN; obviously no one there thought while watching Michael Moore that someone could turn the table).

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. Perception is reality. (As FOX News well knows.)

RULE 12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (O'Keefe nailed a handful of devoted ACORN workers, people honestly devoted to helping the poor, and made them look like criminals in the eyes of the public).

Yes, I believe that Alinsky would grudgingly give O'Keefe a "well done" for those videos. ◊
posted by Jim at 4:12 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ DECISION TIME REGARDING IRAN: President Obama is now making some major decisions regarding Iran. Recall that he set a deadline of Sept. 30 for the start of talks regarding their nuclear program. If they didn’t play ball, the US was to seek severe economic sanctions against Iran in the UN, especially regarding gasoline imports (for some odd reason, Iran can’t make much gasoline, despite having lots of oil). Well, Iranian President A’jad and company came back with a counter-proposal for six-nation talks (including the US). These talks would NOT address the Iranian uranium program, under Iran’s proposal; but further talks about the nuke issue could be talked about at these talks. So Iran in effect answered the US by proposing to talk about talks, but that Iran’s best friends (China and Russia) also have to be there.

Various analysts feel that Iran is just stalling for time, given that they are within a year or so of having enough enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons. The US intelligence community just issued a report saying that Iran is not actively developing nuclear weapons at present; Germany’s BND intelligence agency reportedly feels that it is. Also, the IAEA seems to think that Iran is working on a nuclear explosion triggering device, along with a carrying-case intended to fit into a missile nose cone.

Nonetheless, President Obama has decided to take Iran up on its offer to talk about talks. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I myself am not sure. On the one hand, Iran seems like a bad guy that we should not seek an accommodation with, especially the current government in Iran. Iran seems to be moving away from being a fundamentalist Islamic state that maintains democratic traditions (even as it disregards other human rights), toward a military state ready to ditch democracy and mold Islamic doctrines as necessary to advance its purposes (i.e., expansion of economic and military power and the restoration of Persian hegemony over the Middle East). A move from bad to worse, in other words.

The Iranians are moving to establish control over Iraq and expand their power throughout the Middle East. They say right out loud that they wish to destroy the nation of Israel, and they are actively acquiring sophisticated weapons systems from Russia that make this more than an idle threat. Even if Iran doesn’t yet have a device that could set off a nuclear explosion, they are working hard to gain the raw materials needed to fuel such a device (i.e., enriched U235).

On the other hand, the USA has always been pragmatic in its foreign policy. We tend to back off from powerful nations whose threat to our interests is severe but manageable, even though we hate what they do and what they are all about. We went after Saddam Hussein in Iraq knowing that he couldn’t really hurt us, but we know better than to go after Kim Jong Il in North Korea because he can spill a lot of blood in South Korea, one of our vital trading partners. Throughout the 20th Century we’ve made accommodations with dictatorial regimes having terrible human rights records such as Russia and Saudi Arabia and China (and for decades we were close to Iran, when it was under the dictatorship of Shah Reza Pahlavi). We’ve even allow our economies to become dependent upon their resources (oil, cheap manufactured goods, and capital). We have been willing and we remain willing to look the other way when other nations and internal groups plead for our help against their injustices. So why shouldn’t today’s Iran qualify for similar treatment, given its growing power?

Our military options against Iran aren’t so good. The Bush Administration’s invasion and nation-building efforts in Iraq have met with some success, but have severely depleted US military resources. A similar campaign in Iran would require three times as many troops and re-construction resources, given the relative sizes and populations of these nations. We could take out their nuclear facilities, or let Israel do that for us; but they would then mine the Strait of Hormuz, which would cause the price of oil to shoot skyhigh, thus crippling the world economic recovery that finally seems to be underway. We could well be in for 3 to 5 more years of economic contraction with increasing unemployment and growing poverty under that scenario. I.e., a second Great Depression could result; it’s much easier for Iran to get the mines in the water than it is for us to fish them out and restore calm and confidence in the oil markets. You never know if you got that last one or not, and the oil traders and insurance companies know that.

It’s also possible that A’jad and his new regime will present the President with a deal that wouldn’t sound all that bad. They would require two things: that we let them go nuclear, and that we allow them international recognition despite their recent repression of democracy. They want the US to acknowledge them as a world power. We would add another “I” to the BRIC equation (i.e. the list of upcoming world powers: Brazil – Russia – India – China). In return, they may offer us what Amir Taheri recently suggested: to help the US back out of its many expensive commitments in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel) while allowing us continued preferential access to the oil resources we need.

The trickiest part would be Israel, of course. We obviously couldn’t acquiesce to their decimating the state of Israel and allowing its territory to be overrun by the Palestinians. But Iran might offer us a quiet compromise, i.e. that they would hold their nukes in check and allow Israel to live, so long as we recognize the Palestinian state and get the Israeli colonists out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Hey, Obama is already trying to stop Israel from further expansion there. The Iranians obviously have a lot of pull with Hamas. They could offer to broker an Obama-sponsored Israeli – Palestinian peace settlement, a deal that would offer Israel full recognition of its 1967 borders in return for Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza. Jerusalem would have to be shared. The Israelis and their powerful American supporters would hate that deal, but given their dependence on our military aid, they might not have much choice should the President take it.

So, in return for our allowing Iran to have its nukes, its hegemony in Iraq and elsewhere, and to have its theo-military dictatorship (with some residual democratic gestures, as in Putin’s Russia), we would be promised a mine-free Strait of Hormuz, unmolested access to oil, an end to the Israel-Palestine struggles, the guaranteed existence of a more humble Jewish state, a graceful exit from Iraq and Afghanistan, and a powerful Persian-Shia hand over the region to keep the worst instincts of the Sunni Arabs in check (hey, the Iranians are no fans of the Taliban or al Qaeda either).

Should President Obama take that deal? It would be a very dirty deal (but we’ve had worse in the past and in the present; our relationship with China is hardly an exemplar of edifying American principals). Obama will certainly be tempted. Hilary Clinton will argue that Iran can’t be trusted to such a momentous commitment; they see us as growing weaker and increasingly vulnerable over time, and will increasingly pull back from their end of the bargain once they receive what they want from us. Secretary Clinton will probably side with those who feel that we have to stay tough and risk unpleasant economic consequences if we are to preserve our own status and respect on the world scene. We risk years of economic turmoil just as bad if not worse than those that we just went through; but our vision of worldwide human freedom and opposition to fascism is also at stake here. Is this a Winston Churchill moment, or is it just the kind of dealing that must take place in a high-technology, post-ideology interdependent world?

I myself am not making any bets on this one. All I can say for now is that this is one to watch. President Obama is quickly approaching a key decision point with regard to Iran. Will he play it as a Churchill would, as a Ronald Reagan would, or as a ‘new world man’? STAY TUNED! ◊
posted by Jim at 8:23 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ One of the biggest yet most unanswered questions about health care reform is, why do we need it? This past Wednesday, the President gave a speech before Congress making the case for his own health care plan (and finally offering some more details on just what that plan is). During his speech, he acknowledged his critics who cite polls showing that between 80 to 85 percent of Americans are generally satisfied with the health care they receive, including those without formal health care coverage (who pay out-of-pocket or receive charitable care at emergency rooms). However, he then countered with the unfairness argument, i.e. that many insurers impose arbitrary rules which impact badly on people in certain cases. One of his poster children was a Texas woman with breast cancer whose insurance was canceled right before a double mastectomy because she hadn't declared a previous case of acne (ah, and also her rapid heartbeat, which she didn't think was relevant to her health condition). In other words, that 15 to 20 percent of Americans who are NOT satisfied with their care are really getting some very raw deals. And who knows if you or I will be the next one to get such a deal in time of need, even if we are happy with whatever health care we've received so far.

OK, President Obama does have a point. However, he and our political leadership in general (Democrat and Republican) have failed to make the public aware of the more widespread social and economic dangers that lurk if the present trends in health care continue. You would need to take the time to read long articles (such as David Goldhill's brilliant exposition of the crisis within the health system the September Atlantic Monthly magazine) or government reports (such as those put out by the Government Accounting Office) to appreciate what is going to happen if health care costs continue to grow as quickly as they have over the past 25 years. It's all the more scary because we've know about this problem all along and have imposed various reforms, such as health maintenance organizations on the part of insurers and Medicare cost caps on the part of government; and they have not stopped it. It's like a monster movie where you try this and that to stop the ugly thing now coming at you, but it just keeps coming. It's pretty creepy – and worse, it's not just a movie.

What harm will increasing health care costs have? Well, they will prevent a lot of other good things from being done, such as better highways, better schools, more parks and wilderness preservation, more low-income housing, etc. Health care, although it does stimulate the economy by producing jobs and demand for drugs and a wide variety of other goods and services, in the end does not cause net economic growth. Economic benefits from increased health care outlays do not outweigh economic costs.

In this it is similar to military spending. Military spending also stimulates the economy, but not enough to outweigh the costs; too much money goes for things that at best aren't used (guns, aircraft, missiles), and when they ARE used destroy economic infrastructure and increase world poverty. Health care causes happier outcomes than armies and navies do; but allowing people to live to 85, versus 75, does not add much to our economy's productivity, since those extra ten years will not be spent at work. (Yes, there is some economic benefit in that better health care allows people on average to be economically productive longer; but most of us want to use the extra time to extend our retirements and not to work longer, so there is generally more economic burden than benefit from extending lifespans).

Is there any evidence that growing health care costs have already put some limitations on what our society can accomplish? I think that there IS. My first example will refer to something that interested me quite a lot as a boy, i.e. space exploration. When I was around 5, the first satellites were being launched. By the time I was 10, the first men were being rocketed into space, if only for a few minutes. By the time I graduated from high school, men had walked on the moon. While I was in college, we landed a robot explorer on Mars. I certainly expected to live to see networks of manned space stations in orbit, colonies on the Moon, and manned missions to Venus and Mars, maybe even a shot at Jupiter. Just like in Kubrick's 2001, A Space Odyssey. Now it looks like the next manned rocket to the Moon won't get going for another 20 years, and a Mars mission is stalled indefinitely. I might not live to see either. What happened?

I'll tell you what happened. Our national leaders realized that we couldn't afford the tab. Back in the 1960s, NASA's budget was huge; in 1963 it took up 2.8% of the national budget, and peaked at 5.5% in 1966. By 1970 it was down to 1.7%, then down to 0.8% by 1980, and 0.75% in 2000. Today it's at 0.55%. The Space Shuttle has been widely criticized, but in the end, ya get what ya pay for. By comparison, the budget for Medicare and Medicaid was about 1% of the federal budget in 1966. Today it's at 19%, and is expected to continue climbing past 20% over the next year or so. That's not counting health care cost increases for federal employees and military personnel. Sure, the national economy and the federal budget grew in real terms over this time period; but when a component of the budget grows as fast as health care has, something else has to be cut. It's quite clear that space exploration has felt the knife.

Want dollar figures? OK, in 1966, NASA spent the equivalent of $32.1 billion (in today's dollars); in 2008 it had $17.2 billion to work with. This is still a lot, but not nearly enough to dream about manned missions to Jupiter, Mars or even the Moon. Despite all of the wonderful technologies developed over the past fifty years, there's still no cheap way to overcome the Earth's gravity, nor to protect humans from the airless, radiation-filled voids of space.

OK, that's on the government side. What about in the private sector? There is evidence that growing health care coverage costs has helped keep wages from rising. Certainly more employers now forgo offering their employees health benefits. But many still do, and employees are more and more appreciative of having coverage. To the point that we are accepting lower wage increases than in the past. Here's a chart of average weekly wages in the USA since 1964, in terms of constant 1982 dollars, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The first thing you notice is that relative to the early 1970's, wages (in real dollars, reflecting true buying power) have gone down quite a bit. They generally rose from 1964 thru 1973, but then plummeted. The drop was mostly because of the inflation and economic recession caused by the big oil price increases of the mid 70s, along with the economic drag of the Vietnam War. Wages kept on falling thru 1992, as the manufacturing industry shrunk and the service economy grew, and as unions became increasingly less powerful.

Things got a bit better during the good times of the second Clinton Administration (late 90s), but since 2000 the improvement has been just shy of 4% overall (about $30 in 2009 dollars). Despite the recession and financial crisis that started in mid 2008, the domestic economy grew by about 19% in real terms during this time. Obviously, the fruits of this growth are not being seen on the average paycheck. OK, I must admit that wages are influenced by other things including the age of the workforce, the level of immigration, and by the growing economic power that many employers hold over their non-unionized workforces. But mainstream labor economists affirm that spiking health care costs are keeping wages down in the labor markets, and the effect has become significant over the past ten years.

So, for a guy like me, that means that the promise from that childhood book that today lies on a shelf in my mother's basement (entitled “You Will Go To The Moon”) will go unfulfilled, and that I will have to be satisfied with pay raises that cover the increased cost of living and hardly anything more. OK, I can live with that. Improved health care will hopefully let me live longer or at least a bit better than my grandparents could. If the hungry monster of skyrocketing health care costs would stop there, I'd say fine.

But the monster is not stopping. It will soon cut into the muscle and not just the fat of our federal budget and our economic system. It will soon compete for funds that are otherwise needed for scientific research, transportation infrastructure, education, law enforcement, etc. The pressure will be felt on the military budget too, along with welfare and Social Security. To maintain those basics, taxes will need to go up, cutting even further into spending power and living standards for average citizens. We may live longer and healthier; but we're also going to live poorer, less educated and less protected if health care inflation can't be put under control, if we can't find a more efficient way to realize the benefits of medical advances.

David Goldhill, who confesses to being a Democrat, is on-record as saying that the health care monster cannot be controlled by increased government control of the existing system; in fact, failed government control efforts and the existing structure of health insurance give this monster its destructive strength. President Obama and most other Democrats say that we should keep the system and bring on more government control. This would make for a very scary movie; but unfortunately, it's absolutely real. ◊
posted by Jim at 6:26 PM    2 Comments    Leave a Comment

◊ It's nice how you the web can put you in touch with old memories. For some random reason, I recently thought about an old song that used to make me cry. No, it didn't touch my soul. It just scared me as a dorky, over-sensitive little six-year old. The song is called "Goodbye Jimmy, Goodbye". Since my name is James and I was frequently referred to as "Jimmy" when I was six, you might be able to figure out why that song heightened my insecurities.

But I did a quick search and found a video for it on YouTube. So I now know that "Goodbye Jimmy" was a 1959 hit song by Kathy Linden. On hearing it again after 45 years, I had a rather different reaction. I like it now; it's sentimental. And by this point in life, I've learned to accept the goodbyes and get on with things. My life -- everyone's life -- is a long series of goodbyes, of losing the things that you came to love. Sic obduco palma illius quod nos diligo.

And actually, "Goodbye Jimmy" isn't completely sad. It holds out hope for an eventual reunion, although in a melancholy fashion. To quote the refrain, "I'll see you again, but I don't know when ..." And guess what? I'm not the only kid who cried when the radio played this song. The YouTube page has a comment by a fellow now in his fifties (like me), who said "I woke up this morning thinking of this song for some reason. My name is Jimmy and when I was about 5 I always thought it was about me ... It made me cry too, when I was little!" So, I wasn't crying alone after all.

Another "goodbye song" that I like is the Bay City Rollers 1975 version of "Bye Bye Baby" (originally recorded in 1965 by the Four Seasons). The Rollers give it a Beach Boys-like ending, an interesting twist on what was otherwise a Frankie Valli standard.

Finally, my political cynicism for the week, in the form of a rhetorical question. Which was more stupid: not vetting Van Jones, or beating on the President for telling kids to study hard and stay in school? Too bad that we can't just say "bye bye" to everyone presently in the White House and Congress. ◊
posted by Jim at 7:32 PM    1 Comments    Leave a Comment