The Orangutan and the Hound Dog

Three Cups of Tea

[Paraphrased from the Flyleaf of the book.]

Three Cups of Tea is the title of a book by and about Greg Mortenson, a climber who failed in his attempt to ascend K2 in Pakistan, and drifted cold, hungry and tired into the village of Korphe. So thankful to the villagers for their hospitality and friendship, Mr. Mortenson promised to build a school for its children. Not only did he complete the school for Korphe, over the next decade he had completed fifty-five schools especially for girls.

"If you want to thrive in Baltistan, you must respect our ways," Haji Ali said, blowing on his bowl. "The first time you share tea with a Balti, you are a stranger. The second time you take tea, you are an honored guest. The third time you share a cup of tea, you become family, and for our family, we are prepared to do anything, even die," he said, laying his hand warmly on Mortenson's own . . .

HIGHLY Recommended.

RIP, Mary Travers

My BAD

The President's plan does offer a public option. My information from Huffington Post was that it would not. My bad.

I should believe, shouldn't I?

Obama sells out!

We the people elected Barack Obama on the promise of a public-option for healthcare. What we get is "insurance exchanges":

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves.

So, tell me Mr. President, how is an insurance exchange going to provide affordable healthcare for someone with a pre-existing condition? It's not going to happen.

Disappointed I am.

He Said, She Said

In today's Washington Post, Rick Perlstein notes, as we have seen, that today's "librul media" has fallen off the horse and does not speak the truth when confronted by crazy talk. From "Crazy as a Pre-Existing Condition":

Conservatives have become adept at playing the media for suckers, getting inside the heads of editors and reporters, haunting them with the thought that maybe they are out-of-touch cosmopolitans and that their duty as tribunes of the people's voices means they should treat Obama's creation of "death panels" as just another justiciable political claim . . .

It used to be different. You never heard the late Walter Cronkite taking time on the evening news to "debunk" claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of the president's program, or giving the people who made those claims time to explain themselves on the air. The media didn't adjudicate the ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of "conservative claims" to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back then, a more confident media unequivocally labeled the civic outrage represented by such discourse as "extremist" -- out of bounds.

The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest. Latest word is that the enlightened and mild provision in the draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills -- the one hysterics turned into the "death panel" canard -- is losing favor, according to the Wall Street Journal, because of "complaints over the provision."

Good thing our leaders weren't so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill -- because of complaints over the provisions in it that would enslave whites.

IBD updates their editorial!!

Well the news isn't that good: Investor's Business Daily has modified their editorial (see below) to acknowledge that Stephen Hawking is, as we noted previously, indeed a citizen of the U.K. But that is ALL they updated.

You see, they still maintain that rationing of health care exists. But, Stephen Hawking's very residency and treatment by the NHS completely invalidates the scaremongering and the demagoguery of the IBD.

According to Mr. Hawking in The Guardian, UK:

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

Amazing, just Amazing

The Investor's Business Daily today published an editorial that is so full of shit, that it has gone beyond stink. This editorial mentions such gems as the following in describing the obviously absurd state of medical care in the United Kingdom:

The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script.

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."

and here's the real diamond:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Obviously, the point to be made is that Stephen Hawking not only has a chance in the U.K., Mr. Hawking has lived in the U.K. his entire life, save for those times when he has been traveling outside the U.K.

The people who write this crap either don't know what the truth actually is, or they are so brought to orgasm by what they see as "the game of politics," that it doesn't really matter.

The sad truth of this whole matter is that there are more than a dozen people in the U.S. who will believe whatever Republicans tell them.

Who's winning the Health Care debate?

There is no way one could even charitably call what is going on in this country as a "debate." Fortunately, I agree with Elrod over at TMV that right now, Obama is winning the battle, despite all the effort and noise on the right. The bottom line--and I know this as a Medicaid Administrator--is that we will have no effective, economic health care in the United States until there is a public option, or better yet, single payer.

But I think there is a larger issue at work here. The Limbaugh-sycophants and the Palin-wannabe's who show at Democratic Legislator town halls, etc., to disrupt and prevent any rational discussion, may be doing more to reduce their precious liberties--solely by these tactics--than they could ever accomplish, even should they succeed in preventing "socialized medicine." [Ironically at one event--the exact one escapes me now--the protesters were shouting something to the effect of "no government-run health care for the US," but when queried, over half of these yokels were on Medicare. Okay . . . and of course the point to bring up is that a large percentage of the Medicare-eligible population likes Medicare: it is certainly preferable (for them) than the alternative, which in most cases would equal no healthcare coverage at all.]

It has always been a thesis of mine that rights and liberties continue to exist only so long as a vast majority of the population supports civility in their application. For example, what percentage of the population would continue to support the whole gamut of Miranda-types of rights, if 40% of the population were criminals? It's the same thing with free speech and the freedom of religion: when very large numbers abuse these fundamental liberties, then the very existence of those liberties becomes threatened.

Mobs that shout and intimidate will destroy free speech just as surely as a despotic government.

Euthanizing the Elderly, contd.

It seems that a lot of the mainstream left has jumped on this story of "euthanizing the elderly". Thought I'd point to the relevant website to get this information. It is run by Betsy McCaughey, president of a health firm, who also testified against government intrusion when the Clinton's were making their ill-fated effort to get the US into the 20th Century with respect to healthcare. Here is Betsy's website.

And here is the bill, on the idiots' website, on supposedly page 425, that lists this requirement.

On the right wing, I suppose that the premise is that you can say anything you want, but not expect any of the unwashed to actually read the document to which you refer. It is the ultimate of jingoism, to incite based upon no reason, just to pad your own pocketbooks.

Truth?

It used to be that as Americans, we could pretty much aI recently received gree on "the truth" of things that were happening in the world . . . and the why's and the wherefore's were argued from the standpoint of our respective political affiliations or philosophies.

In the past ten years or so, we have noticed a particular philosophy emanating from the Right Wing: if you say something over and over, no matter its relative veracity, pretty soon that original lie takes on elements of being the "truth."

Case in point: I recently received an "emergency" email from an acquaintance, that had been spread far and wide by other acquaintances that the current Health Care Reform Bill in Congress contains language that, if passed, will require elderly Americans to receive training every five years on self-euthanasia.

Fortunately, the email cited its source: an interview with some "advocate" on the Fred Thompson Radio Show. I listened to the interview, then went to the "advocate's" website to read the source documentation, which included the House Bill. And fortunately, the "advocate" gave the page number and everything.

And you know what? It doesn't say anything of the sort. There are some requirements for the elderly to receive some end-of-life training on issues regarding the use of hospices, nursing homes, medical powers of attorney, living wills, advanced directives, and the like.

As I suspected, NOTHING regarding euthanasia, etc.

These people have absolutely no shame. They get their followers all riled up about stuff that doesn't even exist, when all they are doing is supporting the insurance companies. What rot!!

The Dearth of Independent Radio

Ever notice that as you travel across the country, the radio at one part of the country sounds suspiciously like that in another? Well some years ago, Congress passed a law that allowed media ownership to become much more concentrated in the U.S. So today we are reaping the rewards of that decision, very few independent stations remain, and the music is homogenized, pasteurized, and computerized for replay out of transmitting towers across the country.

Will we ever get independent radio back? Will the news ever be interpreted by independent voices that provide a non-corporate take on the day's events?

Doubtful: that genie has been let out of the bottle for too long to ever get put back in.

But what can we do? When we find those independent voices on the radio dial, we need to support the hell out of 'em. My current favorite is a public radio station, KVMR, broadcasting out of Nevada City, California. You can listen to their stream here at KVMR's website. Which is probably the best way to listen to KVMR: the coverage of their signal is rather spotty, especially in the foothills.

All the DJ's are volunteers, and they play their own selections out of their personal libraries. The mix is rather eclectic, and frankly I can tire of Sunday morning's Kani Ka Pila very quickly (three straight hours of Hawaiian music).

So, give KVMR a listen (here is their program schedule) and if you like what you hear, and you feel like supporting this fine effort, you can donate your spare shekels here.

Iran and the coming explosion

Tonight I fear for the people of Iran.

The protesters and their political candidates have received Khamenei's ultimatum, and are fairly exuding a sense of doom.

Tonight I fear that the so far peaceful demonstrations will turn into a bloody revolution against the hard line conservatives and their supporters.

Tonight, I need a hug.

Bubbles in Photography

Found some interesting photo's in a Canadian blog, Life in the Fast Lane. It's worth a look.

Gitmo Detainees: What to Do?

As part of President Obama's problems with closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, there is always the issue of what to do with those detainees.

As an example, let's consider the fate of 17 Chinese Uighurs, ordered released in October 2008. There is fierce congressional opposition to settling them in the U.S. We've asked Canada to take them: nope. Australia has twice refused US requests to resettle these detainees, though there are rumors that they might take 10 of them. Lastly, we cannot return them to China for fear that they will tortured or executed (there is a fierce Islamist insurgent/separatist movement in Western China) and Beijing officials may want nothing more than to get their hands on these Uighurs, if only for political leverage against other insurgents in the Uighur areas.

Now we're considering resettling some or all of them on the remote island nation of Palau in the Pacific Ocean. Palau just happens to be one of the few nations that do not recognize China (the mainland) and maintains relations with Taiwan, so as a political entity, they have little to fear from the Chinese government's displeasure at not getting the Uighurs back.

Obviously, Palau would receive a lot of aid for doing this (a figure of $200m is being mentioned).

Let's go back to their detainment: these were not terrorists, not "unlawful enemy combatants." They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. They have been held for years without any of the rights that the worst criminals in the United States are guaranteed. Is there a danger that these Uighurs, might turn into terrorists? Sure, see my post below ("We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto"). And who could blame them?

But settling them here in the United States is the right thing to do.

UPDATE, June 10, 2009: The government of Palau has agreed to "temporarily resettle" these 17 individuals "subject to periodic review."

The effectiveness of torture

The Republican right wing, from Dick and Liz Cheney, down through the chief apologists and liars at Faux News, have continued to raise the issue of the high quality of intelligence gathered through enhanced interrogation techniques to justify the use of torture in questioning detainees at Gitmo and CIA-operated "black" sites around the world.

Many on the left, have countered those arguments using statements from the many of the actual interrogators that the intelligence gained was incorrect, or are simply statements by those being questioned who thought it was what the interrogator wanted to hear. Both useless pieces of information, but irrelevant to the question of torture itself.

Torture is wrong. It is wrong if you get bad information out of the detainee; it is also wrong if you get perfect information out of him or her.

Why is it wrong? Because we (the US) do not want our soldiers subjected to torture in any shape or form, and we have prosecuted and would wish to continue to prosecute those who who perform these same so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on captured US soldiers. Once our personnel started doing this to the detainees we lost whatever high ground we occupied: we cannot say that it is okay for the US to torture, but not okay for anyone else.

If torture is wrong, ab initio, then whatever arguments the right wing would choose for its justification are not just worthless, we should cut off all further discussion.

That's it. 'Nuff said.

Gay Marriage in California (or not)

I am puzzled by the California Supreme Court's decision last Tuesday, validating Proposition 8.

The irony is that the prior decision by Chief Justice George (granting gay couples the right to marriage) stated that the ability of all people to marriage is a fundamental right. As such, under the California Constitution, any change to that status must be made by an Amendment to the Constitution, with a specific set requirements--most definitively passage of the bill by super-majorities of both State legislative houses.

Prop. 8, which took away what Chief Justice Ronald George termed a fundamental right, by a bare majority of the voters, was never considered by either house. And I would bet that with Democratic majorities in both houses, it would never pass.

I'm remain, as I started, puzzled as to how the court got around this requirement.

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto

According to the NY Times, another detainee at Gitmo has committed suicide. This brings the number who have committed suicide to 5. I wonder if Sam Brownback is worried about detainees committing suicide in Kansas?

Part of the argument in detaining these "unlawful enemy combatants" is that once they're loose, they'll automatically turn into, ooooooh, T e r r o r i s t s.

Let's see now, you lock me up without reason--and many of those detained were simply just walking down the street--throw me behind bars, limit my access to a lawyer, subject me to torture--excuse me, "enhance interrogation techniques"--interrupt my sleep, and pee on my bible, I don't know about you, but I think I might become a terrorist.

Why do we even bother?

Everybody knows about the law of diminishing returns: your first efforts to change anything usually result in substantial results; as you apply more and more effort to the problem, the results obtained per unit of effort get smaller and smaller.

Beginning in the 1960's, the United States began the legislation of stricter and harder to achieve standards for automobile emissions. We are at the point in California where we will soon limit carbon dioxide emissions.

All of this is good.

But come to find out, that according to The Guardian, fifteen of the largest container ships plying the seas emit more pollution that all the automobiles on the globe. One of the big reasons for this is that ships utilize high-sulfur bunker oil, and, for the most part of their journeys travel within 250 miles of land.

How about we stop importing junk from China via these container vessels? We can save the air and save domestic jobs at the same time.

Beginnings

How do these things (blogs) get started?

Some people, I imagine, just want to see their words in print.

Others might be "mad as hell and can't take it anymore."

For me, it is to simply mark an occasion.

For the past four years or so, my life has been like floating down a river, being buffeted once in awhile by the rocks in the way, but flowing gently onward: work, home, work, home--lazily absorbing what life has to offer, offering little in return but my attendance.

Prior to that, I was often described as the "smartest guy in the room" (apologies to the movie about ENRON), though I have to admit that the rooms were often not all that smart to begin with. Fortunately (or not), I never had to put in too much effort to succeed. And I didn't--in school, or at work--unless I was really taken by the subject matter: I could never get myself up for it, unless I was really interested in it.

Fortuitously, two of my hobbies (personal computers and motorcycles) led to fifteen years of fairly rewarding employment. But as all things must pass, I looked at what I had available for eventual retirement--not much--and decided to become a bureaucrat for the State of California. And although retirement was now addressed, the job turned me into a zombie bureaucrat.

Until this past weekend.

I happened across a blog (NSFW, though: http://www.chicaandhervan.blogspot.com/) where blogger Chica's words smacked me right up alongside my head. Simple, direct, full of love and empathy. Years ago, we'd have called her a hippy, and I don't think that sobriquet would bother her at all--in fact from her writings, I believe that's how she really sees herself.

It happens that she and I have a lot of the same likes and dislikes, a lot of the same viewpoints, so why cannot I apply Chica's same energy and joie de vivre to my own life?

Thank you, Chica! Hopefully I can fulfill my reawakened desires and become a mensch once again.

You can help Chica by purchasing some of her extremely beautiful photographs at RedBubble: http://www.redbubble.com/people/chicachica? (also NSFW).