Here We Go Again - Ozzie Guillen, Free Speech, & American Foreign Policy

So I’m watching HBO’s “Real Time” with comedian and social critic Bill Maher, and during his final “New Rules” monologue he reminded me about how important it is that we not limit freedom of expressions or opinions in this country.
I’m a firm adherent to the doctrine of free speech, whether it promotes hate or inspires love. Simply put, putting restrictions on someone else’s right to voice their opinion potentially limits my own. Individuals—unless it is obviously and immediately disruptive to society—should be able to speak without censor or sanction, except that of counter opinions.
What makes attempts to put a lid on free speech dangerous and counter-productive is that it limits the information that we use to engage in a reasonable discourse on potential and actual government and/or social policies. Especially policies which seek to influence thinking and opinion of the general public…regardless how devoid of reason such policies are.
These converging issues, free speech and irrational government policy, became the focus of news earlier this week when Florida Marlin’s baseball team coach Ozzie Guillen responded to a question by a Time Magazine writer about men he admired. The often outspoken veteran sports figure reportedly responded,

"I love Fidel Castro" and "I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that [expletive] is still here."

As is the case whenever a public figure airs a personally-held opinion, he was condemned and forced to apologize.
As a blogger, voracious reader, and information-news junkie, I must admit that I have heard far more controversial and far worse commentary by other public figures, some being our elected officials. However, what I find disturbing are the calls for Guillen’s firing…and for what? For daring to express a personally-held admiration for someone whom nine American presidential administrations have blindly expressed contempt for based on an outdated international policy?
In the early 1970s, the Nixon Administration established formal diplomatic relations with then “Red China”s as a counter to Soviet adversarial relations, and forsaking the previous recognition of the “real” Chinese government on the island of Taiwan (where Western-friendly Chinese Nationalists fled after being defeated by pro-Moscow Mao Zedong’s Communists in 1949). During this time, 50 million Chinese were being starved to death as a result of Mao’s state-sanctioned policies. Also during this time, thousands of Chinese were still being arrested and summarily executed for ambiguous “crimes against the state,” and free speech was still harshly suppressed. Chinese military forces had even fought against American forces during the Korean War. And as late as the 1989, the year of the massacre of young dissidents in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, the United States continued its diplomatic ties to (yes…”communist”) China.
But we still continued and continue to condemn Cuba based on our ideological demonization of Castro’s brand of “communism” (and the fact that the American government couldn’t stand that Castro nationalized foreign-owned interests in order to pay for socioeconomic reforms he instituted in order to establish his communist policies only 90 miles off our shores). Ok, so Cuban exiles in Miami are still a little peeved that Castro is still alive and kicking. You’re not there, and he’s not in power—in theory anyway. Is that a reason to rake a man over the coals because he is able see through the propaganda machine of our often irrational policy toward Cuba to still admire the man who’s made such a mark on the country for the last 50 years?
However, practical as it was that Guillen apologized, it says a lot for the erosion of free speech in this country when people must yield to the opinion of a small but vocal minority group...especially when our foreign policy toward Cuba makes no rational sense. Censoring Guillen’s and others’ right to be heard and to put forth opposing points of thinking with regard to public policy limits discourse. America has been in bedfellows with far worse dictators, had relations with far worse regimes…some guilty of war crimes! Yet, we continue to ostracize the government of Cuba based on an outdated ideological--not rational--policy.
For a brilliant summary of this issue, I invite you to watch Friday’s broadcast of Maher’s “New Rules” segment from “Real Time.”




It seems that when it comes to American foreign policy, there are "Communists" and there are Communists. And when it comes to personal opinions and free speech, there are opinions which are "honest" and those which are "correct."

Read More

Juan Williams, Free Speech, and Something To Think About

America witnessed a bona fide, honest-to-goodness miracle. Liberals and Conservatives alike found common ground in their free defense of quasi-Liberal commentator Juan Williams after he was fired from National Public Radio (NPR) after remarks on FOX News’ O’Reilly Factor, hosted by Bill O’Reilly. Given the depth of news coverage which this story received, we should all know those now-infamous words which Williams spoke on the conservative commentator’s news show:

"I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot,” Williams said on the "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday. “But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."



Granted it’s easy to see how such ideas could further religious intolerance in post 9/11 America, Williams’ firing from NPR last week speaks a great deal about how much free speech has become a target by those who political sensitivities cannot stand to be challenged. Take Republican South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint’s response to the firing of Williams. The Conservative senator has vowed to introduce legislation calling for the elimination of federal funds used to supplement NPR’s mostly donation-funded operating budget. In defending his stance, DeMint stated that

"Once again we find the only free speech liberals support is the speech with which they agree. The incident with Mr. Williams shows that NPR is not concerned about providing the listening public with an honest debate of today’s issues, but rather with promoting a one-sided liberal agenda."

The ironic thing about such political posturing is that any legislation to cut NPR’s federal funding (only 10% of its total funding anyway) will go a long way toward doing the same thing which DeMint accuses NPR of doing...curtailing free speech. Go Figure.



Free speech—any free speech—should be protected at all cost"

Read More

Big Money + “Free Speech” = Less Democracy

One of the great ironies in an otherwise unfathomable universe is that events often occur in a way that serendipitously substantiates truth. Take for example yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision. In a 5-4 ruling, the high court in all but perspective rewrote campaign finance law, striking down a federal law that prohibited Big Money contribution to political candidates either directly or by [the] financial backing of campaign ads.
In the equating of such practices by the high court in terms free speech, proponents cheered the decision, hailing it as a victory which promotes the free exchange of opposing thoughts in the free market of ideas. The funny thing though is that most times, political partisans are rarely ever interested in anything in the way of “opposing ideas,” unless such ideas give them a Boogey Man to oppose during election cycles.
However, such “free speech” is yet another stab in the heart of the democratic process as we, the unconnected citizens, are forced to sit back and watch as Big Money contributions influence public policy through the innuendo of [the] reciprocity for donations to, and support of candidates for public office.
In yesterday’s posting (“Why the Republican Party is Better than the Democratic Party”), I lauded the Republicans for their ability to ostensibly take the moral high ground in politics by defining and framing political arguments—especially in political campaigns—which is why they are so successful in winning elections (but they are only as good at governing as the Democrats). If yesterday’s ruling has done anything, it has proven this point in spades. Without batting an eye, the conservative wing of the high court eloquently stated the logic of its position, totally ignoring the fact that they engaged in the same “judicial activism”—making law from the bench—they often accuse liberals of engaging in whenever one is nominated for a potential position, especially within the federal judiciary. And predictably, the ideologically impotent Democrats have failed to shine a light on this double-standard.
Outside of political partisanship, it’s a little difficult to understand the math behind the high court’s thinking; the everyday average citizen is supposed to benefit from giving Big Money donors more of a “say” in the political process? You’ll pardon me if I get up from my desk and walk out of class right about now.

Read More

Television, Duck Dynasty, & Free Speech...What The Duck...?

Outside of the news and programs that are political, historical, or current-events-oriented (as well as one or two guilty pleasures), there is very little on television which interest me enough to waste my valuable time watching. This goes double for anything that fits into the so-called “reality television” genre of programming; I for the life of me cannot begin to fathom why such mental junk food is so appealing. I suppose it represents the dumbing down of America on the whole. At any rate, it is an issue regarding reality television’s current breakout hit that has me posting yet again an issue that begs discussion.
The issue at hand surrounds the unexplainable-to-sophisticated-minds popularity of the Arts and Entertainment cable network’s “Duck Dynasty” reality television series. Dynasty follows the “day-to-day” life of a mostly backwoods Louisiana living-off-the-land-type redneck family, who happen to run a successful a duck-call manufacturer (if you can believe that). Being dyed-in-the-wool, God-fearing, hard-patriotic, hard-hunting, hard-drinking, hard-fun-loving types of individuals, you can imagine that the family—and their members—might just harbor some attitudes and ideas about life that simply don’t conform to the all-inclusiveness aspirations of a society hell-bent on making everyone happy. Just looking at the family, any such ideas shouldn’t come as a surprise (at the risk of prejudging). But strangely enough, the words and thoughts of an elder from the television-spotlighted family actually shocked a large portion of sensitive Americans.

The cast of "Duck Dynasty"

As a result, once again as a nation we’re forced to confront not only another serving of numbskullery from television network producers, but the fallout from yet another case whereby a television personality is forced to endure the barbs and arrows of those who would seek to police the thinking of those of us who would dare to speak our minds. The issue this time around centers on remarks made by an elder-family member from the mind-numbing weekly show.
In an interview with GQ magazine (here), Phil Robertson, the elder of the now-famous Robertson family the show follows and founder of the family business candidly gave his opinions about—among other things—his thoughts on homosexuality. In responding to the question “what in your mind is sinful,” posed by GQ reporter Drew Magary, the unapologetic conservative Southern Christian responded:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Needless to say, this set off a furor in both the press and society at large. The sanctions came fast and furious; Robertson was suspended from being part of the filming of further episodes of the show. Keep in mind that this was an interview about Robertson’s personal thoughts and views, not a man running for public office or calling a press conference to shout out his beliefs.
More and more, it seems the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech without government impediments is becoming irrelevant in a society where private enterprise and public interest groups are able to level socioeconomic sanctions that not only attempt to enforce political correctness of thought, but punish words and personal opinions. In fact, given the ubiquity of such policies in the public and private sectors, the way these institutions are able to enforce and impose “corrections” for daring to speak out has more than the force of law itself.  This social policy is more of a threat to our collective civil liberties relating to Free Speech than anything the government is doing at the moment.

Now in the interest of full-disclosure, before this issue came to light, I hadn’t even heard of “Duck Dynasty.” And being agnostic, I can honestly say that I do not purport to know or even predict where a person’s soul goes in the Hereafter due to their actions in the Herenow. But I’ll wager that that “God” is not in the cell phone contacts of anyone presumptuous (and arrogant) enough to inform another person that they are doomed to Hell (or some other spiritual torment) for not embracing someone else’s dogma—I know He/She isn’t in mine. However, I am of the mindset that whenever someone says something stupid, unreasonable, or judgmental, the best means to deal with it is to either ignore it or say something more intelligent and reasonable as a counter. Imposed censorship and/or sanctions, especially whereas they affect a person’s livelihood is not the way to counter a person’s right to express their opinions and thoughts. Regardless of what someone believes, everyone deserves their say—without being forced to the carpet for it.
Any sanctions for expressing one’s personal opinions should come naturally. If a CEO of a major corporation says something offensive to a particular group, then people have a right not to purchase what that firm produces as a natural consequence. If you don’t like what you read here, you have every right to leave a response with something more reasonable to say as a counter to the postings...or you can ignore it altogether and leave. But contacting my employer and telling him that I should be fired for offending your “sensitivities” is not a valid, or even a civilized response. Such actions prevent the free exchange of ideas and thoughts, which is how policies and laws are formed. It is also how we evolve overall as a species.

Read More

Citizen Protesters, or Ideological Spin Doctors? Part 2

Continued from Part 1


"It is not the state that orders us. It is we who order the state."

With regard to the anti-tax & spending protests of last weekend in Washington D.C., that quote could just as easily be assumed to be the mantra of those who participated in the protests. However, those are not the words of some famous American patriot who uttered them in defiance of presumed government tyranny, and whom we are so proud of that we immortalized them in the pages of elementary school textbooks. They were not words of the leader of some populist movement leader who turned a cleaver phrase to gain popular support for progressive policy. They are not even the words of an American. They are the words of the former chancellor of Nazi German, Adolf Hitler. But such was the message ostensibly carried to Washington last weekend by the protesters.

Now before I’m inundated with protests myself about how I’m making negative aspersions, I am NOT attempting to compare the mostly conservative activists among the protesters to Nazis. However, what I am doing is illustrating how the tactics of traditionally progressive activists can be hijacked by an ideologically-bound or self-interested few to give the impression of general consensus. That is what the protests in Washington were all about. So this then is a challenge to the protesters’ intent.
Why? Because first and foremost their selective memory when it comes to their complaint that “government spending is out of control.” Take the non-Social Security of the government spending for the last 55 years. The greatest amount of deficit spending (borrowing) occurred under the watches of Republican presidents, with Ronald Reagan and Bush II’s administrations being responsible for the lion’s share of deficit spending during this period. In fact, it was the spending and ill-advised tax cuts of the second Bush which helped to eradicate the budget surplus and pay-down on the national deficit which started under former President Bill Clinton (naturally, die-hard ideologues from the conservative right have disputed this fact by engaging in esoteric hair-splitting of economic theories which challenge the bottom line--that it was under recent conservative stewardship of the government that the deficit spending began to balloon out of control). Furthermore, Bush II had the advantage of a Republican-controlled Congress for much of his presidency. "The Reagan Budget: The Deficit that Didn't Have to Be." http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=879 The Cato Institute; "Bush to Fund a Third of Non-Social Security Spending This Year with Borrowed Money" http://www.ctj.org/html/debt0603.htm Citizens for Tax Justice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

This is not leftist propaganda meant to make conservatives look bad; these are historical and economic facts supported by the numbers. And the selective memories of the protesters and their activist organizers ignores the major difference between the motives for spending by the aforementioned presidents and President Obama; neither Republican president didn't have to contend with crafting policies meant to curtail the effects of an unprecedented economic downward spiral, the likes of which haven't been seen since the Great Depression (although to his credit, Reagan did start out with the intent to challenge the growing budget deficit). True, spending is out of control, but so is the economy...desperate times, desperate measures.
So, after years of deficit spending, no fiscal restraint by either political party, and the continued practice of Congressional earmarks—a practice vociferously supported by both moderate and conservative Republicans –why all of a sudden have conservatives found the testicular fortitude to suddenly don the mask of consensus, take to the streets, and protest government spending?
The reasons are simple. It’s a rejection of the legitimacy of the duly-elected Obama Administration which cloaking itself in the free exercise of civil liberties and ideological differences. Its also fear of change (no pun intended), with hints of xenophobia, nativism, ethnocentrism, and willful ignorance, with the latter propensity resulting in the labeling anyone who desires to help the poor and/or disenfranchised as tantamount to “Socialism.” It is a rejection of policy and government based on lies, innuendo, scare tactics, slander, and misinformation by those who unflinchingly hold on to ideological political beliefs in the hopes of shaping the country according to their particular view of how things should be. It is an embracing of the absurd belief that a particular individual or group wants to reshape the American way of life which we have become accustomed to in ways which are alien and antithetical to our core values; heaven forbid that someone simply sees an inequality and wants to address it through the established legislative process. It is a movement which even challenges the legitimacy of birthright, and revealing how easy it is for a relative few to stir up unfounded fears among those who did not have the legal process go the way that they would have liked.
I’m a firm believer in the right protest unpopular policy. I also believe in unfettered free speech—even unpopular speech—mostly because free speech is how great ideas are exchanged and eventually become policy. I am for progressive policy based on need, not ideological adherence. And with 30-40 million Americans without health insurance (many unknown more chronically underinsured), and an economic crisis which has the country a few steps away from a wholesale economic collapse, this is not the time to cling to the safety of economic timidity. We are not going to eradicate these and other problems without spending money. At the same time, we must learn to practice fiscal restraint, an idea the protesters of last week promote, and one in which I share. However, in order to find a policy which works to the best of both our country’s creed of opportunity and of preserving the system we live by, the selfish intent of people like the protesters must be revealed insofar as their desire to portray themselves as representing the best interest if the entire nation as a whole.

Read More

Where Is The Reason In Gun Regulations?

Back during the presidential elections of 2008, President Obama remarked that some people in some parts of the country—instead of embracing change—tended to cling to the things which they were familiar with…their guns and their Bibles. At the time, he faced a great deal of flack for this remark, reflecting that he was “out of touch” with a certain segment of our society. As I’ve often said, if you give your ideological opponent enough time, they will eventually prove your point for you. And I’ll be damned if Obama hasn’t been proven right.
Two weeks ago, the U.S. Senate voted down a bipartisan bill to expand firearms background checks to include weapons purchased at gun shows (where currently, no background check is required). The laudable legislative attempt was the first such federal attempt to initiate changes in gun ownership laws in the last generation, and came in the wake of December’s Sandy Hook shooting. The effort was cobbled together in an attempt to restrict the possibility that guns may errantly end up in the hands of criminal and would-be mass shooters.
As per routine, many lawmakers felt obligated to vote along ideological lines rather using reality and the need to at least create a starting point to address the free-for-all gunplay that seems to have been running rampant in the news of late. And as those conservative lawmakers who voted not to enact the attempt to curtail the proliferation of guns attempted to justify their vote with the usual talking points, their assertions were met with derision from the fellow moderate and liberal lawmakers who supported the bill. As the bill was voted down, vocal condemnations of “shame on you” could be heard from the Senate gallery by observers, who’s outburst reflected the polls showing that a majority of Americans (with numbers varying state-to-state) supported expanding the background checks for guns were promptly escorted out of the Senate chambers for the disruption. In addition, more than 20 major newspaper editorials—including the Washington Post and the New York Times—reflected a similar level of disgust with the vote. The Dallas Morning News opinioned that

the coward defied the will of most Americans and helped the hardliners and hypocrites prevail. They allowed the NRA (National Rifle Association) members who threatened retribution against anyone who voted in favor of the bill.

In essence, nearly all Republicans and four Democrats were too wimpy to pass the bill, rejecting what was a rather watered-down anti-gun proliferation legislation in order to get the votes necessary to pass it in the House of Representatives. This reality indicates that on the issue of regulating the proliferation of guns, there is simply no compromising on the part of some within Congress (and in the legislatures of many state governments). And predictably, most of those voting against the measure have attempted to pass off their actions as “voting my conscious.” However, the reality is that these rejecters of the bill represented a very vocal, passionate, and organized minority of rabid gun-owners—spearheaded by an effective, single-issue interests group and passing their lot off as representing the interests of the public at-large. And although the same could be said for potentially any interest group and their supporters, only opponents of regulating gun proliferation have developed an ethos that distorts the general understanding of law related to their single-minded cause issue. How so?
This distortion and rabid protection of gun privileges is an evolution—or devolution—of conservative ideology over the last generation or so. The traditional conservative voices of moderation and reason on the issue have become the fringe element within the Republican party, while extreme right-of-Reagan reactionaries have successfully polluted both the GOP as well as the body politic with their uncompromising distorted thinking in regards to the Second Amendment. Consider a 1991 editorial by noted conservative columnist George Will...

WASHINGTON —  Two staggering facts about today's America are the carnage that is a consequence of virtually uncontrolled private ownership of guns, and Americans' toleration of that carnage.

Class, not racial, bias explains toleration of scandals such as this: More teen-age males die from gun-fire than from all natural causes combined, and a black male teen-ager is 11 times more likely than a white counterpart to be killed

If sons of the confident, assertive, articulate middle class, regardless of race, were dying in such epidemic numbers, gun control would be considered a national imperative.

But another reason Americans live with a gun policy that is demonstrably disastrous is that the subject was constitutionalized 200 years ago this year in the Second Amendment: ''A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Many gun control advocates argue that the unique 13-word preamble stipulates the amendment's purpose in a way that severely narrows constitutional protection of gun ownership.

They say the amendment obviously provides no protection of individuals' gun ownership for private purposes. They say it only provides an anachronistic protection of states' rights to maintain militias.

However, Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas Law School says that is far from obvious. In a Yale Law Journal article, ''The Embarrassing Second Amendment,'' he makes an argument dismaying to those, like me, who favor both strict gun control and strict construction of the Constitution.

He begins with some historical philology showing that the 18th century meaning of ''militia'' makes even the amendment's preamble problematic.

He notes that if the Founders wanted only to protect states' rights to maintain militias, they could have said simply, ''Congress shall have no power to prohibit state militias.'' George Mason, a sophisticated Virginian who faulted the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights, said, ''Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.''

The Second Amendment is second only to the First Amendment's protections of free speech, religion and assembly because, Mr. Levinson argues, the Second Amendment is VTC integral to America's anti-statist theory of republican government.

That theory says that free individuals must be independent from coercion, and such independence depends in part on freedom from the menace of standing armies and government monopoly on the means of force.

In the most important Supreme Court case concerning Congress' right to regulate private gun ownership, the court, upholding the conviction of a man who failed to register his sawed-off shotgun, stressed the irrelevance of that weapon to a well-regulated militia. Gun control advocates argue that this lends no support to a constitutional right to ownership for private purposes.

But Mr. Levinson notes that the court's ruling, far from weakening the Second Amendment as a control on Congress, can be read as supporting extreme anti-gun control arguments defending the right to own weapons, such as assault rifles, that are relevant to modern warfare.

The foremost Founder, Madison, stressed (in Federalist Paper 46) ''the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.''

So central was the Second Amendment to the understanding of America's political order, Justice Taney in the Dred Scott decision said: Proof that blacks could not be citizens is the fact that surely the Founders did not imagine them having the right to possess arms.

The subject of gun control reveals a role reversal between liberals and conservatives that makes both sides seem tendentious.

Liberals, who usually argue that constitutional rights (of criminal defendants, for example) must be respected regardless of inconvenient social consequences, say the Second Amendment right is too costly. Conservatives, who frequently favor applying cost-benefit analyses to constitutional construction (of defendants rights, for example), advocate an absolutist construction of the Second Amendment.

The Bill of Rights should be modified only with extreme reluctance, but America has an extreme crisis of gunfire. And impatience to deal with it can cause less than scrupulous readings of the Constitution.

Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago, when the requirements of self-defense and food-gathering made gun ownership almost universal. But whatever the right is, there it is.

The National Rifle Association is perhaps correct and certainly is plausible in its ''strong'' reading of the Second Amendment protection of private gun ownership.

Gun control advocates who want to square their policy preferences with the Constitution should squarely face the need to deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrassing amendment (Source: "How Embarrassing: The Constitution Protects the Guns that Kill").

What Will’s essay indicates is that modern conservatism has taken reason hostage, and replaced it with blind dedication to ideology…sans the flexibility of years past. Ronald Reagan, the president whom today’s conservatives love to invoke as being representative of the embodiment of political conservatism had no problem being flexible on the issue of regulating guns. As governor of California, Reagan signed one of the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation, the Mumford Act. The law was a response to the Black Panther Party exercising the Constitutional right to bear arms in its goal to protect themselves from openly hostile police forces that were known to be brutal against blacks and other minorities of the time.

What Will’s essay also implies is that, despite man rabid gun owners’ propensity to invoke the Second Amendment in defense of their rights, the Constitutional has inherent characteristics of flexibility with the need to adapt to changing times and needs. It is not a document from God. It was made to be changed, corrected, and amended-based. Hell, the word “regulate” is in the Second Amendment. NO RIGHT is absolute! You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater (Speech), you can’t print baseless and libelous material (press), and you can’t use government to promote a specific religious faith (religion). By this logic, one cannot expect to have open access to any and every weapon they want in a civilized, law-based society.
There are NO unrestricted laws. Gun laws are no different. Congress regulated “Tommy” machine guns and “sawed-off shotguns” during the gang wars of the 1930s and the growing tide of gun-related crime during that tumultuous period of time. So gun owners, get a grip on reality! And leave the notion that the Second Amendment cannot be adapted (notice I didn't say "eradicated") to suit the needs of a modern violent America in the land of make-believe!

Satirist John Stewart's recent roasting of the Senate vote to reject expanded background checks

See also: "Gun Control...No! Responsible Gun Control...Yes?" and "Too Many Rights Make Wrongs."

Read More

Too Many Rights Make Wrong

Let’s face it…sometimes, people can be allowed too much freedom. The opportunity to engage in certain behaviors or make certain decisions, just because the law allows us to, does not necessarily mean that that we should do certain things. Freedom of expression should not, and does not mean “anything goes.” Take for example the law in San Francisco. Up until this week, the law in the Golden Gate city allowed public nudity, particularly within the confines of the Castro district, the gay capital of America. But a 6 to 5 ruling by the city’s Board of Supervisors Tuesday ended the practice within the city limits, with the exception of certain street fairs and events. The new city ordinance effectively bans anyone "over the age of 5 from exposing his or her genitals, perineum or anal region" in most public locations. The ban was spurred as a result of the growing number of complaints by citizens of increasing numbers of naked men walking around and/or gathering in public, particularly around the Castro district.

A nude backpacker walks the street of San Francisco last year. Such an act is now illegal. 

Nudists and other opponents of the new ban argue that it infringes on their “rights.” A federal lawsuit has already been filed arguing the proposal infringes on free “speech” and “expression” rights. However, the Board’s actions interjected a bit of sanity and prudence into an otherwise contentious issue in the city. However, the Board’s actions interjected a bit of sanity and prudence into an otherwise contentious issue in the city. The issue is a metaphor for other’s who defend their otherwise questionable practices as a “right.” No one has a total “right” to do as they wish, even if it is legal (or need I remind you that slavery in this country was legal at one time; it didn’t make it right) for the greater good. Some make the argument exposing the human body, even in public is an expression of “body love.” But how selfish is it tout one’s “right” to expose their genitals—men included—in public view of young children? How can anyone with a level cognitive reasoning justify that public nudity should be a “protected right,” when men exposing themselves to women and children is a crime in every municipality in the country?

We now live in a country where every individual whim, no matter how ridiculous, challenges the law as a protected “right.” The National Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pedophile advocacy organization of men with a predilection for sexual relations with underage males says their “rights” are “violated. Homosexuals now claim their desires to be married to others of the same sex as a legal ”right” (as opposed to a recognition). Our public schools are teeming with disruptive students with questionable mental and emotional diagnoses (e.g., Oppositional Defiance Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorders, etc.) whose parents say they have a “right” to bring their particular brands of disruptive hells to our classrooms, and interfere with the learning process of other students.  People who live in relatively crime-free areas have the “right” to own insane arsenals of weapons despite no existential threats to their lives or liberties.
We Americans love our “rights,” but are not willing to take note of their results:

-The nation’s divorce rate is higher than any other industrialized nations. 

-We have the highest rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity—adult and childhood—than any other industrialized nation. 

-We have the highest rates of childhood poverty of any Western nation. 

-We can also claim the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, murder, and incarceration rates of any advanced nation in the world.

We in America are so obsessed with trying to avoid individual discontent that we find ourselves actually being held hostage by our “rights” to freedoms. Our problem as a nation is that we all want to claim special rights, but not recognize that we have responsibilities as well. And the biggest responsibility we have is to protect not our rights, but common sense.
Everyone cannot be allowed to do what they want.  In order to serve the greater good, some individual rights have to be not only curtailed, but denied. As individuals and representatives of various interests groups, we need to break the delusion that most of us live under that we all have a "right" to do what we want.
We don't allow children to vote. We do not legally recognize the right to drink and drive.  Marijuana is still illegal in most states as well as the federal government.   Let's face it...some of us are not going to be allowed to do what we want.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if we are willing to take our emotions and beliefs out of the driver's seat of our lives and allow reason to pilot our thinking.

Read More

A Nation of Whiners - Part 3 (Conclusion)

After his 2003 HBO special, Victory Begins at Home, comedian and social commentator Bill Maher caught no small deal of flack for his harsh critique of our morphing social values, which has resulted in—in his words—the “feminization of America.” By this, Maher noted that America as a nation has become a place where sensitivity is more important than truth, and feelings are more important than facts. The more dogmatically adherent or PC-bound among those who hear this would conclude that such words were the rantings of a Neolithic-era misogynist; a more open-minded person would see that there is a great deal of truth behind them.
From job interviews to the Bully Pulpit of politics, we Americans would rather hear what sounds pleasant rather than what has validity…what makes us swoon rather than what makes us suspicious. This mindset has carried over into almost every aspect of our daily life, as evidenced by our daily walk over eggshells in order to avoid saying something which may offend those who elect us to office, those who hire for employment us, or even those who are supposed to teach us. Truth, humor, or—God forbid—the freedom to speak one’s mind no longer seems to matter; all that matters is the single-minded social mandate not to hurt someone’s oh-so-precious feelings. It’s gotten so that anyone can be offended by anything that anybody says at anytime. As a result of this evolving (or devolving) "need" to put our emotions in the driver's seat, so to speak, the need to express opinions or glean facts suffers. The ability to critically analyze and think suffers. The idea of free speech suffers. The need to tolerate what are (questionably) intolerable thoughts and ideas suffer. And in the end, progress suffers…or do I have to mention that at one time, a great many ideas and words that we were, at one time, quick to malign as “offensive” have become a part of mainstream thinking.
There is nothing wrong with having passion for a cause or idea that we hold dear. The problem arises when we make those ideas so sacrosanct that we attack and malign anyone we perceive to assail them (shades of Galileo being threatened with execution by the then-all-powerful Catholic Church for daring to question the "divine" belief that the sun revolved around the Earth). America was founded on the idea of the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, which in a less-than-perfect world, should occur without censor or sanction. The bottom line is that just because something offends someone doesn’t mean that it should not be said, nor does it mean that what is said is inherently wrong just because it "offends" us. We're "appalled" when President Obama compares his poor bowling skills to a Special Olympics level of play, but we all but ignore the continuous stream of taped messages from Bin Laden & Co., that warn us infidels of the next wave of impending attacks on American interests...clearly our "sensitivities" are misplaced.
The solutions lay in the fact that we as individuals need to expect the truth at times, as opposed to “correct answers,” understand the context in which something is said, look at the intent of the statement rather than its emotional effect on you, and, for God’s sake, grow up! Not everything someone says is meant to be offensive. Sometimes, we have to take utterances at face value. If we have problems with words, thoughts, and ideas which—without intent—offend us, one has to wonder how in the world we are going to deal with the same uttered by individuals who truly are out to hurt us. Are we to curl up into a fetal position in the nearest dark corner, like frightened little girls, sucking our thumbs whenever someone hurts or offends our “sensitivities,” or do we “cowboy-up” like adults…whom at one time were admired for their physical and emotional toughness?

Read More

"Teasing...Freedom of Expression or Crime?"

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” ― Salman Rushdie 

As a blogger and chronicler of relevant social and political issues, perhaps no greater bane to my endeavor exists than censorship. Can’t stand it. Won’t tolerate it.
Since being online, I was forced to censor only a single response to my postings (based on the fact the link to the commenter’s own blog was deemed too graphic for those wishing to inquire about his own personal views on the issue of gay marriage). Other than that, I would vigorously defend anyone’s right to speak their mind, or say what they feel…no matter how distasteful, painful (to some), or unjustified it might be.
On that point, a rather disturbing story came across my desk from earlier this week regarding one of those incidents of distasteful expression. What I found disturbing was not the inherently cruel the message being conveyed by expresser, but the hundreds of comments and responses the man’s actions had incurred from the public supporting actions taken against what this individual had done…or rather expressed by way of his actions.
This past Tuesday, an Ohio judge sentenced 43-year-old William Bailey to a month in jail. His offense? Bailey was convicted of both a first-degree misdemeanor charge of aggravated menacing, a subsequent charge of disorderly conduct, and ordered to pay $400 in court costs and fines stemming from his “teasing and taunting a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy.” As with many other instances of stand-out cruelty, a video was taken of Bailey’s actions and posted online…where it went viral in a few short days.
This video and its popularity was part of the basis of the disabled child’s family filing a complaint with the city attorney’s office seeking legal actions against Bailey.

To put the entire incident in context, it becomes necessary to understand the details of what happened leading up to this. According to published reports:

The taunting occurred on Sept. 26, when Tricia Knight and her mother-in-law were waiting for her children's bus to return from school. Knight's three children, including 10-year-old Hope, attend Walker Elementary with Bailey's 9-year-old son, Joseph.

What happened next was caught on an iPod camera by Knight's mother-in-law, Marie Prince.

William Bailey "was dragging his leg and patting his arm across his chest to pick his son Joseph up," said Knight. "I asked him to please stop doing this. 'My daughter can see you.' He then told his son to walk like the R-word."

The next day Knight posted the video on her Facebook page while Prince uploaded the video they called "Bus Stop Ignorance" to YouTube. Within days, the video went viral. The Knight family has lived next door to the Baileys for the past two years, and the incident at the bus stop, according to Knight, is the culmination of rising tensions and intimidation against her kids" ("Ohio Man Sentenced to One Month After Teasing Disabled Girl").

Yes, Bailey’s actions could easily be interpreted by most as the questionable actions of an ***hole. But being compared to an otherwise nasty body part has not been a crime in this country for a long time. As a by-product of our First Amendment right of Free Speech, people should have every the right to express themselves in any way they so desire…as long as it doesn’t create a clear and immediate danger to public safety or social order (e.g., yelling fire in a crowded theater, or attempting to verbally incite a riot). With all due respect to the Knight family, to curtail the expression of Bailey’s thoughts and ideas is to potentially curtail their own.
The authorities in Ohio overstepped their legal bounds by caving into social pressure in charging Bailey with a crime for expressing his otherwise gutter level of thinking. But perhaps issuing a restraining order , community service, or some other colorful form of penalty would have been a more appropriate course of action for Bailey expressing his stupidity. Simply put, it sets a very bad precedent to send someone to jail for this showing their ignorance in a relatively harmless (note, I said “relatively harmless;” please put down your rocks). If we sentenced everyone to jail who offended us, we would literally have to build add-ons to the coastal borders of our country to house them.
Let’s face it…bullying is an occurrence that happens every day of the week, and rarely does it result in criminal persecution, unless it results in actual (as opposed to perceived) criminal acts.
As an African-American, being called the “N-word” by some intellectual and cultural Neanderthal doesn’t hurt me in the slightest (trust me, I’ve been called worse). And I wouldn’t condone anyone who dares to do it to be sent to jail as a consequence. As thoughtless and heartless as people can be sometimes, the unfettered freedom and exchange of ideas—both pleasant and odious—is what made this country a world leader. And we cannot and should not allow our sensitivities to weaken our right to say (or express) what is on our mind, in our hearts, or how we feel.
Individuals do not have a right to employ the heckler’s veto against any level of speech. However, we do have the right to build up out tolerance to ignorance and questionable expression for the greater good of exchanging ideas.
Any time we put limitations on our right to express ourselves—regardless of content of the message—we render meaningless every life that was sacrificed for the same right. How we to know what is right, and what is wrong if we are prevented from ever being allowed to express it?
In understanding and respecting the rights of others to express themselves, we can take a lesson from the late child author Dr. Seuss:
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

Read More

What's Wrong With American Politics?

Maybe there is something to be said for dictatorships as a form of government. Things have a tendency to get done…fast. The passage of laws—even if they are by decree—makes gridlock a non-factor. There is no partisan wrangling between competing political parties or branches of government. And there is none of the upheaval that has come to symbolize what politics in America has come to.
President Obama’s approval ratings are at an all-time low for his tenure in office. The Mississippi Tea Party is in an uproar after its U.S. Senate primary candidate lost to mainstream Republican opponent Thad Cochran—who in turn appealed to a non-traditional base of African-American voters to beat the T-Party’s candidate. Democrats are set to use populist wedge-issues—immigration and a potential raise in the minimum wage—to beat back predicted Republican gains, while walking on broken egg shells on other issues to protect endangered Democratic candidates. And the list goes on…
What can I possibly say, reveal, or speak to in terms of the broken state of politics in contemporary America that most clear-thinking individual don’t already know? The political—as well as the voting—process has been corrupted by the influence and infusion of money; we know this. The ideological and political gulf between opposing belief-holders has never been wider…much to the detriment of the legislative process. The disdain that many of us Americans have for our political leadership finds most of us ranking their appeal generally somewhere between toilet film and a root canal. And the few optimists who remain loyal to one side or the other are more adherent to party-lines, talking points, and platforms than to rational thinking and objectivity. Why is the American political apparatus so broken?
To list a complete analysis of why politics in America is at such a level of unproductive impotence would take bandwidths of terabytes of Internet bandwidth; even a summary would take volumes. However, the conclusion—as painful as it might be for those wishing otherwise—is that America’s system of politics is broken because we are a nation moving toward an oligarchy rather continually engaging in the ”great experiment” of (a) democracy. What’s more, the basic reasons for the emergence of government by the powerful (and not in fact, “We the People”) can at least be listed inasmuch as those with clearer minds would be open to considering both their reality and validity.

The Voting Electorate. 

I will be blunt here; the American voting electorate is pretty dumb. This is to say that we are very uninformed as a people responsible for picking and choosing our leadership. Most of us do not bother to engage in objective research on the issues in any given election…and those of us who do bother to do what passes for research only look up “facts” that support already-held positions. Those who identify with Republicans (or conservatives) will usually refer to Fox News, The Daily Beast, The Drudge Report, The Bible, or any number of “objective news” sources, while liberals (i.e., Democrats) will go to Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, NPR, or other similar news sources considered “unbiased.” Most American voters start our approaching any issue with a liberal or conservative foundation, and then “research” the “facts” from that point. The problem is that most of these “sources” are little more than platforms for ideological talking points and/or already established beliefs. In other words, most Americans obtain their beliefs of certain issues from propaganda rather than objectivity. We don’t seem capable of suspending our preconceived beliefs and ideas to approach an issue based on the merits rather than their ability to support our individual political ideologies.
What’s more, there are simply too many nuts running loose in our country who lack psychiatric supervision. This is to say that many of the things that “informed voters” believe are beyond the pale. September 11th was a government conspiracy. Abortion is part of a planned genocide against the black community. The female body has mechanisms to “protect against that sort of thing.” Obama is not an American. Political correctness reflects “cultural sensitivity.“ There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Global warming is a hoax. Money is “Free Speech.” The Constitution protects abortion.  Universally affordable health care is akin to slavery. …and these are the “rational” thoughts. We believe anything our elected “leadership” tells us, no matter how insane, how irrational, or how counter-intuitive to reality. These virtual lunatics on both the political left and right share the same voting booths as you and I, and are able to pass themselves off as part of the “informed” electorate, who share the responsibility for putting into office other such “rational” individuals who are only too happy to polly-parrot these extreme beliefs in the name of voter support (just listen to the things that come out of the mouths of Michelle Bachmann or Barney Frank).
We’re also fickle to no end. We have a “Mac-Mentality;” we want “solutions” hot, fast, and now…forgetting that it took years for many of the issues facing the country to make themselves known. We are quick to overlook the fact that our politicians are not magicians…they cannot fix any problem as fast as we would like. Because of this, we will vacillate between election-year political party candidates as often as we change underwear. And quite understandably, our politicians don’t know what issue to support or where people actually stand on a given issue—unless said issues are being spoon-fed to the voting electorate. So they too bounce back and forth between “for” and “against” certain policies. Our political leadership’s inability to stand on one particular aspect of an issue may be irritating, but it’s also a reflection of our own ability to stand still on an issue in a realistic sense. We tend to take sides, as if either side wears the white hats. As I’ve often said on so many occasions, we are too quick to attack the other guy, and reject the worst possibilities of our own political affiliations.

Big Money Influence 

In the last few years, Supreme Court decisions have all-but eviscerated the notion that the voting public effects both legislation and voting rights. Rulings like Citizens United have opened the floodgates for the infusion of endless amounts of cash “donations” into the political process by both private and political interests seeking to influence who makes the laws and how they are made. Under the veneer of “Free Speech,” connected political, financial, and organized private interests groups—those usually tied to business—are now able to purchase public policy (and/or its handlers). Private and moneyed interests are not able to shape and mold a government virtually according to their own design.
And since most of us, the voting electorate, tend to accept and heed the talking points of our political affiliations rather than reason and individual thinking, we buy into this dynamic. Too many Americans—who we only have our votes as an instrument of gaining a say in the political process—are too quick to defend the Big Money interests who have more sway over our lives than we like to think because they can influence how our legislators think and behave. We are literally voting and supporting a status quo that works against our self-interests when we protect and defend the infusion of [the] obscene amounts of money into the political process. This is true whether it be in the legalized form of bribery we call “lobbying,” or when we allow shadowy political groups to throw tons of money into campaigns that call for voting for an issue or candidate that we support simply because it reflects our political affiliations.

The startling takeaway is that we as American citizens now have little impact on governmental and legislative policy by way of our voting. The only exception to this is when highly organized and motivated individuals like those in the partisan Tea Party movement are able to affect a small number within a larger party. But the effect of the Tea Party’s ideological intransigence is also part of the problem in why our politics have become so dysfunctional—they are too wedded to the belief that they are right in what and how they believe government should function. To this effect, many of the movement’s supporters and candidates have often invoked the phrase “no compromise” when it comes to getting legislation passed. This in turn creates the gridlock that stymies current system of governance —such as it is—and destroys any chance for passage of any form of legislation. We now have a system where private, moneyed, and politically-connected interest groups, as well as their lackeys in the various levels of legislative halls, are a law unto themselves. Simply put, the majority doesn’t rule. I know that special interests do not have my interest at heart when they lobby (i.e., pressure) my Congressman or state legislator to either think or vote on their behalf. I’m still waiting to the rest of my fellow Americans to catch up to this fact…but I won’t hold my breath.

The Changing Economy 

Oddly enough, when America had a stable Middle Class, and when we were a nation that actually produced manufactured goods, we had a stable voting electorate. There were fewer socioeconomic and political divisions by which our politicians could drive a wedge through to exploit for personal gain. In fact, quite the opposite; we were more willing to overlook both the political decisions and indiscretions of our elected leaders because the effects of either didn’t seem to have an overt consequence to the public at-large. Iran-Contra didn’t turn into a general clamor for impeachment (except from the extreme Left). Former Washington D.C. mayor Marion Barry’s conviction for drug use during an FBI sting—one caught on video—didn’t affect his eventual re-election to that same position. And despite his allusions that his contentious congressional confirmation had racial overtones, Clarence Thomas was eventually confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.
Our tolerance for decisions weak and/or questionable political decisions was far greater, relegated to the “all politicians lie,” or the “It doesn’t affect me and my family” ethos. As long as gasoline was cheap, jobs that actually paid the bills were still available, financial institutions were not overtly greedy (and corrupt), and our economy was still the envy of the world, why would any of us have complained…much less organize enough to take sides. But along the way, the economy and our political sensitivities started to change. While good-paying manufacturing began moving offshore in an effort to compete with the invasion of cheaper foreign-made products, a lower-paying service-based economy took over. Organized labor—unions—was assaulted from two points; the reduction in their numbers due to the off-shoring of jobs, and an assault on laws meant to protect union practices by business-friendly Republicans. This assault included curtailing laws that made it easier for Democratic-leaning to fund Democratic candidates and worker-friendly legislation. With unions (and their political money) weakened to historical levels, a supportive money supply to the Democratic Party was dried. This forced the Democrats into bed with the same kind of Big Money and private interest groups that the Republicans had cozied up to years earlier in order to raise party fund money (see: Lobbying Spending By Sector). Although many of those supporting legislation responsible for weakening organized labor will usually make references to “election fairness,” “economic concerns,” accusations of union “corruption” as justifications for doing so, make no mistake about it—attacks on unions were more about securing political advantage for benefitting political parties (and candidates), and not for the greater good (although one would be hard-pressed to deny that denials of such provide for the most elegant of rebuttals).
What's worse, many rank-and-file Americans have started to buy into the political narrative (put forth in part to defend the actions of those jockying for political fund-raising advantage) that "union greed" is what was responsible for the transformation of the American economy rather than the natural and inevitable drive by manufacturers to drastically find a way to increase profits in the face increasing global competition. We have forgetten that it was the labor-friendly demands of unions—higher wages, benefits, and reasonable hours to name a few—that helped to create a stable Middle Class in the first place.  This leads into the final factor contributing to our sad state of politics in America...

The Political Class

When I talk about the political class in America, what I am generally speaking to are not only career lobbyists, but career politicians, elected members of both major political parties, 501 (C )(4) political organizations (associated non-disclosed donors), and regular corporate economic entities—all of which/who form what can be unarguably considered the new ruling oligarchy in America. This is the say that these groups and individuals are so politically active and themselves informed about the inner workings as well as the mechanics of the legislative process that they can literally shape laws that benefit each entity and individual within this ruling political class. Our politicians are merely a means to this end. In most cases, these people and/or groups can be recognized by their constant presence in politics, their last names—especially in the cases of political “dynasties” (e.g., families that constantly produce career politicians)—and the influence they wield in affecting the legislative process.
Regardless of political party affiliation, most of the ruling oligarchy tends to be mainstays in the halls of power in this country, with some 50% of retiring or electorally defeated Congressmen taking up with lobbying firms in continuing to influence the legislative process on behalf of the highest bidder.
Even in the case of the few who aren’t as personally motivated by monetary gain, they are too beholden to their ideological (and by extension, their political party’s) beliefs to be effective legislators. This means that they tend to embrace party-lines and baseless thinking in order to appeal to their respective bases and remain in power for the sake of careers in “public service.” This is why climate change deniers, race-baiters, proponents of immigration “reform,” and those who think all taxes are “bad” tend to maintain their popularity among their respective supporters. This means that many of our elected leadership will literally say and promise anything in order to protect their political positions. Many have conned the American voting electorate into thinking we actually have a choice—via our votes—over which direction our country should go when it comes to the legislative process when in reality, the politically-connected ruling oligarchy makes these decisions.

Admittedly somewhat cynical, our American oligarchs have designs to pull the strings of political system in order to suck as much wealth as possible from the nation (and its people) by ensuring cheaper labor, government subsidies, and other favorable legislation that ensures greater profits and the free flow of capital among and between each other. Additionally, political oligarchs in this country seek to hoard the wealth they collect by saving money in the form of tax cuts and favorable tax rates. To enable these designs, political oligarchs employ a army of lawyers, image consultants, and public relations too sculpt favorable images of politicians who work to protect the wealth of their fellow oligarchs.
Politicians and other members of the political class all-but crippled the Middle Class by sucking all the wealth and promise out from it via usurping the political and legislative process. And without a strong middle class, America cannot offer its citizens a chance to improve their lives, to maintain the infrastructure required for commerce and growth, or support those citizens that need a safety net thanks to lower-paying employment (See: “How the Middle-Class Got Screwed”). The political class cheats the system as it was meant to be in order to steal the wealth of our nation and hoard it for themselves.
But in order to keep attention off of themselves and their designs, oligarchs will often sow the seeds of dissent among competing groups of Americans. Liberal vs. conservatives. Immigrants vs. native-born citizens. Ethnicity vs. ethnicity. We blame each other for “ruining the country,” while the political class benefits. The fact is, when you look at the military, you will find both liberals and conservatives in uniform. I would like to believe that both liberals, conservatives, as well as those in between love that the American Constitution is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not the special interests, and certainly not the interests of the political (and economic) ruling class in America. However, as much as we would like to believe that our vote counts, it seems that our country is being controlled and manipulated by the moneyed and politically-connected elite—and not We The People!

Read More

Affordable Health Insurance & Politics - Separating The Ideological BS From Reality!

Regular readers to Beyond The Political Spectrum know that I am a rabid proponent of universally affordable health care coverage for all Americans. After all, if America is truly to be “the land of opportunity,” then there is nothing more basic to [the] equality of opportunity than having the good health (or access to) to be able to work hard, and to have the strength to work toward better opportunities for oneself…infant-level common sense to be sure.
However, as I watched the Tea Party-sponsored Republican debate which aired on CNN last week, I came away with a clearer understanding of why America has become so politically, socially, and ethnically polarized in recent times. The short answer is that our leadership (and their individual supporters) is tainted by too many competing ideological beliefs, driven by self-serving politicians seeking to hold on to their jobs rather than working on behalf of the interests of Americans (e.g., too many politicians, and not enough statesmen), and too much special interests money which beneficiaries call an extension of “Free Speech.”
With regard to universally affordable health care, just mentioning the contentious issue conjures up catcalls of “socialism” by the politically opportunistic, the narrow-minded, and the ideologically short-sighted. And thoughts of the government should/can pay for everyone by the fiscally unrealistic and irresponsible. As an example, I cite the case of Republican Party presidential nominee candidate Ron Paul, who I—despite his staunch libertarian views—thought was more of a reasonable sort prior to last week’s debate (I even alluded to him as such in a prior posting. )
During a particular moment of the debates, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Paul:

BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just -- you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --

BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

(Multiple shouts of “Yes!” from audience)

PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.

There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.

(APPLAUSE)

Source: (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/September/13/transcript-gop-debate-health-care-issues.aspx and Beyond The Political Spectrum.blogspot).


To view this segment from last weeks debate in Tampa, Florida, click on the video.

That the debate was co-sponsored by the Tea Party was no surprise that such a response received such rousing (and heartless) support by the audience. In much the same way that extremists Muslims have co-opted mainstream Islam in areas of the Middle East, The Tea Party has hijacked the Republican Party (at the expense of reason and civility). Consequently, Republican candidates seeking the GOP’s nomination to challenge President Obama in 2012 have grown ever spineless, kow-towing to the Tea Party’s hard right-wing ideological views and political intransigence in much the same way that Obama has capitulated to the Republicans in Congress time and again.
The problem is that such beliefs (and the shameful support by those in the audience) are driven by beliefs, which in turn are driven by ideology (ies) that are active reasoning. I observed this phenomenon firsthand while preparing for this particular posting. For example, a common thread of thinking that I saw running through most posted online opposition to the notion of universally affordable health care reflected Ron Paul’s view; that people have the “choice” of whether or not to purchase health care in a free society.
It borders insanity to think that most of the uninsured in this country “choose” to go without health insurance. Speaking from personal as well as anecdotal experience—as well as the fact that most surveys and studies support this—most people who go without health insurance do so as a matter of economic pragmatism. Many must choose between paying crucial utilities, food, rent, or health care. Broken down by statistics:

The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005 was cost (more than 50%), lost job or a change in employment (24%), Medicaid benefits stopped (10%), ineligibility for family insurance coverage due to age or leaving school (8%). Source: National Center for Health Statistics (Source: “Health Care Statistics.” HealthPAConline.com)

And sadly, those who have been fortunate enough (especially in this economy) to afford health insurance—while opposing equal access for the rest of us—make the mistake of thinking that their good fortune or efforts are applicable to all Americans. To those, I say that life is not a one-size-fits-all experience. Extenuating circumstances vary from individual to individual, and should always be considered before making such black-and-white generalizations.
To further illustrate this point, consider the following article from USA Today, also from last week:

Amanda Hite says she felt "really healthy" when she applied recently for health insurance. But Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield denied her, because she had seen a chiropractor a few months earlier for a sore back and later had visited an emergency room because of back pain.

"I was surprised and let down," said Hite, 34, of Lexington, Ky., who didn't think her periodic back pain would be enough to keep her from buying health insurance.

Hite's case isn't unusual. Many of the plans offered by Anthem Blue Cross in Kentucky reject about one in five applicants, according to data provided by insurers to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Rival insurers in the state have even higher denial rates: Humana rejects 26% to 39% of applications in Kentucky, while UnitedHealthcare denies 38% to 43%.

Citing its own 2009 study, America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, says 87% of people who apply nationally for individual coverage are offered a policy. That figure, however, includes people who are turned down for one policy but offered another that may cost more or have fewer benefits.

The federal website contains denial rates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories, and is updated periodically. The most current information is for the first three months of 2011. The data show that denial rates routinely exceed 20% and often are much higher, according to a Kaiser Health News review of 20 of the most populous states and the District of Columbia. The data reflect applications that are turned down for any reason.

The information provides fresh evidence of the challenges facing people buying individual health insurance. It also shows the likelihood of whether consumers are approved for a policy depends on which state they live in and the insurer they choose.

Denial rates can vary widely within individual states. In Georgia, for example, Aetna's denial rate is 15% compared with 47% for Kaiser Permanente and 67% for John Alden Life Insurance.

Also, the same insurer can have vastly different denial rates in different states. For example, Kaiser Permanente denied 32% of applications in Maryland but 17% in Colorado. (Kaiser Health News is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

James Larreta-Moylan, director of individual and family plans for Oakland-based Kaiser Permanente, said the denial rates vary because of the different types of plans sold, and the age and health conditions of applicants in different markets. He said denial rates can be higher in some markets where sicker patients apply for plans with richer benefits. Medical underwriting, or reviewing an applicant's health status, "is an unfortunate reality of today's market," he said.

Mike Cantone, 27, of Orlando, was denied a health insurance policy last year by UnitedHealthcare, which considered him a risk because a doctor used a monitor to test his heart for a few days in 2007. No problems were detected, he said. "I was shocked and frustrated," said Cantone, a political director for a community organization. He is still uninsured.

Denial rates of 70% and 53%

Two companies consistently had the highest denial rates — John Alden Life Insurance and Time Insurance, both owned by Milwaukee-based Assurant Health. In nearly every market surveyed, their denial rates were at least twice the rate of competing insurers. For example, in Tennessee, John Alden turned down 70% of applicants and Time, one of the biggest individual insurers in the country, rejected 53%.

Assurant spokeswoman Heather McAvoy said her company offers alternative plans when applicants are rejected due to health status. These can include policies that require consumers to pay extra to cover a pre-existing medical condition. "Unfortunately, when consumers accept the alternative coverage — and are, in fact, insured with Assurant Health — they are classified as a 'denial' under the HHS criteria," she said.

AHIP, the trade group, says the federal data on coverage denials are misleading because they do not include people rejected for one plan but offered another. The data also include denials involving applicants who don't live in the plan's coverage area.

The Deartment of Health and Human Services acknowledged AHIP's arguments but said it was important for the data to reflect when people can't get the specific policies they apply for. The department said most of the denials are the result of medical underwriting.

Health care overhaul offers help

The difficulty of buying individual coverage was a big reason behind the 2010 federal health overhaul, which will ban insurers starting in 2014 from denying individual policies based on health status.

In the past, most consumers haven't been able to look up insurers' denial rates before sending in a check to apply for coverage. Maryland is the only state that requires insurers to report information on denial rates.

But as part of the federal health law, HHS last November started posting the coverage-denial rates, which can be searched by ZIP code at www.healthcare.gov.

Using the data from the website, a Government Accountability Office study of 459 insurers published earlier this year found an average of 19% of applicants nationally were denied coverage. But the study showed a wide range of denial rates. A quarter of insurers had denial rates of 15% or below and a quarter had rates of 40% or higher.

A House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation into four large for-profit insurers last year found that the denial rates have steadily increased from 11.9% in 2007 to 15.3% in 2009. The companies reviewed were Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealthcare and WellPoint.

The denial rates are an important tool for helping consumers select an insurer, said Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow with Mathematica, a non-partisan think tank. That's because the application process can take a month or more, and carriers typically require the first month's premium with the application.

Sara Collins, vice president of the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund, said the denial data underscore the need for the industry changes that will occur in 2014. "It's not surprising that denial rates are high, because insurers have an incentive to only enroll the healthy risks," she said. "If a person comes in with a health problem that will potentially cost (the insurer) money, they are probably not going to cover them" (Source: "Health Insurance Denial Rates Routinely 20% Data Shows," USAToday. September 12, 2011).

So aside from lack of any real choice, insurers routinely deny a percentage of Americans, some for questionable reasoning (or lack thereof). In the case of California, the high rejection rates of those residents seeking insurance coverage triggered an investigation, enjoined by the state’s attorney general in 2009 “HMO Claims-Rejection Rates Triggers State Investigation”).
For those opposed to the notion of universally affordable health care insurance/coverage, even in the face of such indisputable research which counters their claims, one can routinely expect to have sources questioned, anecdotal and personal experiences substituted for any real counter-evidence, and/or the employment of esoteric hair-splitting statistical analysis and numbers crunching (figures which usually are “solid” in the abstract, but have no real basis in reality). If all else fails, the Boogey Man of “socialism” is used as a trump card of sorts, as if maligning a policy/idea which one does not support or believe in makes is so.
In Ron Paul’s case, his obvious appeal to the Tea Party’s extremism carries with is a bit of real world conviction.

Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder
(pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations (Source: "Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured." Gawker. September 14, 2011).

This comes as no surprise, as a 2009 Harvard University medical study found that an estimated 45,000 Americans die a year from lack of health insurance ("Harvard Medical StudyLinks Lack Of Insurance To 45,000 Deaths A Year," September 17, 2009), up from the similarly estimated 18,000 a year back in 2002 ("18,000 Deaths Blamed On lack Of Insurance," USAToday. May 22, 2002).
Granted, Paul’s Tea Party pandering remarks were somewhat serendipitous with regards to the death of his former campaign chairman, it speaks to the levels to which our leaders’ (and their supporters) embrace ideology over reality, with the goal of attaining power for, and representing the interests of some Americans and not all.
I urge all Americans to speak up and speak out. Don't allow extremist elements to paint the impression that they represent the interests of every and all Americans. I urge politicians to adopt a spine and resist the false influence of those who perpetrate as though they represent all of us.
And I urge Americans who align their thinking with a narrow political and/or socioeconomic ideology to view their surroundings through a more reasoned basis.
Conservatism and Liberalism did not come into existence with the Big Bang or Creation. They are the products of mortal thinking, and no doubt individuals harboring ulterior motives and self-interests.

Read More