Stuff

In no particular order.

1. The new camera.


Weellll, if something looks too good to be true, it usually is... and was. My dreams of a $500 Canon 50D were dashed this past week after Thunder Cameras tried to swindle my mother (who is buying me the camera as a Christmas gift) for extra money for an "upgrade" that was actually a downgrade. So, back to the drawing board on that one.

2. A hole for my pigeon.


I have found my religion. Ok, maybe not my religion, more like my un-religion. Well, that's not so accurate either. More like my philosophical pigeon hole.

Thanks to The Urban Koda, who has been undergoing somewhat of a philosophical/spiritual/political evolution of late (yay for him, btw!) I have discovered "Humanism". It's everything I wanted to say about how I feel my personal beliefs, such that they are, fit into this whole realm. Not that I reject the term Atheist any more than I reject the label Liberal - I embrace both, despite the inaccurate stereotypes that have been created in American culture about both (contrary to popular belief I don't have horns or sleep with the devil at night) - it's just that Humanism seems to be a nuanced version. To quote the American Humanist Association :

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Which is basically what I have been saying all along. In my words: I aspire to the ethics and morals of some religions or parts thereof, but without the belief in a supernatural power. 

3. Preschools

This week we began the search for a preschool for Miss. Daisy. We've no plans to send her anywhere until she's two but that big day is only months away now and we want time to find the right spot, sit on it, apply, and make sure a spot is available. Fortunately the economy is helping us in the last regard - enrollments are down at private schools. 

I've visited a few now and have only really found one that impresses me: Creative Frontiers. Most places, IMHO, are pretty soul-less, gray, square boxes with just-above-minimum-wage workers who go through the motions of singing the songs and teaching the cookie-cutter curriculum, at least at this early age. 

Not CF, however. It's a village-like 7 acres with horses, chickens, goats, a swimming pool, and an on-site cook.The teachers are warm, engaged, and involved. I loved it. I have several others to visit but this one will be hard to beat. 

Another plus is that it has classes right up to 6th grade and, given the way school funding has been heading in recent years, I reserve the right to outright reject the chronically underfunded public education system in 2014. 

This really pains me, by the way, but I (our family) refuse to have my daughter miss the mark on her full potential because people won't pay their fare share of taxes. Sorry folks, I'm unbudgeable on this and health care. Basic rights. Teachers are underpaid. Supplies and facilities are underfunded. Class sizes are too large. This is the future of America -  pay up!

4. The elections

California Republicans need to stop whining and flipping out. Really guys, you're taking this whole "fear" thing too far. As we tell Daisy in the middle of one of her toddler tantrums: "DON'T PANIC!" 

I've seen all sorts of doomsday predictions on Facebook about the future of our state because it failed to follow the whiplash trend of voting Republican in this week's elections. I have some things to say about this:

1. Move. Yeah, so most California Democrats live in LA and San Francisco but, the last time I checked, politicians represented people, not land, and that's where the most people are so suck it up or move to Texas. 
2. You can't complain that Democrats are ineffectual in one breath and threaten the very survival of our state the next. Either they do nothing and are therefore no harm or they're busy doing something to piss you off. Pick one.
3. Everyone should be excited that Meg Whitman did not win the CA Governorship, regardless of party. Do we really want to be the state whose votes were bought? I firmly believe my vote is worth more than the $50 she paid but would rather have seen her donate that money to a worthy cause. Plus, honestly, I saw more than enough of that woman's face in the last year to serve me a lifetime. I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that.
4. If you actually look at Jerry Brown's proposals, you'll see that he has actually taken some Republican ideas and incorporated them into his approach. For instance, the idea of starting at a zero budget every year and forcing state departments to justify every penny they need in the coming year. That was something Republicans put on the table originally. I think it's a pretty good idea too. Yes, that's right, I thought a Republican idea was a good one. Quiz me beyond the hyperbole and ridiculousness that permeates public political discourse these days and you'll find a number of instances where I think right wing ideas make sense. I'm no patsy thankyouverymuch.
5. THANK GOD (whomever/whatever he/she/it is.) It's possible I might be begging my husband to move me back to England right now if I didn't see SOME bright spots of blue across this country. Maybe you think losing me back to the Brits would be a win for the U.S.? Pretty sure my husband is grateful though. (He doesn't want to live in England. I know, free healthcare AND pubs... WHY NOT!?)

5. My husband's annoying habits

Yes, he has a few. A couple that drive me INSANE. I just threatened him that I would publish at least one of them on here if he didn't QUIT IT. Stay tuned to learn TMI about Mr. Ranty Pants if he doesn't comply. 

Ok, maybe I do sleep with the devil. Hehe.

And now, can we please return to regular programming?

I VOTED!

For some reason voting for me today was an emotional experience.

I think it's because the 2008 elections mattered so much to me and I was so proud of the tone and fervor surrounding them. My oh my, however: what a difference two years has made!

In a country that pretty-much invented ADD, we've gone from hope and back to fear in a political millisecond The pendulum swung so fast and so far it seems to have hit some folks squarely on the head and sent them a leeetle crazy.

If you think the Tea Partiers and White Men are angry, they aint got nothing on how I feel about some people over the last two years. There are times I've almost jumped through my TV set to strangle some nutters spouting all kinds of ridiculous vitriol, and politics has become a taboo subject with some of our neighbors who, in my humble opinion, are seriously close to flying off the reservation (and have becoming pretty insulting in the process.)

Not that I oppose opposition, or intelligent (if sometimes emotionally charged) debate. Not for a second. I am not afraid of it and, in fact, with the right person (the kind who can spar without getting personal) I enjoy it immensely. One of the things that has made me so frustrated over the past fifteen years of living in this country is the level of political apathy. So passion is a good thing. Most definitely.

What isn't a good thing is anger, especially anger fed by misinformation and hyperbole. And what isn't helpful is name-calling (what are we, a nation of middle-schoolers?) in place of informed and intelligent disagreement on issues.

These things are not good.

Am I frustrated by the economy? Yes. Granted, probably not as much as some given I have a job and a house. My point is that I don't live in a plastic bubble and I truly feel for people who have lost their jobs and their homes through no fault of their own.

Do I feel that President Obama has made mistakes and has not delivered on many of his campaign promises? Well, yes, of course. Again, I'm paying attention. But I also know it's only been two years (not even) since he took office, that he was landed a pile of steaming Republican poo (aka: the economic crisis) that he had to deal with somehow, and that there are other players and forces at work in Washington that mean he couldn't just fly in there, write out some executive orders, and have his bidding done. (Oh, I can only dream there.)

The entire American political system is built on checks and balances and, unfortunately folks, balance and quick, radical change are not good bedfellows. We can't have it all ways. (No, really, I know, BOO HOO!) You can't demand change from your politicians and then plunk them directly in the middle of a system that demands compromise and has systems in place that are designed to temper radical shifts. You can't complain that politicians get nothing done and then ask that every two years they re-campaign to keep their jobs. And let's face it, between primaries and general election campaigning, it's not every 2 years, it's mote like every 12-18 months. What job have you been in for 18 months where you've been able to make big changes? And how many fewer changes would you be able to make if you spent the last 6 months of your evaluation period raising money, producing ads, debating and playing sales person to keep your job?

What irkles me no end right now is that President Obama has to be out there campaigning for Democrats rather than actually running the country. We just had an election for heaven's sake. (And let's not even talk about the people who are mad at him for not calling the Giants and congratulating them on their World Series win. Somehow I don't see "Call Brian Wilson" next to "fix the economy" and "find Bin Laden" on Obama's to-do list.)

And, if we're being honest, although we say we want compromise in this country, it's all just words that make us feel good about ourselves; as if we're taking a moral high ground or something. We don't really want compromise or if we say we do, we don't really think about what that means. Republicans are mad at candidates who reach across the aisle to work with Democrats on certain issues, calling them "Liberal" (ouch! The "L" word!). Meanwhile Democrats are supposedly disillusioned because their folks didn't ride rough-shod over the right wing and get everything done they campaigned for 2 years ago. None of that really speaks for compromise and working together, does it?


But what really just makes me shake my head are all these propositions. Now, I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person, all things considered, but it makes MY eyes cross just trying to read up on and understand these things.

Trying to sort fact from advocacy is nearly impossible these days, and the time it takes to find impartial information and then understand it enough to truly make an informed decision, is just mind-blowing. Further, even when I have all the information, I don't feel qualified to place a proper vote because, let's face it, I have all the information on ONE SUBJECT but I am no expert on state or federal government and readily admit that the wider implications of my decision are rarely something I understand. I'll even admit that I have often just ticked the box from the Democratic Play Book when something seemed too hard to understand. That makes me uncomfortable, especially given that most folks probably don't do even half as much research as I do. I'd prefer to feel my decisions were based upon my own research but, I have a life and don't have time to become an expert in all these areas just for one vote. I would much rather we left the voting to the politicians we elect. Leave the accountability with them. Ok, we may not like what they vote every time but that's what elections are for (and please, every 4 years, so they'll actually have done something I can evaluate them on?)

It just doesn't make sense to me that I vote for a politician, who I am expecting to be an expert in this field (or maybe not, given the latest trend) and then have to vote for the laws as well. It's like hiring a dentist and then taking the drill from his hand to clean out a couple of my own cavities, then complaining that my teeth hurt.



So, even with all this said, I voted anyway and I applaud you if you did too - even if your vote wasn't the same as mine. I hope you did it from a place of truly understanding who you were voting for and why. I hope you did at least some research before checking a box Yes or No on a proposition. If you did, and we disagree, you have my respect and my thanks as a fellow citizen.

And now we can return to our regular programming. Back to Taco Bell commercials on the TV and photography posts for Ms. Ranty Pants ;o)
----------

BTW, yes, this is how I look on most days. THIS is why I have not joined the crowd of mommy bloggers participating in "What I Wore Wednesday". We can assume that, on any given day, this IS what I wore. (Or a version thereof.) Sorry to disappoint.

Annoying gym guy strikes again!

Remember the annoying gym guy I blogged about a while back? The one who thought Scotland was in England and that Glasgow was a new breed of cow? (If not, read here.) Well, he struck again today. Or, more aptly, I almost struck HIM.

Today's topic was the Governator's desire to put all state workers in California on minimum wage, while we wait for the Democrats to compromise their values significantly enough that the few Republicans in the state assembly will actually get out of the damn way and approve a budget.

(No bias there, as you can see. In reality, I'm more frustrated with the system than the players. The whole 2/3 rule is ludicrious and proven to be completely bloody ineffectual.)

But, as usual, I digress.

Today's almost-altercation happened when I overhead gym-guy butting into someone else's conversation - as, we have established, he frequently does, to assert his "knowledge".

There were two women on eliptical machines chit-chatting and one of them brought up Governor Swarzenneger's plan. The other woman had apparently been livinig with her head in the sand because she had no idea what any of this was about (sigh) and so her friend began to explain. Her explanation went something along the lines of "It's not the state workers' fault and it's not fair to punish them." Amen to that. All good so far.

Except that's when gym-guy chimed-in (stopping long enough from trying to yank his back out using terrible form on a rowing machine.) "Ahh... they'll get it back, though," he said dismissively. "The state will pay them back once the budget is passed."

"Let's hope that's good enough for the mortgage company," the woman said politely, and I almost high-fived her.

Aparently this was of no concern to gym-guy who continued to poo-poo the effect on state workers. "For sure there will be more hardships," he said "but they'll get it all back at the end of the day."

The women went silent, which is when I almost crossed the room and gave the man a verbal smackdown. He is the epitome of everything that just drives me crazy about some American's attitudes to government workers and the well-being of others. I've been criticized for having a lack of empathy in my time but this guy, and others like him, take the biscuit. I wanted to ask him how he would feel if his employer suddenly said that his pay would be cut to just $8.00 an hour.

Just to provide some perspective, at $8 an hour that's just $320 per week for a full-time worker (40hrs/wk) or $1,280 a month. A number which wouldn't even pay half of my mortgage payment and likely not gym-guy's either, barely pays the average rent for an apartment in Sacramento ($960 2 years ago), let alone somewhere like L.A. or Orange County, and is equivalent to a salary of just $16,600 - a figure which puts the state workers at below the poverty threshold for a family of 3.

Given these realities, the fact that a state worker will get their involuntary loan paid back to them at some point, is neither here nor there. What matters is that, in the meantime, many of them will not be able to make mortgage, rent, or car payments right now. All of which is hugely helpful in this economy, right? Although the right-wing like to consider state jobs as somehow "fake", the reality is that people who earn money (from whatever source) pay taxes and spend money - both critical factors in an economic recovery for either the private or public sectors.

So, back to gym guy. He was close to a tongue-lashing from yours truly about how thoroughly insensitive, discompassionate and callous his dismissive attitude is to the welfare of others.  Fortunately for him, I'm on a time-clock when I'm at the gym and didn't have time to devote to educating him.

I see it coming down the line, however. The man irkles me no end. It's not just what he says but the superiority with which he says it. He needs to be taken down a peg or two and one of these days...

Grrrrrrrrrrr.

I do not have a problem with rich people but I do have a problem with rich people buying votes

There. I said it.

Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina being on the other side of the political spectrum doesn't bother me. I don't agree with their stance on many things but that's ok - I don't agree with many people stance on many things. However, what irkles me no end, is the fact that they were able to buy votes in yesterday's primary election.

Arguably, you could say it was a middle-finger to traditional politicians and an embracing of corporate CEOs as the "solution" to the terrible mess we find California in. However, it is hard to argue with these numbers: MEG WHITMAN spent more than $71 million from her personal fortune to win votes and CARLY FIORINA spent $5 million, both women outspending their opponents by a margin that was beyond ridiculous.

Of course, you can't air radio and tv spots or organize a grass-roots effort without money but the whole concept of the political process is that spending is closely related to support via donations and is, therefore, somewhat an extension of the voting process itself.

What Whitman and Fiorina did was completely skip the grass-roots support completely and buy themselves exposure that had nothing to do with their ability to win hearts and minds. Meg in particular clogged up our TVs with a mud slinging campaign that made me sick to my stomach (egged on by her fellow-billionnaire opponent) and to the point where you could barely turn on a tv without being subjected to their torrent of insults. It was disgusting. I don't care what their politics are. And yet, by virtue of the fact that you just couldn't get away from her, she won votes. (I'm not saying some people didn't vote from an informed perspective but, hey, most of us can agree that's not the majority of the electorate.)

As for Carly, we all know that her votes came from being the "other" choice. She spent her millions just telling us that, if we didn't like the other guy, she was our only other option. When you can spend enough money to drown out all other voices, it's definitely easy to make it seem that way.

I used to like politics when I lived in England. Since I moved to the U.S.... notsomuch. It's a battle driven by personality, money and the deeds involved in getting it. Not that this isn't present in the UK at all but the political atmosphere is more driven by issues and money is not the deciding factor in any way, shape or form. (I could explain why but I won't bother you with a lesson on the British parliamentary system.)

At first when I moved out here, I couldn't understand the sense of apathy most people had to voting and the political process, or the disdain they had for politicians in general. Now I totally get it. After 15 years, I'm pretty sick of it myself. And if anyone thinks that corporate CEOs will be any less drawn into the political pitfalls that career politicians have been criticized for, they appear to be sorely mistaken. The recent cat fight played out on our TV sets makes that pretty clear.

How about a Democratic ad... instead?

Today I checked my blog for comments (in the vain hope that there might be some) and, in the process, happened to see THIS monstrosity sitting on my side-bar, in the Google ads section.

Which presents somewhat of an ethical dilemma. There is no way in sweet hell that I want my blog to promote ANYTHING about Carly Whatsherfacearina. BUT, I have no control over what ads Google deems appropriate for my blog so, I'm assuming, my only choice is to remove Google Ads entirely from my blog if I don't like it?

You would think, however, in these days of advanced online information gathering, that Google's little spiders would have scanned my content and figured out that this blog was the last place that Carly would find supporters. But then it occurs to me that not all my friends are Democrats, so maybe Google is smarter than I thought. Stiil, it irkles me no end that my blog is being used as a Republican billboard.

While we're on the subject of the failed, ex-HP CEO (whose only political claim-to-fame is advising John McCain on economics during the 2008 Presidential Election - and look how well that went), Ms. Fiorina has the most ridiculous political tagline of this otherwise dirty-politics primary: "Vote Carly. Instead."



All this political slogan says to me is "I suck less" or "I'm the best of a bad bunch" or "If you don't like him, vote for me" which is on a par with a campaign for high school president, or whatever it is that they vote for in schools out here.

As a marketing and sales person her whole slogan bothers me. I would never advertise my company's product as something you might want to choose "instead". Where's the value statement? What does this tell someone about my product? That I'm not the other product. Great marketing. And this is the prior CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Instills confidence, doesn't it?

It occurs to me...

... that the expectations of the political process in this country are ridiculous.

1) At the local level, we elect individuals to represent us in Congress based upon, what we believe to be, shared beliefs, values, and policy positions. We send them off to Washington to deliver on those promises and then, over the next two to six years (depending on whether they are a Congressman/woman or Senator) we judge them on their ability to deliver what they promised during the elections.

2) We do the same thing at the Presidential level. We pick one person based upon what they represent, to get things done.

3) As a citizenry we then spend the next two to six years complaining because these people as a collective group do not "meet in the middle", "compromise", or "work together".

4) #3 requires that the people in #1 and #2 give up something because, let's face it, no matter what words you use to make it sound nice, compromise requires the person on each side of an issue, to let go of/give up something. This, by default, means that some of the things that the people in #1 and #2 promised, cannot be delivered upon, at least to the extent to which they were promised.

5) We make the President a separate branch of government that has really little or no real influence on what goes on in Congress, thus making it all but impossible to affect any real change because he/she needs to persuade a group of more than 500 people fighting at the local level for their own constituents vs. the greater good, and/or playing partisan politics and infighting for their own professional gain.

6) We give the minority in Congress the ability to filibuster bills that the opposing party brings to vote, thus ensuring that the minority can scupper the efforts of the elected majority, and preventing the very changes that the majority of voters mandated by electing the party in the majority in the first place.

7) We then criticize the people in #1 and #2 for not doing what they promised to do, although when they actually do #3, they can't deliver on a lot of what they promised, and when they don't do #3, the opposing party does #6 and kills it anyway.

It's like putting a CEO in charge of a company and then asking him/her to lobby all the employees to create, vote-on, and enact his/her company decisions! No company could ever be run that way. Why do we expect that our country can?

Now, let me be clear: I am not a fan of many of the people in Congress, even on my side of the aisle (I am also not one of those people who thinks it's as simple as saying that everyone is corrupt and/or worthless either). But it seems to me that the system is set-up to have you be damned if you do and damned if you don't.

We say we want change but our system of government is set-up to force centrist policy-making which, more often than not, reinforces the status quo.

I voted for President Obama because he stood on a platform of change but, honestly, I have to say that never ONCE did I think that the system we have in place in this country would actually let him affect much of that change. I'm not surprised that the health-care bill is all-but dead. I never expected it to pass. That's why I haven't been getting all excited this past year about it on this blog. It was dead before it started.

I think it's time to get real in this country. Either you want something to happen, in which case you have to accept that not everyone will agree with the outcome and that's just life (get more votes next time, folks!) or you agree that everything's mostly fine as it is and harmony (or the effort towards it) is more important than results. (Quick pause while I vomit.)

Yes, it is true that you can argue that the current system prevents radical shifts and thus ensures that change, overall, can be incremental. BUT it also discourages big, sensitive issues from being tackled at all - like health care, like social security, like tax reform - all of which have been broached numerous times but always without result.

Although it is a noble goal, it's just not possible to please everyone. We are not kindergardeners playing a "no win/no lose" soccer match. We are grown-ups and the reality of life is that, for change to be enacted, some people are going to end up happy and some people are going to end up pissed off. That's life.

Ok, so I couldn't leave it alone entirely

Republicans, I'd like to know how it feels to be the party of obstruction. Really? What else do you stand for? All I can see is: guns, killing doctors who perform legal procedures, religion, torture, oil, and war. Pretty much anything else worthwhile you obstruct. In the past it was an African American's right to vote, social security, medicare, segregation, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act... now, true to form, it's healthcare.

Not that the Democrats in Congress don't deserve a fair share of the blame here either. They dragged their feet putting the bill together, weighing it with all kinds of pork-barrel crap and stupid in-fighting, failing to seize the political capital that President Obama had bought for them (and which has now significantly dwindled, not in small part, because of their ineffectiveness.)

It's a national disgrace to be sure on all sides. The Democrats for behaving like school children fighting over the big bag of candy that was dropped in the middle of the room and the Republicans for sulking in a corner because they couldn't have it all their way. Now, of course, they got Mr. Brown who can be sure to gleefully block anything worthwhile just because the Republicans didn't come up with it in the first place.




And, does it bother anyone else that this Fox News anchor seems to have a self-satisfied smirk on his face? It's almost as if he's elated that the richest country in the world cares less that 15% it's residents do not have basic health care.

Then, as for this young fellow, I'm sure his 15 minutes of fame won't be his last. I expect to see him on an FBI wanted poster sometime in the next 10 years. (The part this article failed to mention was his F grades and the fact that he has consistently been in trouble for yelling racial slurs and talking about the KKK. AWESOME. Yup, put a gun in THIS boy's hand for sure.)

Shame on US.

A compassionate, yet rational, perspective on our health care crisis.

"As many people die every three weeks from lack of health insurance as were killed in the 9/11 attacks." -- WOW.
---------------------------------------------

NEW YORK TIMES
November 12, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist

America’s Defining Choice
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

President Obama and Congress will soon make defining choices about health care and troops for Afghanistan.

These two choices have something in common — each has a bill of around $100 billion per year. So one question is whether we’re better off spending that money blowing up things in Helmand Province or building up things in America.

The total bill in Afghanistan has been running around $1 million per year per soldier deployed there. That doesn’t include the long-term costs that will be incurred in coming decades — such as disability benefits, or up to $5 million to provide round-the-clock nursing care indefinitely for a single soldier who suffers brain injuries.

So if President Obama dispatches another 30,000 or 40,000 troops, on top of the 68,000 already there, that would bring the total annual bill for our military presence there to perhaps $100 billion — or more. And we haven’t even come to the human costs.

As for health care reforms, the 10-year cost suggests an average of $80 billion to $110 billion per year, depending on what the final bill looks like.

Granted, the health care costs will continue indefinitely, while the United States cannot sustain 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for many years. On the other hand, the health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Who are these Americans who die for lack of insurance? Dr. Linda Harris, an ob-gyn in Oregon tells of Sue, a 31-year-old patient of hers. Sue was a single mom who worked hard — sometimes two jobs at once — to ensure that her beloved daughter would enjoy a better life.

Sue’s jobs never provided health insurance, and Sue felt she couldn’t afford to splurge on herself to get gynecological checkups. For more than a dozen years, she never had a Pap smear, although one is recommended annually. Even when Sue began bleeding and suffering abdominal pain, she was reluctant to see a doctor because she didn’t know how she would pay the bills.
Finally, Sue sought help from a hospital emergency room, and then from the low-cost public clinic where Dr. Harris works. Dr. Harris found that Sue had advanced cervical cancer. Three months later, she died. Her daughter was 13.

“I get teary whenever I think about her,” Dr. Harris said. “It was so needless.”

Cervical cancer has a long preinvasive stage that can be detected with Pap smears, and then effectively treated with relatively minor procedures, Dr. Harris said.

“People talk about waiting lines in Canada,” Dr. Harris added. “I say, well, at least they have a line to wait in.”

Based on the numbers from the Harvard study, a person like Sue dies as a consequence of lack of health care coverage every 12 minutes in America. As many people die every three weeks from lack of health insurance as were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Health coverage is becoming steadily more precarious as companies try to cut costs and insurance companies boost profits by denying claims and canceling coverage of people who get sick. I grew up on a farm in Yamhill, Ore., where we sometimes had greased pig contests. I’m not sure which is harder: getting a good grip on a greased hog or wrestling with an insurance company trying to avoid paying a claim it should.

Joe Lieberman, a pivotal vote in the Senate, says he recognizes that there are problems and would like reform, but he denounces “another government health insurance entitlement, the government going into the health insurance business.” Look out — it sounds as if Mr. Lieberman is planning to ax Medicare.

The health reform legislation in Congress is imperfect, of course. It won’t do enough to hold down costs; it may restrict access even to private insurance coverage for abortion services; it won’t do enough to address public health or unhealthy lifestyles.

Likewise, troop deployment plans in Afghanistan are imperfect. Some experts think more troops will help. Others think they will foster a nationalist backlash and feed the insurgency (that’s my view).

So where’s the best place to spend $100 billion a year? Is it on patrols in Helmand? Or is it to refurbish our health care system so that people like Sue don’t die unnecessarily every 12 minutes?

Noble Nobel?

As pretty much everyone with access to any form of media now knows, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today.

I have to say that, despite being a huge fan of our President and everything he represents, I was just as shocked as everyone else around the globe. Do I think of him as a transformative figure in many spheres? Absofrickinlutely yes. Do I think his concrete achievements to-date belong up there with those of the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela? Umm... you know, I actually don't. I certainly feel he has the potential to make those kinds of impacts in places yet to be determined but right now it's somewhat like awarding a masters degree to my 6-month old daughter, Daisy. Yeah, I think she's gonna be a smart kid, why don't I just give her the roll of paper in anticipation of those achievements? (And plus... oh the pressure!)

I also have to say that part of me also groaned as soon as I heard because, although this is indeed a huge honor, I knew it would provide all kinds of dubious fodder for the right-wing media to chew on for several weeks. I'm certain that I'm not so politically savvy as to be the only person to have thought of this - I'm sure the White House didn't know whether to laugh or cry when they heard.

I haven't listened to Fox News or the like today but I'm willing to bet my last dollar that there's all sorts of back-handed slights about the President's rock-star-like adulation amongst the international community much the same way there was when he was greeted by hundreds of thousands of people in Europe before he was elected. (As if being liked is reason for scorn, for heavens sake.) Somehow I just see this all being played into the underlying storyline that the President's critics continue to weave about how he is all talk and no action - a big bag of hot hype that delivers no results.

(A quick glance at the Fox News internet site already headlines "Some Analysts Warn Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Complicates War Efforts", by the way. Shocker. Like I didn't see that one coming.)

Of course, he does have a lot to live up to. The sense of hope and promise he riled up in the American people last November was a beautiful thing. His promises of bi-partisan cooperation, no more politics as usual, better health care, a way out of the economic mess, peaceful diplomatic relations, withdrawls from military conflicts... they weren't small and they all added rungs to the huge ladder he must climb to come anywhere near living up to expectations. And now comes the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet something else he needs to live-up to.

Which just makes me a tad sad for President Obama. Not that I don't think that he has the chops to deliver - I wouldn't have voted for him if I didn't think he did (although I'm sure he won't win on every front.) The reason I'm sad is because this honor that he has received is being questioned and will, in the short term at least, lack the respect that was afforded to previous winners. How much nicer it would have been if, ten years from now, the Nobel committee had sat down and, instead of awarding him for his promise, awarded him for his concrete achievements. Then the title would be justly given and rightly respected.

Not everyone around the world views Obama's acheievement through the same spectacles. This article by the Christian Science Monitor online provides a pretty good overview of the mixed reaction across the globe. Even so, most of it hints at the award being given for promise rather than achievements. Which makes one wonder who would have won in previous years if that was, indeed, the criteria?
-----------------

Image courtesy of ABCNews.com and Jim Young/Reuters