So long, Alberto. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. First the neocons fled (Wolfowitz, Rumsey et al) now the Texas cadre is out (Rove, Gonzales, etc). Will Cheney be next? We can only dream. We need a new scorecard to recognize the new players. Is it possible that George II is going to have to think for himself? Don't hold your breath. Even Condaleesa is being written off as ineffective and irrelevant. The Economist magazine did a devastating hit piece on her earlier this month.
Lest we get too carried away, though, all these departures do nothing to serve justice, which is even blinder than usual these days. I had been hoping, however forlornly, that a Democratic President would pursue criminal prosecutions in 2009, when ALL of the rats have been thrown off the ship, but as the candidacy of Hillary the DINO becomes more likely every day, we are unlikely to see any justice whatsoever, despite the most egregious list of high crimes and treason in American history. As I have been noting for many years, the so-called opposition party is much too interested in their own re-election and much too frightened of overturning the ship of state (they are all up there in the first class section, while the rest of us are shoveling coal down in the engine room).
Unless the economy collapses completely (which is still possible but unlikely), there is no hope whatsoever of meaningful change. There are just too many comfortable folks, who go to Michael Moore's movies and read the right books, and salve their consciences with charity and clever articles in "liberal" publications, but they will do just about anything to hold onto their own privileges and advantages.
And, speaking of privileges, don't waste any time worrying about the welfare of those discredited rats as they bail out. One of the unwritten rules on the upper deck is that they take care of each other. When they lose one fat paycheck, they get handed another one as soon as the vacation is over. There is always a Commission, or a lobbying job, or a CEO vacancy. Everybody up there owes everybody else for their success, so there is always payback waiting. In this White House, there is also the threat of exposure, which can be used as blackmail if another cushy job (or Presidential pardon) is not immediately available. The name Scooter Libby comes to mind. Coincidence?
We need a combination of Tom Paine and Martin Luther King Jr., and there are no applicants for the job. God help us.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
US News & World Reort College Ratings Issue
Got my copy of the latest US News & World Report today, the annual college ratings issue. This afternoon, The PBS News featured an interview with Brian Kelly, the Editor of the mag and a talking head from a think tank called the Education Conservancy (?). Kelly was defiantly defensive (his lead editorial in the magazine has a headline "We've taken some criticism lately, but...") and the other guy was equally adamant that the ratings do both colleges and students a disservice by trying to quantify a "good" education and by indirectly discrediting colleges and universities which are not highly rated. The PBS interviewer was appropriately suspicious of the magazine's motives and the consequences, intened or otherwise, of publishing these ratings every year. I was struck by the fact that the interview pretty much re-hashed the contents of a letter I wrote last year, which they actually published. to my utter amazement. The letter follows:
U.S. News & World Report 08/21/06 (Published!)
“College Ratings”
Editor:
Contrary to appearances, your college ratings are an egregious disservice to High School Seniors, most of whom are already facing almost unbearable pressure from parents and others to overcome lottery-like odds by gaining acceptance into one of these "elite" institutions.
College education is overrated as it is. Even advanced degrees no longer assure one of economic security, much less a meaningful and self-fulfilling career.
Obviously, graduating from a "highly rated" college or university confers advantages to young job seekers. What's not so obvious is that a dedicated and conscientious student can get an excellent education from almost any accredited school. In the long run, satisfying and remunerative employment depend much more on good habits than simply graduating from the "right school." Ironically, "grade inflation" in many of these "better" schools is unlikely to stimulate serious study habits.
U.S. News & World Report 08/21/06 (Published!)
“College Ratings”
Editor:
Contrary to appearances, your college ratings are an egregious disservice to High School Seniors, most of whom are already facing almost unbearable pressure from parents and others to overcome lottery-like odds by gaining acceptance into one of these "elite" institutions.
College education is overrated as it is. Even advanced degrees no longer assure one of economic security, much less a meaningful and self-fulfilling career.
Obviously, graduating from a "highly rated" college or university confers advantages to young job seekers. What's not so obvious is that a dedicated and conscientious student can get an excellent education from almost any accredited school. In the long run, satisfying and remunerative employment depend much more on good habits than simply graduating from the "right school." Ironically, "grade inflation" in many of these "better" schools is unlikely to stimulate serious study habits.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Hoffa in Iran?
Today's post is another of my Don Quixote letters, this time to the Insight section of today's SF Chronicle, in response to an article about efforts by Hoffa Jr. to promote unions in Iran. The letter speaks for itself.
Editor:
There is something painfully ironic about Mahtaub Hojjati's article ("Why Hoffa may worry Iran's mullahs") in today's Insight section (8/19/07) given the savage assault on American Unions for the last 27 years, including the pseudo-Democratic Clinton administration. Reagan sounded the trumpet by busting the Air Traffic Controllers' union, without regard to possible safety consequences; the attack continued with Republican "Right To Work" laws, Clinton's unseemly endorsement of NAFTA. Nowadays, unions are largely irrelevant and impotent.
Of course, corruption in the unions took a fearful toll as well, as leaders began wearing the same suits, driving the same cars and living in the same neighborhoods as management. Featuring Hoffa in this look at the tenuous hold of Iran's theocracy on its populace only adds to the irony.
The most egregious insult to our intelligence is the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has refused to sign for more than half a century, largely because it includes (in addition to the "right to form and join labor unions") such "economic" rights as food, clothing, shelter, education, and adequate medical care, regardless of one's ability to pay.! No matter how much hypocritical lip service we give to these principles, our economic system depends on the concept of "Work or Die."
Back when the unions were a meaningful force in our economy, there was a much healthier balance between workers and owners. It would be ironic indeed if that balance were achieved in Iran and lost here.
Editor:
There is something painfully ironic about Mahtaub Hojjati's article ("Why Hoffa may worry Iran's mullahs") in today's Insight section (8/19/07) given the savage assault on American Unions for the last 27 years, including the pseudo-Democratic Clinton administration. Reagan sounded the trumpet by busting the Air Traffic Controllers' union, without regard to possible safety consequences; the attack continued with Republican "Right To Work" laws, Clinton's unseemly endorsement of NAFTA. Nowadays, unions are largely irrelevant and impotent.
Of course, corruption in the unions took a fearful toll as well, as leaders began wearing the same suits, driving the same cars and living in the same neighborhoods as management. Featuring Hoffa in this look at the tenuous hold of Iran's theocracy on its populace only adds to the irony.
The most egregious insult to our intelligence is the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has refused to sign for more than half a century, largely because it includes (in addition to the "right to form and join labor unions") such "economic" rights as food, clothing, shelter, education, and adequate medical care, regardless of one's ability to pay.! No matter how much hypocritical lip service we give to these principles, our economic system depends on the concept of "Work or Die."
Back when the unions were a meaningful force in our economy, there was a much healthier balance between workers and owners. It would be ironic indeed if that balance were achieved in Iran and lost here.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Healthcare and Social Security
The following is a letter written tonight to the SF Chronicle, soon to join a long list of unpublished letters (I have a rather long manuscript entitled "...Does It Make A Sound?" As in, "If tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it..." - 74 pages and more than 26,00 words - all the letters I have written to various publications since my near-death experience 3 1/2 years ago).
My inspiration, as indicated in the letter, was the juxtaposition of an OpEd piece by Bruce Bodaker, the chairman, CEO and president of Blu Shield of California, a not-for-profit health plan serving 3.3 million Californians, and a Crhonicle editorial decrying the failure of those in Washington to address the inadequate funding of Social Security.
As the letter implies, but does not explicitly state, those who need Social Security the least get by far the most, despite the fact that most of their income (I believe after $90 thousand a year) is not even subject to Social Security withholding. One of these days I'm going to do some serious research on where and when we lost sight of the original purpose of the program.
Per my previous post on "Therapy," the most important thing for me is having an experience of speaking my mind. If someone other than a lowly intern actually reads it, so much the better. When one actually does get published, it's a bonus!
Editor:
Kudos to you for publishing "The key to healthcare affordability - everybody pays," and to Bruce Bodaken for writing it. Those of us who are pushing hard for Universal Healthcare in California have dubbed it "The Universal Mandate," and Bodaken is spot on in comparing it to Social Security, which would be in even deeper trouble if young people could choose whether or not to pay into it. That was just one more reason to reject the Rove/Bush plan to privatize Social Security.
Interesting to note that you also feature a long editorial on the failure of "Washington" (could we call that a Universal Indictment?) to provide a secure future for Social Security. One of the most obvious, if rarely mentioned solutions would be to get back to the original intention of the Social Security program. Just look at the name. It was never intended to be an investment program for everyone's retirement. It is wrong to call it an "entitlement." It was meant to provide for the retirement needs of those who have little or no additional source of income. It is a travesty give it to those who manifestly do not need it. The entire society has a moral obligation to contribute to the needs of indigent elderly (who used to be sent to "the poor farm" when I was young).
And the entire society has a similar moral obligation to contribute their fair share to ensure that everyone has access to adequate healthcare. In my lifetime, our country has become a moral cesspool.
My inspiration, as indicated in the letter, was the juxtaposition of an OpEd piece by Bruce Bodaker, the chairman, CEO and president of Blu Shield of California, a not-for-profit health plan serving 3.3 million Californians, and a Crhonicle editorial decrying the failure of those in Washington to address the inadequate funding of Social Security.
As the letter implies, but does not explicitly state, those who need Social Security the least get by far the most, despite the fact that most of their income (I believe after $90 thousand a year) is not even subject to Social Security withholding. One of these days I'm going to do some serious research on where and when we lost sight of the original purpose of the program.
Per my previous post on "Therapy," the most important thing for me is having an experience of speaking my mind. If someone other than a lowly intern actually reads it, so much the better. When one actually does get published, it's a bonus!
Editor:
Kudos to you for publishing "The key to healthcare affordability - everybody pays," and to Bruce Bodaken for writing it. Those of us who are pushing hard for Universal Healthcare in California have dubbed it "The Universal Mandate," and Bodaken is spot on in comparing it to Social Security, which would be in even deeper trouble if young people could choose whether or not to pay into it. That was just one more reason to reject the Rove/Bush plan to privatize Social Security.
Interesting to note that you also feature a long editorial on the failure of "Washington" (could we call that a Universal Indictment?) to provide a secure future for Social Security. One of the most obvious, if rarely mentioned solutions would be to get back to the original intention of the Social Security program. Just look at the name. It was never intended to be an investment program for everyone's retirement. It is wrong to call it an "entitlement." It was meant to provide for the retirement needs of those who have little or no additional source of income. It is a travesty give it to those who manifestly do not need it. The entire society has a moral obligation to contribute to the needs of indigent elderly (who used to be sent to "the poor farm" when I was young).
And the entire society has a similar moral obligation to contribute their fair share to ensure that everyone has access to adequate healthcare. In my lifetime, our country has become a moral cesspool.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
A Turn To The Left?
A recent issue of The Economist (8/11/07), a determinedly conservative British magazine, features a cover article entitled, “Is America Turning Left?” Interestingly, they devote only one page to this story, then spend three pages (“Under the Weather”) decrying the perilous state of the Republican Party and its so-called “Conservative” mandate.
After asserting that the Republicans are ”better organized and more intellectually inventive than their ‘liberal’ [sic] rivals,” they point out that the manifest failures and misdeeds of the Bush Administration are being blamed for the ascendancy of the Democrats and the decline of Republican popularity with voters, yet insist that “this President Bush is not a good scapegoat,” because he has given his party “virtually everything it craved, from humungous tax cuts to conservative judges.” Under the heading “Be careful what you wish for,” they conclude that most Americans urgently want a change of direction.
The issue’s second, longer piece is something of an obituary for the Republic Party as it is presently organized and represented. While correctly distinguishing between “paleo-conservatves” (small-government Libertarians), neo-conservatives (we know what they are) and social conservatives, they fail to realize that the only correct designation for all of those who now call themselves “Conservatives” is Radical Reactionaries! There is nothing conservative about them. Most don’t care about conserving our natural resources, or even the planet itself. They have advocated and implemented extremely radical policies designed to drag us back at least 150 years if not a millennium. I prefer to dub them “neo-feudalists,” because they actually believe that government exists only to protect and enhance the wealth, power and privileges of the few, at the expense of the many.
My response is to call myself a “radical progressive,” since the “liberal” opposition seems incapable of or unwilling to respond appropriately to this devolutionary ideology. They are content to address only symptoms and fail to deal with the cause, which is nothing less than stealth Social Darwinism, disguised as the unseemly worship of the unregulated marketplace. Our precious democracy has been hijacked.
After asserting that the Republicans are ”better organized and more intellectually inventive than their ‘liberal’ [sic] rivals,” they point out that the manifest failures and misdeeds of the Bush Administration are being blamed for the ascendancy of the Democrats and the decline of Republican popularity with voters, yet insist that “this President Bush is not a good scapegoat,” because he has given his party “virtually everything it craved, from humungous tax cuts to conservative judges.” Under the heading “Be careful what you wish for,” they conclude that most Americans urgently want a change of direction.
The issue’s second, longer piece is something of an obituary for the Republic Party as it is presently organized and represented. While correctly distinguishing between “paleo-conservatves” (small-government Libertarians), neo-conservatives (we know what they are) and social conservatives, they fail to realize that the only correct designation for all of those who now call themselves “Conservatives” is Radical Reactionaries! There is nothing conservative about them. Most don’t care about conserving our natural resources, or even the planet itself. They have advocated and implemented extremely radical policies designed to drag us back at least 150 years if not a millennium. I prefer to dub them “neo-feudalists,” because they actually believe that government exists only to protect and enhance the wealth, power and privileges of the few, at the expense of the many.
My response is to call myself a “radical progressive,” since the “liberal” opposition seems incapable of or unwilling to respond appropriately to this devolutionary ideology. They are content to address only symptoms and fail to deal with the cause, which is nothing less than stealth Social Darwinism, disguised as the unseemly worship of the unregulated marketplace. Our precious democracy has been hijacked.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Enough is enough
Today's post is a response to an especially irritating article in today's NY Times, as referenced below. Those who have the Times online can access the entire article (I"m still not up to posting direct links on this blog - maybe later). The article, which runs three pages on line is a "heart-rending" account of the misery of mere millionaires who are still working themselves into an early grave, "because their neighbors are even richer." This is nothing less than a sociopatic mental illness. The only cure is a severe progressive tax, like the one we had in this country before the Reagan devolution. Failing that, an eighty percent reduction in the Dow would go a long way. As I have been saying and writing for many years, the last time we acted like a civilization was during the last Great Depression, when we knew that the common enemy was the failed economic system and that only cooperation would be capable of defeating that enemy. As long as so many minimal humans have so much money, what Michael Moore calls the Horatio Alger myth (Hey! I might be rich someday too! God forbid we should put limits on personal wealth!) prevents us from addressing the common needs, which can only be met by limiting greed.
I am well aware of the long odds against getting a letter published in the NY Times, but, as indicated in the previous post ("Therapy"), I maintain what remains of my sanity by having an experience of myself DOING something, even when the results are problematic at best. Today's letter follows:
Editor:
It's hard to imagine a more telling indictment of our grievously divided society than Gary Rivilin's article (In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don't Feel Rich" - 8/5/07). About three thousand years ago, a Taoist sage said it best: "Those who know that enough is enough, always have enough." To which I can only add, those who don't, don't. When enough is never enough, those who do have enough to influence if not dictate the policies of our government will be rewarded endlessly while the rest of us struggle to get by with much less than enough. For shame!
I am well aware of the long odds against getting a letter published in the NY Times, but, as indicated in the previous post ("Therapy"), I maintain what remains of my sanity by having an experience of myself DOING something, even when the results are problematic at best. Today's letter follows:
Editor:
It's hard to imagine a more telling indictment of our grievously divided society than Gary Rivilin's article (In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don't Feel Rich" - 8/5/07). About three thousand years ago, a Taoist sage said it best: "Those who know that enough is enough, always have enough." To which I can only add, those who don't, don't. When enough is never enough, those who do have enough to influence if not dictate the policies of our government will be rewarded endlessly while the rest of us struggle to get by with much less than enough. For shame!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
