Prescription for America Proves Sour Medicine

"Prescription for America" was billed as a debate by ABC, and its airing proved to be a television event -- if for nothing else its uniqueness -- however, I could smell the bullshit in D.C. from my Georgia apartment.

I just reread Harry Frankfut's "On Bullshit" this week, and here is a brief extract that might make advance my point:

What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to.

Bullshitting means misrepresenting what it is you aim to do. ABC bullshitted us, and so did Obama. "Prescription" was not a debate. The other side of the healthcare debate -- namely, alternative plans -- was not represented, and indeed was misrepresented. Most people agree that the current healthcare system is broken, but rather than debating the merits of Obama's plan against alternatives like single-payer healthcare, what we saw was Obama's plan vs. the broken system. We were inundated by it and rhetoric from Obama reinforcing that dyad:

In terms of cost, understand that the system is already out of whack in terms of costs as it is. So if we do nothing, costs are going to keep on going up 6 percent, 7 percent, 8 percent per year, and government, businesses and families are all going to find themselves either losing their health care or paying a lot more out of pocket. That's going to happen if we do nothing.

I don't think the issue of unsustainability is under much dispute, but simply because the current system is terrible doesn't make Obama's plan the best plan, only a better one. Instead, ABC's format framed Obama's plan as the only alternative, closing the door on what would be a genuine debate.

Gibson and Sawyer appeared to play devil's advocate, but in reality they lobbed Obama a series of softball opposition questions which he either hit out of the park or completely sidestepped -- in true political form he was. But to the credit of Gibson and Sawyer, and I can't believe I said that, they had to navigate tough journalistic waters (though I do not consider Sawyer, a fellow Louisvillian and former Nixon aid, to be a journalist or even a hack for that mater). They had to "report" a story in which they were intimately involved, and without the proper distance it's difficult to maintain objectivity. Moreover, forcing them to act as opposition moves them from moderators to some strange opponent/moderator hybrid that was just awkward and inappropriate.

No, not a debate, but rather a speech with interruption -- some, ironically, paid for by McDonald's. Obama had a chance to pitch his argument against a straw man whom he burned to the ground, all while ABC tried desperately to grasp for journalistic integrity, misrepresenting what amounted to a persuasive speech as a deliberative debate. All this mess gives Obama more weight with the public and, I fear, undue credibility to the viability of his plan as compared to alternatives.

My purpose here, as media student and a bit of a junky, has been to critique the presentation of Obama's plan, not the plan itself. Though I recognize some major problems that could arise -- particularly in terms of cost, implementation, and adequate primary care coverage -- I feel like his plan is workable, and uniquely American, which is not a bad thing. Each country deals with healthcare differently, and though I like the single-payer plan, the competitive platitudes of American business would never allow it. I guess I feel his plan is not the best, but it might be the best we can do. Unfortunately, that is not the sense last night's viewers got.

I will say this in closing. It was nice to witness a few bright spots from Obama, who I feel has been timid about many issues lately (gay marriage, bank regulation, the handling of Guantanamo, etc.). For better of for worse, I feel like he's really going to go to bat for us over healthcare, and it's about time he lived up to his promises and we got something done. Here's and example of what I'm talking about:

GIBSON: "Your critics on the Republican side of the Senate Finance Committee wrote you a letter and said: 'At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new program will not only worsen our long-term financial outlook, but also negatively impact American families who enjoy private coverage for their insurance. What do you say to them?"
OBAMA: "They're wrong."

He's finally sacking up and taking command of this wayward bipartisan ship, and it's long overdue. Also, I was impressed with the way he addressed the socialism fear surrounding the public option of his plan:

So we would have -- I think there are some legitimate questions in terms of how the public option is designed. One thing I have to say, though, is, it's not an entirely bad thing if, as long as they're reimbursing doctors in an adequate way, and -- and -- and so not being oppressive on -- on health care providers, and as long as there are not a whole bunch of taxpayer subsidies going into a public plan, if the public plan can do it cheaper and provides good quality care, that's the competition that we talked about.

Though he didn't say it outright, the implication is that if government, in a competitive market can provide a better option, then why shouldn't it? That, I think, is a valid argument. I do wish, though, that in my lifetime a president would out and out say that we already employ several socialist policies (USPS, public schools, social security, medicare, etc.) that have worked well for us in the past and that we also hold dear. Who's to say similar programs would be different, or somehow more socialist?

Still, overall I was incredibly disappointed with this healthcare "debate" and I am fearful of the misinformed discourse it will produce. Obama finally appeared to take a bold stand, and that's an important thing, but I'm not sure it will be worth the potential damaging influence the program could have on even more misinformed public opinion.

Twitter is Useful

Typing the title for this blog was among the most painful experiences in my life, at least to my pride. I am openly opposed to Twitter's existence because I believe the site serves little practical use -- despite promises to connect people in meaningful ways. Though I still feel Twitter is largely a narcissistic medium, it is crucial for the select few who have found a way to put the medium to good use.

According to The Washington Post, Iranians are using the site to organize protests against their recently reelected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who many Iranians believe stole the election illegally.

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone delayed scheduled maintenance to the site to allow protesters more time to communicate with one another and to provide sources outside Iran with information about the uprising. I have to give Stone credit on this one. Whether you think it is a publicity ploy or not, he's allowing his site to fulfill its democratic communicative promise, which, oddly enough, is realizing itself in Iran.

The Rise and Fall of the American Empire?

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged...the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. The buckles, however, were to be all their own, and no other human creature was to have any share of them; whereas in the more ancient method of expense they must have shared with at least a thousand people...and thus, for the gratification of the most childish, the meanest and the most sordid of all vanities , they gradually bartered their whole power and authority."

- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

The above quotation is Smith's account of how it is feudal lords came to lose their power and influence and the expense of the growing middle class. To me, this reads like a metaphor for the America's seemingly continual decline in stature worldwide, and I'm not sure how I feel about this. The tension of globalism and nationalism may be the largest political elephant in the room of our generation; maybe one day we'll realize that and come to grips with it - myself included.

A Man without a Party

Classes started up again here at UGA. During day one of my public opinion course, our professor asked if we considered ourselves either Democrats or Republicans, and I, along with two others, allied with neither. In my estimation, at least in the current political climate - and perhaps always - to consider oneself a Democrat or a Republican is roughly equivalent to a declaring oneself a lunatic.

Personally, I hate to think of living in a country ruled by either. The Bush years gave us the nearest approximation of what an evangelically-backed, self-righteous, and idiot-prone Republican party. Obama-philes seem to await the coming pendulum swing that would provide a Democratic counterpart, but his time in office will be over before the Democrats can develop a workable fiscal policy or locate the backbone to implement it.

That said, I'm not sure bipartisanship is the answer either. Swallowing two shit sandwiches is hardly preferable to eating one.

For, the most frustrating part of following politics isn't the game-like nature by which are lives are dictated; as much as I disapprove, I understand. What I can't grasp is why it is we do much of we do and why we fail in doing so much of what we should. For example, why would we hold GITMO prisoners without trial? I understand the argument that details about torture could result in a mistrial and thus the release of dangerous prisoners, but the answer is simple: so be it. Is it more dangerous to release a potentially dangerous man or to tread the most certainly dangerous waters that come in protecting our principles at the very expense of those principles? The answer seems most obviously the latter, but we pussied out for fear of political suicide.

In contemplating the ongoing policy dilemmas we face as a nation, particularly the balance we attempt to strike between security and freedom, I came across this passage from P.J. O'Rourke's "On The Wealth of Nations:"

Freedom cannot exist without limitation. Adam Smith was not a man to flinch at thin conundrum. In his consideration of banking Smith stated his most fundamental free market principle: "If any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so." However, in his consideration of banking, Smith also stated his most fundamental caveat to that principle: "But those exertions of natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and out to be, restrained by the laws of all governments."

I've always liked O'Rourke because I think he's a sensible and intelligent guy with a pretty good read on our national bullshit. I also like his fervent defense of individual freedom and liberty and people's natural tendency that we want to be left the hell alone. This passage was particularly striking for me because it seemed like an approach to economics that transcended party bullshit.

By this I do not mean it was bipartisan, at least in the sense of parties working together, but perhaps in the sense that party differences are and should be irrelevant when considering what is in the people's best interest. The best political label I can find for Smith is that of a Libertarian who isn't retarded. It's a zero-based approach in which he begins with a proposition of absolute freedom and then restrains that freedom only insofar as it assures stability without strangling the freedom government policies are meant to protect.

I'm not sure if 18th-century thinkers are more intelligent that we are or if they only seem that way in retrospect. Increasingly, I am of the opinion that we aren't nearly as smart as we think we are, but my hope is that we only appear stupid now because the idiot voices of the past have faded into obscurity. Hopefully history's judgment and recollection - or lack thereof - of the Bush administration will renew my faith in the populous and in myself.

Outhouse Lessons

Image by Leonard J. DeFrancisci

This past weekend, I was back in my home town for the "Thunder of Louisville" fireworks event, a spectacle which I have always enjoyed. It was here that I realized that life lessons and revelations come at the oddest of moments among the strangest places, namely while waiting in line for to use a fiberglass shithouse.

For those of you who don't know, "Thunder" is the largest fireworks display in North America and nearly 1 million people attend annually. With all the adult beverages, things get a little rowdy and the pisser is in high demand, so I expected the usual 30 minute wait. What I didn't expect was a confrontation with a shirtless man and his harlot/girlfriend.

I had been waiting for some time and they had been behind me for several minutes when, out of nowhere, the couple accused me of line jumping. "We've been here, like, forever," she said, to which I replied, "Well, I've been here for forever and about 15 seconds." Needless to say she did not appreciate the audacity that I suggest she wait her goddamn turn.

Ironically, it was this couple that I saw line jump the man next to me, while simultaneously two angry women cut to the front of my line. I understand that it's a trivial thing, and people exercised good judgment, for the most part, in not retaliating, but I find the whole thing irritating, and here's why.

This whole scenario is just one illustration of the tragedy of the commons, a problem our culture experiences daily at all levels, ranging from the executive suite to the porta-shitter line. The self-entitlement that seems to dictate an attitude of, "My shit is more important than yours, so fuck off," appears dominant. The problem is, once one person stops playing by the rules and we as a group sanction it, then everyone has to break the social contract just to keep even, which leaves the morally right out in the cold.

I realize it's a bit ridiculous to compare a bathroom line to a societal breakdown, but I feel the similarity valid, and the experience was kind of a profound realization for me. I worry that Hobbes might be right in asserting that basic human nature dictates a world that is both "nasty" and "brutish." Law and rules avert that to an extent, and self-entitlement subverts that establishment.

I do not mean to say that all law is just, but governing rules of basic courtesy are reasonable rules to live by, and it would go a long way to making our culture more bearable. In short, I have to piss just as bad as you, so wait your fucking turn you moronic infant!

Executive Assassins

So I was watching the Colbert Report the other night and was struck by a segment he did concerning an executive assassination ring. Allegedly, a group of assassins traveled abroad and executed U.S. enemies, reporting only to the office of Vice President Cheney and having no oversight by either Congress or the CIA.

I wasn't sure if this bit was a joke, which speaks to the character of Cheney, or at least my impression of him. As it turns out, this is no joke. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh accused Cheney of operating an executive assassination ring during a speaking engagement at the University of Minnesota. Apparently Hersh plans to reveal more details about his findings in his upcoming book.

I'm not sure if the allegations are true, but I don't think a respected journalist like Hersh would accuse Cheney of something so vile without some sort of evidence. We'll see how this plays out, but I find it sad in and of itself that not only is such a thing occurring, but that no one is really that surprised.

The Height of Arrogance

Image by Niusereset

I firmly believe that debate is the greatest source of learning. You have to challenge your ideas and the ideas of others to discover what holds true for you, but at some point, you might do well to pump the brakes, lest you become a pompous douche bag.

Case in point: religion.
I do not care if you are a strong believer or a nonbeliever, and the idea that religion is a topic of discussion that should be left off the table is completely ridiculous. Please argue. Please debate. But for the love of God (or Science H. Logic if you are an atheist) don't preach to me. If you promote these ideas, fine; but if you evangelize on their behalf, go ruin someone else's day.

The Religious


Here is the text of a mass forwarded e-mail I recently read:

In Florida, an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days...

The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days. The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant." The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.

You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!

Actually, no I don't. Just because someone doesn't hold the same viewpoint as you doesn't make them a fool. If they hold that viewpoint without any reasonable explanation, you could probably make that claim (note that I said reasonable, and by this I do not mean traditionally logical, but rather something that has an explainable cause).

I am not an atheist, and I probably never will be, but I can't argue that individuals that are atheist have reason enough to believe there is no God, just as the theist has a faith-based reason to believe there is. And who the fuck are you to pretend like you know who God thinks is a fool? Just because you memorized an obscure piece of scripture - written by MAN, mind you - does not make you an ultimate authority. Piss off.

The Non-religious


As a Catholic, and lapse one at that, I suppose I am fundamentally opposed to the premise of atheism, but you are entitle to that view if you believe it true, and there is good evidence to that end. However, understand that insulting the religious and calling them ignorant isn't converting anyone to your cause.

The religious people of this country seek explanation for things beyond their level of understanding, which varies for each person. For them, faith is the answer, and sometimes it is a good one.

Christopher Hitchens disagrees vehemently. Hitchens is more than an atheist; he is an anti-theist, actively campaigning against religion. His newest book is entitle "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." Thanks Chris. Hyperbole needed a new friend.

Look, I get it. Religion makes no sense to some people, and many see it as a destructive force. I cannot argue that religion has not been a force for destruction. From the Crusades to witch hunts to Islamic terrorism and everything in between, religion has been a breading ground for horrible things.

However, the same is true for secularism. I doubt Stalin went to church very often. And though I haven't read Hitchens' book, the idea that "religion poisons everything" is ridiculous. Again, as a Catholic, I recognize the atrocities of the past and present and condemn them as much as anyone else, but there is good in religion too. Religion offers people a community which they may not otherwise experience, and religious institutions across the globe provide charitable services to the poor and needy. Could this be done without religion? You bet. But religion is undeniably a part of it, so to claim all religion is poisonous is ignorant.

Moreover, the devotion many atheists and anti-theists have toward science is potentially as dangerous. On a recent episode of "Real Time," Mos Def made the argument that everyone has a religion of some kind, a point which Hitchens and Bill Maher immediately refuted based on the misuse of the term religion.

At some level, it probably isn't fair to lump all belief systems under the term "religion." Traditionally, religion is based on faith, while many beliefs have greater logical foundations. Still, the faith many atheists have in science is often as unquestioned as the faith others have in religion.

Everyone looks for a constant in their lives. Religion provides unchanging certainty, so it brings comfort to some. Science - or at least its method - provides something viable to cling to for uncovering truth. I don't question the scientific method, but I do recognize that science changes its mind a bit. What is true today may be false tomorrow. Discovery drives science.

To that end, is it not dangerous to advocate ceaselessly for a cause of science that may be just as false as any religious cause? For example, the inventors of the frontal lobotomy hailed the procedure as a cure for several mental illnesses. They were awarded a Nobel Prize and the procedure gained wide global popularity. Turns out, lobotomies simply destroy part of your brain, making you more docile. And where did all the original scientific support for this procedure come from? One experiment on one gorilla. Imagine if we had individuals advocating as passionately for lobotomies as they do for global warming? We'd all be praying for the Chief to smother us with pillows.

I know what I presented is an unfair comparison; global warming has substantially more supportive evidence for its truth than did the lobotomy procedure. My point, however, remains the same: many people who praise science for its method begin to praise the discoveries of science as ultimate truth. They are not. Science is a game of disproving and questioning, of uncertainty and untruth. So yes, hail science, but do so cautiously.

And atheists, before you criticize others for unquestioned belief, ask yourself how much you question your own, and remember that a religious people may have questioned their beliefs just as fervently and come to a different conclusion. To those on either side of this issues: If you want to debate me, I welcome it, but if you want to condescend to me, you can shove it up your ass.