Far East Cynic

And its not going in the direction that it should.

I’m tired. Tired of being angry. Really tired at being angry at people who ought to know better-but won’t bother. Tired of hearing their anger. Tired of being called a socialist or a communist. Tired of being called worse names than that. Tired of hearing people shout and print tired old lies that have been prove wrong again and again. Tired of correcting those lies in a civil fashion-doing my best to repress my anger-only to realize it is all for naught.

All because I happen to believe in the idea of reforming and fixing health care in this country.

I spent a lot of time reading the reaction to the vote last night. I finally got tired of reading stupidity, and trying to comment to correct that stupidity-that I came back and stuffed myself with a huge piece of apple pie and ice cream.

And if I wasn’t out of beer-I might actually just proceed to tie one on.

Except of course, all that would do is fuel my anger again.

You see, like the fat-boy Limbaugh, I too think the country may be hanging by a thread. And its got idiots like him, climbing up the pole to cut that thread.

Last night was not the end of the world. However you would never know that by reading most of the commentaries today.  This may be a victory-but this victory has come at a cost. Clive Crook explains it:

The superlatives are justified. The passage of comprehensive health care reform is this country’s most momentous social reform since the creation of Medicare more than 40 years ago. And in my view the new law is at least that long overdue. It beggars belief that a nation as rich as the United States could have tolerated for years a health care system which every other advanced economy would reject out of hand, one which left tens of millions without health insurance, and under which serious illness could very well mean financial ruin. The new law finally confronts the problem, and takes bold steps towards fixing it.

Sunday’s vote is also a political triumph. Scott Brown’s unexpected win in Massachusetts–a Republican in a liberal state, running against this bill–stunned the Democrats and caused many to think the effort was dead. Barack Obama bravely chose not to back down. Without that commitment, the bill would have failed. The same goes for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi: they did not deviate. In parliamentary terms, the Democrats made the whole venture more dramatic than it needed to be. It is absurd that getting the Senate bill through the House should have been such a struggle. But the main thing is that they succeeded. It is a success that eluded all their predecessors. They are entitled to celebrate. They have their places in history.

People struggle to understand how extending health insurance to 32 million Americans, at a cost of a trillion dollars over ten years, can be a deficit-reducing measure. If cuts in Medicare will pay for half of that outlay, as the plan intends, they struggle to see how the quality of Medicare’s services can be maintained–let alone improved, as Pelosi said again in her speech on Sunday. The CBO notwithstanding, the public is right not to believe these claims.

Whether you agree with that or not, the law the Democrats just passed is unpopular. It is a far-reaching, transformative measure that in the end will affect almost everyone; it is opposed by most of the country; and it is now law. I would never have believed this possible in the United States.

The biggest difference between Crook and myself is that he still believes the case can be made. I don’t-the simple truth is that 50% of Americans can’t be bothered to listen. To anything. But their own noise. The simple truth is that Americans have decided to be angry at their fellow Americans. And like Frank Gorshin on the black and white episode of Star Trek, the war will go on and on and on.

By the end of this year one of two things will have happened. The Republicans will have won enough seats to repeal the legislation or the court challenges will be well underway.

The Supreme Court may or may not do the right thing-I used to think they would. Now seeing Justice Roberts exposed as the idealoge he is-I’d say the chances are 50/50.

If the bill is repealed because the Republicans win enough votes in November Obama will veto it. Either way the anger will grow.

I knew I was in trouble when I saw the tea baggers at the Capitol last night. The only emotion I felt towards them was violent rage-the irrational rage they were spouting. The idea of machine gunning all them down was starting to look pretty good.  And I realized that was wrong-and that I had to calm down.

But all I can see at this point is that that spiral of irrationality will go on and on. It will get worse and worse as the years progress.

And the things that need fixing will just get worse.

You cannot convince me that all 219 Congressmen were all criminal conspirators who just lie awake at night wanting to bring Karl Marx to America. I believe that most of them believe it was the right thing to do. I also believe that some of their Republican counterparts might have been persuaded to vote the other way-were it not for how polarized the party has become.

And its just going to go on and on and on. Americans are proving themselves to be as crazy as people say they are.

And they can have it. None for me.

Listen to Mark Steyn.

Because, as usual-he has it all wrong. America will did not start to decline because of the health care vote tonight-it allowed that process to start ten years ago-or perhaps longer-when it failed to recognize the multi-polar world it had stepped into. The pace of that change was accelerated, when the country thought it could plunge into wars for worthless Arabs without thinking about it, or paying for it.

The people that know what the score is are James Fallows and David Frum.

First,  Fallows:

For now, the significance of the vote is moving the United States FROM a system in which people can assume they will have health coverage IF they are old enough (Medicare), poor enough (Medicaid), fortunate enough (working for an employer that offers coverage, or able themselves to bear expenses), or in some other way specially positioned (veterans; elected officials)… TOWARD a system in which people can assume they will have health-care coverage. Period.

That is how the entire rest of the developed world operates, as noted yesterday. It is the way the United States operates in most realms other than health coverage. Of course all older people are eligible for Medicare. Of course all drivers must have auto insurance. Of course all children must have a public school they can attend. Etc. Such “of course” rules offer protection for individuals but even more important, they reduce the overall costs to society, compared with one in which extreme risks are uncontained. The simplest proof is, again, Medicare: Does anyone think American life would be better now, on an individual or a collective level, if we were in an environment in which older people might have to beg for treatment as charity cases when they ran out of cash? And in which everyone had to spend the preceding years worried about that fate?

Universal access health care is and should be a fundamental human right-other nations recognized that long ago.  America is just starting to catch up-having a great healthcare system matters not a whit if I can’t afford to get access to it.

I-and more importantly the country-deserve better.

And as for the process to get here-well Frum has it right when he points out, the Republicans did nothing help themselves:

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

Fat, selfish, and beholden to whiny tea baggers is no way to go through life son.

Wonder how the Town Hall Harlot will spin this?

I’m sure the word “astro-turfing” will appear somewhere.

On the plus side, my Canadian Counterpart has noticed that there is some hot tuna  involved in this effort.

I have little patience these days for the rantings of so-called “Constitutionalists”-those folks who insist that every thing the government does these days is somehow in violation of the Constitution or “contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers”. For the most part they are wrong-and where they may actually be right, the issue has probably been already settled in the Supreme Court or some other judicial forum. People who argue about what is happening is constitutional or not,  need to look at the whole document-as amended.

The particular issue that set me off this morning was seeing a tirade by one of my Facebook friends about the US Census-and how it was some conspiracy to invade his privacy. As the extra added bonus he then spouted the usual Tea-bagger rallying cry about the questions the Census asked: Its unconstitutional.

Except of course-its not. The census is specifically called for in the Constitution:

Article I Section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

My supposedly learned Facebook commenter believes that the Census can only ask questions about how many people are in his house.  Anything else, he believes is part of some sort of evil conspiracy. To bolster his case-since that pesky “ in such Manner as they shall by Law direct” clause seems to directly contradict his assertion,  he cites a case from 1897: ICC vs Brimson.

Now what is really interesting about this line of argument is that this particular case had nothing to do with the Census-in fact the census bureau is never mentioned once in the full opinon.  The case was a rather narrow decision on the right of the ICC to turn to the courts to enforce its mandates.  And in the end it ruled that the ICC’s taking it’s case to court was constitutional.

 we do not feel obliged to go further at this time than to adjudge, as we now do, that that section, in the particular named, is constitutional, and to remand the cause, that the court below may proceed with it upon the merits of the questions presented by the petition and the answers of the defendants, and make such determination thereof as may be consistent with law. Any other course would, it might be apprehended, involve the exercise of original jurisdiction, and might possibly work injustice to one or the other of the parties.

This is an example of the well known tactic-which seems to be growing in popularity since the rise of Glenn Beck and other self-serving idiots-of grasping at straws.

What,  of course, these self styled constitutional scholars neglect is the fact that these issues of what can and cannot be asked have already been ruled on-in fact the Supreme Court has held up the right of the Census Bureau to ask its 10 questions. It would appear that there is substantial case law on the side of the Census takers-moreso than on the side of Tea Bag central:

It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution’s census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and “does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if ‘necessary and proper,’ for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated.” United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).

The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged by plaintiffs. (The Moralescourt said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen’s right to privacy or speech.) “…[I]t is clear that the degree to which these questions intrude upon an individual’s privacy is limited, given the methods used to collect the census data and the statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the information is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests has been found to be significant. A census of the type of Census 2000 has been taken every ten years since the first census in 1790. Such a census has been thought to be necessary for over two hundred years. There is no basis for holding that it is not necessary in the year 2000.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision on October 10, 2001, 275 F.3d 45. The U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for writ of certiorari on February 19, 2002, 534 U.S. 1135. No published opinions were filed with these rulings.

These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent description of the census as the “linchpin of the federal statistical system … collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country.” Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999).

Probably the most disturbing thing to me is that while most of these folks will work themselves into a white lather over the fact that the Census bureau asks questions about statistics (e.g “Do you own your own home?”)- they don’t seemed to be bothered one bit by the rather extensive data mining that goes on by companies like Google and others. Which if properly harnessed and combined with the government data bases-like driver’s licences-could yield much more information. And you would never know it had happened.

If I were a company-or an organization with a mind to do so-I could probably find out how many people are living at your house, whether you own it,  and a lot more information besides. And that type of data mining goes on every day. My web browser already seems to have the ability of discerning whether I like women naked or clothed. (For the record it is both). I don’t see  people with angry signs camped outside Google’s headquarters.  Every day information on what you surf, where you surf, what you view is sold or exported for profit.

Nor do I see these folks, who claim to be offended at the Census bureau asking questions that invade their privacy, getting up in arms about, things like warrantless  wiretapping of American citizens. I’m curious as to why that does not bother them-but 10 questions, of which the Census Bureau are bound by law to protect-has them distrustful and suspicious. If anything, they ought to be up in arms about both issues.

There’s a fervor of anti-federalism going on right now and in all honesty I still find it incredibly disturbing. The angry man standing on his soap box shaking his fist at the threats of gov’t, in any form, instead of being part of the solution to the problems that face our nation.

None for me thanks. I’ll answer the Census and I will do it for one reason alone: it is my duty as a citizen. The rest is just noise.
 

Without a guide-book. Know your cougars!

When you miss your flight and have to hang around until the evening to be on standby to get a seat………

A jack-knifed tractor trailer made me late getting to Denver. I was five minutes late to get on board. Options? Not many. I was lucky I made it then-the further north you went from Colorado Springs the worse the roads got.

1) Go on the standby list for the only other flight to Dullsville. Waiting time 7 hours.

2) Get a new reservation leaving on Sunday-SUNDAY-and pay an added 400 dollars for the privilege. Nothing available on Saturday going anywhere.

I take option one.

But I wasn’t going to hang around the airport. I head back to Hertz and rent me a car-might as well prowl a little.

The snow was still coming down as I made it on to 70 West-but the traffic was moving. I soon found myself downtown, looking for a parking space, and something to do. As I came around the streets I finally see the huge neon DINER sign on the corner of the building. There was an open street parking space right across the street. The snow is coming down heavier now.

“Screw it-I’m going inside”.

Turns out, the Rocky Mountain Diner is a pretty cool place to linger over a meal-when you are not going anywhere soon. Bought a paper and sidled up to the counter.

“Today’s soup?”

“Homemade clam chowder”

Perfect! And as it turns out it was homemade-very good with real bacon in it. Order a tuna sandwich and settle down to read my paper. As I glance up, the snow is not stopping-it’s getting worse. What day is tomorrow? Oh yea, the first day of spring…………

Having dragged out lunch as long as I could, I found my way over to a Borders book store somewhere in South Denver. I had passed a movie theater-and thought hard about going in-but opted to go to Borders books instead.

Which proved a wise choice. When I went  in it seemed the snow was tapering off.- I was wrong, it was just winding up for act II. As I meandered around the shelves it slowly dawned on me that the level of snow was increasing exponentially-so much so, I might not make it back to the airport.

I opt for a tactical retreat back to DIA. An hour later (Now close to 5pm) I am back in line at security. Time to hunker down at the bar.

The flight finally departed at 9:30 PM-I was lucky enough to get a seat.

So how was your day?

And I am supposed to be driving to Denver this morning to catch a plane.

This ought to be interesting. 60 miles to be gottten through. It was not snowing when I went to bed.

But its snowing now……….

More to follow.

On the road again and for some reason internet access in my hotel has been spotty. I’d blog-but it is St Patrick’s day.

When purchasing a new bike-make sure you think about the seat color:

Is many times, actually correct.

Phib had a post a couple of days ago, taking Newsweek to task for supposedly promoting defeat:

I’m angry. Why angry? Because the media like Newsweek did everything it could to undermine our victory during the most difficult times mid-decade. They took every chance to push the bad – yet are well over a year late with the good. Too angry to blog on a subject? Yes, too angry.

Angry? Yes, because most who paid attention called victory back in NOV …. NOV ’08.

Umm……that’s not exactly correct.  In November of 2008 17 Americans died-that same month over 325 Iraqis were killed. This was in spite of a surge that was supposed to buy time for the Iraqis to come up with a political solution.  And while it was true that casulties were down from the previous year ( In November of 2007 40 Americans lost their lives in Iraq)-the Iraqis were no closer to solving any of their problems.

Now fast forward to 2010-the Iraqis have had an election-and they still can’t tell who is in charge. That’s hardly a big suprise-its par for the course for the Iraqis.

As Foreign Policy magazine pointed out in its lastest edition, the conventional wisdom-and reporting-on Iraq may have been actually correct all along:

While few are shedding tears for Saddam Hussein, there’s not much evidence to suggest that his removal made the world safer — or that ousting him in this manner was worth the exorbitant cost in blood and treasure. The other two charter members of the axis of evil — Iran and North Korea — are still ruled by anti-American autocrats with fast-developing nuclear programs, and Iran, if anything, has been strengthened by the replacement of its archenemy with a reasonably friendly Shiite-dominated government.

The war has not exactly created a tidal wave of democracy either. Democracy has actually declined around over the last three years, according to U.S. NGO Freedom House. Early hopeful developments in the Middle East have not panned out either. Following the much-vaunted Cedar Revolution, Lebanon’s government has returned to its normal state of dysfunction. After some overtures, Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi has resumed his provocations. And the bloodshed continues in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The bottom line is that thousands of American lives and trillions of dollarswere spent to turn one admittedly barbaric dictatorship into a semidemocracy addled by sectarianism and extremist violence. Doesn’t seem worth it.

Herman Wouk once wrote, that victory only has meaning if its effect produces the desired result for the future.  Using a cost vs benefit metric-focusing solely on benefit for the United States-proves that the naysayers actually had a point. Furthermore-when precious American lives were at stake-it can be argued that news media and other outlets had a moral duty to speak out.

The simple truth of the matter was that the war-created its own story. Poorly begun is poorly done and if it were so important to have gone into Iraq, then it was worth doing full bore from the start. E.G. declaring war on the nation of Iraq, using the number of troops called for by the original war plan, and dispensing with the notion that there were good Iraqis and bad Iraqis-all Iraqis were our enemy until such point as they unconditionally surrendered.

The people who wrote about-simply reported the picture as they saw it.

However if you judge it by the standard of -did it do any good for the US? Well, then victory is not a word that comes to mind. As for did it do good for the Iraqis-well the jury is going to be out on that one for a long time to come.  Given the track record of Arabs as a whole-I’m not optimistic.

But the cost-the real cost in lives, money, and national interest squandered-was never, ever, worth it.

And in that regard, the conventional wisdom was right all along. So Phib may be angry Newsweek never put lipstick on the pig until now. I’m angry that so many people let themselves be deluded into lifting a finger to put the pig in the pen in the first place.

My anger makes more sense.

I am presuming this is Natalie Tran-and I have seen several of her videos recently on U-tube. ( What happens when you hit the “recently viewed” category on I-phone).

Something about that pouty look and the Australian accent-just kind of does it for me.

Now if you will excuse me- I think I need a shower.

A new book about the Australian soldiers who participated in the occupation of Japan sounds quite interesting-and may also require a little fact checking with E@L:

Local women were discouraged from taking up with the soldiers by authorities who “warned that if they consorted with the Australians, they would give birth to kangaroos.” Many apparently took their chances due to destitute circumstances and the shortage of Japanese men.

No wonder he gets so many books read on vacation!

Another thing I probably should not try to buy on E-bay!

At least I still respect myself in the morning……….

I took me another one of those quizzes. I’m not sure how this result came up:

Take the quiz yourself!

And this is the present I really, really, want: