The Palin Tea-Bag Speech and the Republican Response to the State of the Union Address

There are the so-called “glittering generalities”. In those two “speeches”, I heard nothing but “twittering generalities”, by Palin and the governor.

I feel that there are fewer voters in the sparsely populated states and little to choose from for filling the offices of government. Fewer schools. Fewer newspapers. Smaller and fewer libraries. Smaller population centers. Limited resources per square mile of territory. I am looking for an explanation of the “Palin phenomenon”. Is there any truth in those speculations?

The Infrastructure of Democracy

I have said on another blog entry what I consider to be

a definition of democracy.

However, there is more. There are the underpinnings, or infrastructure, of democratic communication, discussion and debate, that are equally important. The culture of democratic communication is the sharing of the codes of communication, the language, the nonverbal affect and display of democracy in human behavior, the eye contact, the body orientation, the facial expressions, the tone of voice, etc., which may be condsidered the “software” of democracy. The culture of the human being is the software.

But the “hardware” is important, too. People must gather in a place. Direct, or pure, democracy brings people together face-to-face. That may be what a tribe is. The American Indians had that, didn’t they? The pow-wow. Caucus is an Indian word. They had the big tent. The tribal life in Iraq is a significant source of much trouble we are having with the people of Iraq. Why? The tribe cannot swear allegiance to a larger society. The tribe has identity criteria too close, intimate and powerful to allow in those who differ too much. It is probably a matter of trust and safety. Going way, way back. It seems almost genetic.

We have that kind of gathering in churches that form significant, almost tribal, sub-cultures in our society. It seems that religion trumps nearly everything, everywhere, all the time. But not just “religion”; rather, denominational religion. The gathering places are numerous, almost countless. So, religion has its churches, gathering places.

What are the gathering places for democracy? If I were to have a democratic forum, I might choose as a mediated place a PBS station. A concrete meeting place? Perhaps a room at a library, or somebody’s home living room. There is no set place to practice democracy, like religion has a church. In some towns, perhaps certain churches have the denominational capability of donating their religious places for the practice of political democracy.

Roads. Pathways to the places must be constructed. In the U.S., that is not much of a problem. But in Africa and other similar regions? Mighty big problem getting people everywhere the goods and services they need to survive and thrive in a democratic community. The sick and the starving and the unemployed are not ready to participate in the societal dialogue that yields the government that provides the goods and services needed.

Wires and telecommunication towers for transmission of communication? Transmitters and receivers? Requiring technological know-how? Such hardware and its mastery can bring people in a mediated face-to-face meeting where the business of democracy, resolving conflicts and solving problems and setting policies, can be done.

Subject: An Idea Whose Time Has Come! A Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!

(NOTE: This is the original language of an email sent to many from many sources to me. Such a prospect made me jumping (figuratively) for joy!

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn’t pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered…in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

Have all persons contact a minimum of twenty people on their address list, and in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

(JFD) I will ask each person who reads this to paste it on every one of their blogs all over the land. What we have is a set of self-evident truths, followed by a set of expected outcomes. Why do those people think they are so privileged? This is one grass-roots movement that could take place within the Democrat party, but it should be bi-partisan.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States “.

Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Successor? How Far Massachusettsians Have Fallen!

I have heard from a prominent (brilliant) commentator, who has, obviously, from my long acquaintance with it, an astute core of researchers, that the senator-elect of Massachusetts is (there followed a string of unbelievable, descriptive epithets—how could one person’s character be so skewed— among which were) sexist, racist, union-busting…. I believe and trust Olberman’s research and his report. It is true, I did not hear him report the researched facts that he and his corps found. His past reporting has been solid with substantiating information, and I have learned to trust him.

I wonder, did the majority of the voters in that state know that profile of their elected rep or not? Either they voted out of ignorance, or knowingly voted in a man with such a profile and subscribe to his views in each case. With their history, their reputation of voting for people like the Kennedys and of nurturing elite institutions, I figured them to be more astute people, but this past election showed an underside of their culture. So much for my stereotyping behavior! Can trip you up oftentimes.

[HE DID IT! 1-20-10, the very next night. (Tonight!) He filled in the information backing each of the pejorative epithets of the night before (yesterday), filling in what I missed: homophobe; reactionary; ex-nude model; tea-bagger; supports violence against women.]

I think I know what Republicans are, and they do not rise to the high level of democratic citizenship I respect in the Democrat population, which puts the democratic political values above economic capitalistic values.

Can You—

—name that curvilinear line in the heading of this, my blog?

≈ ~ § Ñ ã ñ Ĩ Ũ

What Is the Meaning of Life?

Temporarily taken down for revision. (1-20-10)

To Rush (Limbo) Limbaugh—

I say “Limbo” because you are certainly not on Earth, but somewhere below on the edge of hell. You made some nasty remarks about President Obama’s motives in regard to the disaster in Haiti, obviously out of your fervent hope that you could destroy him thereby. I ask you what no one else has asked you, as far as I know:

What would you have done, facing the enormous dimensions of that catastrophe? How would you have responded substantially differently?

If you have ever had just one constructive thought in your head about what we should have done, let’s hear it. NOW!

The two former Presidents were asked how they would have responded to your venomous comments. They demurred. So I thought I would ask the requisite question.

What?

Our Response (The World’s Response) to the Disaster in Haiti

Many are now viewing the disaster in Haiti as a case-study in world responses to world emergencies. In my view, there remain many elements of the current response that are questionable, not for “heart”, but for “head”.

We have a choice between two modes of response. We can respond to events, or we can respond to warnings. TO EVENTS: wait until something cataclysmic happens, and then put together an almost impromptu response, as we now see it taking place in Haiti. Under such a regime, many will die trapped in the rubble waiting for help to arrive. In the meantime, gangs of machete-wielding thugs will terrorize the already terrorized innocents to rob and plunder for themselves scarce food and water. That should not be our preferred response.

TO WARNINGS: There is much that can be anticipated in all parts of the Earth, its fault lines, its weather patterns, its volcanic activities, and the many threats caused by life, extinctions, viruses, etc. Given more time in this case, Earth’s humanity can organize humanitarian services. These should probably be organized under United Nations command, in the following way.

• A list of every potential disaster that can be known about our globe.
• Disaster-specific materiel listed for each potential disaster and for each geographical location and for each population culture and climate.
• Each nation-member of the U.N. should choose to be matched to one of the specific functions of disaster relief, its response requirements, and that nation’s capacity for making a contribution to the response requirements.
• Each nation must provide a staging area and base in its territory, a convenient camp, or compound where all the required materiel is stored.
• Each nation provides an “army” of volunteers to be trained in the specific role of its disaster-specific response duties. This is similar to the community volunteer fire department and fire fighters who have a base of operations in a fire station to go when they get the call in an emergency.
• Each nation is required to provide funds for equipment, training, and housing for its world disaster duties.
• Mobilization-response time must be graded and certified.
• Nation-to-nation cooperation and logistical patterns must be worked out through a U.N. agency.
• Every potential disaster site should be studied for the status of its disaster-specific architecture, in order to educate expectancies for the response-teams in all nations, and for mandating disaster-adapted architecture.
• Some of the specific teams like these are the relief services to be donated and performed. Several nations may cooperate to provide the same coordinated service.
1. hazmat service
2. construction service
3. clothing service
4. food
5. shelter, housing
6. medical
7. graves registration
8. water
9. other utilities
10. security
11. transport
12. communications
13. airport
14. roadways
15. Do you suppose it would be possible for each of the 18,443 cities in the United States to donate and ship one house-trailer to Haiti? As a further contribution to fixing the obvious plight the Haitians now find themselves having to live with? Each trailer home would be identified with a nameplate showing the name of the city that donated it. All put in a new neighborhood named after the state in which the city resides. Just brainstorming here! (Once when I was quite young, there were serious floods in Oregon. Many house-trailers were needed. I drove one up there hitched to my buddy’s car, as a way of earning some money.) It seems reasonable to send such temporary housing to Haiti. They had to do it for New Orleans, didn’t they? REMEMBER THIS: Trailers for housing are manufactured in the U.S. How’s that for creating more jobs for the good of the economy?!
16. (What others are there?)

C’mon, WORLD! In the future, let’s choose to respond to WARNINGS, not events, as a second-nature (habitual, knee-jerk) response!

I tried to make an acronym. I got close (but no cigar): Humanity (or Humane or Human) Emergency Relief of Earth’s Societies. ?? Nah.

There is criticism implied in this little essay. I am only trying to be constructive. I’ll bet that such planning is going on now, if our leaders are smart. I wrote a page on this blog about “Response to Warnings”. This is an addition to what I said there.

Harry Ried’s “Racism”? T’aint So!

What he said, ain’t racism. What he said arose from cultural ignorance. He never had the course in “intercultural communication”, proceeding in his remarks only from his experience, which is evidently anecdotal and not systematic. I am as sure as Obama is that he meant well and thought he was being descriptive. Trouble is, he was describing surfaces in a language that was not culturally astute (which, as I have defined elsewhere, lacks political correctness—now don’t get your b__s in an uproar on reading that word. PC is a very important concept, and if you do not understand it, then you, too, need the course of study I prescribed. Cross-cultural relationships, especially in a national, mass-media, federal-government, high-level context of political diplomacy, are of hot-wire importance, affecting our national image and problem-solving capabilities in a political arena.)

The man was ignorant of what word to choose when he wanted to say a “light-skinned black man”. Also, the whole drift of his idea was probably disastrous from the start. But what and how he said it is not racism. The word “Negro” can be a racist term which is not used anymore. I believe the senator did not know that. I wonder how he could have been so sheltered from learning that. He would probably use “boy” and “you people” in interacting with black people without awareness of the emotional load those words carry. He meant well. It is, however, up to Pres. Obama to take some initiative in confronting this issue, as he did once during the campaign. Could not the President have a “fireside chat” about it, with friends and scholars perhaps?

I remember Hillary Clinton taking some heat for her attempt to mirror some dialect of what she took for a “black English” style when she visited a church where black people were the majority. The “black style” of singing in church shows up regularly now in public singing, such as the singing of the national anthem before ball games. That style has certain spiritual riffs away from the straight melody showing an added weighty lift of emotion in the meaning. White people who want to “rap” are called “wannabes”, but many white folk have really taken over and adopted that style. “Imitation is the sincerest flattery.” “‘Tis the most pleasing flattery to like what other men like.” I, personally, do not like all those spiritual liberties taken with the melody, but once in a while I am affected by it. Meaning, some are truly artful, but most are truly not.

I, and every white person, could use some “sensitizing” treatment to ease the discomfort, constructively and substantially, about race in our society. Once was not enough. The issue has powerful legs still. Some have said this was a “teachable moment” (a phrase which recently has shown up on a list of words that should be labeled archaic). Who better to teach than the professor who is also the subject?

The senator was just culturally ignorant. Poor Harry.

Denver Broncos’ Losing Season, Their Coach, Josh McDaniels

Just simply watch the opening plays of their last game of the season (2009) against the K.C. Chiefs. What I saw was a team with no heart. It was to me as if they were deliberately trying to “throw” the game, but I knew that could not ever be true. I immediately ascribed this cause for that first set of plays: the shenanigans of their coach leading up to the kickoff had taken out the heart of that team. He suspended several players, putting the screws to the team. Ah, I said, he’s young. Inexperienced. Inept. He has no business head-coaching. He coaches as a technician. He cannot know what an injured player feels the way that player does. He must accept, respect the player’s report on himself.

Josh McDaniels should do two things, either fire himself (as the sign said, “Bench Yourself”), or learn a big lesson in coaching, a lesson that any CEO, or manager, or executive, or boss has to learn, managing that originates the direction of the team from the team itself. Not a top down organization. Rather a bottom up organization. DERIVE the methods and rules and roles from the workers themselves, who were each hired for certain proven skills. Let their abilities dictate. The coach should be seen drawing out the objectives of the team from the team as a whole. Dignify them! Give them some credit for knowing what those objectives should be. I think it is possible to take a more democratic, inductive approach in coaching. Of course, I have no way of knowing what actually transpired in the team’s interaction with the coach. I can only reason from the result, as any fan might do.

I smelled the stink of dictatorshiop in that coach’s methods. Methods that may have produced the wierd season of wins and losses we fans got. My best explanation is that the coach was also hired because of his distinct position in a much admired organization, and he believed that it was his job to bring the success of his former team to the Broncos. That set him up in a set to install his system in Denver. The “pieces” did not fit. The crap hit the fan. The Broncos players had to deal with the ideology of the new coach, ideology being a set of ideas and behaviors in which the Broncos had no role in developing. (Sieg Heil!) A more participatory (democratic) approach might have been more advantageous for ther new coach. I am only speculating there.

I read in the paper a long story on the reports of coaches’ get-tough abuses of players. (Reminded me of the the drill seargent we had in basic training.) Some of the abuse of players has killed players. It is needless. Those Bronco football players are tough, strong, and smart (most with college degrees). Above all, they are professionals. Their professionalism can, and in that game eventually did assert itself—TOO LATE, as it turned out.

I think what the coach did was an expression more of his own inadequacy and ignorance of command principles. He is the keeper of the game plan, which he must turn over to the professionals to execute. The players know when they are incapable of measuring up, due to any injury. The coach implicitly accused one player of malingering. The team had to feel that injustice, as it might apply to them one day. I think it showed up in the game, and especially from the start.

I write this because I care, like a million others. It’s only a game. But, still…

The Broncos could do without that coach. His learning curve will be long and drawn out. But I know whose heads will roll to pay for the coaching problems, and they are fan favorites.

In a similar case, the coach at the university where I taught was just fired (TTU). I believe his troubles arose from a player-coach relationship that went wrong, somehow. I must withhold judgment because I do not know the essential facts about the player’s concussion. The celebrity of the player’s father complicated the affair when he is purported to have tried to pressure the coach regarding his son’s playing time. Now that coach is and was extremely popular and much loved by a great many. Except by the athletic director. The coach put that school and team on a much larger map. I hate to see him go.

Pres. Barack Obama—

—It seemed to a lot of people that you were the emperor of discourse and promise and hope. Now you sit on the throne you sought in the campaign. But you have left the campaign behind— you campaign no longer— and I am very unhappy to see now that you are the emperor who has no clothes on. You should be campaigning still for the policies you pledged, but you shed your clothing of fine suasory raiment from the campaign for the health care reform and a single-payer plan for all you said you supported. You were absent in prominent, public and frequent support of a really good health-care bill. What happened? You owe us an explanation!

I expect you to appear publically and prominently putting your clothes back on in a clear and detailed explanation of just exactly what we now have in this health care bill. It is your duty. How will the law now generally affect this society? Describe and clarify the law’s effects, as you have digested them! Please do it! We have not heard you at the most critical time time when the debate was going on. Where are you? What have you been doing?

To be understanding, I believe that the campaign was rigorously demanding and took a toll of your stamina. Possibly you were greatly fatigued by it and needed a time to restore your native energy. To wage another campaign for healt care, say, on top of the election campaign probably requires more energy you have not yet recouped. We all know that the campaign for a health care bill against its implacable foes, the other party that has been bought and paid for by the insurance industry, requires a highly energetic fight. It seems apparent that you may not yet be up to the task, physically. That is my conviction.

The Republicans will probably win by default, your vulnerability at this time for the reason stated. I think that explains your weakened leadership.

Also, you may not fully support, as I do, health care as a program of “medicare for all” as a right Constitutionally guaranteed in the provision for General Welfare in the language of the Preamble. You may also prefer to let the policy arise from the “people”, as represented by their elected surrogates in Congress, and that has made you appear to be playing a more passive role in the drive toward a health care law. You also have a predeliction for a bipartisanship that eschews the use of the majority power you own, believing that would not yield the consensus outcome you covet.

I cannot figure you out, Mr. President. I want you out there exhibiting the same spirited and eloquent advocacy for the health care law I supposed you would propose. I have not seen it. I am disappointed. And your declining poll numbers may reflect my reservations about you. What a loss of the hope for believable change you evinced in your campaign for that oval-office chair!

I am rather sad about all that. Chiefly, I choose to believe that the utter exhaustion you have experienced is the best explanation. And given all the other problems confronting you, you may not yet have had enough time to recover. I am desperately trying to account for your reticence in fighting for a health care bill that I and my fellow progressives would celebrate.

I am fighting the view that you want now to rest on your laurels, easing up somewhat, taking it easy for a while, enjoying the ride you have earned, and so on. But I do not think that is you.

Hey, man! Let’s go!

YOU THOUGHT THE CAMPAIGN WAS OVER? WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, IT AIN’T OVER! CONTINUE THE SUICCESS OF THE CAMPAIGN!!!!!!!!!

A Novel Idea: Belle Isle

My friend Margie always said I should write a book. I had an idea for a novel, but I never wrote it to completion. I called it, “Belle Isle”. It was a dystopia. All the evil people in the world, from all nations, everywhere, would be gathered up and put on some large island. Middle of the ocean. Picket ships and all the sharks would patrol the chummed waters all around it, guaranteeing an interesting swim. The nations would co-operate the enterprise.

A large ship would regularly sidle up to a POE dock secured by fence and army guards and drop off the latest contingent of baddoers, men and women. They would go through a simple processing and be put through a huge gate. They would enter the company of all those preceding them, left to their own resources and devices to feed and shelter and protect themselves. The POE would have a dispensary of rations and clothing from a warehouse. Their culture would be whatever the previous cast-outs had come to adopt, over time. The main story was to tell the development of that culture, of the government, the mores, the rules or laws, the language, and so on. Names would be labels that were pasted on the character of each individual.

The British people did something like that in Australia.

I wanted to cultivate the concept of the evolution of a utopia out of a dystopia, the manner of the saving of a society from itself, arising from the worst of circumstances to become advanced and respectable in the world. The story began with the first contingent.

My MS from my first days after graduating from the university has been misplaced somewhere.

An Incipient Revolution in Iran?

One segment of the Fareed Zakaria program, Sunday morning (12-20-09), showed a man who was protesting against the totalitarian regime in Iran. He began by dressing in the bourqua all women wear in the Islamic world as a requirement of that religion. I think such dress is mandatory to obliterate any manifestation of the female gender. Why is that extreme expression of “modesty” necessary? As I understand it, males will thereby be relieved of any arousal or excitation of male lust, and temptation will be averted. If a female lets down any screen of modesty, the male cannot be held responsible for the result of any immodesty by the the female. Any assault becomes justified. Do I have that correct? The burden is on the female to avoid tempting the male, who is naturally unable to resist the temptation. Right? That is what I understand. I have not read the Sharria law that supports that view.

Is there, could there be, any other use or cause for such a dress code?

Such male control is not expected nor required, so it seems to me to be the conclusion I may draw. In my culture, on the contrary, I am expected to be responsible for my acts, regardless of any extremity of stimulation. “She made me do it by her state of undress!” That will not fly where I live. I must personally control any tempting stimulus, no matter the source, sex, food, drink, media, family, neighbors, dress, language, insult, and so on. I suppose the source of really super-sin is sex.

Nevertheless, the Iranian man on the show, as a form of protest, started to dress in the habit prescribed for females in the culture of that world, identifyinmg himself with women’s plight. It was said that his captors forced him to put on the dress to “feminize” him as a form of humiliation, to destroy his manhood and hold him up to ridicule. His torture was another form of demeaning the feminine. Does that action exalt the male, feeding his dominance and superiority and exalted station in life (and you better not forget it!)? The man was a threat to Ahmadinijad.

However, this is the point where the revolution may come in. Other men took up the wearing of women’s habit. If this spreads in Iran, and possibly all over the world of Islam, the regime of Ahmadinijad will be threatened, and perhaps the whole tradition that suppresses the female and the feminine in Islamic culture might change.

I doubt the regime will allow that protest to continue without a violent repressive reaction.

Would it not be a great world phenomenon if “very male” figures, sports heroes, body builders, male models, artists, actors, professors, celebrities in all fields, were to don the habit to turn around the humiliation onto the tormentors of the female gender? There almost was a revolution in Iran not long ago with the fraudulent re-election of Ahmadinijad.

When I watched that program and saw that hint of that form of protest, my imagination took off. What a world-wide movement that would be!

Democracy Is Tough, Difficult, Too Troublesome for Most Americans

Political apathy is ubiquitous, too prevalent in the U.S to give us a viable form of democratic government. How do I know this? Simple. The voter turn out rate is how, as any fool can plainly see.

If democracy were just a matter of taking off a half hour to cast a vote, there would not be anything to argue about, but people cannot even afford to give that response any simpleton could give. Well, that is the simpleton’s democracy and even in that, it is difficult to get a response.

“REAL” democracy (which I have defined elsewhere on this blog) has been converted to “REPRESENTATIVE” democracy, a let-George-do-it democracy. Democracy delegated. Don’t bother me! I’m too busy getting some wealth. (Let only one person stand in for me and thousands of others. Is that proportional? My views are lost!) What! Take an hour away from work or play? Never! There’s not much to choose from anyway. I do not know the issues or any of the people on the ballot. And so goes the less-than-simpleton’s democracy.

Such “citizens” may have “conversations” about the issues and the candidates. They will get their vote from that and their favorite commentators on the radio. Will they ever hear a debate, a direct clash between two proponents for different views on a crucial issue? Very probably not. Will they hear a great many political ads in the media, each with a profound bias and questionable facts and false representations unopposed? Very probably yes.

It is correct to draw the conclusion that our claim to having a great democracy is egregious bombast by simpletons who are ignorant of the TRUE and EXHAUSTING democratic process embodied in discussion.

Hence, teaching and learning for the democracy we should all want to have must begin in early education. If that were true, we are a long and difficult way from that achievement. Meanwhile, we see the deportment of our elected representatives as they take on such serious issues as health care, while many of them are loaded with the corruptions of special-interest payoffs. THAT CONSEQUENCE LIES ON OUR COLLECTIVE SHOULDERS.

HOW ARE WE TO GET OUT OF THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM? Are we to believe that one senator owes more loyalty to the health-care insurance industry than to the ordinary citizens in his district for his stand on health-care reform? So it seems. Delegated democracy is a corruption of the democratic process. We have put one elected person between us and the law-making that will neglect, hurt, or help us.

Our elected autocracy must be reformed or our society will fade away into an increasingly venal oligarchy. We had a very expensive brush with that in the Wall-Street oligarchy taking over the U.S. economy for a while. How much worse it will be if our delegates take over the government bit by bit without check or balance. We must put the democratic bits in their mouths and the democratic rings in their noses to do the people’s will.

Election reform. Lobbying reform. Reform of transparency in the conduct of legislative debate. Among other facets. We must see discussion. At its best, in full development, in public, on the floor, in committee.

I borrowed this quote from another blog: “The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment. – Robert M Hutchins.”

It is apparent to me that we must give consideration to the death of democracy. Especially since I see it existing presently in a stunted form of development.

So Democracy Is Discussion — BUT—

—and that is one big but. The word “but” is a coordinate conjunction which serves to practically wipe out whatever has gone before. What, then, is going to wipe out the basic operating vehicle of democracy? The almost complete lack of opportunities for discussion. For one example, can you identify any opportunities for group discussion you have had during this period dominated by the issue of what should be the best solution for our health-care system? I anticipate that answer to be — nah!

It is for that awareness that I pioneered the institution of several discussion opportunities. I instituted the Town Hall Debate meetings at my national organization for communication academicians. I started a university forum on the campus where I taught. The forum was very popular. I started a forum for the community as well. I fashioned the university forum on the Oxford Union idea (Britain). That’s three forums I started, but they were mostly debate formats, followed by audience debate and side-taking.

What are the occasions for most people to attend group discussions in our society, opportunities to practice discussion for practical problem-solving experiences to hone a valuable skill that will deepen the quality of our political practices? I can think only of the political party caucuses that come around every major election.

If the quality of discussion were elevated in the U.S., the reprehensible political adverising that is broadcast would fall on ears deaf to such low-life personal attacks, base appeals and deceptive claims. The political landscape would be changed to a great extent.

If we are to open the door to innovation, we must have some creative thinking. I think that the public libraries would be the appropriate places to hold the meetings. Some might suggest people’s homes be volunteered. Much of the groundwork might be laid on the internet. I had thought of forming local and neighborhood “GOOGLE GROUPS”, perhaps the organization being supervised by GOOGLE. National discussion topics phrased and published by GOOGLE would be made at regular intervals. The issues would be the hot-button political problems of the moment. Group reporters or secretaries might write summaries and put them on the web at a regular place and time. One group could then see how its work compared to those conclusions of a multitude of other groups around the nation.

It is a sure thing that responsible people would be paying attention to the consensus derived from a comparison and contrast of all the results put together.

Our nation would provide practical, down-to-earth experiences in democratic operations for the U.S population. I can see nothing but a greater good for a community of interest encompassing the entirety of the society, the possibility of a national consensus. Either we innovate and grow our democracy, or let it decline, to become something less. One of those other forms of government, pieces of which exist today, even among congresspeople, are now awaiting the opportunity to take over. Lincoln’s dream is still viable, but it is surely endangered by aristocratic (oligarchic power by elite group) inclinations in the Senate and House.

You Could Have Heard A Pin Drop!

[JFD: I did not write these. Someone, to whom I wish to give credit for the writing, sent me an email with these instances of the treatment of our American countrymen by some officials of other nations. They imply something about our American reputation abroad, as well as something, well…. (you supply the apt word)…. about them.]

A Refresher On How Some Of Our Former Patriots Handled Negative Comments About Our Country

[1.]

JFK’S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60’s when Charles de Gaulle decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaulle said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.

Rusk responded, “Does that include those who are buried here?”

De Gaulle did not respond.

[2.]

When in England , at a fairly large conference; Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”

[3.]

There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying, “Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?”

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: “Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear p powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?”

[4.]

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, “Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?”

Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, “Maybe it’s because the Brit’s, Canadians, Aussie’s and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.”

[5.]

Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.

“You have been to France before, monsieur?” the customs officer asked sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.

“Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.”

The American said, “The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it.”

“Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !”

The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, ”Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to.”

[JFD: I doubt that any of our diplomatic people or other government officers have ever said to any foreign counterpart that we want you to do this for the U.S. because we are owed it by our previous assistance we have given you in the form of blood and treasure.]

The Reformation of Radio and TV Talk Shows — ATTN: George, Ed, Rush, David

By what line of reasoning do we liberals (progressives) claim the right to call the conservatives (regressives) “nut jobs”, “psychotalkers”, “crazies”, insane? By our line of reasoning out the issues, they certainly are our opposites. They do not fit the positions we take. By name-calling, we not only marginalize them, they become non-persons, objects of derision and hate. I know because I too have those feelings. I say to myself, how can “those” people of ordinary income and intelligence believe that the fat cat CEOs of health care insurance companies will have the commoner’s best interests at heart above the insurance mogul’s own bottom-line needs for maximized profits? That does not compute!

And so it was that all the rules were changed about pre-existing conditions, etc., to keep payouts low and “costs” that stay within the company high. It seems again that the ordinary people are voting against their own best interests. Now that’s insane, and the conservative advocates of that position are “nut-jobs” in a freak show.

But the name-calling is giving in to a simple, personal satisfaction and closing off debate. There! I feel better now. I’ve solved my personal problem with getting it off my chest. That’s all I really can do. I am powerless to change the minds of those ignoramuses. They are beyond help.

However, on second thought, there is something I can do: THINK CONSTRUCTIVELY! Aha!

The one public source of all the name-calling is talk radio and talking-heads television. Start there! So I have this blog, and I may reach somebody in those media with the power to act. I want to change the “talk” that is there into something that is more in the nature of the only “talk” that is the foundation of democracy.

Talk can be uni-lateral, bi-lateral, or multi-lateral. Democracy will only be manifest in, at least, bi-lateral talk (debate), and, at best, multilateral talk (discussion).

Radio or tv talk-show programs are mostly the host mouthing off, with an occasional guest to support the views being spewed. The unilateral talk that transpires in those media I call masturbatory, or self gratifying talk, investing only in the hosts personna. The name-calling flourishes. Ed Shultz and Rush Limbaugh are the prime suspects. (Rush sure looks to me like someone getting it off.) If they were to innovate the genre, they would think of finding ways to have bi-lateral and even multilateral talk.

For an example of bi-lateral talk, they might give a mike to each side, sitting in separate rooms, for three minutes to speak on a severely and cleanly delimited topic of the day. Three minutes on the right, and then the mike is cut off in the one room, and three minutes on the left, and then the mike cut off in the other room. (You have to cut the mike off, or they would start an undisciplined quibble with much overtalk, disastrous for the viewer and the program. This is for viewers’ benefit, not the speakers’.)

Then we could promote them! Bring them into the studio to sit side-by-side, but observing the same decorum of their separation. In this part of the discussion, the parties will have face-to-face interaction taking turns on the refining points of any consensus they may have achieved.

I know what you are thinking: you are treating them like children. It might easily be taken as an insult to them. True. One does sit up before crawling, crawl before walking, and walk before running. That’s the way maturation goes. So with learning to discuss; it’s not conversation. It is the rocket science of communication.

Organizing multilateral talk (discussion) takes more disciplining of the discussants, exacted by an astute moderator. I have yet to see a moderator on tv who has the ability to lead a discussion. George Stephanopoulos’s program is not the place to have a discussion of any issue with a few panelists. Many facets of the topic are blurred by a great number of tangents that take the discussion off target. The lines of the problem-issue are too numerous, major and minor. The panelists have favorite issues, each carrying in different directions None are cleared up.

If Stephanopoulos were to do it right (according to the demands of the discussion continuum), he would choose one main, important facet and stick with it. But of course he has his own agenda of covering many questions. His agenda is not one derived from the discussion so far, as it should be, but questions pre-ordained before the discussion started. He will not find the true discussion in the notes he keeps looking at. He, ever the moderator, must become “adaptable” in context.

Too many topics results in dispersion and thinning out of the issue, eventuating in the chitchat of conversation. Astute panelists should do their part, but they keep looking at the moderator for his iron hand. It is, after all, his show. The panelists as reputable pundits may be too ego-involved to act in a more humble role as a member of a group discussion, but being very knowledgeable people would have much to bring to the table if they were to rise above their self-esteem and apply self-discipline.

What the viewers get may easily become a series of quibbles; discussion is truncated. To get the discussion we should have, instead of a patchwork quilt of confusion and obfuscation, the whole idea of talk shows must be reformed.

The reformation begins with the moderator’s behavior. Such an enlightened host would put together panels that have been disciplined beforehand in the principles of the format and communication skills required. Is a pundit capable of such instruction in self discipline?

I have a separate blog on the whole subject, which see.

Republicans: Party of “NO!”

Yes, indeed, “No!” works. “Yes, we can!” sets itself up for failure because the Democrats are affirming an answer to what “we can do”. “No”? Nothing is affirmed No one has to go out on a limb to affirm changes.

“No” proposal was made.

“No” future action is called for.

“No” one has to do or say anything affirmative.

Independents being “mugwump” fence sitters are playing it safe all the way around. “Know-Nothings” they are. Detached. Pick and choose.

“No” is safe against all movement. Stand pat. Stay where you are. Hope not, but also despair not. Let others catch all the heat and we “no”-ers will make all the small gains and, likely, be heavily courted. “Yes we can”-ers may stink it big.

“No” and “Conservative” go hand in hand. They did not tackle health care. and got two terms. The Democrats took on health care and are endangering a second term, as the talk seems to be going.

“Stand pat.” “Don’t gamble.” “Sit tight.” Yes, that is the essence of conservatism.

They crouch in the wilderness weeds of the healthcare bills and debates waiting to pounce at every turn of phrase that suggests movement away from the status quo of healthcare as a capitalistic, for-profit, free-enterprise (and re-election donation-rich) business, especially the turncoats Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Lieberman, Grassley, among others.

They say, “Let’s fix the real problem!” Meaning waste, fraud and abuse. “Make insurance companies ‘transparent’ and accountable.” Of course they mean “regulation”. That’s odd. When they had the majority power, they made regulation disappear, and everyone knows what happened then. All regulation they see as equivalent to “a big government takeover of health care”.

An MD Speaks Out on Health Care, Her Article Quoted

I have permission from Dr. Katherine Ottaway to reproduce her contribution to the blog of the Mad-as-Hell-Doctors’ Blog and web site.

QUOTE:

What I learned from my first Mad as Hell Doctor week

{ September 28, 2009 @ 3:12 am } • { Mad as Hell Doctors, financing healthcare, rural doctor }

{ Tags: Health Care, Mad as Hell Doctors, medicine, Single Payer }

I spent a week with the Mad as Hell Doctors, as a Mad as Hell Doctor, doing town halls about health care and about single payer, HR676. We went from Seattle to Denver, with 1-3 town halls a day, and then I flew home.

They are still on the road and I rejoin them tomorrow, for the last week. We will end in Washington DC, with a caravan and a white ribbon protest at Lafayette Park on September 30, 2009 and October 1, 2009.

I have been home for just under two weeks and am STILL trying to sort out what I learned and feel. I suspect it will take months.

1. I am not alone.

2. I am not used to applause.

3. People are brave and noble.

First, I learned that there are other doctors who truly put patients first and will go on the road for 3.5 weeks to prove it.

Dr. Mike Huntington, a radiation oncologist. He says that in the last 10 years of practice, the treatment for prostate cancer tripled from $17,000 to $54,000 because of fancier technology and computers. The result? Minimal to no better results for the patient. It horrified him. He quit. He is on the road.

Dr. Joeseph Eusterman, an internist. He did internal medicine, that is, adult primary care, for 25 years. He was in the military. He then switched to Workman’s Comp. He was horrified to find how deeply frightened Americans are of their supervisors, of being injured, of speaking up when they are injured and how dysfunctional the system is. He is retired, over 80 years old, and is driving Winnie, the Winnebago, across the country. I pray that I am that strong and determined to do right in my 80s.

Dr. Paul Hochfeld, an emergency room doctor. About four years ago, he got furious at the system and started reading and searching for the reasons our health care cost so much. He started with that question. The writing that made sense led him to call the experts and he asked for interviews. He made a movie, titled Health, Money and Fear. He is furious that our political system is run by money, corporations and that Congress seems to have forgotten the people, with all the corporate money that is thrown at them. He is fighting for reform.

Dr. Robert Seward, an internist. He is horrified that 60% of bankruptcies in this nation are because of health care bills. Think of all the press on people losing their houses: the fact is, they are losing their houses in large part because of health insurance companies and the failure of health care in our nation. He spoke with a Canadian man on the trip, who said, “Why don’t you Americans take care of your people?” That is still echoing among us. Dr. Seward says, “I was ashamed. We don’t. We Americans don’t take care of our people and we could and I am ashamed.”

Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrician. She is working for Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) as a Congressional Fellow. She wants single payer on the table in the Congressional discussion. She was arrested for refusing to leave Senator Max Baucus’s office in May 2009. She is fighting for single payer.

I had never met these people before I joined them in Seattle. I was nervous about it: a road trip with strangers and talk into a microphone? But it was like coming home and it felt right.

Second, I learned that I am armored against criticism: it’s praise that I don’t know how to handle. The day before the trip, I spoke to one of the doctors on the phone and he said that I wouldn’t be on the panel of Mad as Hell Doctors in Seattle. I would watch the first town hall and then be on the panel at the next, in Spokane.

At the last moment, they said, oh, no, you are on the panel. I hopped up and left my purse at my seat. I remembered it 45 minutes later and thankfully was able to retrieve it. It would have been difficult to fly home from Denver otherwise.

Each doctor had 1-3 minutes to say why they were Mad as Hell. I winged it, and that was not a problem, because I AM Mad as Hell at our present medical system, the drug companies, the insurance companies and could go on for hours. Other doctors at my hospital would no doubt roll their eyes and say that I DO go on for hours.

I am used to being ignored, marginalized, told “we’re concerned about you”, told “we want you to succeed,” pressured and fired. There were secret meetings about the call schedule that I was not told about because they didn’t want me there. I’m stubborn, used to it, speak up anyhow and armored.

But in Seattle, I said a 2-3 minute piece of what I’ve been arguing about for 20 years.

People clapped. Applause.

I sat down. I wanted to crawl under the table and hide behind the white sheet covering the front. I was dumbfounded. I didn’t know how I felt. I concentrated on what the other doctors were saying, one after another, instead.

The other doctors thanked me, glad to have a woman doctor, glad to have a family practitioner and a rural one to boot. At each town hall, we talked to anyone who came, before and afterwards. The program itself was about 90 minutes but with the time talking to people before and afterwards, it was more like three hours. We did one to three programs a day and drove in between. It was physically and mentally tough. Residency trains us to put away emotions until later, so that’s what I did. The doctors are all tough and no one wanted to complain too much with our 80 plus year old gung ho and tough as a boot.

After I got home, the strongest feeling was wanting to weep. My Death Panel writeup had been in the local paper and four people thanked me in three days. I didn’t know what to do with that either. Under all the armor is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved. I’m used to criticism but praise went through the armor straight to my heart and to a part of me that I didn’t know was there. That person appears to be rather young and undeveloped. She is going to take some bringing up. Meanwhile, I asked for help in the form of my improvisation teacher. How, I asked, do I handle applause? He gave me clear specific instructions. I can do what he said, even if the emotional stuff inside is hiding under the table. Doctor training kicks in easily.

Third, I learned how people from Seattle to Denver, across the country, will stand up if given the opportunity. Part of the program was the Mad as Hell Minute. ANYONE, whether they agreed with us or not, could come forward, say their name and be on camera. They said why they were Mad as Hell about health care. They did not have to agree with us, with single payer, they could argue the opposition. But everyone was supposed to listen. Adam Klugman, our creative director, spoke of how it was an exercise in speaking up to our friends and community members and an exercise in listening to each person. And anyone who spoke, might show up on Youtube.

At some programs, one person would get up to speak. People were shy. Then a second would get up, then two more and then we would have a line. Not everyone spoke, but most of the people at the indoor town halls spoke. They told heartbreaking stories of family members, friends, their own loss of a job with a loss of insurance and people who weren’t being treated, or died because they could not afford treatment.

They were brave and honest and that made me want to weep too. And it was inspiring, to see people speak up. I hope that Congress is watching the Mad as Hell Minutes. These are the people they should be listening to and responding to, not the 1-2 million dollars in lobbying paid for by the insurance companies DAILY.

I have been cursing up a storm in my diary. I’m going back on the road, leave tonight for Seattle, take my daughter to her grandmother, and rejoin the Mad as Hell Doctors for the last 6 days. I feel blessed. The cursing is to balance me out; there’s no room for the grumpy, irritable, argumentative part of me on the trip so it is having a field day before I go. Back to hear people’s stories and applaud. And I have faith that change is in the air.

UNQUOTE

Stupidity and Greed: Business as Usual

The Mt. Everest pinnacle of stupidity is a guy who drives up alongside a driver in another car and, believing he has been done some traffic wrong, pulls a gun and kills the other guy. The killer’s license plate is seen and reported by others. The killer is caught, arrested and thrown into jail to await his ultimate fate, probably, what? 30 years to life? For what? A moment’s satisfaction? Road rage?

Hey, you there, in prison! You happy now?

The Mt.McKinley peak of rampant greed is the retention of CEOs with millions of dollars as bonuses for developing toxic-asset paper-profits as a GREED project because nobody was telling you that you could not steal money from investors and because there was no barrier between banks for savings and banks for investing.

Or the making of health-care into a for-profit, capitalistic GREED enterprise with all sorts of policy tricks.

Or the jacking up of credit card APRs as a GREED enterprise for people in credit trouble, like the nonsensical debtors’ prisons of Dickensian times.

They all got away with it and Madoff with millions while the multitudes suffered with foreclosures and bankruptcies. They were also rewarded by our government with bailouts converted to bonuses, which bailouts the government was forced to give because the economy was in precipitous decline.

Stupidity. Greed. Individual. Corporate.

The Mariana Trench of intelligence will rarely, if ever, think of studying the consequences of actions.