No Public Option

As many progressive/liberals are apoplectically coming to realize, we're not going to get a so-called public option as a part of this year's health care reform. The long and short is there simply does not currently exist the political or public will in America for anything remotely resembling a single-payer health system. Unfortunately, and not coincidentally, for many advocates on either side of the issue the public plan has become synonymic with a single-payer plan. Americans by and large are skeptical of bureaucracy. The taken hold perception that a public plan would directly or indirectly facilitate creation of a new, amorphous, hulking bureaucratic entity whose sole purpose would be to administrate the most intimate and vital aspect of citizen's lives - - their health - - evidently strikes many Americans as far too scary an unknown unknown to wade into. That these fears set aside those other, ingrained hulking bureaucracies Americans have come to take for granted, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and the VA, is of apparently little significance to a good percentage of the public. In any case, the vitriolic nature of today's political discourse does not favor the adoption of new large scale social engineering programs. We may wish it were otherwise but wishing won't change current political realities. Consequently, it's but an exercise in wasted words and energy to spend much time casting blame towards the administration and/or congress for failing to convincingly advocate for a public option; single-payer and it's surrogates were a non-starter in this debate from "go" and to think otherwise is to be in denial. Sorry to break it to ya, sad but true.

If we'll recall, this was a key differentiator between Hillary Clinton's approach to health care reform and Barack Obama's: Hillary suggested we ought to move directly towards a single-payer system while Obama suggested that the more incremental goal of increasing overall coverage and initiating insurance reform was the more politically viable approach given contemporaneous ideological schisms. Progressives may argue that Obama has created a self-defeating, self-fulfilling prophecy for his reform plans by not using his bully pulpit to at least attempt to convince Americans of why achieving a single-payer health care system would be a good thing. But this reasoning fails to take into account the fragile governing coalition the Democratic party has forged over the past two election cycles to achieve it's current congressional majority. A coalition where so-called 'blue dog' democrats, having inherited the mantle from the 'Reagan Democrats' of yore, represent largely center-right constituencies who while perhaps arguably more socially liberal than other conservatives nonetheless remain fundamentally small-government conservatives. I sense that the administration has been acutely aware of these limitations from the beginning and more or less has used the public option as a bargaining chip to be taken on or off the table to appease, garner momentary support or relieve pressure from whichever side necessary to methodically jimmy forward the ultimate plan.

In an earlier post I commented that, although he had given little indication of what bottom line reforms must be in the health plan he'd ultimately sign, my gut feeling was that generally speaking Obama hoped to move the US towards a Swedish model of social democracy. However, I've come to realize that my analysis may have been a thousand or so kilometers off base; I agree with Paul Krugman that as concerns health care, the reform we're likely to get in the end will mirror Switzerland's approach to universal coverage. While I also agree with many of the points Timothy Noah makes in Slate about the need for some form of public subsidizing of universal coverage in order to avoid the unsavory scenario of the government compelling already cash-strapped families to purchase healthcare they can hardly afford, I'm confident the compassionate eggheads in the administration figured out a game plan for this long ago. Perhaps there's more to the cooperatives being discussed than meets the naked eye. In any case, if you ask me, the Swiss system sounds pretty darn good and a far better fit for the psyche of this country than either the UK or Canadian models. I think that many liberals/progressives choose not to acknowledge that for many Americans the choice to live as completely unencumbered by government as is socially prudent is what equates with freedom. This group of folks by and large are don't want ANYONE let alone government attempting to modulate their behavior. I may see this as just short of anarchy, but it should be crystal clear by now that a relatively high percentage of Americans genuinely believe a 'don't tread on me' view of personal freedom to be intrinsic of 'the American way." In light of of such polar opposed ideology, Swiss inspired health coverage, with its insistence that all citizens purchase health insurance from private providers (with the costs to the impoverished subsidized by government) seems to me the closest we'll get to universal health coverage anytime soon.

Hence, if all the sausage making and bluster surrounding the congressional debate is but so much kabuki theatre obscuring a mostly pre-envisioned outcome, it's possible this is why Obama appears unable to muster much enthusiasm for going through the motions of attaching himself to the less tractive aspects of the plan. So yes, Jon Stewart, maybe Obama is part jedi; it's possible he's five or six moves ahead of his critics on both sides of the debate. However, and to continue with the Star Wars reference, in my opinion what Obama still must learn in order to matriculate from mere knight to master jedi status is how to more effectively shape and influence public perception. I am concerned he and his key strategists are too smart for their own good by half; more often than is probably prudent given the (limited) intellectual capacity and emotional intelligence of the general public (oh I'm sorry was that elitist? it was? well deal with it p**ks!) , Obama seeks to sway with reason when good old-fashioned sincerely delivered passion is the weapon he ought pull from his quiver. In addition, I have expressed consistent concern that he has vastly overestimated his cache of political capital (ala Bush in his second term) and is as yet unclear about how to wield presidential power to fuel regeneration of such capital.

**************************************

Like apparently many other Obama supporters, I've often found his job performance thus far a bit less than inspiring. I keep expecting him to lay more of his cards on the table and take stands on important policy issues. Wholeheartedly championing principled positions is a big part of what I deem leadership and I've seen little of it thus far from our "Change we can believe in" president. I'm pissed that he's configured an administration where only he himself has enough wattage to sell policy. Although it may seem a counterintuitive argument to put forth, In today's short attention span media environment it's actually difficult to become overexposed; people can (and do) always click the channel and find one where politics isn't even remotely on the menu. Nevertheless this president gets trotted out day after day after day and his cool equanimity is wearing poorly over time, a classic case of a considerable strength doubling as a significant weakness. It's difficult to make news and grab people's attention when most messages are delivered with the same vacuous (sorry O!) semi state of alarm. Bush accomplished the feat of making news on demand by sending out charismatic, shameless minions who would say whatever necessary to underscore a point (think Rice's 'mushroom cloud' references or Cheney's WMD certitudes). The Obama administration too often risks coming off as undisciplined and underprepared because its group of independent minded, earnest seeming (eek!), thought provoking brainiacs are constantly going on Sunday talk shows showing off the wide variety of opinions and approaches to problem solving they presumably share with the president. Again, this is a display of strength as weakness. That Obama seeks and apparently is getting unfiltered and candid input from his staff is admirable; that he does not in the end demand consensus and constancy of message borders on a failure of human resource management.

Free Michael Vick?

Here's the thing: I'm not much of a fan of Michael Vick as a football player. I don't care for his undisciplined approach to quarterbacking. He's clearly a brilliant talent but I cannot understand why in his five years as a pro he could not show greater skill development. Even before Vick's legal troubles arose many football analysts shared the view that his career was at something of a crossroads, wondering whether his overall play would ever live up to his awesome physical gifts. And after two years away from football while serving time in jail for running a dog fighting ring it isn't even clear he can return to the sport as a quarterback, let alone pick up where he left off as a star performer. Even so, I was all set to write an indignant post in support of him and decrying the recent decision by the commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, that Vick must wait an indefinite time period before he can return to the playing field. Initially I thought the decision to be grossly discriminatory. After all, Vick served 23 months in jail and is a convicted felon with all the stigmatic accouterments that come from being released into American society as a felon. He's done his time and now wants to return to his chosen craft in order to make a living. He's estimated to have lost upwards of $100 million in salary and endorsement monies due to his conviction and has filed for bankruptcy. How much more punitive, I was ready to argue, should society be for his given crime? I was set to assert that for the NFL, or any other employer for that matter, to evaluate his employability based on his previous conviction was prejudicial and essentially un-american. Undoubtedly my thoughts are also influenced by an instinctive sense of empathy I feel towards Vick and other minority ex-cons. I happen to share an overarching conviction held by many in the African-American community that blacks are disproportionately jailed in America. The consequences on family structures and the larger community compound exponentially as released felons often have great difficulty assimilating back into society, creating a self perpetuating cycle of violence and disfunction.

However, I've come to believe that the commissioner has acted fairly towards Vick, perhaps just barely, but fair nonetheless. In reaching this conclusion I sought to generalize the circumstance and put in place of Vick any citizen, of any race or any profession. And contextualized thus it occurred to me that many, perhaps most, businesses given a similar set of particulars would be wary of allowing a felonious employee to resume a job where the employee is a public face of the brand. To be sure, Vick was at one point a major element in the NFL's branding and imaging as a league full of hip, cutting edge competitors. His transgressions at best re-cast him in the eyes of some of the public as the prototypical celebrity athlete who believes himself above the law and at worst a murderous villain. These perceptions may be slow to reverse if they ever do. Furthermore, and as aforementioned, Vick's legal troubles served to effectively veneer a career that had been at a crossroads in any case; his star may have been in descent. So, quite reasonably, the NFL wants to see how its consumer audience reacts and how Vick reacts to returning to the intense crucible that is professional sports celebrity in America. I think there's nothing inherently wrong with the NFL seeking to protect its brand in this way. Although the NFL is arguably the premier sports league in the US today, there are other professional and semi-professional sports leagues out there where Vick could ply his trade. He just may not make millions in those other leagues. I'm not prepared to support the notion that anyone, let alone someone who so callously and cavalierly threw away so much wealth and opportunity, ought to be guaranteed the right to by paid millions of dollars.

Its quite fascinating how two of the bigger new stories of the current cycle, the Vick ruling and the Gates/Crrowley incident, reflect upon our society's continuing struggles with race and class. And for arguments sake I'll throw the birther movement against Obama into the mix too. Perhaps upon first glance each of these stories seems to hinge mainly on endemic racial themes. However, when we look deeper I'd argue that in all three, respectively, raw capitalism, class values and politics play the predominant role with race but a secondary variable. Would Michael Vick have received further punishment from the NFL if he was not a minority? I hope I've successfully argued above that there's a strong possibility a white player would have received similar judgement by the league's marketing mavens. While race surely remains a factor in how the American public responds to a celebrity, it is no longer THE determining factor; for the most part we've evolved to become equal opportunity capitalists. If it had been a white male scholar who, while in his own home, verbally abused a patrolling officer would the officer have arrested him? I'm dubious but I'd still venture that the larger contributing factor to the arrest, infused by the notion that the officer in question was widely considered an 'expert' at racial profiling, was Gates lack of deference to the badge, which I'd suggest is largely a phenomenon of class. Finally, would fringe right-wingers be harassing a white democratic president about the validity of his birth certificate? Perhaps not but based on the manner in which the GOP went after Bill Clinton (but then again perhaps he was black too??!) throughout his presidency it's clear that certain republicans strongly dislike liberal presidents of all races and will be vociferous in their opposition to their legitimacy.

So I guess the moral/lesson implicit here is that we'd all do well to do a better job at working towards understanding opposing viewpoints. In today's America, complexity is the rule, simplicity the exception; that is, race is but one factor in a long list of rationalizations we'll use to screw each other... :) Sigh...alas, I couldn't keep a straight face long enough to let go without injecting a dose of law of the jungle aphorizing. Oh, and if you're maybe wondering why I chose not to equivocate the Sotomayer hearings alongside those other racially inflected news items, well, her treatment by the GOP was all about race, sorry can't be generous and magnanimous on that one.

Obama/Gates vs. Popo

I had intended to write about the state of the health care debate and Obama's lack of effectiveness at framing the issues for the citizenry. However this Gates thing has flared up and I think my opinions on Obama's self-injection into the matter encapsulates my broader thinking on his job performance in sum. To put it plainly: he don't know what he doin', man. Dude really doesn't fully understand the job of president yet, IMHO. Which is OK, it's a heck of a difficult job and each new president learns how to do the job as he goes along. I do hate to be continually derisive but I have the impression Obama's feelin' his way in the dark still. He's making a lot of unforced errors. Unforeseeable errors to be sure, and errors are not wholly unexpected, to be kind. I've said it before, in these first six months we are witnessing the downside of Obama's relative inexperience. Having said that, I continue to believe that he is on the road to becoming a great president; he's mostly got great instincts for the job and I have no doubts that his heart is in the right place. I hold him to a higher standard and he comes up short sometimes (OK often), as politicians often do. I'm frustrated that Obama hasn't been able to offer more passion and show more assertive leadership, I find him unnervingly passive. I get concerned that even as my perception is that he has shown himself strong and resolute in a crisis (after all the nation has been mired in an economic crisis his entire presidency), his passive, taciturn, reserved approach to communicating with the American people on nearly all matters will encourage his enemies at home and abroad to test him. It's fine to speak softly but every now and again in the current world we live in it's vital IMO that the American president flex "the big stick". This can be achieved rhetorically and Obama, particularly during the primary battle with Hillary, has proved he can be a master of the idiom. Where's the Obama who spoke with such passion and conviction after Iowa or at the Democratic convention (both in 2004 and 2008!)?? Got to at least flash some of that juice every now and again if only to keep the skills up, right??

The Gates flap is perhaps a perfect microcosm of the President's current shortcomings with regards to tone and effective messengering. It's inexplicable to me why a politician who generally has been so measured about racial matters would dive headlong into such a murky affair. To be crystal clear as to my position, a feeble 58 year old man of any race shouldn't be arrested in his own home for disorderly conduct. However as a purely political matter, at it's essence, the Gates affair is a 'he said/she said' event of individual perception and, indeed, individual bias. And as such there was almost no political upside for the POTUS sufficient to justify wading into it. Outside of being seen as sticking up for a friend, just about anything Obama would have said about the matter was sure to enflame or offend a great many people, with little to gain IMO.

Most American adults, of any race, who've ever had opportunity to watch the police work likely can shape an opinion of how the incident may have escalated out of control. If you're African-American, particularly if you're an African-American male, chances are you've actually experienced a similar situation and/or have someone close to you who has. If you're of another race, there's plenty of TV shows that illustrate policing techniques, from COPs to Americas Videos to fictional dramas. So there's no shortage of mental images we can muster to imagine what happened in the Gates home. But the essential point seems to me that none of us were there, the President wasn't there. Putting aside Obama's personal loyalty to his friend Prof. Gates and perhaps even his own personal bias as an African-American male, it simply wasn't Presidential IMHO to imply in any way that the police acted improperly. Even with - - especially with - - his disclaimers about not knowing all of the facts and his acknowledgement of personal bias, the President of the United States should have known to use more conciliatory language, if only as an act of political expedience. Coming at the end of a press conference ostensibly focused on health care, his self proclaimed top priority issue, this was a particularly egregious error of poor timing and unskilled diplomacy from someone who ought to know better.

If it sounds as though I'm agitated about the matter it's because I am. The bigger picture is that Obama, as 'the first black President', is no different than any other of the Black pioneers in medicine, sports, entertainment, politics. There's simply too much at stake given the fragile nature of race relations in this country for him to get 'caught out there' on such an easy trip wire. Everything any president says reverberates in the canyon of public thought and policy from the moment it leaves his or her lips for the rest of eternity. If Barack Obama and I are having a private conversation as private citizens and discussing the Gates issue and BO says that he thinks the police "acted stupidly" I say, "yeah man damn skippy, that s**ts ridiculous." Truthfully though, in most instances two black males conversing about such a matter would never even have to go so far as to venture an opinion; OF COURSE the police acted stupidly in arresting a 58 yr old man in his own home. Yes its possible that there wasn't a racial element to the incident but, so far as most american black folks are concerned, its far more likely that there was racial bias involved. Starting with the neighbor who called in to police to report, "two blacks breaking into the house." Be that as it may, the POTUS has a responsibility to stand up for both law enforcement and the citizen; he cannot be seen as taking sides. If all the facts of a case are known, that's a substantially different matter altogether; I'd say in that circumstance the POTUS is obliged to weigh in and utilize the bully pulpit to guide the nation in the direction he feels appropriate. I'll also admit that no matter how the President had handled the question he likely would have taken flak from an important element of his voting bloc. But his choice of words inflamed the situation in a way that showed a lack of forethought and self discipline IMO. At the moment I heard his comment I inwardly thought to myself, "I wish he hadn't said that but I'm glad he did." Followed immediately by a wincing, "man, I wish he hadn't said that...what the f**k was he thinking?" Followed by, "why couldn't he demonstrate the same passion for health care or energy policy?? Why doesn't he bash 'just say no' republican talking heads with the same pep and animus??!"

Getting to the bottom of things...

So the other day was the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. And I watched and read myriad testimonials, recollections and recountings of that singular event. It all blew my mind, made my imagination run wild. On one show they replayed the six moon EVAs, showing the astronauts galavanting giddily around the surface of the moon, collecting rocks, playing golf, unfurling flags, etc. And it was just insane; men had gone back and forth to the moon 40 yrs ago, landed six times, left flags and rovers and s**t and ain't been back since. Can't go back either, as there's currently no vehicle or support system, no current technology that would allow men to return. Many articles dwelled on this incongruity, mainly within the context of questioning what should be the ongoing mission of the US space program, ie mars vs. moon, manned spaceflight vs. robotic, etc. Few seemed to get into the underlying social ramifications/implications, other than in passing, of a society which spent approx $135 billion (in todays dollars) on sending men on an exploration during an epoch of such social upheaval and rampant poverty. As the song poet Gil Scott-Heron commented at the time, "No hot water, no toilets, no lights yet whitey's on the moon..." Well well...But I'm not going to delve deeper into that thicket here. I will say I'm torn about human space exploration. It does indeed seem difficult to me to justify it when there are so many pressing issues here on earth. That I'm a sci fi nerd to the extreme who can quote star wars chapter and verse does little to assuage my ambivalence. My vacillation, though, is about more than economics; I'm all for human exploration of the cosmos. I just have a hard time getting super excited about sub-interstellar space exploration (however when they get a warp drive going I reserve the right to change my position) when there's so much of our own planet that we've yet to fully survey. Indeed, we barely have the technology to research our earth's least accessible areas, such as the bottom of the ocean. I'm an advocate of exhausting our knowledge of the earth, of our home, before we broaden out to the 'stars'.

So I'm hoping here to draw attention to this interesting quirk of human (american?) thought processes: the notion that going beyond the earth is somehow more exciting, more challenging and more valuable than exploring here on earth. Although I haven't the time nor deep interest to explore it fully, I wonder whether this is in fact a truism for a majority of people on earth regardless of nationality or a uniquely American perception. Or perhaps a product of our modern media culture. I wonder if statistics would even bare out my initial premise? Be that as it may, on the face of things I'd probably posit, as some others have, that what I'll call 'space exceptionalism' is a modern phenomenon intrinsic to Americans. It may be in part a relic of the cold war era, of the post WWII era. I mean, there was a time not long ago when triumphant explorers received ticker tape parades in the US. It wasn't so long ago that the american public knew the names of prominent archeologists, paleontologists, astronomers, etc. (and poets, composers, painters and other esoteric fields but thats another kettle o' fish). Gradually and increasingly I'd say we're becoming desensitized by the glut of information available to us and by the wizardry and whip appeal of consumer technology. As more and more men achieve, the once hardly imaginable has become almost mundane. Take for example the scaling of Mt. Everest, a once scarcely fathomable trek with nearly impossible odds against success. It's still considered quite a challenging feat but now folks take cameras - - and even camera crews - - up with them and back home many of us watch less with awe than with detached curiosity. I sense that we've become a culture that's loath to be impressed by anything or anyone. Television commercials tell us we're inadequate all day long, that we constantly are in need of this or that, and I'd say part of the defense mechanism of our collective psyche is to overcompensate and over-inflate our egos. We cannot stand for others to be 'above' us, we need to feel that even our heroes are 'just like us'. We constantly seek opportunity to expose their weaknesses, thereby making them more ordinary. Reminds me a bit of the premise in the movie "The Incredibles" where the antagonist super villain hoped to create a world where, (and I'm paraphrasing)' everybody is super so that no one is super.' I wonder if there's a sociological study out there which gets into the health of the American super ego? Of course we really don't need any study to tell us that whole lotta folks are having a hard time loving themselves these days, which means they likely have a significantly impeded ability to care deeply about the needs of others as well..

But on to the really important stuff, the sci fi: here's a couple links which deal with how much of our planet we've yet to explore:

This first link is a WIRED article discussing the various depths of the ocean and how little we know about depths beyond seven miles down. The main crux of my internal argument against the space program deals with the idea that we cannot readily put a man on the bottom of the ocean or near the center of the earth and yet we're talking about...whitey on the moon/mars. I mean wake me when they get to the earth's crust (or develop the aforementioned warp drive). I'm only awake now because we got a black president but that novelty may soon wear off...

WIRED 12.12.08: "Dive! Dive! Dive!"

This one on the surface sounds on its face like sci fi nuttiness (spoiler: its about living dinosaurs) but who can really say until we actually go into these places/environments, have a good look around and...strip mine the whole g*dd**n place like you KNOW we will! :-/o

True Authority.com: " The Mokele-mbembe"

So my message is explore innerspace, day dream about outerspace...at least until we get a warp drive and a transporter and all that s**t...and we'll need some photon torpedos too, just in case there's some hostile cats or renegade asteroids and stuff out there too...

Geithner Plan

"So the Geithner plan is really two bets in one. The first is that this is not the worst case scenario and does not require the fixes developed for the worst case scenario. The second is that if this turns out to be the worst case scenario, then we still have those fixes available to us, and the need is clarified among the actors -- like Congress and the market -- whose reaction in the absence of consensus could scotch the whole thing" - Ezra Klein, The American Prospect

I'd say this is as succinct an explanation as I've seen yet for the underlying rationale behind the administration's possible thought processes on solving the banking crisis. And for me this 'keeping bullets in the gun" approach does indeed seem a prudent course of action, politically speaking. The predominant counter view comes, not surprisingly, from Paul Krugman who argues, as is his general wont, that Geithner's plan will cause the sky to fall.

I have a love/hate thing going with Krugman and I'm willing to bet I'm not alone. As befits an economic Nobel laureate, he's often spot on in his analysis, especially when forecasting long term economic trends. However, for me he generally skews dangerously close to demagoguery; I have a difficult time taking anyone seriously who so often seems to see issues in absolutes. That is, in my opinion Krugman devalues his contributions to economic science by being so rigidly and unceasingly political. He so routinely chooses to use his column as a forum for promoting the progressive agenda that it has become difficult, if not impossible, to perceive him as an honest broker. Consequently, in moments such as the present crisis, during which his considerable scientific skill might be brought to bear to help solve problems and provide perspective, his credibility becomes as much the issue as his analysis. Accordingly, I read Krugman unfailingly but take everything he has to say with a grain of salt and run it thoroughly through my bullshit-o-meter. In this circumstance I find Klein's thoughts on Geithner's plan to be both more measured and objective than his.

Theories 101

My recent problem is that ever since my friend hipped me to the realities of banking I've been skirting the fringes in a manner I'm not accustomed. Case in point: "Zeitgeist" . I'd not even heard of this movie before last week but I watched it yesterday and it gave me a lot of food for thought. If you've not seen it, the general premise is that a select group of bankers rule the world and manipulate events so that they may keep the world in endless debt and thereby beholden to them. More or less, whether via organized conspiracy or no, that sounds about right to me. Perhaps not the manipulating events part but the general idea of ultra-capitalists is not a far fetched notion to me a'tall.

Over time I've come to believe that genetics and environment are the biggest pre-disposers of human behavior, the umbrella above class, ethnicity or race (note the order). A saying which encapsulates my feeling best is: "It takes all kinds to make a world." I think if one submits to a non-religious view of understanding human nature (which does not, I'd like to add, necessarily preclude religious faith), one eventually runs smack into Darwin to explain both the diversity and similarities between peoples. From this worldview, super aggressive, greedy folk -- - such as some bankers or, hey, how bout those financial products unit managers at AIG - - are but a necessary variation on the human theme. For years I've heard Warren Buffet trot out the same genetic/sociological explanation for his successes: "Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I'm not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner." So why not a class of folk wholly or mostly lacking what we currently consider an appropriate amount of, um, shame or thought for the welfare of others? Could we call these people 'functional sociopaths'? Just marinate on that for a sec: how many people, from all walks of life, might we line up underneath the general heading of 'functional sociopath'? How about the functioning alcoholic who's just a tragic accident away from life imprisonment? Or the wife beater who is but an unfortunate blow away from the death penalty? Congress, as I write, is debating an appropriate manner by which to punish those responsible for bringing down our economy. But weren't these people simply doing what they do, being whom they are within varying degrees of excess? I'm not looking to absolve poor behavior, only to better contextualize it. Interesting to think about, yes?

I'm still in the tank for Obama but I agree with Krauthammer again, this makes two weeks in a row, a new record!!

The Great Non Sequitor by Charles Krauthammer

I'm mostly down with Obama's social re engineering thing, howsoever he chooses to frame it, although I must say I'd feel much more confident if I had the sense the country could fiscally afford and readily absorb all that he's proposing. And I could stand for him to be more focused with how he funds his spending priorities. Be that as it may, the manner by which Obama has rolled out his program is indeed intellectually incongruent I believe. I cannot decipher the necessity for it. Obama was elected to work towards the very goals he's set forth; there's nothing at all duplicitous about working towards fulfilling his campaign promises. Why then does he give us the fuzzy math and the circular logic? Why not shoot straight with the American people? Anyone with eyes can see we need to bolster and upgrade our infrastructure, from highways to education to healthcare. There are legitimate, persuasive arguments to be made for pursuing these goals, even with deficit spending if need be. Why give the Krauthammers of the world fuel? There's no rationale for obfuscation; Obama's popularity suggests the public is offering him wide berth to pursue his program. By failing to make the proverbial ducks line up, Obama runs risk of potentially alienating and eventually losing the support of Mr. and Mrs. Joe "Middle-of-the-country" Sixpack.

As I've said previously, I expect more from dude. If you want us to be Sweden, tell us! Lay it out there for us, maybe show us some brochures. Thats what Obama needs, some really cool brochures outlining the benefits of the Social Welfare state. Man, I bet a lot of folks would go for it if he just laid it all out there! Of course Mr. Krauthammer fails to mention that, if the recent polls are to be trusted, a majority of Americans think Obama has done a pretty good selling job already . Only eggheads and nerds like, uh, like...Krauthammer! (not me, no not me) need for the numbers to add up and the socratic arguments to follow form. And another thing: lets not forget that there's a ton of unbalanced, untethered folk out there with guns who've been waitin' on our boy to even hint at being a "Socialist" and then you could get to where there's trouble in the lowlands awful quick. So back atcha Krauthammer! One might say Obama's pragmatism is of the most utilitarian variety imaginable: keep hisself standing and breathing and keep on doing the peoples work, as he so defines it.

How To Tell Your Woman Done Gone (For Dummies)

A Scene taken straight from a Movie:
Where girl silently drifts away
from the self-absorbed dude
who once held her sway, in every way.

Little by little the audience sees
her heart turn towards the open door,
left ajar by his poorly executed but
good intentions.

And when the pain of living a love
that is no longer alive become
too tense a pressure to bear,
when it boil down to the bottom
she will not shed nary another tear.

And perhaps in the most dramatic tradition
he'll come home one day and she'll be gone,
or maybe there'll be a different, new knowing
smile in her eyes, or even:
he stumbles upon her in an unspeakable act.

Or could be that in the hands of an artiste
of thoroughly cruel intention, he'll have his man
with eyes that slowly drift from her to the floor
ask her simply, almost rhetorically:
"why don't you laugh at my jokes anymore?"


ADDENDUM:

Act 3, Scene 3:

More dispirited than embarrassed, he broke from her bemused gaze and stared intently at the floor. "you know I bruise like a grape," he mumbled somberly after sufficiently melodramatic pause. When there was no immediate response, he looked up to find her muffling laughter: during the silence she'd turned away to the muted television just in time to catch a particularly funny scene in a classic movie from the '80's. For the umpteenth time, Lewis had stuffed the salmon down his Santa Claus suit and for the life of her she couldn't keep from sniggering...


ADDENDUM II:

Act 2, Scene 16:

In a moment of sudden clarity the thought came upon her. As is often the case with such bursts of awareness, it arose at a most peculiar time and place: while she was signing autographs after a show. "I'm so over him." During the taxi ride back to the apartment she had ample time to further consider the ramifications. Until now it had not even occurred to S. that for weeks, maybe even months, she'd been in the act of leaving him. Presently the signs came into stark focus for her. A wry smile began to widen as it dawned upon S. how much J., her new personal assistant, actually favored C. Not as he was now; but as he'd looked back then, when she'd originally fallen for him. J. was a bit taller perhaps but still the resemblance was uncanny. The angular face, lean torso, the feminine fingers. Even his ubiquitous afghani-style hat and colored glasses. Rather than proceed to the next logical progressions of the thought and wonder (A) how on earth she could possibly have missed the similitude during the interview process or (B) if perhaps C. had noticed it too, instead another, completely disparate sensation came. A warm throb which spread rapidly from the top of her head to settle in the pit of her stomach. It was deep resentment, bordering upon anger, born of the endurance of literally years of C.'s nuanced rejection. Yes, S. was certain he loved her. But it was a needy, codependent love and C. barely hid the fact that it was a love she had to re-earn on a semi-daily basis. Though she understood from whence such machinations came, enabling him had never returned her the loyalty and affection she had once been so sure would one day follow...

Tuesday night's speech..

I felt almost a sense of guilt for having become so unsettled by Tuesday's speech; it seems as if the majority of pundits found it to be uplifting and mostly spot on in tone. I wonder if perhaps I've become too emotionally entwined with Obama's every movement. I call this 'joe louis' syndrome, how blacks in the '40s so closely identified with the boxer joe louis that when he lost to the german max schmelling many felt as if the entire black race had been let down. But I think I've put my finger now on the essence of my concern: I feel in my gut that Obama, while cracker jack smart and surrounded by ppl of great faculty, is doubling down on fiscal risk from a place of idealism, rather than accumulated wisdom. in other words, I think he knows he doesn't know wtf he's doing exactly but feels that he'll figure it out as he goes along, knowing he's smart and agile enough to responded adroitly to new information. However, I worry once he fills his plate at the buffet his hands may be too full to catch items falling by the wayside - - indeed that seems to be his very strategy: fill the plate to the brim and accept that not everything will make it from buffet to table. What important priorities won't make it whole? Wouldn't it be better to do a few things really well -- -and fund them well -- then try and do everything and poorly fund everything? And he's surrounded himself with banking insiders who seem loathe to inflict pain upon shareholders and bank management. Perhaps someone can explain to me what his larger strategy on the banks is , I cannot fathom it. Politics is all about choosing but I fear my man has accepted slapping some paint on the dilapidated american house and rebuilding upon its shaky foundation rather than ensuring the foundation is strong and can accept the weight of his proposed social engineering. Perhaps he feels he has no choice, I dunno. They're all waaay smarter than me so I just got to trust but verify, I guess. Geithner was in japan in the 90s, right? it seems like he knows his history and is therefore doomed to repeat it...I just don't understand...

it's still so jarring to see a black man - and black first lady - - in all the various presidential scenarios. It's all so fresh still. Furthermore, its not easy a'tall for my mind to accept the same political double speak, knocking down of straw men, and moral certitude that I've grown accustomed to seeing white presidents spew 24-7 coming from a black man. indeed I've certainly grown to expect duplicity from the american president, comes with the job. I mean, for most ppl of color, whether the president is democrat or republican he still is and/or represents 'the man'. And yet now a black man, and not just any black man, but barack obama, a man with seemingly an endless trove of once-in-a-lifetime skills and gifts, is 'the man'. and I expect him to REALLY shoot straight with me. not the wink-wink, stay on message realpolitik posturing that has become the preferred language of choice for our national leaders. probably asking too much, cause lawd knows he's better than ANY of these mostly sorry cats we had in there in my lifetime...

Welcome to the NEW USA! Where the "S" stands for sweden...

Here's an op-ed piece from a cat whose intelligence, patriotism and intellectual consistency I respect a great deal but with whom I almost never agree. Or to say it plain, I can't hardly STAND this m*^%$@!&r most all of the time. But on this one, hey whaddya know, I think he's spot on:

"The Obamaist Manifesto" by Charles Krauthammer

I liked the piece so much I even posted a comment on the WP site:

I must say I'm an Obama supporter, thru and thru...I believe he has the gifts and tools to be a great, transformative president. And I'm rooting for him. However, I unequivocally agree with Mr. Krauthammer's assessment. I suspect Obama wants us to move us towards becoming a sort of 21st century Sweden.

Now, there's nothing at all wrong with Sweden; I personally happen to love much of what I've seen of the country. It's a great place to visit! And there's much to admire, I think, about the Netherlands, Belgium, and other European Social Democracies. Personally speaking, my sensibilities are not at all offended by the idea of paying 60% taxes in exchange for government subsidized - - high quality - - health care, graduate education, etc. . The european approach is quite attractive in many respects. But would a similar system work in a land as endeared with personal freedom, social mobility and entrepreneurial spirit as the US? I'm quite dubious of the prospect. As Obama himself has said, our traditions have evolved in substantially different directions, and under wholly disparate stimuli I might add, than those in Europe. Plus, our demographics and current entitlement obligations strongly suggest that we cannot afford anything even resembling a European style mixed economy! Of course, its long been apparent that Europe cannot afford it either, but that's a whole nother, albeit strongly related, matter.

I was left with an unsettled feeling after Obama's speech. He has not yet offered the clarity of vision that, say, Reagan (with whom I disagreed on almost, well, everything) was able. We cannot have confidence that there's equal measure of accumulated wisdom counterbalancing Obama's idealism. Reagan had many years to hone his ideas, and even test case many as governor of California. I'm growing concerned that this brilliant, insightful academic is planning on using the position of US president (aka Leader of the Free World) to test case hopeful, quixotic theories of activist government. Perhaps Obama is ahead of us all, foreseeing the emergence of a new center-left method of governance. Perhaps he envisions a sort of free market/social democratic hybrid that somehow manages to avoid the innovation inhibiting elements of the 20th century welfare state. Perhaps his finger is set firmly on the pulse of the moment and he sees a roadmap of progress set brightly lit upon the gloomy shadows of the current financial abyss. One can hope.

For me, though, there's something intellectually disingenuous (if politically adroit) about Obama calling himself a non-ideological pragmatist, leading people to believe he's a centrist but pursuing straight down the line liberal policies. And straight down the line liberal spending to boot. Now we know why the President didn't clamp down on house democrats during the stimulus process. Pelosi was indeed carrying Obama's water. Good to know.

So yes, I agree with Mr. Krauthammer: Obama finally has begun to lay his cards on the table. Its an audacious, sprawling agenda (the non word ginormous comes to mind). Tuesday night, as he segued into the middle section of the speech, I began to experience a feeling similar to when the drop begins at the apex of a rollercoaster. That incomparable mix of exhilaration and uncertainty that some internalize as thrill, others as fear. I certainly voted for change but, perhaps naively, didn't really comprehend just how much or exactly what kind of change - - and how uncertain the prospect would make me feel - - until this week.

Can he really do it ALL?

This guy nails on the head the unease I've been feeling recently. I'm glad to hear there's others who feel a similar measure of cautious optimism. I feel like eddie murphy in trading places when randolph and mortimer dukes start giving him dan akroyd's s**t, "you mean all this is mine now? this vase right here, this is mine?" What Obama is pledging fiscally feels too good to be true. Yet I'm hopeful he's able to do it ALL, knock it out of the park. Perhaps I've simply grown cynical and cold after years of fearing this country was allergic to common sense :

"Can Obama Really Do This?" by Marc Ambinder

Book Review

I just finished reading Barack Obama's book, "The Audacity Of Hope". I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that it's the first book, fiction or non, that I've completed in probably five or six years. Don't know why or when or how I lost the thirst for reading books but somewhere along the way I did. But thats a topic for another post. Reading the book in the context of the completed campaign, election and finally the installation of Obama as president I'm struck by the consistency of his themes across the past several years.

Now that we actually see Obama's ideas being put to practice, it'll be quite interesting to observe how successful he is in holding to his core values. Like some others, I wonder if even at this early stage of his presidency whether many of the central tenets of 'obamalogy' have already been disproven or shown to be frighteningly naive, just as his critics contended during the campaign. Was the new age-y utopian optimism of Obama's "we are the change we've been waiting for" mantra that appealed to so many across the political spectrum but a liberal version of Ronald Reagan's "shining beacon on a hill...morning in america", ie a steaming pile of cult-of-personality bulls**t? Back in the day many liberals decried Reagan's clarion call as post-eisenhower era idealism. But at least Reagan had the experience of the better part of a lifetime to draw upon and time spent as governor of CA to hone his (almost totally wacko in my view) political ideologies. I wonder whether with some of Obama's early struggles we are witnessing in real time some of the tangible disadvantages - - again just as the critics contended - - of choosing inexperienced idealism over experienced idealism? (presuming we desired some great measure of idealism) In my humble opinion the answer is pretty much yes and I find the realization disconcerting at best and frightening at worst. BUT (and its a big butt) I still think new blood was needed in our political dialogue and that Obama, at the least I'd say, has already shaken up the sticks in ways that we cannot even begin to measure. Furthermore, I wouldn't sell this Obama cat short. As with most objective observers, he strikes me as smart as whip, quick witted and willing and able to learn. If, as I'm suggesting above, his amalgam of policies and ideas do in fact embody a sort of ideology, it's an ideology that seemingly allows for great flexibility. This can cut both ways of course, and I think therein lies a paradox: basically we still don't really know what, when it all comes right down to it, Barack Obama stands for. And I must say I hope the watered-down jambalaya of a stimulus bill that he just bet IMO most of the political capital earned by his election on (he'll have to acquire more to get to spend more IMO) doesn't actually reveal the answer: Despite the books and the confidently delivered rhetoric perhaps even he doesn't yet know. I mean, when you listen to his economic surrogate, this Geithner cat, don't you just get the notion he's feeling his way in the dark??

The Banks...

My man Reed just hipped me to a really good short film which explains in easy-to-understand language what's happening with the banks. In short/sum, our system is built on a house-a-cards...I'm sure you're not surprised, but I was! I guess I'm still naive...

Money As Debt...

More on teachers...

Anyone who really knows me has heard me speak about my 'mentor', David Cole. I always think the word 'mentor' is a funny one; there was a saturday morning show during the '70s that depicted the DC comics superhero "Shaazam" as having had a mentor. In the show Shaazam was actually this teenage kid who wandered from town to dusty town alongside his 'mentor', an older man who I want to say was played by Brian Keith (father from "Family Affair" - - now THATs old school!). At the appropriate juncture in each story, the mentor would remind the kid that perhaps the particular situation/predicament called for, uh, Shaazam, and then the kid would do a whirl or something and transform into a grown a** man in red tights, yellow cape and yellow boots. A**es would be kicked, and then kid re-transformed into a kid and he and mentor would walk on into the suneset. So I must admit every time I think of a mentor I think of Shaazam. But what's really funny/interesting is that although I may not be a superhero (at least for all you know, and I'm not telling) what my main man David does for me, how he functions in my life is actually kinda on a similar model. He's always nudging on me to reach for my best, to exceed whatever limitations I may be placing on myself at a given point in time. During a formative period in my early adulthood, David helped me orient myself in some directions I yearned to go in but wasn't sure where to begin. 

Ostensibly, David was another of my guitar teachers and I did learn a great deal about music and guitar from him. However, what he's taught me, and continues to teach, about life has proved of even greater value. I'd say the single greatest impact he's had on my life thus far was in convincing me to go back to college and get a degree. At the time I'd dropped out (flunked out to be precise) of college and truly believed I was done with school. I thought it was boring and repetitive. I'd had a really fantastic prep school education that rendered college a largely moot exercise. It seemed as though there wasn't much more anyone at college could teach me about how to learn. And learning how to learn was all I was really interested in, cause once one learned how to learn one could teach hisself literally anything.  That was one of the handful of lessons I remembered my pop laying on me. By that time I was pretty much convinced that although I admittedly remained pretty ignorant on most topics I was confident I could figure out how to educate myself on a given subject whenever necessary. Sounds pretty arrogant I know, but thats what your SUPPOsed to think when you're young and stupid. Helps one generate the self inflicted misery by which one will emerge from youth and stupidity, or at least reduce one's quotient of youthful stupidity. Anyhow, David told me, hammered at me, that a college degree was a must. That especially for a black man in America a college degree was a shield against forces that, if they weren't actively trying to tear me down, were at the very least not actively seeking to build me up. I'm truly grateful that I listened to him. I'm convinced that possessing a college degree created access for me to a wealth of opportunities that I'd likely otherwise have missed out on. For example, being able to be hired for above entry level work facilitated the early days of my striving to live out my dreams. I'm pretty sure life would of been alot harder edged if I hadn't had that degree to fall back on during some iffy moments.

And I never have to wonder 'what if' I'd finished school. I graduated college cum laude, by the way, missing out on magna cum laude by a couple hundreds of a point. I missed out on magna cum laude because in my last semester I got a "C" in - - get this -- guitar. When I came back to college I largely put down the guitar and focused on studying and my instructor (that means u Wayne Goins!) gave me a "C" for lack of consistent effort. When I told him that his grade had cost me an honor he was shocked and apologetic and offered to change the grade but I told him not to bother. I guess I earned a "C" in his class. Anyhow, the older I get and the less I remember of that young Eddie Crockett chap, I grow more proud and self amused that I took an extended sabbatical from school in which I literally flunked out with a 1.2 gpa, lost my scholarship, did nothing but learn music and sing and dance and run around for as long as it pleased me and then returned to the scene of the crime and showed 'em who's boss. It may not be an accomplishment on the level of my pops, who as he graduated high school at 16 yrs old took the DC city wide exams given to every high school student in various subjects and won the highest score (and the accompanying scholarship money that went along with each) in EVERY subject. Heck it may not even be in the same universe as that amazing academic accomplishment but at least I know that I'm capable of significant achievement when I put my mind towards something...My man David's encouragement facilitated that growing bud of self awareness, along with too many others to mention...

Teachers

Was thinking about teachers yesterday....

Particularly those from whom I learned about music...

This cat at UDC, Calvin Jones, taught me pretty much everything I know -- or should I say what little bit I know -- about how music is constructed, about how to create tension and release with sound. A couple attributes that made him (passed away a couple of yrs ago) a great instructor: he truly had great reverence for his subject matter and also he had acquired true mastery of his subject matter. The one thing he said that really has yielded more and more to me over the years was, "You have to give all of yourself to the music, devote yourself entirely to it." A simple statement perhaps, but one fraught with meaning given the context of what we students knew of his life and the example he'd set in living it. When I knew him he was already close to 70 but one day he confided to me that he couldn't turn off the melodies and arrangements coming to him; that the ideas where coming to him at a greater rate and flow than ever. I learned so much from Dr. Jones just watching him go about his work. He demanded we push ourselves and can remember the joy in his eyes when he heard a new idea from one of us, heard us exploring new harmonic boundaries, reaching for greater sophistications.

So after ruminating on Calvin Jones, perhaps my favorite teacher ever, for awhile I began thinking further back to other teachers and instructors I've had along the way. I pretty much taught myself the basics of guitar. I could already play pretty decently when I figured out I could probably get further a bit faster if I watched and learned how someone more advanced did it. Embarrassingly, I cannot really remember the name of my first teacher; I think it was Derrick Scott. He took one look at me and tried to write me off as a poser. At the time, I was a singer in a hard rock band and probably looked every bit the part of 80's hair band frontman (or at least the black equivalent), so its not surprising he, being an accomplished r&b and jazz musician (his regular gig at the time was with Peabo Bryson), didn't take me too seriously. But somehow I convinced him I was sincere and so he taught me 'rhythm' changes and 'cherokee', two of the building block chord sequences of modern music. And thats pretty much all we worked with for as long as I was with him. Got to respect that, looking back: it was disciplined focus taken to an extreme. Next teacher was the great Jimmy Herring, from the Aquarian Rescue Unit and Allman Bros fame. One thing I remember learning from him was how to walk a bassline, which I immediately thought was the coolest possible thing to do on a guitar. Years later I came to realize how limited Jimmy's skill actually was in this area, which really tripped me out. He's such an amazing and accomplished all around player but even he has/had areas of relative weakness. And so I gradually became aware of how much there is to know about music, and guitar in particular. Helped to begin to instill a greater humility. From there I'd dabble every now and then with a teacher because I'd heard that even Wynton Marsalis still had a teacher/coach and that even the great John Coltrane kept studying with Dennis Sondoli (sp). I learned alot from a cat named Kenny Definnis, who really helped boost my self esteem because he was so encouraging. Took a few lessons from a dude named Denato, can't even remember if that was his first name or last. When I was day dreaming/reflecting on teachers yesterday when I got to Denato a real burst of awareness hit me. I think he may have been my most influential guitar instructor. As I say, I only took a few lessons from him. His personality was really sullen and aloof; in all honesty I thought he was a complete dick and I didn't like being around him. I was sure the feeling was mutual, he struck me as someone who loathed teaching. Especially arrogant, insecure f***ers like I was at the time. So perhaps it gave Denato some measure of pleasure to tell me all about what, in his opinion, I didn't know about music and guitar. Long story short he told me that my weakness was my ears. That I had good ears but that they were untrained. That I was limited not by my technical skill but my ability to hear the kind of harmonies that I sought. I really took the idea of developing my ears fully to heart. Both as a practical matter but also, and perhaps most importantly, as I means towards being more patient and understanding of myself. From then to the present day, I've been more and more aware of what I'm NOT able to hear and so I don't play that which I do not hear. Which is a real trip sometimes because I have studied quite abit of theory and harmony. But only slowly and grudgingly has much of the advanced harmony that I understand intellectually made sense to my ears. So I'd say I've really valued teachers like Denato who've told me pointedly where my weaknesses were. A wild, weirded out cat named John Thomas similarly took me to task a few years later. First thing John said to me after we initially traded solos was, "well you seem to know your chords and harmony pretty well, so we ought to get you to where you can play a decent solo". My feelings weren't hurt; he was a much, much better, more advanced player than I was. Eventually he diagnosed areas of weakness that I still had at the time that I still am chipping away at today. 

I suspect that most of the areas of scholastic weakness and frustrations I've had throughout my life are a result of my intellect being able to move along much faster than my skill level. I'm still working on developing the skill to match what I can comprehend. I suspect this is a really common experience: I'm sure many have at some point thought, "Man! If I could _______ (insert goal here) like I can inside my head, then I'd really be _____ (insert self- serving platitude here)!!" But at least for the past several years I'm not tortured or insecure about it. Time and experience has taught me thoroughly that just like the old school saying, "you are what you eat", I'm good at what I practice, and that my success in any one area of my life at any given time is almost directly a function of what kind of time and energy I devoted to that area. Most folks aren't just 'naturals'; most of us have to work at what we seek to get good at. I run part and parcel with the 'mosts'. But having said that, I've experienced a great many personal victories from having learned how to learn and also how to identify my own weaknesses. I have not always had the time or energy to devote to working on all of my weaknesses, but I do not fear them nor do I accept them. I battle on many fronts and on those fronts that I'm not able to battle at the moment I keep a constant warning out to, uh, myself: "I'm coming for you too..." And although perfection is an impossible goal, I'll keep aspiring to the goal so long as I draw breath. Which is what any good warrior does and has done.