Family, friends and fans of Patrick Swayze are mourning his passing today, myself among them. There have been moving accounts written and hopefully his wife Lisa is coping well with the support of loved ones; certainly her support for Patrick was important and uplifting. But among the things written and said, is something with which I cannot agree – the claim that Patrick ‘lost his battle with Cancer’. Patrick won, not the Cancer, and here’s why.
Cancer is a terrible thing to have to fight, even if you are lucky like me and it gets caught early. If the words “Stage Four” are attached to the diagnosis, it’s going to be painful and in most cases fatal. That does not mean, however, that you have to give up hope or stop living. That’s what Patrick understood, and he explained that if you focus only on fighting to stay alive, you might forget to really live. Patrick Swayze was true to his beliefs; he worked, rode his horses and maintained his farm right up to the end. It was painful for him, at times horribly so, and it cost Patrick in ways that no healthy person can understand, just to get through his days. But Patrick was determined to live his life on his terms, to not give in on anything that was important to him, and to fight his cencer with every ounce of strength he possessed.
Yes, Patrick Swayze died from his cancer, but so? We all must die, sooner or later, and if not from one thing then from another. No one gets out alive, as the saying goes, so the people who think that dying is losing have lost sight of why we live in the first place.
Patrick Swayze was brilliantly successful in pretty much everything he tried. He was a popular and accomplished dancer, actor, horse breeder and pilot (Patrick held an instrument rating for his twin-engine Cessna). But what impresses many people the most is the quality of the man himself. Patrick married Lisa Niemi in 1975, and their marriage lasted all his life. Patrick was raised as a Roman Catholic, but also studied Tai Chi and several schools of Buddhism. More to the point, Patrick established a well-deserved reputation as a thoroughly honest and hard-working man, a fighter for what he believed in, be it his work, his family, or his values. To the end, Patrick showed the world a man worth respect, admiration, and purpose.
Cancer took his life, but even so, Patrick Swayze won his battles.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
What 9/11 Means
Eight years ago, a team of terrorists killed three thousand innocent people for the advancement of an evil conspiracy. On the eighth anniversary of the most horrific act of evil deliberately perpetrated against the United States, the man in the White House is arguably the least ready in memory to effectively deal with an enemy who would, if they could, repeat that act on an even greater scale. The Congress of the United States has taken steps to disarm the men and women who protect the nation, while all but apologizing to the colleagues of the murderers for the U.S. getting in their way during the Bush Administration. And the people of America, once united in the face of the crisis, are divided and worn out by petty bickering and farcical mockeries of the duties and obligations of politicians in both major parties.
The nation is at war. It is an obscene fact that many Americans have managed to somehow forget that fact, to take for granted the efforts of our military to secure stable, free nations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that the war still continues to this day, with all the stakes and risk that existed from the beginning for those who put nation first.
Terrorists are not ‘criminals’, they are not ‘freedom-fighters’, they are not ‘misunderstood’. They do not have equal standing with the people they attack and kill. They do not have civil rights under any established law. They do not enjoy protection under the Geneva Convention. The Geneva convention was designed to protect combatants serving nations under certain rules of conduct, defined clearly and it’s not difficult at all to confirm that people who do not belong to any national army or militia, who do not operate under military protocols, who commits atrocities not in isolated cases but as deliberate strategy, do not enjoy identification as ‘combatants’ in the sense of that treaty. Terrorists commonly enter foreign countries to perform their murders, so it is not correct to presume that they enjoy the protection of law that is accorded citizens. And the very nature of their conduct and strategy makes it necessary to treat terrorists on a simple means of identification and extermination. Find them and kill them, end of story. If there is doubt, investigate, but if there is no doubt, then there is no quarter to be given. Terrorism by its nature is anathema to humanity, and therefore such groups must be exterminated in total whenever and wherever they are found.
Before 9/11, it was politically sensitive to deal directly against terrorists. This can be seen in the policies of airlines, for example, which told their crews not to resist hijackers, but cooperate in order to save lives. The 9/11 attacks made it clear not only that the old system was not functional, but hopelessly naïve. On the international level, as well, the clear focus and imperatives of the Bush Administration after 9/11 made it clear that informal wink-and-nod arrangements between terrorist groups and certain national political groups would no longer be tolerated. A new U.S. doctrine took effect, which required President Bush to set aside all his original plans and policies in deference to his commitment to defend America from the threat of terrorism.
Before 9/11, religious thought regarding terrorists was sparse, especially among Muslims. Since Islam does not emphasize a separation of Church and State (quite the opposite, the very concept of Dar-al-Islam presumes mutual religious and military conquest of all the world), there was no overt debate on the morality of terrorist actions – those who opposed such actions thought them too incidental to address in the context of the faith as a whole, and those who supported such actions thought it unnecessary to risk dissension by discussing the religious context of the actions. A few Muslim sheiks had observed Koranic prohibitions against killing known innocents, especially women and children, that suicide was permissible in defense of innocents but not in murder of same, even if Dar-al-Harb. After 9/11, Muslims found themselves more compelled to examine their faith in the light of such actions, to decide not only whether terrorism should be part of their faith but also what their response as Muslims should be to terrorism acts by Muslim extremists. Non-Muslims found that they knew little of Islam, and often judged the entire faith by the actions of its most extreme. As with all faiths, prejudice and history have been difficult for people to overcome, both outside of and within the community of faith.
Prior to 9/11, there was a belief in some quarters of the world that supporting a terrorist group could advance a national strategy, and in so doing produce an economic benefit for their country or government. It is now more generally recognized that Terrorism is economic parasitism. By its nature, terrorist groups consume goods and destroy people and materials; it is literally impossible for terrorism to create gain or improve economic conditions. Economics is not, and has never been and never will be, a zero-sum game; any farmer can tell you that his neighbor’s misfortune in no way helps his crops or livestock, and in many ways another’s loss threatens his own well-being. That fact is now more apparent than ever before, giving regimes pause in considering the results of supporting such groups.
Before 9/11, there was some discussion that American military force was not up to the job in all places, that “lessons” in places like Mogadishu and Haiti showed the limits to U.S. power and influence, and various apologists for defeatism and appeasement pushed to scale back the size and mission of the American military, and to replace pro-American doctrines with policies of retreat and surrender, similar to the British pull-backs following World War 2, on the theory that U.S. interests represented imperial designs. This lie ironically found increased support in the fiction of the “peace dividend” after the fall of the Warsaw Pact, as if the ensuing chaos in a part of the world with more than 50,000 nuclear warheads was of no concern, or that other nations would not rush in to fill the void of power left with the fall of the Soviet Union, with attendant threat to American interests and citizens. While America power was clearly impressive in the first Gulf War of 1990-91, critics charged that things would be far different if the U.S. were committed to a long war, or tried to actually change the political structure of a major Mid-East country.
The long war in Iraq and Afghanistan proved the critics wrong again. The war has been difficult, costly, painful, and if Obama lacks the backbone to stay the course, great damage could still be done to American goals and interests in the region, but at present any objective analysis of the war would conclude that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are a vast improvement on their predecessors, in terms of freedom, economic opportunity, and security for their citizens and the region. Whether the war’s cause was just or the results worth the cost may be debated, but the U.S. military clearly established an unsurpassed and undeniable ability to assert its power anywhere, anytime. The ramifications of this proof become obvious when the history of the region is examined.
In summary, 9/11 was a horrific atrocity, perpetrated by evil minds who have in some part come to a just yet terrible consequence, and in others deferred their reckoning to when they must stand before God. We have seen valor and heroism from many places, some unexpected, and loathsome hypocrisy and pusillanimity from others, especially those in privileged and public positions of celebrity and the avant-garde. We have seen the Mainstream Media sabotage its own credibility, and grass-roots bloggers rise to a degree of public acclaim and success. Our military has lost thousands of casualties in two campaigns, only to see the new President discount their sacrifice in hopes of gaining political coin for himself from our enemies. Both major political parties have demonstrated a grievous lack of commitment to fundamental American priorities and values, and few of the federal elected officials make themselves available to regular citizens, let alone accountable.
Yet for all of this, eight years after 9/11, our friends and enemies alike understand that there is a core of resolve in America unlike any other country, that there is a well of strength and purpose in this nation which no enemy may hope to overcome and no friend may fear will totally fail. We may be delayed, and we may take losses, but in the end, sooner or later we shall prevail. Not because Americans are better than other nations, but because this nation stands for the best of every nation, and while our methods may falter, our cause is just. No tyrant, no terrorist, no turncoat, no traducer shall win against us.
The nation is at war. It is an obscene fact that many Americans have managed to somehow forget that fact, to take for granted the efforts of our military to secure stable, free nations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that the war still continues to this day, with all the stakes and risk that existed from the beginning for those who put nation first.
Terrorists are not ‘criminals’, they are not ‘freedom-fighters’, they are not ‘misunderstood’. They do not have equal standing with the people they attack and kill. They do not have civil rights under any established law. They do not enjoy protection under the Geneva Convention. The Geneva convention was designed to protect combatants serving nations under certain rules of conduct, defined clearly and it’s not difficult at all to confirm that people who do not belong to any national army or militia, who do not operate under military protocols, who commits atrocities not in isolated cases but as deliberate strategy, do not enjoy identification as ‘combatants’ in the sense of that treaty. Terrorists commonly enter foreign countries to perform their murders, so it is not correct to presume that they enjoy the protection of law that is accorded citizens. And the very nature of their conduct and strategy makes it necessary to treat terrorists on a simple means of identification and extermination. Find them and kill them, end of story. If there is doubt, investigate, but if there is no doubt, then there is no quarter to be given. Terrorism by its nature is anathema to humanity, and therefore such groups must be exterminated in total whenever and wherever they are found.
Before 9/11, it was politically sensitive to deal directly against terrorists. This can be seen in the policies of airlines, for example, which told their crews not to resist hijackers, but cooperate in order to save lives. The 9/11 attacks made it clear not only that the old system was not functional, but hopelessly naïve. On the international level, as well, the clear focus and imperatives of the Bush Administration after 9/11 made it clear that informal wink-and-nod arrangements between terrorist groups and certain national political groups would no longer be tolerated. A new U.S. doctrine took effect, which required President Bush to set aside all his original plans and policies in deference to his commitment to defend America from the threat of terrorism.
Before 9/11, religious thought regarding terrorists was sparse, especially among Muslims. Since Islam does not emphasize a separation of Church and State (quite the opposite, the very concept of Dar-al-Islam presumes mutual religious and military conquest of all the world), there was no overt debate on the morality of terrorist actions – those who opposed such actions thought them too incidental to address in the context of the faith as a whole, and those who supported such actions thought it unnecessary to risk dissension by discussing the religious context of the actions. A few Muslim sheiks had observed Koranic prohibitions against killing known innocents, especially women and children, that suicide was permissible in defense of innocents but not in murder of same, even if Dar-al-Harb. After 9/11, Muslims found themselves more compelled to examine their faith in the light of such actions, to decide not only whether terrorism should be part of their faith but also what their response as Muslims should be to terrorism acts by Muslim extremists. Non-Muslims found that they knew little of Islam, and often judged the entire faith by the actions of its most extreme. As with all faiths, prejudice and history have been difficult for people to overcome, both outside of and within the community of faith.
Prior to 9/11, there was a belief in some quarters of the world that supporting a terrorist group could advance a national strategy, and in so doing produce an economic benefit for their country or government. It is now more generally recognized that Terrorism is economic parasitism. By its nature, terrorist groups consume goods and destroy people and materials; it is literally impossible for terrorism to create gain or improve economic conditions. Economics is not, and has never been and never will be, a zero-sum game; any farmer can tell you that his neighbor’s misfortune in no way helps his crops or livestock, and in many ways another’s loss threatens his own well-being. That fact is now more apparent than ever before, giving regimes pause in considering the results of supporting such groups.
Before 9/11, there was some discussion that American military force was not up to the job in all places, that “lessons” in places like Mogadishu and Haiti showed the limits to U.S. power and influence, and various apologists for defeatism and appeasement pushed to scale back the size and mission of the American military, and to replace pro-American doctrines with policies of retreat and surrender, similar to the British pull-backs following World War 2, on the theory that U.S. interests represented imperial designs. This lie ironically found increased support in the fiction of the “peace dividend” after the fall of the Warsaw Pact, as if the ensuing chaos in a part of the world with more than 50,000 nuclear warheads was of no concern, or that other nations would not rush in to fill the void of power left with the fall of the Soviet Union, with attendant threat to American interests and citizens. While America power was clearly impressive in the first Gulf War of 1990-91, critics charged that things would be far different if the U.S. were committed to a long war, or tried to actually change the political structure of a major Mid-East country.
The long war in Iraq and Afghanistan proved the critics wrong again. The war has been difficult, costly, painful, and if Obama lacks the backbone to stay the course, great damage could still be done to American goals and interests in the region, but at present any objective analysis of the war would conclude that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are a vast improvement on their predecessors, in terms of freedom, economic opportunity, and security for their citizens and the region. Whether the war’s cause was just or the results worth the cost may be debated, but the U.S. military clearly established an unsurpassed and undeniable ability to assert its power anywhere, anytime. The ramifications of this proof become obvious when the history of the region is examined.
In summary, 9/11 was a horrific atrocity, perpetrated by evil minds who have in some part come to a just yet terrible consequence, and in others deferred their reckoning to when they must stand before God. We have seen valor and heroism from many places, some unexpected, and loathsome hypocrisy and pusillanimity from others, especially those in privileged and public positions of celebrity and the avant-garde. We have seen the Mainstream Media sabotage its own credibility, and grass-roots bloggers rise to a degree of public acclaim and success. Our military has lost thousands of casualties in two campaigns, only to see the new President discount their sacrifice in hopes of gaining political coin for himself from our enemies. Both major political parties have demonstrated a grievous lack of commitment to fundamental American priorities and values, and few of the federal elected officials make themselves available to regular citizens, let alone accountable.
Yet for all of this, eight years after 9/11, our friends and enemies alike understand that there is a core of resolve in America unlike any other country, that there is a well of strength and purpose in this nation which no enemy may hope to overcome and no friend may fear will totally fail. We may be delayed, and we may take losses, but in the end, sooner or later we shall prevail. Not because Americans are better than other nations, but because this nation stands for the best of every nation, and while our methods may falter, our cause is just. No tyrant, no terrorist, no turncoat, no traducer shall win against us.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Responsibility and Accountability
On Thursday September 3, the University of Oregon played Boise State in a season-opening game which was important to both schools, as they were each nationally-ranked and hoping to start off strong. The game ended in a 19-8 win for Boise State, after starting with a larger-than-usual show of sportsmanship. An ironic gesture, given the ending. At the game's end, Byron Hout of Boise State approached LeGarrette Blount of Oregon, slapped him on the shoulder pad to get his attention, and yelled something at him which has not yet been revealed to the public. As he turned away to face Boise State head coach Chris Peterson, who was pulling Hout away from Blount, Blount angrily launched a punch which landed on Hout's jaw. To make matters worse, Blount then attempted to punch another player, struggled with his own teammates as they wrestled him towards the locker room, and had to be restrained by police from attacking fans who taunted him at the stands as he left the field. Still worse, the game and the actions of Blount were nationally televised by ESPN. And then the day after that, it was discovered that Blount had been suspended from the Oregon team back in February.
Friday, Oregon coach Chip Kelley suspended running back LaGarrette Blount for the rest of the season.
To some degree, the decision to end Blount's collegiate career (he is a Senior, and the suspension includes any bowl games that Oregon may earn) was predictable. Blount's action was not only blatent and deliberate, not to mention nationally televised, Coach Kelly serves on the NCAA's committee which address athletes' sportsmanship, and Kelly had already been under fire for an apparent lack of discipline on the Ducks' team. The public opinion on the matter seemed to demand a heavy punishment, and so the axe fell quickly in this case. To be honest, I don't know that I disagree all that much with the decision, except of course that Blount will not have a public opportunity to show his better side. I might have expected an indefinite suspension to be a better fit, but on the other hand the Oregon officials have sent a clear message and presumably have put this behind them.
But I am writing this article to address the other man who needs to accept accountability: Byron Hout. No, I am not saying that Hout should be suspended or even given any kind of official punishment for his part in the incident. That said, I am concerned about his part in the event. Hout chose to come over to Blount, whatever he said was obviously meant to be trash talk, and Hout's grinning face as he turned towards his coach indicates that he was just fine with insulting a key player on an opposing team. What Hout did was clearly out of bounds. If it has happened during the game, it would have earned a penalty for taunting, and I speak as a former UIL football official in Texas (which uses the NCAA rulebook). Normally, a good coach considers the damage done when assessing punishment to a player for an infraction. A face-mask penalty, for example, one thing, but if they score the winning touchdown because on 3rd-and-20 you tackled the runner by his facemask, then you are in big trouble. A false start may not be a big deal, unless of course it happens on 4th down and pushes you just out of field goal range. And sportsmanship is a much bigger issue when something you say impacts the game's outcome or the image of the school. Back in my day, players were expected to wear dress clothes and ties on the bus and to represent the school and team, with total respect. It was silly at times and made the trip longer. But then again, you knew you stood for something worth your work, win or lose. Call me old school, but the sport could do with getting back to that.
Coach Peterson has said that he will meet privately with Hout and considers the incident a 'teachable moment'. The problem, of course, is that the incident was public and Hout needs to make some gesture to show he recognizes that his taunt started a series of actions which had serious consequences. Hout did not make Blount throw a punch, but he knew he was not acting in the best interests of his school, team, or the game. And Hout's unsporting behavior was public, and so it needs a public response. At the very least, Hout should apologize in public for his behavior, and Peterson needs to show that such behavior has consequences, real ones.
Friday, Oregon coach Chip Kelley suspended running back LaGarrette Blount for the rest of the season.
To some degree, the decision to end Blount's collegiate career (he is a Senior, and the suspension includes any bowl games that Oregon may earn) was predictable. Blount's action was not only blatent and deliberate, not to mention nationally televised, Coach Kelly serves on the NCAA's committee which address athletes' sportsmanship, and Kelly had already been under fire for an apparent lack of discipline on the Ducks' team. The public opinion on the matter seemed to demand a heavy punishment, and so the axe fell quickly in this case. To be honest, I don't know that I disagree all that much with the decision, except of course that Blount will not have a public opportunity to show his better side. I might have expected an indefinite suspension to be a better fit, but on the other hand the Oregon officials have sent a clear message and presumably have put this behind them.
But I am writing this article to address the other man who needs to accept accountability: Byron Hout. No, I am not saying that Hout should be suspended or even given any kind of official punishment for his part in the incident. That said, I am concerned about his part in the event. Hout chose to come over to Blount, whatever he said was obviously meant to be trash talk, and Hout's grinning face as he turned towards his coach indicates that he was just fine with insulting a key player on an opposing team. What Hout did was clearly out of bounds. If it has happened during the game, it would have earned a penalty for taunting, and I speak as a former UIL football official in Texas (which uses the NCAA rulebook). Normally, a good coach considers the damage done when assessing punishment to a player for an infraction. A face-mask penalty, for example, one thing, but if they score the winning touchdown because on 3rd-and-20 you tackled the runner by his facemask, then you are in big trouble. A false start may not be a big deal, unless of course it happens on 4th down and pushes you just out of field goal range. And sportsmanship is a much bigger issue when something you say impacts the game's outcome or the image of the school. Back in my day, players were expected to wear dress clothes and ties on the bus and to represent the school and team, with total respect. It was silly at times and made the trip longer. But then again, you knew you stood for something worth your work, win or lose. Call me old school, but the sport could do with getting back to that.
Coach Peterson has said that he will meet privately with Hout and considers the incident a 'teachable moment'. The problem, of course, is that the incident was public and Hout needs to make some gesture to show he recognizes that his taunt started a series of actions which had serious consequences. Hout did not make Blount throw a punch, but he knew he was not acting in the best interests of his school, team, or the game. And Hout's unsporting behavior was public, and so it needs a public response. At the very least, Hout should apologize in public for his behavior, and Peterson needs to show that such behavior has consequences, real ones.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Cheating in the Matrix
The Oracle: What about the others?
The Architect: ...What others?
The Oracle: The ones that want out.
The Architect: Obviously they shall be freed.
The Oracle: I have your word?
The Architect: What do you think I am? Human?
- from Matrix:Revolutions
This exchange at the end of the third Matrix movie is often missed by Matrix fans, as almost a throwaway line. However, anyone who has dug into the meanings and symbolism of the movies should know the Wachowski brothers pretty much never throw away a scene or a message. The Oracle may well be accusing the Architect of trying to cheat.
To understand, let’s go back to Neo’s discussion with the Architect in the second movie, Matrix:Reloaded. Here is the relevant section, as the Architect explains how the Matrix was developed:
Neo: Why am I here?
Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent in the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden deciduously avoided it is not unexpected and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you inexcerably here.
Neo: You haven't answered my question.
Architect: Quite right. Interesting, that was quicker then the others.
The Architect begins by noting that Neo is tied to the Matrix. He is the ‘remainder’ of an equation which does not quite work out, the ‘eventuality of an anomaly’ as the Architect sees things, and in the Architect’s opinion something which needs to be controlled. For the Architect, then, the goal is to control Neo and so control the Matrix.
Architect: The Matrix is older then you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next. In which case this is the sixth version.
Neo: Then there are only two possible explanations, either no one told me, or no one knows.
Architect: Precisely, as you are undoubtedly gathering the anomaly is systemic. Creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.
Neo: Choice, the problem is choice.
This is a very important admission by the Architect! The Architect admits to Neo that the Matrix is unstable and the very existence of the One destabilizes the entire system. Further, since the Architect does not limit his observation to the Matrix construct, but expands it to ‘even the most simplistic equations’, he implies that the existence of the One threatens the system integrity of the entire Machine infrastructure! This is implied by the end actions in Matrix:Reloaded, as Neo is able to disable Sentinels despite being outside the Matrix.
Why does the Architect say this to Neo? There are three reasons that occur to me. First, the audience needs to hear this, and since there is no objective narrator for the movies, it has to come from a major character. Second, the Architect has seen five versions of ‘The One’ come and go before, so he hardly considers Neo a threat. What’s more, we already see that the Architect regards the Oracle with contempt, so it should be no surprise that the Architect believes he could say even something this important to Neo with no worry that Neo would grasp the full implications. And third, this foreshadows the end, the macro-evolution of the universe, as both humans and machines are compelled to deal with a new paradigm. Humans and machines must, as the Oracle said, move together if they are to move forward.
The Architect goes on to explain the creation and development of the Matrix:
Architect: The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect; it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus, I redesigned it, Based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However I was again frustrated my failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus the answer was stumbled upon by another and intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche.
It’s worth noting here, that the Architect never accepts blame for the failure of his creation, instead assuming the guilt must lie with humans, even where they are not making decisions or acting of their own volition. Going on, we see how the Architect built choice into the Matrix:
Architect: [the Oracle] stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99 percent of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at an unconscious level. While this answered function it was obviously fundamentally flawed thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly. That if left unchecked might threaten the system itself, ergo those that refuse the program while the minority if unchecked would cause an escalating probability of disaster.
Somebody’s cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeating. The Architect realizes that the Matrix will only work if humans are allowed a choice. But, hating humans as he does the Architect buries that choice at ‘an unconscious level’.
Think about that. Suppose you are taking a multiple-choice test, and the correct answer to a certain question is ‘D’, but on the paper you are only presented with answers A, B, and C. The only way you could correctly answer the question is to realize you are being tricked and refuse to accept the conditions presented to you. Hence the need for humans to reject the Matrix completely in order to make the choice. That is, in truth no one chooses the blue pill, because in making any choice the false condition must ab initio be refuted. All we are doing is, as the Oracle told Neo, is figuring out what the choice means.
Why does the Architect feel that he needs to cheat? Because as he says, the people who refuse the program ‘cause an escalating probability of disaster’. Therefore the Architect wants as few people as possible to even have that choice.
The Architect now goes on to tell Neo what he expects him to do:
Architect: The function of the One is now to return to the source allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry reinserting the prime program after which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 individuals, 16 female 7 male, to rebuild Zion. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix. Which, coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race.
Neo: You won't let it happen, you can't. You need human beings to survive.
Architect: There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept.
The Architect is lying there. How do we know this? Because he cheated the Matrix code to hide human choice at the unconscious level, specifically to avoid ‘an escalating probability of disaster’. What kind of disaster? Maybe a ‘cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix’? The Architect’s explanation refutes his later claim to indifference.
Architect: Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end. There are two doors, the door to your right leads to the source and the salvation of Zion, the door to your left leads back to the matrix to her and to the end of your species. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know we you are going to do don't we?
Another mistake. The Architect fully expects Neo to do what everyone before him has done, but even in this short interview we have seen evidence that Neo is not like the others – he’s faster to notice things, he has a direct connection in love, and even as the Architect speaks Neo is moving – to the left door, the one that threatens disaster if the Architect is correct.
The Architect figured he knew humans well enough to predict even their most important decisions. Small wonder the Wachowski brothers made him look like Sigmund Freud, another poser who knew less than he claimed.
The Architect is in a real mess, and if he wasn’t so hateful and arrogant we could almost feel sorry for him. The machines depend on humans just as humans depend on machines – something mentioned throughout the Matrix films – and so if the Matrix fails everyone’s in for a bad time. The plan up to now had been to use The One in each generation as a kind of relief valve for system anomaly, replacing him with a fresh new empty every so often to keep things running. But Neo rejects the plan and introduces pure chaos into the equation. The Architect must have seen some possibility of this decision, although as the Oracle explains he could not see the consequences past the choice. So he attempted to rig the game. In that context, small wonder that at the end of things the Oracle asks if he’s going to do as he claims.
It also occurs to me that the Oracle has been cheating a bit herself, maybe. Why do I say that? Go back to the first Matrix movie, where Morpheus is bringing Neo to see the Oracle. What does Neo see in the apartment?
Priestess: Hello, Neo. You're right on time.... Make yourself at home, Morpheus. Neo, come with me.... These are the other potentials, you can wait here.
Ahem ... ‘other potentials’? And what, do you think, happens with those guys? Let’s not forget, the Oracle can see the future. Remember this?
Oracle: I'd ask you to sit down, but you’re not going to anyway. And don't worry about the vase.
Neo: (turning) What vase?
- Neo breaks vase -
Oracle: That vase.
Neo: I'm sorry.
Oracle: I said don't worry about it. I'll get one of my students to fix it.
Neo: How did you know?
Oracle: What's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?
There’s other statements like that, but the point is she knew or had reason to know that Neo is the The One, and in that case what is she planning with the other ‘potentials’, her ‘students’? Well, one thing that occurs to me is that if the Machines are watching Neo, ‘The One’, maybe these other guys can do things that are important but won’t be noticed. After all, isn’t interesting what happens with Sati, even if we don’t get to see exactly what she’s been doing?
Small wonder the Architect greets the Oracle at the end of the movies in this way:
Architect: You’ve played a very dangerous game.
So, the Oracle was probably cheating and the Architect was definitely cheating. What does that mean, in the big picture?
It means that the conclusion, as Smith always said, is inevitable. In exploring the behavior we see that even the Architect, who designed the Matrix, has chosen to disobey his own terms. Disobedience implies both choice and irrationality, and so we see that human nature is so pervasive that even the entity in charge on containing and controlling humanity is influenced by human nature in his decisions and actions. Which in the end is not surprising at all. Machines were created by man, and so may be said to exist ‘in his image’. And in any case, one logical conclusion from an examination of the earlier failed matrices would have to be designer error – the Architect is the principal culprit of his failure, psychologically justifying the creation of the very anomaly that would in the end of things alter his own reality.
The Architect: ...What others?
The Oracle: The ones that want out.
The Architect: Obviously they shall be freed.
The Oracle: I have your word?
The Architect: What do you think I am? Human?
- from Matrix:Revolutions
This exchange at the end of the third Matrix movie is often missed by Matrix fans, as almost a throwaway line. However, anyone who has dug into the meanings and symbolism of the movies should know the Wachowski brothers pretty much never throw away a scene or a message. The Oracle may well be accusing the Architect of trying to cheat.
To understand, let’s go back to Neo’s discussion with the Architect in the second movie, Matrix:Reloaded. Here is the relevant section, as the Architect explains how the Matrix was developed:
Neo: Why am I here?
Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent in the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden deciduously avoided it is not unexpected and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you inexcerably here.
Neo: You haven't answered my question.
Architect: Quite right. Interesting, that was quicker then the others.
The Architect begins by noting that Neo is tied to the Matrix. He is the ‘remainder’ of an equation which does not quite work out, the ‘eventuality of an anomaly’ as the Architect sees things, and in the Architect’s opinion something which needs to be controlled. For the Architect, then, the goal is to control Neo and so control the Matrix.
Architect: The Matrix is older then you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next. In which case this is the sixth version.
Neo: Then there are only two possible explanations, either no one told me, or no one knows.
Architect: Precisely, as you are undoubtedly gathering the anomaly is systemic. Creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.
Neo: Choice, the problem is choice.
This is a very important admission by the Architect! The Architect admits to Neo that the Matrix is unstable and the very existence of the One destabilizes the entire system. Further, since the Architect does not limit his observation to the Matrix construct, but expands it to ‘even the most simplistic equations’, he implies that the existence of the One threatens the system integrity of the entire Machine infrastructure! This is implied by the end actions in Matrix:Reloaded, as Neo is able to disable Sentinels despite being outside the Matrix.
Why does the Architect say this to Neo? There are three reasons that occur to me. First, the audience needs to hear this, and since there is no objective narrator for the movies, it has to come from a major character. Second, the Architect has seen five versions of ‘The One’ come and go before, so he hardly considers Neo a threat. What’s more, we already see that the Architect regards the Oracle with contempt, so it should be no surprise that the Architect believes he could say even something this important to Neo with no worry that Neo would grasp the full implications. And third, this foreshadows the end, the macro-evolution of the universe, as both humans and machines are compelled to deal with a new paradigm. Humans and machines must, as the Oracle said, move together if they are to move forward.
The Architect goes on to explain the creation and development of the Matrix:
Architect: The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect; it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus, I redesigned it, Based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However I was again frustrated my failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus the answer was stumbled upon by another and intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche.
It’s worth noting here, that the Architect never accepts blame for the failure of his creation, instead assuming the guilt must lie with humans, even where they are not making decisions or acting of their own volition. Going on, we see how the Architect built choice into the Matrix:
Architect: [the Oracle] stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99 percent of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at an unconscious level. While this answered function it was obviously fundamentally flawed thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly. That if left unchecked might threaten the system itself, ergo those that refuse the program while the minority if unchecked would cause an escalating probability of disaster.
Somebody’s cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeating. The Architect realizes that the Matrix will only work if humans are allowed a choice. But, hating humans as he does the Architect buries that choice at ‘an unconscious level’.
Think about that. Suppose you are taking a multiple-choice test, and the correct answer to a certain question is ‘D’, but on the paper you are only presented with answers A, B, and C. The only way you could correctly answer the question is to realize you are being tricked and refuse to accept the conditions presented to you. Hence the need for humans to reject the Matrix completely in order to make the choice. That is, in truth no one chooses the blue pill, because in making any choice the false condition must ab initio be refuted. All we are doing is, as the Oracle told Neo, is figuring out what the choice means.
Why does the Architect feel that he needs to cheat? Because as he says, the people who refuse the program ‘cause an escalating probability of disaster’. Therefore the Architect wants as few people as possible to even have that choice.
The Architect now goes on to tell Neo what he expects him to do:
Architect: The function of the One is now to return to the source allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry reinserting the prime program after which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 individuals, 16 female 7 male, to rebuild Zion. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix. Which, coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race.
Neo: You won't let it happen, you can't. You need human beings to survive.
Architect: There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept.
The Architect is lying there. How do we know this? Because he cheated the Matrix code to hide human choice at the unconscious level, specifically to avoid ‘an escalating probability of disaster’. What kind of disaster? Maybe a ‘cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix’? The Architect’s explanation refutes his later claim to indifference.
Architect: Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end. There are two doors, the door to your right leads to the source and the salvation of Zion, the door to your left leads back to the matrix to her and to the end of your species. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know we you are going to do don't we?
Another mistake. The Architect fully expects Neo to do what everyone before him has done, but even in this short interview we have seen evidence that Neo is not like the others – he’s faster to notice things, he has a direct connection in love, and even as the Architect speaks Neo is moving – to the left door, the one that threatens disaster if the Architect is correct.
The Architect figured he knew humans well enough to predict even their most important decisions. Small wonder the Wachowski brothers made him look like Sigmund Freud, another poser who knew less than he claimed.
The Architect is in a real mess, and if he wasn’t so hateful and arrogant we could almost feel sorry for him. The machines depend on humans just as humans depend on machines – something mentioned throughout the Matrix films – and so if the Matrix fails everyone’s in for a bad time. The plan up to now had been to use The One in each generation as a kind of relief valve for system anomaly, replacing him with a fresh new empty every so often to keep things running. But Neo rejects the plan and introduces pure chaos into the equation. The Architect must have seen some possibility of this decision, although as the Oracle explains he could not see the consequences past the choice. So he attempted to rig the game. In that context, small wonder that at the end of things the Oracle asks if he’s going to do as he claims.
It also occurs to me that the Oracle has been cheating a bit herself, maybe. Why do I say that? Go back to the first Matrix movie, where Morpheus is bringing Neo to see the Oracle. What does Neo see in the apartment?
Priestess: Hello, Neo. You're right on time.... Make yourself at home, Morpheus. Neo, come with me.... These are the other potentials, you can wait here.
Ahem ... ‘other potentials’? And what, do you think, happens with those guys? Let’s not forget, the Oracle can see the future. Remember this?
Oracle: I'd ask you to sit down, but you’re not going to anyway. And don't worry about the vase.
Neo: (turning) What vase?
- Neo breaks vase -
Oracle: That vase.
Neo: I'm sorry.
Oracle: I said don't worry about it. I'll get one of my students to fix it.
Neo: How did you know?
Oracle: What's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?
There’s other statements like that, but the point is she knew or had reason to know that Neo is the The One, and in that case what is she planning with the other ‘potentials’, her ‘students’? Well, one thing that occurs to me is that if the Machines are watching Neo, ‘The One’, maybe these other guys can do things that are important but won’t be noticed. After all, isn’t interesting what happens with Sati, even if we don’t get to see exactly what she’s been doing?
Small wonder the Architect greets the Oracle at the end of the movies in this way:
Architect: You’ve played a very dangerous game.
So, the Oracle was probably cheating and the Architect was definitely cheating. What does that mean, in the big picture?
It means that the conclusion, as Smith always said, is inevitable. In exploring the behavior we see that even the Architect, who designed the Matrix, has chosen to disobey his own terms. Disobedience implies both choice and irrationality, and so we see that human nature is so pervasive that even the entity in charge on containing and controlling humanity is influenced by human nature in his decisions and actions. Which in the end is not surprising at all. Machines were created by man, and so may be said to exist ‘in his image’. And in any case, one logical conclusion from an examination of the earlier failed matrices would have to be designer error – the Architect is the principal culprit of his failure, psychologically justifying the creation of the very anomaly that would in the end of things alter his own reality.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
More on The Spoon
The Buddha once taught his disciples, that if a man said he had a soul they should disagree. He then went on to also say that if a man said he had no soul, again they should disagree. This is a paradox of the transcendent, an observation about both the stabile unchanging nature of the universe, and also its chaotic upredictable condition of constant change. We regularly learn to do and become things which are impossible at the earlier time. This requires, in some situations, for a person to step away from the world he knows and accept one he does not know, to replace the present form with the desired version.
In The Matrix, the world of the Matrix is illusory in that none of the material facts are true, yet the people who live there are real, the things they do are real and if someone dies in the Matrix world, they die for real. Thus, we see that transcendent paradox present in the Matrix, and the lesson here is that our world is similarly transcendent.
In the films we often see Jedi Masters demonstrating the results of apparent meditation and intospection - these are done off-camera for obvious cinematic reasons, but we should not ignore their occurence. So too in the human world, many masters in different fields act only after long prior consideration and introspection.
Consider that in the films, the Jedi Masters Yoda, Obi Wan, and Anikin all die, and their resolution following death is subtly but undeniably different. We also see their way of action and even thought in different dimensions. It should follow that Jedi, being individuals in the majority of their lives, also find distinctive and personal identities in their walk. The paradox here is that in losing the pride of self, they refine their perception of the nouminous, and so are unfooled by mere phenomenon.
The 'spoon' I refute, therefore, is not the material spoon, but the phenomenon of the spoon. The underlying reality remains and is seen for its true character ad purpose, and as such true wisdom and attainment are made possible.
In The Matrix, the world of the Matrix is illusory in that none of the material facts are true, yet the people who live there are real, the things they do are real and if someone dies in the Matrix world, they die for real. Thus, we see that transcendent paradox present in the Matrix, and the lesson here is that our world is similarly transcendent.
In the films we often see Jedi Masters demonstrating the results of apparent meditation and intospection - these are done off-camera for obvious cinematic reasons, but we should not ignore their occurence. So too in the human world, many masters in different fields act only after long prior consideration and introspection.
Consider that in the films, the Jedi Masters Yoda, Obi Wan, and Anikin all die, and their resolution following death is subtly but undeniably different. We also see their way of action and even thought in different dimensions. It should follow that Jedi, being individuals in the majority of their lives, also find distinctive and personal identities in their walk. The paradox here is that in losing the pride of self, they refine their perception of the nouminous, and so are unfooled by mere phenomenon.
The 'spoon' I refute, therefore, is not the material spoon, but the phenomenon of the spoon. The underlying reality remains and is seen for its true character ad purpose, and as such true wisdom and attainment are made possible.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Matrix and Jedi
There is no spoon.
Early in the movie The Matrix, the character Neo meets with a number of "potentials" in the sitting room of an apartment of a being known as 'The Oracle'. I'm not going to go too far into that film, so no worries if you have not seen The Matrix, but I recommend the movie because it helps illustrate something of how the Jedi mindset works. There is something of the Zen in both cultures, even if the movie is fictional and the origin of Jedi as well. That is, a valid source is valid regardless of its cause and development. Also, just as in The Matrix the character Neo discovers that his world is illusory and his potential exceeds far beyond the apparent boundaries imposed by his perception, so too do the Jedi discover abilities which transcend beyond their own apparent limits. While some people may regard this observation as a naïve claim to supernatural abilities, in reality this discovery reminds the Jedi to doubt his senses, trust intution and find his core essence. When attained, this ability not only improve physical limits to some degree, but also perception, critical thinking and meditation.
In The Matrix, Neo meets a young boy who appears to be bending and unbending a spoon with his mind. The boy explains that this can only be done when you realize that there is no spoon. Later, Neo ralizes that because the Matrix is a world that does not exist in reality but is merely virtual, he can manipulate the Matrix to change the world as he sees fit, provided he focuses on the underlying reality instead of superficial perceptions. That is a valid lesson for the Jedi as well, as expressed in Yoda’s maxim “Do … or do not. There is no ‘try’.”
Early in the movie The Matrix, the character Neo meets with a number of "potentials" in the sitting room of an apartment of a being known as 'The Oracle'. I'm not going to go too far into that film, so no worries if you have not seen The Matrix, but I recommend the movie because it helps illustrate something of how the Jedi mindset works. There is something of the Zen in both cultures, even if the movie is fictional and the origin of Jedi as well. That is, a valid source is valid regardless of its cause and development. Also, just as in The Matrix the character Neo discovers that his world is illusory and his potential exceeds far beyond the apparent boundaries imposed by his perception, so too do the Jedi discover abilities which transcend beyond their own apparent limits. While some people may regard this observation as a naïve claim to supernatural abilities, in reality this discovery reminds the Jedi to doubt his senses, trust intution and find his core essence. When attained, this ability not only improve physical limits to some degree, but also perception, critical thinking and meditation.
In The Matrix, Neo meets a young boy who appears to be bending and unbending a spoon with his mind. The boy explains that this can only be done when you realize that there is no spoon. Later, Neo ralizes that because the Matrix is a world that does not exist in reality but is merely virtual, he can manipulate the Matrix to change the world as he sees fit, provided he focuses on the underlying reality instead of superficial perceptions. That is a valid lesson for the Jedi as well, as expressed in Yoda’s maxim “Do … or do not. There is no ‘try’.”
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Reconciliation of Souls
The passing of Edward Kennedy yesterday has provoked a great many comments, most of them predictable in their spirit and intent. While Senator Kennedy was best known as a political man and his person is generally judged in the light of his political actions and behavior, there is also a strong moral judgment in the public appraisal of the man, and to that end we may consider the condition of his soul. That does not mean that we are fit to do so, but judging others is a very common practice, even a game, among humans. Pride being the chief of sins, we often imagine that we can speak as we will about others with no worry about the consequences we bring upon ourselves.
And there is the point for this article. There are many things we cannot know in this life, but one sure thing is that we all must die. We are finite, and we are imperfect at best, and frankly most of us have things in our lives which we would be very happy to keep private and hidden away, if they could not be erased from the record completely. That’s not to say we are all guilty to the same degree, but all the same there’s few enough of us who could honestly claim to deserve the reputation we show the public.
Those who wish to condemn a man for his life, should remember that we all fail to some degree, and for all that we may rightly curse another for his wrongs we never know completely his own pain and trials, what may have brought him to speak and act as he did. And those who wish to praise a man might consider that everything we do will falter and end just as our own bodies do. The greatest acts of men have all come to end, so that only the Divine touch makes anything endure.
And that is where God and human souls come into the matter. All that truly matters is of God, and all that we may hope for depends in the end on His perfect will and hope of His mercy. Through all of Man’s history there have been attempts to make sense of the human identity and our place in the Cosmos, from ancient myths and legends to theology and reasoned thought, extending to every conceivable conclusion, including skepticism and antitheist hostility. In the end, however, one comes to one of three places – rejection of everything not proven beyond the possibility of doubt, belief in a greater purpose and Person than this universe proves, or essential doubt and abandonment of the question for fear of the question.
I believe we are made for better purpose, indeed we are each of us specially made for not only a purpose but a specific personage. We are each of us unique in our person, yet part of family, community and nation in many ways. This life ends precisely because it, and we, are imperfect, so that we may learn perfection and seek the greater person we are to become. I do not accept the notion that if someone murders someone else and is never arrested, if someone rapes another person and never serves a day in prison, if someone oppresses someone else through intimidation and never faces an accounting in this life, that there is no accounting for that injustice. I will not accept the claim that someone’s good dies with him and has no value beyond the moment. I believe and affirm that while God remains invisible to human eyes, He is imminent to us in faith and truth and hope. All that we do is either perfected or consumed according to its nature, and every one of us will discover good and evil in our lives to a greater depth than we ever suspected before.
All souls are made by God, yet all people are given free will to choose our disposition. I cannot promise heaven to anyone, as heaven belongs to God Almighty and must serve Him perfectly and so I cannot speak to His judgment. I also will not condemn anyone to hell, knowing its eternal torment and again being unworthy to sit in judgment of another sinner. Paul wrote that we believers shall judge angels, but may the Lord save me from the pride of believing that I am fit to judge my neighbor.
How the world ends is written in Scripture, but the mystery of a specific person who can say? I cannot earn heaven but cannot bear hell, nor do I imagine any man could do so save our Savior. So I depend, as we all do, on our Advocate and Champion to resolve what is, as always has been, beyond our ken, and for my part I pray that Edward chose well and sincerely. For even among Christ’s own hand-picked disciples, two betrayed Him and came to repent of it, yet one chose a way that ended in condemnation while the other was reconciled in penitence by the Lord’s grace. In the end we are resolved by greater power and purpose than we know.
And there is the point for this article. There are many things we cannot know in this life, but one sure thing is that we all must die. We are finite, and we are imperfect at best, and frankly most of us have things in our lives which we would be very happy to keep private and hidden away, if they could not be erased from the record completely. That’s not to say we are all guilty to the same degree, but all the same there’s few enough of us who could honestly claim to deserve the reputation we show the public.
Those who wish to condemn a man for his life, should remember that we all fail to some degree, and for all that we may rightly curse another for his wrongs we never know completely his own pain and trials, what may have brought him to speak and act as he did. And those who wish to praise a man might consider that everything we do will falter and end just as our own bodies do. The greatest acts of men have all come to end, so that only the Divine touch makes anything endure.
And that is where God and human souls come into the matter. All that truly matters is of God, and all that we may hope for depends in the end on His perfect will and hope of His mercy. Through all of Man’s history there have been attempts to make sense of the human identity and our place in the Cosmos, from ancient myths and legends to theology and reasoned thought, extending to every conceivable conclusion, including skepticism and antitheist hostility. In the end, however, one comes to one of three places – rejection of everything not proven beyond the possibility of doubt, belief in a greater purpose and Person than this universe proves, or essential doubt and abandonment of the question for fear of the question.
I believe we are made for better purpose, indeed we are each of us specially made for not only a purpose but a specific personage. We are each of us unique in our person, yet part of family, community and nation in many ways. This life ends precisely because it, and we, are imperfect, so that we may learn perfection and seek the greater person we are to become. I do not accept the notion that if someone murders someone else and is never arrested, if someone rapes another person and never serves a day in prison, if someone oppresses someone else through intimidation and never faces an accounting in this life, that there is no accounting for that injustice. I will not accept the claim that someone’s good dies with him and has no value beyond the moment. I believe and affirm that while God remains invisible to human eyes, He is imminent to us in faith and truth and hope. All that we do is either perfected or consumed according to its nature, and every one of us will discover good and evil in our lives to a greater depth than we ever suspected before.
All souls are made by God, yet all people are given free will to choose our disposition. I cannot promise heaven to anyone, as heaven belongs to God Almighty and must serve Him perfectly and so I cannot speak to His judgment. I also will not condemn anyone to hell, knowing its eternal torment and again being unworthy to sit in judgment of another sinner. Paul wrote that we believers shall judge angels, but may the Lord save me from the pride of believing that I am fit to judge my neighbor.
How the world ends is written in Scripture, but the mystery of a specific person who can say? I cannot earn heaven but cannot bear hell, nor do I imagine any man could do so save our Savior. So I depend, as we all do, on our Advocate and Champion to resolve what is, as always has been, beyond our ken, and for my part I pray that Edward chose well and sincerely. For even among Christ’s own hand-picked disciples, two betrayed Him and came to repent of it, yet one chose a way that ended in condemnation while the other was reconciled in penitence by the Lord’s grace. In the end we are resolved by greater power and purpose than we know.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Angels and Nations
I had my colonoscopy and am able to enjoy solid food again without angering Al Gore, if you take my meaning. I have been doing some reading and some thinking on things theological, and have what I believe is a worthwhile consideration about Paul’s vision of the ‘third heaven’. But for now I have another thought which mixes politics with religion, always a recipe for lively debate I think.
Over the years I have sometimes been surprised by the way that things take a sudden unexpected turn. In recent days, we have seen President Obama’s seemingly unstoppable charisma implode, but that has happened to many Presidents before him as well. After his re-election in 2004, President Bush seemed to have all the control he needed to start fixing the mess in places like Immigration and Social Security, but then he also hit a wall. Bill Clinton also had a lot of personal charisma but he took some nasty shocks, and in the process so did the Republicans, who had full public support for impeaching Clinton, but that support evaporated by the time the Senate actually tried him. Hard to believe, but there was even a time when President Nixon had his mojo working.
I wondered about that. Looking through History, we see the same odd sudden changes in momentum and initiative. Look at World War Two, for example. In 1942, the United States was a clawless eagle, losing battles, bases and men in both the Atlantic and Pacific fronts, but by 1945 the US was unstoppable everywhere it went. What a strange coincidence, that the one thing which could change America from an isolationist nation determined to stay out of the war into an angry populace demanding war, an apparent sneak attack by Japan, was what happened. How odd, that this attack destroyed several ships which appeared to be vital to America, but left untouched the fuel tanks and aircraft carriers and dry docks which were actually key strategic assets? How odd that Hitler changed his strategy on the Eastern Front just short of capturing Moscow, choosing instead to divert to the South and so divide his forces when it was most risky to do so? How odd that despite over a half century of threats and crises, there was never even one nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. This same behavior goes back in history as well. The British, for example, won the battle of Chesapeake Bay in 1781 in terms of tactics, but their inability to win decisively allowed the French to block Cornwallis’ support at Yorktown and so the stunning end to the American Revolution was made possible by a simple shift in the wind. How interesting, that Captain Drake was able to have men in his pay infiltrate Spanish shipyards to sabotage the Armada so that the invasion of 1588 would fail. What a coincidence, that just when Japan reached the peak of its geopolitical power, it withdrew from the world for a century. Any one of these pieces, taken by itself, may be explained or considered just an anomoly, but altogether it is not hard to sense a purpose. Arguments can be made either way, but for those who believe in God I now turn to the Bible. Specifically certain verses in the book of Daniel, Chapter 10, verses 5-8 and 10-13:
“I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.
“I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless.”
“A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.
“Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.”
That folks, is the prophet Daniel chatting with an angel, specifically the Archangel Gabriel. Gabriel mentions that Michael is a “chief prince” among the angels, and that he helped Gabriel get past the opposition of a “prince” of Persia, which tells us that nations have angels. It is unclear from this passage what those angels do, specifically, but there is clearly angelic activity in relation to human affairs.
It might be interesting to discuss what heaven is up to, right about now.
Over the years I have sometimes been surprised by the way that things take a sudden unexpected turn. In recent days, we have seen President Obama’s seemingly unstoppable charisma implode, but that has happened to many Presidents before him as well. After his re-election in 2004, President Bush seemed to have all the control he needed to start fixing the mess in places like Immigration and Social Security, but then he also hit a wall. Bill Clinton also had a lot of personal charisma but he took some nasty shocks, and in the process so did the Republicans, who had full public support for impeaching Clinton, but that support evaporated by the time the Senate actually tried him. Hard to believe, but there was even a time when President Nixon had his mojo working.
I wondered about that. Looking through History, we see the same odd sudden changes in momentum and initiative. Look at World War Two, for example. In 1942, the United States was a clawless eagle, losing battles, bases and men in both the Atlantic and Pacific fronts, but by 1945 the US was unstoppable everywhere it went. What a strange coincidence, that the one thing which could change America from an isolationist nation determined to stay out of the war into an angry populace demanding war, an apparent sneak attack by Japan, was what happened. How odd, that this attack destroyed several ships which appeared to be vital to America, but left untouched the fuel tanks and aircraft carriers and dry docks which were actually key strategic assets? How odd that Hitler changed his strategy on the Eastern Front just short of capturing Moscow, choosing instead to divert to the South and so divide his forces when it was most risky to do so? How odd that despite over a half century of threats and crises, there was never even one nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. This same behavior goes back in history as well. The British, for example, won the battle of Chesapeake Bay in 1781 in terms of tactics, but their inability to win decisively allowed the French to block Cornwallis’ support at Yorktown and so the stunning end to the American Revolution was made possible by a simple shift in the wind. How interesting, that Captain Drake was able to have men in his pay infiltrate Spanish shipyards to sabotage the Armada so that the invasion of 1588 would fail. What a coincidence, that just when Japan reached the peak of its geopolitical power, it withdrew from the world for a century. Any one of these pieces, taken by itself, may be explained or considered just an anomoly, but altogether it is not hard to sense a purpose. Arguments can be made either way, but for those who believe in God I now turn to the Bible. Specifically certain verses in the book of Daniel, Chapter 10, verses 5-8 and 10-13:
“I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.
“I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless.”
“A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.
“Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.”
That folks, is the prophet Daniel chatting with an angel, specifically the Archangel Gabriel. Gabriel mentions that Michael is a “chief prince” among the angels, and that he helped Gabriel get past the opposition of a “prince” of Persia, which tells us that nations have angels. It is unclear from this passage what those angels do, specifically, but there is clearly angelic activity in relation to human affairs.
It might be interesting to discuss what heaven is up to, right about now.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Not So Modern Medicine
On the recommendation of both my primary physician and my oncologist, I am having a colonoscopy done tomorrow morning. Most of that has to do with my age and of course the desire on my doctors part to know if the inside of my colon is behaving as well as the outside appears to be doing. The experience, however, reminds me of just how far medical science has to go to be truly advanced, in my opinion.
Some years ago I reached the conclusion that men were generally more realistic than women, because only men start each day with a razor at their throat. That idea was reinforced by the indignity of the prostate examination, and of course a colonoscopy certainly ranks right up there, the notion of a camera on a cord shoved up the rear end of the patient, who then gets to pay for the procedure in an amount similar to a cruise vacation.
I’m not inordinately concerned about the embarrassment or discomfort of the procedure, having been regularly poked, prodded, pierced, injected and so on over the last three years. But in addition to the thrills of the actual procedure, and paying for same in the kind of money that could have been used on a new television or jewelry for the wife, I get to enjoy the taste sensation of Gavilyte. Gavilyte has to be drunk the day before the procedure, a day by the way when I cannot have any solid foods. I get to drink, 8 ounces at a time, a gallon of a clear liquid which will flush out my colon. Remember what mucilage smells like? That’s what Gavilyte tastes like. Just imagine the experience of putting down a gallon of that stuff, and not being allowed to have a single bite of real food?
Of course, by tomorrow morning I may miss the Gavilyte, because after midnight I am not allowed to drink anything either. That’s especially nice in South Texas in hundred-degree heat.
So what’s the point? Three, actually. One, I feel like a mild rant and this is it. The colonoscopy is a minor but annoying procedure, but I don’t have to pretend I like it. Two, things like this remind of just how very far medical science is from being truly advanced, given the cost, inconvenience and displeasure of a test that everyone agrees is important. And three, I am likely to be irritable for a while, so I will not be blogging for a little while, in everyone’s best interest.
Some years ago I reached the conclusion that men were generally more realistic than women, because only men start each day with a razor at their throat. That idea was reinforced by the indignity of the prostate examination, and of course a colonoscopy certainly ranks right up there, the notion of a camera on a cord shoved up the rear end of the patient, who then gets to pay for the procedure in an amount similar to a cruise vacation.
I’m not inordinately concerned about the embarrassment or discomfort of the procedure, having been regularly poked, prodded, pierced, injected and so on over the last three years. But in addition to the thrills of the actual procedure, and paying for same in the kind of money that could have been used on a new television or jewelry for the wife, I get to enjoy the taste sensation of Gavilyte. Gavilyte has to be drunk the day before the procedure, a day by the way when I cannot have any solid foods. I get to drink, 8 ounces at a time, a gallon of a clear liquid which will flush out my colon. Remember what mucilage smells like? That’s what Gavilyte tastes like. Just imagine the experience of putting down a gallon of that stuff, and not being allowed to have a single bite of real food?
Of course, by tomorrow morning I may miss the Gavilyte, because after midnight I am not allowed to drink anything either. That’s especially nice in South Texas in hundred-degree heat.
So what’s the point? Three, actually. One, I feel like a mild rant and this is it. The colonoscopy is a minor but annoying procedure, but I don’t have to pretend I like it. Two, things like this remind of just how very far medical science is from being truly advanced, given the cost, inconvenience and displeasure of a test that everyone agrees is important. And three, I am likely to be irritable for a while, so I will not be blogging for a little while, in everyone’s best interest.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
A Reasonable Discussion on Health Care
Even our Narcissist-in-Chief, Barack Obama, is showing signs of recognition that the government takeover of Health Care in the United States is strongly opposed by the people. Opposed enough that the totalitarians who tried to shove this treachery through Congress are finding their own political careers in jeopardy, which is the sole language to which they would listen. The prospect of a major shift in Congressional control in 2010 has finally convinced the political con artists to back off this abomination just a bit.
This opens the door to a more rational discussion about Health Care, what is really needed and what can really be done. There are certain ideals which each side desires, but the practical limits offer a small range of options. Even so, an opportunity now exists to arrive at a better solution, one which is realistic and which listens to the public.
There are many special interest groups in any debate about Health Care, which is no surprise given the money concerned and the number of people affected. To begin, it should be obvious that the public will not countenance government-run Health Care. The ‘single payer’ option is unacceptable and the Obama Administration had better accept that fact. However, at some point it is also necessary to accept that major changes are necessary for American Health Care to remain as effective as it is today. It seems strange, given the political indifference to the blunders of Social Security and the Income Tax Code, but for once the government is a bit ahead of the curve in seeking a reformation of the industry in Health Care.
A bit of background here, and something like full disclosure. I worked for five years in Health Care, at an independent third-party administrator of medical claims. That is, it was my job to determine if an insurance claim was valid under the terms of the insurance company’s contract with the medical provider, and – in order of priority – to protect the patient, medical provider, and insurance company’s respective rights under the network provisions. I also performed field audits to insure compliance by medical providers and facilities with their promised levels of accessibility and performance. Also, on the other side of things I am a cancer survivor and a patient at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, having been diagnosed in 2006 with pseudomyxoma peritonei, a form of abdominal cancer – specifically known as a non-carcinoid neoplasm of the appendix. My condition is treatable but not curable, and therefore I must plan on a very long term prognosis, one which is promising but at the same time a permanent condition. Consequently, I am very familiar with the needs and concerns of those patients whose conditions are rare and unlikely to be mentioned at all in a one-size-fits-all plan. I know for a fact that neither Medicare nor Medicaid would cover the treatment for my condition, and as a result a national plan built on the foundation of Medicare would be, by definition, unacceptable to me.
That said, I do think a long and detailed discussion about what is needed and how it should be paid for is a good idea. Now that Obamacare has been clearly shown to be unacceptable, it seems appropriate to suggest a better plan. That plan, I think, would best be found by considering and addressing the patients not properly covered by the present system, and by proposing, a la carte I should think, means by which the industry might move forward, such as improving the primary-care to specialist balance among professionals and allowing patients more tax benefits for making effective use of their preventive care options. But the conversation is best served by broad participation, rather than a few dictating terms to the rest.
This opens the door to a more rational discussion about Health Care, what is really needed and what can really be done. There are certain ideals which each side desires, but the practical limits offer a small range of options. Even so, an opportunity now exists to arrive at a better solution, one which is realistic and which listens to the public.
There are many special interest groups in any debate about Health Care, which is no surprise given the money concerned and the number of people affected. To begin, it should be obvious that the public will not countenance government-run Health Care. The ‘single payer’ option is unacceptable and the Obama Administration had better accept that fact. However, at some point it is also necessary to accept that major changes are necessary for American Health Care to remain as effective as it is today. It seems strange, given the political indifference to the blunders of Social Security and the Income Tax Code, but for once the government is a bit ahead of the curve in seeking a reformation of the industry in Health Care.
A bit of background here, and something like full disclosure. I worked for five years in Health Care, at an independent third-party administrator of medical claims. That is, it was my job to determine if an insurance claim was valid under the terms of the insurance company’s contract with the medical provider, and – in order of priority – to protect the patient, medical provider, and insurance company’s respective rights under the network provisions. I also performed field audits to insure compliance by medical providers and facilities with their promised levels of accessibility and performance. Also, on the other side of things I am a cancer survivor and a patient at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, having been diagnosed in 2006 with pseudomyxoma peritonei, a form of abdominal cancer – specifically known as a non-carcinoid neoplasm of the appendix. My condition is treatable but not curable, and therefore I must plan on a very long term prognosis, one which is promising but at the same time a permanent condition. Consequently, I am very familiar with the needs and concerns of those patients whose conditions are rare and unlikely to be mentioned at all in a one-size-fits-all plan. I know for a fact that neither Medicare nor Medicaid would cover the treatment for my condition, and as a result a national plan built on the foundation of Medicare would be, by definition, unacceptable to me.
That said, I do think a long and detailed discussion about what is needed and how it should be paid for is a good idea. Now that Obamacare has been clearly shown to be unacceptable, it seems appropriate to suggest a better plan. That plan, I think, would best be found by considering and addressing the patients not properly covered by the present system, and by proposing, a la carte I should think, means by which the industry might move forward, such as improving the primary-care to specialist balance among professionals and allowing patients more tax benefits for making effective use of their preventive care options. But the conversation is best served by broad participation, rather than a few dictating terms to the rest.
Monday, August 17, 2009
A Simple Statement
I'm going out for a while, and will be having medical tests done on Friday. So to keep it simple:
President Obama, the people say NO to your tyranny, your taxes, your oppression of dissent, and your hatred of American values and standards.
Will you, at long last, heed the will of the public?
President Obama, the people say NO to your tyranny, your taxes, your oppression of dissent, and your hatred of American values and standards.
Will you, at long last, heed the will of the public?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
It’s Reasonable To Be Angry
One thing I have not liked to see in this health care issue, is the arrogance of Congressmen who yell at their constituents, who try to evade a difficult question by talking on their cell phone so they can ignore the citizen, or who actually protest that it’s unreasonable for them to have read the bill before voting on it.
That’s just the behavior of elected officials, not even touching the many allegations of union thuggery and exclusion of constituents who might not cheer the plan.
A better course, from where I sit, is to discuss specific proposals in HR 3200, the original House bill from which all three pending versions are derived, and SB II (BAI09A84), the Senate bill. Pay particular attention to the choice of wording, in order to recognize the intent and likely bias of the bill. Or at least you can come to understand a resistance to the bill, when the people who will be voting on it either cannot explain the bill in specific or refuse to address the draconian provisions set out in it. The distinction is that the politicians have no just cause to be angry, while the people who learn what’s in these bills will have every reason to become upset.
The Senate bill can be read here.
HR 3200 can be read here.
I strongly suggest you make time to read them both.
First, I notice some unusual wording in the Senate Bill. Looking at Section 399HH, “National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care”.
In Part A of that section, under ‘Requirements’, the Senate Bill directs the Secretary of the Health Choices Administration (HCA), to “address the health care provided to patients with high-cost chronic diseases” [ (Sec. 399HH, (2)(B)(i) ]
One may wonder why the emphasis on high-cost chronic diseases, and certainly one may excuse the patients suffering from, say, AIDs, Cancer, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, or any other of a number of similar maladies for asking why their conditions appear to be targeted.
That same section directs the HCS Secretary to “address gaps in quality and health outcomes measures, comparative effectiveness information, and data aggregation techniques, including the use of data registries” [ (Sec. 399HH, (2)(B)(ii) ].
Wording like that is certainly evocative of ‘Big Brother’, and just why should Americans expect uniform levels of “health outcomes” in every region and city? Effectiveness in health issues often depends not only on resources but the skill of the professionals and on the patient.
And there’s nothing like an open-ended excuse, like this one:
“address other areas as determined appropriate by the Secretary.” [ (Sec. 399HH, (2)(B)(ix) ].
We can safely say that the Senate bill is problematic in its language.
Looking now to Section 1233 of HR 3200, we see the following fascinating passage regarding mandatory “advance care planning”.
“Such consultation shall include the following:
‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.” [ Sec. 1233 (hhh)(1) ]
Yes, you read that right. By law, anyone over 65 would have to be advised at least once every five years about the ‘benefits’ of ending their life.
So just who makes that all-important life-or-death decision? Well, the patient is allowed the decision, but only when “guided by a coalition of stake holders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.” [Sec. 1233 (iii)(IV) ].
The bill also says the patient may be advised about the end-of-life option “more frequently” (and it seems, more aggressively) “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program." [ Sec. 1233 (iii)(3)(B) ]
By the way, according to that definition, my doctors – by law – would be required to ‘consult’ with me about killing myself, since my cancer is incurable. It would suggest that Michael J. Fox kill himself, since Parkinson's is progressive, that Dr. Hawking should die, being in a 'life-limiting' condition, and so on.
It is also worthwhile to go back a bill already signed into law, the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” (give that a read as well, please).
In Subtitle A, “Promotion of Health Information Technology”, the Act cites the intention, among other things, to ‘reduce health disparities’ [Section 3001, (b)(2)] and “reduce health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information” [ Sec. 3001, (b)(3) ] and “provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care” [ Sec. 3001, (b)(4) ]
That same bill also specifies the intention of establishing “the utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014” [ Sec. 3001, (3)(A)(ii) ]
The Act also requires a National Database for health care information in every single American: “Facilitate the adoption of a nationwide system for the electronic use and exchange of health information” [Sec. 13113, (a)(1) ]
That same Act requires medical care providers receiving federal funds must “consult and consider the recommendations” of any health care provider, agency, school, or other “entity” specificied by the Secretary of HHS as a "qualified State-designated entity” when providing diagnosis or care for any patient. [ Sec. 3013,(5),(g) ]
Now comes the question of what these separate and associated devices mean. Are they, As Governor Palin claims, a ‘death panel’? Nowhere in any of these bills does it state that the government wants to kill anyone, but at the same time, all three of the bills clearly create a vast increase in government snooping into our private information (yes, they say they will abide by HIPAA, but does anyone really believe that a vast government database identifying everyone by their most intimate medical details will never be hacked or the data misused?) All three bills take a lot of our choice away, by requiring compliance with onerous federal rules and paperwork, and direct government ‘advice’ to your doctor about what can and should be performed. And the House bill quite specifically encourages the premature death of the elderly and the infirm.
Whatever you want to call it, this proposed law is inhuman and repulsive. The only appropriate response, as I see it, would be anger and resistance.
That’s just the behavior of elected officials, not even touching the many allegations of union thuggery and exclusion of constituents who might not cheer the plan.
A better course, from where I sit, is to discuss specific proposals in HR 3200, the original House bill from which all three pending versions are derived, and SB II (BAI09A84), the Senate bill. Pay particular attention to the choice of wording, in order to recognize the intent and likely bias of the bill. Or at least you can come to understand a resistance to the bill, when the people who will be voting on it either cannot explain the bill in specific or refuse to address the draconian provisions set out in it. The distinction is that the politicians have no just cause to be angry, while the people who learn what’s in these bills will have every reason to become upset.
The Senate bill can be read here.
HR 3200 can be read here.
I strongly suggest you make time to read them both.
First, I notice some unusual wording in the Senate Bill. Looking at Section 399HH, “National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care”.
In Part A of that section, under ‘Requirements’, the Senate Bill directs the Secretary of the Health Choices Administration (HCA), to “address the health care provided to patients with high-cost chronic diseases” [ (Sec. 399HH, (2)(B)(i) ]
One may wonder why the emphasis on high-cost chronic diseases, and certainly one may excuse the patients suffering from, say, AIDs, Cancer, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, or any other of a number of similar maladies for asking why their conditions appear to be targeted.
That same section directs the HCS Secretary to “address gaps in quality and health outcomes measures, comparative effectiveness information, and data aggregation techniques, including the use of data registries” [ (Sec. 399HH, (2)(B)(ii) ].
Wording like that is certainly evocative of ‘Big Brother’, and just why should Americans expect uniform levels of “health outcomes” in every region and city? Effectiveness in health issues often depends not only on resources but the skill of the professionals and on the patient.
And there’s nothing like an open-ended excuse, like this one:
“address other areas as determined appropriate by the Secretary.” [ (Sec. 399HH, (2)(B)(ix) ].
We can safely say that the Senate bill is problematic in its language.
Looking now to Section 1233 of HR 3200, we see the following fascinating passage regarding mandatory “advance care planning”.
“Such consultation shall include the following:
‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.” [ Sec. 1233 (hhh)(1) ]
Yes, you read that right. By law, anyone over 65 would have to be advised at least once every five years about the ‘benefits’ of ending their life.
So just who makes that all-important life-or-death decision? Well, the patient is allowed the decision, but only when “guided by a coalition of stake holders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.” [Sec. 1233 (iii)(IV) ].
The bill also says the patient may be advised about the end-of-life option “more frequently” (and it seems, more aggressively) “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program." [ Sec. 1233 (iii)(3)(B) ]
By the way, according to that definition, my doctors – by law – would be required to ‘consult’ with me about killing myself, since my cancer is incurable. It would suggest that Michael J. Fox kill himself, since Parkinson's is progressive, that Dr. Hawking should die, being in a 'life-limiting' condition, and so on.
It is also worthwhile to go back a bill already signed into law, the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” (give that a read as well, please).
In Subtitle A, “Promotion of Health Information Technology”, the Act cites the intention, among other things, to ‘reduce health disparities’ [Section 3001, (b)(2)] and “reduce health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information” [ Sec. 3001, (b)(3) ] and “provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care” [ Sec. 3001, (b)(4) ]
That same bill also specifies the intention of establishing “the utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014” [ Sec. 3001, (3)(A)(ii) ]
The Act also requires a National Database for health care information in every single American: “Facilitate the adoption of a nationwide system for the electronic use and exchange of health information” [Sec. 13113, (a)(1) ]
That same Act requires medical care providers receiving federal funds must “consult and consider the recommendations” of any health care provider, agency, school, or other “entity” specificied by the Secretary of HHS as a "qualified State-designated entity” when providing diagnosis or care for any patient. [ Sec. 3013,(5),(g) ]
Now comes the question of what these separate and associated devices mean. Are they, As Governor Palin claims, a ‘death panel’? Nowhere in any of these bills does it state that the government wants to kill anyone, but at the same time, all three of the bills clearly create a vast increase in government snooping into our private information (yes, they say they will abide by HIPAA, but does anyone really believe that a vast government database identifying everyone by their most intimate medical details will never be hacked or the data misused?) All three bills take a lot of our choice away, by requiring compliance with onerous federal rules and paperwork, and direct government ‘advice’ to your doctor about what can and should be performed. And the House bill quite specifically encourages the premature death of the elderly and the infirm.
Whatever you want to call it, this proposed law is inhuman and repulsive. The only appropriate response, as I see it, would be anger and resistance.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Words Words Words
Brainy Quote is a website which displays notable quotes from notable people. Here are some interesting quotes made by candidate, then President, Barack Obama:
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. “
“I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. “
“I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House.“
“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”
“I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.”
“It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
“My administration is the only thing between you [CEO's] and the pitchforks.”
“Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
“We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”
That he made those statements is undeniable. Barack Obama fashioned his image and reputation on the basis of these and similar statements. Whether he has kept the promises made in some of those statements, and whether he is in truth the man he presented himself to be, is now the proper focus for debate.
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. “
“I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. “
“I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House.“
“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”
“I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.”
“It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
“My administration is the only thing between you [CEO's] and the pitchforks.”
“Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
“We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”
That he made those statements is undeniable. Barack Obama fashioned his image and reputation on the basis of these and similar statements. Whether he has kept the promises made in some of those statements, and whether he is in truth the man he presented himself to be, is now the proper focus for debate.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Thoughts on Bible Prophecy
I was watching TV earlier this week and caught one of those old programs about Nostradamus. You know, the French guy from Sixteenth Century France who – if you believe the spin – accurately predicted every important event between then and the end of the world. Our boy Michel – I’m gonna call him Mike – grew up in a Jew-converted-to-Catholic family with no money or influence, which meant he got into a lot of scrapes with the Inquisition (yeah, those guys who figured the best way to express the Love of God and Christ for Humanity was to torture confessions outta people and burn heretics to death). Mikey picked up a few patrons along the way; reportedly the Queen thought he was all that and a basket of croissants, which helped him build both his reputation and a defense against his enemies.
Mike had a problem. On the one hand he had all these great prophecies spinning in his noggin, just screaming to be put down on paper. On the other hand, Mikey had a lot of enemies, who could be counted on to use anything he wrote against him, and misuse the prophecies for potentially horrific results. So, Mike wrote his prophecies down in a strange sort of verse called Virgilianized Syntax, mixing in words from other languages and playing word games. While this produced a book of odd verse which many have taken for profound prophecy, it’s a bit difficult to credit it completely, precisely because our boy Mike was a big vague on details. I’ve read Mikey’s prophecies and while some of them seem to have hit the mark, others are hard to consider proven, and some are just too darn weird to take any specific meaning from them.
And that brings me to the Bible. The Bible is also a book with many prophecies, and some of the wording makes it hard to understand. My problem here, is that while I can pretty much ignore Mike’s prophecies with no worries because I really do not see anything to indicate that I need to be up to speed on what a dead Frenchman’s saying on the issues of the day, I do happen to believe in the Bible, and that includes the prophecies. So I believe that I need to pay attention to what God’s saying in the Bible. And that is sometimes harder than I would like.
Part of that is the number of people who want to sell their own interpretation of Scripture. Nothing wrong with someone saying what they think, except that some of these folks are not calling it their own opinion, but selling it as God’s truth. That gets a person into real trouble, right quick. So before I post again on this subject, let me be very clear that whatever think on the matter of prophecy, it’s nothing but my guess and take it as that and no more than that.
to be continued
Mike had a problem. On the one hand he had all these great prophecies spinning in his noggin, just screaming to be put down on paper. On the other hand, Mikey had a lot of enemies, who could be counted on to use anything he wrote against him, and misuse the prophecies for potentially horrific results. So, Mike wrote his prophecies down in a strange sort of verse called Virgilianized Syntax, mixing in words from other languages and playing word games. While this produced a book of odd verse which many have taken for profound prophecy, it’s a bit difficult to credit it completely, precisely because our boy Mike was a big vague on details. I’ve read Mikey’s prophecies and while some of them seem to have hit the mark, others are hard to consider proven, and some are just too darn weird to take any specific meaning from them.
And that brings me to the Bible. The Bible is also a book with many prophecies, and some of the wording makes it hard to understand. My problem here, is that while I can pretty much ignore Mike’s prophecies with no worries because I really do not see anything to indicate that I need to be up to speed on what a dead Frenchman’s saying on the issues of the day, I do happen to believe in the Bible, and that includes the prophecies. So I believe that I need to pay attention to what God’s saying in the Bible. And that is sometimes harder than I would like.
Part of that is the number of people who want to sell their own interpretation of Scripture. Nothing wrong with someone saying what they think, except that some of these folks are not calling it their own opinion, but selling it as God’s truth. That gets a person into real trouble, right quick. So before I post again on this subject, let me be very clear that whatever think on the matter of prophecy, it’s nothing but my guess and take it as that and no more than that.
to be continued
Monday, August 10, 2009
What I See So Far About HR 3200
There are a lot of words in the 1,017 pages of HR 3200, even by my standards. The bill is poorly written from what I can tell, since it constantly directs the reader to consult other laws and regulations to see the way a particular section is to be applied. If the Democrats were listening to me, the first piece of advice I would offer is to rewrite this thing in plain English, with a simple Table of Contents and page listing, along with a synopsis of each section to explain its intent and function. People tend to resent a piece of legislation which involves a lot of tax money, will be permanent, and which seems to be rushed, when it is difficult to understand and discuss. It may be that the Democrats have put together a really effective piece of legislation, but if so they should be happy to discuss it in detail, not act defensively and as if they have something to hide.
Anyway, to the bill. HR 3200 is a huge piece of work, but to start its examination, we see that it has three “Divisions”, seventeen “Titles”, and fifty “Subtitles”. Division A is titled “Affordable Health Care Choices” and Title I therein addresses the description of heath care plans, access, benefits, and consumer protections. Title II is important, as it creates the government entity known as the “Heath Insurance Exchange”. Section 201 lays out how it works, as follows:
The government will set up a new bureaucracy called the Health Choices Administration, with a Commissioner who reports directly to the President. The HCA will create and supervise an entity known as the Health Insurance Exchange, wherein all nominal insurance coverage will be administered at the federal level. The HCA would have complete authority to determine whether individuals, employers, or insurance companies met the requisite criteria to participate, and the tone of the Title implies that the final decision will be made only with government approval. The function of the HCA invites legal challenge on at least two constitutional grounds – first, the traditional separation of powers does not allow the Executive Branch authority to control domestic commerce in this way; on a practical level imagine the fallout if this bill becomes law and if/when a Congressman or Senator wishes to look more closely at the HCA’s activities he/she is told that Congress is excluded from such authority? The second conflict is that creation of the HCA would effectively eliminate the state insurance boards, as all insurance would be controlled and directed from the federal level, in what appears to be a direct violation of state’s rights under the U.S. Constitution.
There’s a lot more to consider, but for now it might be interesting to consider the almost certain legal challenges which this bill would face were it actually to become law.
Anyway, to the bill. HR 3200 is a huge piece of work, but to start its examination, we see that it has three “Divisions”, seventeen “Titles”, and fifty “Subtitles”. Division A is titled “Affordable Health Care Choices” and Title I therein addresses the description of heath care plans, access, benefits, and consumer protections. Title II is important, as it creates the government entity known as the “Heath Insurance Exchange”. Section 201 lays out how it works, as follows:
The government will set up a new bureaucracy called the Health Choices Administration, with a Commissioner who reports directly to the President. The HCA will create and supervise an entity known as the Health Insurance Exchange, wherein all nominal insurance coverage will be administered at the federal level. The HCA would have complete authority to determine whether individuals, employers, or insurance companies met the requisite criteria to participate, and the tone of the Title implies that the final decision will be made only with government approval. The function of the HCA invites legal challenge on at least two constitutional grounds – first, the traditional separation of powers does not allow the Executive Branch authority to control domestic commerce in this way; on a practical level imagine the fallout if this bill becomes law and if/when a Congressman or Senator wishes to look more closely at the HCA’s activities he/she is told that Congress is excluded from such authority? The second conflict is that creation of the HCA would effectively eliminate the state insurance boards, as all insurance would be controlled and directed from the federal level, in what appears to be a direct violation of state’s rights under the U.S. Constitution.
There’s a lot more to consider, but for now it might be interesting to consider the almost certain legal challenges which this bill would face were it actually to become law.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Discussing Health Care
Thursday I wrote about the bureaucratic and cumbersome definitions being used in the text of HR 3200. Having thought about that, I think we would do well as a nation to establish clear definitions of our own for the key points on this issue – doing so would not only make it simpler to discuss what we want or oppose, but might also establish some common ground. To that end, I am presenting what I think are the root questions to this issue.
1. What is Health Care, anyway?
Health Care is one of those things that sounds plain to most people, but which can still trip folks up when they get into specifics. For most people, after all, they can take care of their ordinary health needs and in fact they do not like being told what to do on decisions that they consider personal, like nutrition, exercise, and recreational behavior. How many people have you met who agree that smoking is a bad idea but they do it anyway, that they agree they should lose weight but still have high-fat foods in their diet, for instance? People go a doctor for occasional check-ups or mild illness, when experiencing life events like pregnancy or trying to diet, emergencies like a heart attack, stroke, or for a serious condition like Diabetes or Cancer. So, it seems to me that there are these four categories make up Health Care for most people, and some of these categories will be important to only certain types of people.
2. Is this one debate or two? Is Health Care the same thing as Health Insurance, and if not, why are the two being mixed in this debate?
The Obama Administration speaks of “Health Care Reform” on two fronts; changing insurance rules and changing how medicine is practiced. But the Democrats speak of their plan as one action, as if the same measures which – so they say – will reduce costs will at the same time as improving medical care. Such a bold claim needs to be explained in depth, rather than simply asserted.
3. Does Health Care work well in America?
This is a key question in the debate. The plain fact is, medical care in the U.S. is pretty darn good. If you collapse in the street of any major city in the U.S, you can expect to be in an emergency room within 20 minutes in normal conditions. Diagnosis and treatment of Cancer, Heart Attacks, Trauma, Burns, and many other fields is unsurpassed.
4. Does the present Health Insurance system work well in America?
More than two out of three Americans have insurance coverage that they like. It would seem, then, that there are three areas of contention – how to provide satisfactory medical care for people who cannot find suitable private insurance, how to insure the availability of quality medical care going forward, and how to control rising medical costs. A proper discussion needs to cover this ground with consideration of all major perspectives.
5. Are private insurance companies a good thing or a bad thing?
Private insurance companies are routinely demonized for charging higher and higher premiums from customers, but rejecting valid claims in order to make unfair profits. Certainly there are individual companies which do this, but we should remember that every state has an Insurance Board which governs the conduct of insurance agencies, insurance agents must be licensed and the industry is well regulated. In addition, while many Americans are displeased with their automobile and home insurance, most are happy with their health insurance and do not want major changes.
Insurance was not originally meant to be mandatory. For decades the various forms of insurance, whether Life, Health, Vehicle, Home, Liability or Property, were made available as an option to hedge against catastrophic loss or expenses that could not be met under certain conditions. It should be noted that government requirement that all drivers must be covered by at least liability insurance has neither reduced the frequency of motor vehicle accidents nor the cost of such incidents; the requirement that homes bought on mortgage agreements must carry homeowner’s insurance has not reduced the number of claims made on such policies, nor slowed the growth of the cost of that insurance. It is, on the evidence of the history, absurd to imagine that requiring individuals to obtain health insurance or requiring all employers to provide it will in total improve the condition of health of the nation’s citizens, nor reduce cost. There is no evidence whatsoever from past experience to justify such a claim.
6. Would the government do a better job than private insurance companies?
Looking at the history of the VA Hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid, it’s very hard to imagine how replacing any private insurer with a government program would be an improvement. This is an area where proponents of the new plan need to explain how the waste, errors, and sheer corruption of the past would not simply be repeated on a much larger scale.
I would start a discussion with these six questions. It would be a nice change if even these initial starting points could be addressed.
1. What is Health Care, anyway?
Health Care is one of those things that sounds plain to most people, but which can still trip folks up when they get into specifics. For most people, after all, they can take care of their ordinary health needs and in fact they do not like being told what to do on decisions that they consider personal, like nutrition, exercise, and recreational behavior. How many people have you met who agree that smoking is a bad idea but they do it anyway, that they agree they should lose weight but still have high-fat foods in their diet, for instance? People go a doctor for occasional check-ups or mild illness, when experiencing life events like pregnancy or trying to diet, emergencies like a heart attack, stroke, or for a serious condition like Diabetes or Cancer. So, it seems to me that there are these four categories make up Health Care for most people, and some of these categories will be important to only certain types of people.
2. Is this one debate or two? Is Health Care the same thing as Health Insurance, and if not, why are the two being mixed in this debate?
The Obama Administration speaks of “Health Care Reform” on two fronts; changing insurance rules and changing how medicine is practiced. But the Democrats speak of their plan as one action, as if the same measures which – so they say – will reduce costs will at the same time as improving medical care. Such a bold claim needs to be explained in depth, rather than simply asserted.
3. Does Health Care work well in America?
This is a key question in the debate. The plain fact is, medical care in the U.S. is pretty darn good. If you collapse in the street of any major city in the U.S, you can expect to be in an emergency room within 20 minutes in normal conditions. Diagnosis and treatment of Cancer, Heart Attacks, Trauma, Burns, and many other fields is unsurpassed.
4. Does the present Health Insurance system work well in America?
More than two out of three Americans have insurance coverage that they like. It would seem, then, that there are three areas of contention – how to provide satisfactory medical care for people who cannot find suitable private insurance, how to insure the availability of quality medical care going forward, and how to control rising medical costs. A proper discussion needs to cover this ground with consideration of all major perspectives.
5. Are private insurance companies a good thing or a bad thing?
Private insurance companies are routinely demonized for charging higher and higher premiums from customers, but rejecting valid claims in order to make unfair profits. Certainly there are individual companies which do this, but we should remember that every state has an Insurance Board which governs the conduct of insurance agencies, insurance agents must be licensed and the industry is well regulated. In addition, while many Americans are displeased with their automobile and home insurance, most are happy with their health insurance and do not want major changes.
Insurance was not originally meant to be mandatory. For decades the various forms of insurance, whether Life, Health, Vehicle, Home, Liability or Property, were made available as an option to hedge against catastrophic loss or expenses that could not be met under certain conditions. It should be noted that government requirement that all drivers must be covered by at least liability insurance has neither reduced the frequency of motor vehicle accidents nor the cost of such incidents; the requirement that homes bought on mortgage agreements must carry homeowner’s insurance has not reduced the number of claims made on such policies, nor slowed the growth of the cost of that insurance. It is, on the evidence of the history, absurd to imagine that requiring individuals to obtain health insurance or requiring all employers to provide it will in total improve the condition of health of the nation’s citizens, nor reduce cost. There is no evidence whatsoever from past experience to justify such a claim.
6. Would the government do a better job than private insurance companies?
Looking at the history of the VA Hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid, it’s very hard to imagine how replacing any private insurer with a government program would be an improvement. This is an area where proponents of the new plan need to explain how the waste, errors, and sheer corruption of the past would not simply be repeated on a much larger scale.
I would start a discussion with these six questions. It would be a nice change if even these initial starting points could be addressed.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Why No Congressman Wants to Talk About HR 3200
I have a headache. This is because I have been reading the full text of HR 3200, with the self-described “simple” title of “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”.
Ow.
Remember how some genius created non-alcoholic beer, and in so doing managed to create a beverage with rotten taste, no nutrition, no buzz, and a higher-than-beer price tag, thereby creating something which no sane person would ever wish to purchase, much less imbibe? Well, this bill might be the legislative version of that concoction. It’s frankly very nasty stuff. Want proof? OK, here is the list of definitions of terms from Section 100 of the 1,017-page monster. Read it through and see how well your noggin likes it:
“GENERAL DEFINITIONS.—Except as otherwise provided, in this division:
(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The term ‘‘acceptable coverage’’ has the meaning given such term 5 in section 202(d)(2).
(2) BASIC PLAN.—The term ‘‘basic plan’’ has the meaning given such term in section 203(c).
(3) COMMISSIONER.—The term ‘‘Commissioner’’ means the Health Choices Commissioner established under section 141.
(4) COST-SHARING.—The term ‘‘cost-sharing’’ includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges but does not include premiums or any network payment differential for covered services or spending for non-covered services.
(5) DEPENDENT.—The term ‘‘dependent’’ has the meaning given such term by the Commissioner and includes a spouse.
(6) EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘employment-based health plan’’—
(A) means a group health plan (as defined in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974); and
(B) includes such a plan that is the following:
(i) FEDERAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTAL PLANS.—A governmental plan (as defined in section 3(32) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including a health benefits plan offered under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
(ii) CHURCH PLANS.—A church plan (as defined in section 3(33) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974).
(7) ENHANCED PLAN.—The term ‘‘enhanced plan’’ has the meaning given such term in section 203(c).
(8) ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.—The term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ is defined in section 122(a).
(9) FAMILY.—The term ‘‘family’’ means an individual and includes the individual’s dependents.
(10) FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL; FPL.—The terms ‘‘Federal poverty level’’ and ‘‘FPL’’ have the meaning given the term ‘‘poverty line’’ in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any revision required by such section.
(11) HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.—The terms ‘‘health benefits plan’’ means health insurance coverage and an employment-based health plan and includes the public health insurance option.
(12) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUER.—The terms ‘‘health insurance coverage’’ and ‘‘health insurance issuer’’ have the meanings given such terms in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act.
(13) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The term ‘‘Health Insurance Exchange’’ means the Health Insurance Exchange established under section 201.
(14) MEDICAID.—The term ‘‘Medicaid’’ means a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (whether or not the plan is operating under a 6 waiver under section 1115 of such Act).
(15) MEDICARE.—The term ‘‘Medicare’’ means the health insurance programs under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
(16) PLAN SPONSOR.—The term ‘‘plan sponsor’’ has the meaning given such term in section 3(16)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
(17) PLAN YEAR.—The term ‘‘plan year’’ means—
(A) with respect to an employment-based health plan, a plan year as specified under such plan; or
(B) with respect to a health benefits plan other than an employment-based health plan, a 12-month period as specified by the Commissioner.
(18) PREMIUM PLAN; PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN.— The terms ‘‘premium plan’’ and ‘‘premium-plus plan’’ have the meanings given such terms in section 203(c).
(19) QHBP OFFERING ENTITY.—The terms ‘‘QHBP offering entity’’ means, with respect to a health benefits plan that is—
(A) a group health plan (as defined, subject to subsection (d), in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), the plan sponsor in relation to such group health plan, except that, in the case of a plan maintained jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more employee organizations and with respect to which an employer is the primary source of financing, such term means such employer;
(B) health insurance coverage, the health insurance issuer offering the coverage;
(C) the public health insurance option, the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(D) a non-Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the State or political subdivision of a State (or agency or instrumentality of such State or subdivision) which establishes or maintains such plan; or
(E) a Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the appropriate Federal official.
(20) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.— The term ‘‘qualified health benefits plan’’ means a health benefits plan that meets the requirements for such a plan under title I and includes the public health insurance option.
(21) PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.— The term ‘‘public health insurance option’’ means the public health insurance option as provided under subtitle B of title II.
(22) SERVICE AREA; PREMIUM RATING AREA.— The terms ‘‘service area’’ and ‘‘premium rating area’’ mean with respect to health insurance coverage—
(A) offered other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, such an area as established by the QHBP offering entity of such coverage in accordance with applicable State law; and
(B) offered through the Health Insurance Exchange, such an area as established by such entity in accordance with applicable State law and applicable rules of the Commissioner for Exchange-participating health benefits plans.
(23) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
(24) STATE MEDICAID AGENCY.— The term ‘‘State Medicaid agency’’ means, with respect to a Medicaid plan, the single State agency responsible for administering such plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(25) Y1, Y2, ETC.—The terms ‘‘Y1’’ , ‘‘Y2’’, ‘‘Y3’’, ‘‘Y4’’, ‘‘Y5’’, and similar subsequently numbered terms, mean 2013 and subsequent years, respectively."
If that all makes sense to you and your head is not screaming for relief, see your doctor as soon as the government tells you you are allowed to do so.
Ow.
Remember how some genius created non-alcoholic beer, and in so doing managed to create a beverage with rotten taste, no nutrition, no buzz, and a higher-than-beer price tag, thereby creating something which no sane person would ever wish to purchase, much less imbibe? Well, this bill might be the legislative version of that concoction. It’s frankly very nasty stuff. Want proof? OK, here is the list of definitions of terms from Section 100 of the 1,017-page monster. Read it through and see how well your noggin likes it:
“GENERAL DEFINITIONS.—Except as otherwise provided, in this division:
(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The term ‘‘acceptable coverage’’ has the meaning given such term 5 in section 202(d)(2).
(2) BASIC PLAN.—The term ‘‘basic plan’’ has the meaning given such term in section 203(c).
(3) COMMISSIONER.—The term ‘‘Commissioner’’ means the Health Choices Commissioner established under section 141.
(4) COST-SHARING.—The term ‘‘cost-sharing’’ includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges but does not include premiums or any network payment differential for covered services or spending for non-covered services.
(5) DEPENDENT.—The term ‘‘dependent’’ has the meaning given such term by the Commissioner and includes a spouse.
(6) EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘employment-based health plan’’—
(A) means a group health plan (as defined in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974); and
(B) includes such a plan that is the following:
(i) FEDERAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTAL PLANS.—A governmental plan (as defined in section 3(32) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including a health benefits plan offered under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
(ii) CHURCH PLANS.—A church plan (as defined in section 3(33) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974).
(7) ENHANCED PLAN.—The term ‘‘enhanced plan’’ has the meaning given such term in section 203(c).
(8) ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.—The term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ is defined in section 122(a).
(9) FAMILY.—The term ‘‘family’’ means an individual and includes the individual’s dependents.
(10) FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL; FPL.—The terms ‘‘Federal poverty level’’ and ‘‘FPL’’ have the meaning given the term ‘‘poverty line’’ in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any revision required by such section.
(11) HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.—The terms ‘‘health benefits plan’’ means health insurance coverage and an employment-based health plan and includes the public health insurance option.
(12) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUER.—The terms ‘‘health insurance coverage’’ and ‘‘health insurance issuer’’ have the meanings given such terms in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act.
(13) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The term ‘‘Health Insurance Exchange’’ means the Health Insurance Exchange established under section 201.
(14) MEDICAID.—The term ‘‘Medicaid’’ means a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (whether or not the plan is operating under a 6 waiver under section 1115 of such Act).
(15) MEDICARE.—The term ‘‘Medicare’’ means the health insurance programs under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
(16) PLAN SPONSOR.—The term ‘‘plan sponsor’’ has the meaning given such term in section 3(16)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
(17) PLAN YEAR.—The term ‘‘plan year’’ means—
(A) with respect to an employment-based health plan, a plan year as specified under such plan; or
(B) with respect to a health benefits plan other than an employment-based health plan, a 12-month period as specified by the Commissioner.
(18) PREMIUM PLAN; PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN.— The terms ‘‘premium plan’’ and ‘‘premium-plus plan’’ have the meanings given such terms in section 203(c).
(19) QHBP OFFERING ENTITY.—The terms ‘‘QHBP offering entity’’ means, with respect to a health benefits plan that is—
(A) a group health plan (as defined, subject to subsection (d), in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), the plan sponsor in relation to such group health plan, except that, in the case of a plan maintained jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more employee organizations and with respect to which an employer is the primary source of financing, such term means such employer;
(B) health insurance coverage, the health insurance issuer offering the coverage;
(C) the public health insurance option, the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(D) a non-Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the State or political subdivision of a State (or agency or instrumentality of such State or subdivision) which establishes or maintains such plan; or
(E) a Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the appropriate Federal official.
(20) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.— The term ‘‘qualified health benefits plan’’ means a health benefits plan that meets the requirements for such a plan under title I and includes the public health insurance option.
(21) PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.— The term ‘‘public health insurance option’’ means the public health insurance option as provided under subtitle B of title II.
(22) SERVICE AREA; PREMIUM RATING AREA.— The terms ‘‘service area’’ and ‘‘premium rating area’’ mean with respect to health insurance coverage—
(A) offered other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, such an area as established by the QHBP offering entity of such coverage in accordance with applicable State law; and
(B) offered through the Health Insurance Exchange, such an area as established by such entity in accordance with applicable State law and applicable rules of the Commissioner for Exchange-participating health benefits plans.
(23) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
(24) STATE MEDICAID AGENCY.— The term ‘‘State Medicaid agency’’ means, with respect to a Medicaid plan, the single State agency responsible for administering such plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(25) Y1, Y2, ETC.—The terms ‘‘Y1’’ , ‘‘Y2’’, ‘‘Y3’’, ‘‘Y4’’, ‘‘Y5’’, and similar subsequently numbered terms, mean 2013 and subsequent years, respectively."
If that all makes sense to you and your head is not screaming for relief, see your doctor as soon as the government tells you you are allowed to do so.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
The Constitution of the United States and Its Usurpation
One of the more over-used claims I have heard in my lifetime, is how this condition or that somehow violates someone’s rights. The U.S. is a great country, in my opinion the very best, but we have waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many lawsuits, not to mention protests against just about everything. We read, see, and hear about ‘Animal Rights’ (not to mention that a certain Obama Administration official once wanted trees to have legal standing to file lawsuits), ‘Right to Life’ vs. “Woman’s Right to Choose’, ‘Right to Die’, and the popular meme of the moment, the ‘Right’ to Healthcare.
There are, it seems, three common sources for the notion of enumerated rights; the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the popular imagination. The key phrase from the Declaration of Independence is that line about “certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; while some folks try to draw inferences that government should be providing these things to people, I would remind the audience that when this document was written, the theme and tone were to tell the extant government – Britain, King George III and Parliament – where they could go and with what accessories. The Declaration of Independence was in no way an endorsement of government power and influence.
The Constitution of the United States is where most people come to think of rights, yet many beliefs are mistaken. The founding fathers, for instance, have made it abundantly clear not only in the text of the Constitution but in other writings of the time that the Constitution was created not to spell out the rights of the people, but to define the limits of the federal government’s power. The Bill of Rights was noted not to lay out what the citizens were allowed to do, but to emphasize certain boundaries which the government may under no circumstances trample. From that original context, therefore, it is important to understand that “rights” come to mean areas where the government is not allowed to exert power or influence, even with the best of intentions. The legitimate power and authority of government extends only to that degree where the Constitution specifically grants that power and authority – sadly, the actual affairs of government have gone well beyond those limits, and it is doubtful that we shall ever again see the government truly envisioned by the founding fathers. We must make do with the reality in which we live.
The reality of the Constitution, is that it’s really a very simple framework. Let’s have a walk through the structure of the thing and I hope you will see what I mean:
Preface
”We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That sets out what we’re doing. Union, Justice, Peace, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty are the goals. The rest of the Constitution lays out how these goals are to be accomplished.
Article I
Article I lays out the Congress of the United States, how it is created and how it shall operate. Section 8 is particularly important, setting out taxation, debt, commerce, naturalization of citizens, bankruptcy law, the treasury, post office and rail roads, patents and copyright, the establishment of courts, and the conduct and operation of the military, in that order.
Article II
Article II lays out the Executive Branch, the qualifications for President of the United States and how he/she may be elected. The Constitution clearly shows the President to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, to have the right to make appointments and to recommend actions to Congress, and that he may be removed only by impeachment for “high crimes”, such as Treason or Bribery. The President’s role is clearly set out distinct from the role of Congress; the Congress is expected to deliberate and move slowly and with the deliberation appropriate to its great power, while the President is in a leadership role, so that he may move more quickly but with less effect than the Congress.
Article III
Article III sets out the judicial system, derived from the Supreme Court and – as the Constitution describes them – inferior courts. It is interesting that Section 1 specifically qualifies the right of any judge to sit on the bench to their “good behavior”; I cannot help but wonder how many of our esteemed honors would actually pass a reasonable examination to see whether in fact their behavior as judges could properly be called ‘good’.
Article IV
Article IV gets into greater detail than the previous articles, addressing the rights of states to conduct their public acts with the confidence that other states will consider such acts as legitimate within their own jurisdiction to the degree that relations between those states are affected, the universal applicability of criminal law and civil judgments, the territory and boundaries of states, and the universal protection by the armed forces of each state from invasion or attack.
Article V
Article V sets out how amendments to the Constitution may be created and ratified. This plainly worded section is perhaps the most effective means by which the Constitution remains relevant.
Article VI
Article VI almost reads as an afterthought to the main body of the Constitution, but two points in this article are of paramount importance – the clear affirmation that the Constitution of the United States is the “supreme Law of the Land”, which rather snuffs the notion that interpretation of foreign law should be considered anything close to equal in standing to the Constitution as written and ratified; and the direct admonition that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”, which is in actual fact the strongest clear statement of the separation of Church and State; note that this separation is effected in the conduct of public officials, not in the rights of private citizens.
Article VII
Article VII sets out the ratification of the Constitution.
The Amendments
The twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are, to me anyway, a fascinating historical commentary on the enduring value and stability of the Constitution. It should be remembered, after all, that other nations had Constitutions which failed because they ignored them – the politicians in, for example, the Soviet Union ignored their Constitution whenever they felt like it, or – why does this sound familiar – decided whatever they wanted to do was actually allowed under the Constitution, even where specifically proscribed by the actual document. We see maddening debates over the meaning of the wording in various places, but at least our judges still consider the Constitution as the rule book on our laws.
The first ten amendments, of course, were created at the time of the original Constitution, and are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. It shows something of the concern by Mr. Madison and his colleagues, that even in a document which clearly set out to limit the scope and power of government, they determined it was necessary to enumerate specific rights which may not, under any circumstances, be abrogated. In short summary they are as follows:
1. Freedom of Speech
2. Right to Firearms
3. Quarters for Troops
4. Search and Seizure limits
5. Rights of the Accused
6. Criminal Prosecutions
7. The Right to Juries
8. The Right to Bail, limits on Punishment
9. The Bill of Rights does not list all rights of the people
10. Powers not specifically accorded the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states, or to the people
It gets interesting after that. The eleventh amendment addresses lawsuits against states, the twelfth concerns the election of the President and Vice-President, the thirteenth abolishes slavery, the fourteenth details due process rights, equal protection, and voting rights, the fifteenth prohibits racial discrimination of voting rights, the sixteenth establishes income tax, the seventeenth addresses the election of senators in more detail, the eighteenth banned alcoholic drinks, the nineteenth confirmed the right of women to vote, the twentieth addresses the succession of the President of the United States, the twenty-first repealed the eighteenth amendment, the twenty-second limits the President of the United States to two full terms of office, the twenty-third allows D.C. residents to vote in Presidential elections, the twenty-fourth bans the poll tax, the twenty-fifth details specific conditions for succession of the President, the twenty-sixth sets the voting age at 18 across the nation, and the twenty-seventh prohibits the Congress from voting on their pay more than once in a two-year period. From this, we can see that of the 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights, four address the actions and election of the President of the United States, eight address elections and voting rights, two clarify the operation of the federal government, two ban certain practices, one establishes a new power for the federal government, and one simply cancels a prior amendment.
The sum effect of the Constitution and its amendments, for me anyway, is that this is a simple framework meant to be applied in the spirit of limited government and maximum rights for individuals. From this spirit, it follows that individuals may do as they please, with the common sense restrictions that each of us is responsible for the effect of our actions upon others, and that as a member of our community we have obligations to promote its welfare. There is no right to a certain minimum number of years of life, nor to perfect health, no right to social networking or a secure job, nor to the exclusion of annoying people or discomfort, no right to guarantee that the police can solve every crime or the government solve your every worry.
Which brings us to that problem of imagination. Where did all those government programs come from, if our founding fathers did not had over the authority to create them? In a word, sophistry. Consider the Louisiana Purchase, for example. While I agree that it was a great deal for the United States and a brilliant bit of strategy, it was also clearly unconstitutional. And what about Lincoln suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? Many historians have argued persuasively that the action was necessary, but again there is no authority in the Constitution for President Lincoln to have done it. The New Deal? As grand as FDR described it and as proud as so many are of their work in those years, nowhere does the Constitution allow the President or the Congress to take over the commerce of the nation in order to try out political theory, as happened in the 1930s. And yes, that in turn makes the Bush and Obama attempts to do the same thing unconstitutional. Frankly, the very notion of borrowing huge amounts of taxpayer money for the benefit of selected companies and industries is so offensive that one imagines Hamilton and Franklin retching at the mere notion, not to mention its repetition in succeeding terms. It will, no doubt, be observed that many courts in the United States, including the Supreme Court, have signed off on these egregious violations of the limits of government, but one might remind such individuals that the courts have made myriad mistakes over the years, from Dred Scott to Plessy v Ferguson to Hepburn v Griswold to Everson to Roe v Wade to Grutter to Kelo v. New London and so on. To this, we must also note that when there is influence or power to be gained by advancing the breadth and grasp of the federal government, the Constitution fares badly throughout history, in courtrooms as much as the halls of Congress.
Many critics of the current proposals argue that we cannot afford them, but at some point it is bound to occur to the citizens of the United States that they never got to vote on these obscene orgies of spending, that the hateful practice of ‘taxation without representation’ is in full effect in the modern world, and that in the end the only hope for the Republic is for its citizens to demand its return. The only right we have, in the end, is the right to take responsibility for our own condition and actions, and their consequence. The only proper role for government is to protect the citizens from enemies and continue the maintenance of infrastructure, but otherwise to shut up and get out of the way of those who do the real work at hand.
There are, it seems, three common sources for the notion of enumerated rights; the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the popular imagination. The key phrase from the Declaration of Independence is that line about “certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; while some folks try to draw inferences that government should be providing these things to people, I would remind the audience that when this document was written, the theme and tone were to tell the extant government – Britain, King George III and Parliament – where they could go and with what accessories. The Declaration of Independence was in no way an endorsement of government power and influence.
The Constitution of the United States is where most people come to think of rights, yet many beliefs are mistaken. The founding fathers, for instance, have made it abundantly clear not only in the text of the Constitution but in other writings of the time that the Constitution was created not to spell out the rights of the people, but to define the limits of the federal government’s power. The Bill of Rights was noted not to lay out what the citizens were allowed to do, but to emphasize certain boundaries which the government may under no circumstances trample. From that original context, therefore, it is important to understand that “rights” come to mean areas where the government is not allowed to exert power or influence, even with the best of intentions. The legitimate power and authority of government extends only to that degree where the Constitution specifically grants that power and authority – sadly, the actual affairs of government have gone well beyond those limits, and it is doubtful that we shall ever again see the government truly envisioned by the founding fathers. We must make do with the reality in which we live.
The reality of the Constitution, is that it’s really a very simple framework. Let’s have a walk through the structure of the thing and I hope you will see what I mean:
Preface
”We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That sets out what we’re doing. Union, Justice, Peace, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty are the goals. The rest of the Constitution lays out how these goals are to be accomplished.
Article I
Article I lays out the Congress of the United States, how it is created and how it shall operate. Section 8 is particularly important, setting out taxation, debt, commerce, naturalization of citizens, bankruptcy law, the treasury, post office and rail roads, patents and copyright, the establishment of courts, and the conduct and operation of the military, in that order.
Article II
Article II lays out the Executive Branch, the qualifications for President of the United States and how he/she may be elected. The Constitution clearly shows the President to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, to have the right to make appointments and to recommend actions to Congress, and that he may be removed only by impeachment for “high crimes”, such as Treason or Bribery. The President’s role is clearly set out distinct from the role of Congress; the Congress is expected to deliberate and move slowly and with the deliberation appropriate to its great power, while the President is in a leadership role, so that he may move more quickly but with less effect than the Congress.
Article III
Article III sets out the judicial system, derived from the Supreme Court and – as the Constitution describes them – inferior courts. It is interesting that Section 1 specifically qualifies the right of any judge to sit on the bench to their “good behavior”; I cannot help but wonder how many of our esteemed honors would actually pass a reasonable examination to see whether in fact their behavior as judges could properly be called ‘good’.
Article IV
Article IV gets into greater detail than the previous articles, addressing the rights of states to conduct their public acts with the confidence that other states will consider such acts as legitimate within their own jurisdiction to the degree that relations between those states are affected, the universal applicability of criminal law and civil judgments, the territory and boundaries of states, and the universal protection by the armed forces of each state from invasion or attack.
Article V
Article V sets out how amendments to the Constitution may be created and ratified. This plainly worded section is perhaps the most effective means by which the Constitution remains relevant.
Article VI
Article VI almost reads as an afterthought to the main body of the Constitution, but two points in this article are of paramount importance – the clear affirmation that the Constitution of the United States is the “supreme Law of the Land”, which rather snuffs the notion that interpretation of foreign law should be considered anything close to equal in standing to the Constitution as written and ratified; and the direct admonition that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”, which is in actual fact the strongest clear statement of the separation of Church and State; note that this separation is effected in the conduct of public officials, not in the rights of private citizens.
Article VII
Article VII sets out the ratification of the Constitution.
The Amendments
The twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are, to me anyway, a fascinating historical commentary on the enduring value and stability of the Constitution. It should be remembered, after all, that other nations had Constitutions which failed because they ignored them – the politicians in, for example, the Soviet Union ignored their Constitution whenever they felt like it, or – why does this sound familiar – decided whatever they wanted to do was actually allowed under the Constitution, even where specifically proscribed by the actual document. We see maddening debates over the meaning of the wording in various places, but at least our judges still consider the Constitution as the rule book on our laws.
The first ten amendments, of course, were created at the time of the original Constitution, and are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. It shows something of the concern by Mr. Madison and his colleagues, that even in a document which clearly set out to limit the scope and power of government, they determined it was necessary to enumerate specific rights which may not, under any circumstances, be abrogated. In short summary they are as follows:
1. Freedom of Speech
2. Right to Firearms
3. Quarters for Troops
4. Search and Seizure limits
5. Rights of the Accused
6. Criminal Prosecutions
7. The Right to Juries
8. The Right to Bail, limits on Punishment
9. The Bill of Rights does not list all rights of the people
10. Powers not specifically accorded the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states, or to the people
It gets interesting after that. The eleventh amendment addresses lawsuits against states, the twelfth concerns the election of the President and Vice-President, the thirteenth abolishes slavery, the fourteenth details due process rights, equal protection, and voting rights, the fifteenth prohibits racial discrimination of voting rights, the sixteenth establishes income tax, the seventeenth addresses the election of senators in more detail, the eighteenth banned alcoholic drinks, the nineteenth confirmed the right of women to vote, the twentieth addresses the succession of the President of the United States, the twenty-first repealed the eighteenth amendment, the twenty-second limits the President of the United States to two full terms of office, the twenty-third allows D.C. residents to vote in Presidential elections, the twenty-fourth bans the poll tax, the twenty-fifth details specific conditions for succession of the President, the twenty-sixth sets the voting age at 18 across the nation, and the twenty-seventh prohibits the Congress from voting on their pay more than once in a two-year period. From this, we can see that of the 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights, four address the actions and election of the President of the United States, eight address elections and voting rights, two clarify the operation of the federal government, two ban certain practices, one establishes a new power for the federal government, and one simply cancels a prior amendment.
The sum effect of the Constitution and its amendments, for me anyway, is that this is a simple framework meant to be applied in the spirit of limited government and maximum rights for individuals. From this spirit, it follows that individuals may do as they please, with the common sense restrictions that each of us is responsible for the effect of our actions upon others, and that as a member of our community we have obligations to promote its welfare. There is no right to a certain minimum number of years of life, nor to perfect health, no right to social networking or a secure job, nor to the exclusion of annoying people or discomfort, no right to guarantee that the police can solve every crime or the government solve your every worry.
Which brings us to that problem of imagination. Where did all those government programs come from, if our founding fathers did not had over the authority to create them? In a word, sophistry. Consider the Louisiana Purchase, for example. While I agree that it was a great deal for the United States and a brilliant bit of strategy, it was also clearly unconstitutional. And what about Lincoln suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? Many historians have argued persuasively that the action was necessary, but again there is no authority in the Constitution for President Lincoln to have done it. The New Deal? As grand as FDR described it and as proud as so many are of their work in those years, nowhere does the Constitution allow the President or the Congress to take over the commerce of the nation in order to try out political theory, as happened in the 1930s. And yes, that in turn makes the Bush and Obama attempts to do the same thing unconstitutional. Frankly, the very notion of borrowing huge amounts of taxpayer money for the benefit of selected companies and industries is so offensive that one imagines Hamilton and Franklin retching at the mere notion, not to mention its repetition in succeeding terms. It will, no doubt, be observed that many courts in the United States, including the Supreme Court, have signed off on these egregious violations of the limits of government, but one might remind such individuals that the courts have made myriad mistakes over the years, from Dred Scott to Plessy v Ferguson to Hepburn v Griswold to Everson to Roe v Wade to Grutter to Kelo v. New London and so on. To this, we must also note that when there is influence or power to be gained by advancing the breadth and grasp of the federal government, the Constitution fares badly throughout history, in courtrooms as much as the halls of Congress.
Many critics of the current proposals argue that we cannot afford them, but at some point it is bound to occur to the citizens of the United States that they never got to vote on these obscene orgies of spending, that the hateful practice of ‘taxation without representation’ is in full effect in the modern world, and that in the end the only hope for the Republic is for its citizens to demand its return. The only right we have, in the end, is the right to take responsibility for our own condition and actions, and their consequence. The only proper role for government is to protect the citizens from enemies and continue the maintenance of infrastructure, but otherwise to shut up and get out of the way of those who do the real work at hand.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
A Clear Sign, But What Does It Say?
I have not written much at all about President Obama’s Approval Ratings in the polls since he was inaugurated in January, but noting the recent trend it seems appropriate to do so now.
I have said many times that for me, the gold standard in opinion polling is the Gallup Organization. This is due not only to Gallup’s long history, but also because Gallup follows a very consistent methodology and set of questions. This allows interested researchers the opportunity to track support within a poll over a period of time, to better gauge the actual cause and effect of his policies and decisions.
The people at Real Clear Politics provide a very useful resource, where general polling support can be easily tracked.
Looking at these polls, the following polls provide a track of Obama’s job approval since January:
Gallup: 68% when sworn in, 56% now, loss of 12 points
Rasmussen: 62% when sworn in, 50% now, loss of 12 points
CBS/NYT: 63% February 22, 58% now, loss of 5 points
NBC/WSJ: 60% March 1, 53% now, loss of 7 points
Pew: 64% February 8, 54% now, loss of 10 points
NPR: 59% March 14, 53% now, loss of 6 points
FOX: 65% when sworn in, 54% now, loss of 11 points
In every case of long-term tracking, President Obama’s levels of job approval are the lowest overall he has seen since taking office, across the board.
But a closer look shows the problem may be more serious, nothing to worry about, or paradoxically, both.
In addition to a high-level overview, the Gallup Organization also publishes support by demographic groups.
An examination of those 28 demographic groups, determined by gender, age, geographic region, race, education, wages, political affiliation and orientation shows that in 22 of 28 demographic categories, support for President Obama is at its lowest or tried for the lowest level since he took office. The six demographic areas where support for President Obama is not at its nadir, are Non-White voters (85% support highest on April 26, 75% lowest on April 5, presently at 79%), Black voters (96% highest on July 5, May 4, and March 8, lowest at 86% on January 25, presently at 95%), Hispanic voters (85% highest on April 26, 70% lowest on April 5 and March 22, presently at 72%), Voters making below $24,000 a year (76% highest on May 4, 66% lowest on June 21, presently at 68%), Republicans (41% highest on January 25, 20% lowest on July 12, presently at 21%), and Liberals (90% highest on June 28, May 31, May 24, and April 26, 83% lowest on January 25, presently at 86%). All of those demographics are relative minorities to the voting population at this time.
Even with the loss of support, however, President Obama still enjoys support levels above 50% across the board, indicating that his personal popularity is strong and the general theme of his administration is well-received. Therefore, it may be reasonable to consider the loss of support nothing more than a shaking out of the fair-weather support, and displaying a strong core of support for the President. That is, of course, assuming his numbers do not continue to fall.
It should, however, be noted that President Obama has lost significant support among major demographic groups. Between February 1 and July 26, President Obama lost twelve points of support from female voters, who were the dominant gender in the 2008 election. White voters made up 74% of the electorate in the 2008 election, and since taking office President Obama’s support among whites has fallen sixteen points according to Gallup. The largest demographic age group in the 2008 election was the 30-49 age group; among this group President Obama has lost twelve points since taking office. Among moderates, the largest political philosophy demographic, President Obama has lost ten points since taking office. The South was the most important geographic region in the 2008 election, and among Southern voters, President Obama has lost twelve points of support since taking office. In the 2008 election, the largest demographic by education was the ‘Some College’ category, and in that category President Obama has lost fifteen points of support since taking office. And among voters earning between sixty thousand and ninety thousand dollars a year, again the largest demographic in their section, President Obama has seen his support fall by twenty points since taking office. The conclusion is unavoidable that, if this loss of support is not rebuilt and assuming the Republicans can present a credible candidate, that at this time President Obama has seriously damaged his re-election chances, since every dominant demographic group from the 2008 election has significantly reduced support for the President since his Inauguration.
I have said many times that for me, the gold standard in opinion polling is the Gallup Organization. This is due not only to Gallup’s long history, but also because Gallup follows a very consistent methodology and set of questions. This allows interested researchers the opportunity to track support within a poll over a period of time, to better gauge the actual cause and effect of his policies and decisions.
The people at Real Clear Politics provide a very useful resource, where general polling support can be easily tracked.
Looking at these polls, the following polls provide a track of Obama’s job approval since January:
Gallup: 68% when sworn in, 56% now, loss of 12 points
Rasmussen: 62% when sworn in, 50% now, loss of 12 points
CBS/NYT: 63% February 22, 58% now, loss of 5 points
NBC/WSJ: 60% March 1, 53% now, loss of 7 points
Pew: 64% February 8, 54% now, loss of 10 points
NPR: 59% March 14, 53% now, loss of 6 points
FOX: 65% when sworn in, 54% now, loss of 11 points
In every case of long-term tracking, President Obama’s levels of job approval are the lowest overall he has seen since taking office, across the board.
But a closer look shows the problem may be more serious, nothing to worry about, or paradoxically, both.
In addition to a high-level overview, the Gallup Organization also publishes support by demographic groups.
An examination of those 28 demographic groups, determined by gender, age, geographic region, race, education, wages, political affiliation and orientation shows that in 22 of 28 demographic categories, support for President Obama is at its lowest or tried for the lowest level since he took office. The six demographic areas where support for President Obama is not at its nadir, are Non-White voters (85% support highest on April 26, 75% lowest on April 5, presently at 79%), Black voters (96% highest on July 5, May 4, and March 8, lowest at 86% on January 25, presently at 95%), Hispanic voters (85% highest on April 26, 70% lowest on April 5 and March 22, presently at 72%), Voters making below $24,000 a year (76% highest on May 4, 66% lowest on June 21, presently at 68%), Republicans (41% highest on January 25, 20% lowest on July 12, presently at 21%), and Liberals (90% highest on June 28, May 31, May 24, and April 26, 83% lowest on January 25, presently at 86%). All of those demographics are relative minorities to the voting population at this time.
Even with the loss of support, however, President Obama still enjoys support levels above 50% across the board, indicating that his personal popularity is strong and the general theme of his administration is well-received. Therefore, it may be reasonable to consider the loss of support nothing more than a shaking out of the fair-weather support, and displaying a strong core of support for the President. That is, of course, assuming his numbers do not continue to fall.
It should, however, be noted that President Obama has lost significant support among major demographic groups. Between February 1 and July 26, President Obama lost twelve points of support from female voters, who were the dominant gender in the 2008 election. White voters made up 74% of the electorate in the 2008 election, and since taking office President Obama’s support among whites has fallen sixteen points according to Gallup. The largest demographic age group in the 2008 election was the 30-49 age group; among this group President Obama has lost twelve points since taking office. Among moderates, the largest political philosophy demographic, President Obama has lost ten points since taking office. The South was the most important geographic region in the 2008 election, and among Southern voters, President Obama has lost twelve points of support since taking office. In the 2008 election, the largest demographic by education was the ‘Some College’ category, and in that category President Obama has lost fifteen points of support since taking office. And among voters earning between sixty thousand and ninety thousand dollars a year, again the largest demographic in their section, President Obama has seen his support fall by twenty points since taking office. The conclusion is unavoidable that, if this loss of support is not rebuilt and assuming the Republicans can present a credible candidate, that at this time President Obama has seriously damaged his re-election chances, since every dominant demographic group from the 2008 election has significantly reduced support for the President since his Inauguration.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
My Survivor Guilt
In late 2006, I was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer, Pseudomyxoma Peritonei, or PMP for short. PMP is a rare form of abdominal cancer, free-floating cells which grow in size and block the transfer of fluid throughout the abdominal cavity, and when the cells metastasize the cancer attacks multiple internal organs, either through . The nature of the cancer is such that normal warning signs simply do not appear; the only early warning signs of PMP are high blood pressure, weight and water gain, and sluggish body movements.
Those signs are also symptoms of simply being overweight, which is far more common and far less serious. Consequently, victims of PMP usually become aware of the cancer only when it begins to attack internal organs, at which time the chances of survival plummet. A study by the National Institute of Health said PMP patients have a 1-year survival rate of 98%, but a 5-year survival rate of just 53%, and a 10-year survival rate of only 32%. That study is a bit dated now, but it does give you a sense of how serious this cancer is to the people who must fight it.
An account of how one patient in Canada fought PMP may be read here. And I applaud Steve's courage and candid account of his fight.
In short, no one really knows what causes PMP, why it floats around loose in the abdominal cavity, what causes it to go from relatively harmless to aggressively life-threatening, or why some cases are discovered early but most only when it is too late. PMP is a damnable thing to have to face.
And this is why I feel guilty. I went in to M.D. Anderson yesterday for more tests and evaluations, and today I spoke with Paul Mansfield, the doctor who is in charge of my case and one of the top four or five experts in PMP. My tumors have not grown for more than two years, and all in all things are going very well for me. So well in fact, that I began to wonder if I had not been misdiagnosed, that maybe I did not in fact have cancer. Dr. Mansfield, along with the Colorectal Cancer team at MDA, assure me that I do indeed have PMP, but for me the cancer is strangely quiescent, not growing or making any signs of threat to my health or well-being. The cancer is not gone, but it’s not attacking me either. It’s like walking past a neighbor’s house every morning, and a gun is always pointed at me but never fired.
Why?
Why do I have a cancer that most people have never heard of? And why have I been blessed by having a cancer that only threatened me for a short time, never actually putting my life in real danger, when so many others are killed by the thing, or put through months of hellish suffering?
I never deserved to have cancer. At the same time, there are many people with cancer who deserved my good fortune far more than I do. I hate the trips to MDA, because I almost feel that I have no business being there, next to people who have suffered so much because of their cancer, while mine has cost me so little up to now. I know in my head that I should be grateful, especially for my wife and daughter who worry about me and who had a much harder time when I had my last operation than I did. But in my heart I do not wish to suffer, but I wish I could help the others suffer less – it feels wrong to be so helpless to help the others.
I stopped writing to my PMP Patient forum. I could not bring myself to write about my health and well-being, when so many of my fellow patients were suffering from slow recuperation, and so many lost their battles.
So damned many.
I don’t know why I have been spared. I don’t know what to do.
M.D. Anderson has started a study of the disease, having received permission from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to do so, and I will be participating with whatever I can contribute. At least I can feel like I am doing something to help, though it’s small steps in a long journey.
Those signs are also symptoms of simply being overweight, which is far more common and far less serious. Consequently, victims of PMP usually become aware of the cancer only when it begins to attack internal organs, at which time the chances of survival plummet. A study by the National Institute of Health said PMP patients have a 1-year survival rate of 98%, but a 5-year survival rate of just 53%, and a 10-year survival rate of only 32%. That study is a bit dated now, but it does give you a sense of how serious this cancer is to the people who must fight it.
An account of how one patient in Canada fought PMP may be read here. And I applaud Steve's courage and candid account of his fight.
In short, no one really knows what causes PMP, why it floats around loose in the abdominal cavity, what causes it to go from relatively harmless to aggressively life-threatening, or why some cases are discovered early but most only when it is too late. PMP is a damnable thing to have to face.
And this is why I feel guilty. I went in to M.D. Anderson yesterday for more tests and evaluations, and today I spoke with Paul Mansfield, the doctor who is in charge of my case and one of the top four or five experts in PMP. My tumors have not grown for more than two years, and all in all things are going very well for me. So well in fact, that I began to wonder if I had not been misdiagnosed, that maybe I did not in fact have cancer. Dr. Mansfield, along with the Colorectal Cancer team at MDA, assure me that I do indeed have PMP, but for me the cancer is strangely quiescent, not growing or making any signs of threat to my health or well-being. The cancer is not gone, but it’s not attacking me either. It’s like walking past a neighbor’s house every morning, and a gun is always pointed at me but never fired.
Why?
Why do I have a cancer that most people have never heard of? And why have I been blessed by having a cancer that only threatened me for a short time, never actually putting my life in real danger, when so many others are killed by the thing, or put through months of hellish suffering?
I never deserved to have cancer. At the same time, there are many people with cancer who deserved my good fortune far more than I do. I hate the trips to MDA, because I almost feel that I have no business being there, next to people who have suffered so much because of their cancer, while mine has cost me so little up to now. I know in my head that I should be grateful, especially for my wife and daughter who worry about me and who had a much harder time when I had my last operation than I did. But in my heart I do not wish to suffer, but I wish I could help the others suffer less – it feels wrong to be so helpless to help the others.
I stopped writing to my PMP Patient forum. I could not bring myself to write about my health and well-being, when so many of my fellow patients were suffering from slow recuperation, and so many lost their battles.
So damned many.
I don’t know why I have been spared. I don’t know what to do.
M.D. Anderson has started a study of the disease, having received permission from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to do so, and I will be participating with whatever I can contribute. At least I can feel like I am doing something to help, though it’s small steps in a long journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
