And the dam breaks ...

In remarks today at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, our president said: “The time for talk is over …”

When I read that I thought dear God, is he resigning? What else does he have to offer? No more talk, no more administration. What else have we been given in eleven months? Well, troops of course, and back pedaling.

And spectacularly poor judgment. When the history of the Obama administration is writ, let it be writ large that executive privilege was claimed for the White House Social Secretary. Yes, in the view of the Obama administration, the White House Social Secretary provides policy advice to the president of such sensitivity and import that the functioning of the executive branch would be compromised if she answered a congressional subpoena.

I have been so dispirited by the ongoing saga of health care “reform” legislation that I haven’t been able to write about it in some time. (I would heartily commend Howard Dean’s op ed in yesterday’s Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html?sub=AR).

I have to concede that President Obama is far from the only cowardly, craven villain in this fiasco. Harry Reid and Max “Find My Girlfriend a Job” Baucus have also helped redefine “compromise” as “total surrender.” And Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe lead the list of those attempting to take the legislation hostage over a single issue. Clearly the greater good is only greater under limited circumstances and the motto of the United States Senate is “My Way or the Highway.” I must reserve my particular utmost personal contempt for Joe Lieberman, a narcissistic boor who wouldn’t recognize the good of the nation if it walked up to him wearing a badge reading “Hello, My Name Is: The Good of The Nation.”

Remember children, if a liberal stands up for a matter of principle, he or she is being shrill, obstructionist and, most horrifyingly of all, P.C. If someone on the right follows the same course, he or she is being stalwart, courageous and patriotic.

Although I do say all that with a touch of envy.  I wish that someone, anyone, on the left would be as resolute in standing up for a Medicare buy-in, or a woman's right to choose, or a public option, or no coverage caps ...

This whole sorry spectacle puts me in mind of the old folk tale “Stone Soup.” The peddler comes to a village with a pot and some stones. He builds a fire by the well and adds water to his stones. Curious villagers ask what he is doing and he says. “making stone soup.” Their curiosity is piqued and over time he gets them to contribute carrots and onions and potatoes and chicken and a host of other ingredients until the villagers agree that stone soup is the best dish they have ever tasted.

The Senate had the opportunity to craft legislation that started pretty close to finished stone soup. Instead the Senate has spent the last few months picking out the chicken and the carrots and the onions and all the other ingredients that might make it savory or nutritious until all that Harry Reid is going to have to invoke cloture to get us is a pot of boiling water and some rocks.

It’s not right and it’s not enough.

But don't bother calling or writing your senators, Their minds are already made up and your voice is so much inconsequential background noise.

Bartleby, the President.

In Herman Melville’s brilliant, if rather odd, short story, Bartleby, the Scrivener, the title character responds, I would prefer not to to every request that he take action no matter how trivial, no matter the source. The 24 hours that have elapsed since the leader of the free world delivered his remarks on revising the nation’s health care system have done nothing to abate my feeling that I had listened to Bartleby the President.

Let it not be said that the leader of the free world can’t build a smokin’ cadence. Let it not be said that the leader of the free world doesn’t know when to go up in volume and when to come down. Let it not be said that the leader of the free world can be beat for oratorical flourishes when he and his teleprompter are in sync.

Never let it be said that the leader of the free world is going to let his soaring rhetoric be bogged down with substance. Clearly, he would prefer not to. This is a man who was for the public option before he was against it. In the same speech. (Hint to my fellow progressives, or liberals as we were known when I was a boy, enjoy the view from under the train because that’s where we’ll be riding for the next 3-1/2 or 7-1/2 years. And the public option was just the beginning. I give you no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.)

I am authentically surprised that even Joe Wilson could have topped the laugh that followed, And while there remain some significant differences to be ironed out … as the defining moment of the speech. At the time I thought it could potentially be the defining moment of the presidency. At another point in his remarks, the leader of the free world spoke critically of cynicism. Yet what could possibly be more cynical than to introduce a “plan” with significant differences yet to be ironed out a month after his initial deadline for congressional action? Might the time to offer a plan have been three or four months ago? Perhaps he preferred not to.

The plan, its timing and its lack of specifics were not the most egregiously cynical aspects of the leader of the free world’s remarks. He made his most cynical point several times, among them:

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse ...

Or …

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud...

Or …

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.

Waste, abuse, fraud, inefficiency … these are the last refuge of the demagogue. The other hallmark of demagoguery being a certain facility for public speaking. Waste, fraud, inefficiency and abuse do exist, but I don’t believe that calling for their elimination as a funding mechanism is any more effective than proposing harnessing unicorns to replace fossil fuels. I am willing to wager that when Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus addressed the Roman Senate in the sixth century BC he called for eliminating waste, inefficiency, abuse and fraud to pay for public works projects. I would not be surprised to learn that in the election of 1800 Adams and Jefferson pilloried one another for the waste, abuse, fraud and inefficiency that blighted construction of the new capital city.

At many points in the national debate over reforming our health care system a committed and responsible leader of the nation or even his party might have chosen to offer a plan that he was willing to own, a plan which enumerated specific mechanisms for achieving its stated goals, a plan that offered realistic cost estimates and honest strategies for how to meet them.

President Obama clearly preferred not to.

Fraternal Twins?

Separated at Birth?

The parallels are uncanny. Both these men of the people vacationed on Martha’s Vineyard. Both had first terms blighted by failed health care reform proposals (come on, it’s only a matter of time). Both were proclaimed the first Black President (one by Toni Morrison, one by everyone in the universe). Both are wildly charismatic.

Given the uncanny parallels, if I were you Michelle I’d fire all the interns. All of them. Every last one. ‘Cause you’d probably be moving from the White House to the Big House when you were done with him.

There is one huge difference between these men. When the wrong speech was loaded into the teleprompter for an address to Congress on (conspiracy theorists take note) healthcare reform, one of them spoke for seven minutes from memory. And no one in the House chamber was any the wiser. There is some question as to whether the other can bid his wife good morning without benefit of a teleprompter.

More on Birth

I was terrified by a quote in a column in Politico by Glenn Thrush in which the press secretary for almost birther Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz) explains that the good Congressman believes: “It should not be too much to ask for the leader of the free world to allay the concerns of a large number of the people he represents by producing his long-form birth certificate, which is the definitive, inarguable way that he can put people's concerns about his national identity to rest for good.” Not that the Congressman himself doesn't believe President Obama is a natural born American citizen and quite eligible to be president.

Long form birth certificate? Could I be Kenyan? My Certification of Birth issued by The City of New York is 7”x 6”. Could it be shorter? And New York issues a long form! My state of birth issues a long form and yet I only have the short form. How do I have the nerve to vote? Will I be given time to say goodbye to my “family" before I’m deported?

Now I can never live my dream of being President. A big house in a quiet neighborhood with full time security and a staff that someone else pays? I’m shocked there aren’t tens of thousands of candidates every four years. But I don’t have what it takes to stand up to Ron Paul (the original birther; and even if there is a certificate, both parents have to be American citizens so he still can’t be President; and oh, how about that Kenyan birth certificate? Talk about a smoking gun!). The man makes Michelle Bachman look sane.

No matter how you cut it, the birth issue hasn't treated the leader of the free world kindly. Good thing the house is so nice.

Where Does the Danger Lie?

From July 1989 until July 1999 I lived in an apartment on 16th Street NW in Washington DC. But for the break-ins (3) and the mugging (1, but germane to this discussion as it was at gunpoint), my first 43 months in that apartment were a tranquil oasis. Then William Jefferson Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd President of the United States. Unlike ostentatiously Christian first families before them and since, the Clinton’s faith required of them regular attendance at Sunday services. The church they attended, Foundry United Methodist, was directly across the street from my apartment.


And thus commenced my intimate acquaintance with the quirks and foibles of the United States Secret Service. At first, the progress from the White House would lead to rolling intersection closures and closure of the street in front of the church just before the motorcade pulled up. The street and sidewalk between my building (a single family home long broken into three apartments) and the church would remain closed to automotive and pedestrian traffic until shortly after the family’s departure. This seemed reasonable.


That reason was not to prevail became clear as I was sitting on my porch reading one spring Sunday morning. A Secret Servitrix strode onto my front walk and told me that I would have to go inside. This memory is among those that bring me down firmly on the side of the 2nd Amendment wingnuts who prompted such hysterics by displaying their legal firearms in the vicinity of rallies featuring President Obama. These were pathetic, juvenile acts of provocation, and boy were they effective.


My next encounter with a Secret Servitrix came a few months later. My apartment did not have central air, so in the warmer months I preferred to keep front and rear windows open to provide cross-ventilation. This particular Sunday morning, I heard “Excuse me,” bellowed in a tone suggesting that she didn't really care if she was excused or not. This one was off the walk and in the middle of the lawn. Evidently the Secret Service field manual doesn’t have a chapter on trespassing. With a dismissive flick of the wrist she commanded, “You’re going to have to close those.”


I grew up in the Washington area, so I knew that expressing my initial thought, “What? You think I can’t shoot through glass?” would not have been in my own best interest. But 15 or so years later I remain disappointed that I couldn’t let myself ask “Why?” I was so sure that seeking a simple explanation would get me arrested that I was as meekly compliant as any gulag fearing Soviet. I felt far more threatened that morning that I have ever felt by the antics of the most lunatic tea baggers.


By the time I moved in 1999, the Clintons’ attendance at Sunday services included marksmen and sharpshooters on the roofs of buildings up and down the block. I found myself thinking, “Holy shit. That’s a lot of firepower to keep a pudgy middle-aged homosexual from opening a window.”


Without question, the murder of a president, any president traumatizes the entire nation and shatters our collective sense of well being. It is emotionally devastating and it profoundly undermines public order. It would not be possible to overstate its impact.


I would, however, argue that the presence of individuals carrying legal firearms at a significant remove from the President presents no danger what-so-ever to the President and that to suggest otherwise is shrill fear-mongering with an agenda no more related to protecting the President’s well-being than parading firearms so comically has to do with threatening it.


New Hampshire: I maintain that the President could not possibly be threatened by a man standing at a church several blocks from the town hall in which he was speaking no matter what the type or caliber of the man's legally permitted weapon. The only way that man could pose a threat to the President would be if his objection proved the tipping point in the national debate on health care/insurance/flapdoodle reform.


Arizona: Around a dozen people carried guns outside the convention center where the President was speaking. Yes one even carried an assault rifle. And he could not have been more pleased to claim it as a publicity stunt. A very, very, very successful publicity stunt. Be that as it may, unless construction of the Phoenix convention center is of unprecedented shoddiness, no amount of angry protesters, with any sort of weapons that could be legal, even in Arizona, would have had the firepower to be a threat to the President from outside the convention center. Big thick walls and all.


Now you may think, and I may think (and I do) that most, if not all, forms of firearms should be illegal or licensed or subject to strict regulation, but we do nothing other than reinforce our sense of our own moral superiority and virtue, while simultaneously diminishing our own credibility, to hyperventilate over threats where none exist or to suggest that Americans are in some way remiss to exercise their legal rights. The law is the ultimate arbiter of rights at any given point in time, but all legal rights are precious.


If you believe less, you might consider taking the Secret Service exam.

More David

I heard from David yesterday. What a relief after that misunderstanding about our phone call. He’s a busy man, y’know. Or maybe I just got something wrong. That’s probably it. It was probably me. (Damn. I thought I smothered that voice years ago. So much for therapy.)

Anyway, it was another note. This one was addressed “Dear Friend.” When it was his people, it was “Dear Paul.” Now we’re just friends. Or am I being too sensitive?

I’ll let you judge for yourself. He said to forward the whole email, but I like to leave a little mystery. (Please don’t tell him I didn’t do exactly like he said. He’s a great guy. Really, really great. But he has anger management issues. Who wouldn’t? He had parents as a child.)

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
--Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
--Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
--Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
--Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
--Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
--Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
--Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
--Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Okay now. And this isn’t about the “Dear Friend” thing. Although that is starting to frost me just a little. But see, these are all great ideas. Really great. They’re things that we shouldn’t still be talking about in 2009. But I didn’t see anything in David’s whole note or hear anything in any of Mr. Obama’s speeches or the parts of his press conferences where he sticks to talking about Heath whatever Reform that tell us how any of these eight things will be accomplished.

I want to know how. By what mechanisms? And I’m not even talking about how they will be paid for. How will they be done? I want all 8 of those things and lots more, but I won’t believe in a single one of them until someone explains how they will be accomplished. So far I haven’t heard anything more credible than “Glinda will wave her magic wand …”

I’m actually less anxious about how these reforms will be paid for. I like taxes. People who don’t should stay off my nice paved roads and stop complaining about the quality of public education and keep their parents from the socialist quagmire of Medicare and take the “support our troops” ribbon off their SUV. You’ll “support” them, but you won’t pay for them? I bow to no one in patriotism and admiration for our troops. These are people making sacrifices I don’t have it in me to imagine, but each and every one is a government employee. Their (wholly inadequate) salaries aren't funded by bake sales outside the base gate or those damn magnetic ribbons sold in convenience stores.

And I know that his failure to tell the truth thus far, either as a candidate or as a sitting president, limits Mr. Obama’s options. Can’t raise any taxes now, promised not to. But the American people will never catch on if we call them “user fees.” No, we’re not raising your income tax, that’s an income user fee. No, no, no, that’s not a charge for your ER visit, that’s a gurney user fee.

There are things that are necessary and that must be paid for. If you can’t step up to that plate, Mr. Obama, why did you run for President?

Celebration and Sorrow

The Senate’s confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court should be a cause for celebration. That she is eminently qualified, both by disposition and intellect, cannot be disputed by reasonable people. Her elevation to the Court represents another important first in American society’s progress toward full equality for all citizens.
But that is also the first sorrow. It is disheartening that such firsts are still so prevalent and, in many cases, unattained. We should be beyond the point that the election or appointment of a Latino/a, African-American, Asian-American, Native-American, person with a disability or woman to any position would be headline news because of ethnicity or abledness or gender. It’s not an excuse that all progress takes time. Why? Why should it? What’s wrong with hurrying it along? I would argue that far from being a virtue, patience is a criminal folly.
I loved and love my University, but it staggered me then and staggers me now that I attended a school that had been integrated for six years and admitting women for two when I enrolled. The later lead to occasional confusion. As I was helping a friend move into her dorm room, her mother excused herself to use the restroom. She was back in the suite almost immediately, hands on hips, snarling: “I know that sort of thing goes on, but do they have to make it so easy for them?” Meeting blank stares she continued, “There are urinals …” As the only one able to raise his eyes from the floor it fell to me to explain that the dorm was built before the university admitted women and that the urinals were intended to keep undergraduates from pissing off the balcony.” I did not tell her they were unsuccessful.
I would make the argument that the courts, especially the California and United States Supreme Courts do more to promote progress under law than all the legislatures and referenda in our history combined. I give you Brown v. Board of Education. Absent Brown, my University might still be waiting to admit its first African-American student. I give you Loving v. Virginia, handed down in 1967 at a time when 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. If we had a national proposition recall system, President Obama might have been the son of criminals. But at least the wisdom of the people would have triumphed over activist judges.
On the day that President Obama was elected last November, an election that I celebrated briefly, the voters of the great State of California approved Proposition 8 which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that had legitimized gay marriage (you see my reverence for the wisdom of the courts) and enshrined in the Constitution of the great state of California the admirable sentiment: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Particularly painful in the passage of Prop 8 was the revelation that the proposition was supported by 53% of Latinos and 7 in 10 African Americans, an almost eerie reflection of the 72% opposition to interracial marriage in 1967. Suggesting most clearly that no group has the market cornered on ignorant bigotry. Further suggesting that the moment any group perceives itself as climbing up the ladder, its first response it to put its foot in the face of the next group below.
My disillusionment with President Obama didn’t begin with the passage of Proposition 8. Although that was a shaky time. His response to Proposition 8 seemed to be that he didn’t think it was necessary but that he didn’t disagree with a word of it.
My disillusionment with President Obama began with his selection of Rev. Rick Warren, ole’ Saddleback Rick, to give the invocation at his inauguration. Rick can prove he’s not homophobic as “I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes.” Rev. Warren evidently regrets being 40 years too late to toss off “Some of my best friends are Negroes.”
Now I do understand Rev. Warren’s appeal to President Obama. Both Rev. Warren and the Obama Justice Department equate gay marriage and incest. But at least this wasn’t hypocrisy. I am not aware of Senator or Candidate or President Obama ever saying “Oh no, gay marriage is not just like incest!” I am aware of candidate Obama’s campaign commitments to do away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and to support expansion of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Perhaps he’ll get to them in his 104th hundred days? I do fear that the Obama policy will be called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Wed.”
Beyond the courts, the real hope for those who want to give their children a fair education, or swim in a neighborhood pool, or receive equal pay, or marry the person they just happen to love, are the brave individuals who say enough, no more, and bring their lives before the scrutiny of the courts and the harsh judgments of their fellow citizens.
I hope that I will live to see the day when the generous words of the brave and private Mildred Loving come to fruition:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.