Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Health Care: A Moral Issue
What is the problem with expanding health care and reforming a failed and failing system in order to increase the number of citizens who have access to quality and affordable medical insurance and care? The spiraling costs of health care have been oppressive for decades, and our governmental leaders have failed to ensure that every person has reasonable opportunity to avail themselves of what is needed to sustain a physically robust lifestyle. I realize some administrations have tried, and some have worked valiantly to curtail the outrageous costs of medical care, health insurance, and prescription medication. With millions of people unable to afford basic care, and in the midst of an economic crisis the rebound from which has not significantly reached the masses of people, the denial of a fundamental existential need such as that which sustains basic health is simply unconscionable and immoral.
A health care bill that does not include a public option mocks real reform. A single-payer system, in my opinion, would be ideal. However, the ostensible compromise of a moderate expansion of Medicare down to those ten years younger than the current insurance allows also caricatures the recognition that our system is broken and excludes countless millions of people. Certainly, in the realm of negotiation, there must be some way that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic administration can compel those who arrogantly oppose real health reform to vote in favor of substantive change in favor of the consumer. Fear of filibusters and other tactics should not change the direction on the moral compass for those who staked their political careers on finally making constructive, innovative, and expansive health care reform the law of the land.
This is a fight that should not be relinquished. The Senate must find a way to get the numbers where they need to be without compromising out the very items that adequately cover the tens of millions who have been categorically locked out of access to quality, affordable care for many decades.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
In the Woods: A Pro's Cons
What is unfortunate about our hagiography, iconography, and overall fascination with the rich and famous is that we are setting ourselves up for a great fall. Of course, some of us like to see others fall for a variety of reasons. However, when we idolize people for their talents, looks, wealth, and so forth, we oftentimes forget they are human and prone to the same failings and shortcomings of us all. To avoid being devastated by the imperfections, eccentricities, and transgressions of people we adore, we should never ignore the fact that human beings are fallible, limited, and inconsistent and are always works in progress. Sometimes, progress is replaced by regression. We need to find a way to maintain a balance in our perceptions of others.
Another regrettable element in the involuntary exposure of Tiger Woods to such negative press is the lack of honesty in the face of embarrassment in what the very private man briefly, yet repeatedly, related to the media. By "honesty" is not meant that Woods had to make the incident an open book to the media. Rather, simply saying that he did not want to speak about the matter at that time would probably have sufficed. Instead, he elected to engage in some subterfuge, under the guise of his desire for privacy, which resulted in more scrutiny and inquiry than he would have had if clarity and sincerity of expression were employed.
Should Woods' personal idiosyncrasies that opened a window to his humanity cost him the endorsement deals that have helped him to accrue additional millions of dollars? Answering this question is a bit challenging, for the fact of the matter is that he capitalized on his untainted and wholesome public persona by landing and accepting compensation for the use of his name and image. When the name and image that he bartered and sold became soiled and sullied, did he forfeit the benefit of that capitalization? Maybe, and justifiably so. Although the final decision whether or not to continue his contract rests with the companies Woods endorsed, the whole situation should cause all of us to pause and reflect on the ways we are enablers of the I-Can-Do-No-Wrong mentality, of the unwarranted placing of people on pedestals, and of the malicious self-righteousness we harbor when others fail while cutting slack to ourselves when we regularly misstep.
Certainly, we will begin to see a new-and-improved Tiger Woods over the next couple of years. Even his golf game might dramatically improve--a feat that is hard to fathom, save for his recent faux pas. But before he once again ingratiates himself to his fans, let us recognize that the fault is ours to grant unto him an inhuman spot in our hearts. Neither he nor we deserve that!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Option to Opt Out of Public Option? Ridiculous!
This exemption is anathema for those who do not have adequate access to health care, who do not have health insurance, and whose disposable income does not make it feasible to purchase coverage from the private sector. Every state should be required to ensure all of its citizens have viable opportunities to insure themselves.
It is a tragic consequence of American democracy that people are given the liberty to deny others fundamental rights so that a certain standard of living can be maintained and enhanced. Moreover, what's more egregious, if that is even possible, is that success in the political arena nowadays seems to mandate even the mildest of progressives to mouth and support centrist views that not only defy common decency and morality, but also compromise their integrity and the trust that others who voted for them were assiduously promised.
I understand that politics is a game of compromise, but if conservatives and moderates are unwilling to participate in such negotiation, then it is foolhardy for progressives and leftists unilaterally to concede.
It is forty-one years since President Harry S. Truman sought to address the health care debacle. If we do not attend to this matter now in a constructive manner, we cannot wash our hands of the lack of patriotism and care of souls!
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
Clearly, the award to Obama is more about potentiality than it is about the phenomenon of his candidacy. Racism in the United States is still our greatest moral dilemma, despite the rapid ascendancy of Obama's public life. The negative effects of American capitalism, i.e., the widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots, still permeate our economic milieu even in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Heightening our involvement in one theater of war, Afghanistan, and gradually drawing down troops in another, Iraq, have left little incentive really to focus on addressing other hot spots that need diplomatic attention. Certainly, Obama has not had the opportunity to address many of the concerns for which he is being feted on December 10 of this year.
After all, it would be ridiculous to try to award him for not harping on the public option as a necessary component of any health care reform. It is preposterous to compliment him on trying to reach a level of bipartisanship that nullifies the progressive wing of his own core political affiliations. It would be ludicrous to pat him on the back when he has not had the opportunity to work towards a two-state solution in the conflict between Palestine and Israel. And it borders on unconscionable to laud him for Internet savvy, compelling small donations from the indigent, and basking in the sunshine of celebrity. So, it must needs be because the Nobel Committee hopes to influence the trajectory of his presidency by applying the pressure of receipt of such a prestigious gift.
We shall see whether this accolade becomes too great of a burden to bear!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Horror of Afghanistan
Many thoughtful and well-meaning people recognize our mischief-making, imperialism, manipulation and intrusion into the affairs of other countries--how such actions greatly contribute to the way the United States is characterized by other countries. If we are honest with ourselves, we would also understand the relationship of cause and effect or the interplay of means and ends. Violence or retaliation against another nation may sometimes be justifiable, according to some, but it is never perpetrated in a vacuum. The attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, was not prosecuted simply because the people were mad, i.e., crazy. I was not merely because their fanaticism "caused" them to do such a heinous crime. They struck a symbol, in their estimation, of Western imperialistic hegemony. It was stupid, wrong, and inhumane. The egregiousness of their acts that day can never be condoned. The acts could not gain the attention of the world and satisfy the goals of the Muslim rebels. But it was and is the choice of the U.S. government and its people the manner in which they would respond. Thus far, in my opinion, we have chosen wrongly and unethically.
I would like to lift up an individual who I believe could be a model for the Arabic, Muslim, and Western worlds: namely, Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Khan was a member of the Pathan people, many of whom live in Afghanistan. In recent centuries, the Pathan people were considered to be aggressive, violent, and vengeful. Khan gravitated towards the nonviolent revolution being conducted by Gandhi in India, and he became a loyal pupil, taking up the mantle of peacemaking by organizing a nonviolent army of 100,000 men. These nonviolent Muslim Pathans, "Khudai Khidmatgars," committed their lives to the cause of freedom and human dignity. They not only renounced violence, but also surrendered their tack of revenge and retaliation. Khan believed that nonviolence was an ennobling and empowering force that could truly transform lives both individually and collectively. His concern for humanity and peace is likened to that of his mentor, Gandhi, as well as to Buddha, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., St. Francis, and Mother Teresa.
The life of Badshah Khan ("badshah" means "king") compels us to recognize that people can change despite deeply ingrained proclivities. There is no excuse. The United States does not have to insist upon a perpetual search for bin Laden in order to make the world attribute to us super-powerful resolve and revenge. We can focus on more constructive endeavors, many of which would be domestic in nature, to rebuild our reputation as a leading nation that cares for those who are unhealthy, impoverished, and disempowered. Also, we can take measures, many of which would require better policing, in essence, to ensure our borders are protected. In addition, we could develop a more honest way to market, if you will, the positive things our government and its people are doing, so that the world community would be apprised of them.
The first step would be to withdraw from Afghanistan. We can use those excess military coffers to approximate the vision briefly alluded to above--something that will eventuate into the best possible society.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Public Option
Public insurance is clearly more efficient. Medicare has proven that! It is able to cost less and cover more, as can be seen in every other industrialized nation. And it’s pro-choice, if you will. It doesn’t yet get rid of the mess that is health insurance in the private sector, but it allows folks the select a preference. Besides, it lowers administrative costs and operates outside the need for profit. It forces private insurers to respond in kind or price themselves out of demand. If there’s anything that needs to be done at this time by the government, it is to throw its weight around to ensure quality healthcare for all of its citizens!
Many folks have historically conveniently claimed that the government is spendthrift, burdensome, inefficient, wasteful, and—get this—can’t compete with the private sector. Now, they’re running scared with the idea that a public option will destroy the corporate insurance system—screaming buzzwords like socialism and Afro-Leninism to capitalize on xenophobic ignoramuses. Enough is enough! What business are we about anyway? Are we to care more about corporate interests than we are about what will best serve the masses of people, especially those who can’t navigate the private insurance system for lack of funds or arbitrary qualifications? Right now, business has not proved that it can serve the people better than the people represented by government. And they’re afraid of that challenge!
The public option is not meant to replace or get rid of private insurers; it’s not insisting on a single-payer plan, like it or not. What it does do is provide a crucial counter position to private insurance plans that are becoming increasingly consolidated and eliminating real choice. The bottom line is that if we are seeking to provide affordable quality care to consumers, a public health plan is essential.
We have not yet even talked about the unemployed, who, obviously, cannot rely on an employer largely to assist in the acquisition of health insurance. A public option would not be tied to an employer, and those who find themselves at the bottom of the economic ladder would be able to get the help they need to stand and become more marketable. It seems we would rather embrace a broken system that is clearly failing millions upon millions of people as well as the uninsured, than develop an option that makes affordable, accessible, and quality health care a reality for us all.
What other way is there to curb costs and crooks than to have a federally overseen and controlled health care system? Basically, I believe not to have a public option is immoral and a travesty of justice. The probity, or moral fiber, of a nation is measured by how the poorest are treated. If we are interested in making the United States a stronger nation, we need to ensure that all of its citizens have affordable, unimpeded access to quality health care. Health care is one of our basic existential needs, and as such people should have the right to medical care so that they can continue to be or become regular contributors to the body politic and the entire sociocultural milieu. I have an especial concern for those who are poor and those who have been perennially locked out of the structures, processes, and policies of our democratic republic. They are the ones who are screaming for a public option, and their voices are not really being heard. As a matter of fact, their lives depend upon it, both figuratively and literally! A public option is the only meaningful, ethical, and hospitable way to reform the health system today.
Ahungered and impoverished are the least of these
Let our love for them abound;
And on Jericho’s Road aid the needy. . .
Lift each person off the ground.
As long as there is poverty,
No one can be secure
As long as some are unhealthy,
Nobody can be pure.
As long as my brother’s hungry
And my sis has shoeless feet,
No one can eat comfortably
Or walk the streets complete.
As long as some are ignorant,
Those with knowledge grow wry;
As long as our hearts are distant,
Souls side by side shall die.
As long as people hunger, as long as people thirst,
And ignorance and illness and warfare do their worst;
As long as there’s injustice in any of God’s lands—
We are our neighbor’s keeper, and dare not wash our hands!
Mariachi Music Not Real? Ai Yi Yi Yi!
During the month of September, folks in the state of Jalisco, particularly, and in Mexico, generally, the music known as Mariachi is celebrated. Its origin, just like the meaning of its name, has been hotly debated over the years, but contemporary mariachi music stems from nineteenth century amalgamations of indigenous folk traditions with articulations from both Spain and Africa. Initially, flutes, drums, and conch-shell horns figured prominently in the musical ensembles in Mexico; eventually, they gave way to importations from Spain of violins, guitars, harps, woodwinds, and brass horns. Some of these European instruments were reconfigured by the criollo and mestizo players. More recently, a deeper toned guitar known as the guitarró n helped form the bass sounds of ensembles, and a five-string guitar called the vihuela and trumpets, another foreign introduction, added depth and richness to the music.
Early in the twentieth century, mariachi started to flourish, especially beginning in the 1930s. With ensembles becoming commercial entities, other dimensions of the tradition started to expand and garner focus, such as the move from workers’ clothing to more expensive, embroidered dress ware and from the footwork known as zapateado to more intricate heel-pounding and shuffling machinations. As a result of increasing commercialization, mariachi music, in a sense, moved away from its folksy, religious, and spiritual roots to reach a wider audience. The songs now lift up the entire gamut of human existence: loving (of course!), political issues, honor and nobility, the reality of death, and rites of passage. And everyone knows “La Cucaracha” to some degree!
I am not a connoisseur of music. I do not read music fluently, and I dabble with but really do not play any instrument. However, I have a fine musical ear, have definite tastes for listening to any kind of music for just about three minutes, and have a clear understanding how music can often tell the story of a particular cultural heritage and traditions. Consequently, though not a music critic, I am keenly aware of the value of peoples’ musical repertoire.
On a few occasions, I have been serenaded by a mariachi band and very easily recognized the power and persuasiveness of its rhythms. There always seems to be a graciousness, a kindness, and a level of hubris, i.e., passion and cultural pride, that accompany the songsters and instrumentalists as they mingle among the listeners. Never has it entered my mind that what I was hearing was not “real” music or that the genre was not worthy of being studied in postsecondary schools.
To make such claims is similar to the denigration of Ebonics, rap, art songs, Spanish that is not Castilian, and the history of underrepresented groups in our body politic. It is a travesty of justice, grossly ignorant, and symbolic of the type of overt cultural discrimination still lingering in the twenty-first century. The rejection of mariachi as a legitimate musical form worthy of study should not be tolerated, and folks need to get together to make sure it is fully received into curricula.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Race in the Obama Era
Last year, we celebrated the forty-fifth anniversary of the famous March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. On that day, Martin Luther King, Jr., gave one of the greatest speeches in the history of this nation, “I Have a Dream.” In that address in front of the Lincoln Memorial, King elaborated on an aspect of his vision: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” The cataracts of time have allowed people to misconstrue King’s statement as imagining a color-blind society in some future reality. King enjoyed his cultural heritage too much to endorse such a vacuous and myopic idea. What King was saying was not that people would not see race, ethnicity, or cultural background anymore, but, rather, would not prejudge or oppress them as inferior human beings based on these characteristics of appearance and heritage. At the point of his death by an assassin’s bullet, King was acutely aware of the long road ahead yet to realize his dream.
Certainly, there can be no objectively reasonable gainsaying the fact that race, racial prejudice, and racism pervaded the caucuses, primaries, conventions, and general election in 2008, and the short period since the election could not possibly have eliminated these elements. The challenges to President Barack Obama’s nationality, the liberty with which conservative media stars have freely characterized him with racial invective, and the reactions to some of his Cabinet appointees, nominees to the bench, and hires to assist him in foreign and domestic policies are not simply forays from those who disagree with his politics, but, rather, personal attacks that have xenophobia as one of their components.
Obama sought to deflect some of the race baiting and hatred by renouncing support or association with individuals such as Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Trinity United Church of Christ pastor emeritus Jeremiah Wright. Continued deliberate alignment with these and other blacks would have scandalized Obama’s attempt to appear moderate and painted him as the stereotypical angry black man. The very fact that Obama was compelled to respond to the racialization of his campaign drives home the point that the United States of America is far from the color-blind society that many claim his very ascendancy to the presidency supposedly proves.
When an esteemed Harvard University professor is humiliated and arrested right outside of his home after displaying legitimate evidence that he indeed lived there, how can we proclaim that we have arrived at a place where race is no longer a relevant social construct, however scientifically flawed it is? Thank God it was a Harvard professor and not a member of the black or Latino hoi polloi, so to speak, who would still be incarcerated for disturbing the peace, interference with official acts, attempted assault on a police officer—you name it! Manning Marable, another esteemed Ivy League professor of African descent, is accurate when he states that African Americans still suffer from “massive unemployment, massive incarceration, and massive disenfranchisement.” Public intellectual and Princeton scholar Cornel West, who can reissue his bestseller of the early 1990s, Race Matters, in the first decade of the twenty-first century and strongly argue why Democracy Matters, continues to report lamentably that he can stand on a corner in New York City and be repeatedly ignored by taxicab drivers. When the first leading African American environmentalist can be railroaded to resign as an adviser to Pres. Obama because his anger understandably got the best of him during the George W. Bush reign, the gravity of the claim that racism is a figment of our pigment’s imagination cannot be overlooked.
Amid the reality of an Obama Administration, we can remark that this nation, which started off with the canard that all men are created equal, has significantly improved in race relations and has removed enough of the shackles of race prejudice to elect a biracial person to the highest office. In a sense, the long night of racism has been imbued with the sunlight of cultural pluralism. This dawning of a new day, however, is still a cautionary tale, for there are a number of genuine impediments to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for many in this country, especially for people of color. The debate over whether or not to have a public or governmental option in the health care system is, indeed, a case in point.
Who, today, needs a public option? Is it not primarily those who have no health insurance and inadequate access to health care? Moreover, who are disparately numbered among the unemployed, emergency room patients, the uninsured, and patrons of free health and urgent care centers? These are the persons for whom a public option, a reduction of health care and prescription drug costs, and increased access to quality medical care would be lifesaving policies, literally! Whereas we may not be able to point the finger at one individual or a group of persons whom we can call racist without reservation, we can precisely pinpoint the perpetuation of institutionalized racism in the structures, processes, and policymaking of our resplendent democratic republic.
In 1953, when Howard Thurman became the first black dean of the chapel at a predominately white postsecondary educational institution, Boston University, the dean of the B.U. School of Theology and the president of the university received innumerable complaints from the white parents of prospective and current undergraduate students there who believed their children were being endangered by some libidinous and swarthy demonic savage. Despite these ridiculous, but serious, claims, the dean and the president prevailed. By his death in 1981, Thurman was regarded as one of the top ten preachers in the twentieth century! Here we are over a half-century later, and parents and conservatives alike protest the appearance of the nation’s president at a school to encourage students to develop good study habits so that they could persist to graduation, make something out of their lives, and give back to their communities and to the country. Does race play a part, however subtle, in the remonstrances against his visit? You bet it does!
We do not have to look far from where we are right now to ascertain that racism is alive and well today. Our greater metropolitan area remains divided along racial lines. Not only is there a chasm between what is known as east and west Waterloo, but also is there perhaps an even greater tale of division between the two cities. Somehow—and we claim we don’t know how—this divide is perpetuated year after year: as new students arrive on the UNI campus, as games between high schools are played, as civic leaders compete over commercial development, as faculty, staff, administrators, principals, teachers, and merit employees are hired, as curricula virtually stagnate, as cultural innovations and downtown renovations stubbornly ignore the contributions and achievements of people of color, and walls of segregation remain strongly intact. Yes, we’ve come a long way in our racial understanding, but we have a long way yet to go in our reach for a society free of racial discrimination.
Fleecy locks and dark complexion
Cannot forfeit nature’s claim:
Skin may differ, but affection
Dwells in black and white the same.
Were I so tall as to reach the pole,
Or to grasp the ocean at a span,
I must be measured by my soul—
The mind is the standard of the man.
Yes, I am happy that Iowa was a springboard for the successful run of Obama for the Democratic Party’s nomination and the general election. I am not ashamed to divulge my having a special sense of racial and ethnic pride when I say President Obama. But without sounding too immodest, I am not so stupid as to believe that his inauguration ushered in a post-racial, color-blind utopia and I just need to get over being so ensconced in the civil rights movement of yesterday and Martin Luther King, Jr., that I am unable to see that we have arrived at the fulfillment of King’s dream. The fact of the matter is that our society is not a dystopia, an imaginary place where people are dehumanized and fearful, but it is certainly still a real place where people are debased, impeded, suppressed, miseducated, overlooked, and misdirected in a way that is not arbitrary, accidental, or unknown, solely on the basis of their race and ethnicity. Although the deliberateness of the structures, processes, and policies cannot always be fingered at specific individuals, the results can be easily identified as well as how to fix them. The question is not whether we have the knowledge or the wherewithal, but, rather, whether we have the will. Clearly, enough of our leaders at all levels of government and location, folks in the public and private sectors, have not had the will.
As Henry Wadsworth Longfellow poemed:
Honor to those whose words or deeds
Thus help us in our daily needs,
And by their overflow,
Raise us from what is low!