Friday, November 20, 2009

Option to Opt Out of Public Option? Ridiculous!

The last time I was infuriated over states' rights was as a child and during subsequent readings about the Civil Rights Era. Many leaders and citizens of southern states wanted to continue to enjoy the system of de facto racial segregation and discrimination despite the passage of Brown versus Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, to please conservative politicians and their ill-advised constituencies, the new Senate proposal on health care reform includes the ability of states to opt out of making available a public option!

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

Frankly, I was surprised at first to hear that President Barack Obama would be the recipient of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace. Like most people who were similarly stunned, I felt that it was too early to award him with the honor for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Although it is remarkable that citizens of the United States have put into office a person who is categorized as a member of a sociocultural, racial, and ethnic group once shackled under the iron feet of slavery, I did not believe such an accomplishment was attributable to Obama alone; nor did I feel this feat warranted company with Jane Addams, Ralph Bunche, Albert Einstein, Albert Lutuli, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Nelson Mandela, among others. I just could not see it.

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

During then-Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign, I cringed every time I heard him decry U.S. involvement in Iraq, only to raise his voice about righteously going into Afghanistan, crushing Al Quaeda, finding Osama bin Laden, and killing him. The violence in and of his words always haunted me, and still does, because it confirmed my suspicions that our country has to be involved in some kind of warfare in order to survive and thrive. It's a cold war mentality, which was already utterly ridiculous, gone further amuck! Evil is never solely outside ourselves. We as a nation can easily pinpoint when another country or agency is execrable, but we have a very difficult time discerning our own culpability and perniciousness.

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.