Last week, the Chicago Tribune's Letters to the Editor section was abuzz with responses to the news that O'Hare International Airport is in the process of adding whole body imaging to their vast TSA arsenal. The indignities of air travel have grown ever worse since the "War on Terror" first began but apparently, in Chicago at least, the inmates are growing restless.
Several more airports are set to install the machines, which have "low dose" x-ray capabilities that see right through clothes, including underwear. The TSA says that the employees viewing the personal footage will be prevented from seeing any identifiable traits such as faces, but that is cold comfort to private citizens reluctant to be violated over and over, for the crime of wanting to visit Grandma this summer.
It is heartening to see an end to the apathy which began after 9-11, when it was mostly agreed that more airport security was necessary. But as the years go by, it seems that Americans are beginning to realize that there is apparently no end to the violations of privacy and decency that the administration is willing to inflict on law-abiding citizens in the name of security. Further, what are the health ramifications of being subjected to even low doses of radiation, particularly for young people? It will take decades before studies can be conducted on say, frequent fliers who allow themselves to be scanned on every trip.
Of course, the TSA says that it will offer traditional pat downs as an alternative to the whole body imaging but the selection process for both is so arbitrary that once again, ordinary citizens, not terrorists, will likely be the most inconvenienced.
Metal detection and other reasonable precautions to protect our safety is one thing. But this has gone too far. Americans need to take a stand, for their freedoms and for their own health and well-being. TSA personnel are often uneducated and unprepared to answer questions and most travelers are detained for asking questions anyway. With a bad economy and fewer people flying, the airlines can't afford to lose any more money. Body imaging is a bad idea and it will result in loss of income for the airlines, longer lines, more hassles, possible health risks and worst of all, the further leaking away of precious American freedom.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Has America Lost Its Way?
Americans don't like the word "socialization." The spectre of living in a communist-like society has been the crux of any argument against universal health care. Yet, most Americans have an expectation that whether they are rich or poor, the fire department will come to their home and put out a fire. Most Americans also enjoy, at least at one time or another, taking books out from the local library and many also either went to or are sending their own kids to public school. Somehow, America has evolved with the idea that these services are not "socialized." But in fact, they are. If you pay taxes, you are supporting all of these liberties, whether you ever utilize them or not. So, who is it among us who believes that health care is not a RIGHT, just like those other public services? Without healthy, productive citizens, a society cannot exist.
At a recent health care lecture at Denver's Regis University, former Washington Post reporter and universal health care advocate T. R. Reid presented his PBS Frontline documentary special, which sought out the various health care programs of several other countries, including Japan, Germany and Switzerland. In addition to concerns raised about higher taxes (yes, in exchange for "free" health care, people must support the system with taxes, but they seem to think it's worth it!), one student also expressed alarm over her mounting debt and said that new doctors require higher salaries in order to pay off debts of more than $100K after medical school. Although it is a legitimate concern, Reid pointed out that other countries also offer free higher education, thus freeing up doctors to focus exclusively on their obligations under the Hippocratic oath: the health and well-being of their patients.
In America, in the name of spending less money on taxes, our society compels college kids to rack up debt and become prisoners to their jobs after graduation. Increasingly, employers are reducing vacation benefits, maternity leave and sick days because they know they have most workers over a barrel. If 2008 America didn't put making a profit ahead of everything else in life, its citizens wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Who among us doesn't know someone whose life has been torn apart because of illness? Gone into debt in order to pay for surgery or chemotherapy or drugs that enable them to live? What if you lost your job? Who would pay for your blood pressure meds? Or take your kid to the doctor? Right now, thousands of people are filing for bankruptcy or worse, because they had the temerity to be sick in America. What kind of a morality is that?
Not all Americans have access to the best medicine in the world. Not even close. We throw poor sick people out on the street. Literally- in Michael Moore's documentary, "Sicko," video surveillance shows clearly the dropping off of two separate patients, still clad in hospital gowns, in the middle of the street. These patients had been at the University of Southern California Hospital. How could America, once the best in country in the world, treat its own this way? We're worried about illegal immigration? How about the illegality and complete indifference to the suferings of our own people????
Here's the bottom line: Making a crappy buck in no way justifies any of this. Unless you are in that 1-2% of super wealthy people, you are truly not getting a fair shake. Not in this country. Sure, we might have the best medical care but most people don't even get the chance to receive it. Why? Because insurance companies are big business. They don't care whether you live or die. If you get common afflictions like headaches or step throat routinely, indivudal coverage automatically goes up hundreds more dollars per month in premiums, rendering unaffordable for most working people. Even if the problem was minor, even if it was cured several years ago. Children are being REJECTED for having chronic ear infections! Mothers-to-be in Colorado are being denied maternity coverage if they've had one Caesarian section birth in the past... Sure, dignitaries and movie stars can get the best treatments, because they can afford to pay for them. It's the rest of us who are hurting and forced to put it on a charge card, if we're lucky enough to have one.
The lemmings of this country want to believe that we're still in an age where we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. It's not the same as it was 50+ years ago in America. It's simply not possible to LIVE here if you are a human being without money. A more "socialized" system will certainly encounter problems but I'd rather have a level playing field when it comes to our collective health than decry higher taxes and do nothing.
At a recent health care lecture at Denver's Regis University, former Washington Post reporter and universal health care advocate T. R. Reid presented his PBS Frontline documentary special, which sought out the various health care programs of several other countries, including Japan, Germany and Switzerland. In addition to concerns raised about higher taxes (yes, in exchange for "free" health care, people must support the system with taxes, but they seem to think it's worth it!), one student also expressed alarm over her mounting debt and said that new doctors require higher salaries in order to pay off debts of more than $100K after medical school. Although it is a legitimate concern, Reid pointed out that other countries also offer free higher education, thus freeing up doctors to focus exclusively on their obligations under the Hippocratic oath: the health and well-being of their patients.
In America, in the name of spending less money on taxes, our society compels college kids to rack up debt and become prisoners to their jobs after graduation. Increasingly, employers are reducing vacation benefits, maternity leave and sick days because they know they have most workers over a barrel. If 2008 America didn't put making a profit ahead of everything else in life, its citizens wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Who among us doesn't know someone whose life has been torn apart because of illness? Gone into debt in order to pay for surgery or chemotherapy or drugs that enable them to live? What if you lost your job? Who would pay for your blood pressure meds? Or take your kid to the doctor? Right now, thousands of people are filing for bankruptcy or worse, because they had the temerity to be sick in America. What kind of a morality is that?
Not all Americans have access to the best medicine in the world. Not even close. We throw poor sick people out on the street. Literally- in Michael Moore's documentary, "Sicko," video surveillance shows clearly the dropping off of two separate patients, still clad in hospital gowns, in the middle of the street. These patients had been at the University of Southern California Hospital. How could America, once the best in country in the world, treat its own this way? We're worried about illegal immigration? How about the illegality and complete indifference to the suferings of our own people????
Here's the bottom line: Making a crappy buck in no way justifies any of this. Unless you are in that 1-2% of super wealthy people, you are truly not getting a fair shake. Not in this country. Sure, we might have the best medical care but most people don't even get the chance to receive it. Why? Because insurance companies are big business. They don't care whether you live or die. If you get common afflictions like headaches or step throat routinely, indivudal coverage automatically goes up hundreds more dollars per month in premiums, rendering unaffordable for most working people. Even if the problem was minor, even if it was cured several years ago. Children are being REJECTED for having chronic ear infections! Mothers-to-be in Colorado are being denied maternity coverage if they've had one Caesarian section birth in the past... Sure, dignitaries and movie stars can get the best treatments, because they can afford to pay for them. It's the rest of us who are hurting and forced to put it on a charge card, if we're lucky enough to have one.
The lemmings of this country want to believe that we're still in an age where we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. It's not the same as it was 50+ years ago in America. It's simply not possible to LIVE here if you are a human being without money. A more "socialized" system will certainly encounter problems but I'd rather have a level playing field when it comes to our collective health than decry higher taxes and do nothing.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Divided, We Will Fall
Last week, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in her bid for the White House. (Sort of).
Meanwhile, on thousands of chat boards and in conversations across America, a good chunk of Clinton's avowed 18 million supporters were adamently expressing their revised voting intentions. It seems that in lieu of Clinton, these people, most, if not all of them, registered Democrats, would rather vote for Republican nominee John McCain or worse, not at all, than cast a vote for the official Democratic nominee, Barrack Obama. What could possibly account for this hostility directed at a candidate whose platform is more or less identical to Clinton's? Certainly, there could be some Americans who woke up over the weekend to a completely changed philosophical outlook which now obliges them to switch party allegiances. But for the rest, it seems to be more than a question of the issues.
As the statistics bear out, older white women in particular have clung fiercely to the idea of a female president and refuse to accept anyone else as their candidate. They do not seem to be aware that this position actually demeans the significance of having a woman candidate in the first place. By basing one's support of a candidate solely on that person's sex, it removes whatever objectives, ideas and principles that that candidate had wanted Americans to consider when placing a vote. It renders moot the idea that women voters are exercising good judgement and free choice if their only criteria is that a female be elected to office.
Obviously, not all Clinton supporters are women who base their support on gender. But this idea that it is at once imperative to vote for a woman but absolutely not ok to throw support behind a black man of the same party after the woman candidate loses the nomination doesn't make any sense.
According to the chat boards, many of these Democrats don't really seem to have good reason for not supporting Obama in the wake of Clinton's defeat. Of those who posted comments, most cited his supposed lack of experience (does being a former first lady lend credibility in these people's eyes?), his "Muslim" background (as if a middle name has anything to do with one's religious affiliation or moral position), and of course, his "elitist" background and "un-patriotic" wife.
The term "elitist" has become a dirty word in modern day America. John Kerry's debates with George W. Bush went down in flames in 2003 not because Bush made any particularly salient remarks but because Kerry had the audacity to speak articulately, perhaps even using big words, and thus alienated Americans with his "inaccessibility." Instead of being suspicious of those more learned than ourselves, couldn't the American voter be inspired and encouraged by it? Wouldn't the most educated, trained, thoughtful and articulate person be the one you'd most like to have operate on you or prepare your taxes? What is there to distrust about a candidate- or anyone- who thinks that America can do better? Who studied and observed and learned from history and yes, perhaps even says things that you occcasionally don't understand? It is not "un-patriotic" to question things in this country and strive to make them better. It is loving, it is thoughtful and it is patriotic to care enough to speak up and do something about what is hurting America.
And so, a 48-year-old man with arguably short experience in the Senate is the official Democratic nominee. He is educated, but try not to hold that against him. He has an opinionated wife, but so did another candidate who became president in recent memory. And he is black. If this is your criteria for withholding support, then you probably wouldn't have been ready for a woman in office, anyway. If color is your sole criteria in lending your support, your actions are as misguided as those who would only consider a woman for president. Consider the issues. Consider the future. But don't let superficialities like color or gender stand in your way of making the the best, most thoughtful decision in November. You owe it to yourself, to your neighbors and to the candidates- all of them- who want to do what they think is best for this divided America.
Meanwhile, on thousands of chat boards and in conversations across America, a good chunk of Clinton's avowed 18 million supporters were adamently expressing their revised voting intentions. It seems that in lieu of Clinton, these people, most, if not all of them, registered Democrats, would rather vote for Republican nominee John McCain or worse, not at all, than cast a vote for the official Democratic nominee, Barrack Obama. What could possibly account for this hostility directed at a candidate whose platform is more or less identical to Clinton's? Certainly, there could be some Americans who woke up over the weekend to a completely changed philosophical outlook which now obliges them to switch party allegiances. But for the rest, it seems to be more than a question of the issues.
As the statistics bear out, older white women in particular have clung fiercely to the idea of a female president and refuse to accept anyone else as their candidate. They do not seem to be aware that this position actually demeans the significance of having a woman candidate in the first place. By basing one's support of a candidate solely on that person's sex, it removes whatever objectives, ideas and principles that that candidate had wanted Americans to consider when placing a vote. It renders moot the idea that women voters are exercising good judgement and free choice if their only criteria is that a female be elected to office.
Obviously, not all Clinton supporters are women who base their support on gender. But this idea that it is at once imperative to vote for a woman but absolutely not ok to throw support behind a black man of the same party after the woman candidate loses the nomination doesn't make any sense.
According to the chat boards, many of these Democrats don't really seem to have good reason for not supporting Obama in the wake of Clinton's defeat. Of those who posted comments, most cited his supposed lack of experience (does being a former first lady lend credibility in these people's eyes?), his "Muslim" background (as if a middle name has anything to do with one's religious affiliation or moral position), and of course, his "elitist" background and "un-patriotic" wife.
The term "elitist" has become a dirty word in modern day America. John Kerry's debates with George W. Bush went down in flames in 2003 not because Bush made any particularly salient remarks but because Kerry had the audacity to speak articulately, perhaps even using big words, and thus alienated Americans with his "inaccessibility." Instead of being suspicious of those more learned than ourselves, couldn't the American voter be inspired and encouraged by it? Wouldn't the most educated, trained, thoughtful and articulate person be the one you'd most like to have operate on you or prepare your taxes? What is there to distrust about a candidate- or anyone- who thinks that America can do better? Who studied and observed and learned from history and yes, perhaps even says things that you occcasionally don't understand? It is not "un-patriotic" to question things in this country and strive to make them better. It is loving, it is thoughtful and it is patriotic to care enough to speak up and do something about what is hurting America.
And so, a 48-year-old man with arguably short experience in the Senate is the official Democratic nominee. He is educated, but try not to hold that against him. He has an opinionated wife, but so did another candidate who became president in recent memory. And he is black. If this is your criteria for withholding support, then you probably wouldn't have been ready for a woman in office, anyway. If color is your sole criteria in lending your support, your actions are as misguided as those who would only consider a woman for president. Consider the issues. Consider the future. But don't let superficialities like color or gender stand in your way of making the the best, most thoughtful decision in November. You owe it to yourself, to your neighbors and to the candidates- all of them- who want to do what they think is best for this divided America.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Eight Years of Credit
A phone rings somewhere in the White House. GWB, trying to do a crossword puzzle, looks around for help but the phone keeps ringing. Irritated, he goes to answer it.
GWB: Yes? Hello?
Caller: Uh...Mr. President? Good evening. This is Jim, from Citibank. I'm calling because it looks like there has been some unusual activity on your account this month.
GWB: You people have been calling for a few years now. What could be the matter?
Caller: Well, sir, it seems that you continue to post highly suspicious activity on your Titanium Plus card and...
GWB (clearly flummoxed): Isn't Daddy paying the minimum due? I don't see why you have to bother me at home. I'm very busy, you know.
Caller: Of course, sir. We don't mean to trouble you. You and your family have been most excellent Citibank clients. It's just that, well, it's my job to investigate any sign of particularly active accounts. It's all for your protection.
GWB: My protection? I don't need protection. I know what's best for me and for this country. I talk directly to God, you know.
Caller: Um, ok. Yes, I mean, we don't mean to in any way imply that you're not in control. Of course you're in control. But if you would just allow me to...
GWB (becoming irritated): Come on! I'm missing "American Idol!" What do you want?
Caller: Well, sir. Again, there seems to be some unusual activity on your card. The problem is that you are very close to the limit and of course, we'd be happy to keep extending it. But I am obliged to ask you if you think you might be able to pay some of this down soon.
GWB: This is an outrage! My daddy is not going to be happy. I get to buy whatever I want, when I want.
Caller: Mr. President, please. We are not trying to censor your spending habits. This is a collaborative effort, between us and the client. I'm simply trying to get an idea of when we might expect something more than the minimum from you. Certainly, you'd like to pay this down and perhaps lower your interest, too?
GWB: Lower my interest?? My interest is with the American people!! I don't care about anything you're saying. This is crazy talk. You obviously are with the terrorists. The American people want me to keep spending. It's for their protection. It's for the past and the future of America. Are you all terrorists or something? I'll bet your boss is with Al-Qaeda. I'm switching to Chase.
Caller: Sir, I'm not a terrorist. I'm calling from Kansas. All I am trying to do is to ask you a few questions pertaining to your account.
GWB: Well, come on. What is it that you want?
Caller: Beyond trying to get down some of the trillion dollars that you've got on this card, we are also noticing recurring charges to something called Halliburton. Also, have you recently been in Falujah?
GWB (deep sigh): Ok, ok. You got me. Just please don't call Daddy. We can work this out. Do you take Mastercard?
GWB: Yes? Hello?
Caller: Uh...Mr. President? Good evening. This is Jim, from Citibank. I'm calling because it looks like there has been some unusual activity on your account this month.
GWB: You people have been calling for a few years now. What could be the matter?
Caller: Well, sir, it seems that you continue to post highly suspicious activity on your Titanium Plus card and...
GWB (clearly flummoxed): Isn't Daddy paying the minimum due? I don't see why you have to bother me at home. I'm very busy, you know.
Caller: Of course, sir. We don't mean to trouble you. You and your family have been most excellent Citibank clients. It's just that, well, it's my job to investigate any sign of particularly active accounts. It's all for your protection.
GWB: My protection? I don't need protection. I know what's best for me and for this country. I talk directly to God, you know.
Caller: Um, ok. Yes, I mean, we don't mean to in any way imply that you're not in control. Of course you're in control. But if you would just allow me to...
GWB (becoming irritated): Come on! I'm missing "American Idol!" What do you want?
Caller: Well, sir. Again, there seems to be some unusual activity on your card. The problem is that you are very close to the limit and of course, we'd be happy to keep extending it. But I am obliged to ask you if you think you might be able to pay some of this down soon.
GWB: This is an outrage! My daddy is not going to be happy. I get to buy whatever I want, when I want.
Caller: Mr. President, please. We are not trying to censor your spending habits. This is a collaborative effort, between us and the client. I'm simply trying to get an idea of when we might expect something more than the minimum from you. Certainly, you'd like to pay this down and perhaps lower your interest, too?
GWB: Lower my interest?? My interest is with the American people!! I don't care about anything you're saying. This is crazy talk. You obviously are with the terrorists. The American people want me to keep spending. It's for their protection. It's for the past and the future of America. Are you all terrorists or something? I'll bet your boss is with Al-Qaeda. I'm switching to Chase.
Caller: Sir, I'm not a terrorist. I'm calling from Kansas. All I am trying to do is to ask you a few questions pertaining to your account.
GWB: Well, come on. What is it that you want?
Caller: Beyond trying to get down some of the trillion dollars that you've got on this card, we are also noticing recurring charges to something called Halliburton. Also, have you recently been in Falujah?
GWB (deep sigh): Ok, ok. You got me. Just please don't call Daddy. We can work this out. Do you take Mastercard?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Silent Scream
Just across from a Whole Foods parking lot choked with cars this afternoon, a violent act was taking place. While hundreds of witnesses were present, no one cried out in protest. In fact, people were getting paid to commit it. This is not surprising, considering the hypocrisy that exists across this American landscape. Now that it's en vogue to spend $60 on organic wild berries and carry one's own shopping bag to the supermarket in a shiny, new Toyota Prius, it may appear that even the rich are becoming more selfless and aware, even to the extent of "going green." But the reality is that everyday, in every American city, nature is being destroyed before our very eyes, in the name of progress. The definition of progress has come to be nebulous. Certainly no one would argue with the idea that people need homes in which to raise their chicly small families. But does a city like Denver actually NEED another faux loft condo? Exactly how many more condos/McMansions/Chase branches/Restoration Hardwares does America require before it is sated?
Here in Colorado, the atrocity that was so nonchalantly being committed was one that you probably witness yourself, with increasing frequency. Perhaps you even stop to watch, finding it interesting and possibly a little sad, but again, that's progress, right? In the Cherry Creek North area of Denver, in front of all of those people trapped in their cars, a very tall pine tree was being bulldozed. Its height would suggest that it was at least 50 years old. For all that time, it had stood there, providing decoration and shelter and purifying the air and now, this afternoon, a bulldozer was hitting it, again and again, with malicious force, as a cat will play with its prey before finally snapping its neck.
Whatever your definition of progress, watching this magnificent example of nature be brought down was violent and sickening. But it's really only collatoral damage as America continues to pretend that its position is still the world dominator, filled with democracy, grand capitalism and productive pioneer citizens. Meanwhile, as we squander our natural resources, displace wildlife and happily accept another condo for the wealthy, 48 million people go uninsured. Unemployment continues to rise. And a war continues in Iraq.
An attitude of applied compassion and restraint would go a long way to begin solving these problems. Inside, many Americans are screaming. They are bankrupt and in debt and ill and alone in a system that has filled itself up with antiquated rhetoric and lies. America is in a mess of its own making and only its own people can now save it.
A tree is a seemingly insignificant thing to worry about with so much torment in the world. But if America is to begin somewhere, it must begin at home. It must take a cold, hard look at what is necessary in the name of progress and what is not. It must realize what we have become and make a plan for the future. It could and should care about everything on this soil and value it and find a way to strengthen it, not tear it down.
And it could all start with a tree.
Here in Colorado, the atrocity that was so nonchalantly being committed was one that you probably witness yourself, with increasing frequency. Perhaps you even stop to watch, finding it interesting and possibly a little sad, but again, that's progress, right? In the Cherry Creek North area of Denver, in front of all of those people trapped in their cars, a very tall pine tree was being bulldozed. Its height would suggest that it was at least 50 years old. For all that time, it had stood there, providing decoration and shelter and purifying the air and now, this afternoon, a bulldozer was hitting it, again and again, with malicious force, as a cat will play with its prey before finally snapping its neck.
Whatever your definition of progress, watching this magnificent example of nature be brought down was violent and sickening. But it's really only collatoral damage as America continues to pretend that its position is still the world dominator, filled with democracy, grand capitalism and productive pioneer citizens. Meanwhile, as we squander our natural resources, displace wildlife and happily accept another condo for the wealthy, 48 million people go uninsured. Unemployment continues to rise. And a war continues in Iraq.
An attitude of applied compassion and restraint would go a long way to begin solving these problems. Inside, many Americans are screaming. They are bankrupt and in debt and ill and alone in a system that has filled itself up with antiquated rhetoric and lies. America is in a mess of its own making and only its own people can now save it.
A tree is a seemingly insignificant thing to worry about with so much torment in the world. But if America is to begin somewhere, it must begin at home. It must take a cold, hard look at what is necessary in the name of progress and what is not. It must realize what we have become and make a plan for the future. It could and should care about everything on this soil and value it and find a way to strengthen it, not tear it down.
And it could all start with a tree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)