Hear It Online

Man's place in the universe

The shop on my father’s ranch hasn’t changed a whole lot over the years. There is a vise still used that likely came to Wyoming in a wagon.

And there is the anvil.

When I was very small I remember investigating the shop. There were many things on the floor. Little solid metal balls. Long circular ribbons of sharp metal. Blueish globs of metal that had cooled in the dirt.

These things I found interesting without easy explanation. These amazing things that lay on the floor of the shop whose origin and purpose I couldn’t fathom.

These tantalizing questions left by the anvil.

Man reaches for knowledge in greedy curiosity. All he has are unanswered questions and the tumidity to seek the truth. To take things apart to see how they work.

Could man do more to affirm his existence then to find out how the universe works?

Look at these on the floor of the shop. Under the vise, next to the anvil, through the telescope. What are these things?

Man’s place in the universe is simple. That of a curious child who just wants to know everything. Isn’t that just great?

Mr. Hershinson's question - Health Care Reform and the U.S. Postal Service

On August 11, 2009 President Barack Obama held a Health Care Town Hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. During the Town Hall President Obama was asked the following question from a Mr. Ben Hershinson:

“Mr. President, you’ve been quoted over the years — when you were a senator and perhaps even before then — that you were essentially a supporter of a universal plan. I’m beginning to see that you’re changing that. Do you honestly believe that? Because that is my concern. I’m on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing — because who can compete with the government; the answer is nobody. So my question is do you still — as yourself, now — support a universal plan? Or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?”

This was Mr. Hershinson’s question. President Obama began his answer by defining the differences between a ‘universal’ plan and ‘single-payer’ plan.

During this segment of his reply President Obama stated, “I’m not promoting a single-payer plan”.

President Obama then goes on to say, “I am promoting a plan that will assure that every single person is able to get health insurance at an affordable price, and that if they have health insurance they are getting a good deal from the insurance companies.”

So it is fair to conclude, from what President Obama said, that what President Obama does support is a public insurance company, a public option, that will compete against private insurance companies, “Now, the only thing that I have said is that having a public option in that menu would provide competition for insurance companies to keep them honest.”

Remember the original question:

“I’m on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing — because who can compete with the government; the answer is nobody. So my question is do you still — as yourself, now — support a universal plan? Or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?”

It had been some time since Mr. Hershinson had asked his question. Perhaps President Obama had been stalling, formulating a reasonable response all the while he speaking.

Our President rephrased the question from Mr. Hershinson in the following way, “How can a private company compete against the government?”

Indeed, you don’t have to have a degree in economics from Harvard to understand you can have private insurance or public insurance but you can’t have both.

President Obama must have been prepared for such a question. It was inevitable that someone would ask how it would be possible for any private insurance company to stay in business competing against the U.S. Government. Doubtlessly this situation was planned for, an answered must have been formulated earlier.

After all, you never put yourself in a position to take a question you don’t an an answer for in politics.

What the audience heard initially seemed well tailored, a professionally scripted answer that would have done any populist proud:

“My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining — meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do — then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time.”

Then President Obama said the darnedest thing:

“I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It’s the post office that’s always having problems.”

What? Why would the President of the United States disparage the most well known of government agencies? The USPS’s first incarnation was established by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1775 by decree of the Second Continental Congress. It isn’t like the President just threw the Department of Education under the bus, it was the Post Office.

And the audience laughed. President Obama was right, who could worry about a public anything putting any private company out of business.

That’s ridiculous.

This analogy was carefully crafted. It wasn’t a slip, an accident, or unintended.

This analogy is a well crafted political tool designed to disarm opponents. This is the kind of thing that people take to water cooler conversations, even if you had never been aware of the Health Care Town Hall in Portsmouth chances are good you heard about President Obama’s slip up in admitting public institutions can’t compete with private enterprises.

Anyone who listens to Conservative Talk Radio was certainly made aware of President Obama’s unintended admission that the private sector provides good and services better than the public sector.

It was like ant poison, the ants take the bait home and consume it. Lovely. The Post Office gaffe is a reverse talking point. It’s a talking point your adversary takes comfort in, and it isn’t until to late that your opponent realizes the joke is on them.

Remember what I said earlier? You don’t have to have a degree in economics from Harvard to understand you can have private insurance or public insurance but you can’t have both.

That’s common sense, and when Conservatives make that argument it is a home run. The light comes on and people understand the real threat a public option represents.

Whatever else is true, if a public option comes into being it will only be a matter of time before private insurance is a thing of the past and all that will be left is single payer. Single payer will be the only game in town. Public option should scare people, and when explained for what it is it does.

That’s what makes the U.S. Postal Service gaffe such an effective tool, it makes the public option look weak and non threatening.

It wasn’t until today that I got it.

Today I was listening to the Sean Hannity radio program and a Liberal caller used the Post Office argument. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard a Liberal caller to a Conservative talk radio show use the Post Office argument. Sean, a bright guy, was put off balance by the analogy. Why would a Liberal seminar caller bring up the U.S. Post Office? On the surface it doesn’t make a lot of sense, until you see what the real purpose behind the talking point is.

This is how you handle the ‘post office can’t compete so don’t get all excited about the public option’ talking point.

First, it isn’t a apples to apples comparison.

There has been a U.S. Postal Service for over 200 years. FedEx and UPS came into existence as a response to problems the USPS had delivering business packages and important documents quickly.

But imagine that for over 200 years FedEx and UPS had been in existence, and had been doing quite well until recently.

Around 60 years ago people complained that not everyone could afford to mail packages and the federal government stepped in and set up a government program that would take care of the problem, but that program was mismanaged and is now broke.

Over the past 100 or so years each state had passed laws which created a different set of rules for each state’s FedEx and UPS offices.

It would also be illegal for the FedEx office of one state to send and receive packages from a different state. (This was President Obama’s analogy not mine)

Even worse, the rules the FedEx and UPS offices follow are extremely byzantine and only a lawyer could understand then. If a UPS or FedEx employee makes a mistake they could be sued. The susceptibility of FedEx and UPS offices and employees to frivolous lawsuits has resulted into there coming into existence an entire class of lawyers who profit from the situation.

It’s the year 2009 and it has become exceedingly expensive, nearly impossible, to mail a package or an important document.

What would you did to fix the problem?

As I wrote earlier FedEx and UPS came into existence as a response to problems the USPS had delivering business packages and important documents quickly.

It would not be logical to create a government run postal service to solve the problems that the government was instrumental in creating in the first place. That would be crazy.

While the Postal Service argument is a smart talking point it can easily be countered with the truth, once you understand what it really is.

And this takes us back to Mr. Hershinson’s question.

“I’m on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing — because who can compete with the government; the answer is nobody. So my question is do you still — as yourself, now — support a universal plan? Or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?”

Specifically, the last part of the question:

“Are you open to the private industry still being maintained?”

Our President should have done Mr. Hershinson the honor of answering clearly and truthfully.

Diagnosing the Problem. Part 1: The Fourth Estate

Plan for tomorrow using the best information available to you today.

Plans based on good information work pretty good, you know what happens the rest of the time.

So the trick is being able to differentiate good information from garbage.

It is apparent that the leadership of the United States has been less than successful in selecting the best course for the nation over the past several years. Simply put – we suffer the from the results of well intended plans based on bad information. The wrong things have had priority, attempts to solve problems have failed in increasingly expensive terms.

The dollar is now the whipping child of international currencies. Official unemployment is nearing 10%. The United States Health Care system is on the verge of being Nationalized. We are involved in a floundering military operation in Afghanistan. Iran is less then two years away from developing a viable nuclear bomb. A tax on energy is being considered at a time when most people can least afford to give more to Washington.

How did this happen? Where did the bad information come from?

Well, where do we get out information? Who decides what’s important and what isn’t important? Even more importantly, who decides what is true and what isn’t true?

The Press and the Schools.

First, lets look at the Press. Also known as the Fourth Estate.

British politician Edmund Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.

What is the duty of the press? Wikipedia defines the duty of the press and journalists in this way: ‘Secretive power loathes journalists who do their job, who push back screens, peer behind facades, lift rocks. Opprobrium from on high is their badge of honor.’

(Opprobrium ~ Disgrace arising from exceedingly shameful conduct. The purpose of the Fourth Estate is to expose corruption.)

The press is supposed to root out corruption? When was the last time the press had that at the top of their list? Now days the press seems more intent in seeing Liberal Legislation enacted and is willing to turn a blind eye to any inconveniences that would stand in the way and launch scathing attacks against anyone who disagrees.

Some perspective is needed.

Historically the Press in the United States has never been neutral. Newspapers supported political parties and favored candidates. The illusion that the Fourth Estate is a unbiased trumpet of truth is a recent construct.

There have always been shamelessly loyal Democratic Newspapers and Republican Newspapers. Voters understood the favoritism of the local news outlets.

It is very important that people understand there was no golden age of journalism when the truth and only the truth was allowed to be printed. That is a myth.

There is an argument made today by legacy journalists that goes something like this, Have you noticed that over the last several years evidence can be found to support almost any conclusion you would like to draw?

What happened? (wring hands)

Most journalists like to then point to the internet. It used to be difficult to print anything, but now it’s easy.

Yes, the Internet represents a Paradigm shift in information sharing, and it arrived just in the nick of time.

No small amount of journalistic rancor is reserved for Talk Radio and Cable News.

With the advent of the Internet, Talk Radio and Cable News the Press is actually reverting back to a more balanced and healthy form. The ideological oligarchy that came into being after the Second World War is weakening.

Walk with me down memory lane.

In the time after the Second World War journalism was elevated from a profession that was regarded by most as slightly more honorable than circus work to something on par with clerking for a Supreme Court Justice on weekdays and staring in Hollywood on the weekends.

The news organizations learned a great deal from the war and were brim full of people who hit the ground running afterward competing for market share. The potential of Television was quickly realized, and soon TV news personalities became trusted family friends.

By the 1960’s the stage was set, what most people didn’t realize was the news organizations weren’t objective. Gone were the old men who ran the news organizations during the Second World War, the old men who built the trust of the public. What took the place of the pioneers were the graduates of eastern universities of the 1950s and these people wanted to change the world, not just report what was happening.

Looking back at the 1970’s it is laughingly obvious that what we now call the ‘legacy’ media had a Liberal agenda and was wholeheartedly slanting the news to sway public opinion to elect Liberal politicians.

The time before the Internet, Talk Radio and Cable News was a magic time for the ‘legacy’ media in that they set the table and told the people what to eat.

The people trusted the news organizations, and the people who came into power in these organizations during the 1960’s would take full advantage of this trust.

Then the 1980’s happened.

Between the 1960’s and the early 1980’s people didn’t question the ‘news’. Journalists wallowed in self righteousness and sanctimonious. I can remember John Chancelor (NBC Nightly News 1970-82) reading the news with open disdain for Ronald Reagan.

The remarkable thing was that Ronald Reagan was elected, the bias against Reagan in news organizations was awe inspiring. When I hear journalists today lamenting the level of incivility and discourse present in politics I am stunned, the hatred shown for Regan was institutional among new organizations and especially among the news anchors.

Ronald Reagan won election in spite of the news organizations, and fortunately this was the time in my life I became a news junkie. I loved watching the ABC Nightly New and the NBC Nightly New. The bias soon became apparent, even to a preteen with only two available television stations.

While other kids got up on Saturday to watch cartoons I looked forward to Sunday, because that was when Meet The Press came on. Pretty strange. I read Neweek and Time magazines.

I began to notice these news outlets were not neutral sources of information but champions of all things Democrat.

These news organizations were also lazy. If ABC had a story about killer bees coming up from South America than is was a good bet NBC would as well on the very same night. What I was a witness to was also advocacy journalism. News stories were thinly disguised arguments for gun control, or the need for environmental regulation. Homeless people would appear on que to demonstrate the heartlessness of Ronald Reagan’s domestic policies.

The plots were transparent and predictable. Stories explained how selfish Republicans were cutting taxes and people were suffering. Because of Ronald Reagan old people were condemned to eat dog food. Republicans would cause a nuclear war because Ronald Reagan was loose cannon who didn’t understand the intricacies of formal foreign policy.

The list went on and on. Nuclear Winter. Acid Rain. Vanishing Ozone. Dying Oceans. Homeless People. Gun Violence. Industrial Pollution. AIDS. Starving Africa. El Salvidor. Nicaragua.

Advocacy journalism hit the viewer hard in the stomach, and who could argue? The setup was always the same, present an issue in an emotional manner and leave the viewer looking to the Federal Government for a solution.

And if a ‘fact’ was deemed fit to print in the New York Times or divinely uttered by Walter Cronkite that was that. Who would dare challenge John Chancellor or Newsweek?

Luckily technology and legislation has transformed the Journalistic terrain.

The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987 and Rush Limbaugh soon made his appearance .

Fox News came online in 1996 and is now the number one cable news network.

The Internet now acts, to a large measure, as a Fifth Estate that oversees the Fourth Estate. For example, in 2004 documents which CBS journalist Dan Rather used in story were demonstrated to be fabrications by multiple Internet ‘Blog’ sites. Dan Rather knows what opprobrium tastes like.

According to BBC journalist, Andrew Marr, ‘News is what the consensus of journalists determines it to be.’ That is a dangerous situation when a small number of people can make that determination.

The Diagnosis of the Fourth Estate reveals that an Ideological Oligarchy that came into being after the Second World War. That Ideological Oligarchy is weakening.

We must be vigilant and never allow the Ideological Oligarchy to come back into power through Federal Legislation and Censorship.

(I will address the Educational System in Part II when I get the time)

An Easter Message to Everyone

Christianity is a great.

If you don’t like being a Christian you can simply stop, nobody hunts you down and separates your head from your shoulders. If you want you can stand outside a church and curse it this very day and that would be acceptable. The incredible part is you can go in that same church tomorrow and be welcomed by the pastor.

The execution and rebirth of Jesus represents the hope we all have for ourselves.

At its heart Christianity is a religion that asks us nothing more than to do to others as we would have done to ourselves.

That’s why I like it.

Have a Great Easter.

Oriana Fallaci

Oriana Fallaci (29 June 1929 – 15 September 2006) was an Italian journalist, author, and political interviewer. A former partisan during World War II, she had a long and successful journalistic career.

She has interviewed many internationally known leaders and celebrities such as the Dalai Lama, Henry Kissinger, the Shah of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, Willy Brandt, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Walter Cronkite, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Federico Fellini, Sammy Davis Jr, Nguyen Cao Ky, Yasir Arafat, Indira Gandhi, Alexandros Panagoulis, Archbishop Makarios III, Golda Meir, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, Haile Selassie, Sean Connery and Lech Walesa.

After retirement, she returned to the spotlight after writing a series of articles and books critical of Islam and Arabs that aroused both support as well as controversies and accusations of racism and Islamophobia.