A post that originally appeared here on my blog last Saturday was published on Il Sussidiario as Foreign Policy after the G-20: A New Naiveté? The world in which we live is getting ever more complex. I think this requires us to be more, not less, coherent and consistent. Therefore, we must have clearly defined objectives. One objective has to be not allowing Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal.
If further proof were needed for the thesis I set forth in my Il Sussidiario piece, Iran provided it this week by conducting missile tests. This is the response we get from unilaterally standing down, or, as Mark Helprin put it, blinking.
I also draw your attention to Msgr. Albacete's current Il Sussidiario column The Death of Journalism. His article concludes with this sobering observation: "When concern for the truth disappears, this is what happens: politics become entertainment and entertainment becomes politics. Actually, the situation is even worse. The problem today is not just a lack of concern for the truth; it is a loss of interest in truth. When that happens, sooner or later, a cruel violence takes its place, against celebrities or non-celebrities alike. This is another result of the split between faith and knowledge and its inevitable consequence: the destruction of reason." What connects my article to Albacete's is that while we lose interest in the truth we cease to engage the world with the requisite seriousness, like being convinced by a foreign policy that refuses to see what is happening and to take account of it; it is a policy "indicative of an ideological idealism at odds with reality." On this somber note, we come to the end of September 2009.
I was reminded elsewhere today of Goya's axiom "The Sleep of Reason Prodcues Monsters"
|
|
|---|
Será que o inquérito no Facebook sobre um possível assassinato de Obama é para levar a sério?
Os Serviços Secretos acham que sim -- e já estão a investigar.
'Going Rogue: An American Life' - está quase a sair (na América) a biografia de Sarah Palin
«Call her what you like, but she's definitely a fast writer.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has already finished her memoir, titled Going Rogue: An American Life, and has a newly moved-up launch date for its publication – Nov. 17 for a whopping 1.5 million copies, the Christian Science Monitor reports.
The 400-page memoir from HarperCollins, which Palin wrote with noted ghostwriter Lynn Vincent, was completed in a swift four months, at last part of which Palin spent in an intense retreat in San Diego, Calif.
The title of Palin's book is also notable, as it's the term that advisors to Sen. John McCain used to mock the former vice presidential nominee during the 2008 presidential elections, describing some of the many complaints the McCain camp allegedly had for the candidate's running mate.
Despite her speedy wrap-up of her book, Palin, 45, has a lot to cover in her tale, from her beauty-pageant beginnings, to her selection by McCain, to revelations of her daughter Bristol's pregnancy, to her falling-out with Bristol's baby's father, Levi Johnston – who has accused the ex-governor of being far from the simple American wife and mom she claims to be. Neither Palin nor Vincent has commented on the contents of the text.
Palin is considered a favorite of many social conservatives for the 2012 presidential election, though she will not confirm her future plans.»
in HUFFINGTON POST
Yom Kippur
Today is Yom Kippur, which began at sundown last evening and continues until sundown this evening. It is the Day of Atonement, the highest and holiest day on the Jewish calendar. Leviticus 16 is where we find the ancient observance of Yom Kippur. More significant to Christians is how Christ's sacrifice ties into this divinely-established observance. To fulfill something is not to supersede it. So, let's turn to Hebrews chapters 8-11, looking especially at chapter 9, verses 11-15:
"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God. For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance."
UPDATE: If you are looking to verify that Israel is truly chosen by God, look at the history of the people of Israel, known to us today as the Jews, and consider the mere fact that they still exist as a people! The article I mentioned in Saturday's post appeared today on Il Sussidiario- Obama, Abbas, and Netanyahu: what about Gaza? I usually fast on Yom Kippur, but not this year because, as a Christian, I do not fast on Sunday. I have been praying for peace all day, invoking Mary, a daughter of Israel, who, in her Magnificat proclaims: "He has come to the help of his servant Israel for he has remembered his promise of mercy, the promise he made to our fathers, to Abraham and his children forever."
Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad.
"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God. For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance."UPDATE: If you are looking to verify that Israel is truly chosen by God, look at the history of the people of Israel, known to us today as the Jews, and consider the mere fact that they still exist as a people! The article I mentioned in Saturday's post appeared today on Il Sussidiario- Obama, Abbas, and Netanyahu: what about Gaza? I usually fast on Yom Kippur, but not this year because, as a Christian, I do not fast on Sunday. I have been praying for peace all day, invoking Mary, a daughter of Israel, who, in her Magnificat proclaims: "He has come to the help of his servant Israel for he has remembered his promise of mercy, the promise he made to our fathers, to Abraham and his children forever."
Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad.
Childbirth, the stage and God's presence/absence
The trouble with being blessed with so many intelligent, creative, and fully engaged friends is that it is very difficult to keep up with all their endeavors. I try, but I am slow.
Dr. Susan Windley-Daoust, professor of theology at St. Mary's University of Minnesota, the very institution that may yet grant a master's degree to me, and with whom I had the privilege of studying theology at said school, has a wonderful article in the current issue of America magazine, entitled A Fiery Gift about natural child-birth. Hers is no abstract treatment of the subject because she is shortly expecting her fourth child. She is also featured on on the 5 October podcast on America's website. I urge you to listen to the podcast and read her article.
It put me again in mind of this passage, written by St. Paul in his Letter to the Romans: "For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (8:22-23).
While I am bringing up articles from America by and about great women, Fr. Robert Lauder, whose previous article, Accept the Absurd: Beckett and Kierkegaard, Godot and Christ, was the occasion of a post earlier this month- Our on-going cultural embrace of non-being - strikes cultural gold again, this time by interviewing Liv Ullmann. He begins by asking her a question related to the subject of his previous article: "Why is it that many of the great plays and films of the last century have dealt with the silence or absence of God?: To which Ullmann, who is an artist of extraordinary achievement, a brilliant director, writer, and actress, answers: "A lot of playwrights, and other people, try to connect with God because they feel this silence of God in their lives. They look at the bottomless black hole they feel inside themselves and, since there is such silence, they feel lonely with other people, and they question the strange world they live in—with violence and all those things—and they don’t see that God exists. I believe that people who feel so deeply the silence of God are very, very close to finding God."
Dr. Susan Windley-Daoust, professor of theology at St. Mary's University of Minnesota, the very institution that may yet grant a master's degree to me, and with whom I had the privilege of studying theology at said school, has a wonderful article in the current issue of America magazine, entitled A Fiery Gift about natural child-birth. Hers is no abstract treatment of the subject because she is shortly expecting her fourth child. She is also featured on on the 5 October podcast on America's website. I urge you to listen to the podcast and read her article.
It put me again in mind of this passage, written by St. Paul in his Letter to the Romans: "For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (8:22-23).
While I am bringing up articles from America by and about great women, Fr. Robert Lauder, whose previous article, Accept the Absurd: Beckett and Kierkegaard, Godot and Christ, was the occasion of a post earlier this month- Our on-going cultural embrace of non-being - strikes cultural gold again, this time by interviewing Liv Ullmann. He begins by asking her a question related to the subject of his previous article: "Why is it that many of the great plays and films of the last century have dealt with the silence or absence of God?: To which Ullmann, who is an artist of extraordinary achievement, a brilliant director, writer, and actress, answers: "A lot of playwrights, and other people, try to connect with God because they feel this silence of God in their lives. They look at the bottomless black hole they feel inside themselves and, since there is such silence, they feel lonely with other people, and they question the strange world they live in—with violence and all those things—and they don’t see that God exists. I believe that people who feel so deeply the silence of God are very, very close to finding God."
Year B 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Readings: Num. 11:25-29; Ps 19,8.10.12-14; Jas 5:1-6; Mk 9:38-43.45.47-48
Immediately after an infant is baptized, looking forward to her/his confirmation, s/he is anointed with sacred chrism and further united with Christ. The anointing is done accompanied by the words, "he now anoints you with the chrism of salvation, so that, united with his people, you may remain a member of Christ, who is Priest, Prophet, and King." Our readings for this Sunday draw our attention the fact that to follow Christ is to be prophetic. Indeed, it is not too much to say that in and through the sacraments we fulfill Moses’ stated desire "that all the people of the LORD were prophets… that the LORD might bestow his spirit on them all" (Num. 11:29)!
Predicting the future is not the essence of being prophetic. Prophets are commentators on and frequently critics of the present. Of course, what we do or choose not to do in the present has implications for the future. These implications are not divine rewards and punishments. Rather, they are the natural consequences of our acting, or our refusal to act justly. Jesus, who is the prophet par excellence, calls this discerning the signs of the times. A good summary of prophets and prophecy is that, at least from an objective stand-point, prophets quite frequently just point out what should already be obvious to God’s people.
The prophetic message, which calls Christians to fidelity to the new and everlasting covenant, established with us by God through Jesus Christ, is not really that different from the prophets of old. The message of those, like Dorothy Day, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and even St. Gianna Molla, who gave her life so her infant daughter might live, bear a remarkable resemblance to the so-called pre-literary prophets, such as Amos and Hosea, both of whom were outsiders, that is, non-institutional figures. The fidelity to which we are called through our baptism, confirmation, and participation in this Eucharist is rooted in our fidelity to the two great commandments: loving God with all our hearts, might, minds, and strength, and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
A prophet is not honored her own country because the prophet tells the truth, bringing what most would prefer to leave in the dark into the light. While prophets can be members of the hierarchy, like Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, they usually are not. Even when they are members, once they receive the prophetic calling, their speaking the truth casts them as outsiders. I have in mind here two great Latin American archbishops, Hélder Câmara and Óscar Romero, who still has not been officially raised to the altar, despite his martyrdom.
Above all, being prophetic requires courage. One way that being prophetic requires courage among Christians in the United States today is not being concerned about whether others view us as politically incoherent, either those on the right or the left, who view matters from a strictly secular point-of-view. In other words, whether we come down on what is seen as the liberal or conservative side of any given issue depends on what the Gospel demands, on what following Christ requires, the only criteria against which we measure of judgments on important matters. Bishop Niederauer summed this up well when he said: "Asking me if I am a liberal or a conservative is a little like trying to sell me a car and asking me if I want a brake pedal or a gas pedal."
For example, in our current national situation, we see extending healthcare coverage to everybody as being a moral imperative because access to needed medical care is a human right. Human rights, in turn, arise from the inherent dignity of being human, which for Christians stems from the fact that we are all created in God’s image. When it comes to how best to do this, it is a matter of prudential judgment, which is the proper sphere of politics.
We must be careful, especially with rights language, which we often use very carelessly. In other words, we must be discerning. There are false prophets, many who call us to adhere to false values that are at odds with both God and nature and that do not lead to human flourishing. Such summonses ignore the transcendent meaning and purpose of human existence. Hence, recognizing the dignity of every human being does not entail supporting an ambiguous and meaningless freedom-as-an-end-in-itself agenda. People who falsely claim the prophetic mantle seek to usher in, not the kingdom of God, but a nihilistic utopia, a genuine place of nowhere. In such a place the individual, the dreaded self, with all our distorted wants and desires, not only remains unchecked, but catered to, indulged, an idol sacrilegiously placed on the altar of what is meant to be the temple of God’s Spirit. This utopia is a place where freedom of choice, regardless of what the choice is, is the highest value, where the necessary link between truth and freedom is severed. Here there can be no communio. Hence, it resembles hell, outer darkness, the pit of the self that yearns for but never turns to what will satisfy it, God alone. This is what Jesus speaks directly about at end of today’s Gospel reading.
What is described in James’ letter is nothing other what we call the common good. "In keeping with the social nature of man," we read in the Catechism, "the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good" (par. 1905). Being concerned about the common good means, at times, subordinating what is beneficial for me to what is good for all. So, concern for the common good first requires respect for each person as such. It is this that leads the church in her teaching across the entire range of social issues, like immigration. Returning to the issue of healthcare, if access to necessary medical care is a human right, then the only qualifier is being human. When it comes to getting needed care, immigrants qualify, despite their legal status. It is also important in the current health care debate to reject any proposal that expands access to and provides federal funding for abortion. Such a reform must also include the protection of current conscience clauses for Catholic and other religiously-based healthcare providers, thus insuring that respect for human dignity, whether at the beginning or end of life, to include all the issues in between, is wholly maintained.
In today’s Gospel, we see Jesus in a very prophetic mode. He is not scared of those who cast out demons in his name, but who remain unknown to the disciples. In characteristic fashion, he states the matter positively: "whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40). In contemporary Catholic social teaching, these are the women and men of good will, who, while maybe not sharing our faith or being a part of our communal life, are nonetheless concerned about the common good, a concern that is rooted their deep understanding of the human person. Finally, we see Jesus as prophet engaging in hyperbole in order to show us what is at stake, to point to us to our destiny in order that we may live in the awareness of the very purpose of our existence, allowing us to live in a serious, purposeful, and joyous manner, enabling us to sing our Psalm response wholeheartedly: "The precepts of the Lord give joy to the heart." He also warns those who are false prophets as well as those who follow them and urge others to do so; they will reap what they sow, which is not divine punishment so much as fully realizing the individual autonomy that they see as the very point and purpose of life.
Immediately after an infant is baptized, looking forward to her/his confirmation, s/he is anointed with sacred chrism and further united with Christ. The anointing is done accompanied by the words, "he now anoints you with the chrism of salvation, so that, united with his people, you may remain a member of Christ, who is Priest, Prophet, and King." Our readings for this Sunday draw our attention the fact that to follow Christ is to be prophetic. Indeed, it is not too much to say that in and through the sacraments we fulfill Moses’ stated desire "that all the people of the LORD were prophets… that the LORD might bestow his spirit on them all" (Num. 11:29)!
Predicting the future is not the essence of being prophetic. Prophets are commentators on and frequently critics of the present. Of course, what we do or choose not to do in the present has implications for the future. These implications are not divine rewards and punishments. Rather, they are the natural consequences of our acting, or our refusal to act justly. Jesus, who is the prophet par excellence, calls this discerning the signs of the times. A good summary of prophets and prophecy is that, at least from an objective stand-point, prophets quite frequently just point out what should already be obvious to God’s people.
The prophetic message, which calls Christians to fidelity to the new and everlasting covenant, established with us by God through Jesus Christ, is not really that different from the prophets of old. The message of those, like Dorothy Day, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and even St. Gianna Molla, who gave her life so her infant daughter might live, bear a remarkable resemblance to the so-called pre-literary prophets, such as Amos and Hosea, both of whom were outsiders, that is, non-institutional figures. The fidelity to which we are called through our baptism, confirmation, and participation in this Eucharist is rooted in our fidelity to the two great commandments: loving God with all our hearts, might, minds, and strength, and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
A prophet is not honored her own country because the prophet tells the truth, bringing what most would prefer to leave in the dark into the light. While prophets can be members of the hierarchy, like Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, they usually are not. Even when they are members, once they receive the prophetic calling, their speaking the truth casts them as outsiders. I have in mind here two great Latin American archbishops, Hélder Câmara and Óscar Romero, who still has not been officially raised to the altar, despite his martyrdom.Above all, being prophetic requires courage. One way that being prophetic requires courage among Christians in the United States today is not being concerned about whether others view us as politically incoherent, either those on the right or the left, who view matters from a strictly secular point-of-view. In other words, whether we come down on what is seen as the liberal or conservative side of any given issue depends on what the Gospel demands, on what following Christ requires, the only criteria against which we measure of judgments on important matters. Bishop Niederauer summed this up well when he said: "Asking me if I am a liberal or a conservative is a little like trying to sell me a car and asking me if I want a brake pedal or a gas pedal."
For example, in our current national situation, we see extending healthcare coverage to everybody as being a moral imperative because access to needed medical care is a human right. Human rights, in turn, arise from the inherent dignity of being human, which for Christians stems from the fact that we are all created in God’s image. When it comes to how best to do this, it is a matter of prudential judgment, which is the proper sphere of politics.
We must be careful, especially with rights language, which we often use very carelessly. In other words, we must be discerning. There are false prophets, many who call us to adhere to false values that are at odds with both God and nature and that do not lead to human flourishing. Such summonses ignore the transcendent meaning and purpose of human existence. Hence, recognizing the dignity of every human being does not entail supporting an ambiguous and meaningless freedom-as-an-end-in-itself agenda. People who falsely claim the prophetic mantle seek to usher in, not the kingdom of God, but a nihilistic utopia, a genuine place of nowhere. In such a place the individual, the dreaded self, with all our distorted wants and desires, not only remains unchecked, but catered to, indulged, an idol sacrilegiously placed on the altar of what is meant to be the temple of God’s Spirit. This utopia is a place where freedom of choice, regardless of what the choice is, is the highest value, where the necessary link between truth and freedom is severed. Here there can be no communio. Hence, it resembles hell, outer darkness, the pit of the self that yearns for but never turns to what will satisfy it, God alone. This is what Jesus speaks directly about at end of today’s Gospel reading.
What is described in James’ letter is nothing other what we call the common good. "In keeping with the social nature of man," we read in the Catechism, "the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good" (par. 1905). Being concerned about the common good means, at times, subordinating what is beneficial for me to what is good for all. So, concern for the common good first requires respect for each person as such. It is this that leads the church in her teaching across the entire range of social issues, like immigration. Returning to the issue of healthcare, if access to necessary medical care is a human right, then the only qualifier is being human. When it comes to getting needed care, immigrants qualify, despite their legal status. It is also important in the current health care debate to reject any proposal that expands access to and provides federal funding for abortion. Such a reform must also include the protection of current conscience clauses for Catholic and other religiously-based healthcare providers, thus insuring that respect for human dignity, whether at the beginning or end of life, to include all the issues in between, is wholly maintained.
In today’s Gospel, we see Jesus in a very prophetic mode. He is not scared of those who cast out demons in his name, but who remain unknown to the disciples. In characteristic fashion, he states the matter positively: "whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40). In contemporary Catholic social teaching, these are the women and men of good will, who, while maybe not sharing our faith or being a part of our communal life, are nonetheless concerned about the common good, a concern that is rooted their deep understanding of the human person. Finally, we see Jesus as prophet engaging in hyperbole in order to show us what is at stake, to point to us to our destiny in order that we may live in the awareness of the very purpose of our existence, allowing us to live in a serious, purposeful, and joyous manner, enabling us to sing our Psalm response wholeheartedly: "The precepts of the Lord give joy to the heart." He also warns those who are false prophets as well as those who follow them and urge others to do so; they will reap what they sow, which is not divine punishment so much as fully realizing the individual autonomy that they see as the very point and purpose of life.
«A Candidata» -- um livro onde até se fala de George Bush
Chama-se «A Candidata» e é da autoria de um companheiro de trabalho e amigo que muito prezo. Já tem outros livros publicados,como «Jorge Costa, o Capitão», mas estreia-se na escrita de romances (ele chama-lhe um... 'quase romance histórico').
Carlos Pereira Santos, editor do jornal «A Bola», assina uma história de ficção, que se passa em «Milamores», terra de pescadores onde ninguém pesca. A acção decorre nos anos 60 e tem como protagonista uma mulher chamada Melinda (não confundir com a mais que tudo de Bill Gates...).
Com a devida vénia reproduzo um excerto do prefácio, onde até é referido o nome do antigo Presidente dos EUA. Basta ler estas linhas para percebermos que vale a pena conhecer a escrita bem-disposta, mas sempre acutilante, do autor: «Tentei figuras que são conhecida, redigi uma carta formar a pedir um prefácio, mas até hoje recebi nega atrás de nega. Sei que fui ambicioso. Tentei, desde logo, George Bush. Enfim, um tipo conhecido, deus-diabo, hoje na reforma, mas que seria ainda assim uma mais valia... Nunca me respondeu. Cabrãozinho!»
O livro, que tem ilustrações de Carlos Glória, será apresentado amanhã, segunda-feira, pelas 19 horas, no Auditório da Associação Humanitária dos Bombeiros Voluntários de Leça da Palmeira. Custa 13,30 euros, e tem a chancela da Prime Books.
We turn from domestic to foreign policy in big way
A lot happened this week in the foreign policy arena with the opening of the U.N. General Assembly in New York and the beginning of the G-20 meetings in Pittsburgh, the latter replete with demonstrations by the nihilistic forces of political and economic incoherence, wearing hoodies and covering their faces with bandanas. Regarding the opening of the General Assembly, I point you to an amusing and insightful piece by Msgr. Albacete: New York: Where nothing unimportant ever happens. The events really began the previous week with the Obama Administration's surprise announcement that the U.S. land-based missile defense we were preparing to deploy in central Europe will not be deployed. Nobody was more surprised than our NATO allies, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, many of whom will remain vulnerable to both Russian and Iranian aggression.
It seems that Pres. Obama extracted no concessions whatsoever from the resurgent Russians nor from Iran. The shadow of this unilateral decision hung over President Obama's tripartite meeting last Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. I was invited to write an article on this meeting, its likely outcome and significance. The result was a fairly lengthy and provocative piece about the state and future of Israeli/Palestinian relations. If it is not published, I will publish it here. I take what I consider to be a realistic stance with regard to this perplexing and complicated issue, which is usually dealt with in slogans and generalities here in the U.S. that take two forms: why can't they just get along? and the equally ignorant they have been fighting for thousands of years. As to the first question, there are many important issues for both the Palestinians and the Israelis that need to be resolved before they can live side-by-side in peace, not the least of which are terrorist groups, like Hamas, which governs Gaza, and who, like Iran, see the destruction of Israel as the only solution to the problem; the second is just a lie. Two events, both of which happened in the 20th century, drive the current Middle East situation. First, the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and subsequent colonization of the Middle East by European powers. Second, the creation of the State of Israel by the United Nations in 1948, coupled with the post-WWII independence of Middle Eastern nations and the rise of, largely secular, pan- Arabism, which, like Islamic fundamentalism, was hostile to and aggressive toward Israel, resulting in two wars and the territorial expansion of Israel, including unifying Jerusalem under Israeli rule and the acquisition of the Golan Heights in the country's north. Of course, the West Bank, seized from Jordan, as was Jerusalem, and the Sinai Peninsula, taken from Egypt, were later returned, with the West Bank becoming a largely Palestinian area, along with Gaza, and Sinai being ceded back to Egypt as part of the much heralded Camp David Peace Accords.
Mark Helprin, who in addition to being one of our greatest living writers, the author of, among other works, A Soldier of the Great War, which, along with Milan Kundera's Immortality, Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, and DFW's novels Infinite Jest and The Broom of the System, is among my favorite works of contemporary literature, is also a wise political observer, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy and national defense. Helprin wrote an editorial in The Wall Street Journal this past Wednesday, Obama and the Politics of Concession: Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice. This brief article sums up well what we are dealing with and why we should all be as concerned as are our stunned European allies about the Administration's unilateral decision to stop the deployment of the European-based missile defense system.
We all want to live in a world of peace and security. Sadly, peace and security have never been achieved through concession and appeasement with forces of aggression. Our very feisty former U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, who looks and often refreshingly speaks like Yosemite Sam, said of Pres. Obama's speech to the General Assembly that it was "a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests." Are John Bolton and I the only ones who are troubled by how enamored our president seems to be of his own story? Don't get me wrong, Barack Obama has an amazing and uniquely American personal story, one that, in many ways, should make us all proud and hopeful, but I guarantee that Putin and Ahmadinejad are not impressed.
What we need to be concerned about is the seeming naiveté and domestic political calulation with which our foreign policy is being conducted. Even the illustration by Chad Crowe that accompanies Helprin's piece is misleading. In reality, Ahmadinejad is not hiding his country's nuclear ambitions and offering a handshake. The missiles should be in front of him and, instead of offering a handshake, he should be defiantly flipping the bird.
As to the calling out of Iran for their secret nuclear facility at the end-of-week, how much do you think the regime in Teheran fears sanctions, angry letters, and verbal denunciations by world leaders at international gatherings? Our appeasement of the Iranian regime caused us to be caught flat-footed when popular protests arose after June's elections. We were compromised by our friendly overtures to a regime that is at odds with what we stand for and unpopular with its own people, especially the young, who constitute an ever-increasing majority of the Iranian population, thus rendering us unable to claim the moral high ground and assist the forces of democratic change. Even the president's public statements about the protests were lukewarm, indicating his commitment to dealing with the dictatorial and globally ambitious ayatollahs and their man, Ahmadinejad. This is not an intelligence failure, it is a political failure, a strategic failure, indicative of an ideological idealism at odds with reality. All of this before we get to the recent back-peddling and indecision about our course in Afghanistan, another issue in which Iran is very interested to see what the U.S. will do. Backing-down in Afghanistan would serve Iranian interests well, not to mention those of the freshly reconstituted Taliban and Pakistani-based Al Quaida. Let's not forget the consequences that the collapase of an already politically unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan would have on regional and global security! I shudder to think of the effects that another administration blinded by ideology and with no long-term, strategic vision will have on our world.
I end with a question: Why does everybody seem so surprised that Gaddafi is still an ego-manical wind bag?
It seems that Pres. Obama extracted no concessions whatsoever from the resurgent Russians nor from Iran. The shadow of this unilateral decision hung over President Obama's tripartite meeting last Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. I was invited to write an article on this meeting, its likely outcome and significance. The result was a fairly lengthy and provocative piece about the state and future of Israeli/Palestinian relations. If it is not published, I will publish it here. I take what I consider to be a realistic stance with regard to this perplexing and complicated issue, which is usually dealt with in slogans and generalities here in the U.S. that take two forms: why can't they just get along? and the equally ignorant they have been fighting for thousands of years. As to the first question, there are many important issues for both the Palestinians and the Israelis that need to be resolved before they can live side-by-side in peace, not the least of which are terrorist groups, like Hamas, which governs Gaza, and who, like Iran, see the destruction of Israel as the only solution to the problem; the second is just a lie. Two events, both of which happened in the 20th century, drive the current Middle East situation. First, the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and subsequent colonization of the Middle East by European powers. Second, the creation of the State of Israel by the United Nations in 1948, coupled with the post-WWII independence of Middle Eastern nations and the rise of, largely secular, pan- Arabism, which, like Islamic fundamentalism, was hostile to and aggressive toward Israel, resulting in two wars and the territorial expansion of Israel, including unifying Jerusalem under Israeli rule and the acquisition of the Golan Heights in the country's north. Of course, the West Bank, seized from Jordan, as was Jerusalem, and the Sinai Peninsula, taken from Egypt, were later returned, with the West Bank becoming a largely Palestinian area, along with Gaza, and Sinai being ceded back to Egypt as part of the much heralded Camp David Peace Accords.
Mark Helprin, who in addition to being one of our greatest living writers, the author of, among other works, A Soldier of the Great War, which, along with Milan Kundera's Immortality, Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, and DFW's novels Infinite Jest and The Broom of the System, is among my favorite works of contemporary literature, is also a wise political observer, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy and national defense. Helprin wrote an editorial in The Wall Street Journal this past Wednesday, Obama and the Politics of Concession: Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice. This brief article sums up well what we are dealing with and why we should all be as concerned as are our stunned European allies about the Administration's unilateral decision to stop the deployment of the European-based missile defense system.We all want to live in a world of peace and security. Sadly, peace and security have never been achieved through concession and appeasement with forces of aggression. Our very feisty former U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, who looks and often refreshingly speaks like Yosemite Sam, said of Pres. Obama's speech to the General Assembly that it was "a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests." Are John Bolton and I the only ones who are troubled by how enamored our president seems to be of his own story? Don't get me wrong, Barack Obama has an amazing and uniquely American personal story, one that, in many ways, should make us all proud and hopeful, but I guarantee that Putin and Ahmadinejad are not impressed.
What we need to be concerned about is the seeming naiveté and domestic political calulation with which our foreign policy is being conducted. Even the illustration by Chad Crowe that accompanies Helprin's piece is misleading. In reality, Ahmadinejad is not hiding his country's nuclear ambitions and offering a handshake. The missiles should be in front of him and, instead of offering a handshake, he should be defiantly flipping the bird.
As to the calling out of Iran for their secret nuclear facility at the end-of-week, how much do you think the regime in Teheran fears sanctions, angry letters, and verbal denunciations by world leaders at international gatherings? Our appeasement of the Iranian regime caused us to be caught flat-footed when popular protests arose after June's elections. We were compromised by our friendly overtures to a regime that is at odds with what we stand for and unpopular with its own people, especially the young, who constitute an ever-increasing majority of the Iranian population, thus rendering us unable to claim the moral high ground and assist the forces of democratic change. Even the president's public statements about the protests were lukewarm, indicating his commitment to dealing with the dictatorial and globally ambitious ayatollahs and their man, Ahmadinejad. This is not an intelligence failure, it is a political failure, a strategic failure, indicative of an ideological idealism at odds with reality. All of this before we get to the recent back-peddling and indecision about our course in Afghanistan, another issue in which Iran is very interested to see what the U.S. will do. Backing-down in Afghanistan would serve Iranian interests well, not to mention those of the freshly reconstituted Taliban and Pakistani-based Al Quaida. Let's not forget the consequences that the collapase of an already politically unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan would have on regional and global security! I shudder to think of the effects that another administration blinded by ideology and with no long-term, strategic vision will have on our world.
I end with a question: Why does everybody seem so surprised that Gaddafi is still an ego-manical wind bag?
"Don't believe in anything you can't break"
With a deep diaconal bow to my friend Rebecca, Garbage's Stupid Girl is our Friday traditio
Paul Kirk é o sucessor de Ted Kennedy no Senado
O democrata Paul Kirk, um dos melhores amigos de Ted Kennedy, ocupará a vaga aberta no Senado pela morte de Ted. Tem 71 anos e foi nomeado pelo governador do Massachussets, Deval Pactrick, com John Kerry (que passa a ser senior senator do Massachussets) ao lado:
«Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has chosen one of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s closest friends and advisers, Paul G. Kirk, Jr., to temporarily fill the Senate seat left vacant by his death.
Kirk, a former Democratic Party chairman, paid tribute to Kennedy Thursday at a State House press conference announcing his appointment, by saying that he would be a “voice and vote” for the former senator’s causes and constituents.
“During our years together I was personally privileged to have had Senator Kennedy’s friendship, his trust and his confidence. He often said that representing the people of Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Senate of the United States was the highest honor that he could possibly imagine,” Kirk said. “It’s certainly nothing I ever imagined, but it would be my highest honor as well.”
In announcing his choice for the interim Senate position, Patrick said he was entrusting to Kirk what Kennedy called the “cause of my life” – health care reform.
“The issues before the Congress and the nation are simply too important to Massachusetts for us to be one voice short,” Patrick, a Democrat, said.
Kirk will serve in office only until voters go to the polls on Jan. 19 to elect a permanent replacement for Kennedy in a special election, but until then his appointment restores a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority for Democrats in the Senate – a victory that President Obama acknowledged on Thursday.
“I am pleased that Massachusetts will have its full representation in the United States Senate in the coming months, as important issues such as health care, financial reform and energy will be debated,” Obama said in a statement. “Paul Kirk is a distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January.”
Patrick selected Kirk after a lobbying effort by members of the Kennedy family, including the senator’s widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and his sons, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Edward M. Kennedy Jr.
Kirk, 71, currently serves as chairman of the board of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. He was also as a special assistant to the Sen. Kennedy from 1969 to 1977 and worked on his 1980 presidential campaign.
He and Kennedy remained close in the ensuing years, and Kirk was said to be among a close-knit circle of friends who was allowed to visit Kennedy in the period before his death on August 25.
Kirk led a tribute to the late senator at the Kennedy Library last month delivering an emotional speech in which he called his former boss “the most thoughtful, genuinely considerate human being I have ever known.”
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has chosen one of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s closest friends and advisers, Paul G. Kirk, Jr., to temporarily fill the Senate seat left vacant by his death.
Kirk, a former Democratic Party chairman, paid tribute to Kennedy Thursday at a State House press conference announcing his appointment, by saying that he would be a “voice and vote” for the former senator’s causes and constituents.
“During our years together I was personally privileged to have had Senator Kennedy’s friendship, his trust and his confidence. He often said that representing the people of Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Senate of the United States was the highest honor that he could possibly imagine,” Kirk said. “It’s certainly nothing I ever imagined, but it would be my highest honor as well.”
In announcing his choice for the interim Senate position, Patrick said he was entrusting to Kirk what Kennedy called the “cause of my life” – health care reform.
“The issues before the Congress and the nation are simply too important to Massachusetts for us to be one voice short,” Patrick, a Democrat, said.
Kirk will serve in office only until voters go to the polls on Jan. 19 to elect a permanent replacement for Kennedy in a special election, but until then his appointment restores a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority for Democrats in the Senate – a victory that President Obama acknowledged on Thursday.
“I am pleased that Massachusetts will have its full representation in the United States Senate in the coming months, as important issues such as health care, financial reform and energy will be debated,” Obama said in a statement. “Paul Kirk is a distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January.”
Patrick selected Kirk after a lobbying effort by members of the Kennedy family, including the senator’s widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and his sons, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Edward M. Kennedy Jr.
Kirk, 71, currently serves as chairman of the board of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. He was also as a special assistant to the Sen. Kennedy from 1969 to 1977 and worked on his 1980 presidential campaign.
He and Kennedy remained close in the ensuing years, and Kirk was said to be among a close-knit circle of friends who was allowed to visit Kennedy in the period before his death on August 25.
Kirk led a tribute to the late senator at the Kennedy Library last month delivering an emotional speech in which he called his former boss “the most thoughtful, genuinely considerate human being I have ever known.”»
in POLITICO.com
Obama marcou pontos com o discurso na ONU
Um artigo de Helene Cooper, no New York Times:
«UNITED NATIONS — President Obama, in his first visit to the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, made progress Wednesday on two key issues, wringing a concession from Russia to consider tough new sanctions against Iran and securing support from Moscow and Beijing for a Security Council resolution to curb nuclear weapons.
The successes came as Mr. Obama told leaders that the United States intended to begin a new era of engagement with the world, in a sweeping address to the General Assembly in which he sought to clearly delineate differences between himself and the administration of President George W. Bush.
One of the fruits of those differences — although White House officials were loath to acknowledge any quid pro quo publicly — emerged during Mr. Obama’s meeting on Wednesday afternoon with President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia, the first between the two since Mr. Obama decided to replace Mr. Bush’s missile defense program in Eastern Europe with a version less threatening to Moscow.
With a beaming Mr. Obama standing next to him, Mr. Medvedev signaled for the first time that Russia would be amenable to longstanding American requests to toughen sanctions against Iran significantly if, as expected, nuclear talks scheduled for next month failed to make progress.
“I told His Excellency Mr. President that we believe we need to help Iran to take a right decision,” Mr. Medvedev said, adding that “sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases, sanctions are inevitable.”
White House officials could barely hide their glee. “I couldn’t have said it any better myself,” a delighted Michael McFaul, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser for democracy and Russia, told reporters after the meeting. He insisted nonetheless that the administration had not tried to buy Russia’s cooperation with its decision to scrap the missile shield in Europe in favor of a reconfigured system.
Privately, several administration officials did acknowledge that missile defense might have had something to do with Moscow’s newfound verbal cooperation on the Iran sanctions issue.
Whether Mr. Medvedev’s words translate into strong action once the issue moves back to the Security Council remains to be seen. American officials have been disappointed before by Moscow’s distaste for tough sanctions, and Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin seemed to cast doubt on the need for stronger sanctions just last week.
Convincing China to agree to toughen sanctions would be the Obama administration’s next hurdle. A Chinese government spokesman reiterated Thursday China’s long-standing opposition to increased sanctions against Iran, and as one of the Security Council’s five permanent members, China has veto power over decisions by the body. But Beijing has made some exceptions to its general antipathy toward sanctions in the past, including agreeing to a package of financial and trade restrictions against North Korea in June.
Mr. Obama did have success with China on the issue of strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in a Security Council session scheduled for Thursday. Russia has also agreed to support a resolution on the matter, officials said.
In an effort to lay the groundwork for toughening the treaty, the Obama administration circulated drafts of a resolution that “urges” countries to put conditions on their nuclear exports, so that international inspectors would be authorized to continue monitoring the use of some nuclear materials even if a country withdrew from the nonproliferation pact. That is a rare occurrence, but North Korea declared it was withdrawing in 2003, and inspectors were thrown out.
The Obama administration hailed the pending resolution as a significant step forward. But it would not be binding, and would become so only if the Security Council required countries to make their nuclear exports subject to such restrictions. Many countries balked at that requirement, an indication of how difficult it may prove to toughen the treaty itself when it is up for review next year.
Mr. Obama will preside over the Security Council meeting on Thursday, and is expected to call for a vote on the draft resolution. White House officials said they expected the measure to pass unanimously.
During his address to the General Assembly, Mr. Obama sought to present a kinder, gentler America willing to make nice with the world. He suggested that the United States would no longer follow the go-it-alone policies that many United Nations members complained isolated the Bush administration from the organization.
“We have re-engaged the United Nations,” Mr. Obama said, to cheers from world leaders and delegates in the cavernous hall. “We have paid our bills” — a direct reference to the former administration’s practice of withholding some payment due the world body while it pressed for changes there.
But even as Mr. Obama sought to signal a different tone, it was clear that old, entrenched issues would remain, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions and a Middle East peace process. And while much of his language was different and more conciliatory, the backbone of American policy on some issues remained similar to the Bush administration’s.
As Mr. Bush used to do before him, for instance, Mr. Obama singled out Iran and North Korea, which he said “threaten to take us down this dangerous slope.”
“I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations,” Mr. Obama said.
But, he added, “if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East — then they must be held accountable.”
As he spoke, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sat in the fifth row, showing no reaction.
But a glittering array of world leaders sat in the hall for Mr. Obama’s speech, which was often interrupted by applause and the flashes of cameras, including from some delegates.
Mr. Obama said he planned to work toward a comprehensive peace deal between Israel and its Arab neighbors. He indicated again that he was impatient with the slow pace of work on interim measures like a settlement freeze. He called on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to address the tough “final status” issues that had bedeviled peace negotiators since 1979.
“The goal is clear,” he said, “two states living side by side in peace and security.”
But the difficulty of achieving that goal was also on full display on Wednesday, one day after Mr. Obama held meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and admonished them to meet in person and negotiate a peace deal. The two Middle Eastern leaders and their spokesmen spent much of the day Wednesday explaining why that could not happen soon.
In an interview on NBC, Mr. Netanyahu called Israeli settlements “bedroom suburbs” of Jerusalem and suggested Israel would not withdraw from all the territory it occupied after the 1967 Middle East war. Meanwhile, the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, told The Associated Press that the two sides will “continue dealing with the Americans until we reach the agreement that will enable us to relaunch the negotiations.”»
A clarification on faith, values, and politics
My short post on faith and politics last night prompted a number of very thoughtful responses. One in particular deserves to see the light of day and not remain buried in the combox:
"What is faith? Is not possible to reduce faith to anything, otherwise wouldn't be faith. Would be piety with elements of Christianity. Exactly because I know Christ I am not afraid and I am interested in every particular of my life, even in political life. Christ was a great politician and the 'change' he brought to the world makes the lately “change” fade away. To be attached to values without looking forward to what happens, without risk of verifying the values in my own life, values remain values and eventually end in the trash can. Values are meant to give a first hypothesis of work, than I need a personal convincement about my life and the life of the others. To be subjected to values and cultural views is a sign of fear and not of knowledge of God. The only problem of all of this is the fact that is a fact! So, it wouldn’t be possible if it didn’t happen already in history and so to have the possibility to learn and to follow. Not only the fact of Christ, but the fact of the life of Fr. Luigi Giussani and the life of the Movement of Communion and Liberation.
"During the 60’s and 70’s Fr. Giussani never withdrew himself and his friends from the political square, because he was certain of the presence of Christ. Christ lunches me in comparison with everything, because he is the present fulfillment of everything. Thus I can enter in anything certain that He will fulfill what he promised and I can even spend my life in political matters for the good of my people and my nation and the people of the world and of the world. Fr. Giussani was never afraid of political people even very far from his own visions, because he was convinced that Christ could correspond so much to the heart of every man that he was not afraid to meet anybody. Examples are the friendships with Giovanni Testori, Walter Tobagi, Adriano Sofri, etc… Other point: what is the Church? The assembly of the baptized. If we don’t rediscover what baptism is, if we don’t accept to start over personally in the adventure of knowledge, if we take faith for granted, there is no way that we could come out of tunnel. And even your suggestions will remain a flatus vocis."
I appreciate very much this clarification regarding values. It was sorely lacking from my original post. Like my Anonymous commenter-friend, I believe there are values, but these arise from Christ and my adherence to Him. They become valuable insofar as I take the risk of living, as Giussani said, "this way".
Neither is my observation a call to retreat from the public square nor to abandon politics. We must engage reality in all its aspects, politics certainly being an aspect of reality. I am more interested in how and how not to do this. We do this in the knowledge, as Carrón so pain-stakingly tried to show us in this year's Exercises, "that Christ is the present fulfillment of everything". I see my blogging as just this kind of risk-taking, engaging an aspect of reality, one that is emerging and important. I hope my engagement is positive by being challenging. A person of faith, precisely because s/he starts from a positive hypothesis, is not defensive and must not be engaged in fighting a rear guard action. Not only is the battle not lost, the outcome is not even in question because in Christ we are victorious, which is why we can say that "the victory that has overcome the world [is] our faith" (1 John 5:4).
So, again, I appreciate for the clarification and even the correction.
"What is faith? Is not possible to reduce faith to anything, otherwise wouldn't be faith. Would be piety with elements of Christianity. Exactly because I know Christ I am not afraid and I am interested in every particular of my life, even in political life. Christ was a great politician and the 'change' he brought to the world makes the lately “change” fade away. To be attached to values without looking forward to what happens, without risk of verifying the values in my own life, values remain values and eventually end in the trash can. Values are meant to give a first hypothesis of work, than I need a personal convincement about my life and the life of the others. To be subjected to values and cultural views is a sign of fear and not of knowledge of God. The only problem of all of this is the fact that is a fact! So, it wouldn’t be possible if it didn’t happen already in history and so to have the possibility to learn and to follow. Not only the fact of Christ, but the fact of the life of Fr. Luigi Giussani and the life of the Movement of Communion and Liberation.
"During the 60’s and 70’s Fr. Giussani never withdrew himself and his friends from the political square, because he was certain of the presence of Christ. Christ lunches me in comparison with everything, because he is the present fulfillment of everything. Thus I can enter in anything certain that He will fulfill what he promised and I can even spend my life in political matters for the good of my people and my nation and the people of the world and of the world. Fr. Giussani was never afraid of political people even very far from his own visions, because he was convinced that Christ could correspond so much to the heart of every man that he was not afraid to meet anybody. Examples are the friendships with Giovanni Testori, Walter Tobagi, Adriano Sofri, etc… Other point: what is the Church? The assembly of the baptized. If we don’t rediscover what baptism is, if we don’t accept to start over personally in the adventure of knowledge, if we take faith for granted, there is no way that we could come out of tunnel. And even your suggestions will remain a flatus vocis."
I appreciate very much this clarification regarding values. It was sorely lacking from my original post. Like my Anonymous commenter-friend, I believe there are values, but these arise from Christ and my adherence to Him. They become valuable insofar as I take the risk of living, as Giussani said, "this way".
Neither is my observation a call to retreat from the public square nor to abandon politics. We must engage reality in all its aspects, politics certainly being an aspect of reality. I am more interested in how and how not to do this. We do this in the knowledge, as Carrón so pain-stakingly tried to show us in this year's Exercises, "that Christ is the present fulfillment of everything". I see my blogging as just this kind of risk-taking, engaging an aspect of reality, one that is emerging and important. I hope my engagement is positive by being challenging. A person of faith, precisely because s/he starts from a positive hypothesis, is not defensive and must not be engaged in fighting a rear guard action. Not only is the battle not lost, the outcome is not even in question because in Christ we are victorious, which is why we can say that "the victory that has overcome the world [is] our faith" (1 John 5:4).
So, again, I appreciate for the clarification and even the correction.
Morality is not faith and religion is not social control
Writing last week about Dostoevsky's assertion that without God everything is permissible, I wrote that the great Russian author is not arguing in favor of the God of the philosophers, let alone the God of the politicians who seek to use religion as a means of social control. In the final paragraph of his article for Slate about the passing last Friday of Irving Kristol, Christopher Hitchens writes this about the godfather of neoconservatism:
"The neoconservative faction, or should we say movement, is generally secular and often associated with the name of Leo Strauss. Kristol was one of those who never minded saying that he was a Straussian, and Strauss is unusual among the pillars of American conservatism in having been decidedly skeptical about religious faith. Here again, Kristol appears to have been contradictory between an abstruse, elite intellectual and the popular will: If I understood him correctly, he believed that religion was a useful tool for making people behave well, quite independent of whether it was true or not. If that should turn out to have been a paradox with a dry hint of cynicism, he very probably derived relish from it."This is a case in point as to why Christians in the U.S. and elsewhere must be careful not to become useful idiots in the political game and also to avoid reducing faith to morality and morality to mere values. I think Christians in this country for many election cycles made a Faustian bargain with the political right.
A note from our retreat
Our annual deacon retreat was a great experience. Rarely do we get the opportunity to spend time together as a deacon community because we are all so busy. We only have two opportunities per year: our retreat and our lecture and dinner just before the Chrism Mass. We had a really outstanding retreat master, Dr. William Shaules, who teaches Scripture at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and at Fuller Theological Seminary, an evangelical Protestant school also located in the greater L.A. area. He is very involved with the diaconate formation program in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. We looked at The Gospel According to St. John. I have 12 pages of notes!
Of everything Dr. Shaules guided us through, I was most impacted by our discussion of the story about the Samaritan woman Jesus encounters at the well in the fourth chapter of John. I agree very much that to see and define her as "the woman living in adultery" because she had been married five times and was living with a man who was not her husband is really to miss the point entirely (John 4:17-18). Given the highly literary manner in which the fourth Gospel was composed, defining her this way is nothing less than a deviation from the text.
The whole Samaritan interlude in this Gospel is indicative that the Johannine community had a significant Samaritan contingent. The five husbands may well be a literary device that refers to the five nationalities we find in 2 Kings 17:13-34 where we read about the Assyrian destruction of the northern 10 tribes, whose elites were forcibly relocated, while people from "Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim" were forcibly resettled in Samaria. This is the historical background of the split and subsequent animosity between Samaritans, who are a racially mixed nation, and Jews. This split is very much present in the dialogue at the well, during which Jesus talks about worshipping in Jerusalem, site of the Temple on Mt. Zion, or on Mt. Gerazim, the place the Samaritans viewed as sacred. In addition to stating that "salvation is from the Jews," the Lord refers to the time when people will worship neither in Jerusalem nor on Mt. Gerazim; when "true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth" (John 4:22-23). Because of Jesus, these true worshippers will be from all nations and can worship the Father anywhere and everywhere.
There two more accurate ways of defining the Samaritan woman; as theologian and apostle. Both of these can be summed up by one word: witness. She is a witness to the event that became for her an encounter. An encounter that happened when she went to draw water from the well, a mundane and every day chore, and received the living water, Jesus, the water that quenched the thirst of her desire to be happy, fulfilled, satisfied. Like this woman, our desire is bigger than the world, even infinite. Hence, our fulfillment must be infinite, too. Like the Samaritan woman, we long for the water that quenches our thirst, for the life that is truly life.
I urge you to read the account for yourself in John 4:4-43.
Of everything Dr. Shaules guided us through, I was most impacted by our discussion of the story about the Samaritan woman Jesus encounters at the well in the fourth chapter of John. I agree very much that to see and define her as "the woman living in adultery" because she had been married five times and was living with a man who was not her husband is really to miss the point entirely (John 4:17-18). Given the highly literary manner in which the fourth Gospel was composed, defining her this way is nothing less than a deviation from the text.
The whole Samaritan interlude in this Gospel is indicative that the Johannine community had a significant Samaritan contingent. The five husbands may well be a literary device that refers to the five nationalities we find in 2 Kings 17:13-34 where we read about the Assyrian destruction of the northern 10 tribes, whose elites were forcibly relocated, while people from "Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim" were forcibly resettled in Samaria. This is the historical background of the split and subsequent animosity between Samaritans, who are a racially mixed nation, and Jews. This split is very much present in the dialogue at the well, during which Jesus talks about worshipping in Jerusalem, site of the Temple on Mt. Zion, or on Mt. Gerazim, the place the Samaritans viewed as sacred. In addition to stating that "salvation is from the Jews," the Lord refers to the time when people will worship neither in Jerusalem nor on Mt. Gerazim; when "true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth" (John 4:22-23). Because of Jesus, these true worshippers will be from all nations and can worship the Father anywhere and everywhere.There two more accurate ways of defining the Samaritan woman; as theologian and apostle. Both of these can be summed up by one word: witness. She is a witness to the event that became for her an encounter. An encounter that happened when she went to draw water from the well, a mundane and every day chore, and received the living water, Jesus, the water that quenched the thirst of her desire to be happy, fulfilled, satisfied. Like this woman, our desire is bigger than the world, even infinite. Hence, our fulfillment must be infinite, too. Like the Samaritan woman, we long for the water that quenches our thirst, for the life that is truly life.
I urge you to read the account for yourself in John 4:4-43.
Obama: «Racismo não é uma questão crucial nas críticas sobre a Reforma da Saúde»
Um artigo de Jeff Zeleny, no New York Times:
«WASHINGTON — President Obama said Friday that he did not believe his race was the cause of fierce criticism aimed at his administration in the contentious national debate over health care, but rather that the cause was a sense of suspicion and distrust many Americans have in their government.
More Health Care Overhaul News“Are there people out there who don’t like me because of race? I’m sure there are,” Mr. Obama told CNN. “That’s not the overriding issue here.”
In five separate television interviews at the White House, Mr. Obama said he did not agree with former President Jimmy Carter’s assertion that racism was fueling the opposition to his administration. He described himself as just the latest in a line of presidents whose motives had been questioned because they were trying to enact major change.
Mr. Obama will appear on five Sunday talk shows — an unprecedented step for a president — to promote his health care plan. The television networks broadcast brief parts of their interviews on Friday evening, all of which focused on a question the White House has sought to avoid all week: Has race played a role in the debate?
Mr. Obama, the nation’s first black president, said “race is such a volatile issue in this society” that he conceded it had become difficult for people to tell whether it was simply a backdrop of the current political discussion or “a predominant factor.”
“Now there are some who are, setting aside the issue of race, actually I think are more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right,” he told ABC News. “And I think that that’s probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol.”
The president spoke to anchors from three broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC as well as the cable networks CNN and Univision.
He conceded that many people were skeptical of the health care legislation making its way through Congress.
“The overwhelming part of the American population, I think, is right now following this debate, and they are trying to figure out, is this going to help me?” Mr. Obama said in one of the interviews. “Is health care going to make me better off?”
But even as the White House sought to push it aside, the issue of race persisted through the week, with some critics saying it was the reason a Republican lawmaker was disrespectful to the president last week, calling him a liar as Mr. Obama addressed a joint session of Congress. The television interviews on Friday were the first time Mr. Obama had weighed in.
“Look, I said during the campaign there’s some people who still think through a prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy. Absolutely,” Mr. Obama told NBC News. “Sometimes they vote for me for that reason; sometimes they vote against me for that reason.”
But he said that the matter was really “an argument that’s gone on for the history of this republic. And that is, what’s the right role of government?”
The president said the contentious health care debate, which came on the heels of extraordinary government involvement in bailing out banks and automobile companies, had led to a broader discussion about the role of government in society.
“I think that what’s driving passions right now is that health care has become a proxy for a broader set of issues about how much government should be involved in our economy,” Mr. Obama told CBS News. “Even though we’re having a passionate disagreement here, we can be civil to each other, and we can try to express ourselves acknowledging that we’re all patriots, we’re all Americans and not assume the absolute worst in people’s motives.”
The president used the media blitz to add his own commentary about the news media.
He said he blamed cable television and blogs, which he said “focus on the most extreme element on both sides,” for much of the inflamed rhetoric.
“The easiest way to get 15 minutes of fame,” Mr. Obama said, “is to be rude to someone.”»
«WASHINGTON — President Obama said Friday that he did not believe his race was the cause of fierce criticism aimed at his administration in the contentious national debate over health care, but rather that the cause was a sense of suspicion and distrust many Americans have in their government.
More Health Care Overhaul News“Are there people out there who don’t like me because of race? I’m sure there are,” Mr. Obama told CNN. “That’s not the overriding issue here.”
In five separate television interviews at the White House, Mr. Obama said he did not agree with former President Jimmy Carter’s assertion that racism was fueling the opposition to his administration. He described himself as just the latest in a line of presidents whose motives had been questioned because they were trying to enact major change.
Mr. Obama will appear on five Sunday talk shows — an unprecedented step for a president — to promote his health care plan. The television networks broadcast brief parts of their interviews on Friday evening, all of which focused on a question the White House has sought to avoid all week: Has race played a role in the debate?
Mr. Obama, the nation’s first black president, said “race is such a volatile issue in this society” that he conceded it had become difficult for people to tell whether it was simply a backdrop of the current political discussion or “a predominant factor.”
“Now there are some who are, setting aside the issue of race, actually I think are more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right,” he told ABC News. “And I think that that’s probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol.”
The president spoke to anchors from three broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC as well as the cable networks CNN and Univision.
He conceded that many people were skeptical of the health care legislation making its way through Congress.
“The overwhelming part of the American population, I think, is right now following this debate, and they are trying to figure out, is this going to help me?” Mr. Obama said in one of the interviews. “Is health care going to make me better off?”
But even as the White House sought to push it aside, the issue of race persisted through the week, with some critics saying it was the reason a Republican lawmaker was disrespectful to the president last week, calling him a liar as Mr. Obama addressed a joint session of Congress. The television interviews on Friday were the first time Mr. Obama had weighed in.
“Look, I said during the campaign there’s some people who still think through a prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy. Absolutely,” Mr. Obama told NBC News. “Sometimes they vote for me for that reason; sometimes they vote against me for that reason.”
But he said that the matter was really “an argument that’s gone on for the history of this republic. And that is, what’s the right role of government?”
The president said the contentious health care debate, which came on the heels of extraordinary government involvement in bailing out banks and automobile companies, had led to a broader discussion about the role of government in society.
“I think that what’s driving passions right now is that health care has become a proxy for a broader set of issues about how much government should be involved in our economy,” Mr. Obama told CBS News. “Even though we’re having a passionate disagreement here, we can be civil to each other, and we can try to express ourselves acknowledging that we’re all patriots, we’re all Americans and not assume the absolute worst in people’s motives.”
The president used the media blitz to add his own commentary about the news media.
He said he blamed cable television and blogs, which he said “focus on the most extreme element on both sides,” for much of the inflamed rhetoric.
“The easiest way to get 15 minutes of fame,” Mr. Obama said, “is to be rude to someone.”»
Retreat!
I am off to our diocesan deacon retreat. I'll be gone 'til Sunday. That will give both of my readers time to catch up, or to listen to Paranoid a bunch of times, like I did today in between and while going for a run, doing yard work, reading Hitchens, and playing with my baby boy.
"I need someone to show me the things in life that I can't find"
I absolutely loved this article by Walter Gatti for Il Sussidiario, which translates Paranoid by Black Sabbath. A while back over on Facebook my friend Fred made reference to Sabbath's album Paranoid. It conjured up memories of laying on my friend's bedroom floor, staring at the ceiling, and listening to this album in its entirety, both sides in those days! While they're correctly categorized as heavy metal, Sabbath, as well as Ozzy when he went solo, had something more. I think this band from Birmingham is far more influential than most are willing to admit.
Mr. Gatti included this version, from Ozzy sans Iommi, Butler, and Ward. It just rocks.... Ozzy has a hell of a band with Zakk Wylde, Robert Trujillo, and Mike Bordin!
"All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy."
A 1992 New York Times article refers to the time when New York archbishop John Cardinal O'Connor called him a Satanist in a homily delivered in St. Patrick's Cathedral. Ozzy's response was:
"Unbeknownst to Cardinal O'Connor, I am not the Antichrist, I am a family man."
In this same article, author Nick Ravo writes: "Devil-worshipers may be chagrined to learn that Ozzy, a member of the Church of England, kneels and prays backstage just before going on; he makes the sign of the cross, too." This only shows that the church must engage culture at all levels, not dismissing those who fall outside of our own carefully constructed view of things, thus denying their humanity. After all, the issues and questions of human existence are perennial and universal.
Of course, it was also Ozzy who said in an interview after he cleaned up and was trying to stay sober "Sobriety sucks." There are people to whom that will seem silly or outrageous, there are others, even many who are now sober and clean, who can relate either by saying Amen, or remembering what it was like starting to face up to existence sober. To say that it is hard doesn't even begin to do justice to the difficult passage from dependence to sobriety. I remember a slogan from younger days: Reality is for people who can't handle drugs. Let's return to Paranoid, the lyrics that describe some of the anguish that leads some to turn to what Ozzy described in a later, very controversial song from his solo career, the "suicide solution": "Happiness I cannot feel and love to me is so unreal."
As Ozzy says at the end of the song "...God bless you all, stay safe!"
Mr. Gatti included this version, from Ozzy sans Iommi, Butler, and Ward. It just rocks.... Ozzy has a hell of a band with Zakk Wylde, Robert Trujillo, and Mike Bordin!
"All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy."
A 1992 New York Times article refers to the time when New York archbishop John Cardinal O'Connor called him a Satanist in a homily delivered in St. Patrick's Cathedral. Ozzy's response was:
"Unbeknownst to Cardinal O'Connor, I am not the Antichrist, I am a family man."
In this same article, author Nick Ravo writes: "Devil-worshipers may be chagrined to learn that Ozzy, a member of the Church of England, kneels and prays backstage just before going on; he makes the sign of the cross, too." This only shows that the church must engage culture at all levels, not dismissing those who fall outside of our own carefully constructed view of things, thus denying their humanity. After all, the issues and questions of human existence are perennial and universal.
Of course, it was also Ozzy who said in an interview after he cleaned up and was trying to stay sober "Sobriety sucks." There are people to whom that will seem silly or outrageous, there are others, even many who are now sober and clean, who can relate either by saying Amen, or remembering what it was like starting to face up to existence sober. To say that it is hard doesn't even begin to do justice to the difficult passage from dependence to sobriety. I remember a slogan from younger days: Reality is for people who can't handle drugs. Let's return to Paranoid, the lyrics that describe some of the anguish that leads some to turn to what Ozzy described in a later, very controversial song from his solo career, the "suicide solution": "Happiness I cannot feel and love to me is so unreal."
As Ozzy says at the end of the song "...God bless you all, stay safe!"
Críticas à reforma da Saúde: Casa Branca prepara o contra-ataque
«Facing a near-daily barrage of attacks from conservative opponents, White House officials are engaged in an internal debate over how hard to hit back, even as they have grown increasingly aggressive in countering allegations they deem to be absurd.
After brushing aside criticism during the presidential campaign that they tried to keep candidate Barack Obama too far above the fray -- and with memories of the abundance of media coverage during the Clinton years -- administration officials are accelerating their efforts to anticipate and respond to the most sharp-edged charges.
The White House officials are eager to avoid the perception that the president is directly engaging critics who appear to speak only for a vocal minority, and part of their strategy involves pushing material to liberal and progressive media outlets to steer the coverage in their direction, senior advisers said.
When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.
The controversy escalated, but by the time it was over, White House advisers thought they had emerged with the upper hand. The speech, they said, was the most-viewed live video on any government Web site in history, and they were pleased with the media coverage of the event.
In private, Obama has developed what his advisers say is becoming a familiar response to new allegations, rolling his eyes in disbelief and asking how his staff plans to counter them. Several senior advisers said in interviews that they are more focused on getting legislation passed than trying to manage the "right-wing noise machine," convinced that voters will react most positively to measurable improvements in their lives.
But at a tactical level, administration officials are taking seriously the potential for damage and are attempting to respond forcefully. In early August, officials stepped up their efforts to link the "birther" movement -- with its contention that Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not a legitimate president -- to Republican leaders.
Later in the month, Obama advisers began pushing back against allegations that he would establish "death panels" in his health-care overhaul, calling out former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin for posting that charge on her Facebook page. Obama publicly rejected the charge that he is maintaining an "enemies list," raising the issue to dismiss it at a town hall meeting.
Officials who were interviewed said the goal is to anticipate the conservative attacks and be ready to respond the moment they threaten to balloon into a major story. They acknowledge, however, having limited success so far.
"In a world with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report and everything else that makes up the right-wing noise machine, nothing is clean and nothing is simple," a senior administration official said. "You don't stomp a story out. You ride the wave and try to steer it to safe water."
The level of hostility toward Obama in recent months has been exceptionally high for a new president. Even before Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "You lie!" during a presidential address to Congress last week, Obama had been accused of wanting to kill people's grandparents (through health-care reform), expose their children to political re-education (through an expansion of community service programs) and use health care to make reparations for slavery (by expanding coverage).
How the Obama White House deals with the frenzy going forward will be a test of its talents, senior administration officials acknowledged.
Although Obama does not pore over the conservative attacks himself, he is not oblivious to them, advisers said. He does not watch cable television regularly, but he reads his news summary each morning, and he often follows up with staff members when he hears what he considers out-of-bounds allegations -- sometimes after learning of them in e-mails from friends outside the White House, for example, or from ordinary voters at rallies. Little of it surprises him, aides said.
"In the fall of the campaign, you could find many similar sentiments at McCain-Palin rallies and certainly at Sarah Palin rallies," communications director Anita Dunn said. "These aren't new arguments. The level of vehemence, the emotional level of it, is at a campaign peak, which is unusual to find in a non-campaign year."
Dunn played down the role that race could have in fueling the rancor. "I think that is less a part of it than some other people might think," she said. "If you look at the history of this country, you see that in times of great stress and change, there are people who are concerned, who are threatened, there are people who are scared."
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel echoed her point. "Father Coughlin called Roosevelt a socialist, the John Birch Society was created in reaction to Kennedy, Clinton had [Richard Mellon] Scaife and others who went after him," he said. "And now they've come after Obama on Socialism and other things. This has always been a creed from those voices dealing with Democratic presidents. But yes, there's an intensity, given the [rapid media] time frame we're all under, that's different."
During the Clinton administration, conservative opposition mounted to such a degree that the Clintons came to view it as a "vast right-wing conspiracy," bankrolled by wealthy conservatives and airing damning claims, such as their alleged involvement in the death of their friend Vincent W. Foster Jr., whose death was ruled a suicide. Partisan warfare became blood sport, and while President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed at times to revel in it, it had a political price: Obama found success in the Democratic primaries in part by promising to move past the fighting.
Now, the challenge for Obama will be to maintain that stance without ceding ground to his most extreme critics, whom administration officials believe are trying to mount an existential threat to the president.
"There's a broader argument that is the underlying argument to all of these attacks, which is a very fundamental struggle about trying to tear this president down and delegitimize his presidency," said one senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "That is really the war. And all of these are skirmishes -- some of them flare up into battles -- but the broader war is about the fate of this presidency and the other side's attempts to delegitimize him and to make him into a failure."»
in Washington Post
After brushing aside criticism during the presidential campaign that they tried to keep candidate Barack Obama too far above the fray -- and with memories of the abundance of media coverage during the Clinton years -- administration officials are accelerating their efforts to anticipate and respond to the most sharp-edged charges.
The White House officials are eager to avoid the perception that the president is directly engaging critics who appear to speak only for a vocal minority, and part of their strategy involves pushing material to liberal and progressive media outlets to steer the coverage in their direction, senior advisers said.
When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.
The controversy escalated, but by the time it was over, White House advisers thought they had emerged with the upper hand. The speech, they said, was the most-viewed live video on any government Web site in history, and they were pleased with the media coverage of the event.
In private, Obama has developed what his advisers say is becoming a familiar response to new allegations, rolling his eyes in disbelief and asking how his staff plans to counter them. Several senior advisers said in interviews that they are more focused on getting legislation passed than trying to manage the "right-wing noise machine," convinced that voters will react most positively to measurable improvements in their lives.
But at a tactical level, administration officials are taking seriously the potential for damage and are attempting to respond forcefully. In early August, officials stepped up their efforts to link the "birther" movement -- with its contention that Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not a legitimate president -- to Republican leaders.
Later in the month, Obama advisers began pushing back against allegations that he would establish "death panels" in his health-care overhaul, calling out former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin for posting that charge on her Facebook page. Obama publicly rejected the charge that he is maintaining an "enemies list," raising the issue to dismiss it at a town hall meeting.
Officials who were interviewed said the goal is to anticipate the conservative attacks and be ready to respond the moment they threaten to balloon into a major story. They acknowledge, however, having limited success so far.
"In a world with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report and everything else that makes up the right-wing noise machine, nothing is clean and nothing is simple," a senior administration official said. "You don't stomp a story out. You ride the wave and try to steer it to safe water."
The level of hostility toward Obama in recent months has been exceptionally high for a new president. Even before Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "You lie!" during a presidential address to Congress last week, Obama had been accused of wanting to kill people's grandparents (through health-care reform), expose their children to political re-education (through an expansion of community service programs) and use health care to make reparations for slavery (by expanding coverage).
How the Obama White House deals with the frenzy going forward will be a test of its talents, senior administration officials acknowledged.
Although Obama does not pore over the conservative attacks himself, he is not oblivious to them, advisers said. He does not watch cable television regularly, but he reads his news summary each morning, and he often follows up with staff members when he hears what he considers out-of-bounds allegations -- sometimes after learning of them in e-mails from friends outside the White House, for example, or from ordinary voters at rallies. Little of it surprises him, aides said.
"In the fall of the campaign, you could find many similar sentiments at McCain-Palin rallies and certainly at Sarah Palin rallies," communications director Anita Dunn said. "These aren't new arguments. The level of vehemence, the emotional level of it, is at a campaign peak, which is unusual to find in a non-campaign year."
Dunn played down the role that race could have in fueling the rancor. "I think that is less a part of it than some other people might think," she said. "If you look at the history of this country, you see that in times of great stress and change, there are people who are concerned, who are threatened, there are people who are scared."
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel echoed her point. "Father Coughlin called Roosevelt a socialist, the John Birch Society was created in reaction to Kennedy, Clinton had [Richard Mellon] Scaife and others who went after him," he said. "And now they've come after Obama on Socialism and other things. This has always been a creed from those voices dealing with Democratic presidents. But yes, there's an intensity, given the [rapid media] time frame we're all under, that's different."
During the Clinton administration, conservative opposition mounted to such a degree that the Clintons came to view it as a "vast right-wing conspiracy," bankrolled by wealthy conservatives and airing damning claims, such as their alleged involvement in the death of their friend Vincent W. Foster Jr., whose death was ruled a suicide. Partisan warfare became blood sport, and while President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed at times to revel in it, it had a political price: Obama found success in the Democratic primaries in part by promising to move past the fighting.
Now, the challenge for Obama will be to maintain that stance without ceding ground to his most extreme critics, whom administration officials believe are trying to mount an existential threat to the president.
"There's a broader argument that is the underlying argument to all of these attacks, which is a very fundamental struggle about trying to tear this president down and delegitimize his presidency," said one senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "That is really the war. And all of these are skirmishes -- some of them flare up into battles -- but the broader war is about the fate of this presidency and the other side's attempts to delegitimize him and to make him into a failure."»
in Washington Post
U.S. politics and the lunatic fringe: Van Jones revisited
In the wake of Van Jones' resignation I wrote a short article for the on-line Italian news outlet Il Sussidiario: Jones Resignation/Is it time to put an end to the "czar" system? My main point in the article was that the citizens of the U.S. are poorly served by the czar system, which represents nothing other than a massive power grab by the executive branch of our government, thus compromising our well-constructed system of checks and balances. Hence, I mentioned only in passing that Jones was far out of the political mainstream, which put it rather mildly.
Ed Kilgore's post on his blog over on The New Republic's webpage this morning, in which he asks if the Democrats need their own crazies to counter the Republican crazies, reminded me just how easy a pass I gave Mr. Jones in my article. To that end, I direct you to Marty Perez's blog post on TNR's blog The Spine: Cool... But, Yes, Communist. In his post, Perez, who is thoughtful and unapologetically liberal, shows that Jones fits Kilgore's bill and that, as we all know, there is a lunatic fringe of donkeys, too. Of course, the drum was beaten daily and loudly for Jones' resignation by Glenn Beck. Maybe it takes a crazy to know a crazy. Of course, I am referring here only to political viewpoints, not either man's mental health.
Am I the only one who sees the strange irony of a communist becoming a czar? No... wait a minute... Lenin was the first, followed by Stalin, followed by Khrushchev, etc. According to Kolakowski, this is not an aberration, but the direct result of Marxian ideology. There is far more irony in putting a person with Jones' ideological commitments in a high-level job designed to help get the economy moving by creating green jobs.
Ed Kilgore's post on his blog over on The New Republic's webpage this morning, in which he asks if the Democrats need their own crazies to counter the Republican crazies, reminded me just how easy a pass I gave Mr. Jones in my article. To that end, I direct you to Marty Perez's blog post on TNR's blog The Spine: Cool... But, Yes, Communist. In his post, Perez, who is thoughtful and unapologetically liberal, shows that Jones fits Kilgore's bill and that, as we all know, there is a lunatic fringe of donkeys, too. Of course, the drum was beaten daily and loudly for Jones' resignation by Glenn Beck. Maybe it takes a crazy to know a crazy. Of course, I am referring here only to political viewpoints, not either man's mental health.
Am I the only one who sees the strange irony of a communist becoming a czar? No... wait a minute... Lenin was the first, followed by Stalin, followed by Khrushchev, etc. According to Kolakowski, this is not an aberration, but the direct result of Marxian ideology. There is far more irony in putting a person with Jones' ideological commitments in a high-level job designed to help get the economy moving by creating green jobs.
Dostoevsky, God, and morals on Facebook!
Sunday morning I posted this quote by Roger Kimball as my Facebook status:
"Dostoyevsky once claimed that if God does not exist then everything is permitted. Considerable ingenuity has gone into proving Dostoyevsky wrong. To date, though, the record would seem to support him."
It is a quote that readily lends itself to the same misunderstanding on the part of people who agree with it and with those who do not. This was brought to my attention by a very insightful comment made a young woman who is studying at university, who wrote:
"I disagree, I think if a person falls into this thinking, that then allows for prejudice against those who do not believe in God (or a different god), and that leads into non-respectful/ unchristianly acts....I suppose I disagree with the statement then more because of what can result from the philosophy and not necessarily the philosophy itself. However, I also think the topic of morality has to come into play...and am not convinced that morality it strictly bound to religion as would be the claim with this statement."
Fyodor Dostoevsky
I see this response as one I would have made at a similar point in my education. This is not to be dismissive in the least. It is a great point, even a necessary one, because it goes right to the consequences of people who agree with D's thesis, but who misunderstand and oversimplify it, that is, reduce it to their measure.
"Dostoevsky is really talking about the ultimate basis for and rational grounding of morality. He is not making the case that atheists are practically immoral but that morality can't be arbitrary. It is easy to cite many examples of people whose stance toward God is either agnostic or downright disbelieving, but who are moral people, even more moral than many who believe. Neither Dostoevsky nor Kimball suggest otherwise. Kimball is referring to political systems that are ideologically atheist. Otherwise, the danger you describe become possibilties and even realities.
"To make a claim that morality is not strictly bound to religion is easy and is done often; to demonstrate what else it might be that morality can ultimately be based on is far more difficult without making everything relative by having no ontological footing. Because morality does not exist apart from people, it comes to down to one's view of the human person and, more to your point, a person's view of her/himself."
It occurred to me after making this reply that it is necessary to point the obvious: that even to say that someone who is an atheist is moral requires some criteria as to what counts as being moral, that is, acting rightly. I replied a few moments later with this follow-up, which I think is more to her point:
"A couple more quick, but relevant, points:
"1) D's thesis about the necessity of God for the ontological grounding and rationale for morality does not so much posit God as the supreme law-giver who must be obeyed, the transcendent means of social control, whose ontological necessity morality requires. Such a view does not get us past Feuerbach. But God the origin and end of human existence, this is what brings us back to it coming down to one's view of the human person.
"2) Faith can never be reduced morality. It is precisely this reduction at which I think you are taking aim. It is a worthy target. The most obnoxious and unconvincing believer's and institution do precisely this. It something that manifests itself often."
This is exactly the kind of discussion to which Camus' brilliance and honesty lend themselves nicely. It also shows that social media can and sometimes does facilitate thoughtful conversation, even if not in real time. The advantage of written communication not in real time is that those conversing can be more thoughtful and incisive, even if it results in a few misspellings and some very poor grammar, all on my part!
Apropos to the tenor of this discussion and the main point I am trying to make, today is the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross.
Realizing the relevance of this feast to the topic, along with a few more incisive comments, prompted me to write that, as Christians, "we do not believe in the God of logical necessity and social control, the so-called god of the philosophers, but in the God who for us 'and for our salvation came down from heaven' and who 'by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.'
"Experience that teaches us this, even if we spend a long time asserting ourselves against reality." We must love the other's destiny enough to help get them over this hump that all too easily for too many becomes an insurmountable wall.
"Dostoyevsky once claimed that if God does not exist then everything is permitted. Considerable ingenuity has gone into proving Dostoyevsky wrong. To date, though, the record would seem to support him."
It is a quote that readily lends itself to the same misunderstanding on the part of people who agree with it and with those who do not. This was brought to my attention by a very insightful comment made a young woman who is studying at university, who wrote:
"I disagree, I think if a person falls into this thinking, that then allows for prejudice against those who do not believe in God (or a different god), and that leads into non-respectful/ unchristianly acts....I suppose I disagree with the statement then more because of what can result from the philosophy and not necessarily the philosophy itself. However, I also think the topic of morality has to come into play...and am not convinced that morality it strictly bound to religion as would be the claim with this statement."
Fyodor Dostoevsky
I see this response as one I would have made at a similar point in my education. This is not to be dismissive in the least. It is a great point, even a necessary one, because it goes right to the consequences of people who agree with D's thesis, but who misunderstand and oversimplify it, that is, reduce it to their measure."Dostoevsky is really talking about the ultimate basis for and rational grounding of morality. He is not making the case that atheists are practically immoral but that morality can't be arbitrary. It is easy to cite many examples of people whose stance toward God is either agnostic or downright disbelieving, but who are moral people, even more moral than many who believe. Neither Dostoevsky nor Kimball suggest otherwise. Kimball is referring to political systems that are ideologically atheist. Otherwise, the danger you describe become possibilties and even realities.
"To make a claim that morality is not strictly bound to religion is easy and is done often; to demonstrate what else it might be that morality can ultimately be based on is far more difficult without making everything relative by having no ontological footing. Because morality does not exist apart from people, it comes to down to one's view of the human person and, more to your point, a person's view of her/himself."
It occurred to me after making this reply that it is necessary to point the obvious: that even to say that someone who is an atheist is moral requires some criteria as to what counts as being moral, that is, acting rightly. I replied a few moments later with this follow-up, which I think is more to her point:
"A couple more quick, but relevant, points:
"1) D's thesis about the necessity of God for the ontological grounding and rationale for morality does not so much posit God as the supreme law-giver who must be obeyed, the transcendent means of social control, whose ontological necessity morality requires. Such a view does not get us past Feuerbach. But God the origin and end of human existence, this is what brings us back to it coming down to one's view of the human person.
"2) Faith can never be reduced morality. It is precisely this reduction at which I think you are taking aim. It is a worthy target. The most obnoxious and unconvincing believer's and institution do precisely this. It something that manifests itself often."
This is exactly the kind of discussion to which Camus' brilliance and honesty lend themselves nicely. It also shows that social media can and sometimes does facilitate thoughtful conversation, even if not in real time. The advantage of written communication not in real time is that those conversing can be more thoughtful and incisive, even if it results in a few misspellings and some very poor grammar, all on my part!
Apropos to the tenor of this discussion and the main point I am trying to make, today is the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross.
Realizing the relevance of this feast to the topic, along with a few more incisive comments, prompted me to write that, as Christians, "we do not believe in the God of logical necessity and social control, the so-called god of the philosophers, but in the God who for us 'and for our salvation came down from heaven' and who 'by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.'
"Experience that teaches us this, even if we spend a long time asserting ourselves against reality." We must love the other's destiny enough to help get them over this hump that all too easily for too many becomes an insurmountable wall.
O ObamaCare ao pormenor: para sabermos do que se dala quando se fala da Reforma da Saúde
«The Obama Plan:
"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government."
– President Barack Obama
If You Have Health Insurance
More Stability and Security
Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Over the last three years, 12 million people were denied coverage directly or indirectly through high premiums due to a pre-existing condition. Under the President’s plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage for health reasons or risks.
Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age. The President’s plan will end insurers’ practice of charging different premiums or denying coverage based on gender, and will limit premium variation based on age.
Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most. The President’s plan prohibits insurance companies from rescinding coverage that has already been purchased except in cases of fraud. In most states, insurance companies can cancel a policy if any medical condition was not listed on the application – even one not related to a current illness or one the patient didn’t even know about. A recent Congressional investigation found that over five years, three large insurance companies cancelled coverage for 20,000 people, saving them from paying $300 million in medical claims - $300 million that became either an obligation for the patient’s family or bad debt for doctors and hospitals.
Caps out-of pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick. The President’s plan will cap out-of-pocket expenses and will prohibit insurance companies from imposing annual or lifetime caps on benefit payments. A middle-class family purchasing health insurance directly from the individual insurance market today could spend up to 50 percent of household income on health care costs because there is no limit on out-of-pocket expenses.
Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money. The President’s plan ensures that all Americans have access to free preventive services under their health insurance plans. Too many Americans forgo needed preventive care, in part because of the cost of check-ups and screenings that can identify health problems early when they can be most effectively treated. For example, 24 percent of women age 40 and over have not received a mammogram in the past two years, and 38 percent of adults age 50 and over have never had a colon cancer screening.
Protects Medicare for seniors. The President’s plan will extend new protections for Medicare beneficiaries that improve quality, coordinate care and reduce beneficiary and program costs. These protections will extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for care for future generations.
Eliminates the "donut-hole" gap in coverage for prescription drugs. The President’s plan begins immediately to close the Medicare "donut hole" - a current gap in its drug benefit - by providing a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs for seniors who fall into it. In 2007, over 8 million seniors hit this coverage gap in the standard Medicare drug benefit. By 2019, the President’s plan will completely close the "donut hole". The average out-of-pocket spending for such beneficiaries who lack another source of insurance is $4,080.
If You Don't Have Insurance
Quality, Affordable Choices for All Americans
Creates a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices. The President’s plan allows Americans who have health insurance and like it to keep it. But for those who lose their jobs, change jobs or move, new high quality, affordable options will be available in the exchange. Beginning in 2013, the Exchange will give Americans without access to affordable insurance on the job, and small businesses one-stop shopping for insurance where they can easily compare options based on price, benefits, and quality.
Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance. The President’s plan will provide new tax credits on a sliding scale to individuals and families that will limit how much of their income can be spent on premiums. There will also be greater protection for cost-sharing for out-of-pocket expenses.
Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees. The President’s plan will also provide small businesses with tax credits to offset costs of providing coverage for their workers. Small businesses who for too long have faced higher prices than larger businesses, will now be eligible to enter the exchange so that they have lower costs and more choices for covering their workers.
Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice. The President believes this option will promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices. It is completely voluntary. The President believes the public option must operate like any private insurance company – it must be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.
Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national "high risk" pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created. For those Americans who cannot get insurance coverage today because of a pre-existing condition, the President’s plan will immediately make available coverage without a mark-up due to their health condition. This policy will offer protection against financial ruin until a wider array of choices become available in the new exchange in 2013.
For All Americans
Reins In the Cost of Health Care for Our Families, Our Businesses, and Our Government
Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront. The President’s plan will not add one dime to the deficit today or in the future and is paid for in a fiscally responsible way. It begins the process of reforming the health care system so that we can further curb health care cost growth over the long term, and invests in quality improvements, consumer protections, prevention, and premium assistance. The plan fully pays for this investment through health system savings and new revenue including a fee on insurance companies that sell very expensive plans.
Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized. Under the plan, if the savings promised at the time of enactment don’t materialize, the President will be required to put forth additional savings to ensure that the plan does not add to the deficit.
Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality. The President’s plan includes proposals that will improve the way care is delivered to emphasize quality over quantity, including: incentives for hospitals to prevent avoidable readmissions, pilots for new "bundled" payments in Medicare, and support for new models of delivering care through medical homes and accountable care organizations that focus on a coordinated approach to care and outcomes.
Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system. The President’s plan will create an independent Commission, made up of doctors and medical experts, to make recommendations to Congress each year on how to promote greater efficiency and higher quality in Medicare. The Commission will not be authorized to propose or implement Medicare changes that ration care or affect benefits, eligibility or beneficiary access to care. It will ensure that your tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors.
Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine. The President’s plan instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on awarding medical malpractice demonstration grants to states funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as soon as possible.
Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform. Under the President’s plan, large businesses – those with more than 50 workers – will be required to offer their workers coverage or pay a fee to help cover the cost of making coverage affordable in the exchange. This will ensure that workers in firms not offering coverage will have affordable coverage options for themselves and their families. Individuals who can afford it will have a responsibility to purchase coverage – but there will be a "hardship exemption" for those who cannot.»
Se quiser ver o link do site oficial da Casa Branca (WhiteHouse.gov), aqui vai:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/plan/
"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government."
– President Barack Obama
If You Have Health Insurance
More Stability and Security
Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Over the last three years, 12 million people were denied coverage directly or indirectly through high premiums due to a pre-existing condition. Under the President’s plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage for health reasons or risks.
Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age. The President’s plan will end insurers’ practice of charging different premiums or denying coverage based on gender, and will limit premium variation based on age.
Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most. The President’s plan prohibits insurance companies from rescinding coverage that has already been purchased except in cases of fraud. In most states, insurance companies can cancel a policy if any medical condition was not listed on the application – even one not related to a current illness or one the patient didn’t even know about. A recent Congressional investigation found that over five years, three large insurance companies cancelled coverage for 20,000 people, saving them from paying $300 million in medical claims - $300 million that became either an obligation for the patient’s family or bad debt for doctors and hospitals.
Caps out-of pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick. The President’s plan will cap out-of-pocket expenses and will prohibit insurance companies from imposing annual or lifetime caps on benefit payments. A middle-class family purchasing health insurance directly from the individual insurance market today could spend up to 50 percent of household income on health care costs because there is no limit on out-of-pocket expenses.
Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money. The President’s plan ensures that all Americans have access to free preventive services under their health insurance plans. Too many Americans forgo needed preventive care, in part because of the cost of check-ups and screenings that can identify health problems early when they can be most effectively treated. For example, 24 percent of women age 40 and over have not received a mammogram in the past two years, and 38 percent of adults age 50 and over have never had a colon cancer screening.
Protects Medicare for seniors. The President’s plan will extend new protections for Medicare beneficiaries that improve quality, coordinate care and reduce beneficiary and program costs. These protections will extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for care for future generations.
Eliminates the "donut-hole" gap in coverage for prescription drugs. The President’s plan begins immediately to close the Medicare "donut hole" - a current gap in its drug benefit - by providing a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs for seniors who fall into it. In 2007, over 8 million seniors hit this coverage gap in the standard Medicare drug benefit. By 2019, the President’s plan will completely close the "donut hole". The average out-of-pocket spending for such beneficiaries who lack another source of insurance is $4,080.
If You Don't Have Insurance
Quality, Affordable Choices for All Americans
Creates a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices. The President’s plan allows Americans who have health insurance and like it to keep it. But for those who lose their jobs, change jobs or move, new high quality, affordable options will be available in the exchange. Beginning in 2013, the Exchange will give Americans without access to affordable insurance on the job, and small businesses one-stop shopping for insurance where they can easily compare options based on price, benefits, and quality.
Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance. The President’s plan will provide new tax credits on a sliding scale to individuals and families that will limit how much of their income can be spent on premiums. There will also be greater protection for cost-sharing for out-of-pocket expenses.
Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees. The President’s plan will also provide small businesses with tax credits to offset costs of providing coverage for their workers. Small businesses who for too long have faced higher prices than larger businesses, will now be eligible to enter the exchange so that they have lower costs and more choices for covering their workers.
Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice. The President believes this option will promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices. It is completely voluntary. The President believes the public option must operate like any private insurance company – it must be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.
Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national "high risk" pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created. For those Americans who cannot get insurance coverage today because of a pre-existing condition, the President’s plan will immediately make available coverage without a mark-up due to their health condition. This policy will offer protection against financial ruin until a wider array of choices become available in the new exchange in 2013.
For All Americans
Reins In the Cost of Health Care for Our Families, Our Businesses, and Our Government
Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront. The President’s plan will not add one dime to the deficit today or in the future and is paid for in a fiscally responsible way. It begins the process of reforming the health care system so that we can further curb health care cost growth over the long term, and invests in quality improvements, consumer protections, prevention, and premium assistance. The plan fully pays for this investment through health system savings and new revenue including a fee on insurance companies that sell very expensive plans.
Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized. Under the plan, if the savings promised at the time of enactment don’t materialize, the President will be required to put forth additional savings to ensure that the plan does not add to the deficit.
Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality. The President’s plan includes proposals that will improve the way care is delivered to emphasize quality over quantity, including: incentives for hospitals to prevent avoidable readmissions, pilots for new "bundled" payments in Medicare, and support for new models of delivering care through medical homes and accountable care organizations that focus on a coordinated approach to care and outcomes.
Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system. The President’s plan will create an independent Commission, made up of doctors and medical experts, to make recommendations to Congress each year on how to promote greater efficiency and higher quality in Medicare. The Commission will not be authorized to propose or implement Medicare changes that ration care or affect benefits, eligibility or beneficiary access to care. It will ensure that your tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors.
Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine. The President’s plan instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on awarding medical malpractice demonstration grants to states funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as soon as possible.
Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform. Under the President’s plan, large businesses – those with more than 50 workers – will be required to offer their workers coverage or pay a fee to help cover the cost of making coverage affordable in the exchange. This will ensure that workers in firms not offering coverage will have affordable coverage options for themselves and their families. Individuals who can afford it will have a responsibility to purchase coverage – but there will be a "hardship exemption" for those who cannot.»
Se quiser ver o link do site oficial da Casa Branca (WhiteHouse.gov), aqui vai:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/plan/
Obama no Congresso sobre a Reforma da Saúde: um excelente discurso, aqui transcrito na íntegra
«Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, and the American people:
When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month, credit was frozen, and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.
As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them.
Until -- until those -- until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive. Until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.
That it our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.
Now, I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on the path to recovery.
I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.
But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future. So...
So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future, and that is the issue of health care.
Don't Miss
Obama's health care speech a 'game changer'?
Sen. Max Baucus to air his plan next week
Baucus' framework (PDF)
In Depth: Health Care in America
I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.
It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.
And ever since, nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.
Our collective failure to meet this challenge year after year, decade after decade, has led us to the breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed and can't afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.
Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.
We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on Earth, the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people.
There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.
In other words, it can happen to anyone.
But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.
More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance, too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.
One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.
Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.
That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.
Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend 1½ times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.
It's why so many employers, especially small businesses, are forcing their employers -- employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.
It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally, like our automakers, are at a huge disadvantage.
And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.
Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.
Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.
Nothing else.
Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. Now, there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.
On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.
I have said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.
And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the several -- past several months. During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst. We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week.
That has never happened before.
Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies -- many of whom opposed reform in the past.
And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.
But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.
Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.
Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.
Now's the time to deliver on health care.
Now's the time to deliver on health care.
The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government.
It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody, including employers and individuals.
And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans, and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.
Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan.
First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.
Let me -- let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.
What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most.
They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime.
We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of- pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.
And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies.
Because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.
That makes sense. It saves money and it saves lives.
That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan: more security and more stability.
Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you...
... if you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.
Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.
Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.
And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned.
This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill.
This was a good idea when Sen. John McCain proposed it in the campaign; it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.
Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.
The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits.
If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.
And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, just can't be achieved.
That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.
Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.
There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.
But...
But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.
Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part. And while there remains some significant details to be ironed out, I believe...
(LAUGHTER)
... I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance; an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage; and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.
And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole.
Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize -- I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight, I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.
Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie plain and simple.
Now...
Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
(UNKNOWN): That's a lie.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
That's not true.
And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.
Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system.
Now, as proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight here.
My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. That's how the market works.
Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.
And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.
Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it.
All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.
And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that, but an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.
Now, let me -- let me be clear.
Let me be clear, it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.
But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.
Now, it is...
It's -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles.
To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.
The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.
And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another nonprofit entity to administer the plan.
These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that, if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.
And -- and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public, and that's how we pay for this plan.
Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future.
I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don't materialize.
Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for, from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy.
I will not make that same mistake with health care.
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. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier. That's not my judgment. It's the judgment of medical professionals across this country.
And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.
More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years.
That's how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. And that...
That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.
The only...
The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies...
... subsidies that do everything to pad their profits, but don't improve the care of seniors.
And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.
Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs.
That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut -- especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past...
... and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.
That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.
Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody.
We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average.
So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.
Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Now, much...
Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.
And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money -- an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts.
And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.
Now, finally, many in this chamber, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the costs of health care.
Now -- there you go.
There you go.
Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So -- so -- so I'm proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know...
... I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my secretary of health and human services to move forward on this initiative today.
Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.
Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.
Now, this is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight -- Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.
But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.
I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not...
And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time; not now.
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.
We know these things to be true.
That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed -- the ones who suffer silently and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.
I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.
In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight.
And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform -- "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it -- would finally pass.
He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things."
"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom, and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. That's our history.
For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government. But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here -- people of both parties -- know that what drove him was something more.
His friend Orrin Hatch, he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a patients' bill of rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.
On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience -- the experience of having two children stricken with cancer.
He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it'd be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, "There is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it."
That large-heartedness, that concern and regard for the plight of others is not a partisan feeling. It's not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character.
Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play. And an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.
This has always been the history of our progress.
In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.
In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.
They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.
But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited.
And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
That was true then. It remains true today.
I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road, to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.
But that is not what this moment calls for.
That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard.
I still believe...
... I still believe that we can act when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things and that here and now we will meet history's test, because that's who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.
Thank you. God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.»
When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month, credit was frozen, and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.
As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them.
Until -- until those -- until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive. Until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.
That it our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.
Now, I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on the path to recovery.
I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.
But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future. So...
So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future, and that is the issue of health care.
Don't Miss
Obama's health care speech a 'game changer'?
Sen. Max Baucus to air his plan next week
Baucus' framework (PDF)
In Depth: Health Care in America
I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.
It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.
And ever since, nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.
Our collective failure to meet this challenge year after year, decade after decade, has led us to the breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed and can't afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.
Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.
We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on Earth, the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people.
There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.
In other words, it can happen to anyone.
But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.
More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance, too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.
One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.
Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.
That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.
Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend 1½ times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.
It's why so many employers, especially small businesses, are forcing their employers -- employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.
It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally, like our automakers, are at a huge disadvantage.
And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.
Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.
Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.
Nothing else.
Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. Now, there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.
On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.
I have said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.
And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the several -- past several months. During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst. We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week.
That has never happened before.
Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies -- many of whom opposed reform in the past.
And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.
But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.
Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.
Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.
Now's the time to deliver on health care.
Now's the time to deliver on health care.
The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government.
It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody, including employers and individuals.
And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans, and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.
Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan.
First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.
Let me -- let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.
What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most.
They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime.
We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of- pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.
And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies.
Because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.
That makes sense. It saves money and it saves lives.
That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan: more security and more stability.
Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you...
... if you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.
Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.
Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.
And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned.
This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill.
This was a good idea when Sen. John McCain proposed it in the campaign; it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.
Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.
The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits.
If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.
And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, just can't be achieved.
That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.
Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.
There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.
But...
But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.
Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part. And while there remains some significant details to be ironed out, I believe...
(LAUGHTER)
... I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance; an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage; and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.
And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole.
Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize -- I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight, I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.
Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie plain and simple.
Now...
Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
(UNKNOWN): That's a lie.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
That's not true.
And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.
Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system.
Now, as proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight here.
My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. That's how the market works.
Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.
And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.
Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it.
All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.
And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that, but an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.
Now, let me -- let me be clear.
Let me be clear, it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.
But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.
Now, it is...
It's -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles.
To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.
The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.
And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another nonprofit entity to administer the plan.
These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that, if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.
And -- and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public, and that's how we pay for this plan.
Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future.
I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don't materialize.
Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for, from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy.
I will not make that same mistake with health care.
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. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier. That's not my judgment. It's the judgment of medical professionals across this country.
And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.
More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years.
That's how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. And that...
That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.
The only...
The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies...
... subsidies that do everything to pad their profits, but don't improve the care of seniors.
And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.
Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs.
That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut -- especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past...
... and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.
That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.
Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody.
We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average.
So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.
Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Now, much...
Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.
And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money -- an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts.
And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.
Now, finally, many in this chamber, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the costs of health care.
Now -- there you go.
There you go.
Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So -- so -- so I'm proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know...
... I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my secretary of health and human services to move forward on this initiative today.
Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.
Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.
Now, this is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight -- Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.
But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.
I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not...
And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time; not now.
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.
We know these things to be true.
That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed -- the ones who suffer silently and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.
I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.
In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight.
And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform -- "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it -- would finally pass.
He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things."
"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom, and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. That's our history.
For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government. But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here -- people of both parties -- know that what drove him was something more.
His friend Orrin Hatch, he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a patients' bill of rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.
On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience -- the experience of having two children stricken with cancer.
He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it'd be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, "There is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it."
That large-heartedness, that concern and regard for the plight of others is not a partisan feeling. It's not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character.
Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play. And an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.
This has always been the history of our progress.
In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.
In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.
They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.
But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited.
And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
That was true then. It remains true today.
I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road, to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.
But that is not what this moment calls for.
That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard.
I still believe...
... I still believe that we can act when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things and that here and now we will meet history's test, because that's who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.
Thank you. God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.»
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)