The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the National Cancer Act of 1971, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, the Voting Rights Act, funding for AIDS treatment, equal funding for women's sports under Title IX, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, the COBRA Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Ryan White Care Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, increases in the minimum wage law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Mental Health Parity Act, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
These are just some of the legislative accomplishments of one, Edward Moore Kennedy. Teddy (as he was called by nearly everyone), may have been the most productive senator who ever lived. He in fact, like Indiana's own Dick Lugar, is a great argument against term limits. Looking at the above list of bills that Kennedy created, sponsored, and guided to passage simply puts the average senator to shame. Hell, throw in the above average too.
And who would've thunk it? In 1962, at the age of 30, he won a special election in Massachusetts to replace his brother John in the senate. Decidedly unaccomplished, it was clear that Ted won on his name not on his merits. On top of that, he had two extraordinary older brothers to live up to. Both of his brothers' legacies have been burnished by time, glamour, and early death. First, the incredibly popular President John F Kennedy and his assassination in 1963. Then the equally untimely death of brother Robert, also by an assassin's hand in 1968 while running for the democratic nomination. Over time both of his brothers would go from beloved figures to legendary, mythological ones. How in the world was the "little" brother to live up to these two giants whose name he carried.
It's not like he always helped himself either. There was the drinking and carousing that seemed as much an inherited trait as it was a choice. His divorce of first wife, Joan in 1982. The paparazzi photos of him having sex with a woman in a motorboat in 1989. All these instances made him look buffoonish and unstable. There was also his devastating loss to Jimmy Carter for the democratic presidential nomination in 1980. Think of that. A Kennedy lost to Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter!
Of course, nothing affected his career like the 1969 death by drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne when the car he was driving went off a bridge in Chappaquiddick. It wasn't just her tragic death that left a negative impact on his reputation. It was the fact that he left the scene of the accident and didn't report it until the next day after Kopechne's body was found. At best, his behavior was cowardly. Some even considered it criminal. He would spend the rest of his life trying to live down this self-imposed humiliation.
Yet, somehow the man persevered. He was on the right side of history so many times that it's hard to fathom. Whether it was the civil rights movement in the 60's, expansion of health care for children and adults, aids research, raising the minimum wage, pushing for fair treatment for women in the workplace, and voting against the Iraq war, his judgement as a senator has been the epitome of soundness.
Kennedy could work the other side of the aisle too. While often referred to as the "liberal lion of the senate," he defied that generalization. He co-authored legislation with Republicans John McCain and Nancy Kassenbaum. He helped George W Bush achieve the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. Hell, the very conservative Republican Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch actually has a painting of Kennedy hanging in his office!
This was a life lived in full. A life so boundless that like Teddy Roosevelt or Muhammad Ali, no single book, movie, or mini-series could effectively encapsulate its measure. Still, I was greatly saddened when he passed away on Wednesday due to brain cancer. Because even though he was 77 and had been gravely ill for long enough that his death came as no surprise, I still felt that he had more to give. It fills my heart with pain that the man who referred to universal heath care as "the cause of my life," will not be here to fight for it or to see it pass into law. What a bitter irony.
But most of all, I will miss what he stood for. He was a wildly wealthy man who stood for those who could not stand for themselves. The poor, the sick, the disabled, and the disadvantaged. He made many mistakes in his life, but I think it's fair to say that in the end he exceeded both of his brothers' accomplishments and quite likely, his own expectations. Imperfect as it may be, he left a true legacy. How many of the people who have walked through the halls of congress can say that? Will we some day look at Mitch McConnell and Evan Bayh the way we do Teddy Kennedy? I think not.
The sad fact is that we live in a country where too many of our politicians would rather be re-elected than be remembered. Well, Teddy Kennedy was the other kind.
Sumo-Pop
August 28, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Where Have You Gone, John Dillinger?
During the 1930s John Dillinger robbed banks. And he was loved for it. Why? Because during the 1920s banks such as JP Morgan Chase and Bank Of America became heavily involved in the securities business, leading to huge investments in short term loans that failed, and in turn, created the great depression. Basically, they took other people's money and put it in high risk investments and screwed their customers. Which forced President Franklin Roosevelt to expand government programs in effort to save the failed financial system. Sound familiar?
I'm sure it does, because that's what we're living with now. I know we'd like to believe that banks are for their customers, but that's not the truth. The banks are for their customer's money. Not to benefit those that bank with them, but to benefit the institution itself.
It's not just that modern banks over leveraged themselves with risky investments or made loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them and therefore created the current recession. No, the most reliable way that banks continue to stick it to their customers is with fee income.
The three most common ways that banks do this is through credit cards, debit cards, and the order of check clearance.
I'll start with credit cards. Many people get a new credit card to take advantage of 0% interest rates for a predetermined length (often 6 months). But a common practice used by banks is that of switching your payment date on you. Say your monthly payment is on the 15th of each month. Then the bank changes your date to the 7th. How do they notify you? Do they put a card in with your new statement that declares that your payment date has been changed? Do they pay you a courtesy call or send a separate notice? No. They simply change the date on your statement in that teeny tiny little black ink that no one looks at. What happens next is you make your payment on say, the 13th. You think you're good. Then on your next statement you find that not only do you have a late fee of $39.00, but that your interest rate is jacked up to anywhere from 18% to 29%. Then, you call customer disservice, er service, and they say there is nothing they can do. Now your 0% rate is gone, you've got a late fee, and they don't care.
Next is debit cards. In the old days, if you attempted to use your debit card and you were short of the necessary cash in your account, then the transaction would reject. Which might cause some embarrassment but at least you didn't overdraw your account. Nowadays, the bank will not reject those purchases and allow you to overdraw at will. Once again this leads to more fees.
Similarly, the policies surrounding the clearance of checks also is set up to cause as many fees as possible. Say you have $600.00 in your account. You pay your rent for $550.00. Say you also have 6 other checks out at $20.00 each for a grand total of $670.00 in promissory notes. So now you're $70.00 short. But what the bank will do instead of paying the items in the order that they came through is wait until the end of the business day and send the check with the highest amount through first. If they were to do you a solid and pay the smaller items first, you would only have one overdraft fee. However, in this scenario you now have three overdraft fees. And just so you know, your debit card works in the exact same way. Highest to lowest.
Now, what the bank will say is "don't you want your biggest check to go through first." Their argument being that your rent is more important than your lunch purchase. True enough, but if you are someone whose money is tight (and nowadays whose isn't), then you may not be able to afford to pay the additional fees and eat too. Of course, they extend this rationale as if they are somehow looking out for you, but don't you believe it.
What they will say next (assuming you haven't accepted the first lame explanation), is that it is the customer's responsibility to know how much money they have in their account. Once again, true enough. But wouldn't it be in the customer's best interest to not create a system that maximizes fees? I mean who do they think they're helping with these policies? I can tell you who they are screwing, the working men and women of this country who are scraping to get by. The only thing they are helping is themselves.
Of course these fee policies aren't what got us in this mess in the first place. That was done by over leveraging debt and offering adjustable rate, "sub-prime" mortgages to people with weak credit. Not every bank was so foolish as Citibank, Bank Of America, Wells Fargo and so on. Although, only one bank really stands out in this morass. That would be JP Morgan Chase. Chase was much more conservative with their balance sheet and did not get nearly as deep in the "sub-prime" market as the other big banks. Which makes them fiscally and ethically superior to their competitors. Of course, that's a little bit like being the tallest midget, but you get the idea. And Chase still has the same awful fee policies as the rest of these ass clowns.
So why did the US government bail these shysters out you might ask? Because they were too big to fail. If these institutions would have been allowed to go down for the dirt nap, the entire financial system would have collapsed. Most everyone knows that if a bank fails that FDIC insurance covers up to $250,000 in deposits for that bank's customers. However, if Citibank and Bank of America had gone down, the FDIC would have needed it's own bailout. So either way, we lose. Let 'em fail or prop 'em up. It's the same proposition.
Now, this doesn't mean that there are no good people working at banks. At the branch level, you will find some decent people who are willing to work with you during trying times. But you should know that they are not encouraged to do so. Banks rely so heavily on fee income that for many institutions it is their make or break point.
So yeah, John Dillinger robbed banks. It was against the law and morally wrong. But people loved him. They understood that Dillinger may have been a crook, but the real criminals had their names on the front of the building. Over 70 years later, ain't a damn thing changed.
Sumo-Pop
August 8, 2009
Full disclosure:
I spent the last 3 1/2 years working for a bank. No more. "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I am free at last."
I'm sure it does, because that's what we're living with now. I know we'd like to believe that banks are for their customers, but that's not the truth. The banks are for their customer's money. Not to benefit those that bank with them, but to benefit the institution itself.
It's not just that modern banks over leveraged themselves with risky investments or made loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them and therefore created the current recession. No, the most reliable way that banks continue to stick it to their customers is with fee income.
The three most common ways that banks do this is through credit cards, debit cards, and the order of check clearance.
I'll start with credit cards. Many people get a new credit card to take advantage of 0% interest rates for a predetermined length (often 6 months). But a common practice used by banks is that of switching your payment date on you. Say your monthly payment is on the 15th of each month. Then the bank changes your date to the 7th. How do they notify you? Do they put a card in with your new statement that declares that your payment date has been changed? Do they pay you a courtesy call or send a separate notice? No. They simply change the date on your statement in that teeny tiny little black ink that no one looks at. What happens next is you make your payment on say, the 13th. You think you're good. Then on your next statement you find that not only do you have a late fee of $39.00, but that your interest rate is jacked up to anywhere from 18% to 29%. Then, you call customer disservice, er service, and they say there is nothing they can do. Now your 0% rate is gone, you've got a late fee, and they don't care.
Next is debit cards. In the old days, if you attempted to use your debit card and you were short of the necessary cash in your account, then the transaction would reject. Which might cause some embarrassment but at least you didn't overdraw your account. Nowadays, the bank will not reject those purchases and allow you to overdraw at will. Once again this leads to more fees.
Similarly, the policies surrounding the clearance of checks also is set up to cause as many fees as possible. Say you have $600.00 in your account. You pay your rent for $550.00. Say you also have 6 other checks out at $20.00 each for a grand total of $670.00 in promissory notes. So now you're $70.00 short. But what the bank will do instead of paying the items in the order that they came through is wait until the end of the business day and send the check with the highest amount through first. If they were to do you a solid and pay the smaller items first, you would only have one overdraft fee. However, in this scenario you now have three overdraft fees. And just so you know, your debit card works in the exact same way. Highest to lowest.
Now, what the bank will say is "don't you want your biggest check to go through first." Their argument being that your rent is more important than your lunch purchase. True enough, but if you are someone whose money is tight (and nowadays whose isn't), then you may not be able to afford to pay the additional fees and eat too. Of course, they extend this rationale as if they are somehow looking out for you, but don't you believe it.
What they will say next (assuming you haven't accepted the first lame explanation), is that it is the customer's responsibility to know how much money they have in their account. Once again, true enough. But wouldn't it be in the customer's best interest to not create a system that maximizes fees? I mean who do they think they're helping with these policies? I can tell you who they are screwing, the working men and women of this country who are scraping to get by. The only thing they are helping is themselves.
Of course these fee policies aren't what got us in this mess in the first place. That was done by over leveraging debt and offering adjustable rate, "sub-prime" mortgages to people with weak credit. Not every bank was so foolish as Citibank, Bank Of America, Wells Fargo and so on. Although, only one bank really stands out in this morass. That would be JP Morgan Chase. Chase was much more conservative with their balance sheet and did not get nearly as deep in the "sub-prime" market as the other big banks. Which makes them fiscally and ethically superior to their competitors. Of course, that's a little bit like being the tallest midget, but you get the idea. And Chase still has the same awful fee policies as the rest of these ass clowns.
So why did the US government bail these shysters out you might ask? Because they were too big to fail. If these institutions would have been allowed to go down for the dirt nap, the entire financial system would have collapsed. Most everyone knows that if a bank fails that FDIC insurance covers up to $250,000 in deposits for that bank's customers. However, if Citibank and Bank of America had gone down, the FDIC would have needed it's own bailout. So either way, we lose. Let 'em fail or prop 'em up. It's the same proposition.
Now, this doesn't mean that there are no good people working at banks. At the branch level, you will find some decent people who are willing to work with you during trying times. But you should know that they are not encouraged to do so. Banks rely so heavily on fee income that for many institutions it is their make or break point.
So yeah, John Dillinger robbed banks. It was against the law and morally wrong. But people loved him. They understood that Dillinger may have been a crook, but the real criminals had their names on the front of the building. Over 70 years later, ain't a damn thing changed.
Sumo-Pop
August 8, 2009
Full disclosure:
I spent the last 3 1/2 years working for a bank. No more. "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I am free at last."
Thursday, August 6, 2009
A Bag Of Bricks
God help me, I like Taylor Swift. Man, that felt good to say.
All my life I've been called a music snob by friend and foe alike. True enough, but there is something about this faux hillbilly high schooler that I can't resist. Now, before I go further, let me say that the reasons for her nearly unconscionable appeal to me are not pervy. Yes, she's a very pretty girl, but not outrageously so. So before you decide to call the cops or that guy on dateline, know that I have no carnal thoughts about her. In fact, she sort of reminds me of my sister-in-law. Someone I love very much, but could spend hours making fun of or putting in a headlock and delivering the requisite nuggy.
So it has to be something else. Musically, she isn't terribly complex. And her voice though distinctive, is not particularly strong. Her sound is hardly real country and her lyrics are pretty simple. So what the hell is it?
Well, it's honest. Here is a girl who writes her own songs that seem to be informed by her own experience. When you hear a song like 15 by Swift, there can be no doubt that she's singing it from the perspective of a 15 year old girl. She keeps the "genie in a bottle" and trolls no school hallway dressed like a catholic school Lolita. "Hit me baby, one more time?" I think not. She comes off like a classic overachiever whose parts equal a greater than expected whole. She's not necessarily great at any one thing, but put the pieces together and she's pretty damn terrific.
When I hear "Love Story" or "You Belong With Me," I am completely incapable of frowning. And I like to frown. It's like hearing Michael Jackson sing "ABC" or "I Want You Back." Yeah, I just compared Taylor Swift to the Jackson Five. Deal with it.
Now, I realize this may all fall apart and she may be next year's Debbie Gibson or Tiffany. Over the hill in your twenties is a tough thing to take. Maybe she'll go down the same road as those two. Performing at fairs, stripping for Playboy, and hosting VH1's "I love the aughts." But maybe not. Maybe she'll end up like Diana Ross. Ok, bad example. In fact, there are no good examples. There are no former female child stars that I can think of who end up turning out alright. They either sleaze out (Aguilera, Spears), freak out (Ross, Spears again) or fade away. But I'm going to root for this Swift. Because she makes me smile. And what's so bad about that.
So there. I have just confessed my guiltiest of guilty pleasures. But as Al Pacino once said in "The Devil's Advocate" (a guilty pleasure in itself), "Guilt is like a bag of bricks, you just gotta set it down."
KER-THUMP!! I just set it down.
Sumo-Pop
August 7, 2009
All my life I've been called a music snob by friend and foe alike. True enough, but there is something about this faux hillbilly high schooler that I can't resist. Now, before I go further, let me say that the reasons for her nearly unconscionable appeal to me are not pervy. Yes, she's a very pretty girl, but not outrageously so. So before you decide to call the cops or that guy on dateline, know that I have no carnal thoughts about her. In fact, she sort of reminds me of my sister-in-law. Someone I love very much, but could spend hours making fun of or putting in a headlock and delivering the requisite nuggy.
So it has to be something else. Musically, she isn't terribly complex. And her voice though distinctive, is not particularly strong. Her sound is hardly real country and her lyrics are pretty simple. So what the hell is it?
Well, it's honest. Here is a girl who writes her own songs that seem to be informed by her own experience. When you hear a song like 15 by Swift, there can be no doubt that she's singing it from the perspective of a 15 year old girl. She keeps the "genie in a bottle" and trolls no school hallway dressed like a catholic school Lolita. "Hit me baby, one more time?" I think not. She comes off like a classic overachiever whose parts equal a greater than expected whole. She's not necessarily great at any one thing, but put the pieces together and she's pretty damn terrific.
When I hear "Love Story" or "You Belong With Me," I am completely incapable of frowning. And I like to frown. It's like hearing Michael Jackson sing "ABC" or "I Want You Back." Yeah, I just compared Taylor Swift to the Jackson Five. Deal with it.
Now, I realize this may all fall apart and she may be next year's Debbie Gibson or Tiffany. Over the hill in your twenties is a tough thing to take. Maybe she'll go down the same road as those two. Performing at fairs, stripping for Playboy, and hosting VH1's "I love the aughts." But maybe not. Maybe she'll end up like Diana Ross. Ok, bad example. In fact, there are no good examples. There are no former female child stars that I can think of who end up turning out alright. They either sleaze out (Aguilera, Spears), freak out (Ross, Spears again) or fade away. But I'm going to root for this Swift. Because she makes me smile. And what's so bad about that.
So there. I have just confessed my guiltiest of guilty pleasures. But as Al Pacino once said in "The Devil's Advocate" (a guilty pleasure in itself), "Guilt is like a bag of bricks, you just gotta set it down."
KER-THUMP!! I just set it down.
Sumo-Pop
August 7, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
So There
"Don't let us get sick Don't let us get old Don't let us get stupid, all right? Just make us be brave And make us play nice And let us be together tonight."---Warren Zevon
I've recently heard a lot of people complaining that the President's stimulus plan hasn't done anything or helped anyone. Which made me feel the need to relay this story:
It's the story of a married couple. A 62 year old man and his 54 year old wife. Last fall this man lost his job when the construction company he worked for went under. This happened at a time when his wife had recently been declared disabled and was petitioning for disability benefits from the government. The woman suffers from fibromyalgia, diabetes, and a bum ticker. The man has a third world disease (likely contracted as a marine in Vietnam) that causes his esophagus to narrow, and a heart problem as well.
So you can imagine the avalanche of worries that were raining down on their heads. From how do we take care of our sick dog?, to what will we eat?, to how are we going to keep the house?, and please don't let us get sick.
The man had some severance and knew he would qualify for unemployment but that wouldn't cover everything. So he began to look for work. This 62 year old man registered with every temp service, circled every want ad, and networked with everyone he knew. No job came. So they worried.
Thankfully, being a military veteran, the man was able to get free health care from the Veterans Administration in Ann Arbor. A long drive for sure, but well worth it. Some more good news followed. The woman was approved for disability benefits and would receive a check (with back pay) the following month. She also found out that in a few months she would qualify for medicare. The man also knew that if they could make it a few more months, he would turn 63 and qualify for social security. If they could just make it until then.
Then something else happened. President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 17, 2009. This act, (also known as the "stimulus bill") included tax cuts, works projects, and an extension of unemployment benefits.
That extension carried the man and the woman until he qualified for social security benefits and she for Medicare. Things certainly aren't perfect for them. They are still learning to live with less and the man's job search continues (although prospects are improving). But these social safety nets, (social security, disability, veterans hospital, medicare, unemployment) are keeping them afloat and now the man only needs to find a part-time job to make ends meet.
So the next time you or someone you know engages in conversation about the "failed" stimulus bill that hasn't helped anyone, you'll have at least this one story to tell. A story about a man and a woman who's whole way of life was saved by this admittedly imperfect President and his stimulus package.
A man and a woman that I commonly call mom and dad. So there. Now you know.
Sumo-Pop
July 29, 2009
I've recently heard a lot of people complaining that the President's stimulus plan hasn't done anything or helped anyone. Which made me feel the need to relay this story:
It's the story of a married couple. A 62 year old man and his 54 year old wife. Last fall this man lost his job when the construction company he worked for went under. This happened at a time when his wife had recently been declared disabled and was petitioning for disability benefits from the government. The woman suffers from fibromyalgia, diabetes, and a bum ticker. The man has a third world disease (likely contracted as a marine in Vietnam) that causes his esophagus to narrow, and a heart problem as well.
So you can imagine the avalanche of worries that were raining down on their heads. From how do we take care of our sick dog?, to what will we eat?, to how are we going to keep the house?, and please don't let us get sick.
The man had some severance and knew he would qualify for unemployment but that wouldn't cover everything. So he began to look for work. This 62 year old man registered with every temp service, circled every want ad, and networked with everyone he knew. No job came. So they worried.
Thankfully, being a military veteran, the man was able to get free health care from the Veterans Administration in Ann Arbor. A long drive for sure, but well worth it. Some more good news followed. The woman was approved for disability benefits and would receive a check (with back pay) the following month. She also found out that in a few months she would qualify for medicare. The man also knew that if they could make it a few more months, he would turn 63 and qualify for social security. If they could just make it until then.
Then something else happened. President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 17, 2009. This act, (also known as the "stimulus bill") included tax cuts, works projects, and an extension of unemployment benefits.
That extension carried the man and the woman until he qualified for social security benefits and she for Medicare. Things certainly aren't perfect for them. They are still learning to live with less and the man's job search continues (although prospects are improving). But these social safety nets, (social security, disability, veterans hospital, medicare, unemployment) are keeping them afloat and now the man only needs to find a part-time job to make ends meet.
So the next time you or someone you know engages in conversation about the "failed" stimulus bill that hasn't helped anyone, you'll have at least this one story to tell. A story about a man and a woman who's whole way of life was saved by this admittedly imperfect President and his stimulus package.
A man and a woman that I commonly call mom and dad. So there. Now you know.
Sumo-Pop
July 29, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Sea Lions Barking At Waves
"But you know people get all emotional and sometimes, man, they just don't act rational, they think they're just on TV"--Lou Reed
I've never considered myself to be much of a conspiracy buff. In fact, I can only think of one conspiracy theory that I've ever attached much merit. I've never been able to buy the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. My disbelief in that notion has less to do with any one particular theory, but more to do with the fact that Oswald was considered to be a poor rifleman by the US military. The idea that a guy who was a shitty shot could be so accurate from a considerable distance with a crap rifle just strains credibility. However, if I were presented with empirical data that would prove otherwise, I would accept the fact and move on. Which brings me to "Birthers."
Birthers are people who believe---in the face of all contrary evidence---that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore is not the legitimate president of our country.
I first became aware of birthers during the presidential campaign last year, but I, like most sane people, never took them seriously. However, after seeing how Delaware Republican house member Mike Castle was treated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc&feature=player_embedded) at a recent speaking engagement, I've begun to think otherwise. Castle, a noted sensible moderate, was discussing the issues of the day when he began to take questions from the audience. He then called on a particularly hysterical woman, who began shouting about Obama being a "citizen of Kenya" and lacking a genuine birth certificate. When Castle replied back that he believed the President to be a genuine American citizen, all hell broke loose. You would have thought he advocated the dismemberment of rowdy children, or the drowning of puppies. He was shouted down by his own constituency to such a degree that he couldn't be heard over the din despite his microphone. That's when I realized that these people aren't just stupid, they're dangerous.
This is how people get assassinated. You question their legitimacy often enough and you create the very real danger that some nut job, filled with a sense of righteousness, decides to take things into his own hands.
Even worse are the people of status in this country who would lend credence to this nonsense. I'm not just talking about media types like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh (although that's bad enough), but even worse are the elected officials who state that they aren't sure about Obama's birthright. These ass clowns include Republican congressman John Campbell of California, Republican US Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz.
While they won't come right out and say that Obama's citizenship is illegitimate, they will intimate uncertainty. They do this not because they don't know better (they do), but because they want to keep the issue going. They somehow think that keeping alive the torch and pitchfork crowd's lunacy is beneficial to their party. To be fair, there are prominent Republican politicians and media members who are willing to call bullshit, well, bullshit. John McCain has repudiated the very suggestion of illegitimate citizenship and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (former Republican house member of Florida) said this about Birthers-"They would rather be like sea lions barking at waves," he said. "Instead of trying to figure out what's happening to their country ... they embrace conspiracy theories, and they make themselves look like cartoon characters."
During the campaign last year, many on the radical right put forth the idea that Obama was a "Manchurian Candidate." If you're not familiar with that term then I'll explain. The Manchurian Candidate is a classic piece of paranoid cinema from 1962 starring Frank Sinatra (later remade to lesser effect with Denzel Washington in the lead circa 2004). The basic plot is that of a politician who, as an American soldier serving in the Korean war, was captured by communists, tortured by the Chinese, and brainwashed into becoming a political assassin. Here's the funny thing, there was a candidate for president who was captured by communists and tortured by Asians in the 2008 election. His name is John McCain. In fact, there was even a candidate for president who wasn't born in the United States. Also John McCain. McCain was born in the Panama Canal on a military base in 1936. Do I or any other rational human being think that John McCain was an illegitimate contender for the presidency or worse? Of course not.
One has to wonder how this nonsensical theory can persist. Well, I think I have an idea. There is a large, vocal minority in this country who think that time is passing them by. They tend to be middle aged and older, white, and reside in rural areas. They have great difficulty accepting that a man of color with a funny name and "socialist" ideas could be supported at the ballot box by 53% of the country. In other words, racists. Now, I'm not saying that all rural white people of a certain age are racists, but if you're a Birther, then you're probably in that demographic. And you're definitely a racist, or at least a fricking loon.
Sumo-Pop
July 25, 2009
Not that it will matter to some, but here's a link to Obama's birth certificate. Please note that Hawaii was then, and still is, a state. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg
I've never considered myself to be much of a conspiracy buff. In fact, I can only think of one conspiracy theory that I've ever attached much merit. I've never been able to buy the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. My disbelief in that notion has less to do with any one particular theory, but more to do with the fact that Oswald was considered to be a poor rifleman by the US military. The idea that a guy who was a shitty shot could be so accurate from a considerable distance with a crap rifle just strains credibility. However, if I were presented with empirical data that would prove otherwise, I would accept the fact and move on. Which brings me to "Birthers."
Birthers are people who believe---in the face of all contrary evidence---that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore is not the legitimate president of our country.
I first became aware of birthers during the presidential campaign last year, but I, like most sane people, never took them seriously. However, after seeing how Delaware Republican house member Mike Castle was treated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc&feature=player_embedded) at a recent speaking engagement, I've begun to think otherwise. Castle, a noted sensible moderate, was discussing the issues of the day when he began to take questions from the audience. He then called on a particularly hysterical woman, who began shouting about Obama being a "citizen of Kenya" and lacking a genuine birth certificate. When Castle replied back that he believed the President to be a genuine American citizen, all hell broke loose. You would have thought he advocated the dismemberment of rowdy children, or the drowning of puppies. He was shouted down by his own constituency to such a degree that he couldn't be heard over the din despite his microphone. That's when I realized that these people aren't just stupid, they're dangerous.
This is how people get assassinated. You question their legitimacy often enough and you create the very real danger that some nut job, filled with a sense of righteousness, decides to take things into his own hands.
Even worse are the people of status in this country who would lend credence to this nonsense. I'm not just talking about media types like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh (although that's bad enough), but even worse are the elected officials who state that they aren't sure about Obama's birthright. These ass clowns include Republican congressman John Campbell of California, Republican US Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz.
While they won't come right out and say that Obama's citizenship is illegitimate, they will intimate uncertainty. They do this not because they don't know better (they do), but because they want to keep the issue going. They somehow think that keeping alive the torch and pitchfork crowd's lunacy is beneficial to their party. To be fair, there are prominent Republican politicians and media members who are willing to call bullshit, well, bullshit. John McCain has repudiated the very suggestion of illegitimate citizenship and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (former Republican house member of Florida) said this about Birthers-"They would rather be like sea lions barking at waves," he said. "Instead of trying to figure out what's happening to their country ... they embrace conspiracy theories, and they make themselves look like cartoon characters."
During the campaign last year, many on the radical right put forth the idea that Obama was a "Manchurian Candidate." If you're not familiar with that term then I'll explain. The Manchurian Candidate is a classic piece of paranoid cinema from 1962 starring Frank Sinatra (later remade to lesser effect with Denzel Washington in the lead circa 2004). The basic plot is that of a politician who, as an American soldier serving in the Korean war, was captured by communists, tortured by the Chinese, and brainwashed into becoming a political assassin. Here's the funny thing, there was a candidate for president who was captured by communists and tortured by Asians in the 2008 election. His name is John McCain. In fact, there was even a candidate for president who wasn't born in the United States. Also John McCain. McCain was born in the Panama Canal on a military base in 1936. Do I or any other rational human being think that John McCain was an illegitimate contender for the presidency or worse? Of course not.
One has to wonder how this nonsensical theory can persist. Well, I think I have an idea. There is a large, vocal minority in this country who think that time is passing them by. They tend to be middle aged and older, white, and reside in rural areas. They have great difficulty accepting that a man of color with a funny name and "socialist" ideas could be supported at the ballot box by 53% of the country. In other words, racists. Now, I'm not saying that all rural white people of a certain age are racists, but if you're a Birther, then you're probably in that demographic. And you're definitely a racist, or at least a fricking loon.
Sumo-Pop
July 25, 2009
Not that it will matter to some, but here's a link to Obama's birth certificate. Please note that Hawaii was then, and still is, a state. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Loving The Knucklehead
Have you ever loved someone that you knew was bad for you? Someone who couldn't get out of their own way? Who would do wrong even if right were easier? I'm sure the answer for most of us is yes. We all have had, at one time or another, a friend or family member who forced us into fits of head shaking and hand wringing. But I'm not talking about that kind of love. No, I'm referring to a love that is considerably less significant and altogether unreasonable. In other words, I love Allen Iverson. There. I said it.
You might ask how I could love someone with an aversion to practice ("we talkin' 'bout practice"), who listens to gangsta rap, wears cornrows, is covered head to toe in tats, and has even been in trouble with the law, someone who I have little to nothing in common with? Well, love knows no reason or rationale, but I'll try to explain.
It seems to me, that to love someone requires only one thing in common. Well, Allen and I have two. First, I love basketball. Of course, I hate Kobe Bryant so that alone doesn't cut it. But secondly, I love the Philadelphia 76ers. Starting from the days of Dr. J and his militant afro soaring to the hoop, to the squandered Charles Barkley years, to the Iverson/Larry Brown resurgence of 2001, to the bland mediocrity of now, they're my team. So when the Sixers made Iverson the number one pick out of Georgetown in 1996, I was already predisposed.
Beyond that, however, I have never seen anything like him before or since. From the moment he stepped on the court, he was electrifying. Has there ever been anyone quicker or faster? Watching him run the court is like staring at an optical illusion. There are times when I swear he teleports from one spot on the floor to another. You see where he started and where he ends up but somehow, not the space in between. And how about toughness? Here's a guy who might be 5 foot 11, who weighs about 150 pounds, yet has no fear of driving to the hoop, going up amongst the giants, and landing on his ass in an effort to score the ball. But what happens after being knocked to his backside is even more remarkable. He does it again. And again. And again.
I remember on one occasion, when playing against the Milwaukee Bucks in the 2001 conference finals, Iverson drove to the lane only to encounter wannabe thug Scott Williams, who elbowed him in the face and drove him to the ground. After picking himself up off the court, he went to the bench to get looked at. The team doctor discovered that the elbow had caused a laceration to the inside of his cheek. Mindful of the NBA rule that does not allow a bleeding player to go back in the game until said bleeding is stopped, Iverson went back anyway. Asked by a reporter afterward, how he managed to keep the bleeding away from the eyes of the referees. He replied, "I swallowed it." How tough is that?
He's also unusually candid and quotable for a modern athlete. He almost always says what he feels, even when it hurts him (see the anti-practice diatribe). But he can also be disarming and generous. He is almost unfailingly complimentary of other players and he can be very funny. In fact, he uttered one of my favorite all time quotes from the world of athletics. During the Sixers magical playoff run of 2001, that ended with a finals loss to the detestable Lakers, Iverson was asked if he was worried about fatigue setting in on the eve of game one of the finals. He replied, "fatigue? fatigues is army clothes."
That Sixers team of 2001, filled with cast off role players surrounding one all-time great talent, is my favorite sports team ever. I don't care that they lost to Shaq and Kobe (grrr...) or that they never came close again after that. These lovable losers who were carried on the back of a midget (in basketball terms anyway), and by the mind of hoops genius Larry Brown, captured my imagination better than even the teams I loved as a kid. They had moxie. He had moxie. And moxie goes a long way.
Hell, he even converted my future wife. I recall watching a Sixers game with her in her mom and dad's basement. I said "watch this guy." After maybe three seconds my wife made an ooh sound as "little" Allen (as she would come to call him) surged to the hoop with one of his liquid quick moves and kissed the ball off the board into the basket. She would later refer to him as being "cute." Did I mention that I married this wonderful woman? I'm not saying that's why I married her but...
Unfortunately, since that 2001 peak, things have not gone nearly as well for Iverson. The subsequent Sixers teams ranged from mediocre to pretty good, but never got close to competing for a title again. In the midst of the awful 2006 season, Iverson was suspended by the team for a variety of issues, and then traded to the Denver Nuggets. In Denver, Iverson had a productive year and a half before being traded to the Detroit Pistons last year. It was there, in the motor city, where Iverson hit bottom. Surrounded by a team that was in decline, with a rookie coach who had difficulty managing egos, Iverson suffered through his least productive season. A season that he didn't even complete due to what many believe was a phantom back injury.
So now, he is a man without a team. The rumors are that he may end up with the Memphis Grizzlies or the Los Angeles Clippers. Two woebegone franchises who would only be signing him to sell tickets. I would love to see him get one more shot with a contender. To get the chance to fulfill the promise of that 2001 season in Philly. But I know that's unlikely. For one, with a contender, he'd probably have to take less money and come off the bench. Something his admittedly massive ego probably won't allow. And for two, one basketball executive has referred to him as the hoops version of Barry Bonds. A guy who can play but probably won't make your team better. That seems to be the unfortunate consensus in the NBA among those who might otherwise be willing to sign him.
So how does the story of this mercurial talent end? Probably badly and sadly to be honest. A once great player scoring baskets for a team on the outskirts of respectability until the losing overcomes his better nature and he makes a scene. A scene that will quite likely lead to an unceremonious exit from the league. I hope for something different but I know the odds are stacked against him.
But hope I do. Because love knows no reason or rationale. And I love Allen Iverson.
Sumo-Pop
July 21. 2009
You might ask how I could love someone with an aversion to practice ("we talkin' 'bout practice"), who listens to gangsta rap, wears cornrows, is covered head to toe in tats, and has even been in trouble with the law, someone who I have little to nothing in common with? Well, love knows no reason or rationale, but I'll try to explain.
It seems to me, that to love someone requires only one thing in common. Well, Allen and I have two. First, I love basketball. Of course, I hate Kobe Bryant so that alone doesn't cut it. But secondly, I love the Philadelphia 76ers. Starting from the days of Dr. J and his militant afro soaring to the hoop, to the squandered Charles Barkley years, to the Iverson/Larry Brown resurgence of 2001, to the bland mediocrity of now, they're my team. So when the Sixers made Iverson the number one pick out of Georgetown in 1996, I was already predisposed.
Beyond that, however, I have never seen anything like him before or since. From the moment he stepped on the court, he was electrifying. Has there ever been anyone quicker or faster? Watching him run the court is like staring at an optical illusion. There are times when I swear he teleports from one spot on the floor to another. You see where he started and where he ends up but somehow, not the space in between. And how about toughness? Here's a guy who might be 5 foot 11, who weighs about 150 pounds, yet has no fear of driving to the hoop, going up amongst the giants, and landing on his ass in an effort to score the ball. But what happens after being knocked to his backside is even more remarkable. He does it again. And again. And again.
I remember on one occasion, when playing against the Milwaukee Bucks in the 2001 conference finals, Iverson drove to the lane only to encounter wannabe thug Scott Williams, who elbowed him in the face and drove him to the ground. After picking himself up off the court, he went to the bench to get looked at. The team doctor discovered that the elbow had caused a laceration to the inside of his cheek. Mindful of the NBA rule that does not allow a bleeding player to go back in the game until said bleeding is stopped, Iverson went back anyway. Asked by a reporter afterward, how he managed to keep the bleeding away from the eyes of the referees. He replied, "I swallowed it." How tough is that?
He's also unusually candid and quotable for a modern athlete. He almost always says what he feels, even when it hurts him (see the anti-practice diatribe). But he can also be disarming and generous. He is almost unfailingly complimentary of other players and he can be very funny. In fact, he uttered one of my favorite all time quotes from the world of athletics. During the Sixers magical playoff run of 2001, that ended with a finals loss to the detestable Lakers, Iverson was asked if he was worried about fatigue setting in on the eve of game one of the finals. He replied, "fatigue? fatigues is army clothes."
That Sixers team of 2001, filled with cast off role players surrounding one all-time great talent, is my favorite sports team ever. I don't care that they lost to Shaq and Kobe (grrr...) or that they never came close again after that. These lovable losers who were carried on the back of a midget (in basketball terms anyway), and by the mind of hoops genius Larry Brown, captured my imagination better than even the teams I loved as a kid. They had moxie. He had moxie. And moxie goes a long way.
Hell, he even converted my future wife. I recall watching a Sixers game with her in her mom and dad's basement. I said "watch this guy." After maybe three seconds my wife made an ooh sound as "little" Allen (as she would come to call him) surged to the hoop with one of his liquid quick moves and kissed the ball off the board into the basket. She would later refer to him as being "cute." Did I mention that I married this wonderful woman? I'm not saying that's why I married her but...
Unfortunately, since that 2001 peak, things have not gone nearly as well for Iverson. The subsequent Sixers teams ranged from mediocre to pretty good, but never got close to competing for a title again. In the midst of the awful 2006 season, Iverson was suspended by the team for a variety of issues, and then traded to the Denver Nuggets. In Denver, Iverson had a productive year and a half before being traded to the Detroit Pistons last year. It was there, in the motor city, where Iverson hit bottom. Surrounded by a team that was in decline, with a rookie coach who had difficulty managing egos, Iverson suffered through his least productive season. A season that he didn't even complete due to what many believe was a phantom back injury.
So now, he is a man without a team. The rumors are that he may end up with the Memphis Grizzlies or the Los Angeles Clippers. Two woebegone franchises who would only be signing him to sell tickets. I would love to see him get one more shot with a contender. To get the chance to fulfill the promise of that 2001 season in Philly. But I know that's unlikely. For one, with a contender, he'd probably have to take less money and come off the bench. Something his admittedly massive ego probably won't allow. And for two, one basketball executive has referred to him as the hoops version of Barry Bonds. A guy who can play but probably won't make your team better. That seems to be the unfortunate consensus in the NBA among those who might otherwise be willing to sign him.
So how does the story of this mercurial talent end? Probably badly and sadly to be honest. A once great player scoring baskets for a team on the outskirts of respectability until the losing overcomes his better nature and he makes a scene. A scene that will quite likely lead to an unceremonious exit from the league. I hope for something different but I know the odds are stacked against him.
But hope I do. Because love knows no reason or rationale. And I love Allen Iverson.
Sumo-Pop
July 21. 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Shan't
Every time I hear one of our congressional leaders (be it republican Newt Gingrich in the old days or democrat Mr. Rogers er, Harry Reid currently) promise to get things done for the American people, it brings to mind an old favorite M*A*S*H* episode of mine. Major Winchester, upon learning that Colonel Potter has put him in charge while the Colonel goes on leave, informs Potter that "I shan't let you down." To which Potter replies "I know you shan't lad, because I don't expect nothin' of ya."
So when President Obama started twisting arms in congress this week to further health care reform, I thought, it's about damn time. But let's make it clear, the arms he's twisting for the most part aren't the republicans. No, it's the democrats. Specifically those republicans in jackass clothing. Democrats like Max Baucus of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and our very own Evan Bayh of Indiana.
See, I understand the republicans. They are revelling in being the party of "no" and are betting on the failure of President Obama's initiatives, thereby leading them to the retaking of the white house as well as the congress. Now while this may be foolish, childish, and several other ishes, it does on some level make sense. I mean, hey, it worked for the democrats last year didn't it?
Which brings me to the democrats. Those weak-kneed, lily-livered, yellow-bellied democrats. Many of whom rolled over and played dead during the first Bush term. They went along with "no child left behind," they authorized the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the wealthy and pretty much anything else the Bush administration forced on them. It took them six years of being in the minority to stand up to President Bush. But before we give them too much credit, let's remember what had to happen first. The botching of the Iraq war, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, and the implosion of our financial system. Only when Bush's approval ratings started to take a slide did the democrats toughen up. This found "courage" resulted in the retaking of both houses of congress in 2006 and the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
Now, with the historic opportunity to reform our health care system, President Obama has found that the enemy isn't really the marginalized republican party but the empowered democrats. There are few greater issues in our society that need tending to. Our health care system is in a terrible, broken state. "How broke is it" you might ask? Well, let me tell ya.
The United States spends 15.2% of it's GDP on health care. That's greater than any other country in the United Nations save the Marshall Islands. I don't know about you, but I've never even heard of the Marshall Islands, but I'm betting they pale in size and scope to the US of A. And what do we get for all this money that we pour into the system? Well, I suppose we can lead chants of "we're number 37." Which is where we rank against all the other countries in the world according to the World Health Organization. We are behind such noted powerhouses as Singapore, Iceland, Cyprus, Chile and Morocco. However, we can proudly say we rank two spots ahead of Cuba. Cuba. A tiny island with few resources led by a dying communist dictator. "We're number 37." Say it loud, say it proud.
Of course, you'll find plenty of people who will argue against socialized medicine. Those that believe that we'll end up like Canada, England or God forbid, The French. You want to know where those guys rank? Canada is #30, England #18 and what of the French? Well they're number one. It's not because they're smarter than us or have better medical schools. No, it's that they have learned something that we have failed to accept. That health care is a fundamental right of the people. That a "for profit" health care system like ours leaves too many people out in the cold. That the reason to become a doctor is to heal. Not to own multiple houses and cars.
Now I know that many people fear the word "socialism" in this country. But the truth is, our government system has always been a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Here are some examples of socialism in the USA. The police, firemen, the educational system, the post office, state unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera, et cetera. Last I checked, this country was still upright in spite of all this "socialism."
And really, why shouldn't health care be included with those services? Is there anything more essential to a healthy society than well, health? Shouldn't the access to a doctor and medicine be a right?
Republicans tell us that including a government option will put insurance providers out of business as people will opt out of their workplace provided plan and into the government plan. Why is this such a bad thing? Can you think of a more nefarious organization than the average health care provider? They take loads of your money and deny essential claims? If you don't believe that happens then I urge you to see "Sicko." I know, I know, it's a Michael Moore film. However, even many republicans found the movie stirring and truthful.
So I take great issue when someone says that the current administration is in too big a hurry. Remember, the last time we had a bite at this apple was in 1992 during the Clinton administration. So who knows when there will be political will to take this issue up again. In short, if not now, when?
Which brings me back to these centrist democrats. These "middle of the road" few who have the power to stall this legislation. I'm sure Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, and Evan Bayh are nice people. Hell, I've met Evan Bayh and can attest to it. But can anyone think of his great legislative accomplishments? It seems that what he's most known for is winning multiple elections in a red state. Perhaps that's what he fears, getting health care but losing an election. Which is the whole problem for me. Far too many of our elected officials would rather be re-elected than be remembered.
Sumo-Pop
July 16, 2009
So when President Obama started twisting arms in congress this week to further health care reform, I thought, it's about damn time. But let's make it clear, the arms he's twisting for the most part aren't the republicans. No, it's the democrats. Specifically those republicans in jackass clothing. Democrats like Max Baucus of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and our very own Evan Bayh of Indiana.
See, I understand the republicans. They are revelling in being the party of "no" and are betting on the failure of President Obama's initiatives, thereby leading them to the retaking of the white house as well as the congress. Now while this may be foolish, childish, and several other ishes, it does on some level make sense. I mean, hey, it worked for the democrats last year didn't it?
Which brings me to the democrats. Those weak-kneed, lily-livered, yellow-bellied democrats. Many of whom rolled over and played dead during the first Bush term. They went along with "no child left behind," they authorized the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the wealthy and pretty much anything else the Bush administration forced on them. It took them six years of being in the minority to stand up to President Bush. But before we give them too much credit, let's remember what had to happen first. The botching of the Iraq war, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, and the implosion of our financial system. Only when Bush's approval ratings started to take a slide did the democrats toughen up. This found "courage" resulted in the retaking of both houses of congress in 2006 and the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
Now, with the historic opportunity to reform our health care system, President Obama has found that the enemy isn't really the marginalized republican party but the empowered democrats. There are few greater issues in our society that need tending to. Our health care system is in a terrible, broken state. "How broke is it" you might ask? Well, let me tell ya.
The United States spends 15.2% of it's GDP on health care. That's greater than any other country in the United Nations save the Marshall Islands. I don't know about you, but I've never even heard of the Marshall Islands, but I'm betting they pale in size and scope to the US of A. And what do we get for all this money that we pour into the system? Well, I suppose we can lead chants of "we're number 37." Which is where we rank against all the other countries in the world according to the World Health Organization. We are behind such noted powerhouses as Singapore, Iceland, Cyprus, Chile and Morocco. However, we can proudly say we rank two spots ahead of Cuba. Cuba. A tiny island with few resources led by a dying communist dictator. "We're number 37." Say it loud, say it proud.
Of course, you'll find plenty of people who will argue against socialized medicine. Those that believe that we'll end up like Canada, England or God forbid, The French. You want to know where those guys rank? Canada is #30, England #18 and what of the French? Well they're number one. It's not because they're smarter than us or have better medical schools. No, it's that they have learned something that we have failed to accept. That health care is a fundamental right of the people. That a "for profit" health care system like ours leaves too many people out in the cold. That the reason to become a doctor is to heal. Not to own multiple houses and cars.
Now I know that many people fear the word "socialism" in this country. But the truth is, our government system has always been a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Here are some examples of socialism in the USA. The police, firemen, the educational system, the post office, state unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera, et cetera. Last I checked, this country was still upright in spite of all this "socialism."
And really, why shouldn't health care be included with those services? Is there anything more essential to a healthy society than well, health? Shouldn't the access to a doctor and medicine be a right?
Republicans tell us that including a government option will put insurance providers out of business as people will opt out of their workplace provided plan and into the government plan. Why is this such a bad thing? Can you think of a more nefarious organization than the average health care provider? They take loads of your money and deny essential claims? If you don't believe that happens then I urge you to see "Sicko." I know, I know, it's a Michael Moore film. However, even many republicans found the movie stirring and truthful.
So I take great issue when someone says that the current administration is in too big a hurry. Remember, the last time we had a bite at this apple was in 1992 during the Clinton administration. So who knows when there will be political will to take this issue up again. In short, if not now, when?
Which brings me back to these centrist democrats. These "middle of the road" few who have the power to stall this legislation. I'm sure Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, and Evan Bayh are nice people. Hell, I've met Evan Bayh and can attest to it. But can anyone think of his great legislative accomplishments? It seems that what he's most known for is winning multiple elections in a red state. Perhaps that's what he fears, getting health care but losing an election. Which is the whole problem for me. Far too many of our elected officials would rather be re-elected than be remembered.
Sumo-Pop
July 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)