one of my best friends is a public school teacher. tonight he related a tale about how he needed to call a substitute for his next day of class; he needed a day to recover. teachers need to find a substitute at least twelve hours ahead. he had just been on a trip during spring break to some sunny spot away from the rainy, cold oregon winter, a place with drinking and dancing and sunny days and adult contemporary nights away from runny noses and hands sticky with jam, and he needed a day to recover, to rest before he went back to school. but in his fatigue, he forgot to call a substitute. the next morning, the phone rings. but it’s not his principal inquiring as to where my friend’s whereabouts. it’s an automated message letting him know that due to weather, school would be starting late, at ten a.m. that morning, allowing him enough time to beg some substitute to cover for him.
later he says the principal once told him he should quit teaching and become a principle because he’s so good with people. and he is. i’m sure the principal said that to him, he make a joke, they laughed, and everything was easy for both of them.
he lives a charmed life.
monday night and my friends are watching rupaul’s drag race at shawn’s house. he graciously hosts us each week at his house to watch a cadre of men wearing dramatic makeup and dresses run a gauntlet of often demeaning or humiliating challenges. this week each woman has had to dress as a dog. each man gathered around the television set is some sort of charming. these men are designers and architects and entrepreneurs and teachers and professionals. they’re socially captivating, witty, and handsome. perhaps one or the other may gone through an awkward period in middle or high school, but that possibility is remote to me, incongruous to the man i know today. my friends are happy, and can somehow seem to glide through life with a wink and a smile. life seems to come easy to them.
that week, i got a ride home from my friend and neighbor who is a landscape architect. he has been taking a series of tests in order to be certified as a landscape architect here in oregon. on the ride back to our neighborhood in north portland, my friend tells me that he had forgot the date for final registration for a last test he needs to take. he called the office saying, “i knew i could talk myself out of it, or into it, or whatever,” though apparently he did not even need to scheme. the office would wait a few days to complete the registration rosters, allowing him time to submit his application.
he’s charming and lucky.
at least that how it sometimes seems to me. as i write this, i am stuck in a job i do not love, struggling monthly to save money and pay from my apartment, unable to travel or vacation, with little time to spend on myself. i often suffer from social anxiety; the older i get the more i have found i can control my anxiety, however it never ceases. and i have a stye in my eye, an infection under the eyelid that is causes it to inflame and droop. the moments in which i feel lucky do not come frequently and do not last long.
the best luck i’ve known may have been finding such alluring friends. the group seems cohesive, they seem supportive. they plan great adventures with each other and attend each other’s events and party together and have coffee together. so even when i am not the most captivating person, it helps to be around those that are, to bask in the glow of their charm and good fortune.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
night poems
nine o'clock at night and the sky is electric blue in the west, fading through midnight blue to black above my head. soft pink tufts of cloud migrate north, brightened by the last of the afternoon light. nine o'clock in the afternoon.
i'm listening to john coltrane, cleaning my apartment, drinking water with lemon. today i have been reading patti smith's memoir of her life in new york with robert mapplethorpe, so i'm in an "i want to be an artist" sort of mood, which the coltrane only enhances. i read frank o'hara's "meditation in an emergency" as sort of a literary digestif. i think of my friend elizabeth who gave me this volume of o'hara poetry.
first this:
"Now there is only one man I love to kiss when he is unshaven. Heterosexuality! you are inexorably approaching. (How discourage her?)"
then this:
"St. Serapion, I wrap myself in the robes of your whiteness which is like midnight in Dostoevsky. How am I to become a legend, my dear? I've tried love, but that hides you in the bosom of another and I am always bursting forth! (but one must not be distracted by it!) or like a hyacinth, 'to keep the filth of life away,' yes, there even in the heart, where the filth is pumped in and slanders and pollutes and determines. I will my will, though I may become famous for a mysterious vacancy in that department, that greenhouse."
i'm listening to john coltrane, cleaning my apartment, drinking water with lemon. today i have been reading patti smith's memoir of her life in new york with robert mapplethorpe, so i'm in an "i want to be an artist" sort of mood, which the coltrane only enhances. i read frank o'hara's "meditation in an emergency" as sort of a literary digestif. i think of my friend elizabeth who gave me this volume of o'hara poetry.
first this:
"Now there is only one man I love to kiss when he is unshaven. Heterosexuality! you are inexorably approaching. (How discourage her?)"
then this:
"St. Serapion, I wrap myself in the robes of your whiteness which is like midnight in Dostoevsky. How am I to become a legend, my dear? I've tried love, but that hides you in the bosom of another and I am always bursting forth! (but one must not be distracted by it!) or like a hyacinth, 'to keep the filth of life away,' yes, there even in the heart, where the filth is pumped in and slanders and pollutes and determines. I will my will, though I may become famous for a mysterious vacancy in that department, that greenhouse."
Thursday, April 12, 2012
a letter to my sister
evian -
today i wore a sprig of jasmine in the buttonhole of my blazer, a white star with my favorite fragrance.
do you remember the night blooming cereus? a flower that blooms once a year for a single night - a large ostentatious bloom with a scent that we could smell a block away. when we were little, your friend’s parents cut a part of that cactus off to grow ourselves one year, and we potted it in a cement potter carved with angels. it grew on our front porch at the house in huntsville until someone - a dog or friend of ours - knocked in off the porch into the lawn, squashing the plant. we did not witness the night blooming cereus blossom until years after, while visiting uncle mike in birmingham. on southside, the two old gay men who lived across the street beckoned us over at twilight. i will never forget the fragrance of that flower or the luminosity of that pale blossom.
as a consolation, i suppose the honeysuckle in birmingham is growing. driving down the interstate, honeysuckle cascades over the red, iron rich hills through which the road is cut. we would always drive with all the windows open, and the scent of all that wild honeysuckle was surprisingly strong and sweet as we raced down the highway. i think the fences at our old house in huntsville upon which the honeysuckle grew have been removed. our parents thought the honeysuckle was a nuisance, but we loved those bushes, carefully tearing the flowers from their vines to tongue those droplets of nectar from stamen. we told ourselves how sweet that honey tasted.
madre is moving back to huntsville and i would love to visit that city. i would love to see monte santo mountain, and the old stone structures built there hundreds of years ago. i would love to see maple hill cemetery and its stone angels and mausoleums and those banks of identical crosses for the unknown soldiers who died during the civil war. i want to see the old house. is the apple tree we planted in the side yard still growing? i think our backyard fences have been removed, and the wrought iron railing around the front porch has been removed. our roses grew up and through that railing; red, pink, fuschia; the yellow roses that always reminded me of our grandmother, and the yellow roses we would leave on his gravestone every year as in life he had always given our grandmother yellow roses for her birthday.
roses grow well in portland. there are whole parks dedicated to growing roses, unimaginable varietals, plants with greatly varying color and scent. we have magnolia trees, with large white blossoms to perfume an entire block. and the cherry trees have blossomed, turning portland pink and white with flowers. however, my favorite scent emanates from jasmine blossoms as i walk through the neighborhood. the small white stars produce such a sweet but delicate scent.
this is not a substitute, and i do long to see portland, to visit our childhood. and i wish i had a house here in portland in which i could plant roses, to be happy seeing them every day as i leave the house. and jasmine, to smell jasmine all spring.
i miss you.
christopher
today i wore a sprig of jasmine in the buttonhole of my blazer, a white star with my favorite fragrance.
do you remember the night blooming cereus? a flower that blooms once a year for a single night - a large ostentatious bloom with a scent that we could smell a block away. when we were little, your friend’s parents cut a part of that cactus off to grow ourselves one year, and we potted it in a cement potter carved with angels. it grew on our front porch at the house in huntsville until someone - a dog or friend of ours - knocked in off the porch into the lawn, squashing the plant. we did not witness the night blooming cereus blossom until years after, while visiting uncle mike in birmingham. on southside, the two old gay men who lived across the street beckoned us over at twilight. i will never forget the fragrance of that flower or the luminosity of that pale blossom.
as a consolation, i suppose the honeysuckle in birmingham is growing. driving down the interstate, honeysuckle cascades over the red, iron rich hills through which the road is cut. we would always drive with all the windows open, and the scent of all that wild honeysuckle was surprisingly strong and sweet as we raced down the highway. i think the fences at our old house in huntsville upon which the honeysuckle grew have been removed. our parents thought the honeysuckle was a nuisance, but we loved those bushes, carefully tearing the flowers from their vines to tongue those droplets of nectar from stamen. we told ourselves how sweet that honey tasted.
madre is moving back to huntsville and i would love to visit that city. i would love to see monte santo mountain, and the old stone structures built there hundreds of years ago. i would love to see maple hill cemetery and its stone angels and mausoleums and those banks of identical crosses for the unknown soldiers who died during the civil war. i want to see the old house. is the apple tree we planted in the side yard still growing? i think our backyard fences have been removed, and the wrought iron railing around the front porch has been removed. our roses grew up and through that railing; red, pink, fuschia; the yellow roses that always reminded me of our grandmother, and the yellow roses we would leave on his gravestone every year as in life he had always given our grandmother yellow roses for her birthday.
roses grow well in portland. there are whole parks dedicated to growing roses, unimaginable varietals, plants with greatly varying color and scent. we have magnolia trees, with large white blossoms to perfume an entire block. and the cherry trees have blossomed, turning portland pink and white with flowers. however, my favorite scent emanates from jasmine blossoms as i walk through the neighborhood. the small white stars produce such a sweet but delicate scent.
this is not a substitute, and i do long to see portland, to visit our childhood. and i wish i had a house here in portland in which i could plant roses, to be happy seeing them every day as i leave the house. and jasmine, to smell jasmine all spring.
i miss you.
christopher
Monday, March 5, 2012
revisiting iran
as i argued in my last post, attacking iran to wipe out its nuclear program may be done without committing troops to the ground or beginning a new war in the middle east, and that action may be in the best interest for the middle east as well as international geopolitical stability, however there may be more to be considered. obama is holding out, maintaining that it is not necessary yet for the u. s. to attack iranian facilities, that while he believes it necessary to prevent iran from possessing a nuclear bomb, this goal can be achieved diplomatically.
perhaps in my review of the situation i did not take into consideration domestic concerns. at a time when gas prices in the states are high, almost $4 per gallon nationally, and the public suffers and complains, an attack on iran and especially if iran subsequently closed the strait of hormuz, gas prices could go higher. i believe the american public does need to make sacrifices. americans need to be more aware of their driving habits, to drive less in general, and sacrifice personal ease to share commutes with others and use public transportation. however, consumer prices in general, particularly the price of food in supermarkets would probably rise considerably. this would be terrible for lower and middle income families, especially as it seems america is already seeing some inflation in supermarket prices already.
and though i do not consider the impending presidential election to be sufficient cause on which to base foreign policy, the election nevertheless will. how does the election factor into this decision? republicans call for a strong military stance on this issue, supporting the israelis, courting the jewish vote. and in the past this sort of stance may have seen great support from middle america. however, after a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan, the american public is wary of another conflict, especially as i think most americans believe that any operation in iran would be intensive, need to commit troops to the ground in that area, and would necessarily incur great cost in the midst of a recession when the government deficit has ballooned monstrously.
perhaps in my review of the situation i did not take into consideration domestic concerns. at a time when gas prices in the states are high, almost $4 per gallon nationally, and the public suffers and complains, an attack on iran and especially if iran subsequently closed the strait of hormuz, gas prices could go higher. i believe the american public does need to make sacrifices. americans need to be more aware of their driving habits, to drive less in general, and sacrifice personal ease to share commutes with others and use public transportation. however, consumer prices in general, particularly the price of food in supermarkets would probably rise considerably. this would be terrible for lower and middle income families, especially as it seems america is already seeing some inflation in supermarket prices already.
and though i do not consider the impending presidential election to be sufficient cause on which to base foreign policy, the election nevertheless will. how does the election factor into this decision? republicans call for a strong military stance on this issue, supporting the israelis, courting the jewish vote. and in the past this sort of stance may have seen great support from middle america. however, after a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan, the american public is wary of another conflict, especially as i think most americans believe that any operation in iran would be intensive, need to commit troops to the ground in that area, and would necessarily incur great cost in the midst of a recession when the government deficit has ballooned monstrously.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
iranian surgery
i have heard several acquaintances recently express concern that the u. s. will soon find itself engaged in yet another conflict, this time in iran. certainly the tension between iran and the west has greatly increased recently: israel seems poised to attack iran's nuclear facilities in a "surgical strike," and the united states and european union tighten financial sanctions against the country. in the summer, the e. u. will no longer import iranian oil into the economic zone. the persian country now finds itself isolated, in an increasingly dire financial situation. yet it continues to devote resources to producing nuclear energy, and though it officially denies it, a nuclear weapon. an irrational regime, whose power rests between the dictatorial religious figure the grand ayatollah khamenei and president ahmadinejad trying to wrest power from the religious authority, the government would rather see its people suffer than abstain from gaining nuclear power.
the israelis believe the time has come to act, to bomb whatever nuclear facilities currently operational in iran, and risk retaliation. israel considers whatever retaliation the country can muster a less fearsome opposition than a nuclear iran. as a nuclear power, iran would not just possess the bomb but would garner more influence in the middle east. honestly, what security does nuclear weaponry give a country? does the iranian government believe it will be invincible then to attack? is it so willing to press the trigger to destroy an enemy knowing that this act will assure its mutual destruction? rather, nuclear capabilities will concretize internal power and generate international influence in a rapidly changing middle east.
the new york times today reported that u. s. government analysis indicated that iran would respond to any israeli surgical operation by striking anonymously in foreign capitals, possibly restricting shipping access to the strait of hormuz, and assisting the taliban and other terrorist organizations in afghanistan plant roadside bombs. iran would definitely commit larger resources to hamas, hezbollah, and islamic jihad to further de-stabilize the region. "[But] Iran's primary goal would be quickly rebuilding and probably accelerating its nuclear program, and thus, according to these assessments, it would be likely to try to avoid inviting a punishing second wave of attacks by the United States."
yet we don't need to worry about a second attack. we could just help israel with the first, especially considering that israel's resources might be stretched trying to reach iran.
matthew kroenig argues in foreign affairs that it is "Time to Attack Iran." kroenig writes a convincing article noting that iran it is unlikely that the united states would miss any weapons programs should we commit an attack on the country, allowing thus the iranians to rebuild another nuclear program quickly. we would not need to commit troops to the ground in iran to complete this operation. we would not even be protecting iranian civilians, such as in libya. however, kroenig argues that we must assure the iranian government that we are not targeting the government but just its nuclear capabilities, and that our country would then only respond to certain "redline" retaliation from the iranians such as attacks on other gulf states or southern europe. the u. s. government would (and already needs) to make clear exactly what bounds the iranian government cannot step without serious retaliation.
with great consideration, a surgical strike on iranian nuclear capabilities could be successful and the consequences could be contained. but we can no longer posture or dither on the issue. if america found itself wrongly embroiled in conflict in past decades due to ideology, we cannot deny the dangers of the atom bomb. we can justify a violent move against a regime resistant to international pressure on this issue, especially when we seek not to foment regime change but only to remove danger to the international community.
the israelis believe the time has come to act, to bomb whatever nuclear facilities currently operational in iran, and risk retaliation. israel considers whatever retaliation the country can muster a less fearsome opposition than a nuclear iran. as a nuclear power, iran would not just possess the bomb but would garner more influence in the middle east. honestly, what security does nuclear weaponry give a country? does the iranian government believe it will be invincible then to attack? is it so willing to press the trigger to destroy an enemy knowing that this act will assure its mutual destruction? rather, nuclear capabilities will concretize internal power and generate international influence in a rapidly changing middle east.
the new york times today reported that u. s. government analysis indicated that iran would respond to any israeli surgical operation by striking anonymously in foreign capitals, possibly restricting shipping access to the strait of hormuz, and assisting the taliban and other terrorist organizations in afghanistan plant roadside bombs. iran would definitely commit larger resources to hamas, hezbollah, and islamic jihad to further de-stabilize the region. "[But] Iran's primary goal would be quickly rebuilding and probably accelerating its nuclear program, and thus, according to these assessments, it would be likely to try to avoid inviting a punishing second wave of attacks by the United States."
yet we don't need to worry about a second attack. we could just help israel with the first, especially considering that israel's resources might be stretched trying to reach iran.
matthew kroenig argues in foreign affairs that it is "Time to Attack Iran." kroenig writes a convincing article noting that iran it is unlikely that the united states would miss any weapons programs should we commit an attack on the country, allowing thus the iranians to rebuild another nuclear program quickly. we would not need to commit troops to the ground in iran to complete this operation. we would not even be protecting iranian civilians, such as in libya. however, kroenig argues that we must assure the iranian government that we are not targeting the government but just its nuclear capabilities, and that our country would then only respond to certain "redline" retaliation from the iranians such as attacks on other gulf states or southern europe. the u. s. government would (and already needs) to make clear exactly what bounds the iranian government cannot step without serious retaliation.
with great consideration, a surgical strike on iranian nuclear capabilities could be successful and the consequences could be contained. but we can no longer posture or dither on the issue. if america found itself wrongly embroiled in conflict in past decades due to ideology, we cannot deny the dangers of the atom bomb. we can justify a violent move against a regime resistant to international pressure on this issue, especially when we seek not to foment regime change but only to remove danger to the international community.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
fuzzy: flannel and fur
let's talk about a critique that went too far.
i was reading this critique on art practical by mary anne kluth on recent paintings by danny keith at ratio3 in san francisco and i started to think: this is outrageous. the paintings are kind of interesting. well-painted. strange subject matter. kind of gay. but kluth's extrapolation is a little over the top.
she starts out with some general observations: "The works are academic in the traditional sense, with particular attention paid to naturalistic lighting and figure proportions. The works’ scale and intense study of a single posed subject, combined with the artist’s layered modulation of color and tonality... suggest that they were made from observation." good. then she continues with the beginnings of an interesting suggestion, proposing that the artist offers a personal, alternative vision of beauty and sexual attraction, a unique interpolation between a body both "masculine and pretty." okay, great. i buy it. kluth then makes some general observations about keith's technique and subject matter.
Keith’s use of the same subject, repeated visual patterns, and consistently detailed brushwork throughout this body of work recalls Félix González-Torres’s tender, minimalist installations." wait, what? you just lost me. i had to read this sentence three times to make sure i was missing something. how exactly are these detailed, natualistic, "academic" paintings like the abstract installations of félix gonzález-torres? in fact, the critic kluth has to back track at this point, admitting that gonzález-torres was not a painter at all but rather made "metaphorical portraits." kluth then tries to make a connection between keith's work and the gonzález-torres piece titled perfect lovers, citing formal elements, namely repetition, as connecting and relating the two pieces. but kluth has failed to realize that most visual art throughout human history employs formal elements of art such as repetition. just because two pieces of art contain repetitive components does not mean the two pieces are similar or relative. citing félix gonzález-torres in this review seems more like a gonzález-torres love-fest and less like an honest interest in the paintings by danny keith.
kluth gets lost a little more after this, talking of longing and intimacy, attempting to relate this to color and detail, an interesting idea but irrelevant at this point and i'm not sure kluth can strongly exemplify this in the work. and finally she writes out this gem, "Keith’s images of male beauty and the palpable vulnerability of his desire complicate the idea that the power involved in every erotic depiction only functions in one direction. His tender attention to every freckle and hair displays a sense of responsibility as opposed to a license to idealize or objectify. " where did that come from? why haven't i been reading about power relationships the entire time? and have we really arrived at the point in history when an artist can pay a lot of attention to naturalistic detail to sidestep the objectification of a person? like if i make sure not to edit out that blemish i can still objectify women?
if i think back to kluth's original proposition finding a dialectic between masculinity and femininity, "strength" and "prettiness," in daniel keith's paintings, i wonder where that discussion went. instead of félix gonzález-torres, kluth should have referenced another painter like john currin, or the purportedly homosexual italian painter carvaggio, or the longing and strange attraction in the photographs of robert mapplethorpe. i think there's a lot that could have been developed, just as from the examples on the art practical site, i believe this exhibit by daniel keith might have a ton of potential.
i was reading this critique on art practical by mary anne kluth on recent paintings by danny keith at ratio3 in san francisco and i started to think: this is outrageous. the paintings are kind of interesting. well-painted. strange subject matter. kind of gay. but kluth's extrapolation is a little over the top.
she starts out with some general observations: "The works are academic in the traditional sense, with particular attention paid to naturalistic lighting and figure proportions. The works’ scale and intense study of a single posed subject, combined with the artist’s layered modulation of color and tonality... suggest that they were made from observation." good. then she continues with the beginnings of an interesting suggestion, proposing that the artist offers a personal, alternative vision of beauty and sexual attraction, a unique interpolation between a body both "masculine and pretty." okay, great. i buy it. kluth then makes some general observations about keith's technique and subject matter.
Keith’s use of the same subject, repeated visual patterns, and consistently detailed brushwork throughout this body of work recalls Félix González-Torres’s tender, minimalist installations." wait, what? you just lost me. i had to read this sentence three times to make sure i was missing something. how exactly are these detailed, natualistic, "academic" paintings like the abstract installations of félix gonzález-torres? in fact, the critic kluth has to back track at this point, admitting that gonzález-torres was not a painter at all but rather made "metaphorical portraits." kluth then tries to make a connection between keith's work and the gonzález-torres piece titled perfect lovers, citing formal elements, namely repetition, as connecting and relating the two pieces. but kluth has failed to realize that most visual art throughout human history employs formal elements of art such as repetition. just because two pieces of art contain repetitive components does not mean the two pieces are similar or relative. citing félix gonzález-torres in this review seems more like a gonzález-torres love-fest and less like an honest interest in the paintings by danny keith.
kluth gets lost a little more after this, talking of longing and intimacy, attempting to relate this to color and detail, an interesting idea but irrelevant at this point and i'm not sure kluth can strongly exemplify this in the work. and finally she writes out this gem, "Keith’s images of male beauty and the palpable vulnerability of his desire complicate the idea that the power involved in every erotic depiction only functions in one direction. His tender attention to every freckle and hair displays a sense of responsibility as opposed to a license to idealize or objectify. " where did that come from? why haven't i been reading about power relationships the entire time? and have we really arrived at the point in history when an artist can pay a lot of attention to naturalistic detail to sidestep the objectification of a person? like if i make sure not to edit out that blemish i can still objectify women?
if i think back to kluth's original proposition finding a dialectic between masculinity and femininity, "strength" and "prettiness," in daniel keith's paintings, i wonder where that discussion went. instead of félix gonzález-torres, kluth should have referenced another painter like john currin, or the purportedly homosexual italian painter carvaggio, or the longing and strange attraction in the photographs of robert mapplethorpe. i think there's a lot that could have been developed, just as from the examples on the art practical site, i believe this exhibit by daniel keith might have a ton of potential.
Monday, February 6, 2012
in health
“The retirement of seventy-eight million baby boomers - Americans born between 1946 and 1964 - will cause the costs of Social Security and Medicare to skyrocket. Between 2010 and 2020 those costs are expected to rise by 70 and 79 percent, respectively. By 2050, according to Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, these two programs plus Medicaid will take 18.4 percent of everything the United States produces.”
this warning comes from the most recent book co-authored by thomas friedman and michael mandelbaum titled that used to be us: how america fell behind in the world it invented and how we can come back. and while i take issue with the authors using any pronouncement issued by the cato institute as unbiased and factual, truth be told, america is not healthy.
friedman and mandelbaum point of in this book of theirs the slew of problems america now faces: congressional polarization, under education, the economic stress caused by the technology revolution of the late century, and the lack of concern so far shown toward the potential environmental disaster of global warming. basically americans are lazy and aren’t doing anything. friedman and mandelbaum write calmly, declaring that if we set certain goals, enact positive and exact legislature now we can catch up, we can set the environment right, we can stay on top, and my generation won’t end up slinging burgers in beijing when we should be retiring. they’re saying act now before this offer ends!
but reading their forecast, all i can conceive of is how monumental this task is. not just innovating new technology to create cleaner energy and save the environment. not just figuring out how to lure the brightest minds into teaching in america’s public schools. not just completely restructuring medicaid, medicare, and social security. in my mind, one of the biggest problems is the american public in general. mandelbaum and friedman believe that the american public is not as divided politically as their representatives in congress, and they write from a pretty moderate (moderately-liberal) viewpoint. but i do not think they realize that they’re writers for the new york times, a paper that is viewed as both over liberal and over intellectual and overly wordy and pompous and stuffy and yes i pay to read the paper daily and i love reading friedman’s articles but the majority of americans wouldn’t recognize his name let alone read his book and they surely would never believe that he’s anything but rabidly liberal! and reading this book is almost on par with reading revelations.
bill clinton wrote out more dooming statistics in his recent book back to work:
“According to the Simpson-Bowles Commission, total costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program equaled 6 percent of GDP, or about 35 percent of total health-care spending, which is 17.6 percent of GDP. That's a lot, but it's still cheaper than the same coverage would be under private plans. For one thing, administrative costs are far lower - less than half of what private plans cost. Overall health-care spending is $35 to $40 billion lower than it would be if the government's administrative costs were equal to those of private insurance companies. Even more important, the inflation rate in the government programs, though high, has been lower than the rate of increase in private coverage. As the New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman has pointed out, Medicare spending per person has increased 400 percent since 1970, while private insurance has skyrocketed 700 percent.”
what are we to though? what exactly can my generation and the american public do about these skyrocketing costs and our tumescent deficit. i guess i’m absolutely a liberal in that i believe that more than simply raising taxes and maintaining healthcare benefits, we must come together as a community and a nation to discuss what exactly we need as such. a liberal outlook favors greater equality over individual liberty. thus to understand and work toward a greater community of fulfillment and happiness, we must come together and discuss the needs of this community. we must make sacrifices. we must think more about our community. i pay taxes and can comprehend the need at times of higher taxes because i support our common good and not just my own self interest.
how then does a dialogue about healthcare needs begin? certainly we need a better understanding of health. we cannot allow pressure from the food industry to allow the tomato paste on pizza to count as a vegetable serving at school lunches. we must come to grips with the effect of sugar in the diet. and we must be frank about what exactly it is fair that we pay for as a community.
“According to CBS's 60 Minutes (August 8, 2010), in 2009 'Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives. That's more than the budget for the Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of Education. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have no meaningful impact. Most of the bills are paid for by the federal government with few or no questions asked.' Indeed, Medicare is barred by law from rejecting any treatment based on cost.”
this was reported by friedman and mandelbaum and it brings up a tough question. certainly we respect and love our elders. these are our family members. and they must be care for, just as our nation must have healthcare at any age. yet we cannot allow our love for our families cloud our judgement. doctors should not be allow to prescribe any treatment at any cost without proven efficacy. and the cost to keep a person alive slightly longer unconscious and on a respirator may not be a cost the public should bear. perhaps some costs should be private burdens.
where is the line between public and private? recently, cities such as san francisco and certain companies have started paying and supporting the medical transition between sexes. transgendered people should have our support, but should their transitions be the burden of the public when we cannot even pave our roads and feed our children and bring basic healthcare to the public at large. when i think of this though, i believe that the need to transition could bring a psychic pain that i cannot begin to understand, and thus perhaps we should be able to make a sacrifice for our fellow citizens. and in cities such as san francisco, the consent and encouragement for this support does come from the public, blessing the use of public funds.
but these are the hard questions i find myself thinking of, and of which we must all think. what sacrifices will each of us be willing to make and what do we expect from our society?
this warning comes from the most recent book co-authored by thomas friedman and michael mandelbaum titled that used to be us: how america fell behind in the world it invented and how we can come back. and while i take issue with the authors using any pronouncement issued by the cato institute as unbiased and factual, truth be told, america is not healthy.
friedman and mandelbaum point of in this book of theirs the slew of problems america now faces: congressional polarization, under education, the economic stress caused by the technology revolution of the late century, and the lack of concern so far shown toward the potential environmental disaster of global warming. basically americans are lazy and aren’t doing anything. friedman and mandelbaum write calmly, declaring that if we set certain goals, enact positive and exact legislature now we can catch up, we can set the environment right, we can stay on top, and my generation won’t end up slinging burgers in beijing when we should be retiring. they’re saying act now before this offer ends!
but reading their forecast, all i can conceive of is how monumental this task is. not just innovating new technology to create cleaner energy and save the environment. not just figuring out how to lure the brightest minds into teaching in america’s public schools. not just completely restructuring medicaid, medicare, and social security. in my mind, one of the biggest problems is the american public in general. mandelbaum and friedman believe that the american public is not as divided politically as their representatives in congress, and they write from a pretty moderate (moderately-liberal) viewpoint. but i do not think they realize that they’re writers for the new york times, a paper that is viewed as both over liberal and over intellectual and overly wordy and pompous and stuffy and yes i pay to read the paper daily and i love reading friedman’s articles but the majority of americans wouldn’t recognize his name let alone read his book and they surely would never believe that he’s anything but rabidly liberal! and reading this book is almost on par with reading revelations.
bill clinton wrote out more dooming statistics in his recent book back to work:
“According to the Simpson-Bowles Commission, total costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program equaled 6 percent of GDP, or about 35 percent of total health-care spending, which is 17.6 percent of GDP. That's a lot, but it's still cheaper than the same coverage would be under private plans. For one thing, administrative costs are far lower - less than half of what private plans cost. Overall health-care spending is $35 to $40 billion lower than it would be if the government's administrative costs were equal to those of private insurance companies. Even more important, the inflation rate in the government programs, though high, has been lower than the rate of increase in private coverage. As the New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman has pointed out, Medicare spending per person has increased 400 percent since 1970, while private insurance has skyrocketed 700 percent.”
what are we to though? what exactly can my generation and the american public do about these skyrocketing costs and our tumescent deficit. i guess i’m absolutely a liberal in that i believe that more than simply raising taxes and maintaining healthcare benefits, we must come together as a community and a nation to discuss what exactly we need as such. a liberal outlook favors greater equality over individual liberty. thus to understand and work toward a greater community of fulfillment and happiness, we must come together and discuss the needs of this community. we must make sacrifices. we must think more about our community. i pay taxes and can comprehend the need at times of higher taxes because i support our common good and not just my own self interest.
how then does a dialogue about healthcare needs begin? certainly we need a better understanding of health. we cannot allow pressure from the food industry to allow the tomato paste on pizza to count as a vegetable serving at school lunches. we must come to grips with the effect of sugar in the diet. and we must be frank about what exactly it is fair that we pay for as a community.
“According to CBS's 60 Minutes (August 8, 2010), in 2009 'Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives. That's more than the budget for the Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of Education. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have no meaningful impact. Most of the bills are paid for by the federal government with few or no questions asked.' Indeed, Medicare is barred by law from rejecting any treatment based on cost.”
this was reported by friedman and mandelbaum and it brings up a tough question. certainly we respect and love our elders. these are our family members. and they must be care for, just as our nation must have healthcare at any age. yet we cannot allow our love for our families cloud our judgement. doctors should not be allow to prescribe any treatment at any cost without proven efficacy. and the cost to keep a person alive slightly longer unconscious and on a respirator may not be a cost the public should bear. perhaps some costs should be private burdens.
where is the line between public and private? recently, cities such as san francisco and certain companies have started paying and supporting the medical transition between sexes. transgendered people should have our support, but should their transitions be the burden of the public when we cannot even pave our roads and feed our children and bring basic healthcare to the public at large. when i think of this though, i believe that the need to transition could bring a psychic pain that i cannot begin to understand, and thus perhaps we should be able to make a sacrifice for our fellow citizens. and in cities such as san francisco, the consent and encouragement for this support does come from the public, blessing the use of public funds.
but these are the hard questions i find myself thinking of, and of which we must all think. what sacrifices will each of us be willing to make and what do we expect from our society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)