The Primate Press

Finally, Barry Obama is seeing the light. I think the reality has set in on what that public option would really mean to the United States of America, and even a closet communist like him knows he could never get away with it.

For an illustration of just what things would be like if a public health care option ever were to be adopted, I need only mention these three words: UPS, FedEx and USPS.

Once upon a time, mail in this country was handled efficiently and effectively for everyone. Back in Colonial times when there was only UPS and FedEx, two fine private, for-profit companies, everyone knew they would get their mail on time for the lowest cost. But some liberal in Washington was not satisfied with things working efficiently and effectively, and he came up with a public option for mail — the United States Postal Service, or USPS. I think that was Jimmy Carter.

Now, you have the situation of today. A giant, federally-funded, poorly run behemoth has taken over the entire mail industry, and is the only choice. No private company can compete when the playing field includes a cheater like the US Government, propped up with a free revenue stream of taxpayer dollars. So UPS and FedEx, once the champions of high quality mail delivery, with retail stores everywhere, quickly declared bankruptcy and disappeared from the landscape.

When’s the last time you got your mail without going down to the USPS station and waiting for hours? Some resort to flying to Canada to get their mail. And with the usual waste and mismanagement of a government bureaucracy, getting our mail costs much more than it used to when free market competition kept prices low. Remember the good old days, when it only cost 32 cents to mail a letter?

And God forbid you have a problem with mailing something. Calling the USPS with a problem is a nightmare. Its customer service is nothing like the fine customer service that naturally comes into being when the free market system is unregulated. It’s the opposite of the excellent customer service you get when you call, for example, the fine private company AT& T. The electronic voice is so sincere when it assures you “your call is important to us.” The real live people are so courteous when they transfer you to another department, or the wrong department, or tell you to call back at a different number, or disconnect you accidentally for the eighth time in a row. They’re so nice when they give you the phone number of the department they’re trying to connect you to, just in case for some reason you get disconnected. And it’s no problem at all calling them back over and over, because the wait time is never longer than 20 or 30 minutes before another representative comes on the line. They always speak perfect English. You can tell by their American names that they are local employees, and not slave labor outsourced to India at a dollar per hour, as the United States Postal Service does. And knowledgeable! These people are so knowledgeable when you have a technical question about your Internet service. Not only do they know exactly what department to pass you off to, they know all the special offers they are required to bombard you with after they haven’t helped you with the problem you called about in the first place! Now that is the unfettered free market system working to help the regular joe.

Nope, if the liberals in Congress get away with this Public Option, it will be the end of American life as we know it. A government competitor in a free market industry? It’s unheard of. It’s unamerican. It’s unnatural, and we have yet to see an example of it working in our country.

Preventive testing not covered by insurance: $166. Medically necessary root canal without dental insurance: $1280. One doctor visit in excess of calendar year limit: approx. $300. Out of pocket costs since April, when I was laid off: $1776. Public health care option: priceless.

At first I thought Barack Obama’s emphasis on changing the tone of politics was off-target. It seemed like politics was ugly, but not central to the problem of why we have had such poor leadership. Then I came to see how an improvement in the process, particularly creating an atmosphere of cooperation instead of combat, could help to get things done by making it safe to find middle ground between warring camps.

Now I’m back to seeing this proposed change in tone, though by all means very useful if it happened, as a secondary problem. The problem is, it can’t happen until some more bedrock things have changed.

Try a reversal of the market’s thrall on absolutely every aspect of our lives. Try tempering the juggernaut of mass media that is a self-feeding monster in its own right. Try changing the devolution of education into a factory for packing information into students like sardine cans, who learn to think critically only at their own risk. Try, if you will, a change in the dynamic of our culture.

I can see where Obama was coming from with the new tone in politics argument. How can you change anything if the demands of partisanship negate all movement in any direction? But it might be that you cannot get elected to the position to have the power to change the tone in politics without a fundamental change in our culture allowing your message to be heard.

It’s a classic chicken-and-egg conundrum.

This is not a problem of bad people or mean-spiritedness at its core. At its core it is just something that happened to us. Some technological advancements brought about the hypercompetitiveness of the market. More technological advancements, in response to market pressures for new products, exponentially accelerate this competition – in the media, in politics, and everything else. It’s taken on a life of its own. It demolishes our means of improving things for ourselves or countering the effect by removing our ability to accurately communicate with each other. All speech and all hearing is distorted by the media (which includes the blog mob) and market thinking. It’s just like in The Matrix, where at some point a paradigm shift has happened and humans no longer control reality – their creations do. We can’t take back the control until… well, I’m not really sure.

There is a neat solution in the movie, what with a “One” that is predicted by an “Oracle.” But if Obama is some sort of “One” he is entirely at the mercy of this man-made juggernaut, just like everyone and everything else. He talks about changing politics. But that too is mediated by the destructiveness of the culture. If he  sees through to this bedrock problem I’m not sure he possesses a way to counter it – and until someone can we’ll continue to elect the least qualified and least human.

Maybe Barack knows Kung Fu.

Transcript of Barack’s denouncement of the Reverend Wright spectacle

Global Marshall Plan resolution introduced in Congress-H.Res. 1078 by Congressmen Keith Ellison, Emanuel Cleaver and Jim Moran March 10, 2008

Quote is from Tikkun Magazine Media Alert:

H.Res. 1078 calls for a return of the Marshall Plan. That plan was used by the U.S. in the post World War II years to rebuild Europe. It was celebrated as America’s most successful foreign policy program because it convinced Europeans that the U.S. was a reliable ally and friend.

This time, however, the target is both domestic and global. H. Res. 1078 calls for the U.S. to provide enough funding to eliminate global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education, inadequate health care, and repair of the environment.

Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the resolution’s sponsor, explained his introduction of the measure as a natural outgrowth of his concern for peace, prosperity for working families, environmental sustainability, and human rights.

“I believe a Global Marshall Plan offers a compelling framework for the Congress to consider reform and revitalization of our international public diplomacy and foreign aid,” Ellison said. “America is at its best when it demonstrates its generosity.

“When we see reminders everywhere of the costs of spending $12 billion per month on war in Iraq, I look forward to the conversations about changes in principles and priorities that this resolution will bring,” Ellison concluded.

“At a moment when General Petraeus is asking for another $110 billion for a deeply unpopular war, the Global Marshall Plan provides an alternative strategy for homeland security,” said Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun and chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, an organization that developed the Global Marshall Plan and which will now be launching a nationwide campaign to get the presidential candidates to support the idea.

“In the 21st century,” Rabbi Lerner pointed out, “our security and well-being depend on the well-being of everyone else on this planet, and on the well-being of the planet itself.”

……………..”We approach this initiative with a spirit of humility,” said Rabbi Lerner, “not only because of the legacy of colonialism, but because we can learn much from societies whose economic poverty does not signify a poverty of wisdom. Generosity of spirit as well as financial generosity are an integral part of our Global Marshall Plan, which we affirm not only because it is a central component in any plan to achieve “homeland security,” but also because it reflects our commitment to recognize every human being on this planet as equally valuable and deserving of care.” HR 1078 expresses the need for a similar humility in delivering support for the world’s poor.

Rabbi Lerner has called upon religious liberals and progressives (what the media calls “the Religious Left”) to call their Congressional representatives to explain why they should support the ideas behind the Global Marshall Plan.

The full text of H.Res. 1078 is available through the website of Congressman Keith Ellison, http://ellison.house.gov, and further comment can be obtained by calling 202-225-4755. Congressmen Ellison, Cleaver and Moran are all available for interviews on this topic. Rabbi Michael Lerner, who is directing the Network of Spiritual Progressives’ nation-wide campaign for the Global Marshall Plan, is also available for interviews. Call 1 510 644 1200 during business hours Pacific Daylight Time. Or by email: His scheduler Will Pasley: Will@Tikkun.org. You can also email RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org for media interviews, and David Hart for information about how churches, synagogues, mosques, ashrams, colleges, NGOs, civic organizations, social change movements, professional organizations and elected officials can be involved in this campaign: David@SpiritualProgressives.org. And you can endorse the GMP on line at www.tikkun.org (left-hand column) or read the full version at that same website, by clicking the GMP button in the Current Thinking section of the Home Page.

Sign an endorsement of the Global Marshall Plan at the Network of Spiritual Progressives:

http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20071220085221851

Well, something fundamental must have happened to cause Maureen Dowd to momentarily suspend her perpetual sneer at everyone and everything:

Black, White and Gray

What is that tone? Serious? Respectful? And the subject is a presidential candidate? I had to turn away from my computer and rub my eyes for a second to stop the vertigo.

Unfortunately she had to end the piece with her inevitable whiny jab (since no one really is good enough) — which, to top it off, was grounded not on her subject’s failings but the typical inattentive ignorance of press types like her:

Obama did not surrender his pedestal willingly. But he was finally confronted by a problem that neither his charm nor his grandiosity would solve.

He now admits that he had heard the Rev. Wright make “controversial” remarks in church, and that he had a “lapse of judgment” when he let the much-investigated Rezko curry favor by buying the plot of land next to his and selling a slice back so Obama could have a bigger yard. Newly alert to the perils of not seeming patriotic enough, he ended a speech in Pennsylvania the other morning with “God bless America!”

A little disenchantment with Obama could turn out to be a good thing. Too much idealism can blind a leader to reality as surely as too much ideology can.

Her position that he’s finally getting around to admitting some failings is simply based on false information. Obama said the very first time the issue of Rezko was brought up that he made a “boneheaded” choice — not because it was the wrong thing to do, but because he should have been sensitive to how it would appear to outsiders, like Dowd, without all the facts. And he has been saying the same thing ever since. Similarly, he has not contradicted himself about Rev. Wright; he has simply filled out the picture with all its human paradoxes. This kind of communication takes time. It is truly unfortunate that the press lives in a series of disconnected moments that cannot accommodate a narrative of this sort.

Just because a member of the press discovers something for the first time doesn’t mean it just happened for the first time. Ms. Dowd should be reminded that a column thesis can also be as blinding as ideology.

If you’re like me, someone you know is afraid you’re going to hell. They fret about it behind your back, for more hours than you’d care to speculate.

When friends wonder why religion is still an issue for me, since I apparently make meaning for my life without traditional religion, this is one reason. It is not that I have unresolved issues about my spirituality; it is because other people do.

Why do I care about other people? Because first of all, I wish I could stop their pain. No one would wish it upon their friends for someone close to them to be terminally ill, and this is how dogmatic Christians experience my difference in religion. I am tempted to pass myself off as believing as they do, just to put their minds at ease. (Indeed, I did pass myself off for this very reason in the early years of my life.)

But in the second place, I care because I am revolted by the idea of being mistaken for believing as they do. I am finished with people not knowing what I am; it is thoroughly against everything I do believe to misrepresent myself in such a way, and my integrity is worth far too much to me.

I care because I am determined to find a way of explaining myself that sets their minds at ease, but doesn’t leave me feeling in need of an anti-bacterial shower afterwards. I am certain there is a way of doing this.

Here is my most recent attempt — not great, but far more successful than the incoherent mutters I’ve been capable of to date. This conversation happened on Monday.

L: So do you consider yourself an atheist?

ME: By the definition of your religion, yes. By the definition of any conventional religion, yes. When I learn what your religion says of what I believe, I find it considers me an atheist. I would rather you called me that than think I believe as you do. But I don’t consider myself an atheist.

I don’t think religious belief is about being factually correct, it’s not about one group being right and one group being wrong.

L: But you believe the Bible is true?

ME: Yes, I believe it has truth in it of the most serious and important kind to people. But I don’t think it is true in the same way that a scientific fact is true. It’s not meant to be interpreted literally, it is symbolic language, it is symbolic language through and through. Your religion says interpreting it this way takes the seriousness out of it, but I disagree. I think when it is interpreted literally it loses any meaning it had, and is trivialized as well. Your religion says interpreting the Bible symbolically and metaphorically is atheism, and if that’s what you think, so be it. I think the reverse is true. When a person sets out to prove the content of the Bible in a scientific way and believes this somehow has any bearing on being religious, he has completely missed the point.

If the subject matter is a mystery, the ultimate mystery, how can the language be anything other than symbolic? How can it be specific and precise about something no one has seen yet? That is why it doesn’t sound like any language we use in every day life. It’s not about every day things.

That is how it can be that other religions are true also. Judaism has this same truth in it, Buddhism has this same truth in it. [I thought of mentioning Islam, but thought I better not to go there.] They function in the same way. They are different idioms.

L: But what about the after life, what about going to heaven?

ME: I have hope for the future. I am not preoccupied with life after death. I don’t think being religious can have a goal or be so tied to a guaranteed payoff for playing. The emphasis needs to be on the intensity and integrity with which we live now, because that takes all of our consciousness. To think that it’s possible to have a factual key that unlocks future paradise once and for all (and is exclusive to your tradition) is the most unreligious thing I can imagine.

L: Why did you say that about never hearing anything bad about atheists?

ME: The irony about atheists is that most of them are better people than most of the religious people I know. To them, there’s nothing else, so you better make the best of things here. Simple reason shows if you’re good to the people around you, they’ll be good to you. On the other hand, most religious people are religious for the sole purpose of appearing to be something they’re not, and to excuse the most evil behavior to their own conscience.

[On reflection, I could have differentiated between atheists, because the really dogmatic atheists are not any nicer than the really dogmatic religious people. But it would have only confused things. They don't know who Richard Dawkins is.]

L: What about the ones who think, there’s nothing after this, I might as well do whatever I want?

ME: But it doesn’t work that way. Sure, there may be a few like that, but the irony is that most atheists aren’t inordinately worse people than most religious people. Simple reason argues against it. Perhaps they have no reason to be really saintly people either, and that’s too bad. But they don’t go out and rape and kill just because they “can”. That’s the irony of it.

……………..

By this time my questioners had had enough light conversation. I was so nervous I bit a nail off and it bled; I’m pretty sure they felt I was bleeding because I was an atheist. But if I had done nothing to convince them, at least I had given some sense of the complexity of our differences. There was a certain relief in the air.