A Congressman screams, “You lie!” to the President during a Joint Session of Congress, and then ends up raising millions for his re-election campaign. It seems the weighty days when a shoe thrown at the President would get one tortured in an Iraqi prison are long gone. Now people get rewarded for their impropriety.
The groundswell of support for Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) within and outside of his district is worrying. People are not necessarily reacting to the issue that Wilson found so objectionable – the inclusion of undocumented immigrants into the health care bill – but are simply objecting to the changes proposed by the administration. The fact that a proportion of the populace believes that Obama is both a fascist and communist, and so want to “take back America” is bewildering. When did we Americans become so scared of change? Why are people so determined to defend the status quo on issues like health care, carbon taxes and education?
It may be that many people remain distressed being led by an African-American President. I think it is that we have become too comfortable and that we are scared of losing the little that we have amassed.
How did Americans become so complacent that we fear change?
It would seem we were not always like this. The powerhouse duo behind ABBA, created the musical Kristina fran Duvamala in 1995. A hit in Sweden, the show has recently been translated to English and a concert version was performed at Carnegie Hall for two nights in September. A Swedish village impacted by drought displaces to the American mid-west in search of a new life and potential prosperity. This is the classic American tale re-told through a Scandinavian lens – immigration, adventure, and re-settlement in a brave new world.
The music is archetypal Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus, with swelling choruses and catchy melodies enchantingly supported in the starring role by the songbird Helen Sjoholm – the voice of Agnetha Faltskog reincarnated. The show is a rousing reminder of how this country was established one family at a time. The protagonist, Kristina, crosses the oceans; establishes a homestead, rears eight children (losing one to sickness) and dies of fever in the end. The concept of picking up one’s life and livelihood and re-establishing in a new land seems so foreign now. No one takes those kinds of risks today – but almost every family in the US is descended from individuals who did precisely this.
Memphis: The Musical, opened on Broadway, yesterday on Monday, October 19. A fictional story of radio announcers from the time, it tells the story of a poor white boy (Huey Calhoun) who falls in love with R&B music and tries to introduce it to the mainstream despite the inherent prejudices of the society. Set in the 1950’s, Huey eventually gains broader (i.e. white people’s) appreciation for music that mostly was heard in speakeasy’s and “colored” bars around Memphis, but then loses it all when he is unwilling to play the politics of the music industry.
Set to the swaying and heart-pumping songs of the period, the show demands the audience’s reckoning of a racist US society, and the recognition that greatness can rise above discrimination. This is another great American story – the scrappy entrepreneur fights against insurmountable odds to gain success and fame for him and those who deserve it. The understanding that this person could lose everything at any point in the process is inherent. We innately accept the premise that high-risk is correlated to high-reward – it is interwoven into our story-telling.
Americans used to be the innovators, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs. Europeans were the stodgy ones – the “old world” where the society never changed. After five decades of being mass-marketed to, plied with designer names, and provided every creature comfort, we have ended up just as risk-averse. We like what we have now – it may not be perfect – but better than not having anything. No desire to upset the apple-cart – even though half of the produce has gone bad.
We know that risky policy adventures may lead to great outcomes, but we have become more concerned about the downside of change than the potential upside. In some sense, we are outsourcing attempts at these new ventures to countries more willing to take the calculated risks and not so complacent about their position in the world – India, China, and Brazil.
Perhaps we can listen again to the tales that founded this country and take a chance on the President’s bold moves. What do we really have to lose?
October 20, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Some thoughts on… Transparency
An electrifying young President sweeps into office promising change. He institutes broad legislation in the first few months of tenure. He moves mountains and the Hill stands in awe. Yet, one piece of legislation bogs him down, expends his political capital and stalls future change. Bill Clinton stalled on Gays in the Military – society was not ready.
Will Obama falter the same way with Health Care?
Fevered town hall meetings, Democrats refusing to fall in line, alarming allegations of “death panels” from Sarah Palin – it has become the intractable issue of the administration. Propping up failed banks, breaking apart GM, stabilizing the economy – are all Lilliputian tasks compared to the healthcare quagmire. Even the passing of Sen. Edward Kennedy may not be enough to rally politicians around this critical issue.
With Congress and the President on vacation, the issue will play out after Labor Day, a good chance for us to reflect on why the White House is losing this war.
Everyone recognizes the need. First, it is irresponsible for a developed society not to provide basic health care as a primary right for its inhabitants. Second, the current system is untenable with health care costs consuming a huge part of the nation’s GDP – resources that could potentially be used for other causes – primary school education, medical research, or climate control. So why are people so scared to implement this change when the need is so apparent?
Neill Blomkamp’s film District 9 is an electrifying portrayal of a society at odds with its own residents. An alien space ship docks above Johannesburg, filled with a derelict extra-terrestrial populace that eventually take up residence in the slums of the city. Shot on-location in Soweto, the allegory of the apartheid era is front and center. The citizens of Jo-burg – both black and white – allow the foreigners to reside initially but then turn against them. The aliens’ otherness is exploited by a multi-national corporation, reviled by humans, and forgotten by the government.
The human citizenry is unwilling to extend any rights or dignities to the strangers. They are essentially left to fend for themselves; cordoned off from the rest of the populace by high walls and barbed wire. Drawn in such stark contrast, the despicability of the act is apparent, and yet the analogy to our current circumstance becomes even more deplorable. Despite the fact that aliens almost look like humans, as a society we are willing to create a second class of citizens who are allowed to live amongst us, but for whom we choose not to expend our own money to afford the same rights.
Torchwood: The Children of Earth, the third in a series of BBC shows describes a covert quasi-government team that watch over a space-time rift in Cardiff, Wales. A spin-off from the show Doctor Who, the latest installment finds the Torchwood group resisting an invasion by extra-terrestrial creatures who demand a fraction of the planet’s children. The aliens’ plot is aided by the highest levels of government who make the trade-off in order to prevent a virus being unleashed on all the people of the world.
The story characterizes society’s ethical options when weighing one evil against another. The choices are not easy and no answer is “correct”. In the show, the government decides to sacrifice the poorer and less-educated children in the country, rather than make a random allocation across all strata. The answer is reprehensible to some and acceptable to others, but where the government universally falters is by making the choices covertly. The secrecy engenders distrust, and the purposeful distractions by the government reinforce the suspicion.
Given the sweeping regulatory changes that have taken place in the past few months, with health care the country may be saying it is too much to digest in one go. This is something that people need time to process. We know there is an inherent reluctance to extend healthcare to portions of the population that some consider are either undeserving or believe will unnecessarily usurp resources.
Building on the reluctance, there is wide-spread distrust in a government program making decisions around health care provision –whether it be end of life choices or basic preventive care. People are worried that they won’t be able to get the care they want. In any legislated program, there will need to be some choices – an elderly alcoholic with cirrhosis should not be given a new liver, when that money can be used to purchase free Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines for children. So are there similar choices hidden within this bill?
Our charming 70-year old, libertarian host at a B&B in Callistoga, CA expressed both issues quite simply. She is a hard-working lady who raised five children, cares about public service and came from a working class background. Her worry was that extending services to a broader population would only lead to a waste of her tax-payer resources on unnecessary procedures.
The administration is faltering because it is not addressing these two concerns of the populace. First, why it is critical to extend primary care benefits to the entire population and second, what implications this would have on the care being provided to people who are covered today. Similar to how Obama described the implications of his tax changes, i.e. people who make less than $250,000 will not see there taxes increase, he needs to make some clear and incisive statements on the implications of this legislation.
The sheer size of the bill – H.R. 3200 – which is over 1000 pages does not make it any easier to understand the two issues. The nation is asking for some clear answers, transparency around the decision-making and some time to digest. Let’s provide this and get this important bill passed.
August 30, 2009
Will Obama falter the same way with Health Care?
Fevered town hall meetings, Democrats refusing to fall in line, alarming allegations of “death panels” from Sarah Palin – it has become the intractable issue of the administration. Propping up failed banks, breaking apart GM, stabilizing the economy – are all Lilliputian tasks compared to the healthcare quagmire. Even the passing of Sen. Edward Kennedy may not be enough to rally politicians around this critical issue.
With Congress and the President on vacation, the issue will play out after Labor Day, a good chance for us to reflect on why the White House is losing this war.
Everyone recognizes the need. First, it is irresponsible for a developed society not to provide basic health care as a primary right for its inhabitants. Second, the current system is untenable with health care costs consuming a huge part of the nation’s GDP – resources that could potentially be used for other causes – primary school education, medical research, or climate control. So why are people so scared to implement this change when the need is so apparent?
Neill Blomkamp’s film District 9 is an electrifying portrayal of a society at odds with its own residents. An alien space ship docks above Johannesburg, filled with a derelict extra-terrestrial populace that eventually take up residence in the slums of the city. Shot on-location in Soweto, the allegory of the apartheid era is front and center. The citizens of Jo-burg – both black and white – allow the foreigners to reside initially but then turn against them. The aliens’ otherness is exploited by a multi-national corporation, reviled by humans, and forgotten by the government.
The human citizenry is unwilling to extend any rights or dignities to the strangers. They are essentially left to fend for themselves; cordoned off from the rest of the populace by high walls and barbed wire. Drawn in such stark contrast, the despicability of the act is apparent, and yet the analogy to our current circumstance becomes even more deplorable. Despite the fact that aliens almost look like humans, as a society we are willing to create a second class of citizens who are allowed to live amongst us, but for whom we choose not to expend our own money to afford the same rights.
Torchwood: The Children of Earth, the third in a series of BBC shows describes a covert quasi-government team that watch over a space-time rift in Cardiff, Wales. A spin-off from the show Doctor Who, the latest installment finds the Torchwood group resisting an invasion by extra-terrestrial creatures who demand a fraction of the planet’s children. The aliens’ plot is aided by the highest levels of government who make the trade-off in order to prevent a virus being unleashed on all the people of the world.
The story characterizes society’s ethical options when weighing one evil against another. The choices are not easy and no answer is “correct”. In the show, the government decides to sacrifice the poorer and less-educated children in the country, rather than make a random allocation across all strata. The answer is reprehensible to some and acceptable to others, but where the government universally falters is by making the choices covertly. The secrecy engenders distrust, and the purposeful distractions by the government reinforce the suspicion.
Given the sweeping regulatory changes that have taken place in the past few months, with health care the country may be saying it is too much to digest in one go. This is something that people need time to process. We know there is an inherent reluctance to extend healthcare to portions of the population that some consider are either undeserving or believe will unnecessarily usurp resources.
Building on the reluctance, there is wide-spread distrust in a government program making decisions around health care provision –whether it be end of life choices or basic preventive care. People are worried that they won’t be able to get the care they want. In any legislated program, there will need to be some choices – an elderly alcoholic with cirrhosis should not be given a new liver, when that money can be used to purchase free Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines for children. So are there similar choices hidden within this bill?
Our charming 70-year old, libertarian host at a B&B in Callistoga, CA expressed both issues quite simply. She is a hard-working lady who raised five children, cares about public service and came from a working class background. Her worry was that extending services to a broader population would only lead to a waste of her tax-payer resources on unnecessary procedures.
The administration is faltering because it is not addressing these two concerns of the populace. First, why it is critical to extend primary care benefits to the entire population and second, what implications this would have on the care being provided to people who are covered today. Similar to how Obama described the implications of his tax changes, i.e. people who make less than $250,000 will not see there taxes increase, he needs to make some clear and incisive statements on the implications of this legislation.
The sheer size of the bill – H.R. 3200 – which is over 1000 pages does not make it any easier to understand the two issues. The nation is asking for some clear answers, transparency around the decision-making and some time to digest. Let’s provide this and get this important bill passed.
August 30, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Some thoughts on… In Memoriam
Michael Jackson’s death may be the first truly global event of the century. Other milestones come close, like 9/11 or the death of the pope, but it seems almost every household in the world felt they knew Michael Jackson, through either his music or his moves. Radio stations replayed his music, newspapers reflected on his style, and people from all walks of life paid tribute. Perhaps this is a reflection of the ubiquity of pop-culture, but it is hopefully an indication of his singular talent which was able to inspire cultures and countries across the globe.
But no one can deny that he had notoriety surrounding him as well – lamas and chimps on his lavish Neverland estate; allegations of pedophilia; finances that placed him on the verge of bankruptcy; a constantly evolving facial construction. As anyone who has experienced loss knows, our remembrances of people are mixed. So, what will we remember of the King of Pop? Perhaps pop culture can provide some insights.
The tony-award winning musical, Next to Normal, bedevils in its portrayal of a typical family plunged into incoherence by the death of a relative. The characters attempt to support each other, but the overwhelming memory of the loss consumes them alive. The music is soaring and searing, a refreshing jolt back to the early days of Rent. One can hope that the show remains driven by its strong voices and insightful lyrics rather than jarring instrumentation and overacting to which Rent later devolved.
Memory is a vivid character in the show interweaving into day to day activities. Interacting with these remembrances, the characters confront their prejudices of each other leaving little room for caution. Resolution may not arrive in a neat and tidy bow, but the angelic revelation is clear – we need to remember and recognize our grief in order to overcome it. Trying to erase painful memories only leads to other losses.
Recently re-watching Ian McKellen as aging director James Whale in Gods and Monsters, I recalled why I admire Brendan Fraser. The interaction between the characters is a touching portrait of a platonic friendship between lonely souls – one gay and one straight; a relationship combination we rarely see on the screen.
Near the end of his life, McKellen’s character is jarred by reminiscences of a disapproving family, lost love, and the glories of by-gone days. Fraser is a blue-collar aesthete with an Adonis-like physique, whose sensitivity awakens the memories. He plays the role without campiness allowing the viewer to believe the trauma faced by Whale. In the movie, memories are not active characters, but are the background sets providing context for the choices made in life. By erupting at random points, the recollections divulge the answers for past and future actions of the characters.
Pixar has done it again with their new film – Up. The movie holds true to the title, lifting the spirit of its viewers through a frothy mix of morality tale, unprecedented 3-D graphics and rollicking, adventure story. The camaraderie between a crotchety– widower and a bulbous boy-scout seeking approval heals both their wounds. With the loss of his wife, the older man has forgotten how to interact with the world. He literally holds on to her memories even though they want to fly away. The un-ending optimism of the youth is what allows him to release the weight from his shoulders and engage in the adventure surrounding him. As with many Pixar movies, especially this one, go see this with a parent or relative over 65 – the subtle messaging somehow unfolds even more elegantly.
With anyone we have lost or will lose in our lives, their past foibles will be memories that constantly recur. We can not choose what we remember – sometimes the images come at you at the oddest times – a hint of music, the smell of cooking, the color of a leaf But, we can choose to view these shortcomings as the context for circumstances they faced and the decisions they made. Choices and situations we all must confront.
The trick with these unpleasant memories is not to forget or deny them, but to face them for what they are – the mistakes of mortal, human beings. Once we can place them in context, then it is easier to let them float away like a house strapped to thousands of multi-colored balloons.
.
So with Michael Jackson, despite lingering doubts of interaction with children, I’ll remember the bell quality of his voice on “She’s Out of My Life”, his MoonDance to Billie Jean, and the departing words of his 11-year old daughter, “Daddy has been the best father I can ever imagine, and I love him so much”.
July 11, 2009
But no one can deny that he had notoriety surrounding him as well – lamas and chimps on his lavish Neverland estate; allegations of pedophilia; finances that placed him on the verge of bankruptcy; a constantly evolving facial construction. As anyone who has experienced loss knows, our remembrances of people are mixed. So, what will we remember of the King of Pop? Perhaps pop culture can provide some insights.
The tony-award winning musical, Next to Normal, bedevils in its portrayal of a typical family plunged into incoherence by the death of a relative. The characters attempt to support each other, but the overwhelming memory of the loss consumes them alive. The music is soaring and searing, a refreshing jolt back to the early days of Rent. One can hope that the show remains driven by its strong voices and insightful lyrics rather than jarring instrumentation and overacting to which Rent later devolved.
Memory is a vivid character in the show interweaving into day to day activities. Interacting with these remembrances, the characters confront their prejudices of each other leaving little room for caution. Resolution may not arrive in a neat and tidy bow, but the angelic revelation is clear – we need to remember and recognize our grief in order to overcome it. Trying to erase painful memories only leads to other losses.
Recently re-watching Ian McKellen as aging director James Whale in Gods and Monsters, I recalled why I admire Brendan Fraser. The interaction between the characters is a touching portrait of a platonic friendship between lonely souls – one gay and one straight; a relationship combination we rarely see on the screen.
Near the end of his life, McKellen’s character is jarred by reminiscences of a disapproving family, lost love, and the glories of by-gone days. Fraser is a blue-collar aesthete with an Adonis-like physique, whose sensitivity awakens the memories. He plays the role without campiness allowing the viewer to believe the trauma faced by Whale. In the movie, memories are not active characters, but are the background sets providing context for the choices made in life. By erupting at random points, the recollections divulge the answers for past and future actions of the characters.
Pixar has done it again with their new film – Up. The movie holds true to the title, lifting the spirit of its viewers through a frothy mix of morality tale, unprecedented 3-D graphics and rollicking, adventure story. The camaraderie between a crotchety– widower and a bulbous boy-scout seeking approval heals both their wounds. With the loss of his wife, the older man has forgotten how to interact with the world. He literally holds on to her memories even though they want to fly away. The un-ending optimism of the youth is what allows him to release the weight from his shoulders and engage in the adventure surrounding him. As with many Pixar movies, especially this one, go see this with a parent or relative over 65 – the subtle messaging somehow unfolds even more elegantly.
With anyone we have lost or will lose in our lives, their past foibles will be memories that constantly recur. We can not choose what we remember – sometimes the images come at you at the oddest times – a hint of music, the smell of cooking, the color of a leaf But, we can choose to view these shortcomings as the context for circumstances they faced and the decisions they made. Choices and situations we all must confront.
The trick with these unpleasant memories is not to forget or deny them, but to face them for what they are – the mistakes of mortal, human beings. Once we can place them in context, then it is easier to let them float away like a house strapped to thousands of multi-colored balloons.
.
So with Michael Jackson, despite lingering doubts of interaction with children, I’ll remember the bell quality of his voice on “She’s Out of My Life”, his MoonDance to Billie Jean, and the departing words of his 11-year old daughter, “Daddy has been the best father I can ever imagine, and I love him so much”.
July 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)