Americans have heard an awful lot of sales pitches from the Democratic Party to warrant the confirmation of the Senate healthcare bill, which recently passed into law in an historic and unprecedented vote. Historic because of the scope, and unprecedented because of the conniving manner in which the broadly unpopular bill found passage.
The most common theme in Democratic infomercials leading up to the vote was the assurance that the bill is designed as an attempt to reform insurance practice. But that just masks their true intention.
Propaganda campaigns in recent years have portrayed insurance companies as vampiric corporations that plot the demise of their policy holders for profit. Maligned as heartless villains that will not provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, insurance companies line their pockets with premium while the poor American people suffer unnecessarily. Obama’s plan will supposedly see to it that they reform their practices to run their insurance companies correctly and honestly, and that will solve all the problems.
But before we allow ourselves to believe that Obama’s goal is righting the wrongs of insurance companies, we should take a closer look at the practice of insurance.
Health insurance, like all insurance, is based on a gauge of probability called the “law of large numbers.” The stronger the likelihood someone will get sick, the higher the premium the person will pay.
Break this down to a base historical analogy. The insurance industry has roots in ancient Egypt, as people began to insure freight as it traveled on the Nile. If a merchant had cargo that he wanted to insure, any potential insurer must take into account many factors, including the cost of the cargo, natural phenomena like storms, distance traveled, and external factors like piracy. If a particular merchant was transporting a thousand pounds of gold 100 miles downriver, the insurer would require a large amount of money as incentive to insure the cargo.
Now ask this. Would it make sense to charge the same hefty premium to someone shipping a bag of clothes to the other side of the river?
Such is exactly what this healthcare bill offers. It will require that young Americans, who are less likely to get sick, pay higher premiums to compensate for mandatory reductions in premium to those who are more likely to get sick. This is the only way to compensate if there is to be any incentive to insure anyone, and it is entirely contrary to the idea of insurance.
Insurance companies cannot survive the government's plan, which by 2014 will disallow insurance companies to consider pre-existing conditions and mandate that health insurance be kept by all Americans. This will trigger a domino effect that will destroy private insurance.
Younger Americans will undoubtedly dislike paying increased premium for care that they do not receive. Yet this bill requires that they must have insurance, so they will have to go with the government plan. While insurance companies crumble without the offsets of younger policyholders, the government option will remain because it will not be hindered by such insurance constants as probability and profit margins. Profits and incentive to insure are trivial, because any financial shortfall in the government's plan can be reconciled by a seemingly endless pool of untaxed public revenue.
Insurance reform is not their aim. It is simply their expressed aim in the package they present to the public. This is because Americans tend to become tense when they hear the words, “universal” or “single-payer” healthcare. But “single-payer” healthcare is absolutely their goal.
And this should make Americans truly afraid. We have seen how such systems work. We have seen the fiscal drain on economies that employ them, and know about the necessity of rationing service and have heard about lengthy waiting periods for simple service.
Most Americans today like that their family’s health is more than just a number to healthcare providers, and enjoy quality service as a result of their payments. They shudder at the thought that one day a trip to the hospital could be remotely like a routine trip to the Post Office or DMV, where prominently cold, callous workers try to make it through the day, simply fulfilling their role as a government bureaucrat, stamping forms, and slowly processing the inconvenient requests of the masses.
But sadly this may be in America’s future, because this administration is cobbling the road to socialized medicine. They just choose less threatening verbiage and call it “reform.”
William Sullivan
Friday, March 19, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
To Democrats, dissent is no longer patriotism
America witnessed a tremor in the political landscape in 2009. We know it as the Tea Party movement, a grassroots response to resist massive federal expansion.
As federal oversight in the banking, insurance, auto, energy, and healthcare industries have all been flagship issues for this administration and its supporters, it comes as no surprise that the Tea Party movement has encountered fierce resistance. Since its inception one year ago, "tea partiers" have been razed by the news media. Liberal pundits across the networks ignored the substance and reasoning for the widespread protests, and rather made sophomoric jokes about “tea-bagging.” They made accusations of political lobbies "astroturfing," and stoked racial sensitivity by perpetuating a lack of minority participation to discredit the movement as a "whites-only" club. (1)
Even elected representatives showed contempt for the apparent disapproval of these constituents. Nancy Pelosi also called the movement “astroturf,” and reduced the protest attendees to little more than Neo-Nazi racists. (2)
With many loyal media outlets by their side, Democrats just plugged their ears, kept chanting their mantra, and hoped their negative slights against the tea partiers would drown out the loud voices of dissent. They could not have been more wrong.
In fact, the attacks may have helped the Tea Party's cause. Perhaps people noticed the movement more because, deep down, Americans knew that there was something incongruous about the Democrats’ blistering attacks upon the tea partiers. After all, the liberal establishment had spent the latter half of the Bush years peddling the slogan, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Then, in the very moment that this administration encountered opposition to its own proposed policy, dissent had lost its “patriotism” and had become the destructive plot of racists, insurance lobbyists, and ordinary people that are just too stupid to know what’s good for them.
Also ironic is that when prominent liberal Democrats like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy found themselves quoting this maxim with regularity, it was falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson with equal regularity. (3) They apparently felt that if the phrase could invoke the spirit of the founding fathers, it would legitimize their resistance to the Iraq War.
But the thing is, if the Democrats truly believed that the ideals of the founding fathers are the litmus test for legitimate dissent, they could not find the tea partiers’ cause more reasonable. Their argument today is remarkably similar to that of the American colonials in 1776. Largely comprised of taxpayers, today's tea partiers feel that they are facing the inevitable prospect of increased tax burdens, and that they lack the representation to avoid such intolerable mandates. But rather than seeing their dissent as patriotism, Democrats feel that the the Tea Party movement should be the subject of ridicule and scorn.
It seems that Democrats want to selectively choose when citizens should adhere to the doctrine of patriotic objection, and are willing to reshape the terms when convenient. One can’t help but draw a parallel to Orwell’s iconic interpretation of elitism and tyranny. In Animal Farm, we see a ruling party amend the principle “All animals are equal” to become “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” (4) It seems that upon encountering the inconvenient objections of the Tea Party, this Democratic administration also felt the need to amend its ideology, and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” has become “Objecting to George W. Bush was the highest form of patriotism, but in 2010, we should all just agree with hope and change."
William Sullivan
(1) http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100216095241.aspx
(2)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/05/pelosi_town_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas.html
(3)http://volokh.com/posts/1146554363.shtml
(4)http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html
As federal oversight in the banking, insurance, auto, energy, and healthcare industries have all been flagship issues for this administration and its supporters, it comes as no surprise that the Tea Party movement has encountered fierce resistance. Since its inception one year ago, "tea partiers" have been razed by the news media. Liberal pundits across the networks ignored the substance and reasoning for the widespread protests, and rather made sophomoric jokes about “tea-bagging.” They made accusations of political lobbies "astroturfing," and stoked racial sensitivity by perpetuating a lack of minority participation to discredit the movement as a "whites-only" club. (1)
Even elected representatives showed contempt for the apparent disapproval of these constituents. Nancy Pelosi also called the movement “astroturf,” and reduced the protest attendees to little more than Neo-Nazi racists. (2)
With many loyal media outlets by their side, Democrats just plugged their ears, kept chanting their mantra, and hoped their negative slights against the tea partiers would drown out the loud voices of dissent. They could not have been more wrong.
In fact, the attacks may have helped the Tea Party's cause. Perhaps people noticed the movement more because, deep down, Americans knew that there was something incongruous about the Democrats’ blistering attacks upon the tea partiers. After all, the liberal establishment had spent the latter half of the Bush years peddling the slogan, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Then, in the very moment that this administration encountered opposition to its own proposed policy, dissent had lost its “patriotism” and had become the destructive plot of racists, insurance lobbyists, and ordinary people that are just too stupid to know what’s good for them.
Also ironic is that when prominent liberal Democrats like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy found themselves quoting this maxim with regularity, it was falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson with equal regularity. (3) They apparently felt that if the phrase could invoke the spirit of the founding fathers, it would legitimize their resistance to the Iraq War.
But the thing is, if the Democrats truly believed that the ideals of the founding fathers are the litmus test for legitimate dissent, they could not find the tea partiers’ cause more reasonable. Their argument today is remarkably similar to that of the American colonials in 1776. Largely comprised of taxpayers, today's tea partiers feel that they are facing the inevitable prospect of increased tax burdens, and that they lack the representation to avoid such intolerable mandates. But rather than seeing their dissent as patriotism, Democrats feel that the the Tea Party movement should be the subject of ridicule and scorn.
It seems that Democrats want to selectively choose when citizens should adhere to the doctrine of patriotic objection, and are willing to reshape the terms when convenient. One can’t help but draw a parallel to Orwell’s iconic interpretation of elitism and tyranny. In Animal Farm, we see a ruling party amend the principle “All animals are equal” to become “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” (4) It seems that upon encountering the inconvenient objections of the Tea Party, this Democratic administration also felt the need to amend its ideology, and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” has become “Objecting to George W. Bush was the highest form of patriotism, but in 2010, we should all just agree with hope and change."
William Sullivan
(1) http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100216095241.aspx
(2)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/05/pelosi_town_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas.html
(3)http://volokh.com/posts/1146554363.shtml
(4)http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Barney Frank and the 60 Vote Rule
Barney Frank apparently fancies himself an advocate of democratic principles. Recently, he called the guidelines in the Senate “anti-democratic” for requiring 60 votes for bill passage, and suggests that an initiative be taken by Democratic senators to abolish the rule. His opinion is that the revision to lower the requirement from 67 votes to 60 was a good start, (1) so one can only assume that he would like for that threshold to be a strict majority, or 51 votes. Frank feels that this will alleviate the influence of roustabouts in the “smaller states” and diminish their role in a filibuster against a party in majority.
Barney Frank is calling for the abolition of this 60 vote rule under the guise of moral outrage and an adherence to democracy. But it is nothing more than a ploy to garner more control in Congress, and it has absolutely nothing to do with our system being “anti-democratic.”
This is obvious when we examine, for example, the healthcare reform package that his party supports. Barney Frank would argue that it should only require a majority vote in the Senate to initiate sweeping and costly healthcare reform. That would be “democratic.”
But this question looms. If he indeed values the precepts of democracy, why does he ignore the majority of Americans that have been much more prevalently against this healthcare bill? (2) This Senate majority has been blindly charging forward with their agenda in blatant spite of public opinion. By what logic is that acceptable within the guidelines of democracy?
For that matter, according to the most recent polls, the majority of Americans are against abortion, (3) despite the Democratic Party’s largely “pro-choice” agenda. Shall we ban abortions across the board because 51 percent of Americans feel it is wrong? The majority of Americans also persist in opposing gay marriage, (4) in clear opposition to Barney Frank’s obvious position in that arena. Shall we take the right to decide on this matter from the states and apply a federal ban on gay marriage because well more than 51 percent of Americans are against the practice?
With these issues, would Barney Frank stand firm with the democratic principles he claims to maintain, and support such large-scale reform on the basis of the majority? I would wager that he would not.
The fact is that Barney Frank is not truly an advocate of democracy. He is an advocate of his party’s agenda, and an advocate of any measures necessary to advance that agenda. In this case, he is just feigning a devotion to democracy to lower voting requirements, which will then allow Democrats pass their unpopular legislation without having to hide their backroom deals that grease politicians for those few extra votes.
No one knows better than Barney Frank that Americans are paying attention to Washington’s corruption and shady deals, and that they don’t like it. His home state just shouted its disapproval in an election.
William Sullivan
Houston, TX
1) http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
2) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
3) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
4) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx
Barney Frank is calling for the abolition of this 60 vote rule under the guise of moral outrage and an adherence to democracy. But it is nothing more than a ploy to garner more control in Congress, and it has absolutely nothing to do with our system being “anti-democratic.”
This is obvious when we examine, for example, the healthcare reform package that his party supports. Barney Frank would argue that it should only require a majority vote in the Senate to initiate sweeping and costly healthcare reform. That would be “democratic.”
But this question looms. If he indeed values the precepts of democracy, why does he ignore the majority of Americans that have been much more prevalently against this healthcare bill? (2) This Senate majority has been blindly charging forward with their agenda in blatant spite of public opinion. By what logic is that acceptable within the guidelines of democracy?
For that matter, according to the most recent polls, the majority of Americans are against abortion, (3) despite the Democratic Party’s largely “pro-choice” agenda. Shall we ban abortions across the board because 51 percent of Americans feel it is wrong? The majority of Americans also persist in opposing gay marriage, (4) in clear opposition to Barney Frank’s obvious position in that arena. Shall we take the right to decide on this matter from the states and apply a federal ban on gay marriage because well more than 51 percent of Americans are against the practice?
With these issues, would Barney Frank stand firm with the democratic principles he claims to maintain, and support such large-scale reform on the basis of the majority? I would wager that he would not.
The fact is that Barney Frank is not truly an advocate of democracy. He is an advocate of his party’s agenda, and an advocate of any measures necessary to advance that agenda. In this case, he is just feigning a devotion to democracy to lower voting requirements, which will then allow Democrats pass their unpopular legislation without having to hide their backroom deals that grease politicians for those few extra votes.
No one knows better than Barney Frank that Americans are paying attention to Washington’s corruption and shady deals, and that they don’t like it. His home state just shouted its disapproval in an election.
William Sullivan
Houston, TX
1) http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
2) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
3) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
4) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Will the Democrats Listen to the People or Prove Their Elitism
Scott Brown’s victory last night in Massachusetts has naturally set the political world abuzz. It’s not just that the republican win breaks the filibuster proof majority that the democrats held, but that it happened in a state where a republican senator hasn’t won an election since 1972. To add to the significance of this election is the well known fact that the seat Brown won was the same seat formerly occupied by the late Ted Kennedy. While Kennedy spent the majority of his career pushing for public healthcare, Brown made it a point in his campaign to say that he would be the 41st vote against this current healthcare bill. Had the republicans gained a senate seat in almost any other state, while being just as numerically important, it would not have sent the same overwhelming message that the Massachusetts victory did. The vast majority of the people in this country do not want the current healthcare bill to become law. The big question now is how will the democrats respond.
There is a great deal of speculation that the democrats will try to delay the swearing in of Brown in order to buy just enough time to mesh the senate and house healthcare bills together and get it to Obama before Brown’s vote can derail the bill. Another possibility is that the house would just accept the senate version of the bill, in which case the bill would never have to be sent back to the senate and would go straight to the president. Both of these strategies ignore the overwhelming will of the people and would prove the “elitist” mindset of the democratic party. This is a mindset comprised of the belief that those in power know what is better for the nation and its citizens than do the citizens themselves. This “elitist” mindset is a slap in the face of what the founders of this nation had in mind when this representative form of government was formed. The premise behind our political system is for members of congress to vote as their constituency would vote if such an issue went to a popular vote in said district or state. Brown’s victory wasn’t just a whisper but a shout from the people that they do not like the way the democratically controlled congress is currently doing their jobs, specifically when it comes to the issue of healthcare reform.
With many incumbent congressman up for re-election in November it is unlikely that the house will just pass the senate version of the bill, if only in the interest of self preservation. The two versions differ greatly with provisions in the senate bill that if had been included in the house bill would have guaranteed its defeat. The democrats have shown time and time again that they are willing to pay off or cater to certain individuals or groups (i.e. unions) just to get the votes they need for passage. So to expect a change from the left’s standard operating procedure might be too much to expect even in the face of almost certain political defeat in November. Many in the democratic party still see the healthcare bill as must pass whereas a few have come out and said that if the democratic party doesn’t pay attention then it is in real trouble. This is a real chance for the left to change their tone and begin to listen to the will of the people, but if they choose to ignore and dismiss what this election meant, then they are proving their “elitist” mindset.
Either way the next few weeks will be very telling as to the true nature of the democratic party.
Calvin Parker
There is a great deal of speculation that the democrats will try to delay the swearing in of Brown in order to buy just enough time to mesh the senate and house healthcare bills together and get it to Obama before Brown’s vote can derail the bill. Another possibility is that the house would just accept the senate version of the bill, in which case the bill would never have to be sent back to the senate and would go straight to the president. Both of these strategies ignore the overwhelming will of the people and would prove the “elitist” mindset of the democratic party. This is a mindset comprised of the belief that those in power know what is better for the nation and its citizens than do the citizens themselves. This “elitist” mindset is a slap in the face of what the founders of this nation had in mind when this representative form of government was formed. The premise behind our political system is for members of congress to vote as their constituency would vote if such an issue went to a popular vote in said district or state. Brown’s victory wasn’t just a whisper but a shout from the people that they do not like the way the democratically controlled congress is currently doing their jobs, specifically when it comes to the issue of healthcare reform.
With many incumbent congressman up for re-election in November it is unlikely that the house will just pass the senate version of the bill, if only in the interest of self preservation. The two versions differ greatly with provisions in the senate bill that if had been included in the house bill would have guaranteed its defeat. The democrats have shown time and time again that they are willing to pay off or cater to certain individuals or groups (i.e. unions) just to get the votes they need for passage. So to expect a change from the left’s standard operating procedure might be too much to expect even in the face of almost certain political defeat in November. Many in the democratic party still see the healthcare bill as must pass whereas a few have come out and said that if the democratic party doesn’t pay attention then it is in real trouble. This is a real chance for the left to change their tone and begin to listen to the will of the people, but if they choose to ignore and dismiss what this election meant, then they are proving their “elitist” mindset.
Either way the next few weeks will be very telling as to the true nature of the democratic party.
Calvin Parker
Monday, January 11, 2010
Oliver Stone to Breed New “Historians”
Seemingly, academic research or interpretation must be verified by the panels of Hollywood before it becomes valid, or “truth” for the public at large. Take, for example, the topic of anthropogenic global warming. The Hollywood elite largely propagandized the theory, and it was Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth that catapulted awareness of the topic, and validated the theory of global warming in American minds. Millions of climatologists were born overnight, ready to convince the deniers that Al Gore is right and any information to the contrary is propaganda by the oil companies and George Bush.
And now Oliver Stone, the unconventional mind that promoted the esoteric conspiracy that became film in JFK, is offering a “10-hour crash course in the history of the twentieth century,” (1) intended to wipe away conventional viewpoints of polarizing characters such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. And despite a focus largely comprised of non-Americans, he is to call it, “Oliver Stone’s Secret History of America.”
Among his assertions, he is to include the purposefully incendiary belief that Hitler is a fall-guy, too often used as a “scapegoat.” He challenges the widely kept opinion that Hitler was “evil,” though logic suggests that the stigma may be justified. After all, he was the figurehead of an aggressive regime that spearheaded a global conflict causing millions of deaths, and he was the architect of the most heinous and effective genocide in history.
But according to Stone, the average American’s choice to refer to Hitler as “bad or good” reflects a lack of sophistication, because Hitler was neither. He was simply the product of a series of events that occurred between World War I and World War II. And apparently, “people in America don’t know the connection.”(1) Either Oliver Stone feels that Americans are too uneducated to know about the events that shaped Hitler’s rise to power, or, more likely, he is taking the conspiracy theorist's approach, arguing that "the powers that be" have successfully covered up what they don't want you to know. And only Stone knows the “truth.”
It takes extraordinary egotism for Oliver Stone to claim that, seasoned only by a career of directing fictional films and attending Hollywood galas, he has achieved what lifelong historians and scholars have been entirely unable to do. Stone claims he has “been able to walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler's shoes,” (1) and apparently has unraveled the truth from the seamless web of historical lies that we have been universally duped to believe.
But rather than taking offense to Stone’s arrogance, or questioning why such revelations are coming from a filmmaker rather than a former CIA operative or something, many will likely just watch his “Secret History” and assimilate the selective disclosure and corruption of historical facts. And then they will lecture all of their friends about how the history books are wrong, and Oliver Stone is right.
Just as a viewing of An Inconvenient Truth conferred immediate and imaginary climatology degrees in the minds of its viewers, the “Secret History” will likely breed an entire mass of liberal “historians” ready to argue their cause, complete with outlandish conspiratorial perspectives about how conventional history has been fabricated by an enemy of the “truth.”
And frustratingly, they will think themselves well-versed scholars. But their understanding will probably have a hollow foundation, save only the viewing of a politically slanted film made by an egomaniac.
It will be familiar. But this time, not about “global warming.”
William Sullivan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/10/hitler-stalin-oliver-stone-history
And now Oliver Stone, the unconventional mind that promoted the esoteric conspiracy that became film in JFK, is offering a “10-hour crash course in the history of the twentieth century,” (1) intended to wipe away conventional viewpoints of polarizing characters such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. And despite a focus largely comprised of non-Americans, he is to call it, “Oliver Stone’s Secret History of America.”
Among his assertions, he is to include the purposefully incendiary belief that Hitler is a fall-guy, too often used as a “scapegoat.” He challenges the widely kept opinion that Hitler was “evil,” though logic suggests that the stigma may be justified. After all, he was the figurehead of an aggressive regime that spearheaded a global conflict causing millions of deaths, and he was the architect of the most heinous and effective genocide in history.
But according to Stone, the average American’s choice to refer to Hitler as “bad or good” reflects a lack of sophistication, because Hitler was neither. He was simply the product of a series of events that occurred between World War I and World War II. And apparently, “people in America don’t know the connection.”(1) Either Oliver Stone feels that Americans are too uneducated to know about the events that shaped Hitler’s rise to power, or, more likely, he is taking the conspiracy theorist's approach, arguing that "the powers that be" have successfully covered up what they don't want you to know. And only Stone knows the “truth.”
It takes extraordinary egotism for Oliver Stone to claim that, seasoned only by a career of directing fictional films and attending Hollywood galas, he has achieved what lifelong historians and scholars have been entirely unable to do. Stone claims he has “been able to walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler's shoes,” (1) and apparently has unraveled the truth from the seamless web of historical lies that we have been universally duped to believe.
But rather than taking offense to Stone’s arrogance, or questioning why such revelations are coming from a filmmaker rather than a former CIA operative or something, many will likely just watch his “Secret History” and assimilate the selective disclosure and corruption of historical facts. And then they will lecture all of their friends about how the history books are wrong, and Oliver Stone is right.
Just as a viewing of An Inconvenient Truth conferred immediate and imaginary climatology degrees in the minds of its viewers, the “Secret History” will likely breed an entire mass of liberal “historians” ready to argue their cause, complete with outlandish conspiratorial perspectives about how conventional history has been fabricated by an enemy of the “truth.”
And frustratingly, they will think themselves well-versed scholars. But their understanding will probably have a hollow foundation, save only the viewing of a politically slanted film made by an egomaniac.
It will be familiar. But this time, not about “global warming.”
William Sullivan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/10/hitler-stalin-oliver-stone-history
Monday, December 14, 2009
Tiger-love: Or How America Learned to Stop Thinking and Love Celebrity Gossip
Visit nearly any current event webpage today, and you will hear the same message. That Tiger Woods is an adulterer. That Tiger Woods is a very bad man. Recently, as the women step up to be counted among his mistresses, we are even hearing stories about him having crazy weekends blowing $40K in Vegas on huge drinking binges, and having his way with 10-15 woman at any one time. (1)
Now let’s take a step back and breathe, America, because it’s gone well past the point of ridiculous. What began as a simple celebrity affair has become more like a series of opulent orgy scenes from Caligula.
So I would just like to explain a few things. Call it a last-ditch effort before he’s implicated of some completely untrue bondage fetish and people really lose their minds about Tiger.
Yes, Tiger obviously cheated on his wife, and that’s bad. If he’s divorced, maybe he should give her the millions she’s entitled to according to their pre-nuptial agreement. And maybe his impeccable character was manufactured. But let’s be honest. To most golf fans, it might have well been an arranged marriage. To us, she wanted money and to be with the best golfer in the world. He wanted a smoking hot blonde wife. I didn’t think the relationship went too far past that, and if it did, we didn’t need to know.
But in the wake of the recent news, American women are claiming some kind of curious affinity to Elin Nordegren, the victim housewife who was wronged, although they know nothing about her and her lifestyle is anything but something the common woman can relate to.
Even more curious, the public is all too eager to start casting stones at Tiger. The dreadful hypocrisy here is that the same people that crucify Tiger as a whore are viciously defending the whores he allegedly had sex with, even to the point of vocally supporting them in litigation against Tiger. Why? Do the American people really think Tiger took some kind of precious innocence from the loose women that are coming forward, who “maybe” had sex with him and are now chomping at the bit to publicize that fact and take his money?
Maybe. Or maybe these Americans want to see Tiger punished so badly that they'll claim a moral alignment with the likes of these cocktail waitresses, escorts, porn stars, or worst of all, would-be reality television divas.
And as ridiculous as that is, many Americans will never get past it. That is because most Americans have attention spans that can be measured in microseconds, and celebrity gossip-hounds are the worst. Therefore, most people won’t take the time to think anything other than the message they hear on the news: that Tiger is a real bad guy, a sex-fiend and adulterer. And I fear he will never win a spot in their good graces again.
But to the sports fans that are not yet a lost cause buried in a sea of TMZ, and whose evening schedules are not contingent on the progress of American Idol: let’s compare him to other athletes for a moment.
If he were single, would this even be an issue? No, probably not. So his marriage is the spark inciting most of the public rage. However, we know of numerous baseball and football players that are well-known for this kind of activity, and yet they are not nearly as vilified by the media. Furthermore, baseball players who allegedly took steroids have more peace of mind than Tiger, and Tiger’s crimes have nothing to do with his sport; it’s entirely personal.
So let him work out his personal life, either by repairing the marriage and moving on, or by a divorce and a fiscal pounding. And let him play some golf for God’s sake, without condemnation campaigns from the soulless media trying to get rich from his tragic fall. He is not a celebrity because he is a beacon of moderation or morality, though some people chose to paint him that way and even Tiger himself embraced that image. He is a celebrity because he is quite possibly the best golfer to ever live, and these are the years where he can take the "quite possibly" out of this sentence forever.
Golf needs Tiger Woods on the PGA Tour. And don’t worry, he’ll still have legions of fans. They’ll just be less fickle and judgmental, and will simply appreciate his contribution to the sport rather than gawk at the fact that he is super-rich and in the sacred media limelight. And that’s going to have to be enough for him.
William Sullivan
Houston, TX
(1) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2768606/Madam-claims-Tiger-Woods-paid-for-escorts.html
Now let’s take a step back and breathe, America, because it’s gone well past the point of ridiculous. What began as a simple celebrity affair has become more like a series of opulent orgy scenes from Caligula.
So I would just like to explain a few things. Call it a last-ditch effort before he’s implicated of some completely untrue bondage fetish and people really lose their minds about Tiger.
Yes, Tiger obviously cheated on his wife, and that’s bad. If he’s divorced, maybe he should give her the millions she’s entitled to according to their pre-nuptial agreement. And maybe his impeccable character was manufactured. But let’s be honest. To most golf fans, it might have well been an arranged marriage. To us, she wanted money and to be with the best golfer in the world. He wanted a smoking hot blonde wife. I didn’t think the relationship went too far past that, and if it did, we didn’t need to know.
But in the wake of the recent news, American women are claiming some kind of curious affinity to Elin Nordegren, the victim housewife who was wronged, although they know nothing about her and her lifestyle is anything but something the common woman can relate to.
Even more curious, the public is all too eager to start casting stones at Tiger. The dreadful hypocrisy here is that the same people that crucify Tiger as a whore are viciously defending the whores he allegedly had sex with, even to the point of vocally supporting them in litigation against Tiger. Why? Do the American people really think Tiger took some kind of precious innocence from the loose women that are coming forward, who “maybe” had sex with him and are now chomping at the bit to publicize that fact and take his money?
Maybe. Or maybe these Americans want to see Tiger punished so badly that they'll claim a moral alignment with the likes of these cocktail waitresses, escorts, porn stars, or worst of all, would-be reality television divas.
And as ridiculous as that is, many Americans will never get past it. That is because most Americans have attention spans that can be measured in microseconds, and celebrity gossip-hounds are the worst. Therefore, most people won’t take the time to think anything other than the message they hear on the news: that Tiger is a real bad guy, a sex-fiend and adulterer. And I fear he will never win a spot in their good graces again.
But to the sports fans that are not yet a lost cause buried in a sea of TMZ, and whose evening schedules are not contingent on the progress of American Idol: let’s compare him to other athletes for a moment.
If he were single, would this even be an issue? No, probably not. So his marriage is the spark inciting most of the public rage. However, we know of numerous baseball and football players that are well-known for this kind of activity, and yet they are not nearly as vilified by the media. Furthermore, baseball players who allegedly took steroids have more peace of mind than Tiger, and Tiger’s crimes have nothing to do with his sport; it’s entirely personal.
So let him work out his personal life, either by repairing the marriage and moving on, or by a divorce and a fiscal pounding. And let him play some golf for God’s sake, without condemnation campaigns from the soulless media trying to get rich from his tragic fall. He is not a celebrity because he is a beacon of moderation or morality, though some people chose to paint him that way and even Tiger himself embraced that image. He is a celebrity because he is quite possibly the best golfer to ever live, and these are the years where he can take the "quite possibly" out of this sentence forever.
Golf needs Tiger Woods on the PGA Tour. And don’t worry, he’ll still have legions of fans. They’ll just be less fickle and judgmental, and will simply appreciate his contribution to the sport rather than gawk at the fact that he is super-rich and in the sacred media limelight. And that’s going to have to be enough for him.
William Sullivan
Houston, TX
(1) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2768606/Madam-claims-Tiger-Woods-paid-for-escorts.html
Monday, December 7, 2009
Al Gore: Environmentalist, Politician... Poet?
Step aside Shakespeare, Whitman, and Dickinson. Embrace the work of the prophet and Savior, Al Gore.
One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun
Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve
Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly
Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration
Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups
Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung
The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools (1)
It's a very pleasing poem to the global warming advocate, and your average English undergrad may even find it pleasing to the ear, delighted that such language is still used. The problem is, it’s not a very good poem. It lacks depth, is utterly blatant, and unjustifiably implies parity with classical poetry. As for its substance, its purpose is the same as his film's: to scare the hell out of people about global warming.
Yet Gore is somehow collecting idiotic accolades. Mark Hetzgaard, from Vanity Fair, praises him for his contribution, saying of Mr. Gore’s poetic lines: they are visually specific and emotionally arresting even as they are scientifically accurate. (2)
Mr. Hetzgaard should impart his Vanity Fair wisdom about what is so "scientifically accurate" about this poem. It seems much more like a collection of outcomes to an outlandish doomsday prophecy, every bit as "scientific" as the Book of Revelations.
Even more frustrating, of the final stanza, Mr. Hetzgaard has this to say: "Is Gore himself that shepherd? No matter. What counts is that the hour of choosing has indeed arrived." Mr. Hetzgaard can delude himself about the intention, but Al Gore most certainly likens himself to a shepherd in the final stanza, warning his flock about the coming disaster. It is difficult to cast aside his egotism, and even harder to ignore his use of the allegorical "shepherd" imagery to establish himself as a Christ-like figure. But if we push these criticisms of his arrogance aside, we can approach the "scientific accuracy" of his predictions with one question that Mr. Gore repeatedly ignores:
If his predictions are “scientifically accurate,” then why is there a schism in the scientific community between those who believe in anthropogenic global warming and those who believe in naturalistic climate change? There is a consortium of scientists saying that changes in anthropogenic activity will have little effect on future climate patterns. Since the "science" is in contention, perhaps rather than saying Gore is "scientifically accurate," Mr. Hetzgaard would be more truthful to relate that "Mr. Gore is scientifically accurate according to the science that he and I subscribe to."
This poem has little literary value and no scientific merit whatsoever, and should be referenced only as a piece of propaganda espousing man-made global warming. It merely provides a picture of the elaborate Armageddon of the environmentalist's Faith. Given that global warming alarmism is the creed of choice for many liberal arts patrons, I will not be surprised when Gore claims a Pulitzer.
But Gore’s poem is brilliant in one specific way, insofar as his intent. He seems as if he’s channeling masterful poets, almost as if written in emulation of classical poetry. This is evident in William Petrocelli’s account in the Huffington Post. In an effort to receive self-validation, Gore jovially suggested to his editor that William Butler Yeats had written the poem to see if it was believable. (1) He even references Poseidon, god of the sea, in his Roman name of Neptune. Invoking historical gods of the Greeks is a common theme in classical poetry, and this reference's unnecessary inclusion is meant to give the poet the credibility of a well-read author. This way, if Gore’s poem is negatively critiqued, Gore and his supporters can just say that the naysayer is too unsophisticated and uneducated to understand the value of it.
So Gore will know well how to spin any criticism. After all, he is highly experienced in admonishing cynics as ignorant primitives; it has been his one and only response to those who challenge his ideas on anthropogenic global warming.
William Sullivan
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/als-poem_b_363065.html
2) http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html
One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun
Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve
Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly
Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration
Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups
Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung
The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools (1)
It's a very pleasing poem to the global warming advocate, and your average English undergrad may even find it pleasing to the ear, delighted that such language is still used. The problem is, it’s not a very good poem. It lacks depth, is utterly blatant, and unjustifiably implies parity with classical poetry. As for its substance, its purpose is the same as his film's: to scare the hell out of people about global warming.
Yet Gore is somehow collecting idiotic accolades. Mark Hetzgaard, from Vanity Fair, praises him for his contribution, saying of Mr. Gore’s poetic lines: they are visually specific and emotionally arresting even as they are scientifically accurate. (2)
Mr. Hetzgaard should impart his Vanity Fair wisdom about what is so "scientifically accurate" about this poem. It seems much more like a collection of outcomes to an outlandish doomsday prophecy, every bit as "scientific" as the Book of Revelations.
Even more frustrating, of the final stanza, Mr. Hetzgaard has this to say: "Is Gore himself that shepherd? No matter. What counts is that the hour of choosing has indeed arrived." Mr. Hetzgaard can delude himself about the intention, but Al Gore most certainly likens himself to a shepherd in the final stanza, warning his flock about the coming disaster. It is difficult to cast aside his egotism, and even harder to ignore his use of the allegorical "shepherd" imagery to establish himself as a Christ-like figure. But if we push these criticisms of his arrogance aside, we can approach the "scientific accuracy" of his predictions with one question that Mr. Gore repeatedly ignores:
If his predictions are “scientifically accurate,” then why is there a schism in the scientific community between those who believe in anthropogenic global warming and those who believe in naturalistic climate change? There is a consortium of scientists saying that changes in anthropogenic activity will have little effect on future climate patterns. Since the "science" is in contention, perhaps rather than saying Gore is "scientifically accurate," Mr. Hetzgaard would be more truthful to relate that "Mr. Gore is scientifically accurate according to the science that he and I subscribe to."
This poem has little literary value and no scientific merit whatsoever, and should be referenced only as a piece of propaganda espousing man-made global warming. It merely provides a picture of the elaborate Armageddon of the environmentalist's Faith. Given that global warming alarmism is the creed of choice for many liberal arts patrons, I will not be surprised when Gore claims a Pulitzer.
But Gore’s poem is brilliant in one specific way, insofar as his intent. He seems as if he’s channeling masterful poets, almost as if written in emulation of classical poetry. This is evident in William Petrocelli’s account in the Huffington Post. In an effort to receive self-validation, Gore jovially suggested to his editor that William Butler Yeats had written the poem to see if it was believable. (1) He even references Poseidon, god of the sea, in his Roman name of Neptune. Invoking historical gods of the Greeks is a common theme in classical poetry, and this reference's unnecessary inclusion is meant to give the poet the credibility of a well-read author. This way, if Gore’s poem is negatively critiqued, Gore and his supporters can just say that the naysayer is too unsophisticated and uneducated to understand the value of it.
So Gore will know well how to spin any criticism. After all, he is highly experienced in admonishing cynics as ignorant primitives; it has been his one and only response to those who challenge his ideas on anthropogenic global warming.
William Sullivan
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/als-poem_b_363065.html
2) http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
