Dick Cheney speaks the truth, if you will...

What is Dick Cheney’s intent when he so frequently uses the term, “if you will,” under tough questioning by a reporter?

By now most of us have figured out that the former Vice President is attempting to make his firmly stated response seem like a bona fide truth that should be accepted because it is so obvious to him and now should be to you. At the very least, it is pretentious use of our good language. The phrase is insulting, sounds downright phony and is just plain irritating to the ear.

What does he really mean when he says, “America is safer because we used torture, if you will, during the 8 years of the Bush 43 administration.” He is really saying, “America is safer because we used torture, if you will permit me to lie to you again…“

The next time you hear Dick Cheney use “if you will” during any public discussion, silently add “…permit me to lie” after he says the phrase and you will quickly see the true meaning of “Cheneyspeak.” Example: “The Constitution was held sacrosanct, if you will (permit me to lie) during the Bush Administration.”

Surely we had early clues to his true intent when we heard him say, “The insurgency is in its last throes, if you will…” Or, “…the dark side, if you will.”

One rarely sees “if you will” in print. It is almost always reserved for conversation and generally when the person is attempting to refute some point that otherwise would be open to question.

When Dick Cheney uses the line, it’s as if he expects the listener already believes him to be a liar, and so he throws it in to deflect the listener from the truth: He IS lying.

It’s also like saying, “With all due respect to the Constitution, we ignored it.”

((Will anyone…ANYONE…please lead him off the stage!?))

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

I am ready to support an effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to our nation’s airwaves.

During the decade of the 1960s, when I worked in broadcasting, I was an ardent opponent of the FCC rule (established in 1949) to require the broadcasters to air all sides of issues. It sure felt constricting to me. But if I had known the hell its abolition would unleash on the general populous in our 21^st century totally wired world, I would have worked just as hard to hold it fast.

For the most part, it has given right wing broadcasters with their general opposition to all things progressive a very loud political megaphone from which to preach their my-way-is-the-only-way gospel, and in the process, it has enabled media owners to regularly ignore opposing views. I understand: that means the entertaining stuff gets on the air, the intelligent (boring) stuff does not.

I’m sorry to say it but an imbalance exists that threatens our republic.

I remember well the debate in 1978 over whether or not the Senate should approve the Panama Canal Treaties. I was there, reading the mail of one US Senator and listening to broadcast “discussions” of the merits of the treaties. The official mail to Senators was generally 100 to one against approval of the treaties. “We built it, we own it, it’s ours” was the rallying call. There was little or no interest in understanding the broader foreign policy implications of disapproving the treaties. I bring up the 1978 vote on the Panama Canal Treaties as a reminder that we elect our representatives to the legislative chambers of this republic, not to bend to the fickle weathervane of public opinion but to use their heads (when we have lost ours) to vote what is right for America, not what will get them re-elected next year.

Let's cool the rhetoric and let them do their jobs without threats. There clearly exists an imbalance on talk radio and talk TV. Rush Limburger, Bill O’Reilly, and the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin ought not to be allowed to unduly influence public opinion. But they are allowed…and they do influence public opinion and actions of governments. Witness their followers at the August town hall meetings creating chaos, not intelligent discussion of the merits of health care reform. Broadcasters ought to be working to inform the public, not inflame them.

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired…just tired of what I am hearing and viewing. It does not help our country, it undermines the best efforts of honorable men and women.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would not solve all problems on the airwaves but it would bring back some semblance of sanity to the airwaves, sanity and fairness that would help the listener/viewer avoid exposure to the current extremes of broadcast abuse.

America WILL survive!

There is good news in a new poll released from Daily Kos/Research 2000 but the good news is hidden near the end of the results.

When people were asked which news sources they watch, the answers were as follows:

• Conservatives watch Fox News and little else
• Independents watch little news at all
• Democrats split their dial between CNN and MSNBC
• 18-29 year olds don’t watch much cable news, but they particularly shun Fox.

The really good news is in that last finding.

If the next generation – 18 to 29 year olds – in 2009 are refusing to watch the fiction that is peddled as fact on Fox, there is hope, indeed, for America’s future.

Youth – you gotta love ‘em!

"Cut the deficit, cut my taxes, but don't spend less."

It now appears the Obama health care proposal is being watered down even as you and I sit in front of our computers. It appears Congress will exempt about 83% of small businesses from compliance with the new law. I’m sure those 83% of small businesses will, in the spirit of true altruism, offer health coverage to their employees anyway, aren’t you?

In the end, the new law may not offer much reform....but maybe that's what Americans think they want right now. It seems government can't get our attention until disaster strikes us and then government has 15 minutes to straighten out the problem or we dump 'em.

Is this a great country or what!

The NYTimes/CBS poll soon to be released, perhaps today, will say:

"Most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy... Yet at the same time, most oppose some proposed solution for decreasing it."

"Fifty-six percent of respondents said that they were not willing to pay more in taxes in order to reduce the deficit, and nearly as many said they were not willing for the government to provide fewer services in areas such as health care, education and defense spending."

Think about our recent history on health care reform. When the Clinton team proposed it, all the stakeholders opposed it and it went down in quick defeat. If the Obama effort at true reform goes down with a watered down version of virtually no changes, that will be another setback. And the Republicans want nothing but the status quo because the “free market will solve everything.”

In the meantime, the American people are seeing their health insurance premiums increase in double digits every year while inflation is an anemic 1.5% to 3%. What sort of civic mindedness thinks that’s a better state of affairs than we would get with the Obama plan?

I don’t know about you but I would gladly pay more in taxes if it would result in bringing my insurance increases down to ….oh, say….8-9% annually (which is itself outrageous).

I fear we are reaching a state of national mindset that will not allow anyone or any institution to govern effectively. It was a great republic at one time. Now it's just overweight and selfish...and demanding more and more for less and less.

Health Care Reform is a Complex Issue

Opponents of the current health care reform legislation are attempting to boil it down to language that will support their efforts to enlist others in working to defeat the bill. And they don't care if they exaggerate or get it totally wrong; they’ve got to kill this thing. Right now, the bill in question is HR 3200. It is 1,018 pages, not the 1,800 pages frequently claimed in e-mails circulating on the Internet. And most critics will be quick to claim members of Congress have not read the bill. A comment on that in a moment.

BTW, HR 3200 is not the only bill working its way through Congress. There are three bills being considered by House committees and at least two in the Senate. The Senate is not as far along as the House but we are a long way from setting language in concrete. You wouldn’t know that from the scaremongers who are using the draft to claim every evil known to man is about to be visited upon us.

The e-mail I received listed 31 so-called “egregious acts of government intervention in our lives” if health care reform passes. Here’s the first one:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS THAT SELF-INSURE!!

Not true. It actually says “The Commissioner…shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets.” [Underline added by Ben]

Several criteria are listed for the study but the one that troubles most opponents is the one:

(C) The financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.

In other words, the new Commissioner will be required to conduct a study of the solvency of self-insured employers and provide recommendations to Congress on how to make the program work better.

Because the study will take a look at the "solvency and capital reserve levels" of employers, the author of the scare e-mail interprets that to mean the government will audit your books. That's not what the language says...but, wait a minute, isn't it true that government already has the authority to audits the tax returns of businesses, and individuals?

The next item in the e-mail says:

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL

BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Not true. Language in the bill actually says there will be a public/private advisory committee established to recommend covered benefits.

The proposal says there will be 26 members appointed by the President and Congress to serve on this advisory panel…and more than government will be represented on it. Here is the actual language of the bill:

(1) PARTICIPATION- The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.

Does that sound like "a Government Committee will decide your benefits?" Hardly. The advisory committee even includes "consumer representatives" and -- note the last line -- "so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee." That doesn’t sound very malevolent to me.

The person who wrote the e-mail I received attempted to cite 29 additional provisions of the new proposal that convinced him there should be no law passed to address health care reform. His exaggerations undermine his argument for as soon as they are exposed for the exaggerations they are, and in some cases, outright falsehoods, his argument is dismissed. But his hard-line ultra right wing view is shared by many members of Congress who think it best that America not address health care reform.

Finally, don't let anyone get away with telling you Members of Congress don't read the bills they pass into law. When it comes to important landmark legislation such as health care reform, every member will read every word. Most of them will read and re-read the most important sections of the bill many times.

Those who don't want health care reform to pass claim members have not read the bill because THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO READ THE BILL. They want you to think the task is too daunting and you should be happy they are reading and interpreting it for you.

At some point, we must stop listening to those who only want to scare us, and start listening to those who want to genuinely lead us.

Change is coming. The status quo of our health care delivery system is untenable. Of course, there are those who don't want any change. I say to them, take a look around you.

Collection boxes for US Mail are going away. They will soon be relics of our past because Americans have adopted new forms of communication.

Cars will soon be run on energy other than fossil fuels because the supply of fossil fuels is finite and will soon disappear altogether. And our cars will be made of material that doesn't break in a crash, only bends.

In our lifetimes, most of our electricity will be generated by means other than fossil fuels.

Change is part of who we are. Change is not something we should be afraid of.

We have 47 million (or more) Americans who don't have any health care coverage. It is costing us an arm and a leg to take care of them in Emergency Rooms across this nation. We can't continue to do so. Our hospitals and other aspects of our healthcare delivery system are suffering.

In addition, you and I and others who have health insurance, have seen our premiums soar annually in double digits for the past 25 years (that's my own experience) and even the rates we pay, exorbitant as they are, are unrelated to the true cost of health care. That true cost, which most of us never see, impacts us all and robs our nation of precious resources that could be used to help us achieve higher productivity.

President Obama is trying to do something very difficult. He needs the help of a lot of people. Mostly he needs citizens to have a little faith in him, and believe he has our nation's best interest at heart...because he does.

Questions from Readers

Why don’t we have more willing bipartisanship in the Congress?

I think it goes back to redistricting. State legislatures have done such a "good" job of carving out districts that support one party or the other that those elected are not allowed – or cannot afford, politically – to be bipartisan in their thinking or their voting.

Voters of their "solid" districts won't give them the freedom to look at the other side, to consider the merits of another point of view. That is a sad development for America, and truly undermines our representative form of government. Both parties are guilty of carving out districts where there is little chance of successfully contesting the status quo. By the way, our founders wanted nothing to do with the status quo if you recall history. I don't know why today's "leaders" are afraid of addressing it.

Why is President Obama in such a rush to pass health care reform?

In my view, nothing is being rushed. All the issues have been simmering on the stove for years. Most legislative leaders on Capitol Hill are thoroughly familiar with them…BUT no one has had the courage to take them off the hot stove. All have been content to wait for a real cook to come along brave enough to pick up the pot, hot to the touch with all the sensitive issues brewing inside, and serve it up to everyone at the table. Obama, it turns out, is that cook and he is not afraid of the heat.

Sen. Demint (R-SC) speaks for a large number of Republicans who see health care as "Obama's Waterloo.” As Demint said, “We can use it to break him." They have no intention of serving the public interest. None at all. Their only goal is to defeat Obama. The public interest be damned. Regrettably, that is the essence of the Republican Party these days. Why not be seen coming to the table to say, "We like this, we don't like that, we can compromise on these two." Everyone in America knows the health care system is broken. Costs are out of control. So, let's do something about it. No, the Republicans don't want to do anything if it means Obama might actually succeed. They just can't stomach that possibility.

Why can’t the vote wait until later this year or even next year?

Look, every member of Congress understands very well why the vote must take place soon. If we don't get a bill out of committee before the August recess, two things will happen: (1) the crush of the legislative calendar will cut short the days when the bill may be considered in both chambers, and (2) opposition to any reform of health care will use the time to distort the bill in the hope of preventing any change. Time and the inclination to say "no" to anything new will be working against meaningful change this year. The largest lobbying operation the world has ever known is working against it. If Obama succeeds, his middle name ought to be changed to Hercules.

As the schedule slips and votes are put off, passage of meaningful legislation becomes less assured. Only one thing is 99% certain: if health care reform doesn’t pass this year, it is probably dead for the foreseeable future. Rush Limbaugh and New Gingrich will have won again and 225 million Americans will have lost…again. Won't that be special?!

What about this “birther movement,” (challenging the validity of Obama’s birth as a natural born American)?

Every American ought to be disgusted with this development and denounce it at every opportunity. The "birther movement," make no mistake about it, is blatant racism by those who cannot stand to see a black man succeed....and particularly not this one. We have come a long way as a nation but ... we have not traveled far.

Walter Cronkite

Now they are all gone.

Eric Sevareid, Charles Collingwood, Robert Trout, Howard K. Smith, Richard C. Hottelet, Edward R. Murrow .... and now Walter Cronkite. These were the best and brightest of print and broadcast journalists. All came from a newspaper and/or wire service background. They understood the news; they understood their role in reporting it; they trusted the listener to hear and understand the import of what they were saying.

They came to be known first to America through their reporting of unfolding events in Europe during WWII. After the war most of them joined CBS, though I recall Howard K. Smith went to ABC.

What we miss now is the intellectual and moral honesty they brought to their craft. My wife knows how much I miss that in today's news reporting because I complain about it to her all the time.

Today's news reporting is more about speculation, fear, conspiracy, distrust, and of course, the performance of the reporter.

No one alive at the time of President Kennedy's assassination will ever forget the moment Walter Cronkite reported the official death, exact time and place, and nothing more. Can you imagine the same report by one of today's reporters. It would probably go something like this:

Reporter Jane Doe: "President Kennedy was brutally murdered today in Dallas, Texas. We don't know but there may have been more more than one killer. Some have said the Russians may have been involved. Our armed forces are attempting to secure the borders and the Pentagon may be preparing for war. No one knows for sure because the reports we are getting from official sources are inconsistent at best. ... Now to John Smith in the weather center."

Reporter John Smith: "Weather in a moment, Jane, but first viewers need to know at least four Category Five hurricanes are expected to reach landfall along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts this season. Viewers should prepare today for the worst to come. Today, however, the high will be 75 and pleasant...a good day to visit the hardware store and stock up for the rough weather ahead."

See what I mean.

What are they teaching in Journalism schools today? Is this genie so far out of the bottle that it can't be put back?

I'm trying to think of someone in the media even close to the Cronkite mold....and I am coming up empty. If you can think of even one, let me know.