Presidential Speech on Health Care Reform

I will be honest, I am finding it hard to comment on the substance of what the president said last night mainly do to the unctuous behavior of the republican caucus last night. That is truly sad because there were some noteworthy subjects talked about during the speech. But, that being said, I do not think I have seen a more uncivil, peevish bunch, revel in their perceived sanctimony then last night.

Say what you will about the right and the left, being equivalent in their ridiculousness. That is just not the case. It is hard to overstate the levels to which the GOP has sunk. Imagine what would have happened if Dennis Kucinich had made catcalls during President Bushes remarks? He would have been labeled a terrorist, treason charges would have been bandied about and the like.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), is a ignorant know-nothing. He evidently can not read a bill. I hope, nay, it is my most fervent desire that Speaker of the House Pelosi absolutely censure his prevaricating ass.

Now on to the speech it self. I thought it was a good speech. The president showed some fire, and most of his information seemed to match up with independent analysis of the health care debate. If there was one thing that stood out the most to me though, was that this speech was as full-throated a defense of liberalism as I have seen in the public square.

In particular this bit toward the end grabbed my attention.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

Because that is who we are.

This has been a long time in coming. Government intervention is not always a bad thing. Sometimes, it is an effective corrective. Reaganism as an ideology leads to bad government. It needs to be given the long kiss goodnight it has deserved for over a decade.

But that is a different argument.

If you have not I do highly recommend tracking down the speech it is worth a watch. If I get a version I will link it here.

-Cheers

That is a Coincidence...

Interesting article in the Times about anti-aging research.

Some thought provoking stuff in there. But because of my interest in population levels. I found this line a fair bit more then interesting,

In caloric restriction, mice are kept on a diet that is healthy but has 30 percent fewer calories than a normal diet. The mice live 30 or 40 percent longer than usual with the only evident penalty being that they are less fertile.

Now there are a lot of moving parts here, and anyone with even a passing familiarity with Daniel Quinn's writings might guess where my thinking is going on this.

So I will not bore you with the massive exposition on the subject I will simply state, what to me is obvious. Of course they are less fertile, they have less raw material to be fertile with!

-Cheers

Back to the Beginning

Anyone who has talked with me for any extended time knows that I have a bit preoccupation with the subject of population.

During my formative years, I was exposed to a several interesting philosophies in that vein. In high school I had my first run in with Thomas Malthus. Later he would be joined and updated by Daniel Quinn and his novels Ishmael and The Story of B.

The effect these books had on my world view was immense, to say the least. The notion that population is directly proportional to food availability sounds straight forward. But argue with anyone about the subject and you will see, how with great alacrity, it will be asserted that human will is the determinate factor in population growth.

Anyways, I am rambling. Here is a PSA from England, that I found interesting. At some point we will have to have this conversation. Because like most problems, when you notice it is finally an issue, it is far to late.

I could go on about this for hours, and have on many occasions.

---

Also in honor of over a year of blogging I will endeavor to bring back some of the old and weekly blog posts, Word of the Week, Dick Move of the Day (which may be renamed the "Popped Collar Award"), fashion and food commentary/recipes, and a new help segment (because I really dig the show) Ask a Spy.

-Cheers