Sunday Ramble
Still not finding myself strongly communicative. However, I know the week will soon swallow me whole so a little more - even if bits and pieces - before that.
A lazy, grouchy, late and fitful start to my day, it's mainly been domestic tasks. Cleaning, laundry and cooking.
I see that Ralph Nader has declared he's entering the presidential race (I'm not going to link to "the story" because it's all over the place and has been unfurling as the day's gone on and he's been making appearances and responding to more questions), both to point out the dangers of a McCain presidency as being one of endless war, and lobbing criticisms at both Clinton and Obama for what amounts to betrayal of a substantial portion of what was at least once thought to be the Democratic Party's base. And, however much I may worry about votes being drained off... I cannot fault the man for the move.
Maybe his hectoring and highlighting will shame something more resembling true liberal attitudes into the eventual Democratic presidential plank. If Obama is pre-emptively reaching across the aisle, more or less promising to make some Conservative/Right-leaning appointments, I agree with Nader that he should be doing at least as much
I will still vote for the Democratic nominee because I cannot back a McCain presidency. I still would prefer to (among the scant choices left me) back Obama. Why? Well, he seems far less fully bought and paid for as Clinton does. I would like to see more specifics from Obama, but I also know that when the system of checks and balances works (you know, when Congress hasn't spent years virtually rubber-stamping major parts of the president's policies) it's the president's jobs to boldly propose, leaving the nitty gritty - the details of legislative and fiscal sausage making - largely to Congress.
Beyond that, I do not now and never really have believed that Hillary Clinton can win the presidency. In the event that she does manage to squeak in, we'll have nothing but battles and very little useful progress.
Worse, what does get done -- I'm afraid of what it will be. The cruel humor I find almost every time I catch someone from the Limbaugh/O'Reilly crowd spitting out the name Hillary Clinton is that she's identified as some toxic "Liberal". I only wish there was much behind that charge. Much as in the way we've seen her defend the invasion of Iraq (yes, I know she's promising to withdraw troops, but I doubt that'll go as proposed, and at this stage - the price in troop blood already mostly paid - I'm not even sure how wise that'll be), I believe we'll see more of that sort of thing as she continues to not only seem to feel that she must have a huge, virtual pair to overcome what some may perceive as womanly weakness, but so desperately fights against the Liberal label that in many respects we may as well have a Republican in office in many respects.
I'm afraid what we'll end up with as healthcare for all will be nothing more than another huge gimme for the insurance companies. I'm expecting legislation to go into place that will force all who don't have health insurance through employers to buy individual policies. It'll become another no-fault auto insurance market where we'll be herded into being "wise consumers" of healthcare -- which basically means that millions will be pressed into buying the cheapest policies in order to avoid prosecution, policies that will likely offer very little, and than many will be almost as afraid to use as they are of getting in an auto accident and having to deal with their insurance companies. "Health management" in this country will continue to be geared towards maximizing profits of the health management organizations, which will mean what's best for the shareholders will not be keeping people healthy, but just doing what can be done to deny as much healthcare as possible to people. In the meantime, those of us who have our health coverage through work will continue to find that health coverage to be something of a shackle -- a sort of indenture -- especially if we have dependents.
It's bad enough to have the necessary fiscal worries about losing a job or changing one, but if one has dependents, especially if one or more of them have the insurance company-dreaded issues of "pre-existing conditions" -- people can find themselves unable to change jobs, and instead stay in positions where they may be anything but happy and are likely to be relatively poor fits for the position. Not so bad as to be fired, but oval pegs jammed into round holes. So, a person will stay in a role where he's miserable, the company he's working for won't get as much as it might have from that position, and almost certainly some other candidate who would enjoy and excel at the position doesn't have it. It's a lose:lose:lose.
I look forward to, and hope to see, the day when people will look back on this era and shake their heads at this social order much as we do when we look back on the age of serfdom.
Still not finding myself strongly communicative. However, I know the week will soon swallow me whole so a little more - even if bits and pieces - before that.
A lazy, grouchy, late and fitful start to my day, it's mainly been domestic tasks. Cleaning, laundry and cooking.
I see that Ralph Nader has declared he's entering the presidential race (I'm not going to link to "the story" because it's all over the place and has been unfurling as the day's gone on and he's been making appearances and responding to more questions), both to point out the dangers of a McCain presidency as being one of endless war, and lobbing criticisms at both Clinton and Obama for what amounts to betrayal of a substantial portion of what was at least once thought to be the Democratic Party's base. And, however much I may worry about votes being drained off... I cannot fault the man for the move.
Maybe his hectoring and highlighting will shame something more resembling true liberal attitudes into the eventual Democratic presidential plank. If Obama is pre-emptively reaching across the aisle, more or less promising to make some Conservative/Right-leaning appointments, I agree with Nader that he should be doing at least as much
I will still vote for the Democratic nominee because I cannot back a McCain presidency. I still would prefer to (among the scant choices left me) back Obama. Why? Well, he seems far less fully bought and paid for as Clinton does. I would like to see more specifics from Obama, but I also know that when the system of checks and balances works (you know, when Congress hasn't spent years virtually rubber-stamping major parts of the president's policies) it's the president's jobs to boldly propose, leaving the nitty gritty - the details of legislative and fiscal sausage making - largely to Congress.
Beyond that, I do not now and never really have believed that Hillary Clinton can win the presidency. In the event that she does manage to squeak in, we'll have nothing but battles and very little useful progress.
Worse, what does get done -- I'm afraid of what it will be. The cruel humor I find almost every time I catch someone from the Limbaugh/O'Reilly crowd spitting out the name Hillary Clinton is that she's identified as some toxic "Liberal". I only wish there was much behind that charge. Much as in the way we've seen her defend the invasion of Iraq (yes, I know she's promising to withdraw troops, but I doubt that'll go as proposed, and at this stage - the price in troop blood already mostly paid - I'm not even sure how wise that'll be), I believe we'll see more of that sort of thing as she continues to not only seem to feel that she must have a huge, virtual pair to overcome what some may perceive as womanly weakness, but so desperately fights against the Liberal label that in many respects we may as well have a Republican in office in many respects.
I'm afraid what we'll end up with as healthcare for all will be nothing more than another huge gimme for the insurance companies. I'm expecting legislation to go into place that will force all who don't have health insurance through employers to buy individual policies. It'll become another no-fault auto insurance market where we'll be herded into being "wise consumers" of healthcare -- which basically means that millions will be pressed into buying the cheapest policies in order to avoid prosecution, policies that will likely offer very little, and than many will be almost as afraid to use as they are of getting in an auto accident and having to deal with their insurance companies. "Health management" in this country will continue to be geared towards maximizing profits of the health management organizations, which will mean what's best for the shareholders will not be keeping people healthy, but just doing what can be done to deny as much healthcare as possible to people. In the meantime, those of us who have our health coverage through work will continue to find that health coverage to be something of a shackle -- a sort of indenture -- especially if we have dependents.
It's bad enough to have the necessary fiscal worries about losing a job or changing one, but if one has dependents, especially if one or more of them have the insurance company-dreaded issues of "pre-existing conditions" -- people can find themselves unable to change jobs, and instead stay in positions where they may be anything but happy and are likely to be relatively poor fits for the position. Not so bad as to be fired, but oval pegs jammed into round holes. So, a person will stay in a role where he's miserable, the company he's working for won't get as much as it might have from that position, and almost certainly some other candidate who would enjoy and excel at the position doesn't have it. It's a lose:lose:lose.
I look forward to, and hope to see, the day when people will look back on this era and shake their heads at this social order much as we do when we look back on the age of serfdom.
Comments