Briefly about "tea-parties" and the health policy debate

http://www.teapartyactivists.com/tea-party-news/more-people-support-the-tea-party-than-the-president/

The other day a friend of mine surprised me with the message below:

"Our tax dollars hard at work:

The Democratic Party is >paying people to force this healthcare down our throats while accusing anyone who questions it "redneck racist tea-bagg'n Conservative Party of bussing mobs in to disrupt town hall-meetings"...

What happened in America?  Did we lose our right even to question?"

I could not sit on my mouth even if our friendship was at stake:

The way I see the Americans did not lose their right to question rather, they think they gained the right to scream and yell without understanding the issues or giving a chance for intelligent conversation with their representatives. Instead, they prefer to follow the inflammatory comments by Rush Limbo, Bill O'Riley and the likes; qualified political analysts indeed.

I wish I saw this high emotions when these concerned Americans first learned about the tens of millions of their compatriots not having insurance!

PS: friendship saved, she is still sending me those Glenn Beck and company messages...

A brief exchange about capitalism, on account of Michael Moore's latest movie

Below, I am giving an account of a recent polemic about Michael Moore's (MM) movie (Capitalism: A love story) that quickly shifted into discussion about the current US capitalistic system. Since I did not ask permission from my debate opponent to publish her side, I will only briefly summarize her arguments with my own words.

The original challenge:
Capitalism made MM a wealthy man. Capitalism, as opposed to other systems, gives opportunity to people.

My response

The movie brings up very good points about capitalism, as it is practiced in the US. Even gun ho capitalist believers should take time to ponder about some of his arguments. MM has the integrity to stand up for the small guy, even though he made it big in capitalism. He knows that most people will not have his kind of chance although nearly everyone seems to be duped by the slogans of the Promise Land.

The movie is not saying that you can not be a millionaire in this economical system. It expresses concerns that the realistic desire of people, i.e. not to become a millionaire, but simply to live like a decent middle class citizen, is endangered by an ever more greedy upper class.

Challenge #2:
People are flooding into the US because of the unparalleled opportunities; the success stories of Oprah, Bill Clinton and "even Obama" are mentioned as examples.

Admits that some opportunities do exist in other countries, and that some corruption does exist in the US; in the whole however, the US system benefits those, who are willing to work hard and is superior to any other system.

Takes issue with people not willing to work in low paying job, such as McDonalds.

My response #2:

How do you know that other countries do not have their Oprahs-s, Clintons and Obama-s? Every single one of those newly rich and influential Chinese who are purchasing up the US treasury bonds nowadays, were dirt poor 50 years ago. They got their opportunities in a totally different system.

As to the poor and the middle class, that's exactly the problem in the US and other countries with hard-core capitalism, e.g. the one time "eastern block" countries. In the US, as well as in these other countries, the gap between the rich and poor has never been wider than today. The middle class is slowly slipping toward poverty not by choice, not because they want to "leave off the Government", but because they do not have the same opportunities that the wealthy do.

Look at where MM is coming from: Flint, MI, a once prosperous middle class town. Today, it is among the top 3 poorest towns in the country. Believe me, MM has first hand experience what opportunity capitalism will provide to the poor and middle class, if it does not serve the greed of the rich. That's why he started his career with the first movie back in 1989: Roger & me.

Challenge #3:
The US as the "Land of Opportunity".
China, has a net Emigration rate of -0.39 migrants/1,000 population.
The US, has an immigration rate of 2.92 migrants/1,000 population. (I did not check the data, but sounds credible to me...)

A major problem is that many people "live off the government" by choice: they think they are entitled for better life but are not willing to work for it. These people can't afford to fill their prescriptions, but spend their money on cigarette, drink, cell phones and cable TV.
Decent, hard working Americans should not support these behavior.

Not all rich people are greedy; many worked hard to get from nothing to wealth. These people create job for society.

The efforts of the Americans should be restricted only to help people to help themselves.

My response # 3:

Contrary to your assertion, today's problems are not coming from the small fraction of people who take advantage of the system. This happens everywhere and it should not be a reason to be judgmental of the decent people who fail because the system fails them - this is what MM's movie is about -.

If you say that not all rich people are greedy you are right! But why do you imply that all all of today's unfortunate Americans owe their misery to themselves by buying cigarette instead of paying for prescription? This is a very insensitive and convenient point of view. People with this attitude can justify that they remain unsympathetic to the poor while feeling entitled to their wealth.

The trend is that greed of the rich and the mismanagement of the previous American hard core capitalist leadership lead the country into this turmoil, not the "lazy" 9.8% who have no jobs today.

As to the slogan: Land of Opportunity; it came around the turn of last century when it was indeed true but has become a mere slogan since then. People come here because of a diverse reasons:
1. lax, poorly defined immigration  policy,
2. tremendous poverty in nearby countries
3. easy crossing of the borders on the South,
4. the lingering legend of the "Land of Opportunity".
This country is no more "Land of Oppotunity" today then countless other countries. Had China not had a strict immigration law and closely guarded borders, masses of North Koreans and South-East Asians would flood for the opportunity there.

Translation of a Hungarian song about Mother and Father...

 Today, on the way to work, I was listening to old Hungarian songs on the car CD player. Suddenly I fell under the spell of this one about a Mother and Father. No doubt, just recently having become empty-nesters must have sensitized me to the gentle words, melody and orchestration of the song.

The singer is Kovács Kati, a well known singer with powerful, wide ranging voice who started in the late 1960s and is still active, I believe. This song is from somewhere in the late 1970s.

Listen to the song first and read the translation if the music caught your attention!

Click on the link below to hear the song:
Original enclosure (8i87t9cq23)

Here is an approximate, raw translation of the lyrics:

My Father knew the names of the stars
My Mother tended to the wounds of flowers
My Mother was the most beautiful in the eyes of my Father
My Father was a word  in the name of my Mother
My Mother knew my Father's footsteps
My Father liked how my Mother carried her years
My Mother was a cloud in the deep blue sky
My Father was a raindrop on a wet meadow
And the two of them came for me (refr.)

Few songs have the profound message of this one! I rarely feel such perfect harmony between the melody and the words of a song and Kovács Kati delivers it as no-one could match her.

With the hope that I can express the real meaning of the Hungarian lyrics in English better than the word-by-word translation, I also translated this song "freely", with my own words, only loosely following the original:

Fathers and Mothers

My Father used to know all the stars

And Mom proudly tended to her garden

She was the prettiest for him by far

And for her soul, Dad was the warden

Mom knew the footsteps of my Dad

And he liked the grace of her age

A cloud in the sky was my Mom, driven

Above misty meadows the color of faint gray

And they came for me…

On Obama's Nobel Peace Price...

First, I need to establish that I do like president Obama: he seems to understand the complexities of today's political scene, he shows signs that he is aware of the need to balance constructive diplomacy and military power, has good intentions and articulates these intentions very well.

I congratulate him on being awarded the Nobel Peace Price today!

He shares it with an illustrious group of thinkers, activists, organizations who targeted the elusive goal of global peace in an age when war is becoming increasingly dangerous and self-destructive for the entire Planet:

- Jean Henri Dunant, Switzerland. Founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva; Initiator of the Geneva Convention (Convention de Genève)
- International Committee of the Red Cross
- Nansen International Office for Refugees
- Albert Schweitzer
- Martin Luther King Jr.
- Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov
- Amnesty International
- The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso)
- Nelson Mandela
- Doctors Without Borders
- Jimmy Carter Jr.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with Albert Arnold ( Al) Gore Jr.

to mention a few - for full listing of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates see: http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html -

Despite my sympathy with Mr. Obama however, I have to admit my surprise that he was awarded this prestigious price so soon. Although he made 3 high powered, constructive speeches that carry the seed of more comprehensive peace worldwide, he has not accomplished much tangible results yet. The Afghan war is expanding, the news from Pakistan are becoming increasingly uneasy, Iraq is nowhere close to the stability it enjoyed before the US invasion, the Jewish settlements are not frozen on Palestinian Lands, negotiations with Iran barely started and a major war there remains an ever increasing threat, despite a promising start the relationship with Cuba is still not normalized and we could go on with Tibet, North Korea, etc.

I have a strong suspicion that Mr. Obama got this Prize not as much for what he accomplished so far but as an expression of hope and trust of the Nobel Committee in his policy yet to come to full bloom. I root for President Obama that he can grow up to the expectation of the Peace loving World but also see the reality of today's America. He is under tremendous pressure from various interest groups for whom peace is but one element, and not a vital one, of achieving their financial or political goals. These groups don't seem to have any misgiving about sacrificing peace for their perceived, narrow-minded interests.

Mr. Obama has a rough ride ahead if he intends to follow a peaceful path but I wish him clear vision and tenacity to stay on course.

Portrait from Bhutan

On an August day in 2005 I was on my way to my work in Delaware when a brief commentary came up on the NPR station in my car. In this commentary, I heard about a country, Bhutan, whose name I new but could not have placed it on the map. Bhutan just got a new Constitution that, following the best of Western principles, would provide the familial democratic rights to its citizens. It does not stop there however. Incorporating the best of the Buddhist philosophy, it makes the government responsible for increasing the so called Gross National Happiness, on equal footage with the expected increase in GNP. Furthermore, the new law would also require the citizens of Bhutan to be good Samaritans when need arises and follow pacifist principles. A country that elevates the inner goodness of humanity to the level of law immediately captured my imagination. Where is this country? How does this GNH work in practice? How peaceful could be the nation that just accepted this apparently unique, noble Constitution?

I went to the Internet and soon found out the country’s location between India and China, on the slopes of the Himalaya Mountains. I also realized that this small Himalayan Kingdom might just be one of the most picturesque countries in the world. Until less then 10 years ago, it was practically sealed off the rest of the world but in the late 1990s they started to open up to what they call “low volume, high value” tourism. Some more search on the Net and I quickly realized that a particular photography tour promises a unique and very intimate view into the life of the Bhutanese people and the beauty of the country. My good fortune finally took me to Paro, the only airport of the country, in April of 2008. I joined a group of 16 photo enthusiasts for a 13 day cross-country tour of Bhutan. It turned out to be superb travel event for all of us seasoned travelers and literally a life altering experience for a few of us. The only thing that surpassed the breathtaking beauty of the alternating high mountain ridges and fertile valleys with their clean, rapid rivers carrying the melted snow of the high Himalaya, was the kindness and openness of its citizens. They proved to be the most photogenic people I have seen with admirable willingness and patience to stand model for our insatiably curious cameras. Being a pediatrician, I particularly enjoyed taking pictures of the endlessly entertaining children. I always thought that my photography was the weakest in portraits, but in Bhutan my best shots came from capturing fleeting, unrehearsed moments on people’s face.

While we were there, the country had its first election, following the King’s abdicating his throne and calling for a democratic government. I thought that the King was forced to do this but in fact he himself had to lobby the country to accept the democratically elected government. All Bhutanese I talked to agreed that their current King is great and highly respected. However, he argued that one day a less than noble King may turn his power to some less than noble cause. He wanted to avoid this danger by securing the people’s approval of governments with time limited mandate. The country is poor and has its share of problems. The Buddhist peace loving and unimaginable tolerance however kept this small nation on the right track for centuries and hopefully will do so now, that its political system is being revitalized by a potentially benevolent Western invention, called democracy. Perhaps this tiny nation will show the rest of the world, how to get the full benefit out of this millennia old Western heritage. Until then, Bhutan will remain a paradise for those few lucky photo enthusiasts who can visit it.

For a 10 min slide show of this trip click here

Michael Moore: Capitalism: A Love Story

I saw the movie last night, on its day of premiere.
It is sort of the "expected movie" from the voice of the simple guy with good common sense. No doubt it will draw tremendous criticism but will be loved around much of the World although probably not in the US.

The first indication of how the movie will be handled in the US is that the local Regal Cinema did not play it in its main location in the Mall rather, in a small "satellite" location a block down the road. On the last show (10pm) the theater was about 30/40% full. Instead of a detailed analysis, I only want to share the  take-home message that I got from the movie.

It brings up very good points about capitalism, as it is practiced in the US. Even gun ho capitalist believers should take time to ponder about some of his arguments. Although Michael Moore already made it "big time" in the same system he is so critical of, he has the integrity to stand up for the small guy. He knows that most people will not have his kind of chance to succeed, although nearly everyone seems to be duped by the slogans of the Promise Land. The movie is not denying that the dream that seems to fuel capitalism, the dream of becoming rich, will come through for a selected few. However, it expresses Moore's concerns that this capitalist dream somehow dehumanized the American society. He warns that the realistic desire of people, not to become a millionaire,  just to live the life of a simple, hard working middle class citizen, is endangered by an ever more greedy upper class.

Wouldn't most criminals be paroled after 30+ years?

I do not want to defend a wrongdoing of any rightfully famous intellectual. What Roman Polanski admitted doing, severly damaged a 13 y old girl in a very complex way, that is hard to even fathom for others . I am also ready to admit that his escape before the planned revision of his sentencing was another break of law - although here I can see some mitigating circumstances -.

However, Mr. Polanski's life since those events, more than 30 years ago, was nothing but exemplary. It seems that he has not caused any more suffering to the undeserving, has not broken any further laws. To the contrary, with his wits and talent he constantly tried and successfully managed to invite us for self-scrutiny, entertained and amazed millions with the hope of making us better.

I doubt there are many criminals in the US prisons today who would not be eligeable for parol within 30 years. Why coming down with the full might of justice on a man, who made one deplorable mistake but proved himself a worthwhile human being since then?

Why is it not counted that he already payed a heavy price for that mistake? Clearly, he had to endure significant restrictions in his professional life by not having access to Hollywood, where he could have followed his love of life, making movies, to the fullest!?

Why does it not count that the person against whom he committed the crime forgave him and that bringing those events into the limelight again hurts the sense of closure of the only person who already suffered once!?

What are we to think about a justice system that, despite all the reservations enlisted above, relentlessly snatches a man on the way for his life-time achievement award!?

Professor SUSAN ESTRICH , on NPR (All things considered, Sept. 9, 2009), claims: "... rape isn't a crime against the victim. It's a crime against the state". - Parenthetically, accoring to the inreview, Prof. Estrich herself is the unfortunate victim of a long-time ago rape. Could she really have elevated herself above her painful experience and remain objective about Mr. Polanski's case? -

Furthermore, I dare to speculate that there are many more pressing criminals, with far greater danger to the "state" than Mr. Polanski. This sensless determination to follow "court proceedings", no doubt, takes away precious resources from much more pressing efforts.

CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said:
"It doesn't matter if it's Roman Polanski or anyone else, I think that those things should be treated like anyone else," he said. "It doesn't matter if you're a big-time movie director."
Asked if he would consider a pardon, Schwarzenegger said he receives many such requests and would give no special consideration to one by Polanski.

It seems to me, Governor Schwarzenegger, that Mr. Polanski would deserve special consideration not for his name, but for his clean life that followed; a life that, through his artistic talent, improved the "state", and society as a whole.