A couple of days ago, I was listening to the (then) latest discussion about the problems associated with treatment of veterans at VA hospitals. The commenter at the time was opining that thorough investigation was needed to get to the root causes of the problems at the VA before meaningful fixes could be done. Given that this is Memorial Day weekend, and the high regard that we should (mostly do) hold for our veterans, I thought that the least that was owed to those currently having problems getting treatment and their families was an honest assessment. And any honest assessment must acknowledge the following: We know the root causes.
Our veterans, and indeed veterans of other countries around the world, cannot and will not receive the care that they were promised in anything approaching a timely or efficient manner. The root cause of this is that their care is being administered by an organization that does not place primary emphasis on timely and efficient care. It cannot.
The Veterans Administration is a government bureaucracy. As such, it responds to government and political directives. That is not an insult or accusation. It is simply a statement of fact. Its options are set by the government. Its actions are limited by the government. It responds not primarily to the needs of its clients, but to the laws and regulations enacted by government. The government pays its salaries, establishes the rules, and provides the means. As such, no matter how well or poorly the needs of the veterans are being met, the response will always be limited by law and policy set by those with little or no stake in the outcomes of the medicine. Under these conditions, efficient and effective medical treatment is all but impossible.
The government set policies and time tables requiring timely treatment of veterans, but provided no means of quickly adapting to changes in demand or adjusting to the needs of an aging veteran population. At the same time, the use of targets and bonuses for quick treatment of veterans, combined with extraordinary protections against firing or discipline, gave great incentives to "cook the books" with unpublished waiting lists that allowed staff and supervisors to make it appear as though the system was working smoothly even as veterans were dying for lack of care.
I am not interested in assigning blame or responsibility at this point. I would like to think that will happen some day, but entrenched politicians on both sides make it unlikely that few people will be disciplined, and those who are may be far removed from those who actually bear any real responsibility. I am far more concerned right now with replacing a system that cannot work with a system that at least has the possibility of working. And whatever form that system might take, it won't be achieved with a government bureaucracy controlling the health care for veterans. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we can actually begin to fix the problem. Unfortunately, since such a large number of Americans seem determined to place themselves and the rest of us under a similar care system, I fear it will be a long time in coming.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Why ask "Why?"
I'm often amazed (and frustrated) at how little curiosity there is in the world. Think about it: We go through our daily lives, surrounded by marvelous technology and inventions, and so few of us have any idea of how they operate. We pay our taxes and utility bills, and have no idea about the financial systems that allow the transfers occur. We get reports about the activities of government and businesses and their dealings and legislation, but have only barest notion of what is involved in carrying out their objectives. For the most part, we don't seem to care. If it gets done, if the lights come on when we turn the switch, hot water comes out of the tap, and the Internet starts fine on the first click, we assume that things must be going okay.
I understand the attitude. There's a lot going on in our lives. It isn't as though one person can keep track of all of the things that make life go in 21st century America. Just managing a job and a family and keeping up with a smattering of the news can seem like too much at times. There is simply too much for any one person to know, so we put our trust in officials or businesses that tell us that things are working. We exercise faith that there is such a thing as a public trust, a social contract, that will hold things together. We count on "the system" to correct problems that occur and keep on going.
But this presents a bit of a problem, doesn't it?
How do we know?
If we don't know how something works, how can we know whether or not it is still working, or working correctly? I'm not talking about a television or a phone. I'm talking about a law or an economy or a government. One side screams racist. The other side screams fascist. One side pickets a college speaker, the other an abortion clinic. The President issues a statement. The press covers it. All is well.
How do we know?
Unemployment is down Unemployment is up. Debt is bad, and good, and both. The recovery is robust, but slow. People are hopeful and scared. The politicians proclaim that everything is alright, and crumbling.
How do we know?
The truth is that most of us don't know. We believe what the people we listen to say largely because things appear to be going along, well, if not okay, then at least passable. There are problems in the system, but there have always been problems, and things have always kept going, right? Right.
Except when they don't.
Here's another truth: Big things don't stop quickly. A large ship at sea traveling at full speed can take over a mile to stop. A train can loose its engine, and keep right on going for quite a while. And if it happens to be going down hill at the time, it might even start picking up speed. Inertia is real, and it doesn't just apply to trains and ships. When GM and Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy, some people knew, but to a lot of people things were going along just fine. Enron? Great little energy company, making a fortune. Nothing wrong here. Venezuela. Greece.
America?
How do we know?
It's time, and past time, to start asking questions. It's time to understand how things work, at least enough to know if they are or are not working, because if history tells us anything, it tells us this: Our leaders are not going to tell that things are not working until it is far too late for the little people to do anything about it. And when that happens, whether or not they come out of it okay won't really matter, because most of us will not. It's time to take responsibility for our future.
How do we do that? The question is the answer.
That's why ask "Why?"
I understand the attitude. There's a lot going on in our lives. It isn't as though one person can keep track of all of the things that make life go in 21st century America. Just managing a job and a family and keeping up with a smattering of the news can seem like too much at times. There is simply too much for any one person to know, so we put our trust in officials or businesses that tell us that things are working. We exercise faith that there is such a thing as a public trust, a social contract, that will hold things together. We count on "the system" to correct problems that occur and keep on going.
But this presents a bit of a problem, doesn't it?
How do we know?
If we don't know how something works, how can we know whether or not it is still working, or working correctly? I'm not talking about a television or a phone. I'm talking about a law or an economy or a government. One side screams racist. The other side screams fascist. One side pickets a college speaker, the other an abortion clinic. The President issues a statement. The press covers it. All is well.
How do we know?
Unemployment is down Unemployment is up. Debt is bad, and good, and both. The recovery is robust, but slow. People are hopeful and scared. The politicians proclaim that everything is alright, and crumbling.
How do we know?
The truth is that most of us don't know. We believe what the people we listen to say largely because things appear to be going along, well, if not okay, then at least passable. There are problems in the system, but there have always been problems, and things have always kept going, right? Right.
Except when they don't.
Here's another truth: Big things don't stop quickly. A large ship at sea traveling at full speed can take over a mile to stop. A train can loose its engine, and keep right on going for quite a while. And if it happens to be going down hill at the time, it might even start picking up speed. Inertia is real, and it doesn't just apply to trains and ships. When GM and Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy, some people knew, but to a lot of people things were going along just fine. Enron? Great little energy company, making a fortune. Nothing wrong here. Venezuela. Greece.
America?
How do we know?
It's time, and past time, to start asking questions. It's time to understand how things work, at least enough to know if they are or are not working, because if history tells us anything, it tells us this: Our leaders are not going to tell that things are not working until it is far too late for the little people to do anything about it. And when that happens, whether or not they come out of it okay won't really matter, because most of us will not. It's time to take responsibility for our future.
How do we do that? The question is the answer.
That's why ask "Why?"
Sunday, May 11, 2014
The "300" Hollywood Can't Stomach
I never did make it to see the movie "300," or the sequel, but I remember seeing the short version spoiler: 299 die. Given the previews, that sounded about right. The movie seemed like a typical ancient-soldiers-on-the-march-for-blood-and-glory type epic. I have no problem with that. I have no trouble distinguishing between theatrical violence and real violence.
I sometimes wonder about those who actually make the pictures, though. I'm not referring to those who accuse movies or television of inspiring real acts of violence, though I suppose it might occur in a very small segment of the population. My problem is with the much larger number of people who respond to real violence as though it were happening in a movie, as though all of the shooting and killing and torture were make believe. Camera stops filming, victims get up, go home, and call it a day.
The story of the 300 girls recently kidnapped in Nigeria has made quite a splash in the media. The first lady is tweeting. The president is addressing the situation ("If I had some daughters, in Nigeria, they probably would look a lot like those kidnapped girls...) And don't get me wrong. I'm glad the world is paying attention. This is an important story, and one that deserves it. I'm just wondering why it had to come to this.
Aside from the sheer brazenness involved, there's very little new here. Muslim extremists have been kidnapping and enslaving people in Africa for decades, centuries even. They have been murdering Christians by the thousand, with totals probably into millions now. Boys have been routinely kidnapped, conscripted into Muslim militias, and subjected to physical and mental abuse until they accept a life of violence and Islam, and make it their own.
All of this, and so many people just seemed not to notice. They certainly would not name the perpetrators, lest they be deemed racists, or bigots, or worse yet: sympathetic to "the oppressors." And every time they looked away, every time they spoke of how this was the result of "poverty" and "colonialism," and whatever else they said to ease their consciences, those who do violence were emboldened, knowing that no one in the west would lift finger to stop them. We scarcely even noticed until it came to our own shore, and even now, many still believe that a policy of negotiation is the only way. And others are tortured, enslaved, murdered.
At the moment, those in authority in the west at least seem to be noticing. That's something. It remains to be seen whether or not any effective action will be taken in this case. Our record on such things lately is not encouraging. And even if we do, will it involve any lasting changes, or will we simply demonstrate our high tolerance for outrage? "Three hundred is over the limit. Sorry. You need to keep it under 200." The only thing I know for certain is that, as long as the group and philosophy remain, there will be a next time.
I sometimes wonder about those who actually make the pictures, though. I'm not referring to those who accuse movies or television of inspiring real acts of violence, though I suppose it might occur in a very small segment of the population. My problem is with the much larger number of people who respond to real violence as though it were happening in a movie, as though all of the shooting and killing and torture were make believe. Camera stops filming, victims get up, go home, and call it a day.
The story of the 300 girls recently kidnapped in Nigeria has made quite a splash in the media. The first lady is tweeting. The president is addressing the situation ("If I had some daughters, in Nigeria, they probably would look a lot like those kidnapped girls...) And don't get me wrong. I'm glad the world is paying attention. This is an important story, and one that deserves it. I'm just wondering why it had to come to this.
Aside from the sheer brazenness involved, there's very little new here. Muslim extremists have been kidnapping and enslaving people in Africa for decades, centuries even. They have been murdering Christians by the thousand, with totals probably into millions now. Boys have been routinely kidnapped, conscripted into Muslim militias, and subjected to physical and mental abuse until they accept a life of violence and Islam, and make it their own.
All of this, and so many people just seemed not to notice. They certainly would not name the perpetrators, lest they be deemed racists, or bigots, or worse yet: sympathetic to "the oppressors." And every time they looked away, every time they spoke of how this was the result of "poverty" and "colonialism," and whatever else they said to ease their consciences, those who do violence were emboldened, knowing that no one in the west would lift finger to stop them. We scarcely even noticed until it came to our own shore, and even now, many still believe that a policy of negotiation is the only way. And others are tortured, enslaved, murdered.
At the moment, those in authority in the west at least seem to be noticing. That's something. It remains to be seen whether or not any effective action will be taken in this case. Our record on such things lately is not encouraging. And even if we do, will it involve any lasting changes, or will we simply demonstrate our high tolerance for outrage? "Three hundred is over the limit. Sorry. You need to keep it under 200." The only thing I know for certain is that, as long as the group and philosophy remain, there will be a next time.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Do We Have "Better Things to Worry About?"
The situation with regard to the investigation into Benghazi has changed recently. With the House Speaker appointing a select committee (finally) with subpoena power, the chance finally arises that something of relevance may be disclosed by one or more people involved. It's a small chance, given the record of the President, his staff, and the lengths they have previously gone to avoid giving truthful information on anything placing the administration in an unflattering light, but still a chance. What hasn't changed is the rhetoric of the President's defenders in congress and the media. Much of it seems to rest on one question: Don't we have better things to worry about?
The tone generally used when asking the question, at least in this case, drips with the venom of ire and ridicule, implying most definitely that the answer is "yes," with a healthy dose of "my, aren't you stupid for even considering the issue." Leaving whatever implications lurk in the question behind, the answer almost certainly is that there are better things to worry about, things of greater concern to most individuals and the country as a whole. And despite that, I still have problems with that response.
Saying that there are "better" things to worry about is no measure of the importance of the truth regarding Benghazi, or much of anything else. With the state of the world today, there is always something more important that "could" be pursued, whether you are deciding on what ice cream to have for dessert or seeking a cure for cancer. There will always be something around that could be presented with greater value or urgency, making the question useless when evaluating this type of action. The question never deals with how important the particular issue may be, making it not a reason, but a deflection.
My main problem with the question in a case like this, however, is related question: How do we know?
Granting that there are probably more important things to be worried about, how can I be sure? What is the basis of that decision? Right now, we know that the facts don't support the initial reasons the President and the then Secretary of State gave for the attack on the consulate. We know that they have supplied no explanation for how the reasoning was arrived at, nor who made the decision on what was to be released. We have testimony that the President was not in the situation room while the attack on the consulate was going on, but no information on where he was or what he was doing. We have stand down orders for military forces wanting to send in support even though there was time to render some kind of aid. We have just about every witness to and about the event locked down under gag order by the administration, and a string of denials.
What this adds up to, at least as far as I am able to reason, is an administration that is untruthful about the reasons for or against use military action, and determined to prevent release of detrimental information at all costs. Logically, that means that any reason the administration gives for a military action is suspect. When he says he is using drones to target terrorists, we don't know if they are terrorists. When he says the NSA is not retaining information on citizens, we can't take his word for it. If he says he needs to send in the national guard to put down a terrorist stronghold in a remote part of this country, are they really terrorists, or just some people that the President has reasons to label as terrorists?
I may have better things to worry about, but this will do for now.
The tone generally used when asking the question, at least in this case, drips with the venom of ire and ridicule, implying most definitely that the answer is "yes," with a healthy dose of "my, aren't you stupid for even considering the issue." Leaving whatever implications lurk in the question behind, the answer almost certainly is that there are better things to worry about, things of greater concern to most individuals and the country as a whole. And despite that, I still have problems with that response.
Saying that there are "better" things to worry about is no measure of the importance of the truth regarding Benghazi, or much of anything else. With the state of the world today, there is always something more important that "could" be pursued, whether you are deciding on what ice cream to have for dessert or seeking a cure for cancer. There will always be something around that could be presented with greater value or urgency, making the question useless when evaluating this type of action. The question never deals with how important the particular issue may be, making it not a reason, but a deflection.
My main problem with the question in a case like this, however, is related question: How do we know?
Granting that there are probably more important things to be worried about, how can I be sure? What is the basis of that decision? Right now, we know that the facts don't support the initial reasons the President and the then Secretary of State gave for the attack on the consulate. We know that they have supplied no explanation for how the reasoning was arrived at, nor who made the decision on what was to be released. We have testimony that the President was not in the situation room while the attack on the consulate was going on, but no information on where he was or what he was doing. We have stand down orders for military forces wanting to send in support even though there was time to render some kind of aid. We have just about every witness to and about the event locked down under gag order by the administration, and a string of denials.
What this adds up to, at least as far as I am able to reason, is an administration that is untruthful about the reasons for or against use military action, and determined to prevent release of detrimental information at all costs. Logically, that means that any reason the administration gives for a military action is suspect. When he says he is using drones to target terrorists, we don't know if they are terrorists. When he says the NSA is not retaining information on citizens, we can't take his word for it. If he says he needs to send in the national guard to put down a terrorist stronghold in a remote part of this country, are they really terrorists, or just some people that the President has reasons to label as terrorists?
I may have better things to worry about, but this will do for now.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
A Sinner in the Hands of Angry Liberals
Over the years, I've had a lot of discussions with liberals and atheists on the subject of judgment. Sometime in the past century the term passed from a relatively common noun or verb into linguistic purgatory. The word is still around, but many in polite company seem to consider it just short of a swear word without the smell. Others consider it much worse.
No longer content simply to declare people unfit for judgment, a great many secular types (and some claiming to be religious) seem to think that God, worshipped as the creator of the universe, either has disdained the task Himself or is incapable of exercising the authority in a "fair" manner. The most common complaint I recall in this regard (at least as far as Christianity is concerned), is a standard for salvation deemed too arbitrary. People are offended that by rejecting Christ, God offers no other path for salvation. There is no weighted scale, no balancing of deeds. Their fate stands or falls on a single act. The decision of the Judge is final. No appeal.
I have to say that I sympathize with this view. Who would not? No one likes the idea that anyone could be condemned for eternity. The idea that a merciful God could allow it is inconceivable. And so the secularist rejects God as "immoral," never realizing the flaw in his perspective. In the life that is to come after this one, our sin has already condemned us for eternity and only by God's mercy do some of us escape. As Christ proclaimed, "The Son of Man came not into the world to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
So much of the secular antagonism toward God is based on this misunderstanding, this belief that it is God who condemns rather than people who choose to be condemned. And yet, for all of this moral outrage, the same group goes out and commits the same type of action they claim to find so repugnant: condemning people. Judgement. The assignment of value to people as human beings based on little or no evidence without regard to context or balance.
The most recent case that has appeared in the news has been the owned of the Los Angeles Clippers. There have been others. I won't comment on the remarks made here. They speak for themselves. I won't comment on Mr. Sterling. He can speak for himself. I can only speak for me.
I pray that I never find a day on this earth when all that I am and all that I own will be put on trial based on one conversation, and a private conversation at that. I'm afraid I've become quite cynical about my belief in the goodness of people over time, and my trust in many friends has become tempered by experience. That such things can happen in America, that property can be forfeited based on a taped private statement, makes me mindful of what we have lost in this nation. I am grateful now more than ever that God operates on a system of mercy. I would not have been able to stand up to the justice of God, and He is good. Heaven help all of us with what is becoming of the "justice" of men.
No longer content simply to declare people unfit for judgment, a great many secular types (and some claiming to be religious) seem to think that God, worshipped as the creator of the universe, either has disdained the task Himself or is incapable of exercising the authority in a "fair" manner. The most common complaint I recall in this regard (at least as far as Christianity is concerned), is a standard for salvation deemed too arbitrary. People are offended that by rejecting Christ, God offers no other path for salvation. There is no weighted scale, no balancing of deeds. Their fate stands or falls on a single act. The decision of the Judge is final. No appeal.
I have to say that I sympathize with this view. Who would not? No one likes the idea that anyone could be condemned for eternity. The idea that a merciful God could allow it is inconceivable. And so the secularist rejects God as "immoral," never realizing the flaw in his perspective. In the life that is to come after this one, our sin has already condemned us for eternity and only by God's mercy do some of us escape. As Christ proclaimed, "The Son of Man came not into the world to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
So much of the secular antagonism toward God is based on this misunderstanding, this belief that it is God who condemns rather than people who choose to be condemned. And yet, for all of this moral outrage, the same group goes out and commits the same type of action they claim to find so repugnant: condemning people. Judgement. The assignment of value to people as human beings based on little or no evidence without regard to context or balance.
The most recent case that has appeared in the news has been the owned of the Los Angeles Clippers. There have been others. I won't comment on the remarks made here. They speak for themselves. I won't comment on Mr. Sterling. He can speak for himself. I can only speak for me.
I pray that I never find a day on this earth when all that I am and all that I own will be put on trial based on one conversation, and a private conversation at that. I'm afraid I've become quite cynical about my belief in the goodness of people over time, and my trust in many friends has become tempered by experience. That such things can happen in America, that property can be forfeited based on a taped private statement, makes me mindful of what we have lost in this nation. I am grateful now more than ever that God operates on a system of mercy. I would not have been able to stand up to the justice of God, and He is good. Heaven help all of us with what is becoming of the "justice" of men.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Pondering an Invisible God
Some friends and my wife and I are going through a video course called "God is Closer Than You Think" as a small group study. The course seems fairly interesting so far, a mixture of video and written material, with discussion before and after reviewing the media. As you try to determine how close God really is, there are some thought provoking questions that can come up. One that we seemed to key on last week (and I'm paraphrasing here) was "If God is always there, why can't we see or hear Him?"
It's a question that I think every believer, and most skeptics, have asked at least once. If you break it down to its basics, I think the question becomes "Why faith, and not sight?" And since I don't advocate "blind faith," I certainly think it's a fair question to ask. Most of us yearn for that certainty, that confirmation of our senses. In times of trouble, that desire can cross into desperation as trials mount, and prayers rise, and we still seem to find ourselves terribly alone. We sing "Our Redeemer Lives," but doubts can crop up and linger in the most faithful lives, and we tend to think "Wouldn't it be better to simply end the doubt once and for all?"
If we accept that God loves us, and wants what is best for us, then we have to assume the answer to that question is "No," at least for the time being. And as humans, that naturally leads us to ask "Why?" Tackling that question on God's behalf is a foolish endeavor at the best of times, since we know that He looks at things from a much different perspective. Without an explicit reason in the scripture, or divine guidance of the Spirit, whatever we come up with is a an educated guess. We really can't know right now. But we can refer to what has happened in the past, and history indicates that "knowing" isn't half the battle when it comes to God.
Peter declared that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God." He knew it because God had revealed it. Christ confirmed it. The Son of God was walking with them. Yet, when the time came, the disciples still deserted him. Judas still betrayed Him. Peter denied Him.
Looking further back, into the Old Testament, the Hebrews had forty years of walking with God. They saw Him as a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day. He spoke to them through Moses. He took care of their every need. They didn't have to find food for themselves. And they grumbled against God and Moses. What He provided, they wanted "more" or "better." Many were killed because they wanted to return to Egypt, to be slaves, rather than serve God. Even the prophets were not immune. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam all faced tests of faith and humility and failed at one time or another.
I don't pretend to know the mind of God, but it seems to me that there is nothing about "seeing" God that makes us better servants or improves our relationship long term. Perhaps it's the limitations of the bodies we have now, or the affect that corruption has had on this world. Whatever the reason, I think that in this life we are at least as well off without seeing God "face to face." That might be what Christ meant when He said that even more blessed would those be who "have not seen, and yet still believed." At any rate, it's God's call. Who am I to argue with that?
It's a question that I think every believer, and most skeptics, have asked at least once. If you break it down to its basics, I think the question becomes "Why faith, and not sight?" And since I don't advocate "blind faith," I certainly think it's a fair question to ask. Most of us yearn for that certainty, that confirmation of our senses. In times of trouble, that desire can cross into desperation as trials mount, and prayers rise, and we still seem to find ourselves terribly alone. We sing "Our Redeemer Lives," but doubts can crop up and linger in the most faithful lives, and we tend to think "Wouldn't it be better to simply end the doubt once and for all?"
If we accept that God loves us, and wants what is best for us, then we have to assume the answer to that question is "No," at least for the time being. And as humans, that naturally leads us to ask "Why?" Tackling that question on God's behalf is a foolish endeavor at the best of times, since we know that He looks at things from a much different perspective. Without an explicit reason in the scripture, or divine guidance of the Spirit, whatever we come up with is a an educated guess. We really can't know right now. But we can refer to what has happened in the past, and history indicates that "knowing" isn't half the battle when it comes to God.
Peter declared that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God." He knew it because God had revealed it. Christ confirmed it. The Son of God was walking with them. Yet, when the time came, the disciples still deserted him. Judas still betrayed Him. Peter denied Him.
Looking further back, into the Old Testament, the Hebrews had forty years of walking with God. They saw Him as a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day. He spoke to them through Moses. He took care of their every need. They didn't have to find food for themselves. And they grumbled against God and Moses. What He provided, they wanted "more" or "better." Many were killed because they wanted to return to Egypt, to be slaves, rather than serve God. Even the prophets were not immune. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam all faced tests of faith and humility and failed at one time or another.
I don't pretend to know the mind of God, but it seems to me that there is nothing about "seeing" God that makes us better servants or improves our relationship long term. Perhaps it's the limitations of the bodies we have now, or the affect that corruption has had on this world. Whatever the reason, I think that in this life we are at least as well off without seeing God "face to face." That might be what Christ meant when He said that even more blessed would those be who "have not seen, and yet still believed." At any rate, it's God's call. Who am I to argue with that?
Saturday, April 19, 2014
The Flaw of "Balanced" Good
Imagine that you were to come across a rather large man beating a much smaller and apparently helpless woman. When the police arrive to break arrest the man, he says "Don't bother. I intend to help out three other people today." Now imagine that, rather than haul the brute away, the police accept this explanation and go on to their next call. What's more, as you start complaining about this turn of events to people around you, you find that roughly half of the ones you speak to support this "balanced" approach to protecting the public.
If this sounds unbelievable, it shouldn't. The same kind of thing is and has been happening all around us. The situations are somewhat different, but the net effect is the same. We've reached a point in society where many will defend violations of law or decency if they perceive that a "greater good" will be the result of such behavior. What is even more disturbing, they are often unconcerned if the "good" actually appears, judging the intent as the most important factor.This type of dispensation is selective, of course. We still haven't reached the level of savagery for the situation described above, though that day may come. The beatings still have to remain a bit less obvious to maintain public support.
As of right now, hundreds of millions, possibly billions, have been spent passing and promoting the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). The result has been the disruption of health care for millions of people, several of the greatest public frauds ever perpetrated on the American people, and an unbridled expansion of government power. These facts are incontrovertible. The "good" that was promised is a bit harder to pin down. The actual number of people who were uninsured, the effects on efficiency, and how effective this new insurance will be for most people still remain unanswered questions. And there are many others, perhaps chief among them is how long the program can even remain solvent under the existing structure. It has long been forecast that America cannot maintain the entitlements it had prior to the ACA. How long will the budget, even one as accustomed to deficits as we have become, can maintain the illusion of viability?
And throughout all of this, the administration and its supporters tout its success, and ignore the harm. Part of it is conditioning. The left has made a cottage industry of ignoring the damage it inflicts on those outside of its chosen coalitions. If gay "marriage" effects the speech and religious liberties of others, it is of no concern. If more benefits by the government means that freedom and opportunity must be curtailed, it is no problem. There is no sacrifice to great to advance the Progressive agenda as long as the cost is borne by others.
That's where we are right now. It's not a place any society can stay very long. The question that America has decide quickly is "Where do we go from here?"
If this sounds unbelievable, it shouldn't. The same kind of thing is and has been happening all around us. The situations are somewhat different, but the net effect is the same. We've reached a point in society where many will defend violations of law or decency if they perceive that a "greater good" will be the result of such behavior. What is even more disturbing, they are often unconcerned if the "good" actually appears, judging the intent as the most important factor.This type of dispensation is selective, of course. We still haven't reached the level of savagery for the situation described above, though that day may come. The beatings still have to remain a bit less obvious to maintain public support.
As of right now, hundreds of millions, possibly billions, have been spent passing and promoting the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). The result has been the disruption of health care for millions of people, several of the greatest public frauds ever perpetrated on the American people, and an unbridled expansion of government power. These facts are incontrovertible. The "good" that was promised is a bit harder to pin down. The actual number of people who were uninsured, the effects on efficiency, and how effective this new insurance will be for most people still remain unanswered questions. And there are many others, perhaps chief among them is how long the program can even remain solvent under the existing structure. It has long been forecast that America cannot maintain the entitlements it had prior to the ACA. How long will the budget, even one as accustomed to deficits as we have become, can maintain the illusion of viability?
And throughout all of this, the administration and its supporters tout its success, and ignore the harm. Part of it is conditioning. The left has made a cottage industry of ignoring the damage it inflicts on those outside of its chosen coalitions. If gay "marriage" effects the speech and religious liberties of others, it is of no concern. If more benefits by the government means that freedom and opportunity must be curtailed, it is no problem. There is no sacrifice to great to advance the Progressive agenda as long as the cost is borne by others.
That's where we are right now. It's not a place any society can stay very long. The question that America has decide quickly is "Where do we go from here?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)