Prospects for a public option grow dimmer

Earlier today, an important Senate committee dealt proponents of the public health care option a stinging setback. The Senate Finance Committee voted against including a government funded plan in the eventual bill.

The fight for such an option has become a pivotal battle ground in the fight for health care reform. I've yet to make up my own mind on the merits of a public option. Sifting through the lies, exaggerations and misinformation has become an almost herculean task.

My support of health insurance reform is rooted, not in any altruistic desire to cover the uninsured, but in the knowledge that our current system is completely unsustainable. While wages have remained virtually the same over the last ten years, insurance premiums have risen like clockwork. Consequently, profits for the insurance industry have risen an astounding 450% over the same period of time.

While resolute in my support for broad industry reforms, I remain unconvinced of the necessity of a heavily subsided government option. I am, however, open to the possibility of changing my mind. There may be valid reasons for including a public option and even if not, I'd still like to hear the other side of the argument. I feel nothing but disdain for those willing to take to the streets in opposition to something they know little about.

Let's put the outrage on hold until all the facts are known, shall we?

A delayed reaction to Wilson-gate is better than none at all

Last week, the mass media's endless appetite for sensationalism was again satisfied thanks to South Carolina's own Joe Wilson. Representative Wilson's timely interjection into the President's address gave news outlets a perfect excuse to ignore the very real (and evidently uninteresting) issue at stake and instead focus on the kind of politically fueled controversy American's love to watch.

We know now, thanks to the public statement he released shortly after the fact, that Rep. Wilson regrets his actions and that he's learned a valuable lesson in humility. Besides, it was never his intention to rudely interrupt the President, he just momentarily lost control of himself because he cares so very much.

Despite his public admission of regret, there's no doubt that Wilson isn't a little pleased with the way events have panned out. What politician wouldn't welcome the national attention and public outpouring of support? He's a hero for all the Americans who share in his vehement disdain for the President and these supporters have flooded his campaign with cash.

Ok, I admit it. I'm more than a little skeptical of Wilson's claim that his outburst was an entirely spontaneous reaction. It's unfathomable to me that a grown man, an elected official, who is listening along all of Congress to a Presidential address would just unthinkingly blurt the first thing that popped into his brain, no matter how passionately his feelings on the subject may be.

It's just too difficult to believe that an elected official could have such little control over his own actions in public. Wilson's outburst makes far more sense as the calculated gambit of an ambitiously clever politician. Many politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have been co-opting the health care debate as a means of furthering their own selfish interests, whats one more name in the pile?

Lacking any other reasonable explanation, we're left to conclude one of two things. Joe Wilson, Representative of the great state of South Carolina, is either another in the long line of opportunistic politicians more than willing to trade on populist anger for their own advancement, or a man possessed of a frighteningly low level of self-control has somehow become a powerful state official.

If anyone reading this entry has a more reasonable explanation, please contribute your thoughts. I'm curious to hear a less cynical observation.

Latest controversy: Obama's school speech

In the minds some, Obama's recent back to school speech was actually part of a secret plan to indoctrinate the country's youth. Many conservative parents are convinced that the President was using this platform as a means of pushing partisan politics to their kids.

Has the political scene in America devolved to such an extent that the President can't even speak in front of children without being accused of some ulterior motive? Unfortunately, this appears to be the case.

I've always believed that one of the many roles one assumes as President is to serve as a source of inspiration for future generations. As far as I can see, the President was doing just that, giving children someone to look up to. There's no evidence to suggest that his true purpose was some kind of liberal brainwashing. Obama should be applauded, not demonized, for his efforts to engage the youth of America in a meaningful manner.

Also discouraging is the method with which the administration has chosen to respond to these baseless accusations. Instead of acting with the righteous outrage such an absurd claim deserves, the administration has tried to assuage the people behind it.

Immediately wilting in the face of public opposition has traditionally been a weakness of the Democratic Party. Their propensity for acting defensive only lends credence, regardless of actual merit, to their opponents. Members of the opposition are well aware of this trait and have zero qualms using it to their own advantage.

Acting before a crisis

Does America possess the capacity to act before a crisis occurs? The current debate over health care reform has strong implications regarding whether or not we as a nation can offset a problem before disaster strikes.

When confronted with a crisis, America is quick to put aside political differences/considerations in favor of the common good. Unfortunately, such cooperation is short lived. The status quo of extreme partisanship is quick to reassert itself. The mindset on capitol hill seems to favor the notion that what’s good for me (or my party) is what’s good for America. And if one believes that, then it would mean that what’s bad for me (or my party) is bad for America.

Such beliefs are making it practically impossible to hold a serious debate on the merits of health care. Instead, one party seems hellbent on derailing any progress so that they may reap the rewards of failure. Even worse is the method with which they have chosen to carry out their plans, by spreading lies and blatant exaggerations.

Such fear-mongering has whipped a certain segment of the population into apoplexies of rage at the thought of reform. So far, this strategy appears be working as the media, smelling blood, zeroes in on instances of public outrage.

It’s impossible to hold an intelligent debate, unfortunately, when one side has zero inclination to participate in a meaningful capacity. In fact that’s the exact opposite of what certain politicians want. If both sides were to discuss the issue civilly, it’s possible they could come to agreement, and if that happened all the people who’ve placed their political future on failure would look awfully cynical.

An essay on anti-McCain bias.

Of the numerous tools word slingers have at their disposal none is as difficult to control as personal bias. As a source of information most news organizations attempt to offer an unbiased overview of the facts. People rely on this stream of news to create their own opinion on specific issues. When supposedly neutral news becomes corrupted with personal views or agendas the entire process of informed opinion is perverted. Our judgments become moot, having no definitive basis in truth. The issue of media bias is especially important during a presidential election.

Amidst a worsening economic environment and an increasingly hostile perception internationally, the election has overwhelmingly captured the attention of Americans across the nation. Because of this increase in interest the debate concerning the extent to which media bias can influence the outcome of an election has taken on greater relevance.

Over the past few months the majority of bias accusations have originated from the McCain campaign. Previously, McCain’s relationship with the media had been one of mutual respect. Campaigning across the nation from his famous “straight talk express” RV, McCain would host informal question and answer sessions; no subject was considered taboo. Such unfettered access to a politician was an unusual event and contributed to the media’s positive perception of McCain. Reporters were charmed by McCain’s sincerity and frankness. These spin-free interactions cemented his reputation as a different breed of politician. However, a shift in public opinion of Republicans would soon force McCain to reevaluate this relationship.

With many people placing blame for the nation’s current problems squarely at the feet of Republicans, McCain faced an uphill battle to the presidency. Apparently he felt that the only path to success lay in the adoption of techniques pioneered by Karl Rove. As an advisor to Bush, Rove proved a master at influencing public opinion. This change in strategies necessitated a complete severing of McCain’s previous rapport with the press. Honest discourse was replaced with strict adherence to specific messages. The press found it difficult to reconcile this abrupt change in attitude. In my opinion the previous events created an environment resulting in possible media bias.

As a regular reader of the news, I have rarely come across blatant instances of bias. I believe the issue has been blown out of proportion. Further muddying the waters has been the Republican response of crying foul at every opportunity. Accusations of bias are utilized as just another political tool in the arsenal. These claims are used as a way to invalidate any objectionable stories and further the idea of an all-encompassing liberal agenda. It is impossible to diagnose bias when each person views the news through the filter of their political affiliation. The media’s neutrality has become the latest casualty in the war on public opinion. In the face of this onslaught it is no surprise that viewers have gravitated toward sources that merely validate their own personal beliefs. However, as a benefit of this increased interest news organizations have strived to prevent the insertion of bias.

When not being used as a political tool, accusations of bias in the media serve an important function in the relationship between the source and receiver. With the public’s greater awareness of bias, news organizations are placing more emphasis on remaining neutral. This is a reassuring notion in our world of conflicting perspectives.

Where has the middle ground gone?

Was there ever a time when the word bipartisan had any basis in reality? Politicians appear to have no interest in working together for a common cause. They grasp at every opportunity to flash the middle finger to the opposing party.

Take Nancy Pelosi's recent speech before the vote on the big bailout. She spouted the same rhetoric blaming Dubya and the Republicans for the current economic disaster. Is it true? Hell, yeah. But doesn't the severity our predicament take precedence over finger-pointing? Was there no other venue she could have used? After years of abuse by the Repubs. Pelosi just wants to lash out wherever she can. Hell hath no fury like a speaker of the house spurned.

By reacting exactly as her opposites have, she has proven just how similar they are. Any resolution to important issues takes a back seat to the great game of politics. I find the selfishness of our politicians disconcerting. They are elected to represent the people but they rarely act like it. Unfortunately, progress on issues is viewed as secondary to personal feelings of enmity.