My Five Seconds of Fame

As regular readers are aware, I have been posting iReports to CNN for the past several months. Six or seven of them have ended up on air. A recent assignment asked for those willing to record an video for those who had lost either family members or friends to suicide. I obliged and was contacted by a reporter who asked more about the situation and more about my own life story.

Entitled,

After suicide takes their loved ones, survivors find purpose, the story can be found here.


According to the reporter who wrote it, the response has already been well-received. Whatever I can do to decrease the stigma of mental illness, I will do gladly.

Executive Strength, Not Executive Deference

It is with no small discouragement that I put my thoughts down today. I never expected to be this disappointed with President Obama's leadership ability and his handling of the proceedings. Still, I concede that perhaps part of it is that the sheer number of daunting challenges which face us must be held in check by the realization that the legislative process is plodding and slow. Every President, to some degree or another, bases his or her definition of Executive authority in contrast to the conduct of the previous person to hold the office. Former President George W. Bush's desire to circumvent the legislative branch and concentrate power in the White House at the expense of other branches no doubt shaped Obama's desire to give Congress its fair share of say and impact. This is a noble gesture, provided it works, and thus far it has not. My hope is that our President will realize that there is a difference between ruling like a dictator and ruling like a strong Executive, and the lines between the two are neither fine, nor blurry.

Because the responsibilities of the President are rather vaguely noted in our Constitution, each occupier of the office has taken his own interpretation of what precisely his job description connotes. Those who have boldly adopted a stance that the Presidency ought to intercede directly and without apology into affairs some might consider the domain of other branches have been variously criticized for threatening to rule as an autocrat. This is inevitable, since human selfishness and common sense dictates that everyone would like as big a piece of the pie as he or she can get. Everyone will also be reliably counted on to object loudly if that piece ends up being reduced in size, especially if one thinks it owed to him or her. Throw in partisan rancor, exaggeration, and media narrative and here one has a familiar formula that has been levied at any number of Presidents who, with the passage of time, history has seen fit to denote as "Great".

The reverse of this, of course, is being too conciliatory to other branches of government, a stance that has regrettably been President Obama's undoing in recent months. Presidents before have kept a tight leash on Congress, not out of some desire for complete control, regardless of how much Senators, Representatives, and pundits scream about it, but out of a genuine understanding that the Executive branch must set the tone, the pace, and the direction. This is especially true now when though both the House and Senate have substantial Democratic majorities, the leadership tends to viscerally underwhelm and no one person has the force of personality to stand out front and be the face of Congressional mettle and resolve. With so much that needs to be done, the President cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and watch with his hands on his hips. He needs to take an active role in the game and if that means that the other players feel as though someone's trying to grab the headlines from them, then so be it.

Public opinion of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and of Congress in general reflects this dire situation of which we are faced. A do-nothing accusation lends itself easily to guilty-until-proven-innocent when no one has yet successfully sold Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, Environmental Reform, or any other measure now on the docket. What we have in its place are overly cautious and thoroughly uninspiring pronouncements that promise ultimate success in the wimpiest possible construction ever devised. They almost beg to not offend the hearer. The clear implication is that the latest version of the bill is a coalition of the fragile affair that could break apart at any moment. This does not exactly foment trust, devotion, and fidelity in the eyes of voters.

As is my wont, in instances like these, my mind drifts to similar struggles in different ages. Historical events roughly four and a half centuries ago shaped the formation of our Union and indeed, mirror ours in certain ways.

The climax of the English Civil War was the ascent of a commoner, Oliver Cromwell, to head the island nation. A member of Parliament before the war, Cromwell successfully lead the forces of the legislative body into battle against those supporting the crown and in so doing won eventual victory. A brilliant military strategist and general, Cromwell held little patience for the delays and cross-currents which bogged down passage and enactment of reforms, which meant that with time Cromwell concentrated more and more authority into his own hands. Though he might have been impatient, one cannot help but sympathize to a degree with his dilemma, particularly right now when partisan or even inter-party bickering has brought even the most modest reform measure to a complete halt.

As for the legislative frustrations that typified the times, they first began in the form of the Long Parliament, which was compromised of an expansive group of dissatisfied legislators aghast at the base incompetence of a heavily unpopular King. This then gave way to the high drama of Pride's Purge. The Long Parliament was dissolved in large part because it met for eight years solid but, due to factionalism and indecisiveness, could never manage to come to a solid conclusion or resolution regarding much of anything. The largely deposed King, Charles I, stalled every negotiation by playing different factions in the Parliamentary alliance against each other to his own advantage. When a significant faction sought to keep the King in control, albeit as only a figurehead, thereby disregarding the authority of the army, a coup d'état commenced. The Purge brutally, skillfully removed fully half of the body, leaving behind only those who supported the army, at which point the monarchy was effectively dissolved, the King beheaded, and England's first and only attempt to rule without a sovereign instituted.

What came next was the so-called "Rump Parliament", a term that, as is sometimes the case, was made by its opposition as a means of derision but stuck nonetheless. To this day, the phrase survives and is used to mean a gathering comprised of remnants of a much larger group or organization. Though initially successful, the Rump met its end four years later. Its undoing was a combination of its failure to come up with a new, working Constitution and its flagrant disregard of the wishes of Cromwell, who commanded that the body dissolve, which it refused to do. After personally observing the stalemate for himself, the soon-to-be Lord Protector bellowed,

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

After the Rump came the appropriately-titled Barebones Parliament, which was even less successful. In disgust, Cromwell took control as a near-dictator and was kept in power by the backing by the army until his death five years later. The complexities of those times are fascinating and cannot be done justice by a brief synopsis, but my greater point is to note the morass between then and now and, in so doing, note how much easier would be our lot if Congress could ever get a thing accomplished without bogging down into a state of maddening paralysis. The Cromwellian Protectorate lasted only slightly longer than one modern-day Presidential term in office, at which point English citizens grew weary of it and re-established the monarchy. It is that lesson above all others which I wish I could impart to our elected representatives and the current occupant of the White House, else they squander a golden opportunity.

How tempting it would be if the ability existed to instantly call for new elections or even a way to rid ourselves of Representative and Senators whose stated agenda seems to be obstructionism and baseless fear-peddling. To return to how I began this post, I know that we are stuck with the men and women we have in Congress. I also understand that we have the theoretical right to throw these people out if they fail to be satisfactory stewards of our trust and our concerns, but one would be remiss to not note how they are often more indebted to the sway of fund raising, high value donors, and corporate interest. Moreover, I concede that the system as it exists is patently not designed for the kind of major overhauls we desperately require. The safeguards in place are designed in part for wiser, paternalistic heads to soberly contemplate, stroke beards meaningfully, and then cautiously proceed. There are too many procedural rules, stalling tactics, and needless esoterica embedded deeply in a branch of government whose ways and means are frequently noted as "arcane".

However, the time for real leadership arrived about four or five months ago. While I concede that President Obama picked his strategy for Health Care Reform based on the failed example of President Clinton, it is long past due for a change in strategy. Sometimes in seeking to avoid a mistake, we over-compensate and create new problems in the process. Cautiousness is sometimes a viable public option, but as regards a Democratic caucus that is beholden to so many different identity groups, so much ideological difference, and a big tent that strains to be wide enough to accept everyone, else they pitch their own somewhere else, Presidential authority is the only way to get everyone on board. If the Left has a true skill, it is in finding hairline cracks in party unity. If the Obama of 2008 can return, then all will be forgiven and we can move forward. Otherwise, we will be stuck with mealy-mouthed, soft-pedaled promises and over-cautious optimism.

The Feud That Wasn't

Recent Obama Administration attacks against the Chamber of Commerce, and, more notably, Fox News have been greeted with perfunctory attention and notice by the major media outlets. Though a few pundits and experts chimed in to state their case in the immediate aftermath of Team Obama's war on bias, few were willing to really say what they believed. Reaction from the chattering classes and the peanut gallery was largely negative and unfavorable of the decision but one got the feeling that many expressed heavily disingenuous views. Invoking Nixonian tactics in a critique reveals more about current station than All the President's Men and Women. In an era where every network and news agency is under increased pressure to maintain advertising revenue and, let we forget, often running significant deficits due to competition with electronic sources of information, caution prevents a major ratings war or uppercut. In another time, a direct challenge by the White House might have fueled a bare-knuckle brawl among the heavyweights, following its bold example, but at the moment the best one can expect is a holding pattern and resulting uneasy truce. Peace might be explained away as journalistic ethics, but ethics often are disregarded if monetary advantage is an option.

Low-octane, under the radar sniping that frequently resorts to passive-aggression is the most obvious sign of the friction between politicians and purveyors of content. As a result, the major cable networks have largely resisted the temptation to go after each other. Striking from a defensive posture, MSNBC recently ran effective ads that directly contradicted Fox News' claim that the 9/12 Tea Party demonstrations in Washington, DC, were not sufficiently covered by other outlets. MSNBC was, however, careful not to go for the jugular. To cite another example, despite recent attempts to modernize its programming and its look, CNN still takes a frequently unsatisfying middle ground between centrism and more progressive reporting that frequently comes across as artificial and plebeian in all the worst ways possible. Still, CNN runs self-serving promo ads on a regular basis that tout its status as number one cable news network, making particularly mention of those under its employ who have won numerous awards and accolades. This may be so, but CNN in many ways is the proverbial sleeping giant and it will take more than a direct challenge or surprise attack to fully rouse it from its self-satisfied stupor. CNN was the first on the scene and as a result its demographic is often older and beholden to brand loyalty, but if it continues to lose younger viewers, it will find itself hemorrhaging revenue.

Returning to the President's attack on Fox News, one would expect the network, despite its obvious disdain for labor unions, to be solid in its hatred for President Obama. However, a chink in the armor appears to have developed. One of its reporters has declined the opportunity to directly engage the President in hand-to-hand combat. The question remains whether or not he is violating policy or merely exercising a liberty he has the right to embrace. It is also possible that this decision is a coordinated attempt designed purely to make President Obama look like a child and make Fox News seem like the rational adult in the matter.

Returning to the relative surface placidity of Fox News versus Barack H. Obama, et al,

Fox News Channel correspondent Major Garrett called himself a "conscientious objector" in his network's fight with the White House after a brief interview with President Barack Obama Wednesday during which the topic never came up.

One wonders also if this is merely a shrewd tactical move or indicative of larger trends within Fox News. Much exists behind the scenes that we simply aren't privy to and whether the Obama Administration has struck a deal with Fox News is purely speculative because no one's talking. Naturally, at least one conservative pundit has taken the opportunity to take a condescending swipe at the President's strategy and perceived lack of satisfying and successful victories in foreign policy. It is the intention of many on the right to paint our President as little more than an empty suit.

Tongue in cheek, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said the interview "constitutes the most important truce in our history since the Korean armistice of 1953."

"We are South Korea in this particular analogy," he said.

To be completely honest, however, Fox News has never truly embraced an all out battle royal with the Obama Administration. While it continues to be snidely dismissive of its policies and eager to run stories with a healthy dollop of right-wing distortion, it has never counter-attacked with any kind of ferocity. When the immediate charges were levied against Fox News, namely that it was merely a propaganda wing of the Republican party, it became at most a two-day story, and notably reached no fevered pitch of nastiness. Clearly, no one really wanted to run with the story for very long. The truth is that the media had nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose if it pushed back too hard.

Any means of information dispersal has to justify its own existence from time to time and anything that might cause some degree of doubt on behalf of viewers or readers is poisonous. Opening up a major dialogue about the role of the media in daily life is the last thing any of the mainstream outlets wanted in this situation, which is unfortunate because I think it's a long-overdue topic that the American people need to debate and then decide for themselves. Fox News' stated objective is noble enough, until one realizes that it is cynically manipulative at best. We report, you decide? I suppose it depends on what one means by "reporting." The easiest populist tactic in the toolbox of any politician is the act of criticizing the media for unfair and unbalanced treatment. The irony, of course, is that the media, and by this I notably remove Fox News for the most part, is frequently criticized for fueling baseless fears as a means of pushing back against accurate, damning revelations. It is notably not held accountable for its real limitations and real shortcomings.

Snide commentary aside, one isn't sure whether this revelation constitutes victory, stalemate, or submission. The powers that be in this circumstance are shadow figures who always talk off the record and never wish to be identified. Nothing could be less transparent than the motives at play or the ultimate decision. Still, if conditions continue to deteriorate regarding the quality of content and a resulting shift towards partisan bias rather than impartiality, expect some major wars to break out that will not be assuaged by back-stage politics. If, at some critical juncture in the near future it seems like there's not enough money or enough oxygen to go round, one can be sure the gloves will be coming off and staying off.

Separation is Merely an Illusion

Amy Walter's column "It's Still 1960 in Washington" rings true in many ways. Designed to point out the stain of sexism and condescending attitudes Washington still holds within its its corridors of power, the piece also speaks to that which we have gained and have yet to gain regarding equality between the sexes. Certain assumptions have proved difficult to completely eradicate from our system and while the boldest and most visible offenders may have been banished from public sight into private secret, subtle suggestion and dog whistle have sprung up to replace them. To be sure, we do not live in a post-sexist society (yet), though if one only considered the victories won and not the upcoming contests, it might be easy to be lulled to complacency. At times we resemble the boxer, who having won a few key contests, rests back on his haunches, fails to stay in shape for his next match, and ends up losing it based on poor conditioning.

Gloria Steniem wrote,

"Those of us who were taught the cheerful American notion that progress is linear and hierarchical may have had to learn with pain...that no worthwhile battle can be fought and won only once....the issues still repeat themselves in different ways and in constantly shifting arenas."

This is, at its core, the fly in the ointment of many a Progressive and many an activist. No single election, no single candidate, no single protest, no single idea, no single victory of any size is enough. Whether you agree or disagree with the mission, The Crusades, after all, progressed easily enough at the beginning. Spurred to action by the passionate appeals of a zealous Pope, highly trained and heavily skilled armies easily defeated Muslim forces. After having secured the Holy Land and established outposts, Christian crusaders began to slowly but steadily trickle back home with time. This left the soldiers who did remain in the coveted territories and manning the castle outposts vulnerable to Muslim attack. In time, the crusader states won went back into the hands of the "infidels" and the process had no choice but to start all over again. End of Crusade One. Next, Crusade Two.

Rust is the enemy of reform and as much as it would be tempting to swap war stories, no worthwhile conflict leaves any room for nostalgia. The problem facing Feminism right now (or for that matter, any reform movement) is that many of the major forces at play haven't recognized the generational shift and new challenges that are merely part of the progression of time. Instead, they want to fight the newest enemy with obsolete strategies and obsolete weaponry. Those who do recognize the problem, frequently young Feminists and young activists, end up being tokenized, patronized, or discounted. These offenses have led to third-wavers forming their own organizations and groups, though in truth it would be far better if everyone was on the same page and not working at cross-purposes with each other. In order to make change, one must be willing to make change within oneself, and those who encourage self-reflection, sad to say, often run the risk of taking a long walk off of a short plank.

For years, the goal of feminism was to get reproductive rights out of the realm of "women's issues" and into the category of "family issues." And many have wondered if EMILY's List, an organization dedicated solely to electing pro-choice Democratic women, has outlived its usefulness. After all, in an era that saw a woman come so close to being elected president, a women's-only group can sound as outdated as the three-martini lunch. Yet it was striking that on an issue as central to the Democratic party ideology as this one, it was up to women to define and defend it.

Upon first reading this passage, I was afraid Walter was going to resort to the same argument which states that feminism and women's-only groups are superfluous and outdated. The need for them does persist, but aforementioned outdated thinking and antiquated strategy comprises the mission statements of far too many of them. That which begins with good intentions drifts dangerous towards self-parody if group introspection is not prized and actively incorporated. Many women's rights groups could and probably have been fodder for The Onion and for good reason. The second-wave feminism of the sixties and seventies advances the concerns of a relatively privileged group of now aging white middle class women and frequently doesn't take into account currents trends and cultural evolution. Furthermore, getting more than just reproductive rights transformed into the realm of family issues is what Feminism has attempted and frequently failed to do. Even invoking the phrase "family issues" instantly conjures up maternal images of rocking babies to sleep and feeding small children.

What needs to happen, unless it is forever perceived in the cultural imagination as a niche group with a relatively limited scope, is for Feminism's goals to advance human rights. To be sure, there are many activists, myself being only one, who are attempting to bring this to pass. What we continue to struggle with, however, are cultural attitudes that lock men out of the process altogether by assuming that they will be meant to feel unwelcome in feminist circles or that taking an interest in the concerns of women is masculine and thus effeminate. Along with this is a gross stereotype that portrays Feminism as shrill, exclusive, lacking an understanding of irony, and having no grasp of nuance or subtlety. Though most Feminist thought does have a woman-centered emphasis for good reason, I as a man have been amazed at how much of conventional masculine gender roles and concerns I can observe even in the most strictly female construct. It is that point in particular that makes me realize that our supposed separation from each other is a skillfully crafted illusion. We must not be careful to not break the bonds of fidelity and common purpose that link us together, provided we are willing to constantly seek them and repair them. Wear and tear is simply part of the game.

The American Dream and the Prosperity Gospel

I am not usually a reader of magazines except when waiting in places like doctor's offices or for routine car repair, but a particular column in The Atlantic fairly jumped out at me yesterday while running errands. Provocatively entitled "Did Christianity Cause the Crash?", immediately I wondered what Christianity the author was referring to when making such a sweeping pronouncement. As it turns out, it's a particularly curious hybrid strain that synthesizes radical optimism and personal gain at the expense of hard truths or self-awareness. In that regard, it could not be more indicative of the modern age, in all of its faults and promises of salvation through riches. Moreover, in this epoch where instant gratification reigns, perhaps it was inevitable that this petard preaching material gain was hoist.

Though centrally based around an emerging Catholic congregation catering specifically to recent Latino immigrants, in her compelling article author Hanna Rosin draws in disparate strains of different denominations to make an interesting and ultimately damning point.

America’s churches always reflect shifts in the broader culture, and Casa del Padre is no exception. The message that Jesus blesses believers with riches first showed up in the postwar years, at a time when Americans began to believe that greater comfort could be accessible to everyone, not just the landed class. But it really took off during the boom years of the 1990s, and has continued to spread ever since. This stitched-together, homegrown theology, known as the prosperity gospel, is not a clearly defined denomination, but a strain of belief that runs through the Pentecostal Church and a surprising number of mainstream evangelical churches, with varying degrees of intensity.

In Garay’s church, God is the “Owner of All the Silver and Gold,” and with enough faith, any believer can access the inheritance. Money is not the dull stuff of hourly wages and bank-account statements, but a magical substance that comes as a gift from above. Even in these hard times, it is discouraged, in such churches, to fall into despair about the things you cannot afford. “Instead of saying ‘I’m poor,’ say ‘I’m rich,’” Garay’s wife, Hazael, told me one day. “The word of God will manifest itself in reality.”

I find this belief system, if one could truly call it that, particularly troubling and problematic, considering that there are any number of verses of Scripture and words of Jesus I could invoke to directly contradict it. The most obvious citation and one that likely jumps out to those with a strong Christ-centered background is, of course, from the Gospel of Matthew.

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

I am surprised certainly at how unapologetic is this emphasis on personal finance and wealth, since the model used by many churches is a much more insidious one. The most flagrant perversion is found within conventional Protestant Christianity and is known as the Edifice Complex. In it, individual salvation is closely linked with coughing up enough money into the collection plates to buy the brand new multimillion dollar building being pushed by the minister and certain well-connected committee members. A singular focus upon a new house of worship takes precedent, is set into motion, and is awaited with a kind of rapturous Messianic zeal. Plans are drawn up, each stage is announced with much fanfare, updates are frequently provided on how much money has been donated to cover the expense, and it is implied strongly and frequently that all problems will be easily solved by more square footage. The tactic is almost always justified by stating that unchurched people will be drawn into the fold and as a result souls will be saved. Of course, paying for it all over time, in addition to such matters as an notable increase in monies devoted to utilities, mortgage payments, and routine upkeep would certainly require greater participation and increased numbers in the pews, but these are often vulgar, cynical conclusions few dare to draw openly or, for that matter, vocally.

It is not all that surprising that the prosperity gospel persists despite its obvious failure to pay off. Much of popular religion these days is characterized by a vast gap between aspirations and reality. Few of Sarah Palin’s religious compatriots were shocked by her messy family life, because they’ve grown used to the paradoxes; some of the most socially conservative evangelical churches also have extremely high rates of teenage pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births, and divorce. As Garay likes to say, “What you have is nothing compared to what you will have.” The unpleasant reality—an inadequate paycheck, a pregnant daughter, a recession—is invisible. It’s your ability to see beyond such things, your willing blindness to even the most hopeless-seeming circumstances, that makes you a certain kind of modern Christian, and a 21st-century American.

At times I have found criticism from those who are not people of faith a little annoying and self-righteous, but still do try to give credence to their concerns, many of which are well-founded. If, for instance, one assumes that religion, or for that matter, Christianity is little more than a panacea of positive thinking or a snake-oil curative based on this example, I can hardly fault them for it. True believers have always had to contend with distortions of the truth formulated to suit the ends of those who manipulated followers to advance their own ends, which often involved material gain. It is unfortunate that tunnel-vision suffices for real faith in the eyes of the deluded, though I fault those who advance it, not those who cling to it.

Later in Matthew,

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Learn what this means: 'I want mercy, not sacrifices.' For I have come to urge sinners, not the self-righteous, back to God.

I remember that when I was in high school I had a friend who grew up in a very conservative Evangelical family. Underneath the piety, however, was a kind of dysfunction utterly at odds with the stability which they espoused. The mother and father had been long divorced and so my friend lived with his mother in an always cluttered house packed floor to ceiling with junk and unorganized possessions. She used divine revelation and divine direction as justification to leave the country for long periods of time. No matter whether or not she had the money or the need to engage in weeks-long mission trips to remote corners of the globe, her rationalization was that God meant for her to go and since she wanted to go, He would provide for the messy details like funding or making sure her son had the support he needed. Upon reading this article, this anecdote from my own life entered my mind and I am saddened to think that what I considered delusional eccentricity might be far more commonplace then I had ever dreamed.

The Atlantic article focuses on a member of this Charlottesville, Virginia, Latino Catholic congregation by the name of Billy Gonzales, whose requisite devotion to the Prosperity Gospel raises some major red flags in the eyes of this reader.

By many measures, Billy Gonzales does not have it all. He lives with his wife and three children in a tiny apartment on the back side of a development at the edge of town, where people hang out on the stoop until all hours. He works 45 minutes away and his car has been broken down for three months, and he does not have any money to fix it. Every day at work he is faced with a vision of what he does not have. He works for a man who just built a $4 million house—one of four the man owns. Gonzales’s job is to make sure every wine glass, garden statue, and book is dusted and in its proper place. Yet when I talked to Gonzales he was like a child hearing the ice-cream truck, or a man newly in love. “I’m crazy! Just crazy,” he said, meaning crazy for the Lord, and giving little jumps out of his chair.

“I want to buy a house,” he confessed to me one evening this summer. It turned out his lease was almost up, and he needed to move in the fall. “Not a small one but a really huge one, a nice one. With six bedrooms and a kitchen and living room. I know, it’s crazy! But nothing is impossible! God, you saved my life,” he said, no longer speaking to me. “You saved my life, and now you will give me a gift. Now I’m crazy!” Last I heard, he and Garay were house-hunting together.

The narrative that has been advanced in our society since roughly World War II is that religion is detrimental and thus it ought to be jettisoned and disregarded. This has found favor particularly in liberal circles and continues to be pushed hard, since it is easy to provide a new example of how religious intolerance holds back progress or controls people to maintain its own power. When riding the bus yesterday here in DC, I came across a very visible ad for Humanism. It fairly dripped with optimism, smiling faces, calm colors, and good cheer, stating that it is possible for a person to be good without having to have a belief in God or a higher power at all.

In my opinion, I believe that it is entirely possible to be a model citizen without a belief in a higher power, but I suppose I simply have a hard time entertaining the notion that humans when in groups are capable of staying grounded and remaining focused in their efforts to assist everyone. One needs only look at the artifice we have created in government to see the confusion, the inequality, and above all, the needless complications that resort when peoples' stated agenda at the outset is egalitarianism which ends up by the end nothing remotely like it. What often starts with the best of intentions concludes with a finished product that pleases no one.

Going back to Gonzales, what strikes me as a supreme tragedy is this particular passage, which flies in the face of much biblical teaching and, to be fair, much teaching of other religions.

He told me he feels pity for his employer. He assumes the man must have been close to God at one point, or at least his family must have been, “because the rich are closer to God.” But now the man has lost his way. He laughs when Gonzales talks to him about Jesus, and he wastes his money, buying $500 birdhouses and hiring Gonzales to clean them.

This story begs to be contradicted and my selection of the passage below should come as no surprise.

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them intently and said, "For humans this is impossible, but for God all things are possible."

The long and short of it is that religion isn't meant to be a consistent warm fuzzy. That's not the point. Jesus called out the leaders of his day and age, which directly led to his death on a cross. All or nothing thinking transforms religion either to a nonstop bummer trip of hypocrisy and thought control or a kind of willing Utopia adopted by believers desperate for a break from the travails and stressors of the world. We are taught, poetically, that to everything there is a season. Sometimes we need encouragement, sometimes we need to be aware of our own frailties, sometimes we can delight in joy, sometimes we need to be held accountable for our transgressions, but we don't need a retelling of the bootstrap mythology based on a oversimplified interpretation of scripture.

A notable criticism of all of the monotheistic religions is that they are Paternalistic and at times needlessly meddling. I admit that the intention of the Gospels has been twisted to state "I know better than you do". Still, focusing specifically on what Jesus taught, the ultimate intention in the beginning was that of empowerment, not subordination. No teacher desperate to be worshiped or admired would have stated that whomever exalts himself or herself will be humbled and whomever humbles himself or herself will be exalted. It is a corruption of original intent that leads many away from faith and towards a gospel preaching riches, while in the process forsaking the Golden Rule. The American Dream as realized begins with the Protestant work ethic, but takes a sharp detour along the way.

To conclude, a message for false teachers and corrupt politicians.

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Don't make others call you a leader, because you have only one leader, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant.

Building a Name-Brand Health Care System, Not a Low-Cost Generic Alternative

Much as credit card companies have charged exorbitant interest rates in the period leading up to the passage and enactment of reform, so too have prescription drug companies added more cost to their already prohibitively expensive products. Afraid that health care regulatory legislation will cut too heavily into their soaring profits, the industry feels no shame, nor any compulsion to give heavily burdened consumers much of a break. This is a side of the debate that has not gotten the same attention as other areas and one that I have tried to bring to light quite frequently, being that I myself stand to lose quite a bit if out-of-control price increases are not sharply curtailed. I do not deceive myself into thinking that I am the only one who stands to lose. Though I do not mind invoking personal experience if it facilitates greater understanding and urgency, I wish it didn't take the anecdotes of the chronically ill to impress upon a skeptical public the importance of health care reform.

On the subject of psychotropic medication, something of which I am an amateur expert, I have closely monitored new classes, types, and formulations of prescription drugs in a desire to find the best way possible to treat my condition. For every new medication that breaks new ground, wins approval by the FDA, and is then prescribed by GPs and psychiatrists across the country, it is a never-ending source of frustration for me to observe the three new offerings which are merely slightly different formulations of existing medications. This is a covetous process undertaken mainly to reap maximum profit when older scripts are on the verge of losing patent status and thus being offered as generics. For example, the anti-depressant which is the most recent addition to a family of medications known as SSNRIs has been marketed under the name Pristiq. Pristiq has a very similar chemical structure and as a result works only slightly differently from an existing drug in the same school, Effexor, that has been around for over ten years. Sometimes, however, even generics occasionally have limitations. Though a lower-cost equivalent to Effexor exists, the less-expensive form has been reported to work not nearly as effectively as the name brand formulation.

An article in today's New York Times reports on Big Pharma's side of the story.

But drug companies say they are having to raise prices to maintain the profits necessary to invest in research and development of new drugs as the patents on many of their most popular drugs are set to expire over the next few years.

That may be, but before one gets misty-eyed listening to the woe-is-us violin, rest assured that the pharmaceutical industry isn't exactly hurting for business. Conveniently they don't mention the larger picture. Another example of this kind of infuriating slight-of-hand is the sleep aid Ambien, which has had a sufficient generic alternative for a while. A relatively new formulation dubbed Ambien CR produces an only a slightly different reaction, mainly by time-releasing the absorption of the drug into the blood stream. The drug is the same, but the gimmick is different. Returning to psychiatry, it is either a testament to how little we know about the function of the brain or how unwilling we are to risk radical change that the medications used to treat depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia have broken only relatively limited ground in decades. The best treatment for depression are still a class of powerful anti-depressant known as a MAOI inhibitors, which are close to fifty years old. They are rarely prescribed, however, because taking them requires strict dietary restrictions that, if not adhered to, can result in serious damage to the body and, in extreme cases, even death. In treating bipolar disorder, some patients still respond best to Lithium, which has been used in treatment for over a century, but extensively since the Fifties.

Newer medication often cut down side effects and make the period of adjustment less painful, but do little to increasing the stated objectives of the drug, namely to drag people out of depressive episodes and set them on a course towards health and functionality. Experimental trials are often plodding affairs proceeding at the pace of a snail, targeting a relatively limited area of the brain, and unwilling to take any unnecessary chances. Despite this, some medications do pass muster and do end up being taken by who are suffering in the hopes of providing relief. Even so, the drug makers and those who formulate them sometimes fail to take into account such crucial details as major side effects in a rush to get out the next big thing. SSNRIs like Effexor, for example, are infamous for producing absolutely awful issues when someone stops taking it. Though not strictly classified as such, one might even say that such drugs are addictive because the brain acts violently when the medication is discontinued. These serious matters somehow never find their way onto the commercials on television or the ads inside glossy magazines.

The difference in cost between name brand and generic drugs is quite vast. Often it is a matter of several hundred dollars for a one month supply, though it can be as high as a thousand dollars or more. As one might expect, those with employer-based or individual plans paid for out of pocket have to pay substantially higher co-pays for name brand drugs. When I had private insurance, the co-pay for generic medications was $10 and for name-brand drugs, it was $60. Sometimes I had no choice but to take a name-brand medication, which are often treated by insurance companies as something bordering on cosmetic and not essential, when the fact of the matter is that they are highly necessary and highly unavoidable at times.

Those who don't have the luxury of private insurance, of course, have it rougher. Those who have to rely on Medicaid find that they have no choice but to settle for generic medications when a name-brand drug would be a much better fit and work much more effectively. Medicaid programs vary, but in the state of Alabama, the most expensive medications are only covered if a doctor or specialist one can provide proof that at least two lower-cost alternatives have failed or been insufficient to treat the condition. Not only must they have failed, one must also work within the confines of a 90 day coverage window. If a claim to cover a more expensive medication is not filed within 90 days of failing the requisite two medications, then coverage is not granted. This is ridiculous in lots of ways, mainly that few medications used to treat mental illness work quickly, and many take weeks upon weeks before any psychiatrist or doctor can make a judgment either way. It's also ridiculous because it uses a broad brush of convenience, painting all illnesses as basically the same and all treatment regimens as similar. Some name-brand medications, regardless of the need are not covered at all, since whomever set up the system decided that covering it would unnecessarily drain the General Fund and that it was an unnecessary prescription in the first place.

Returning to the Times column,

But the drug makers have been proudly citing the agreement they reached with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee chairman to trim $8 billion a year — $80 billion over 10 years — from the nation’s drug bill by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. That provision is likely to be part of the legislation that will reach the Senate floor in coming weeks.

But this year’s price increases would effectively cancel out the savings from at least the first year of the Senate Finance agreement. And some critics say the surge in drug prices could change the dynamics of the entire 10-year deal.

Those who trust Big Pharma do so at their own peril.

Additionally, The news broke today that, quite unsurprisingly, much misinformation exists surrounding the Public Option™. As Politico points out,

The debate has placed disproportionate emphasis on the creation of a government insurance plan, raising the expectation that everyone could ditch their employer-provided coverage and enroll in the public option.

But that won’t happen, at least not at the start. The reality is that only about 30 million Americans — 10 percent of the population — would even be eligible.

It could be accessed only through a new insurance marketplace known as an exchange, where consumers would shop for plans. Only certain categories of people could use the exchange: the self-employed, small businesses, lower-income people who qualify for tax credits to purchase insurance and those who are otherwise unable to find affordable private coverage.

This might deflate the hopes of supporters and pacify opponents, but since so much of this debate has been a three-ring-circus based on raw emotion and faulty logic, I sincerely doubt it. However, as proposed, it is interesting to note that the Public Option™ would be more like Medicaid than anything else. My hope is that we do not make the same mistakes with the current bill as we do with existing systems it seeks to augment or replace, particularly those in red states who likely would opt-out altogether if provided the opportunity to do so. Though at least red state residents would presumably have the fall-back of Medicaid, provided they could qualify, the framework is based on ignorance and tunnel-vision of an almost incomprehensible degree. One cannot simplify the complexities of humanity, nor its diseases, which are as multifarious as its people.

Returning to the treatment of mental illness, what is often not cited is the disconcerting fact that often African-Americans and Latinos respond much less favorably to medications used to treat the condition. This is a contentious topic with lots of disagreement, but the argument some advance is that cultural stigma factors in to a very large degree. If minorities feel shamed or guilty about seeking help for psychiatric needs, they are much less likely to engage in medical research. Furthermore, many believe that therapy is a more viable option than medication. Often it is difficult to make any kind of pronouncement when the truth is obscured by so many different interrelated factors. And though one can easily make a case for mental illness, one could also make a case that minority and low-income residents might be less inclined to visit a doctor for a more run-of-the-mill ailments as well.

The lifetime prevalence of major depression in the United States is estimated to be 16.2 percent, with considerable social and role impairment evident in the majority of patients. Previous studies found only minor differences in depression rates among African Americans, Latinos and whites. But various studies have found patients from lower social economic groups often have less access to mental health care, are less likely to be prescribed and to fill prescriptions for new antidepressants and are less likely to receive care beyond medications when compared to whites.

This fear and anxiety so many have that resembles to these eyes a case of St. Vitus Dance may not have any basis in reality. Doesn't matter how good the system is if no one uses it. God forbid everyone in this country have a high standard of living and good health. As the article points out, minorities and low-income citizens often have the highest need for quality care and are apt to put off seeking help until the pain becomes intolerable. That these are the people most likely to be eligible for enrollment in the government-run (gasp) option, those now building it from the ground up would do well to consider its target audience. We speak out of our own privilege when we assume that somehow the Public Option™ will directly affect us for better or for worse, when the poor and less fortunate will be the ones who either reap its rewards or suffer from its limitations. While it is true that middle class individuals and the reasonably affluent have struggled under the yoke of skyrocketing health care costs, I recall going in that I assumed the changes needed and intended were meant to appeal to our tired, our poor, our huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Somewhere along the way this became all about us.

That Which Needs to Be Said

Blue Gal's post about content poaching raises a serious issue that has created headaches and indignation across the blogsophere. With so many worthy voices in the blogsophere churning out quality work on a consistent basis, larger sites, entities, or individuals apparently feel no remorse in resorting to overt plagiarism or lifting visual content without the permission or consent of the author or authors. Citizen journalists like myself and others consider blogging a labor of love and as such they offer their services largely for free. The major issue at play is that blogging, much like writing, is a supremely competitive endeavor that stems from lots of people fighting over the same turf, commenting on the same issues, and seeking to attain paid positions, which are not and may never be plentiful.

In solidarity with Blue Gal and other sites like it, I have followed her example and posted a donation button at the bottom of this post. Those who feel inclined or so moved can signify their support by contributing. No gift is too big or too small and participation is, of course, strictly voluntary. It is my wish that those bloggers of general sympathy consider this same gesture.

Quote of the Week

No explanation necessary.

Saturday Video