Good for Congress, So Why Not for Us?

From The Pilot: November 11, 2009

Members of Congress, to include Rep. Coble, have decried the Affordable Health Care for America Bill as a "government takeover of health care."
But is this objection consistent with what Congress does for its own health care? I would say no, because Congress itself chooses to have government health care. First, free care is available through the Military Health Care system. I know, because as a former Army doctor, I once provided some of this care. Military Health Care is government health care.
Second, and more to the point, Congress is insured under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, touted as having beneficiaries who "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country." Indeed, there are seven different plan types (providing a range of low to higher cost options) available through multiple carriers. The FEHB program is government health care because taxpayers fund it.
What's to be made of this contradictory behavior? Congress decrying a "government takeover of health care" but espousing government care for themselves? Perhaps some legislators have, on principle, individually rejected these options, but if so, I haven't heard about it. Nor does Coble, in letters to his constituents, indicate that he has declined government health care for himself. Why should government health care be good for Congress but bad for the nation? Is there a disconnect here? A bit of hypocrisy?
I am reminded of an anecdote, told by the president, from a letter that in essence said, "I am against government-run health care, but don't touch my Medicare!" Here the contradiction is obvious. The contradiction of members of Congress decrying government health care for the nation while benefiting from it themselves, should be made just as obvious!

Edward N. Squire Jr.
Seven Lakes

Media Only Interested in Nutty Drama

From The Pilot: November 6, 2009

A "referendum on Barack Obama." A "bellwether" of how the elections of 2010 and 2012 are going to go. That was the prevailing narrative in the so-called "liberal" media right before this past week's off-year elections. Among those supposedly "bellwether" elections was the special election in New York's 23rd District, which pitted Republican state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava against Democrat Bill Owens. Scozzafava, however, wasn't nearly ideologically pure enough for the angry, bitter, sky-is-falling wing of the GOP. Michelle Malkin of Fox News repeatedly referred to Scozzafava as a "radical leftist."
Malkin, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck came out strongly in favor of a third-party candidate, Doug Hoffman, who doesn't even live in the district. When Newt Gingrich tried to reason with the raging right-wingers, Malkin turned on him. "Perhaps it is time to go your own way, with Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi," Malkin sneered at Gingrich.
The wingnut attacks got so vicious that Scozzafava eventually dropped out of the race -- and endorsed Owens.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, the battle for the governorship was waged between a Democrat, incumbent John Corzine, who apparently was about as popular in New Jersey as the swine flu, and whose campaign message seemed to be mostly centered on allegations that his Republican opponent, Chris Christie, is fat. In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell vied with Democrat Creigh Deeds, who ran a ham-fisted campaign that made John McCain's desperate floundering look positively Machiavellian in comparison.
By Wednesday morning, the results were in: Republicans won the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia, but Bill Owens was the first Democratic House member from NY-23 since the Civil War.
You'd think that these would be reported as, at best, mixed results. But you'd be wrong. "Republican Wins Deal Blow to Obama," blared the supposedly "liberal" MSNBC.com, claiming that winning two governorships "inflicted a double blow on President Barack Obama's Democratic Party."
They went on to say: "The Republican victories Tuesday in Virginia and New Jersey are a setback for Obama as he struggles to overhaul the U.S. health-care system, win passage of climate change legislation, and build political support for his handling of the war in Afghanistan." Because, after all, the governors of New Jersey and Virginia have so much influence on those issues.
Meanwhile, a Democratic win in a district that hasn't elected a Democrat since the 19th century, one in which stars of the wingnuttosphere threw their weight behind a teabagger third-party candidate and drove the Republican nominee out of the race for being too liberal, one in which Barack Obama gave his endorsement to the Democrat who eventually won -- not such a big deal.
In short, the so-called "liberal" media hyped this as a huge test of the popularity of the Obama administration, then blew off the Democratic win, one that, lest we forget, increased the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. They chose instead to gush over Republican wins that stand to have little or no effect on President Obama's national agenda.
Yeah, those are some liberal media, you betcha.
Not that I'm saying the media are conservative. No, the problem with 21st century "news" as it's practiced by the so-called "serious" journalists is that it's not about liberalism or conservatism any more. It's about drama.
It was foreordained that the media were going to spin this as a huge challenge to the president, who's been in office for less than a year. Because otherwise, the off-year election would be like most off-year elections: boring. And they hate boring.
That's why the gun-toting tea-party nuts and birthers get so much coverage. They may not make much sense, but look how colorful they are! Look, a Nazi flag! Hey, does that one have a gun? Let's go see what pearls of wisdom he has to offer!
By the same token, "Huge setback for Obama! Can he ever recover? Who will save us now!?" is a much more sexy narrative than "things are really complicated right now." So guess which story gets told?
With its predetermined narratives, nutty characters and obsession with gaudy trash-talking, modern journalism is becoming harder and harder to distinguish from professional wrestling.
God help us all.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

Helping Those in Need

From The Pilot: November 6, 2009

I so disagree when Bill Schwenk says, "Health care is an individual responsibility for those who are capable of taking care of themselves. It is not a right to be paid for by other people who do take their health care responsibility" (Nov. 1).
I might remind you that we are our brother's keeper. How do you explain your attitude to someone who could no longer work due to cancer, lost their insurance, could not pay and would not have been accepted for new insurance? Too bad you're sick. I guess although the medical world could have saved you, your poor planning has put you in a situation where you have no other option than to die.
And what do you say to parents who have depleted their savings: Mom cares for the premature infant and Dad works, but they have exceeded their catastrophic cap? They can have other kids, so why worry about this one?
Is that responsible enough for you? I'm not the least bit happy that I may be taxed to help pay for someone else's health care, but I will be able to put my head on my pillow at night knowing I was able to help someone out of an intolerable situation.
The question should be, how can "we" be so selfish as to wallow in the self-assurance our health-care plan gives us while there are many forced to live every single day, by no fault of their own, not knowing how or if they will be able to see a doctor, much less participate in a life-saving procedure? Sunny Sidley
Vass

Fringe Conspiracy Theorists Getting Scary

From The Pilot: November 4, 2009

I don't know how many people in this country have convinced ­themselves that Obama is some Hitler/Stalin/Imam incarnate whose mission is to overthrow the Constitution and install a fascio/marxist/Islamic theocracy.
But based on the e-mails I receive and on the listener ratings of media alarmists, there seem to be a disturbing number.
The latest to cross my laptop is a "wakeup call "from a ­person identifying himself as Cmdr. Jerry Wilson, a naval ­aviator, that is now a favorite read in the far-right blogosphere.
We are, according to Wilson, "in the middle of a communist revolution" and on the verge of a "takeover of the energy industry" and a gerrymandering of electoral districts to create one-party rule that will "create crisis after crisis" as an excuse to "nationalize the means of production."
Consequently, "out of desperation at the thought of losing America," groups are forming to shut down government's supposedly blatant abuse of the Constitution. "I won't start the fight," Wilson says, "but when it goes down, I will join it."
In a world suffused with uncertainty, how can individuals evince such certitude in their biases? Every aspect of our existence is marked by doubt. There are myriad frames of reference -- nations, languages, religions -- each understandable within their own political, economic and cultural milieu.
On a world scale, it would take unsurpassed hubris to assert that only one's own frame of reference was "right." Of the major religions (2.1 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Islamists, 900 million Hindus, 400 million Chinese traditionalists, 400 million Buddhists and more than 1 billion secularists), only after death can one know which, if any, were "right." Professions of faith can be understood, but not certainty.
Given the uncertainty that permeates other aspects of existence, how can one explain the certainty of the extreme political views being expressed in this country? Every issue confronting us is shrouded by doubt, be it poverty, health, energy, immigration, terrorism, education, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, ad infinitum. There are neither obvious nor easy answers to any on the list.
While the contesting and ultimate reconciliation of strongly held views are the essence of the decision process in a democratic society, that process is not enhanced by views overwhelmed by certitude and/or put forward with a vitriol that peaks with threats of force.
It is time to return reason to a place of prominence. The current president was duly elected, meeting all ­constitutional requirements including an oath to support the Constitution. The policies and programs he ­proposed to pursue were clearly ­enunciated prior to his election and implicitly endorsed by a majority of the citizenry.
There are and will continue to be grounds for reasonable people to oppose the manner in which he is executing his duties -- and he is fair game for criticism on all matters of substance.
But it is time to move away from frivolities such as his place of birth or ill-founded claims of unconstitutional appointments of so-called "czars." Of greater concern is the movement from frivolity to irrationality evidenced by the gathering of protesters waving signs inexplicably portraying Obama on the one hand as Hitler, and on the other as a Marxist, accompanied by shouts of, "We want our country back."
The protesters did not lose their country, they lost an election. If their alleged love for the Constitution and fears of a dictatorial coup were not feigned, they would turn their energies from tirades to the development of ideas holding some promise of success in the next election.
The gun-wavers and "militia men" involved, such as Wilson, hint darkly that their love for the Constitution is such that they may not be willing to wait until the next election to revolt and take up their arms -- an act clearly violating the document they supposedly cherish! While the First Amend-ment may protect such speech, it should not be spared severe censure for its impropriety.
It defies understanding how otherwise responsible politicians and publications, presumably concerned with the maintenance of a civil society, can continue to tolerate, and by implication condone, such threats. It is they who should be leading protests.
We live in a world of doubt, and we should each strive to live with that doubt in a responsible manner and be willing to call to account those who do not.
No president is infallible; no solution is perfect; and the political process should not be expected to yield more than what is approximately the "good" -- the best result possible from the compromise of divergent views.
J. Thomas Tidd is a retired attorney living in Pinehurst.

Please Don't Learn the Hard Way About Diabetes

 Form The Pilot: November 1, 2009

Thursdays are hard for me.
Let me explain. Seven years ago, on Thursday, Nov. 7, my 12-year-old son had become so gravely ill that he had to be airlifted to Chapel Hill's UNC Children's Hospital. A week later, on Nov. 14, I was to celebrate my 46th birthday. Another seven days later on Thursday, he died.
The cause of death was septic shock due to the complications of diabetes. The irony of it all was that he died three weeks into the observance of Diabetes Awareness Month.
Now fast-forward to 2008. My wife, Phyllis, and I were introduced to an organization, the Carthage Lions Club. One of their annual fundraising events is a 3K walk called "Strides: Lions Walk for Diabetes Awareness."

We viewed this event as one more way to help get the word out about this killer. We signed up as "Team Wilson," got our pledge sponsors and even went so far as to design T-shirts with the names of all the people in our lives who had been affected by this deadly ailment. Along with my son, we listed me, our daughter, my parents, my ­mother-in-law, and a host of other relatives and friends who either were being treated or have died from the deadly, maiming complications of ­diabetes. According to the American Diabetes Association, often there are no diagnoses because the symptoms are seemingly harmless. The earlier the detection and treatment for diabetes, the less likely that someone might develop complications.
Some of the warning signs of diabetes are frequent urination, excessive thirst, extreme hunger, increased fatigue, irritability, and blurred vision. If you or a loved one has any one or more of these symptoms, see a doctor right away.
For me, it was a matter of dumb luck that I was diagnosed. I had spent the better part of the spring working long and late hours setting up distribution points around this part of the state for a special publication for my employer at the time, The Pilot. Drinking a lot of coffee and missing even more sleep had rendered me irritable as a hornet and so tired that I would have welcomed death for the peaceful rest.
But what finally sent me running to the doctor was an exchange between a coworker and me when I could not find my eyeglasses and she informed me they were on my face. And to that I replied, "Well they're not working!" As it turns out, the glasses worked fine, it was my vision, blurred by high blood sugar, that needed immediate attention.
Again, according to the American Diabetes Association, I am one of nearly 24 million Americans, or roughly 8 percent of the total population, who are diabetic. Because of a strong and effective awareness campaign, there are fewer cases are going undetected. Total diagnosed cases increased 13.5 percent from 2005 to 2007. Currently, close to 24 percent of diabetes is undiagnosed, down from 30 percent that went undetected in 2005.
It is again that time of the year for us to remember our late son and others we have lost along the way. But more important, it is time for us to renew our commitment to public awareness about diabetes.
I failed to mention that later in 2008 we were invited to join the Carthage Lions Club. So this year, Phyllis and I are involved in the planning of the Strides event. Yes, your donations are welcomed, but at the same time during this year's event, we plan to provide information and health screenings.
So come out to get checked and get informed. Besides, the exercise will work wonders on your glucose level.
This year's event will be held Saturday, Nov. 7, at the Nancy Kiser Park next to Carthage Elementary School. Registration for the 3K (approximately 2-mile) walk starts at 9 a.m. The walk is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Funds raised will support diabetes research and assist local visually impaired.
Form a team (coworkers, friends, fellow diabetics), collect pledges, and come learn more about diabetes. Call (910) 315-1976 or e-mail carthagelions @yahoo.com for more info.
George Wilson is a former employee in The Pilot's circulation department.

Time to Abolish the Death Penalty

From The Pilot: November 1, 2009

The last time the state of North Carolina put someone to death in Central Prison was August of 2006.
The state's capital punishment system has been tangled up in the courts since, in a dispute about the role of doctors at executions and questions about the state's lethal injection procedure.
Regardless of what happens in the courts, those issues won't go away and neither will nagging doubts about the way the death penalty is applied and how much it costs, not to mention the moral questions about a government intentionally taking a human life.
A study just released by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) finds that states with the death penalty, such as North Carolina, are wasting millions of dollars during the worst economic crisis in a generation and diverting money from anti-violence programs that work.

The study finds that the extra cost of the death penalty is as much as $10 million per state, enough to hire 250 more police officers. A study in North Carolina several years ago showed that it cost $2.16 million more to execute someone than to sentence him or her to life in prison without parole.
DPIC also released a nationwide poll of police chiefs that found they believe the death penalty is the least efficient use of taxpayer money to fight crime, far below hiring more police officers, reducing drug use, and improving crime-fighting technology.
The police chiefs also do not believe that the death penalty deters murder, a view in line with the vast majority of criminologists, despite claims otherwise by death penalty supporters. DPIC points out that the 20 states with the highest murder rates in 2008 all had the death penalty.
No one disputes that mistakes are made in capital cases, sending innocent people to death row in North Carolina and across the nation. Nationally, 138 convicts have been freed from death rows since capital punishment resumed in 1976. There is now growing evidence that Texas executed an innocent man in 2004.
A judge in Ohio stayed a scheduled last week as state officials continue to examine the state's lethal injection procedure.
Efforts to execute an inmate in September were halted when technicians could not find a vein in the man's arm to inject the deadly poison.
Then there is the unequal application of capital punishment, a system still plagued by bias based on race and economic class.
A 2003 study by researchers at UNC-Chapel Hill found the odds of receiving the death penalty in North Carolina increase by 3.4 times if the victim of the crime was white.
North Carolina lawmakers voted this summer to address racial bias by passing the Racial Justice Act, which gives defendants a way to present evidence to a judge that race played a role in their cases.
Public opinion is changing too. Gallup reports that support for the death penalty remains at a 25-year low and that if those being surveyed are given an alternative punishment for first-degree murder like life in prison without parole, support for capital punishment is less than 50 percent.
New Mexico abolished the death penalty in March of this year, the third state in the last two years to end the practice. The tide is clear.
Too many problems, too many questions, too many mistakes and too much money. North Carolina officials ought to understand all that by now, and they should make sure the 2006 execution is the last one the state ever performs.
Chris Fitzsimon is executive director of N.C. Policy Watch. Contact him at chris@ncpolicywatch.com.

Believe in War? Then Prove It

 From The Pilot:  November 1, 2009

An argument is being made that Afghanistan is President Obama's Vietnam. However, there is one huge, glaring difference that no one seems to be talking about: During Vietnam, there was a draft.
Without a draft, we no longer have the endless supply of troops to throw into the meat grinder of a protracted war. There is a bottom to the well.
So, as the pressure increases to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan, I will say here and now what no politician or pundit is saying: If you truly believe our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are necessary and just, and you are eligible for military service, you owe it to your fellow countrymen and women who are enduring multiple deployments to join them in the so-called "ideological struggle of the 21st century."
War is not a sports event where one sits on the sidelines and cheers for the home team. If you believe in the cause, then have the guts to fight and possibly die for it. Put your college education or career ambitions on hold, kiss your families goodbye and enlist.
Someday your kids are going to want to know what you did during the war of your generation. I can tell you from experience, you're really, really going to want to be able to look them in the eye and say, "I was there." Kevin Scotti
Pinehurst