The public health care option appears to be losing ground, thanks to effective strategies of health insurance companies and other lobbyists that, through fear-mongering advertisements, have convinced enough of the American public that health care security is not desirable. It’s another coup pulled off under the direction of America’s House of Lords.
Huh? You say. America has no House of Lords. We have two chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives. By all means, according to the Constitution, that’s all we have. But de facto, we actually have a House of Lords in the form of large corporations who, depending on the issue at hand, send their lobbyists to Congress and their marketing gurus to Madison Avenue to make sure their corporate interests are protected and preserved. Their sheer wealth and influence make Lords of old England pale in comparison. The latest efforts by the big four health insurance companies (UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Aetna, and Cigna) have sent the Obama administration into retreat from a so-called public option to less threatening and less secure health cooperatives.
It appears that we can have Homeland Security and armed forces run by the government, because they do not compete with industry. In fact, they sustain and even give rise to industrial might, thanks to the contracts they dole out to security and military-based corporations respectively. But let government compete with industry for the benefit of American citizens, and there is all out war to re-capture the hearts and minds of the American public and instill fear in them that their health, their incomes, their right to live will be compromised by government involvement. How stupid can America be? Pretty stupid, I guess.
America’s House of Lords, like England’s of old, is not elected. It has no term limits. It is accountable only to other Lords who control shares in their companies. Like the landed nobility and clergy of old who composed the traditional English House of Lords, American corporations and their chief stockholders have control of the majority of America’s wealth. Instead of being based in land, the American corporate gentry’s wealth is more portable and useful, is able to be placed in coffers that generate decisions and influence people, namely Congress and Madison Avenue.
America’s clergy in the form of televangelists and local fundamentalist bible-thumpers are an unwitting tool of America’s House of Lords. They teach people how to fall in line behind the existence of increasingly incredible discrepancies in wealth by promising their flocks heaven if they only believe and do what they are told. The clergy, then, perpetuate the notion that the kingdom of heaven is worth the wait even if their brothers in freedom reap huge profits from their docile submission to the status quo. They may also hate government for bailing out the banks and American automotive industry, because they remember government took God out of the public schools but ignore the fact that American agriculture has been bailed out with substantial subsidies since 1933, and those subsidies produce the cheap, harmful food that makes them fat and sick.
Unlike the old English House of Lords, the American version does not actually meet as a body. In fact, the only time they come to Washington is to be investigated or interrogated or to look for a bailout. They generally stay out of the limelight and use their minions (lobbyists and marketers) to make their influence felt.
If only the American public knew how it is being manipulated, not only by so-called health care insurance companies, but by the American House of Lords as a whole. The cars we drive, the food we eat, the obesity levels we have attained, the products we have purchased that we really don’t need, all are the product of corporate power. Caveat Emptor (Let the buyer beware) has been the governing laissez-faire principle of our economy since its inception. You’re on your own so that corporations can exploit your weaknesses, for that is how they view the average citizen: a host of weaknesses, appetites, and exploitable manipulations.
For example, the American has been taught to need a full-sized pick-up or SUV as a symbol of the full expression of his masculinity on four wheels. He eventually “needs” the large vehicle to hold his increasingly obese family that has been taught to eat huge burgers and fries and drink beer whose label tells you it is properly cold, as if you couldn’t actually feel the temperature of the bottle. The health care companies want to have control over your health care dollars so that they can take your premiums and then exclude you from service when you don’t measure up to the image of the models romping in the beer and fast-food adds. The Lords’ health care scheme is all part of a larger plan, however diverse but pervasive, to get you to waste or spend unwisely your net income, all the while getting you to focus on how your tax dollar is misspent.
Another example is drug companies, who don’t want you to actually get well by eating right or living a better lifestyle; they just want you to solve your cholesterol problem with one of their drugs. Keep eating the burgers and fries: just take some Lipitor and you’ll be all right. Or if you are upset and anxious about life, just take a mood-altering or sleep-inducing drug such as Zoloft or Ambien. Whatever you do, don’t take a hard look at the source of your condition.
Wake up, America, and see yourselves for what you are: the greatest dupes since Adam took the apple. Of course Caveat Emptor was apparently in full swing even then. Furthermore, take a look at corporate America and recognize it for what it really is: a profit-making manipulator that has more power over your lives than any government can ever dream of having.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Fear and Loathing in America
The Luddites of the early 19th Century went about smashing machines in protest against the coming revolution: that revolution was the industrial revolution that brought the western world fully out of the middle ages and into modernity. The Luddites won a few battles but ultimately lost the war. Ironically, the Luddites were operating in England, of all places, the same country that today has both socialized medicine and a monarch. Go figure.
In America and throughout the world, the current global recession that was brought about by the biggest poker game ever played, namely a version of Blind Man’s Bluff with derivatives, mortgage-backed securities, and variable rate mortgages as the currency. Wall Street turned into a casino for young Turks who played this game night and day until the bluff was called and the operating delusion was finally debunked: real estate values, it turns out, do not always go up.
Today a large portion of America is fearful, not hopeful. When people are fearful, they hang on to what they have rather than risk trying something new. They grasp at straws rather than try to grab the brass ring. If their government offers them something new, they are skeptical and fearful that it will go bad.
America has been conditioned to believe in private enterprise through advertizing. People wear hats and t-shirts sporting everything from cereal brands to motor oil. Americans are taught, even by their currency to trust in God, but they are most rigorously taught to trust in Lipitor, Viagra, Budweiser, and Celebrex. No one runs around with a U.S. Government t-shirt or Federal Reserve baseball cap. Private enterprise has taught us to believe in corporate name brands above all else.
It is no wonder, then, that the little guy or small businessman sees himself on the side of huge insurance companies and believes that free enterprise, no matter how un-free it might be, is better than any government intervention even in the face of the recent failures of GM, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch. America has been so brainwashed by corporate America that it actually believes that big business and they are on the same side. It does not occur to many Americans that it is the size, power, and influence of corporate America that has brought us to the economic crisis as a whole and the health care crisis as a specific manifestation of the larger problem.
America has to wake up to the fact that corporate America is the enemy of small business and the little guy, not the model of success or the solution to our woes. The fact is there is not enough competition in the market place to allow the little guy to compete. The bulk of every segment of our economy is controlled by an oligarchy of companies. The only obvious exception is the auto industry where Japanese and German firms have been able to out-market American companies to the point that two of the three American brands (GM and Chrysler) came crawling to Congress for a bailout.
Another factor in the current fear-mongering is the legacy of the Cold War. As the paranoid victors in that battle, we remain skeptical of anything that has the word “social” in it or anything that gets labeled ‘socialized.” If it is “socialized,” it can’t possibly contain anything good. We’ll throw that baby out with the bathwater no matter what. Critics point to the coming crises facing Social Security and Medicare and insist that any government option for health care is doomed to bankrupt the country. I would remind America that its military is a government agency and stands far above any other military organization in the world. You can’t say all government agencies don’t’ work. It’s a matter of priorities and financing. Where we put our tax dollars tells us who we are, and we can certainly afford to take care of ourselves AND keep the world safe for democracy.
If America wants to continue to concentrate its wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, then we should stay the current course. If, on the other hand, it wants to do the greatest good for the greatest number, a hybrid health care program just might be a good start. After all, even the car companies have seen the wisdom of the hybrid as a bridge toward greater economy and a reduction in carbon emissions, thanks to government legislation that has encouraged that evolution.
In America and throughout the world, the current global recession that was brought about by the biggest poker game ever played, namely a version of Blind Man’s Bluff with derivatives, mortgage-backed securities, and variable rate mortgages as the currency. Wall Street turned into a casino for young Turks who played this game night and day until the bluff was called and the operating delusion was finally debunked: real estate values, it turns out, do not always go up.
Today a large portion of America is fearful, not hopeful. When people are fearful, they hang on to what they have rather than risk trying something new. They grasp at straws rather than try to grab the brass ring. If their government offers them something new, they are skeptical and fearful that it will go bad.
America has been conditioned to believe in private enterprise through advertizing. People wear hats and t-shirts sporting everything from cereal brands to motor oil. Americans are taught, even by their currency to trust in God, but they are most rigorously taught to trust in Lipitor, Viagra, Budweiser, and Celebrex. No one runs around with a U.S. Government t-shirt or Federal Reserve baseball cap. Private enterprise has taught us to believe in corporate name brands above all else.
It is no wonder, then, that the little guy or small businessman sees himself on the side of huge insurance companies and believes that free enterprise, no matter how un-free it might be, is better than any government intervention even in the face of the recent failures of GM, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch. America has been so brainwashed by corporate America that it actually believes that big business and they are on the same side. It does not occur to many Americans that it is the size, power, and influence of corporate America that has brought us to the economic crisis as a whole and the health care crisis as a specific manifestation of the larger problem.
America has to wake up to the fact that corporate America is the enemy of small business and the little guy, not the model of success or the solution to our woes. The fact is there is not enough competition in the market place to allow the little guy to compete. The bulk of every segment of our economy is controlled by an oligarchy of companies. The only obvious exception is the auto industry where Japanese and German firms have been able to out-market American companies to the point that two of the three American brands (GM and Chrysler) came crawling to Congress for a bailout.
Another factor in the current fear-mongering is the legacy of the Cold War. As the paranoid victors in that battle, we remain skeptical of anything that has the word “social” in it or anything that gets labeled ‘socialized.” If it is “socialized,” it can’t possibly contain anything good. We’ll throw that baby out with the bathwater no matter what. Critics point to the coming crises facing Social Security and Medicare and insist that any government option for health care is doomed to bankrupt the country. I would remind America that its military is a government agency and stands far above any other military organization in the world. You can’t say all government agencies don’t’ work. It’s a matter of priorities and financing. Where we put our tax dollars tells us who we are, and we can certainly afford to take care of ourselves AND keep the world safe for democracy.
If America wants to continue to concentrate its wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, then we should stay the current course. If, on the other hand, it wants to do the greatest good for the greatest number, a hybrid health care program just might be a good start. After all, even the car companies have seen the wisdom of the hybrid as a bridge toward greater economy and a reduction in carbon emissions, thanks to government legislation that has encouraged that evolution.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Brahma Bull Bankers
You can't be a master of the universe without unmitigated audacity. The current generation of "Brahma bull" bankers, especially in light of the recent meltdown they precipitated, make John D. "Competition is a Sin" Rockefeller look like Henry Thoreau. They have boldly resorted to blatant "trickle up" economic practices of robbing the poor to fund the ever-richer rich. Meanwhile, the federal government is dangerously close to becoming nothing more than a tool of capitalistic excess rather than a safeguard against it. Now is the time for rigorous regulation of what has become a much too powerful economic beast. It's time to rope and ride, not hope and slide.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The Justice of Privilege
"How diligently privilege ha[s] to work to remain oblivious to its cost."
America, America by Ethan Canin
Book smarts probably has little to do with the leadership skills necessary to fight fires successfully, but that’s not the point, according to the latest Supreme Court decision in the New Haven firefighters’ case that recently came before them.
Apparently, according to the 5-4 decision, you can’t throw a test out after you have already given it if the results don’t yield the city’s desired outcome. Regardless how arbitrary or irrelevant a test might be, once the rules to the contest are set down in advance, you have to stick with the game plan and live with the results. That’s only fair to the individuals who passed the test. And I mean that in both senses.
The Swiss government is currently upholding the long-held principle of identity security in the face of the demand by the U.S. government to turn over the names of U.S. clients of Swiss bank UBS who may be avoiding U.S. taxes by squirreling away money in identity protected UBS accounts. In this case, Swiss protection of privacy trumps U.S. income tax cheating. What is one country’s sense of justice is another’s crime.
The U.S. split-estate law has been on the books for over a century and a half. The gist of it is that sub-surface owners’ rights trump those of surface owners whenever they might conflict. In the animal world, split-estate would mean worms and gophers would have power over bison and elk in land use.
In all three of these cases, ultimately privilege triumphs over actual justice. The written test is irrelevant to the actual necessary qualities of leadership; the protection of privacy interferes with the greater good of financial justice; and the notion that sub-surface ownership is somehow a greater good than surface ownership is clearly arbitrary and disregards the whole concept of ecology, a modern view of nature that did not even exist when the law was written.
Privilege has many faces, some visible and some not. To say that justice is progressive in the long run may be true. But these three cases indicate that justice often has an inertia that protects privilege first before it finally evolves to serve the greater good.
America, America by Ethan Canin
Book smarts probably has little to do with the leadership skills necessary to fight fires successfully, but that’s not the point, according to the latest Supreme Court decision in the New Haven firefighters’ case that recently came before them.
Apparently, according to the 5-4 decision, you can’t throw a test out after you have already given it if the results don’t yield the city’s desired outcome. Regardless how arbitrary or irrelevant a test might be, once the rules to the contest are set down in advance, you have to stick with the game plan and live with the results. That’s only fair to the individuals who passed the test. And I mean that in both senses.
The Swiss government is currently upholding the long-held principle of identity security in the face of the demand by the U.S. government to turn over the names of U.S. clients of Swiss bank UBS who may be avoiding U.S. taxes by squirreling away money in identity protected UBS accounts. In this case, Swiss protection of privacy trumps U.S. income tax cheating. What is one country’s sense of justice is another’s crime.
The U.S. split-estate law has been on the books for over a century and a half. The gist of it is that sub-surface owners’ rights trump those of surface owners whenever they might conflict. In the animal world, split-estate would mean worms and gophers would have power over bison and elk in land use.
In all three of these cases, ultimately privilege triumphs over actual justice. The written test is irrelevant to the actual necessary qualities of leadership; the protection of privacy interferes with the greater good of financial justice; and the notion that sub-surface ownership is somehow a greater good than surface ownership is clearly arbitrary and disregards the whole concept of ecology, a modern view of nature that did not even exist when the law was written.
Privilege has many faces, some visible and some not. To say that justice is progressive in the long run may be true. But these three cases indicate that justice often has an inertia that protects privilege first before it finally evolves to serve the greater good.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Bonuses
Once upon a time a bonus was a payment for exceptional work. Today, it seems to mean a contractual agreement in which an executive of some financial enterprise such as Citi or AIG is guaranteed an astronomical amount of money no matter how well he does or how much money the company loses. It is just another form of win at all cost.
Because lawyers have been involved in arranging contracts and therefore contracts have a greater currency than profits, apparently the logical notion of executives foregoing bonuses when company profits tank is not feasible.
However, there is a solution. Have the feds pay the contract-based bonuses with government-issue derivatives based on, say, decreasing unemployment statistics and/or shrinking national debt. In other words, the bonuses would increase in value as the debt and/or unemployment shrinks. That would prevent actual tax dollars going to logically unwarranted bonuses for executives, and they would be paid with the government equivalent of what these bonus seekers used to get us in economic trouble to begin with: default-swap mortgage securities, derivatives, etc.
Instead of the government investing in these undeserving rich, force them to invest in economic recovery directly. Then their interest would be in seeing the recovery to its conclusion without reaping any further dividends that might undermine that full recovery. Rather than spending their time trying to “game” the economy in new and unregulated ways, they would be certain to see that Uncle Sam and the workforce of America would get their due.
Paying bonuses with the same type of currency that the Wall Street rascals traded in would be a fitting response to the outrage the American public feels toward reckless banks and insurance companies like AIG. If your company got bailout money, you personally get paid contractual bonuses in government sponsored derivatives tied to reducing national debt and unemployment.
As President Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you: ask what you can do for your country.” Making federal bailout beneficiaries pay contractual corporate bonuses with government derivatives based inversely on proportional reduction of national debt and/or unemployment would serve our country well and would provide the Wall Street rascals with an opportunity to do community service within their professions.
Because lawyers have been involved in arranging contracts and therefore contracts have a greater currency than profits, apparently the logical notion of executives foregoing bonuses when company profits tank is not feasible.
However, there is a solution. Have the feds pay the contract-based bonuses with government-issue derivatives based on, say, decreasing unemployment statistics and/or shrinking national debt. In other words, the bonuses would increase in value as the debt and/or unemployment shrinks. That would prevent actual tax dollars going to logically unwarranted bonuses for executives, and they would be paid with the government equivalent of what these bonus seekers used to get us in economic trouble to begin with: default-swap mortgage securities, derivatives, etc.
Instead of the government investing in these undeserving rich, force them to invest in economic recovery directly. Then their interest would be in seeing the recovery to its conclusion without reaping any further dividends that might undermine that full recovery. Rather than spending their time trying to “game” the economy in new and unregulated ways, they would be certain to see that Uncle Sam and the workforce of America would get their due.
Paying bonuses with the same type of currency that the Wall Street rascals traded in would be a fitting response to the outrage the American public feels toward reckless banks and insurance companies like AIG. If your company got bailout money, you personally get paid contractual bonuses in government sponsored derivatives tied to reducing national debt and unemployment.
As President Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you: ask what you can do for your country.” Making federal bailout beneficiaries pay contractual corporate bonuses with government derivatives based inversely on proportional reduction of national debt and/or unemployment would serve our country well and would provide the Wall Street rascals with an opportunity to do community service within their professions.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Canary or Canard?
The philosopher Montaigne’s notion of man was that he is essentially good in a natural state but civilization corrupts him. Modern science has pretty much shown the truth that man is neither good nor bad, that he is a combination of nature and nurture, and that he is capable of learning new tricks, good or bad, well into old age.
Today, we occasionally hear and see people who still believe, even in the wake of the disaster on Wall Street and the deep recession caused by it, that laissez-faire capitalism is essentially good. They hang on to the myth that markets are rational and by themselves can cure whatever is wrong; and that “civilization” in the form of government regulation only corrupts or stifles progress and success. If we have settled the nature of man question, why haven’t we done the same for business?
A Denver Post columnist, Vincent Carroll, stated in a recent opinion column the following: “From time to time, of course, regulators have been known to become cozy with industry” and then suggests “Is it really likely, however, that every state’s regulators are industry apologists?” The answer is, of course it is likely, given the history of such commissions. They were historically better scouts than sentries. Given the current variety of regulation across many states, their apologies are anything but uniform. Mostly, state regulators have moved from ushering in gas and oil expansion to some widely varied minimal regulation. They have certainly not barred the door anywhere or even set up any high hurdles. In Colorado, for instance, the COGCC has not set minimal bonding and insurance requirements that even begin to match the possibility of disaster waiting to happen. Industry is, by a long shot, more protected than citizenry from potential disaster. In general, what industry has had to sacrifice of late is far less than what little human and natural habitat has gained by COGCC regs.
Given what has happened to health care regulation by state, I would think the oil and gas industry would welcome some federal regulation so that they would have to operate by one set of basic rules regarding water rather than many. (The health insurance industry, for example, would love to have just one federal set of rules rather than those variably imposed by the states.) Since water is far more valuable than gold let alone gas and oil, the Clean Water Act is a good watershed (so-to-speak) benchmark for federal regulation. We’ll need clean water long after gas and oil drilling is history. And we won’t have it if we don’t protect it.
However, for my peace of mind, if federal and state law ends up producing redundancies, that’s all the better. When one agency fails, another can pick up the slack. What we don’t need to find out is that “fracking” was a bad idea in hindsight. And just because Dave Neslin of the COGCC says, “We have no verified example of fracking contaminating groundwater in Colorado” does not mean there hasn’t been any contamination. It is going to take an incredible faith in coincidence to keep that myth going. Better safe than sorry.
Writing this has given me a headache. I think I’ll go take some Tylenol. Oops! I forgot. Tylenol intake may contribute to liver damage, a finding that has just been revealed in the past 24 hours. As I said, I’d rather be safe than sorry.
Today, we occasionally hear and see people who still believe, even in the wake of the disaster on Wall Street and the deep recession caused by it, that laissez-faire capitalism is essentially good. They hang on to the myth that markets are rational and by themselves can cure whatever is wrong; and that “civilization” in the form of government regulation only corrupts or stifles progress and success. If we have settled the nature of man question, why haven’t we done the same for business?
A Denver Post columnist, Vincent Carroll, stated in a recent opinion column the following: “From time to time, of course, regulators have been known to become cozy with industry” and then suggests “Is it really likely, however, that every state’s regulators are industry apologists?” The answer is, of course it is likely, given the history of such commissions. They were historically better scouts than sentries. Given the current variety of regulation across many states, their apologies are anything but uniform. Mostly, state regulators have moved from ushering in gas and oil expansion to some widely varied minimal regulation. They have certainly not barred the door anywhere or even set up any high hurdles. In Colorado, for instance, the COGCC has not set minimal bonding and insurance requirements that even begin to match the possibility of disaster waiting to happen. Industry is, by a long shot, more protected than citizenry from potential disaster. In general, what industry has had to sacrifice of late is far less than what little human and natural habitat has gained by COGCC regs.
Given what has happened to health care regulation by state, I would think the oil and gas industry would welcome some federal regulation so that they would have to operate by one set of basic rules regarding water rather than many. (The health insurance industry, for example, would love to have just one federal set of rules rather than those variably imposed by the states.) Since water is far more valuable than gold let alone gas and oil, the Clean Water Act is a good watershed (so-to-speak) benchmark for federal regulation. We’ll need clean water long after gas and oil drilling is history. And we won’t have it if we don’t protect it.
However, for my peace of mind, if federal and state law ends up producing redundancies, that’s all the better. When one agency fails, another can pick up the slack. What we don’t need to find out is that “fracking” was a bad idea in hindsight. And just because Dave Neslin of the COGCC says, “We have no verified example of fracking contaminating groundwater in Colorado” does not mean there hasn’t been any contamination. It is going to take an incredible faith in coincidence to keep that myth going. Better safe than sorry.
Writing this has given me a headache. I think I’ll go take some Tylenol. Oops! I forgot. Tylenol intake may contribute to liver damage, a finding that has just been revealed in the past 24 hours. As I said, I’d rather be safe than sorry.
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Political Henhouse
If the American political scene were broken down using notable chickens, here is what might serve as appropriate characterizations of the most prominent types.
Foghorn Leghorns. These are none other than the southern fried Republicans who continue to bray and cluck over the “socialist” plans of the Democratic President and the largely Democratic congress. Their fear is if the Democrats have their way, the country will end up looking like one of those creepy decadent European countries or maybe Canada, except, of course, for their fine hockey players. They chant “my country tis of me” or “my country, right or wrong.” They would never chant “my country right or left.”
Chickens That Cross the Road. These are nominal Democrats from historically red states who are nervous about getting re-elected, so they scurry back and forth across the political road from left to right and from right to left so as to create the illusion that they are middle-of-the-roaders and therefore appealing to the independent vote, the vote that got them into office in the first place. They don’t cross the road to get to the other side. They cross the road to get the vote from the folks standing in the middle.
Chicken Littles. These are the Democrats who are comfortably ensconced in liberalism and therefore view the President as a backslider and all-too-ready compromiser with the Republicans. They started out thinking pragmatism was a good thing, but now view it as a euphemism for backsliding. Every time an issue comes up and the President doesn’t take a hard liberal stand, they foresee the day when the whole liberal agenda will come crashing down as if the sky is falling. The pink could of liberalism will disappear.
The Little Red Hen. This is President Obama’s persona. He invites everyone to the table to help with the making of policy, but in the end he will have to do it himself because no other political chickens have the courage or faith that he can pull it off. But as the story goes, the Little Red hen gets to eat the pie all by herself.
Foghorn Leghorns. These are none other than the southern fried Republicans who continue to bray and cluck over the “socialist” plans of the Democratic President and the largely Democratic congress. Their fear is if the Democrats have their way, the country will end up looking like one of those creepy decadent European countries or maybe Canada, except, of course, for their fine hockey players. They chant “my country tis of me” or “my country, right or wrong.” They would never chant “my country right or left.”
Chickens That Cross the Road. These are nominal Democrats from historically red states who are nervous about getting re-elected, so they scurry back and forth across the political road from left to right and from right to left so as to create the illusion that they are middle-of-the-roaders and therefore appealing to the independent vote, the vote that got them into office in the first place. They don’t cross the road to get to the other side. They cross the road to get the vote from the folks standing in the middle.
Chicken Littles. These are the Democrats who are comfortably ensconced in liberalism and therefore view the President as a backslider and all-too-ready compromiser with the Republicans. They started out thinking pragmatism was a good thing, but now view it as a euphemism for backsliding. Every time an issue comes up and the President doesn’t take a hard liberal stand, they foresee the day when the whole liberal agenda will come crashing down as if the sky is falling. The pink could of liberalism will disappear.
The Little Red Hen. This is President Obama’s persona. He invites everyone to the table to help with the making of policy, but in the end he will have to do it himself because no other political chickens have the courage or faith that he can pull it off. But as the story goes, the Little Red hen gets to eat the pie all by herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
