Web Commonerpolitics, social commentary, and ramblings on pop culture

While young people took to the streets of London and beyond this week, politicians and the news media appeared blind to the irony that the rhetoric chosen to describe the events seemed reserved only for the young class of criminals looting shops and not for the thugs at the top of the food chain looting the world’s currency.

Speaking to the House of Commons, Prime Minister, David Cameron said, “Responsibility for crime always lies with the criminal, but crime has a context, and we must not shy away from it. I have said before that there is a major problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong.”

Since the global economy’s near collapse several years ago, corrupt bankers, politicians, police authorities, media owners, and other establishment officials have been prioritizing wrong over right, demonstrating consistently bad and mindless behavior. There should be little surprise when young people, with little hope for the future, pray on the vulnerability of others, especially given the example set by those who, conveniently out of CCTV range, hold the reigns of power.

“The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken,” said Mr. Cameron. “To the law abiding people who play by the rules,” he continued, “and who are the overwhelming majority in our country, I say the fightback has begun. We will protect you. If you’ve had your livelihood and property damaged, we will compensate you. We are on your side.”

To date, of course, very few corporate criminals have been brought to justice or even taken responsibility for their roles in the global economic disaster, and their victims continue to lose their homes and livelihoods. In fact, most of them continue to reap the financial benefits of their actions in the form of tax giveaways and corporate bonuses while government cutbacks take their toll on the poor and less privileged.

Acting with little difference between themselves and the people that they like to label as “mindless criminals” and “thugs,” a small minority of increasingly wealthy individuals, who often looted their way to the top by taking from others, create the conditions that lead to such strife in the streets. “It is criminality pure and simple,” as the Prime Minister put it, “and there is absolutely no excuse for it.”

As homes and buildings burned, merchandise vanished, and livelihoods changed, too many people were quick to point out the criminal nature of youths rioting on the streets of London while ignoring the criminality of people who set the socioeconomic order in the first place. Fortunately, we have politicians like David Cameron to filter through the noise, find the “criminals,” and make empty promises to ensure that “they” get what’s coming to them!

“And to the lawless minority, the criminals who’ve taken what they can get, I say this: We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you’ve done.”

Riot Noise

The first Matt Damon tongue lashing that I had the pleasure of witnessing came nearly three years ago when John McCain first introduced Sarah Palin to the world. In a heavily circulated interview on the Internet, Damon accurately described the absurdity of the media circus surrounding Palin’s nomination for Vice President, comparing it to a “really bad Disney movie,” and indirectly submitting an unofficial script proposal for a spectacularly horrible straight-to-DVD movie featuring the folksy hockey mom. My personal favorite swipe, though, was Damon’s desperate and rather simple plea to the media, asking that somebody, anybody, find out if she, “really thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago.”

Fast forward to 2011, when the country is no longer threatened by the prospect of a Palin presidency but continues to deal with the toxic Tea Party movement that she helped shape during the 2008 campaign. This time, Damon is forced to contemplate the absurdity of those who argue in favor of continued tax cuts for American millionaires and billionaires while military, domestic, and entitlement spending gets slashed. Interviewed in Washington DC at the Save Our Schools march protesting education policy, Damon laid into the conservative mindset that increased taxes on the ridiculously wealthy is a bad idea.

Lest we forget, Matt Damon is an actor, and nobody should assume that he spends his days scouring the Internet or news networks in search of truth. Still, you don’t have to be a politico or newshound to know how much the Bush tax cuts, which have been in place for ten years, have benefited the upper class and sacrificed everyone else. Indeed, you only need to be poor, out of a job, or incredibly rich with a conscience, like Damon.

His observations, while well-intentioned, are not completely accurate because there was a time in the last century when the wealthy paid exorbitant amounts in taxes. Throughout the last thirty years, the top tax rate rested between 28% and 35%. Before the presidency of Ronald Reagan, though, the wealthy paid nearly double that amount under numerous Republican and Democratic presidents. Given this historical context, Damon’s argument that, “so little is asked of people who are getting so much,” could not be more accurate concerning today’s rich. According to the IRS, tax payers making more than $33,000 annually are expected to pay nearly 100% in income tax while those making more than half a million dollars pay nearly 60% less.

Finally, as Damon notes, there is no reason to believe that the wealthy are so-called, “job creators.” One only has to examine the total number of jobs created under the Bush administration to know that.

That’s right, folks. It would appear that our president is human after all … not a superman, not a robot, and not a deity. Just a complex, interdependent, and structured mass of flesh and bone. In a moment of bold and sincere honesty, he let his guard down and revealed himself in a manner that might seem shocking to some Americans:

“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

This response came from Barack Obama after a reporter asked, in a nationally televised press conference focusing on the president’s healthcare proposals, about the recent arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge and what it says about race relations in America. Gates is a literary critic, educator, scholar, writer, and editor with a number of notable achievements under his belt, including honorary degrees and awards. He sits on the boards of various arts, cultural, and research institutions, serves as the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard University, directs the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research and, finally, he is a personal friend to the Obama family.

It took only seconds after hearing that word, “stupidly,” before I realized the political firestorm it would muster. I could hear the media blitzkrieg that would follow as radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity took to the airwaves the next day. They would tear the president to shreds on their syndicated “talk” shows, fulfilling assumed roles as civilian officers and arresting Obama for his criticism of the nation’s good men and women of law enforcement. They would brand him a crony for favoring an esteemed intellectual who they likely consider, at least under their breath, to be just another “affirmative action baby” and, as loudly and surely as they accused Sonia Sotomayor, they would label the president a racist. It would come swift, it would come hard and, most importantly for them and their party, it would stir their base into a feeding frenzy, serving up the perfect storm of criticism that would toss a looming cloud over the president’s entire agenda.

Regardless of what the pundits might say, the harshest criticism actually came in the form of a rebuttal from Gates’ arresting officer. In multiple radio and TV interviews, Sgt. James Crowley told the local press that he supports the president “110 percent,” but believed that the president should not have waded into a local issue without knowing the facts. Those “facts,” available on the filed police report, which quickly surfaced on the Internet, indicate that the officer arrested Gates outside his home after he exhibited “loud and tumultuous” behavior. The report states that Gates, seemingly understanding his rights, refused to step outside his home when first prompted by Crowley, who identified himself and indicated that he was investigating a reported break-in. What followed was a back and forth exchange between the two men inside the home, with Gates accusing Crowley of being a racist before finally approaching the officer outside and subsequently being arrested for disorderly conduct.

Admittedly, not knowing the facts of the case and, apparently, not having personally read the police report, Obama would have been smart to steer clear of dispatching judgment so quickly concerning the arrest, but he is our first African American president. I don’t blame him for doing it. More than any presidential candidate or president in recent history, Barack Obama has addressed the subject of race, racism, and the racial divide head-on in speeches to any number of varied populations, from massive, diverse crowds of constituents to middle easterners, Europeans, and Africans to African Americans. Where other presidents, since the years following the civil rights movement, fell short of addressing racial tensions in proper historical context, this president confronts and acknowledges it with the same attention afforded an actual elephant in the room. Hypotheticals flooded the mind as I pondered his and Gates’ current situation. Would circumstances be different if Gates was a white man? What if Obama was white? Would the reporter still ask him about the incident?

The reality of this matter is that, in the eyes of many Americans, Barack Obama is an African American first and a president second. Since race remains a divisive issue in the United States, Obama is forced to address it in manners that other presidents could easily avoid. Still, some pretend to ignore this reality, expecting the president to act as if wearing some sort of impenetrable force field that serves to repel discussions of race and inequality. It’s not fair and, as long as racial discrimination flourishes, we should not expect Barack Obama to ignore it. Minorities are too often driven to the brink of paranoia by their daily experiences in America, constantly being surveyed and seen as different. Evidence of undue racism rears its ugly head on a personal level constantly, and the country experiences it in bulk all too often. It may be watching the American judicial system acquit four LAPD officers after brutally beating a man in broad daylight, or television coverage of thousands neglected in New Orleans after Katrina makes landfall. It might be watching white mothers who kidnap or kill their children only to pass the buck on to the usual scapegoat and stereotypical violent, black male, or seeing nooses strung over tree branches in the wake of racial injustice in Jena. Finally, it might be listening to Republican party supporters fulfilling their personal want or need to holler racial epithets aimed at a presidential candidate in political campaign rallies across the country.

Racism against minorities thrives in America, even in 2009. It’s still here, still real, and still dangerous. The same is true with racial profiling and, for these reasons, I am not surprised to hear our first minority president impulsively jump to conclusions and express relative concern for a friend and fellow African American, whose experiences in this country are uniquely bound and shared to the point of understanding an all-too-often ignored oppressive force that comes at them from every angle. Nobody knows for sure how much race actually played a role in Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s arrest last week but, I’m personally sure about one thing … what Gates said to Mr. Crowley and his Cambridge neighbors as officers led him away in handcuffs is correct. This is what happens to black men in America and, if I walked in his shoes, I might think twice about an officer’s motives as he passed through that threshold between his world and mine. Until the country reaches a point where all Americans can walk its streets without being stopped by an officer or gawked at with little more reason than the color of their skin, I will continue to sympathize with Gates’ and Obama’s concern or, more appropriately, their frustration.

I was only four years old when Walter Cronkite relinquished his post as anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” and it would be many years into his retirement before I would understand and appreciate the true value of his character, or the full weight of his worth in terms of contributions that he made to the world of journalism and the respect he received from a nation of millions. My memories of Cronkite’s most popular moments are not unique, just recorded glimpses of the man’s stern yet warm delivery of the news as captured in time for the history books to later relay. Many in the baby boomer generation held him in such high regard that he earned the nickname, “Uncle Walter,” a testament to his ability to invade their living rooms each night with the sense of a beloved family member. They welcomed him with open arms, sometimes to receive some of the most disheartening news to hit the nation in the last half-century.

In Cronkite’s time, television was different. People peered into CRT monitors spilling duotone images of black and white into their living rooms. Sound came from a single channel, and “rabbit ear” antennas topped TV sets to receive the only signals available to viewers at the time, broadcasts from three major networks captured over the air. Of course, three networks meant three channels, which broadcast news programming for little more than 30 minutes each night. There was no means for recording what you missed, which meant that information-savvy citizens always knew exactly where they would be and what they would be doing once Walter hit the airwaves to deliver the daily news. At the evening’s end, the sound of a single tone and a screen-saver-like image indicated the end of a network’s daily programming, as if acting as an alarm to alert sleepy Americans that they overstayed their visit to TV land.

This nightly ritual between Cronkite, his network, and his constituency continued for nearly twenty years, through the civil rights and women’s liberation movements, the first lunar landing, Vietnam, Watergate, the Nixon impeachment, and the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He endured sweeping change within the business of broadcast news, including the introduction of new competing networks, finally relieving himself of his duty not long before federal action brought cable technology to people’s homes in droves, along with a multitude of new channels. Cronkite seemed to disappear from public life temporarily, but a new generation of news hounds were fortunate enough to rediscover the man after he broke silence to deliver opinion-oriented editorial pieces in publications and on the radio throughout the last decade, which focused on everything from politics to the media.

It was in these moments, on the quiet drive home from work, that I welcomed Walter Cronkite, now a seasoned veteran, into my world. I listened intently as his signature voice, confident and adept, brought me into those old living rooms to relive crucial turning points in our country’s sorted history. His radio essays drew heavily on decades of professional experience, reflecting the challenges that he and his colleagues faced as reporters tasked to cover emotionally charged and politically sensitive events with objective eyes and ears. As I look back at Mr. Cronkite’s career, it would appear to me that his legacy is not really about how he delivered the news to millions each night. Instead, it’s about how he delivered information to people that was pure and unfiltered. Walter leaves this world at a point in our history when an evolving news landscape seeks to, once again, change how we organize and deliver new information. His legacy will serve as a sort of signpost, steering us clear from selfishly seeking out information that we want to know and instead pointing us in a direction towards getting the information that we need to know.

Thanks Uncle Walter. We will remember you always.

New evidence of Michael Jackson’s influence is popping up throughout the Internet in the form of tributes to the deceased entertainer. Friends and fans alike are passing along links to websites like Eternal Moonwalk, where a continuous loop of home videos shows people performing Jackson’s signature move. Other homages highlight his artistic genius, and one particular YouTube user is publishing video mash-ups that combine Jackson’s music with old footage of song-and-dance icons perceived to be his artistic inspirations from entertainment’s past. Check out the following series of clips that chronicle evidence of a historical evolution behind what eventually came to be Michael Jackson’s “Moonwalk.”

Other videos on the page carefully combine edited clips of “West Side Story” with Jackson’s “Beat It” and “Bad,” or clips of Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse dancing to Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal,” all skillfully crafted to demonstrate the entertainer’s obvious affinity towards show tunes, and their influence on his music, dance and videos. The significant difference between those historical gems and Jackson’s own art are the media that presented them, the silver screen versus MTV and the boob tube, which invariably led me to ponder how artistic influence gets recycled over time and through different mediums. As technology evolves and cultures change, valued art from the past gets passed on to succeeding generations, and shared influence continues to turn the wheels of inspiration, progress, and innovation.

Recently, Coldplay’s smash hit, “Viva La Vida,” sparked controversy over whether or not the British band lifted their song’s signature tune from an earlier recording of Joe Satriani’s “If I Could Fly.” The Internet and, more specifically, YouTube, became a sort of advanced interactive medium for fans to compare the music, discuss its transference, and indirectly share its inspiration and influence. To make matters more interesting, convincing compositions by other musicians including Enanitos Verdes and Cat Stevens got thrown into the mix, spanning almost twenty years of artistic works that seemingly influenced other works. Much of the matter’s discussion seems reminiscent of conversations that took place at the turn of the century when advances in production technologies brought Hip-Hop culture from block parties to the recording studio as artists began sampling old recordings to create entirely new music compositions.

In a society that sets high standards on the use of copy-written material, technology is once again testing the limits of artistic progress, and rekindling conversations that take place over the influence of past works. In the United States, arguments over copyright material are historically settled within the confines of America’s courtrooms, but new ideas fostering the free sharing of information via the Internet threatens to blow the hinges off the system’s doors. In the not-so-distant past, peer-to-peer sharing showed signs of destroying the business of record companies, which held a monopoly on music distribution, and lawsuits only gained them enough time to restructure their business models. Today, social networking sites like YouTube are excellent examples of mediums that allow for gross sharing of artistic property and ideas. Meanwhile, a new generation of entrepreneurs is setting aside outdated practices of intellectual protectionism by embracing a culture of sharing, most notably in open-source software development.

Regardless of which way the wind blows on future copyright law, shared influence among artistic works remains a powerful force that inspires human progress and innovation through time, a sort of transference of such subtle references to the past that they can quickly and easily be forgotten. Throughout human history, the past is what shapes our future and, since the day we learned to stand upright and speak, that yearning to share what we know and how we came to know it lingers within, like the blood flowing through our veins. It’s generally accepted that you cannot get something from nothing, especially within the spectacular realm of the shared human experience. So, without Copernicus, there would be no Galileo. Without Greek philosophy, no Roman democracy. Without Chuck Berry, no Beatles and, of course, without Fred Astaire, no Michael Jackson.

Side-stepping the urge to fulfill my role as a member of the “chattering class,” I thought it might be more constructive to provide Sarah Palin with an annotated analysis of her writing, which specifically focuses on the op-ed piece she wrote for the The Washington Post yesterday.

Edits, notes, and suggestions to Mrs. Palin are visible in red or bold typeface …

The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End
By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy [Now would be a good opportunity to provide examples]. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than over 25 years, and it is expected to continue climbing [Who expects this ... economists, you, your accountant?]. Worries are widespread [Again ... Tell us exactly who's worried ... Americans, Alaskans, garbage workers?] that the recovery won’t bring create jobs, even when the economy finally rebounds. Our nation’s The national debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather prefer to focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges [What challenges?]. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind, and where my focus will be remains:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy [Now would be a good opportunity to dedicate a sentence or two explaining the president's cap-and-trade energy plan in further detail to your readers]. It The plan would undermine our the economy’s recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy [Historical examples would be a good addition here]. Particularly in In Alaska, we understand the inherent links between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge large, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax [Is it a plan or a tax? You should be more clear about what it is and why] would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how].

There is no denying that, as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources [According to who, and why?]. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive [Please elaborate. My understanding is that renewable energy sources are just that ... sources]! Those who understand the issue [It would probably be a good idea to provide further insight into who 'those' people are ... Republicans, conservatives, fifth graders?] know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy [I'm hoping that you will soon explain how the president's cap-and-trade energy plan will destroy the economy].

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax [I'm getting confused ... now it's a "cap-and-tax" plan?] plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years [This sentence is wordy. Try saying this instead ... "The president's cap-and-trade plan ensures job losses by including provisions that accommodate newly unemployed workers from its dried-up energy sector, costing $4.2 billion over eight years." Even after re-wording your sentence, I still don't know what it means]. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising increased cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax president’s plan. For example, it will increase the cost of farming will certainly increase, by driving down farm incomes down while and driving up grocery prices up [Now would be a good opportunity to provide an example that explains how]. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase [Again ... explain how].

What is tThe ironic beauty inherent in this the president’s plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics [You may want to consider explaining "supply-side economics" to your readers (liberal and conservative) and insert relevance to your primary point here].

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket. [Insert quote source and context here]” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year [Please explain your point further in the context of cap-and-trade ... using statistics or numbers would probably make sense].

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent [Redundant ... try another word. Consult thesaurus if necessary] Obama supporter, admitted that, under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity. [Insert quote source and context here]”

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil [Is your inserting God into this sentence relevant to the argument?]. Just as Equally important, we Americans have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation that currently imports our from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America the United States. We Alaskans can could also safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal resources, whose and new technology is continuously making transforming it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally [I think you mean figuratively] sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how the president's cap-and-trade energy plan would outsource energy to other countries].

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how drilling for oil, building new gas pipelines and nuclear power plants, and burning more coal protects the environment], therefore revive reviving our economy and secure securing our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

The writer, Sarah Palin, is a Republican, is and governor of Alaska.

For some, Michael Jackson’s sudden death at 50 was sweet in the sense that it fostered a tremendous sense of love around the globe. He was such a beloved figure by so many people, and that love is reciprocating itself tenfold in their remembrance of a man who inspired and encouraged them to be better human beings. For others, it was bitter because he led such a tragic and tortured existence, one that was oftentimes difficult to witness and even harder to understand. For me, it was both. Many years ago, I let go of a person so incredibly admired throughout my childhood, not because of the legal accusations filed against him or the media crucifixion that followed, but simply because I no longer recognized him.

As I grew into adulthood, my childhood obsession with the King of Pop faded with his physical appearance, a face that no longer seemed to resemble the one I came to love and respect. At times, when I thought about Michael, it brewed within me a battle for my own conscience, fought over whether or not physical appearance should matter when it comes to respecting a good friend, or at least the perception of one. When all is said and done, I don’t think it was his physical appearance that truly bothered me. Instead, it was this nagging feeling from within that the man was on an inevitable path towards self-destruction, altering his body in what seemed to be a perfectionist’s pursuit to manifest the impossible. For many of us, the haunting question when it comes to Michael Jackson is what made a person so talented, loving, and caring drive him to do such unspeakable things to an already flawless appearance.

Much of the short term blame is placed on an alleged addiction to drugs, specifically painkillers, which may have contributed to Jackson’s visibly increasing physical frailty. The long term blame, though, is often directed at Joe Jackson. His brutish nature is no secret and many tabloids drew attention to it throughout Michael’s career, long before I matured to a point of understanding its effect on a child’s growth. In fact, most people don’t seem to deny that any of the Jackson kids really appreciate their father for relentlessly pushing them into superstardom long before they were ready to accept and understand the consequences of that reality. Joe Jackson forced his youngest son into the spotlight at the age of five, who proceeded to spend his entire childhood singing and dancing on stage in front of adults, and mingling with adult entertainers. Throughout his career, Michael made it known to the media and his fans the physical and mental abuse that he suffered at the hands of his father when he was a young boy.

So, the King of Pop spent close to 50 years trying to manufacture a childhood that he never had, and he wanted to spend that childhood with others in the same manner that he imagined spending it all those years back. Michael’s tragedy lies in the fact that his physical form matured much faster than his mind, which was seemingly held to stagnation at some point in his turbulent past. His brain was poised to keep the man a child, with a child’s heart, while his body compelled him to physical feats that undoubtedly made him the world’s most favored entertainer. He became an unprecedented and unbelievable talent, and his new fame brought with it a lavish lifestyle that most people, let alone children, would ever have the opportunity to experience or even dream. Ultimately, it skewed the balance between reality and fantasy, and tragically led to Michael’s bittersweet demise.

Michael, may you rest in peace, and may those who never truly understood your brilliance or even sympathized with your situation at least come to accept the unfortunate circumstances that made you different. As we continually seek to someday heal the world, we need only look as far as the mirror to do it.

Listening to Robert Reich converse with Bill Moyers on his show recently about the prospect of a public health care option, it suddenly dawned on me that this might actually be what saves American capitalism. After witnessing Wall Street crumble before our very eyes and the banks peel back decades of corruption, unjustified speculation, and unethical lending practices, nobody seems to doubt that the very idea of capitalism took a low blow to the gut last year. It seems to invite a direct comparison to the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, with lack of oversight in the form of government deregulation leading the financial industry to take advantage of its market the same way Bush used the American people to sew the seeds of war.

After unregulated and unchecked financial institutions drove the world into economic meltdown, it doesn’t seem completely irrational to believe that health insurance giants might be just as corrupt and unethical as yesterday’s banks and lenders. Those of us who are not denied coverage outright and can actually afford insurance have the unfortunate privilege of experiencing this first hand, either through denied claims, increased costs, inadequate care, or downright inhumane customer service. In an adequately regulated capitalist system, competition is supposed to mitigate the occurrence of these issues, unless the industry is so corrupt that company executives actually work together to regulate the flow of profit. No example of this cronyism could be more valid than energy in the 90′s, and no event more telling than when the vice president of the United States, former CEO of energy giant, Halliburton, held a closed-door meeting in the White House with the country’s top energy executives, including some from Enron.

With the proposal of a new public option for health care, Reich argues that the current private health care system will be forced into competition with the government and, more importantly, itself to provide better care. That’s right, it’s an option. Despite rhetoric spewed from the mouths of mostly Republicans and health insurance lobbyists on Capitol Hill, nobody’s proposing that the government universally take over or “socialize” health care in the United States. Instead, people would have an option to stay with those who currently provide care, or they can go with the new guy. The one that offers care at lower costs and has the potential to collect and analyze patient information on a massive scale, ultimately leading to improved care in the future. This might sound to you like an unfair advantage but, to me, it sounds like competition, and capitalists always argue that competition is what spurs efficiency and innovation.

So, bring it on. An alternate option to the current system that creates real competition amongst insurance giants sounds like a wonderful idea, and one that will foster tremendous reforms. It almost seems ironic that diehard capitalists would oppose the concept, given that their entire philosophy lives and dies by the idea that competition pushes its industry forward and fosters progress. I would suggest that they stop being hypocrites and put their money where their mouth is, inherit some real risk for a change, and embrace competition like they’re supposed to do. Instead, private insurance corporations seem insistent on denying reality and maintaining the status quo by working together and dispatching lobbyist underlings to Washington in pursuit of quelling talk of reform. The truth hurts, and sometime it takes more courage to acknowledge that fact and make a change than it does to keep doing what you know is wrong. GM learned that the hard way.