Acknowledging possible defeat on the health care bill, Obama refuses to take any responsibility for the opposition to his plan. It is not facing failure because the plan is flawed. It is the long, complicated political process and the political machinations of those opposed to it that are making it look flawed. The protracted negotiations that threaten health care reform are being criticized by Obama. He asserts that the possible failure of his plan is because those opposed to it are trying to make his health care plan look like a "monstrosity." His plan is not facing defeat because it is a monstrosity he claims, but because the "legislative process" is making it look like one. Moreover, it is asserted that it is not Obama at risk of losing, but the American people. Obama has conceded that, while he might have made some errors in the handling of his health care plan, it is the maneuvering and machinations of the pharmaceutical companies, the health care industry, and their allies in Congress that are putting his plan in jeopardy.
The lapses in security that led to the near disaster several weeks ago were not his fault. Even though Obama stood up to take the blame for those errors, he was careful to point out that they were not his fault. It was the "system" that failed. Never mind that fact that the "system" is Obama's responsibility. The failure of the economy to rebound under his policies and massive spending is not his fault either. Economic factors beyond his control are to blame.
Obama has become adept at taking the blame in a way that makes him look like he is not to blame. His mea culpas are always presented in a way that, rather than making him look mistaken or negligent, make him look noble and gracious. When things go wrong, Obama's magnanimity and grace absolve him of blame. Obama's skill at taking the blame while avoiding the blame is remarkable to say the least.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Edward's Shame
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards finally admitted to having an affair with his mistress and fathering a daughter with her. His confession came in advance of a soon to be released book by a former aide where Edward's affair will be chronicled. "It was wrong of me to ever deny she was my daughter" Edwards said solemnly. After denying the affair and his paternity, Edward's confession was finally forced by uncontroversial evidence to the contrary. Edward's previously had attempted to avoid his culpability, even to the point of maneuvering to have one of his aides take responsibility for being the father. Speaking of his daughter, Edwards said "hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me." I am sure he hopes we will forgive him as well once we understand.
Edwards' affair, which occurred while his wife has been struggling with cancer, is reprehensible by every standard of human decency. It is understandable why he would try to conceal it. In his confession, Edwards admitted that he had done "wrong" when he denied the affair and that he could only hope for his wife's forgiveness. What he did was much more than wrong. It was despicable.
Edwards' confession was made in the now popular style of admitting wrong while at the same time seeking understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is also a style that seeks to minimize the gravity of the deed. The deed is most often portrayed as an isolated act committed out of frailty and momentary weakness, part of the human condition as it were. Something all of us can understand and appreciate. But having an affair while one's spouse is battling cancer is more than "wrong", or borne from human weakness. Neither is it something most people can, or should understand. It is a reprehensible act, not borne of human weakness, but of lust and selfishness. Weakness can be understood and sympathized with. Lust and selfishness cannot, except by the lustful and the selfish.
The humble and sincere nature of Edward's confession was more a plea for understanding than an admission of guilt. Perhaps worst of all, because his admission was made only in the face of inevitable exposure, it belies the appearance of penitence that no doubt was sought. As if to demonstrate his sincerity and compassion, Edwards made the confession while travelling in Haiti helping those suffering in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. Given that, and the humility and contriteness of his confession, how bad can he really be? Edwards would like us to believe that maybe he is not such a despicable man after all. Perhaps he is just a man who gave into temptation and acted selfishly. He is not. He is much worse. He is a man who cheated on his dying wife and lied about it. Honesty in the face of inevitability is not a virtue. It is a tactic.
Infidelity on the part of elected officials is something that should be treated with gravity. If a politician is willing to deceive and betray the person closet to him, a person to whom he has made a solemn vow of fidelity, how can he be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers that is the public?
Edwards' affair, which occurred while his wife has been struggling with cancer, is reprehensible by every standard of human decency. It is understandable why he would try to conceal it. In his confession, Edwards admitted that he had done "wrong" when he denied the affair and that he could only hope for his wife's forgiveness. What he did was much more than wrong. It was despicable.
Edwards' confession was made in the now popular style of admitting wrong while at the same time seeking understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is also a style that seeks to minimize the gravity of the deed. The deed is most often portrayed as an isolated act committed out of frailty and momentary weakness, part of the human condition as it were. Something all of us can understand and appreciate. But having an affair while one's spouse is battling cancer is more than "wrong", or borne from human weakness. Neither is it something most people can, or should understand. It is a reprehensible act, not borne of human weakness, but of lust and selfishness. Weakness can be understood and sympathized with. Lust and selfishness cannot, except by the lustful and the selfish.
The humble and sincere nature of Edward's confession was more a plea for understanding than an admission of guilt. Perhaps worst of all, because his admission was made only in the face of inevitable exposure, it belies the appearance of penitence that no doubt was sought. As if to demonstrate his sincerity and compassion, Edwards made the confession while travelling in Haiti helping those suffering in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. Given that, and the humility and contriteness of his confession, how bad can he really be? Edwards would like us to believe that maybe he is not such a despicable man after all. Perhaps he is just a man who gave into temptation and acted selfishly. He is not. He is much worse. He is a man who cheated on his dying wife and lied about it. Honesty in the face of inevitability is not a virtue. It is a tactic.
Infidelity on the part of elected officials is something that should be treated with gravity. If a politician is willing to deceive and betray the person closet to him, a person to whom he has made a solemn vow of fidelity, how can he be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers that is the public?
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Puzzle of Obesity.
More news on the obesity front: the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force has concluded that pediatric obesity programs can prove successful. Five years ago, they concluded otherwise. The change of heart was due to the success of pediatric obesity programs. The success was attributed to "intensive behavior programs." Those programs, however are "costly, hard to find and hard to follow." Task force chairman Dr. Ned Colonge stated that "this is a recommendation that says there are things that work." Gyms, exercise, and diet have been eclipsed by "behavior modification." One can expect that it will be only a matter of time before there is pressure to extend health care insurance to cover those behavior programs.
Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor cook their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.
Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.
It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be improved by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.
The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Watching TV or playing video games does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.
Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.
Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the person them self can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.
Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor cook their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.
Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.
It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be improved by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.
The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Watching TV or playing video games does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.
Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.
Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the person them self can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)