Don't Be A Hater

This picture (originally from DailyKos) is disgusting. I just want to get the obvious out there. Whoever made it should be shamed and humiliated, especially for the mockery it makes of Native Americans. But, how far would you be willing to go in your distaste and dislike for it? Far enough to call for censorship and regulation of hate speech? Far enough to support images like this, and vitriolic diatribes against racial, cultural and religious groups to be “not allowed”?

Austin Thompson of The A. Thompson Monitor (it's on my blogroll) and I are in the midst of an intra-liberal disagreement about this. Austin points to European countries, and argues that we should hold hate speech on the same level of censorship that we hold swearing and nudity on broadcast television. I must beg to differ. Censorship of speech is always an extremely dangerous subject, and one with a fine line. If anything, our standards are far too strict in this country. Austin points to Europe, but Europe has a much more reasonable tolerance for nudity and language on public broadcasts. So in one sense, yes, we should tilt more European in our censorship laws. But holding hate speech to the same standard as profanity, as desirable as that may seem, is a bad idea.

Why? Because who defines hate speech? The party currently in power in government? I’m sure rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party would have been thrilled to have defined anti-American, subversive sentiments as hate-speech during the Bush administration and wiped it from radio, television, newspapers, street corners, and the internet. Flag burning anyone? We might wish to stop someone’s vitriolic, hate filled diatribe towards Hispanics and immigrants, for example, but to actually do so would be to dig our own graves. Censorship of speech is a slippery, slippery, slope, and one that we would best avoid descending.

Let’s just stop and consider what we are really talking about here. Are we just talking about hate speech on public airwaves? What about hate speech in public spaces? Or hate speech on a private website, or in a book? Like it or not, racist tards have just as much of a right to assembly as I do. They have just as much right to express their opinions on race as Austin Thompson does. We have collectively decided to hold the right to assemble, to publish, and to verbally express oneself as separate from the material and language being expressed. And that’s a good thing.

In our verbal debate, Austin broached the topic of hate-crimes. Hate crimes occupy a different arena than speech, because they are intent and speech that has been acted on in a manner that violates the rights (life, safety, property) of another. Hate speech that actively incites others to violence and makes serious threats is also in a different realm, and one that I believe can be regulated. But some random racist’s blog that spews insults and stereotypes at minorities is completely different. As awful as it is, it's not something that a government, which is always one election away from the paranoid, xenophobic, militaristic, falsely patriotic whims of the voting populace, should be able to secretly delete all record of having ever existed, or prevent from being viewed.

We all pay a price for the rights and freedoms that we enjoy, and the Bush administration and post-911 hysteria that fed the Patriot Act are two very real, very frightening reminders of how easily those rights can be dissolved and erased. Ridding this nation of racist sentiment and hate may be a well intentioned idea, but one day we might wake up to find that “I hate Black people” has all of a sudden been equated with “I hate America.” And let’s face it; do you really trust Americans enough to distinguish between those two? I don’t, and I hold dear my right to say that on this website.

Let me know what you think, I'm hoping that this will spark some comments and discussion.

Paris

Things in Paris are slower, smaller, slimmer, fresher, denser, tastier, classier, prettier, more fashionable, more expensive, and, I am convinced, better. People walk through the streets of Cleveland to go somewhere; people walk through the streets of Paris because they are somewhere. They walk to walk, eat to eat, play to play. It’s as if every part of life is an end in and of itself in France—except work. Here we live to work, but in France they work to live.

The French view and live life differently, and to spend even a few days among them is enough to convince one that one’s entire life would be better spent among them. Spent among the tiny Smart Cars that cram into nonexistent parking spaces next to hardly larger Peugeots, Citroens, and the inevitable Aston Martin or Lamborghini. Yes the cars are better in France as they are all across Europe. They look better, both in design and upkeep (the French care about detail), and did I mention that a good fifty percent of the taxis in Paris are Mercedes? Brand new Mercedes?

And amidst the street corners crammed with Smart Cars are the brassiers, bistros, where you can sit at a table facing the street and watch life pass you by. The neighborhood patissieres that you walk to every morning for your croissant au chocolat, and perhaps a sandwhich au jambon to take with you for lunch. The patissieres that you return to before dinner (because bread from the morning is of course, no longer fresh) to buy steaming baguettes straight from the ovens. The fromager, or the gourmet food and desert shops like Hediard, which are splattered through upscale neighborhoods like Courselles.

Need I even mention it? The food is definitely better. Rich, succulent, and out of this world. Or, at least, this continent. Buttery escargot, fresh bread, searing steak au poivre, creamy brie, tender salmon, and ooohh the charcuterie. Cured meats like you have never tasted before. I don’t care what kind of ham you buy, you have never really tasted ham until you have had the jambon from an assiette du charcuterie. And all of it fresh, fresh, fresh. Fresher than even possible back here in “the best country on earth.”

It must be this freshness that counteracts the reality of the rich food the French consume on a daily basis. Either that or the urban layout that demands walking and activity. Or both. I saw few overweight people in Paris, and I am convinced that the majority of those I did see were tourists—American tourists. Yes, the people in France are slimmer, prettier, and more fashionable. Women and men included. In fact, Parisians are just downright beautiful. They consistently look good, and challenge you to do the same.

Public transportation is better in Paris. It’s fast, efficient, on-time, and simple to use. It’s pleasant and clean, and so are the people who use it. That Paris’s subway system was constructed one hundred years ago, beneath an already existing, and ancient city, is incredible. But then, Paris itself is a marvel of urban design. Haussman’s grand tree lined Bouevards that shoot away from the Arc de Triomph in every direction look like rays of the sun when viewed from on high. At night they are. Rays of light that course and pump life through this urban combination of the new and the old, the classic, and the modern. This city of stone, iron, steel, glass, and lights.

But unfortunately I don’t live in Paris, and eventually I returned home. And as I exited customs in Newark, and walked back through security and down the terminal to the gate of my next departure, I saw an Arby's and lots of fat people. Welcome to America.

The Winner Stands Alone

Paulo Coelho lays bare Hollywood’s soul. Or perhaps, as he might agree, lack thereof. Through his flowing writing, Coelho reaches to the very depths of the human condition in an attempt to decipher what truly moves us, motivates us. Unfortunately, the picture that Coelho paints of our deepest desires and darkest aspects of our nature—greed, lust for power and fame, pride—and the sins that we will commit for them, is not a pretty one. Coelho shows us ourselves, bare and naked, and the judgment we must pass is harsh indeed.

The Winner Stands Alone forces its readers to question themselves. How far would you go to placate your pride and lust? What would it take for you to, like Igor, destroy universes? To all those who have ever dreamed of fame, and been envious of stardom…to what lengths would you debase yourself for the chance to grasp at the edge of that dream? And then Coelho twists the knife even further, by forcing young dreamers to confront the possibility that to achieve and maintain that dream, they would be transformed into something other than that which they are. Something they may not like.

Yet for one who displays so much wisdom and insight into the baser behaviors of humanity, Coelho maintains innocence and hope in the very end. That is not to say that the ending is light, because it is dark indeed. Coelho leaves us with two winners who indeed stand alone in their persons, their desires, their morality, their actions, and what they place trust and faith in. He leaves us to decide where the real winner lies; with success at any price, including violence and death, or with the flicker of a hopeful love that would inspire anything except a descent to violence and killing. Coelho clearly favors the latter (as one would hope), and seems to be patiently and hopefully waiting for good to triumph over evil.

But that chapter, that reality in our world, remains unwritten. Paulo Coelho has has taken us to the very edge, but refuses to finish it. He can’t, because that’s our job. All of us.

America Needs a Healthcare Transplant: Part Deuce

So two weeks ago I wrote a piece on the ongoing struggle for healthcare reform in this country, and why we need to look overseas to the European and Canadian models for answers. Since then, there has been some hopeful progress in Congress, with the Progressive caucus vowing not to support any bill without a robust public option, and some Blue Dogs breaking with their caucus to announce their support for a public option (and not one with a trigger). But the fact remains that whatever public option (hopefully) ends up in a bill should still seek to take the very best parts of other nations' healthcare systems. So without further ado, I figured I should let some people from those other nations speak for themselves. In this second installment, I am featuring quotes from an email interview with a friend form Toronto, Canada.

Me: Do you like your doctor and are you free to switch?

Her: We have the freedom to choose the doctors, and the specialists that we want to see.

Me: So conservatives always claim that there are long waits in Canada for even basic procedures--how accurate is that?

Her: The weeks to see a doctor and months for an operation just isn't accurate when serious health issues arise. There are not extensive wait times when health issues of a serious nature arise.

Me: If you were in need of complicated surgery or treatment, would you rather have it done in the United States or in Canada, or in some other country?

Her: My father-in-law just had the procedure of opening arteries in his heart the other month, after going to the hospital for tests. My niece is undergoing treatment for brain cancer in a timely and efficient manner. As a family neither of these major illnesses is causing any financial hardship as all the appointments, procedures and medications are covered by our health care system.

Me: Any other relevant information?

Her: Each citizen and landed immigrant in Ontario receives an Ontario Health Insurance Program (OHIP) card. This is the only documentation that is required when attending doctor's appointments or hospital.

The provincial government pays for the vast majority of health costs. There are some procedures and medications that are not covered - I'm not sure of the entire list, but I do know that recently they removed yearly eye exams for those between 18 - 65; and hearing tests from the list. Our health cards do not cover dentistry.

Thanks so much for the answers to those questions on the Canadian healthcare system! Hopefully I'll have more soon on several European countries.

California Craziness

Things aren't looking so bright in the Sunshine State, where the world's 8th largest economy is locked in a deadlock over a now $29 billion budget deficit. Yet in the midst of the political games, and very scary and serious impending cuts to education, parks, and state welfare programs, lies the opportunity for a fascinating political test of sorts. A gem of a test in fact. Something that political scientists, academics, pundits, and the interested should be literally salivating in anticipation of. But let's back up, and look at what's actually on the table, and what's still cooking in the kitchen.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to veto any bill the state legislature puts before him that either includes new taxes, or doesn't address the entire budget crisis all at once. Of course 1990's tax cuts and Prop 13 (the 1978 bill that made it impossible to raise or introduce new taxes in California without a 2/3 majority) are the reason why California is in this crisis, but the governator has chosen to toe the orthodox conservative line on taxes. Instead, he is proposing some of the most severe spending cuts imaginable:

• Eliminating the Healthy Families Program, which would cut coverage for nearly 1 million children
• Cutting the state’s MediCal program by $1 billion
• Eliminating the state’s main welfare program for the poor
• A 10 percent reduction in CAL Fire’s budget, closing 11 conservation camps and 20 fire stations, staffing each engine with three firefighters instead of four
• Releasing 40,000 inmates (who are “non-serious, nonviolent, non-sex offenders”) and releasing all undocumented immigrant prisoners
• Privatizing prisons (which is only likely to end up costing the state more money in the long run, as privatization is wont to do)
• Making a $3.6 billion reduction to education funding and shutting down all public schools for 18.5 days
• Laying off 51,000 teachers and 90,000 support staff
• Increasing schools’ class sizes by 17 percent
• Laying off 5,000 state workers, those not laid-off will receive a 5 percent salary cut
• Closing up to 220 state parks and/or cutting park funding by $70 million
• Selling state assets, including the Del Mar Fairgrounds and the governor’s mansion
  
• Suspending Proposition 1A from 2004 to borrow up to $2 billion of property tax revenue from local governments
• The consolidation or elimination of more than 30 boards, commissions and departments
• Cutting 18 percent in pay for all state elected officials
• Cutting of 27 positions in the governor’s office; remaining employees will take a 9.3 percent reduction in work hours and pay
• Cutting AIDS testing by $55.5 million

(From www.sdnn.com)

Some of these cuts are insignificant, and perhaps should happen (like selling the governor's mansion and fairgrounds), but the big ones--especially the education cuts--are truly appalling, and will have a devastating effect on California's future and economic competitiveness.

So far the Obama administration has held firm in resisting California's pleas for a federal bailout. Even though I see why Obama is resisting bailing out one state (for fear that the 30 others in crisis will follow), California not only should recieve federal money, but is entitled to it. See, we have this phenomenon in the United States of liberal taxpayers from blue states actually supporting red state conservatives (who decry social programs and taxes) thorugh federal tax welfare. Blue states (with the exception of only recently turned blue New Mexico) pay far more in federal taxes than they recieve back in federal spending. With help from Republican congressmen like Eric Cantor, red states top the list of federal dollars recipients, while their Senators and Representatives are hypocritically raising hell about Obama's stimulus plan, but feeding at the trough and boasting about securing funds for their states. California has it worse than almost any other blue state--it recieves only $0.78 for every $1.00 its citizens pay in federal taxes, ranking 43.

Pragmatically speaking as well, it's a bad idea for the government to let California fail. Time and time again California has been the innovative engine of the United States, economically, environmentally, and socially. California pushes the rest of the country forward, and takes the lead on a myriad of issues that hold global significance. California voters approved a levy to create a high speed rail network (no this isn't irresponsible given their fiscal crisis--it's funded seperately and will benefit California in the long run); California has taken the lead on environmental regulations. It is imperative for the United States that California have the economic ability to continue to be the “early adopter” that pushes the US forward to progressivism when the rest of the country is too slow or resistant.

However, with a federal bailout not looking like a viable option, the state remains in a crisis. And here is where we get to the good part. I've long been a proponent of Northeast Ohio breaking away from the rest of Ohio (why should we let the conservative, rural south drag us down? Let's create a green, prosperous, urban society on our own). While that proposal is going nowhere, in California, politicians are actually seriously considering creating two seperate state budgets as a way to break the political deadlock.

This would without a doubt be the greatest experiement and head to head test of political ideologies ever conducted in this country. One state with one budget crisis; two seperate solutions happening simultaneously and independently of each other. The political inland can slash services while the liberal coast can make intellegent cuts and increase taxes on things like tobacco and oil, as well as roll back things like the Vehicle License Fee cut that Schwarzenegger preserved during his first term in office.

How cool would it be if this really happened? It would be the ultimate real world test of liberal vs. conservative governing ideologies. And in five years, we would be able to truly say, "we told you so" (or perhas hang our heads in defeat...although I would bet heavily on the former). Are the California conservatives willing to put up? Do they have the balls to put their ideology to the test? Here's to hoping that California is bold enough to go for the only solution that might work, and one that could have far-reaching impacts beyond California and its budget.

Cleveland Eats: La Gelateria

From clevelandeats.wordpress.com, a review of La Gelateria

"Gelato leaves no thick, sticky-sweet feeling in your mouth the way traditional high-butterfat content ice cream does, but rather has a very clean finish."

Full review after the jump.