HEALTH BILL SUMMIT GOES NOWHERE

- AS EXPECTED

They had the Health Care summit and as predicted nothing came of it. Many on both sides considered it a waste of time. However it needn't have been. Because in the early parts of the session both sides were saying things like "Our differences aren't that great and there are many points of agreement". However certain "patterns" were fallen into quickly. The Republicans had that 2,400 page Senate bill with them many labeled as a "prop". However I don't see what is so wrong with actually having the bill before them that is under debate. The Republicans made statements like "the government wants to take over one sixth of the economy" and "This bill wants to redefine what a health care benefit is". Some republicans said "Why can't we just scrap this bill and start over". President Obama's failure was in that he did not take the republicans up on their offer and say, "OK, let's make a list of all the points where we can agree on". In terms of the vastness of the democratic senate bill the President should have demanded "Quote me a specific provision of the bill that you don't like". Both sides were given to giving these long-winded speeches that may be good for use in campaign spots but it's not how people usually engage in a conversation. It should be "You make a point or two, and then I respond right now to what you just said" and visa versa. In short there was a mutual conspiracy on both sides not to allow anything to really be accomplished. At this point I don't care whether a bill is passed or not. I'm inclined that in a benefits verse liabilities count- - there is no real up side to getting a bill passed. I think what will have to happen is that insurance rates will be jacked up another 29% and another 29% after that till we hit some sort of crisis point where all of congress agrees that they need to act.

There are roomers that the tea party far-right is disintegrating. According to Randy Rhodes a couple days ago, Rush Limbaugh and Mark LeVin have taken to attacking Glen Beck for his call to have "independent" tea party candidates running for political office against regular republicans in the primaries. Rush Limbaugh is your typical Bush Republican and doesn't want to see the conservative base divided and so sees the danger. It's fine to lie to the public and say you are a "spontanious" and "independent" movement, but all the while you know that you are just another corporate and a poser as far as being any kind of "patriot" is concerned. But also Scott Brown has come under attack by the far right for voting to break up a filibuster that was blocking an important jobs bill. A lot of what the far right does is "optics" and image. They will love to paint Scott Brown as one of their own when it comes to winning an election, but that's as far as it goes. What these people want by their own admission is to "break" this President, meaning that if the President favors it, they must do everything they can to defeat it, even if that means a jobs bill, which on other occasions they have claimed that we need.

A lot of us would like to "start over" on occasion. I know a certain church Pastor who on at least two occasions I sent him a letter saying "I wish I could just erase the past few months of our interaction and we could start fresh". This letter of course was not responded to. Sometimes you have to look for things to "respond" to. For instance in the Cuban Missile crisis, President Kennedy received two telegrams or whatever from Kruschev. The first talked about a possible negotiation, whereas the second was more of a tough ass hard line affair. President Kennedy responded to the first telegram and ignored the second. I wish people yesterday would have responded to "areas that really matter" where there was a hint of the other side reaching out, a "point of contact" if you will. Sometimes people can change their minds on things. Believe it or not it really can and does occur. Yesterday I read something about Islam that half way tempted me to convirt to Islam. I have recently learned that the Moslems do not believe Jesus Christ was crucified and died on the cross. The idea is that God by his very nature is Forgiving and as such does not need a justification to Forgive other than his own Sogreignty. To me this is an appealing notion. I believe it was Jesus of KFI who stated that "It's OK for man to forgive and overlook trespasses of others. A man can decide "OK, I'll let that go". But God due to the exacting nature of his morality cannot do this. Everything has to be counter-ballanced off. So if one person is done a favor, someone else has to suffer. That sort of thing. It is said that you can't "sin" against a man; you can only "sin" against God. With another man you may "transgress" against him. I can forgive transgressions against me if I want to. The problem with my case is that most of the people would, shall we say "be in need of forgiveness" for offences done to me- - think that they are perfect and their actions tword me are faultless. In fact they ought to get a medal or something for their conduct. As such I find forgiveness of such people problematic at best. Many of us whether it be on the credit or debit side of the ledger often entertain notions or a desire to "wipe the slate clean". And this is a wonderful thing, when it can be done. I think the President is too committed to his 2,400 page monstrocity of a bill ever to consider anything as radical as "starting fresh" with a real hope of actually getting something done. And it's a shame, too. Because there is nothing really worth "defending" in this bill.

There are so many movies that allude to some gigantic cataclysm occurring to mankind in the near future that one wonders about the mental state of the people who go to these movies. I have heard there are some fantastic visual effects in the movie "2012". How many people are there who are like the people I have talked to who are just fatalistic about the Future and believe that trying to change it is like trying to change the will of God. Now make no mistake about it, I believe the same thing- -in a sense. I believe the future IS set in stone. I just don't believe that future involves the end of the world. If people see something as "not even doable" then they won't even try to do it. When Jesus says "blessed are the peace makers" they will not even try to be among those who are to be called the Sons of God. Sometimes the issues in a campaign can change rather rapidly. It is said that "six months in politics is an eternity". If the whole tea party movement implodes and does down the tubes in the next few months, we may find they are much less of a worry some November than we had expected. And it's true we don't know what crisis will rear its head in the near future. It could be economic, or it could involve international peace. As I said in the last posting there are any number of potential things that could trigger a crisis in the world. You could have anything from selling bombs to a terrorist to espianage revealing military secrets, to unloosing a plague on the earth, and there is always the possability of some sort of economic melt-down. But the key to this all is to respond to the problems that are in the here and now and not worried about potential problems around the corner that may never happen. If we deal with the here and now we are doing our part.