WOSU 08162011

http://beta.wosu.org/news/category/opinion/

Judith Kelch is a freedom fighter – at least according to The Ohio Project website – which lists her story among many about collecting signatures for an Ohio constitutional amendment to overturn the Federal health care bill.

As of right now the Ohio Secretary of State has certified the petition signatures to place the amendment on the ballot; however, the opposing group, Progress Ohio, has vowed to challenge the petition signatures.

When I hear the stories from people like Ms. Kelch as to why they believe Americans need to be free not to have health care, well, most often all I can think is – wait, that’s an argument against health coverage?

For example, Ms. Kelch is quoted as saying, “Last night I recruited a couple that has a mentally retarded daughter. She’s probably about 6 or 7, cute little girl, and I cringe to think of their outcome under Obamacare. I have Dystonia but I could live without the Botox injections I get in the back of my neck. I would just be in agony. The list can go on, elderly, MS, multiple dystrophy.”

Well, my first response to Ms. Kelch and other “freedom fighters” using this illogical argument is that using words like Obamacare precludes dialogue because it is inflamatory. Saying Obamacare is a declaration of ignorance to the reality of how the health care reform was crafted and what it actually does.

The Federal health care reform bill is a compromise that began as a conversation about universal health care – something almost every other developed nation in the world already has (and was originally championed here by President Nixon). What the health care reform bill ended up being is this watered down bill that is even less extensive than what current Republican leaders were originally arguing for.

So please, first and foremost, let’s start talking about health care reform, instead of using platitudes that keep any of us from having constructive conversation.

However, I also want to respond to Ms. Kelch about what happens to someone with MS under government mandated health care. Fortunately, I don’t have to answer in the abstract; like Ms. Kelch, I too have friends and family suffering with health issues.

One friend is Cy Culpin, who has always wanted to live in the US. Cy’s a very successful web developer but he has MS, and because of this he can’t afford to move to the US. First, his pre-existing condition precludes him from getting health insurance and second, his British-government-run, universal health care, provides him with better treatment options than what would be available to him if he could get insurance in the US.

And where would he be without health care? Probably dead, cut down in the prime of his life by MS.

So what about it, freedom fighters, are you ready to lead by example? Before trying to free others from health care coverage, have you tried living without it yourself?

WOSU (not-aired)

I was privileged to attend my very first Chautauqua Institution this year, an event that has been going on in upstate New York since the 1870s.

On the shores of Lake Chautauqua, just eight miles from Lake Erie, Methodists founded Chautauqua as a summer camp, which grew into Sunday School teacher training which, by the 1880s, led to educating attendees on all varieties of secular subjects as a part of its mission: the exploration of the best in human values and the enrichment of life by exploring important religious, social and political issues – and to find creative responses to those issues.

Nowadays, the Chautauqua Institution runs a nine-week program, which includes daily lectures by internationally renowned speakers. Also, writers, and visual and performing artists participate in residency programs providing a daily dose of cultural arts.

Surrounded by beautifully maintained Victorian buildings, the woods and water, listening to dissertations over foreign policy, followed up by the Opera and art exhibits – well – as someone who values stimulating conversation, expert insight and creative expression; I felt I was as close to heaven as an ex-Methodist-turned-atheist could get.

Chautauqua is a highly restrictive gated community, planned as such by the founders to maintain an educated, middle class attendance – the type of people who were given less to the high spirited revivals of the time that ironically were what originally led to the institution’s creation.

The founders wanted attendees who would engage in a sedate, non-denominational, moral community oriented program.

As you might imagine, a gated community in the splendor of upstate New York, is, well, financially exclusive no matter if it is 1880 or 2011. Many of today’s Chautauqua property owners are third or fourth generation. Nothing about the institution is inexpensive.

So, while you may not have a good representation of economic classes, you do find a wide diversity of political economic ideals – this isn’t just for us liberals.

However, at Chautauqua, extremely restrictive ordinances as well as polite conversation over normally polarizing topics are accepted as de rigueur. And that’s what struck me. Why does it take an exclusive, gated community in the woods to bring people together for community like this?

It feels almost schizophrenic to me to live this way at Chautauqua, almost on a higher plane, only to return home to what is clearly a less civilized daily existence.

And why is it, that members of similarly educated (and financially capable) communities – like Dublin or UA – find local issues so divisive and support for publicly sponsored cultural events so scarce? Why are our interactions often so crass and our attitudes so frequently self-serving?

I want to live in a world more like the one I experienced at Chautauqua, sadly, unless the desire for such a society spontaneously takes hold in central Ohio, I’ll look forward to next year, and another brief glimpse of that higher plane of civility.

WOSU 06/07/2011

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1812630

Journalism is in crisis. To survive, many news rooms have completely removed the line that separates opinion from news; it may be giving the audience what it wants – sensational sound bites – but is it providing our democracy with what it needs?

With tightening competition for dwindling advertising revenues, along with greater competition from web-based media, temptation to take news sensationalism to the extreme couldn’t be higher – and apparently nothing is standing in the way.

Government regulation of broadcast media originates from the fact radio and TV stations are given permission to to use the public’s airwaves. The rules were developed to foster competition and ensure that our democracy is safely in the hands of an educated electorate. In the 1980s, President Reagan struck down a key piece of this regulation called the Fairness Doctrine, which encouraged media outlets to act in a responsible, fair and balanced way. Since Reagan, media regulation has continued to be stripped away.

However, there is one place that regulation is still playing an effective role. This commentary aside, publicly funded media is one of the last places left to find balanced reporting.

This is because public media’s funding base demands such balance. Public media has to do two things. First it has to provide quality programming which attracts an audience that believes in it enough to donate. Second, a significant amount of funding comes from the taxpayers at-large; that funding is decided upon by our elected officials. So not only must the programming be quality, but it must be fair across the political spectrum – otherwise politicians will pull the funding plug.

Sadly, a market based approach is being pushed by some taxpayers who believe our government is already too big, and they want politicians to pull the plug regardless of concerns about balance.

And why does that matter?

Commercial media only needs to worry about earning shareholder’s dividends. They don’t have donors and taxpayers paying the bills there. For commercial media, the larger the audience the more advertisers are willing to spend. Without regulation, how do you attract larger audiences? Well, marketing gurus have figured it out – stir people’s emotions and be sensational!

Being sensational isn’t about being factual, or fair, and certainly not balanced. Sensationalism requires excitement and conflict – a lack of balance. Something that pulls at your heart strings and makes you choose sides. Because, once you’ve chosen a side, you don’t have to think critically about what you’re being told; you can just slip effortlessly into those opinions.

Are the Rachel Maddow’s and Bill O’Reily’s of the world exciting? Absolutely! Do you think you’re getting the whole story from them – you probably do if you subscribe to their opinion. But the other guy – well, they clearly don’t know what their talking about.

And there is the problem. How do we have a healthy democracy, educated on issues and voting on merit, when we only have to hear the side of the argument that is most pleasing and self-serving to us as individuals?

WOSU 04/25/2011

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1793871/Opinion/Senate.Bill.5.Unfairly.Attacks.Middle.Class

When did our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees become the super-villains of our time?

With the recent passage of senate bill 5 we have witnessed the death of public collective bargaining in Ohio, and the stamping out of workers rights. And why was this decision made? Supposedly to save money.

However, for the past two years, State and many local public employees have been required to take unpaid leave. State employee’s haven’t had a pay increase in three years. They’ve only had two increases in the last eight.

During SB5 testimony, Upper Arlington city council member, and local business owner, David DeCapua, testified that unionized workers are overwhelming local government budgets and creating too great a tax burden on business owners and residents.

Not surprising to many though, DeCapua seems to think he is entitled to a different standard than everyone else.

During UA city council budget meetings, council member Debbie Johnson suggested that the seven person council give up their city paid benefits, which would save the city nearly $100,000 a year. In response, DeCapua, who takes advantage of the city benefits shot that idea down, not wanting to have to pay for his own health insurance once again.

Similarly, Governor Kasich makes speeches railing against public employee’s who he believes strong-armed these benefits out of taxpayers thru collective bargaining. At the same time Kasich, who is estimated to be worth millions, is enrolled in both the State healthcare and pension plan.

So what does a post-union world look like to these politicians? Conceptually it will look more like what has happened in private industry; where workers are routinely worked 60 to 80 hours a week, have minimal healthcare benefits, and are required to figure out for themselves what to do if retirement ever comes for them. All the while, that marginal percentage of people at the top continue to make ever more money.

I suppose this is a cue from Kasich’s Lehman Brother’s days, when he received nearly half a million dollars in bonuses while the firm was imploding, helping to create the current national financial crisis.

In an attempt to lead by example, a bill was introduced by Ohio democrats to cut the legislature’s pay and benefits as well. Republican leader Rep. Louis Blessing has already stated he’ll vote against the bill because he believes he deserves every penny he’s being paid.

And sadly, throughout this debate reporters continue to find working class individuals to interview, complaining about their current work, pay and benefit situation in the private sector.

But instead of seeing unions as a way to stand united together; as a possible way to better their own lot in life, these downtrodden individuals are suggesting that public workers aren’t workers at all, but thieves undeserving of what was once the obtainable American dream. A reasonable work week to allow for family time, a fair salary, and at the end of it all the ability to retire – something that the DeCapua’s, Kasich’s and Blessings of the world are actively protecting for themselves – while they take it away from the rest of us.