Skip to main content

A couple recent postings on healthcare

New Jerusalem

If it's going to help people, they should fight like hell to get as much as they can, but also to pass it. I say this not because I don't believe more substantial reforms couldn't be initiated later, but because I believe this is the one and only year Obama is going to seem the least bit liberal. It will be liberals who will come to fret the government, if government -- even its social services -- comes to seem more muscle than nurture. Making a nation fit for war is not something we liberals have in mind, but it is something ill-liberals could come to see some sense in.

Liberals probably would be wise to at least begin talking succession. New style -- with finesse, with the least amount of antagonism, of course. There are just so many people in the US who want public healthcare -- a good society; more than enough, that is, to populate a country. When you come to realize that your dreams can no longer be realized, and that you are at risk, you owe to yourself to set off. I mean this truly. Start thinking about it. Return when you have the strength to convert.

Link: Should the democrats start over on healthcare? (Joan Walsh, Salon, 16 Dec. 2009)


Obama's strained year as a liberal

Obama is weak right now only because he is still in his liberal incarnation. Once healthcare is passed and true progressives scream in dismay and alarm -- out of some presumed possession --and Obamarahm starts turning on them, we will see a new incarnation, that may well enable him to expand healthcare in the future.

What we get in healthcare reform in this climate may still to some extent be imagined as a liberal gain. I don't know if this will effect its implementation/execution, but it might. If further healthcare reform is moved by a more rightist concern for the health of the "volk" -- the traditional American, of the like Michael Moore upraises --progressives would be right to experience some difficulty in praising it, for it could be part of a national conversation about purity and illness that will end up doing them and those they spend so much effort trying to help, more harm than good.


Link: Why democrats must pass healthcare reform (Joan Walsh, Salon, 23 Dec. 2009)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…