The Hidden Hills 2 Syndrome

During my years in the Arizona commercial real estate business, I used to marvel at a peculiar yet predictable behavior exhibited by new home buyers in exurb subdivisions throughout Phoenix.  Buyers during the boom (many new to Arizona and the high desert) lined up to take a number for a chance to throw money at homebuilders to get on the waiting list for the newest “community”.  Always built in phases, it was a certainty that the Phase I pioneers would move in, set out their new patio sets, mix a margarita and commence griping about the new homes going up around them.  ”Look how they’re destroying the desert” they would say, or “I didn’t move all they way out here to stare at someone else’s wall.”  This pattern would repeat itself with each subsequent phase of development, year after year.  A professor I had once described it as the “Hidden Hills 2 Syndrome”, and you can set your watch to it.

The Hidden Hills 2 Syndrome isn’t just about homes however.  If we’re being honest, it’s about being American. This country is, ostensibly, built on equality.  We are a society devoid of aristocracy, although we love the word and the idea that some people or families have “achieved” such status (as if aristocratic positioning could somehow be earned).  What, you may ask, fills the void in the American psyche left by our lack of such a “birthright class”?  Citizenship.  Hidden Hills 1.

On the world stage, being born an American citizen IS being born into aristocracy and becoming a naturalized citizen is akin to marrying in (although without the disdainful looks from an entitled brother-in-law).  So, just like the new home owner,  once the lawn chairs are out and the margaritas are mixed, it’s time to get started complaining about the new neighbors.  Pining for the way the neighborhood used to be.

Indeed.

My family, on my father’s side, goes back to Jamestown.  Thomas Lane got there around 1628.  On my mother’s side, there’s a street named after us in Charleston, SC.  The old part.  My family has been here since the beginning and has therefore seen every wave of immigration since.  It’s what this community was founded on.  The world’s first and only open invitation aristocracy.

Unless you’ve been here since the beginning, you too were an immigrant once.  And my forefathers welcomed you.  Sure there have been problems.  Sure there has been bigotry and discrimination and worse.  Of course assimilation is a tough, multi-generation process.  But our laws and our Constitution have always fostered an environment that allows that assimilation to occur.  The so-called “anchor baby” bill now working its way through Congress would destroy that environment.  It will strip away the very protections that may have allowed your own family to come to this country and eventually become citizens.  In the long run, it will destroy what makes America American.

So, at the risk of sounding like a jerk (which doesn’t really bother me), to every American who’s family ever emigrated from elsewhere, you are welcome.  Now that you’re here, please extend the same courtesy to those that are coming behind you.  Regardless of what phase they’re building in.

-EL

Why Do I Get Myself Into These Things…

I have pretty strong opinions on most things political.  I liken it to a baseball or football fan pouring over on base percentages or rushing stats.  However, Most of this “research” is for my own edification, or to share with those I know to be similarly devoid of other interests.
Occasionally, however, a snippet of misinformation so egregious is passed along to me (usually via a politically uninformed or “recently energized” email contact) that it simply demands a response.  This morning was one of those occasions.  I submit to my readers (both of you) the message I received, complete with YouTube video link, as well as my response:

Fwd: THIS WILL KNOCK YOUR SOCKS OFF – Is this REALLY our AMERICA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8

The contents of the video defy description, and really must be viewed for full appreciation.  My response to what I can only imagine was a rather stunned group of recipients was as follows:

HR 3200 no longer exists, and was replaced by HR 3962 (passed by the House on 11/7/09).  HR3962 is also now effectively obsolete, having basically been deemed to difficult to pass in the Senate and therefore the ballgame all comes down to the Senate version (HR 3590) .  If anyone is interested I’ve linked to the complete text of all three bills above.  You can read the official text, searchable by keyword, section number, etc. but NOT by page number as referenced in the video.  This is because house bills don’t have “page numbers” since there are several different printing formats required (one for the official record that must be double spaced, one for review and markup that is usually single spaced, etc).

While there are certainly a lot of different perspectives on this debate, all of which deserve consideration, I would encourage everyone to discover the facts for themselves.  Don’t rely on someone else to tell you what to be afraid of.

For instance, the “$5,000 to $10,000 yearly cap on coverage” discussed in the video, is actually a $5,000 to $10,000 cap on individual out of pocket expenses per year, mandating that your insurer MUST cover anything above those amounts (HR3200 Sec 122 (a) (3) and (c)(2)(A-C)).

And as for the dire prediction that a shadowy “Health Care Commissioner” will determine the care you will receive (or not receive)?  Think about that for a minute.  Regardless of the system in place, someone, somewhere, at some time, must determine what procedures and services will be covered under ANY health plan, including the plans we all utilize today.  The only difference is that under the proposed legislation the minimum standards for acceptable coverage would be set by a bureaucrat in Washington DC rather than our currently unregulated health insurance companies determining which benefits can be eliminated without losing customers.

Consider this, some of you (like my family) may currently be covered by United Healthcare.  As small business owners your premiums have probably gone up exponentially over the last 10 years as coverage has steadily declined.  Who made those decisions?  I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t the Government.  It was this guy, UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire, who stepped down as head of United Healthcare in 2006 with a severance package worth approximately $1.7 Billion.  Now, I’m a free market guy, and ALL FOR profit and compensation.  Hell, I’m not even criticizing McGuire’s right to that kind of compensation.  All I’m saying is that fear of an appointed Commissioner to require companies like UHC to provide a minimum level of coverage should perhaps be weighed against the fact that currently those same decisions are made by a guy who made $1.7 Billion for 15 years of increased profitability.  Profitability that likely DOESN’T grow from increased benefit coverage.

I’m not arguing for any of the proposed bills.  I think they all have problems.  All I’m saying is don’t make your decisions based on a YouTube propaganda video.  Read the bills.  Ignore the uproar about their length (about 2000 pages double spaced) and look at the word count, about the same as a Harry Potter book.  If its worth getting all worked up about isn’t it worth reading the actual bills?

Sorry for the outburst, but we all deserve to know the facts about this situation…

Now I’m not posting this exchange to too my own horn (or incriminate me, as the case my be) but rather to make a point.  The recipients of this email aren’t bad people.  They aren’t stupid either.  On the contrary, most of them are successful small business owners and entrepreneurs.  What they ARE is uninformed.  They are ignorant.  Not of the GOP position, or that of the Democratic Party or the White House, but rather of the undisputed facts of the debate.

No, I’m not posting this as an amusing anecdote about putting someone in their place.  I’m posting it to illustrate that unless those of us that understand this debate continuously set the record straight it will remain dominated by the least informed among us.  I’m posting it as a plea to those of us that know the facts to politely educate someone who doesn’t.  Point them in the right direction at the very least.  If we don’t we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.

-EL

Obama Administration Is Quietly Getting It Right On Foreign Policy… (Almost)

Second post from old site (Originally posted 9/5/09):

Earlier this Summer, as the news junkies among us spent days on end refreshing our Twitter feeds in search of the latest developments from Iran, I found myself in a series of really fascinating discussions with my fellow addicts concerning the appropriate course of action for the Obama Administration.  Critics were quick to denounce his perceived lack of action and demanded that the US take a strong stand with Mousavi and his supporters.  But they didn’t, choosing instead to issue several strongly worded, yet quite measured, statements.  The first addressing only the obvious irregularities, but not directly criticizing the Regime itself, and later addressing the human rights violations we watched day after day.

I can certainly understand the desire, as an American, to assist people, wherever they may live, in a life or death struggle for freedom.  But by inserting ourselves and all of the baggage that comes along with US intervention (especially in the Middle East and ESPECIALLY in the current geo-political climate) would have been a disaster, and the White House deserves more credit than they received for the restraint shown.  Of course the no brainer from a purely political perspective is to roundly denounce the regime, rattle the saber a bit, and enjoy the temporary rise in public opinion polls.  Perhaps even throw in a few U.N sanctions for good measure.

But let’s follow that course of action through to its logical conclusion.  Active U.S. intervention, on any level, would have given the regime an instant scapegoat to explain away the protesters.  Of course, they used it anyway, but to massively diminished effect.  We also would have run the risk of alienating Iran’s moderate youth.  For years experts on the Middle East have discussed the fact that despite the Ayatollah’s iron grip on today’s Iran, the younger generation is quite progressive.  This is important, because true organic regime change must occur from within.  A brief examination of our forays into “helping” other countries over the last 100 years or so illustrates that pretty clearly.  To intervene could possibly set back the more reasonable factions of Iranian society for a generation.  Americans tend to think that we hold the monopoly on national pride, when in reality it exists just as vibrantly all over the World.  It’s akin to that age old double standard, “I can call my wife a bitch, but if YOU do it we’re gonna fight”.

Following immediately on the heals of the Iran election came the ousting of Zelaya from Honduras.  Different situation entirely, but with the same problems resulting from U.S. interference.  The Administration came out in support of Zelaya and demanded he be returned to power.  As the facts surfaced however, it became quite clear that this was no coup.  This was democratic checks and balances at work.  Zelaya was taking the first steps down a Hugo Chavez style takeover and the legislative and judicial branches exercised their constitutionally granted power to stop it.  Confusingly, the Obama Administration decided against the prudent policies embraced in Iran and continued to lobby for the reinstatement of Zelaya.  Now, I will be the first to argue that, just like in Iran, our support of the new government in Honduras (although to characterize Micheletti’s Administration as a new government isn’t really accurate) would ultimately serve to diminish its credibility in the region.  But why actively criticize?  Why not stay the hell out of it?  Zelaya’s removal was finished, to our ultimate benefit, and our name was nowhere near it.  Earlier this week, the State Department announced the end of all aid to Honduras, which totally confuses me as to Obama’s foreign policy goals.

Is if on cue, this week Israel announced plans to undertake significant expansion in West Bank settlements.  Now I understand that its blasphemous to criticize Israel or our unquestionable support of them.  The price we’ve paid for this support has been the ire of the rest of the region and an important recruiting tool for terrorist groups everywhere.  Which, in itself, isn’t a reason to abandon Israel or even distance ourselves.  Rather than gratitude and cooperation, however, Israel seems to relish the idea that no matter how aggressively and uncooperatively it may behave towards its neighbors (I’m including the Palestinians in that group) we’ll stand by them.  The Administration’s scolding of Israel this week is a positive sign of things to come and an encouraging sign that perhaps the Obama that acts in the Country’s best interest rather than that of his poll numbers has returned.

-EL

My Opening Salvo…

This post was first posted on my original site, which I’ve since learned was a pain in the ass to update.  So, for the sake of continuity, I’ll repost here:

For as long as I can remember I’ve been a Republican.  Long before I understood what it meant politically, I suppose I identified with it (or aspired to) on a personal level.  My earliest political memory is waking up early the morning after the 1984 Presidential Election to watch the coverage and see if Reagan had won.  I was 6, with no real comprehension of the actual race, and certainly no understanding of Mondale’s total ineptitude.  All I knew was that Reagan was the good guy and I wanted to be sure that the good guy had won.

By the time I reached my teen angst years I was wearing khakis and penny loafers to school (not a big look in the mid 90’s) and founding the Young Republicans Club at Chaparral High School along with my best friend and my future wife.  I remember being so excited about the ’94 “Republican Revolution”.  Finally we’d be able to make some changes.  The utter failure of that Congressional Class and the resulting downfall of Newt Gingrich struck me as a fluke.  We just didn’t have the right guy in charge, and I’d argue to the point of discomfort with anyone who disagreed.

Like a lot of Republicans I continued this feeling of moral and intellectual superiority squarely into the beginning of the Bush Administration.  Of course we were right, and now, FINALLY, we had the right guy to lead us to victory.  And what a team he had assembled!  Battle hardened GOP warriors like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell. Sure he’s an idiot, I told my self (and probably conceded in more than one debate), but he’s surrounding himself with the best and brightest, and THEY will do the heavy lifting.

Well, they sure did.  9/11 changed the game, as it did all of us.  The Bush Administration could no longer afford to dabble in the minor leagues.  For the first few years of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq my support was unwavering.  Of course we were justified.  After all, 9/11 wasn’t Bush’s fault, he was still suffering from Clinton’s systematic dismantling of our military and intel communities.  It was all Clinton.

But somewhere along the way my absolute faith in the party and its leaders waned.  I began to question motives and listen to arguments, both centrist and liberal, rather than merely focusing on my defensive response.  The resulting feeling was disorienting to say the least.  This was my identity.  What now, become a Democrat?  I certainly didn’t identify with them (and still don’t).  And independents are a side act.  Never quite ready for the main stage.

This introspection led me to realize that I hadn’t changed.  My party had.

The modern GOP has abandoned all of the very ideas that made it great.  Limited government, limited spending, freedom of choice, states rights and on and on and on.  These essential tenets are now trotted out only when convenient and dismissed with a simple “this situation is different” when it suits the occasion.  The party has been hijacked by the vocal minority on the far right.  Evangelicals, isolationists, racists (yes, I said it) and the ignorant that simply fear the modern world and the inevitable changes of an evolving and maturing society.

It’s no longer acceptable to disagree with this minority.  For whatever reason they’ve managed to convince the GOP at large that the key to political sustainability is to cater to their every demand, shouting down all who dissent as RINO’s or worse.  Media is labeled and sorted, with patronization or mere acknowledgement of unacceptable outlets branded as blasphemy.  How did we get here?  What happened to our independent spirit?  Most Republicans will still argue that they ARE the independent thinkers.  Everyone else is “drinking the kool-aid”.  Well, I disagree.  And I hope to use this blog to start an honest and open discussion about it.

I promise this will be my only long, boring autobiographical rant.  I just felt it best to begin this thing with an explanation of how I got here…

 

-EL