To Debate “ObamaCare” translate to Racism?

Frank Rich over the weekend wrote an Op-Ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html, that asserted, "That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls "Obamcare" is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It's merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964." Now I was not born till 1971 so I did not experience 1960's first hand. I have read a number of sources while studying history at UND and do not see the comparison that Frank Rich is drawing between "ObamaCare" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rich asserts that racial overtones are the main cause for all the outrage which I do not buy.

As Rich points out accurately the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate with 73 votes (bipartisan) versus the partisan vote and reconciliation of "Obamcare". From what I have read and seen, Americans are fed up with government growth and mounting debt. It has nothing to do with a President that is mullato. Pat Sajak, yes Wheel of Fortune Sajak, wrote an Op-Ed to retort Rich, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36241, Op-Ed. Sajak's message was, "Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing "Cats"." The reason I quote Sajak is because the nature of Rich's claim to fame as being a theater critic.

Sajak goes on to say, "This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let's discuss it. Let's debate it. Let's yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?" Who is more on the ball; Rich or Sajak?

Because one opposes "ObamaCare" does that automatically make them a racist, sexist and a homophobic? Let's look at the facts of the bill and debate it. Yes it is already passed but remember it was House Speaker Pelosi that made it clear that Americans will see what is in the bill after it is passed. Right now Morning Joe, on MSNBC, is discussing the fringe elements media spin and if things are being accurately displayed by the mass media. The only death threat on record, to this point, is against Republican Eric Cantor. But I digress. Will "ObamaCare" place burdens on United Sates companies as AT&T, Verizon, John Deere and Catepillar are all asserting to which Democrat leadership response is to drag the CEO's in front of Congress to defend their revelations.

How do we debate the merits of health care reform that was passed without invoking "psychobabble" and labeling those in opposition as being a racist, sexist or homophobic? Or is a post-racial America a pipe dream?

Medical Marijuana passed by Minnesota Senate

April 29th the Minnesota State Senate passed Senate bill SF0097 with a 36-28 vote to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Many believe that marijuana is a “gateway” drug. The use of medical marijuana is meant to assist those suffering from the pains of cancer and HIV/AIDS; not for recreational use. How is the use of medical marijuana different then one in a hospital bed pushing the morphine button?

In the article, Minnesota Senate approves medical marijuana by Mark Brunswick, former county sheriff Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen is reported to have said, “I’m here to tell you there is a potential opportunity for abuse here, and kids are watching to see what we in the Legislature are going to do.” Sen. Ingebrigtsen is short-sighted and raises a sky is falling approach. With anything there is a chance for abuse. Every person entering into the policy academy brings along with them an opportunity of abuse. Are we not more intelligent or respectful of each other to go beyond the argument of potentially abuse?

My own Senator, Julianne Ortman, was quoted in the article of her concern of theft and violence. I attempted to contact Sen. Ortman last week but have not heard anything back on her concerns. Adding medical marijuana to legal activities in Minnesota is not going to increase theft or violence, this is just another sky is falling approach.

The bill has moved onto the House. I did contact Rep. Kohls to get his position. Rep. Kohls echoed the concern of protection. Rep. Kohls is opposed to the current form of the bill because of the way it prescribed and dispensed and if one has a doctor note it does not prevent them to buy it off the street. “If we could get that done, my concerns would be resolved,” stated Rep. Kohls.

I applaud the Senate in passing a medical marijuana bill and it is time for Minnesotans to display accountability when dealing with this issue. I agree with Rep. Kohls that tighter control on dispensing of medical marijuana to ensure those suffering from cancer and HIV/AIDS are obtaining their marijuana from legal avenues. Hopefully the House can correct this piece to the legislation passed by the Senate.