Monday, June 26, 2006

Bush and Cheney may "allow" court oversight of N.S.A. wiretaps

The Bush administration may actually agree to obey the law. A New York Times article this morning notes that Congress and the White House are in negotiations to allow court oversight of the N.S.A. wiretapping program. On its face, the law already demands court oversight. This shouldn't be a negotiable issue. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney (Mr. Cheney is reportedly doing the negotiating.) should be brought up on charges for ignoring the law. They are clearly abusing their power.

More later,
Russ

Sunday, June 25, 2006

If a well-qualified minority candidate for a job isn't hired, is it racism?

This particular story is local to Mid-Michigan, but brings up questions that can occur anywhere.

The president of the teacher's union in East Lansing, Mich., has voiced discontent about the fact that a minority candidate for a middle-school principal position didn't get the job. Edwina Marshall "raised concerns" that because the one black candidate didn't get the job (he has since been hired as principal of an elementary school in the district), that the decision was racist.

I'm sure the decision could have been influenced by race, but there is nothing in the newspaper account to suggest it. Ms. Marshall seems to be reacting to an incident in which she was asked by the district human resources director, also black, to "balance the color in the room" by not sitting next to another black teacher during group interviews for the middle-school principal position. This was where we discovered that Ms. Marshall is black, or at least it is implied.

The union president had her lawyer write a letter to the school board about the "apparent racial discrimination."

What makes it apparent? The news account subtly makes it seem as if Ms. Marshall is expressing sour grapes that her preferred candidate didn't get the job. Is Ms. Marshall telling all she knows? If not, why not? If there was no racism involved, how can the East Lansing School Board prove it?

What do you think?

More later,
Russ

"Natural Family" Values

Kanab, Utah values the "Natural Family," according to the L.A. Times. The city council in Kanab passed a resolution stating that the council's top priority is to protect and nurture the natural family. Again, according to the Times:

"The resolution described the natural family as man and woman, duly married "as ordained of God," with hearts "open to a full quiver of children." The council decreed that such households are to be treasured as "the locus of the true common good," a bulwark against crime, delinquency, drug abuse and worse."

The resolution passed in January, and as you might imagine, controversy has been the result. The problem here is the resolution is based on a logical fallacy. A form of organization does not produce a community with good values. Community members who embrace those values produce a community with good values.

Kanab needs to identify the values it cherishes, and then figure out how to promote those values... without treading on anyone's rights.

More later,
Russ

Cheney On the Role of the Media: Traitors?

Apparently, Vice president Dick Cheney is unclear on what role the media plays in a democracy. A New York Times article yesterday reported Mr. Cheney's criticism of the media for disclosing a program that tracks banking transactions by Americans and others. Mr. Cheney said that the program was legal and essential to fighting terrorism.

Following the money is without a doubt an important tool in tracking terrorists. The role of the American media, however, is to discover information important to Americans and report it. Mr. Cheney's argument hinges on the idea that without secrecy, this program won't be effective, and maybe he's right. But, and this is a big but, given the way the Bush administration has made everything secret, and has been exposed by the media for programs that are apparently illegal, and has argued that they are legal because Mr. Bush says so, Mr. Cheney's credibility is nil.

Mr. Cheney seems to view the media -- broadly defined as anyone who reports anything to anyone -- as traitors. He should know that the media play a vital role in a democratic society, so there seem to be only two conclusions: 1) Mr. Cheney is truly ignorant about how American Democracy is supposed to work (unlikely, in my opinion), or 2) Mr. Cheney does not support American Democracy.

I dismiss a possible third conclusion, that we must give up our democratic principles in order to fight terrorism effectively.

More later,
Russ

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Does the government need to protect us from ourselves? No, but if it's going to, it should do it better. Proposal: The Cholesterol Act of 2006

Michigan Governor Jennifer "I can't be president, darn it. I was born in Canada." Granholm, a Democrat, recently vetoed an attempt by the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature to overturn the state's 30-year-old mandatory motorcycle helmet law. The bill included a requirement for more insurance to ride without a helmet, so why the veto? Because it's good for us.

Almost every adult here in Michigan wears a seat belt while driving because not wearing one invites a $65 ticket. Police officers, when they are not chasing felons or eating donuts, pull over the foolish few, write a ticket, and remind us all that we should wear our seat belts because it's good for us.

I'm sure the donut thing is just a stereotype. Cops have a reputation for eating them, but the truth seems more likely to be that the stress and irregular hours involved in being a police officer lead to poor eating habits. I understand. I sometimes eat badly due to stress, and I'm not even in law enforcement. But I see in high cholesterol and the other results of a poor diet an opportunity to give something back to law enforcement, or to anyone who has trouble eating well. Like the seat belt law, we should have a law that motivates us to eat better. Eating better will be good for us as individuals and as a society!

I have in mind a law -- heck, a whole plethora of laws -- that will help police officers and everyone else do what's good for them. I think we should start ticketing people whose cholesterol, or blood pressure, or blood sugar, or any other measure of good health, is not within a normal range.

It's the same basic logic as the seat belt law. Most people know what's good for them, but can't seem to do it without the threat of punishment. The same is true for institutions. Most states probably wouldn't have a seat belt law except for the fact that federal highway funds are tied to them.

Enforcing the Cholesterol Act of 2006 would be easy. Want a Big Mac? Great. Just slide your updated health ID through the card reader. Oops! Your LDL is too high. Trying to buy fatty beef with a bad cholesterol reading gets you a $50 fine and a mandatory salad with a diet cola and lite dressing on the side.

I can see the development of a whole new industry: fast food blood testing/individualized menu marketing. The first stop in the drive-thru will be the blood test. The results will flash on the computerized menu screen along with all of the allowable foods personalized for the driver and each passenger. Go ahead and order a Big Mac. Your heart can take a burger, but... no fries with that.

Of course, high end restaurants will provide a more refined experience. Patrons will inhabit private drawing rooms and discuss food preferences with personal chefs before being served individually designed meals in privacy-protected serving dishes. Privacy is important because no one needs to know a wealthy person's blood pressure, or what they eat because of it.

Family restaurants will likely provide various menu levels for different cholesterol, blood pressure, or glucose ranges. The more creative establishments will give discounts for parties with the best overall numbers. "Johnson, party of five, average cholesterol 161!" Get an even deeper discount if every member of your party orders from the lower-fat menu, even though they don't have to.

Monitoring home-cooked meals may be more problematic. The effect of some foods on health depends on how they are prepared and the quantities eaten. No doubt a few scofflaws will try to circumvent the good intentions of the Cholesterol Act by deep frying pounds of julienned potatoes in beef tallow rather than serving a small baked potato with a single pat of low-fat margarine.

The solution to such illegal activity will be at the grocery checkout counter. Bad numbers on the instant blood test will lead to fines, buying restrictions (Twinkies? I don't think so. Buy some apples instead.), and nutrition education (sort of like traffic school).

I'm sure someone will suggest that the Cholesterol Act infringes on the freedom of choice enjoyed by responsible adults. Nonsense on two counts! Responsible adults don't make poor food choices, and people certainly will enjoy good health more than they would enjoy eating mass quantities of so-called comfort food.

The result of the Cholesterol Act will be healthier Americans, particularly when the deterrent effect kicks in. Knowing that your neighbor has racked up $1,000 in fines due to his obsession with Double-Stuft Oreos will help you follow the recommendations on the food pyramid very closely.

Providing motivation for good behavior is what laws are all about. We should take better advantage of statutory strategies to encourage health. Of course, we also need to be careful not to lose the benefit of laws already on the books, such as the seat belt law.

We need to pass the Cholesterol Act to protect law enforcement officers so that they can protect us. The police have the incredibly difficult job of protecting us from our own bad behavior. We need to return the favor.

More later,
Russ