Owl at a Mouse Picnic

The Decline and Fall of the United States

2010-03-13T11:20:00.001-05:00

The New York Times featured a conversation between Dick Cavett and David Brooks yesterday that discussed whether the United States is in decline. The brief opinion piece barely scratched the surface of the issue — I'm sure that any serious analysis would take at least series of books — but both Brooks and Cavett both acknowledged pessimism for the U.S.

Will the United States continue to be a "great nation" for the foreseeable future? The question starts with an assumption that may not be true:The United States is a great nation. Militarily and economically powerful? Without a doubt. But great can suggest excellence as well as power. What the U.S. lack now, in my opinion, is intellectual and moral greatness, and I'm not sure the United States was ever a source of intellectual or moral greatness.

Americans love to be boosters and say that the USA is a great country, but as far as the decline of the United States as a concept goes, I go back to a quote that has been attributed to a number of famous thinkers, including Mark Twain and Will Rogers:

It's not what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you do know that ain't so.

More later,
Russ

The "values" debate

2010-03-12T11:12:00.002-05:00

Every so often, politicians talk about sharing their constituents' "values" on topics such as abortion, taxation, same-sex marriage, as well as considerably less controversial topics such as freedom.

The cynic in me says: "They are lying to get re-elected." And that may be true. What disturbs me more, however, is that the debate on values is so poorly framed, and that Americans do seem to share values with politicians, but not in a good way.

For example, virtually every American and certainly every American politician will admit to "freedom" as a core value. After all, the United States was founded on the ideal that all humans should be free (with notable exceptions at the time). Unfortunately, freedom is a slippery concept.

U.S. citizens don't have the freedom to murder their neighbors, at least not without penalty. Murder is against the law in every state, and is, in certain instances, a federal crime, and is prohibited in the Bible by one of the Ten Commandments. I doubt that a large percentage Americans consider this prohibition against murder an onerous limit to their freedom. However, one role of our government, staffed by politicians and bureaucrats, is to determine the boundaries of our freedom. What are laws if not limits on freedom?

So, we are a "free" country, within the limits of the law. That's a problem for the "values" debate because while we all value freedom, we define it differently. Politicians often talk about freedom from government interference for businesses and individuals. A business and an individual should be able to, without government interference, enter into an employment contract. The employee can sell his/her time and talent for whatever salary the market will bear. If an employer desperately needs an employee with a rare talent, then the salary is likely to be high. If anyone can do the job, then the salary will be low. Then the government steps in and limits the freedom of individuals and employers by setting a minimum wage, putting limits on child labor, taxing income, and applying hundreds of other regulations. Why?

Because values do not exist in a vacuum. The minimum wage law keeps employers from unfairly exploiting employees. Why? Because in addition to valuing freedom, Americans value fairness. We also value happiness. Jobs that don't pay enough for people to afford food and shelter, or jobs that abuse our children make us unhappy. (OK, that's a huge simplification, but you get the idea.)

This is why the values debate is poorly framed. We tend to talk about values as simplistic ideals instead of explaining what those values mean and how they must be balanced against each other. The American public is behaving like a bunch of simpletons by not demanding real debate of the issues and the values that underlie the issues. We are letting the politicians get away with it.

Shame on us.

More later,
Russ

Healthcare reform debate seems incomplete when viewed through multiple links

2009-07-07T11:42:00.009-04:00

Full disclosure: In the past, I have worked doing public relations for hospitals in Michigan, one large, one small.

News coverage of the healthcare reform debate can be fascinating, if you can set aside the human costs of inadequate health care.

A doctor bemoans the fate of medicine as health care becomes a business. Dr. Sandeep Jauhar writes in the New York Times that he became a physician to care for patients, not to be a businessman, but considering costs has become a high priority for doctors.

In the same issue of the Times an editorial suggests that as much as $700 billion per year, or 30 percent of U.S. healthcare spending is wasted.

That amount of waste seems plausible when you consider that the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country, according to World Health Organization (WHO) figures. Question: How is it that we can spend so much per person on health care when so many people are not covered by insurance and so, supposedly, do not access health care? According to this link, that and other assumptions about the uninsured are not necessarily correct. Still, with 15 percent of the population uninsured—almost 50 million individuals—the rate seems too high.

When the debate leaves numbers behind and goes to quality, there seems to be a difference of opinion as well. Does the United States have the best healthcare system in the world as some claim when they oppose healthcare reform? The WHO disagrees. (This information is from a 2000 report available here. The 2008 version also is available. Apparently the reports do not update the quality rankings each year.)

The point is not that conflicting opinions and information exist. The point is, that even with a cursory search of the Internet, and taking into account that the information from different sources isn't likely to be equally reliable, news media coverage of the current healthcare debate could be MUCH better.

More later,
Russ

Education is a culture we could choose to share... but don't

2009-07-03T15:12:00.006-04:00

Cultural diversity is running rampant in the United States. Or, more accurately, most Americans claim a link to and a pride in their ethnic, geographic, religious, or other "roots."

What Americans aren't doing is becoming fluent in any culture but the one they like the best. There's nothing inherently wrong with embracing some aspect of your history, but as most Americans speak only English, most Americans only embrace or even acknowledge one culture.

We are all members of multiple cultures. Hardly anyone in the U.S. is a member of only one ethic group. The majority can trace their lineage back to multiple countries. Go back far enough and every family will find a change of religion somewhere in its history. But, many (I suspect most) people choose to identify with only one culture from their family or personal background.

Choosing one culture is not a problem. Choosing only one culture is a problem.

Why? Because it separates us and gives us notions such as "The War on Christmas," (which has spawned at least one book on the subject). A lack of multi-cultural fluency causes differences in cultural to be viewed as attacks.

One culture that we all should share (there are more) is the culture of education.

It's a fairly standard belief in the United States that going to college is a good thing. It is, but not for the reason most people cite – to get a good job. The most important thing college students can learn is how to be a part of the shared culture of education. Here are some aspects of that culture:

be skeptical, but open-minded
think critically
evaluate the evidence
if there is no evidence, do some research to find some
respect other people's ideas
give credit where credit is due

Anyone familiar with higher education in America might not recognize these as aspects of actual academic culture, and rightly so, but they serve as a starting point. This list is clearly not exhaustive and should apply to elementary and secondary education as well as higher education.

Americans go to public or private school, or are home-schooled because the law requires it. The law requires it because it gives Americans one basis for shared culture and understanding. It allows us to embrace our diversity without embracing separateness.

More later,
Russ

How many people are EMPLOYED?

2009-07-02T17:28:00.008-04:00

The jobless rate is the top story for many news outlets, with a loss in June of 467,000 jobs, according to the New York Times. It's a huge number. It puts the U.S. unemployment rate at 9.5 percent. Our economy has lost 6.5 million jobs since January 2008. No surprise, the announcement sent the stock market lower. The market seems to react to news almost emotionally to almost any negative announcement.

Couldn't news be reported differently so that the market wouldn't be as "depressed" by the numbers? Journalists are taught that the significant is newsworthy. If that's true, than why isn't the number of EMPLOYED people being reported?

Is reporting only the negative a form of bias? I don't want to suggest that we should get only happy news, but how the news is reported makes a difference. Compare FOX News and MSNBC or the New York Times and the Washington Times. They report on the same news (mostly), but treat it differently.

Is reporting the employment rate as well as the unemployment rate an option? Would it make any difference? To people? To the stock market?

More later,
Russ

The "Best and Brightest" seem pretty dim these days

2009-07-01T17:32:00.000-04:00

While I suspect that the George W. Bush economic policies, or lack thereof, are at least partly responsible for the current global recession, there is something much more important at the root of our economic woes, at least here in the United States.

America has seen itself as the best and the brightest of nations – innovative, talented, able to solve any problem – but that just doesn't seem to be true any more. Maybe it never was, but I think the United States, as a nation, lacks vision – in both senses of the word. We lack a vision of how to be innovators in all aspects of business, politics, life, and world leadership, and we can't seem to see that anything is wrong with us.

What's wrong? Here's my take:

Short-term thinking
The auto business is a good example of short-term thinking. American car companies focused more on SUVs and pick-up trucks because they would sell now, rather than focusing on the cars Americans would need in the future. They fought improved mileage standards and safety ratings rather than looking toward the future by developing more fuel-efficient vehicles. The result has been billions in losses and government bailouts.

The argument in favor of the Big Three groupthink has been that they are making cars the American people want and will buy. True enough as far as it goes, however, I can't fathom why auto industry executives, receiving huge salaries, couldn't see the changes coming (gas prices? pollution abatement?) and prepare for them unless there was a reward for short-term thinking and/or a punishment for long-term thinking.

The laws governing business, at least publicly-traded businesses, provide that reward and punishment. I'm generalizing here, but the rules governing businesses tracked by the Securities and Exchange Commission essentially state that the primary duty of a publicly-traded business (and its officers) is making money for shareholders. Therefore, any decision that negatively affects the stock price is a potential SEC violation. Investing in the future might be the smart thing to do, but it might also mean lower profits, lower stock prices, and dissatisfied shareholders.

Taken to the extreme, this is silly, but shareholders want money and they want it now. CEOs and boards of directors listen to shareholders. Shareholders have even been known to sue over actions that affect stock prices.

Stock prices or even high profits are not the only measures of a successful business. A business that gets away with illegally dumping toxic waste might be more profitable for its shareholders, but that doesn't make it a good company. The company's costs are just spread to the community at large in the form of (potentially) poor community health, degraded wildlife habitat, and toxic waste clean up.

Narrow thinking
Short-term thinking is in itself a form of narrow thinking, but being narrow minded has other aspects as well. Education is a great example. Most Americans would likely agree that a college education is a good thing. Why? There are a number of reasons: the ability to be a more effective citizen in a democracy, self-actualization, leaving a legacy of learning and knowledge to your children, better health, and others. But the main reason? The one everyone mentions first? Most often the only one people can think of? A college degree means a job that pays well.

A few years ago, I assigned students in several sections of a basic college composition class (English 101 or the equivalent) a paper that described the elements of a good education. Of the 90+ students who turned in a paper, ALL of them had only one requirement for a good education: a good education results in a job that pays well. Not a job that they loved, or at least could tolerate, only a job that provided a lot of money.

I can forgive this kind of narrow thinking in students. They are, by definition, ignorant of some of the more subtle aspects of education. One of the reasons for going to college is to learn to think more broadly. Unfortunately, many of the people in business and education in this country don't seem to have learned that lesson and America has suffered as a result. We have CEOs that can't think beyond profit and engineers that can't think beyond the way things were done 20 years ago.

Selfish thinking
All the narrow and short-term thinking, along with consumerism and a lack of understanding of what personal liberty really entails, has led Americans to be a particularly self-absorbed group. Too many people think that the world revolves around them, and only them.

While it's true that each of us can only respond to the world from our own experience, we should consider more than just ourselves when we interact with the world. Society is created from our interactions, and always interacting selfishly can lead to dire consequences.

Global warming? I don't know all the science, but response to global warming shows how we think selfishly. Critics suggest global warming does not exist or that it is not caused by human beings. I won't argue the points, but the general response to warnings seems to be that limiting emissions will hurt business. I have no doubt of it, but the potential death and suffering of billions of people does not seem comparable to reduced profits for business. I recognize that reduced profit affects people as well as businesses, however, the opportunity presented for business by the new technology required for doing business with limited emissions should more than overcome that suffering.

Caveats
This is obviously a book-length topic, so there are many arguments left unaddressed. I'm not sure if I have this book in me at the moment. In any event, comments are welcome, and if you know of a book that does cover this topic, let me know.

More later,
Russ

"Truth Commission" a must

2009-06-01T16:24:00.004-04:00

Leonard Pitts Jr. is just one more "journalist" that doesn't get it. His column on why the U.S. should not have a "truth commission" characterizes the Bush administration as merely incompetent. In many ways it was incompetent, but when it comes to torture, warrantless wiretapping, and other "war on terror" misdeeds, the evidence seems to show that the Bush administration did these things mindfully. Whether or not anyone is convicted, the rule of law requires that we (Americans) investigate this possible law breaking. If we don't at least see if it's prosecutable, why would anyone hesitate to do it again?

More later,
Russ

North Korea to be punished for nukes: Who decides punishment?

2009-05-26T16:42:00.005-04:00

North Korea has tested another nuclear weapon – this one seemingly more effective than the first – and the rest of the world cries for punishment.

Well, maybe not the whole world. The countries crying most loudly for sanctions on North Korea are the countries that already have nuclear weapons. If the United Nations called for sanctions on China, France, the United States, or Great Britain, each would respond arrogantly that nuclear weapons were their sovereign right, and that no amount of sanctions (never going to happen, but play along anyway) will force [insert country with nukes here] to give up needed tools for defense.

So my question is what gives the United States and others the sovereign right to nuclear weapons, but denies that right to other sovereign nations?

I don't think nuclear weapons are a good idea no matter which country has them, but for states that have them to sanction states that develop them seems more than a little self-serving. The argument against "rogue" states such as North Korea getting nuclear weapons is that the more nukes that exist, the better the chance they will be used. GOOD POINT!

Why then, don't the United States and other nuclear powers get rid of their nukes?

Mutually assured destruction? There's got to be a better way.

Smells like hypocrisy to me.

More later,
Russ

Logic is as logic does

2009-05-17T12:41:00.004-04:00

Seeing the new Star Trek* movie this weekend reminded me of a definition of logic I employ often:

Logic is the set of assumptions you embrace to get the result you want.

I seriously doubt that this is original with me, but I haven't found a source for this beyond myself... so far. I will keep looking.

I also know that scholars of formal logic and reasoned thought may find this unpalatable, but in my experience this is how most people use logic.

More later,
Russ

*Logic, Vulcans, and all that, etc.

The rule of law is the ONLY way to fight terrorism

2009-05-03T14:17:00.014-04:00

Torture: From left or right, nobody gets it
Two columnists, both distributed by Tribune Media Services, one identifying himself in the column as a northern liberal, and the other clearly conservative, had columns on the torture memos/controversy in my local paper recently.

Garrison Keillor and Cal Thomas each wrote about torture of "enemy combatants," the release of information about torture, and what should be done about it. Each had a good point or two, but both got it exactly wrong for the same reason.

The Liberal
Keillor wants a Truth Commission or Congressional investigation, but says no one should be held accountable:

The free play of sadism on the helpless in the name of national service is not to be ignored. What's needed is a fair and thorough congressional investigation. Subpoena witnesses and lay the whole wretched business out on the public record. Look into the heart of darkness and meditate on it. But don't round up a few symbolic suspects and throw the book at them and let all the others go free. Which is what would happen if we launch a criminal prosecution.

I'm all for the unvarnished truth, but "Look into the heart of darkness and meditate on it?" This is the kind of fuzzy-headed, pseudo-self-esteem building psychobabble that characterizes the worst of American liberalism. If all we do is gaze at our collective navel, our national self-esteem will be damaged even more than it has been by the "alleged" criminals in the Bush administration.

There's nothing wrong with feeling good about ourselves as a nation, but we also should feel bad about being Americans when the United States does things that are wrong — like torture.

The Conservative
Thomas, of course, says that there's nothing wrong with these "enhanced interrogation techniques" because getting information that will save American lives requires using any means necessary. These are bad guys so torturing them is OK.

Most of Thomas' column isn't about whether or not using torture should be allowed. That America should torture terrorists is a given for him. One of his arguments is that information about torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" should not be released because it helps America's enemies. He quotes a former director of the CIA saying essentially that Loose Lips Sink Ships:

Porter Goss, the former director of the CIA and former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote an op-ed column for The Washington Post recently in which he said, “I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can’t have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets.”

Goss is not a wishful thinker: “The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate.”

"The rules by which we operate" are the heart of the matter
What Keillor and Thomas fail to grasp, and what Goss accidentally pointed out, is that while Americans may not be able to come to agreement on the definition of torture, or whether or not information gathered using torture is reliable, or even the morality of using torture to possibly save lives, the United States was founded on the principle of the rule of law. We make rules (laws) and everyone in this country is obliged to follow them or face punishment.

Torture is banned by United States law. Prosecution must take place, even if it makes us uncomfortable. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Even if it were, the release of so-called "torture memos" make it clear that no one involved was ignorant of the law against torture. Following orders, good intentions (how someone can torture another human being with good intentions is beyond me), or even saving lives are not viable excuses. They might mitigate punishment, but unless the rule of law is enforced, we are no better than terrorists.

More later,
Russ

Dick Cheney coverage misses the point

2009-04-21T16:29:00.006-04:00

By now, anyone keeping up with the news has heard that former Vice President Dick Cheney (the king of secrets) wants the Obama administration to declassify MORE memos about torture.

The recently released memos show how the Bush administration lawyers justified torture. Cheney wants CIA memos that show how torture was effective because it led the U.S. to knowledge that allowed the CIA (or whomever) to foil terrorist plots. Journalists (at least in the news that I've seen, CNN & FOX are two) are building their coverage around pundits on either side.

THIS COVERAGE IS IRRELEVANT!

Torture is ILLEGAL under U.S. law, no matter what the pundits say. The reasons don't matter.

Torture is illegal whether it is done to foil terrorists or if it is done because the torturers just enjoy torturing people.

More later,
Russ

Illinois colleges don't allow faculty to wear campaign buttons, and that's OK with Stanley Fish

2008-10-13T15:13:00.003-04:00

Stanley Fish is examining campaign buttons in the classroom. Here's his New York Times column, and my comment on other people's comments.

More later,
Russ

Torture endangers our troops

2008-04-27T16:10:00.007-04:00

We have hypocrisy in its finest from the Bush administration... again. In today's New York Times, the Justice Department has approved moral relativism regarding torture.

As is mentioned in the article, if the United States plays fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions, what's to keep other countries from imposing worse tortures on U.S. soldiers and citizens? You can always argue that the "insurgents" in Iraq are already beheading people, but uncivilized conduct by others is not a valid reason for our own uncivilized behavior.

Besides, conservatives are supposed to be against moral relativism -- the idea that application of moral rules is entirely situational. For example, torture is wrong, but you can torture a bad guy if you have a good reason.

Of course the Justice Department is engaging in legal reasoning, not moral reasoning. And, they are lawyers.

More later,
Russ

I wouldn't want to be like you

2007-11-05T22:05:00.000-05:00

The headline is the title to an old Alan Parsons Project song, I think.

More to the point, I wouldn't want to be like Bush, and I don't want to vote for anyone who acts like Bush. The presidential campaign, besides starting way too early (Shouldn't all these Senators and members of Congress be doing the job they have rather than campaigning for their next job?), all of the candidates are competing for the job.

I don't want competition in my government. I want those elected to work together to do the right thing for the United States and the world. Sure, they can argue about what the right thing is, but they should all be working toward determining the right policy, the right action, the right whatever. The current candidates are more concerned with their own egos than with the job of being a good president.

Impeach them all!

More later,
Russ

Joe Wilson on HuffingtonPost.com acting like Karl Rove

2007-11-05T09:29:00.000-05:00

Former ambassador Joe Wilson supports some ass-covering by senators on HuffingtonPost.com today. Much of what he says makes sense: Use diplomacy to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, military force should be the last resort, the Bush administration can't be trusted, etc.

However, the main thrust of this blog post by Wilson is supporting senators – Clinton and Durbin in particular – for voting in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution and/or signing...

"a strong letter to President Bush in response to his increasingly bellicose language on Iran. The letter informs the president that he does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without prior, specific authorization from the Congress."

In addition, Wilson takes shots at Obama for criticizing Clinton for supporting the resolution/letter. Of course, Obama says its the wrong approach, not that it's purely political BS.

No offense to Wilson's intellect, but no one with even half a brain believes that either the letter or the resolution will even slow Bush down if he wants to send troops to Iran. He is Commander and Chief, and under his theory of the presidency, he doesn't need authorization to commit troops. The ONLY reason any senator supporting the letter and/or the resolution is to be able to say he/she was on record against using military force in Iran. In other words, political ass covering.

Get a clue Wilson. This blog post is so blatantly political it's something I would expect from the Bush administration.

More later,
Russ

Lawbreakers: They're everywhere

2007-11-04T12:46:00.000-05:00

This Letter to the Editor in today's Washington Post seems to have created mostly agreement among commenters that lawbreaking is bad, even though these "lawbreakers" are trying to work within our democratic system.

The Problem Is Lawbreaking

But why shouldn't illegal aliens break the law and then lobby for amnesty after the fact? President Bush did the same thing with illegal wiretapping. I guess enforcing the law only applies to those who aren't white men in positions of power.

Speaking of white men in positions of power, at least I presume Thompson adviser Phillip Martin is white, being a convicted lawbreaker isn't always a hindrance, at least not in politics.

Thompson Adviser Has Criminal Past

The problem with the coverage, and my snarky reference to the relationship between lawbreaking and politics, is that there is no way to know if Phillip Martin still thinks and acts like a lawbreaker. The story, while not explicitly saying so, seems to presume that past actions are the best predictor of present and future actions. Maybe, but our system of justice accepts punishment as payment to society for criminal activity, and presumes innocence for current accusations of lawbreaking. And as far as the story goes, no current accusations have been leveled.

One more potential problem with the story: Two of the sources quoted are ex-wives of some of the people mentioned in the story. Reliable sources? Hard to say.

One last note. In case it seems otherwise, I am not supporting any current candidate for president, but Fred Thompson is not even under consideration. He is one of the last people I would like to see elected president. Maybe he could play president on TV instead.

More later,
Russ

Individual craziness or a more general trend?

2007-11-04T12:12:00.000-05:00

NOTICE - THIS POST IS PURELY OPINION AND CONJECTURE BASED ON VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE

This local headline from the Washington Post caught my attention:

Man Doused With Liquid, Set on Fire in NW Bar

The reason I noticed is because of a trend that I have no evidence for... it's just a feeling, but it seems to me that crimes like this - extreme spur of the moment retaliation for a real or imagined slight - are becoming more common.

I think it's frustration at the decline of civilized behavior in general. People seem more likely to react in extreme ways to things that would not have bothered them before. One other example, and I don't have a link for it, is the video of a young man who went to his car to get a gun and shoot another man at a convenience store, apparently because the second man reached over the first's shoulder to get the items already purchased from the convenience store counter. An unfortunate incident all the way around, but particularly so for the young man bent on revenge – the second man was an off-duty police officer and was armed.

I know I often find myself tempted to challenge (shout at) people around me who I perceive as engaging in impolite behavior, thus becoming impolite myself and perpetuating the decline of civilized society. On the other hand, if no one points out the impolite behavior, how will it ever be corrected?

More later,
Russ

American arrogance shows in New York Times headline

2007-11-04T11:40:00.000-05:00

This headline appeared in the email "Today's Headlines" from the New York Times today.

Pakistani Sets Emergency Rule, Defying the U.S.

The question in my mind is: If Pakistan is a sovereign nation, isn't any action its government takes based on its own authority? And if that's true, how can any action they take be "defying the U.S."?

The New York Times seems to have bought in to the idea that the United States is the boss of all other countries in the world. Poor headline writing. Shame on the Times.

More later,
Russ

Some questions about "Doing the right thing" for America on Health Care

2007-10-27T22:09:00.000-04:00

I've always thought that the only reason needed to justify doing the right thing is simply because it IS the right thing. No police watching to see if you do the right thing and arresting you if you don't. No vengeful god or gods threatening you with hell if you don't do the right thing. Not even peer pressure make sure you act like everyone else by — wait for it — doing the right thing. Just do right because it's right.

The concept seems simple, and I'm sure that most people (Americans and non-Americans) would agree that doing right for right's sake, even if that's not the only reason, is a good practice.

However, no one seems to be able to agree on is what those right things are for our multiple problems* here in the United States and around the world. We have no paucity of people telling us what the right thing to do is, but few of them seem to have a good rationale (or any rationale) for why their right thing** is a positive and viable right thing.

As citizens, we are asked to evaluate these right things (proposed policies) to determine which really are right, for whom, and why. Again, as citizens***, we are doing a crappy job, partly because we aren't asking good questions, and partly because we aren't insisting on good answers. Mostly, I would like to know why a particular policy is the right thing to do, and what assumptions (values) support each policy, and how the assumptions and policies are related. Here are some more specific questions I would like answered about the recent SCHIP veto by President Bush:

Why is $35 billion (a figure I heard on the news, but haven't been able to confirm) too much to spend to provide health insurance to U.S. children through a program that has proved successful?
If this expansion provides health insurance to some families with the means to afford health insurance, why is that a problem? Isn't providing coverage to everyone who needs it more important than excluding a few who could get by without it?
If some children are not covered, isn't it likely that at least a few children will die as a result of not expanding the program? How many dead children are an acceptable loss? (Kind of dramatic, but I'd like to know the answer.)
Why is government health insurance a good/bad idea?
How is government paid health insurance different from government provided health care, or is it?
What assumptions about health care, personal responsibility, society's obligations to children, and government spending drive healthcare policy? Why?
Clearly, a person's income level (or that of a child's parents) influences the quality of health care a person can access. Is this a good thing? Why?
From a purely economic perspective, wouldn't expanded health insurance coverage mean more discretionary money for consumers to spend and/or save/invest? And wouldn't this be a good thing? If an increase in general consumer spending is not a good thing, why is healthcare spending more valuable to the economy than other types of spending/investing?

I would ask these questions of everyone at the federal level: the President, Senators, Congressional Representatives, administrative agencies, etc., and probably some at the state level as well.

More later,

Russ

*Of course, if everyone were doing at least a version of the right thing, our problems might not seem so numerous and so monumental.

**Before we get too far into this I should mention that I have a firm belief that there are multiple right answers to almost every question. For example, even mathematics has more than one right answer to some questions: 2 + 2 = 4 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 1 AND 2 + 2 = 5 - 1 and so on. In this example, 2 + 2 has an infinite number of right answers. However, that doesn't address the question of what is the best right answer.

***Don't blame the media for everything. Yes, reporters and editors are doing a crappy job, too, but citizens must take ultimate responsibility. Full Disclosure Alert: I have worked as a full-time journalist and currently teach journalism at Vincennes University in Indiana.

Even "well-informed" Senators don't understand the concept of democracy

2007-10-23T15:44:00.000-04:00

"Senator Biden, probably the best-informed member of Congress on Iraq, insists that loose federalism, not partition, is his goal."

Well-informed on Iraq, perhaps, but not well-informed about how democracy works. It doesn't matter whether Biden wants to partition Iraq or create a loose federation. What matters is what the Iraqi people decide. Unless the United States annexes Iraq, what Americans want is irrelevant.

This kind of arrogant, ignorant thinking is typical of American politicians – and Americans in general – who seem to believe that the whole world revolves around the United States and that U.S. interests are the only interests that count.

More later,
Russ

Inspector General Web site

2006-12-28T20:17:00.000-05:00

The IGs are sticking together. They have their own Web site.

More later,
Russ

If your government agency's Inspector General keeps nagging you about being corrupt, fire him!

2006-12-28T14:31:00.000-05:00

In 1978, Congress decided some government agencies needed their own individual watchdogs to ensure that agency personnel didn't waste money or behave unethically. As a citizen, you might think the ability and character to do the right thing was part of the reason the leaders and underlings of various federal agencies were appointed/hired. Apparently not so according to an article in today's New York Times. Instead, a number of inspectors general are getting grief from the heads of their agencies for doing their jobs.

Section 2 of the act outlines the purpose of an inspector general as:

§ 2. Purpose and establishment of Offices of Inspector General; departments and agencies involved
In order to create independent and objective units--
(1) to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the establishments listed in section 11(2);
(2) to provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed (A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and (B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in, such programs and operations; and
(3) to provide a means for keeping the head of the establishment and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action;

The Times article cites complaints from the very people inspectors general are required to report to: heads of the establishment (agency). It seems the heads of federal agencies have been effected profoundly by the Bush presidency. They seem to believe that everything they do or order done is right because they say so.

More later,
Russ

Government Corruption is bad for Business: Quick, somebody tell the Republicans!

2006-12-27T15:33:00.000-05:00

The Financial Express, an English language daily in Bangladesh covering international, regional and national business, ran an editorial yesterday (Dec. 26) citing government corruption as the primary reason investors are reluctant to invest in Russian ventures.

The piece, labeled an editorial and written by Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow, cites reports by Paris-based think-tank the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation, Transparency International, the Berlin-based corruption watchdog, and a joint study by the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has also recorded an increase in the number of "unofficial payments" for licences and state procurement contracts. Unofficial payments? Those would be bribes.

Why worry about what a financial newspaper in Bangladesh has to say about the Russian government? First of all, it's not just The Financial Express saying it. It's several international groups that study business and government corruption. Someone arguing the other side can question their credibility, their data, and their methods, but two of the groups are directly related to international business. Second, a fairly sound argument can be made that government at all levels in the United States is more corrupt than it's been in a while (can't say it's all the Republicans' fault, but it has happened on 43's watch), and more business friendly that it's been in a while.

It can't happen here? It can if we let it.

More later,
Russ

Young people don't follow the news. Duh!

2006-10-01T21:36:00.000-04:00

Having a PhD doesn't make a person wise or even knowledgeable. Take Dr. David T.Z. Mindich, author and chair of the Journalism and Mass Communication Department at St. Michael's College in Vermont, says that young people are "more tuned out than we think," even though a Knight Foundation survey of high school students suggests that just over half of the students surveyed (much higher than I would have guessed) check the mainstream news at least weekly. Of course, Dr. Mindich is the author of Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don't Follow the News (Amazon.com Sales Rank: #416,912), and book sales won't go up if he admits that young people do follow the news.

Mindich spoke at Plattsburgh State's (NY) annual Media Ethics and Law Conference, this year's theme was bringing young audiences back to the news. Mindich and his cronies: Plattsburgh State's Center for Communication and Journalism Co-Director Ron Davis, and vice dean and professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism David Klatell, seem to be purveyors of conventional wisdom when it comes to young people and the news. Their suggestions for news improvements included such things as bringing passion to the news with Fox News cited as a prime example (although it also was referred to as a "terrible propaganda factory," and praising The Daily Show for treating viewers intelligently.

The PhDs involved may or may not deserve the criticism suggested here, but coverage in the Plattsburgh Press Republican and at PoynterOnline does what modern media coverage often does: dumbs down the debate.

The final quote from Dr. Mindich in the Press Republican story gets to the heart of the matter. He says that young people should insist on quality journalism. Unfortunately, the definition of quality journalism is up for debate. The two extremes seem to be giving the audience/readers lowest common denominator news to get a big audience, or spinach news - what the editor thinks is good for you.

What's really happening to news is that we have many more sources and many more definitions of quality. News is no longer a homogenized product with - more or less - the same thing on every channel and on every front page. Too many academics are invested in what was, and so can't see clearly what's happening. Not unusual, just sad.

More later,
Russ

Bush Working to Make Domestic Spying Legal After the Fact

2006-07-21T14:40:00.000-04:00

The Bush administration has spied on Americans. There's no doubt about that; Mr. Bush addmitted and even bragged about it. It's legal, say Mr. Bush and his advisors. So why does the administration need a bill to make domestic spying without FISA court approval legal? At least the bill may not pass.

Daily Kos: How Very Nixonian Of You, Mr. Bush:

How Very Nixonian Of You, Mr. Bush
by georgia10
Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:55:11 AM PDT

Do you remember that MoveOn ad, the one where Nixon's face morphs into that of President Bush?

When the domestic spying scandal broke, there was a huge focus on the President's lawyers ("he was just following their advice"), or on General Hayden ("it was his idea!") or on Vice-President Cheney ("it's just another step in Cheney's quest to restore executive power").

Well, let there be no doubt now. The President himself is leading a cover-up.

First, let's talk about recent developments with the Arlen Specter's bill. The bill, as you recall, does not require the President to submit the program for review to the FISA court. But, according to Specter, the President pinky-promised that he would seek approval of the program, so apparently, that makes everything better.

One bright spot, even if the bill passes to give the president permission for domestic spying, it seems to me that the courts could declare it unconstitutional.

More later,
Russ

Technorati tags: George W. Bush, NSA, domestic spying

Inhofe: Global Warming Is a Hoax

2006-07-21T14:30:00.000-04:00

I don't get it. How can adults ignore scientific evidence? I haven't researched global warming extensively, but the only people who to deny its existence seem to be those with conflicts of interest about slowint or stopping global warming.

Think Progress � Sen. Inhofe: ‘Gore Is Full of Crap,’ ‘All Recent Science…Confirms This Thing Is A Hoax’:

Sen. Inhofe: ‘Gore Is Full of Crap,’ ‘All Recent Science…Confirms This Thing Is A Hoax’

Yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attacked Al Gore and global warming science, claiming that Gore was “full of crap” on global warming.

Appearing on Glenn Beck’s radio show and CNN television program, Inhofe said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that global warming was real and caused by humans, used “one scientist.” Inhofe added: “[A]ll of the recent science…it confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax.”

More later,
Russ

Technorati tags: Gore, global warming, Inhofe, greenhouse gasses, lies

Britain shows sense about assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon

2006-07-20T00:53:00.000-04:00

I have no doubt that Hezbollah includes some nasty types. they have killed civilians, but Britain seems to be the only country that thinks bombing the hell out of civilians is not a good idea. As noted below, the Americans think Israel's plan of action is just dandy, and why shouldn't they, it's the same plan of action the Americans are using in Afganistan and Iraq. Of course, it's a plan that isn't working.

Britain fears assault on Hezbollah will backfire - Britain - Times Online:

Britain fears assault on Hezbollah will backfire
By Bronwen Maddox, Foreign Editor
BRITAIN fears that Israel’s assault on Hezbollah is failing to cripple the guerrilla group and that continued bombardment will bring huge civilian casualties in Lebanon for little military gain.

The rising concern that any further Israeli military action could intensify the crisis, expressed by senior officials yesterday, strikes a much more urgent tone than the American position, which accepts a continued Israeli campaign to crush the Shia militant group.

Yesterday was the heaviest day for civilian casualties since Israel’s bombardment began last week, with at least 63 killed and scores more wounded. A total of 315 Lebanese, mostly civilians, have been killed and hundreds injured since the start of the Israeli offensive.

Last night dozens of planes dropped 23 tonnes of explosives on what the Army said was a bunker in south Beirut used by Hezbollah’s leadership. The group said none of is leaders where killed in the attack.

Israel is already hated in the middle east. This won't help.

More later,
Russ

Technorati tags: Hezbollah, Israel, Britain, Lebanon

Rice Wants Israel to Crush Hezbollah Before Peace Talks

2006-07-20T00:44:00.000-04:00

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice won't be going on a peace mission any time soon. Instead, she's going to wait until Israel makes the need for peace talks pointless by destroying Hezbollah, along with who knows how many civilians. Sure, Hezbollah kills civilians, too, but that doesn't make it right.

CNN.com - U.S. official: Israel needs time to 'defang' Hezbollah - Jul 19, 2006:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will not go on a peace mission to the Mideast before next week, giving Israel time to "defang" Hezbollah, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

Maybe Israel should listen to one of their own instead of a member of the Bush administration. This quote comes to mind:

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." — Moshe Dayan

More later,
Russ

Technorati tags: Condoleezza Rice, Middle East, Hezbollah, Israel

Russia and China Inch Toward Iran Sanctions - New York Times

2006-07-13T18:05:00.000-04:00

Nuclear proliferation is bad. But why, if it's bad for Iran, is it not bad for the United States and other nuclear powers? According to the Federation of American Scientists, the U.S. has more than 6,000 deployed nuclear warheads, and Russia less than 5,000. If Iran having one or two is dangerous, then why aren't we getting rid of our nukes?

Russia and China Inch Toward Iran Sanctions - New York Times:

PARIS, July 12 - Russia and China, crossing a diplomatic threshold in the effort to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, joined the United States and Europe on Wednesday by agreeing to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution ordering Iran to freeze some nuclear activities, or face sanctions.

The movement toward a resolution represented increased anger over Iran's refusal to respond to an offer of economic and energy incentives if it suspended its uranium enrichment.

Of course, we are the "good guys" so if we have nukes it's OK because we will never use them. But, the United States is the only country that ever has used nuclear weapons. Personally, I don't think anyone should have nukes, especially a country with a history like Iran's, but given the fact that the rest of the world, led by the United States, is willing to mount unprovoked invasions of multiple countries in the Middle East, I understand why Iran turned down the bribe and is going ahead with uranium enrichment. As President Bush has said, nations have the right to protect themselves from terrorists.

More later,
Russ

Assistant Attorney General Says Bush Is Above the Law

2006-07-13T11:58:00.000-04:00

Not a big surprise. The Bush administration has bragged about torturing "terrorists" and illegally spying on Americans. I've included the link and the entire post below.

the s.n.a.f.u. principle: "I am the law!" :: proudly afflicted with unhinged liberal disorder since 1964:

"I am the law!"

This is the very definition of Godwin's Law.

"The President is always right." - Steven Bradbury, the Assistant Attorney General (Office of Legal Counsel) at the Department of Justice testifying before Congress. - July 12, 2006.

"The Führer is always right." - Robert Ley, Reichsorganisationsleiter (Reich Organization Leader) of the German Nazi party in a speech on November 3, 1936.

The implication, as Bradbury is an attorney speaking for the DOJ, is that Bush is the law.

More later,
Russ

Michigan Democratic Party Web Site Is All About One Republican

2006-07-11T17:52:00.000-04:00

Nationally, Democrats are looking for big gains in the mid-term elections, but if the Michigan Democratic Party Web site is any indication, the Republicans have already won.

Of the eight headlines on the MDP home page June 27, five are about Dick DeVos, the Republican challenger to Democrat Jennifer Granholm. None are about Granholm.

Dig deeper into the Web site and it gets worse. The "News Archive" page on June 27, included 66 stories. Forty of the headlines were about Dick DeVos, focusing on all the bad things he has done or thought about doing, and all the lies he has told or thought about telling.

Negative campaigning is a valid thing to do, but the MDP doesn't seem to do much else, and some of the attacks are amateurish. One, dated April 18, actually reads "DeVos to Communist China President: “Welcome, Dear Comrade!” Redbaiting? In 2006?

President George W. Bush, or those dastardly Republicans in general, appeared in six headlines, two of which also included DeVos. Guilt by association, I guess.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, both Republicans, were mentioned negatively in two headlines each. Ann Coulter even got a mention in a headline.

For news about Michigan Democrats and the Michigan Democratic Party, the "News Archive" included three headlines touting new television ads by the Michigan Democratic Party, one announcing the MDP's new Web site, one on Evan Bayh being the keynote speaker at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, one on the passing of Detroit-area Democratic Leader Edward H. McNamara, one on Democratic National Committee rules and bylaws, one praising Michigan House Democrats, one on out-of-state trash (from Canada), one urging support of the Voting Rights Act, one about Cinco de Mayo celebrations, and one congratulating Sen. Carl Levin on being ranked one of the top ten senators in the nation by Time Magazine. While deserving of the notice, Sen. Levin isn't up for reelection this year.

Amazingly, at least to me, Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer is mentioned in nine headlines in the MDP Web site's News Archive. Some are attacks on DeVos, some are announcements or comments on events such as Cesar Chavez Day. One announces that Brewer will attend the Democratic National Committee meeting in New Orleans. That the DNC meeting was held in New Orleans is mildly interesting. That Mark Brewer attended the meeting is not.

The National Democratic Party has struggled to find a coherent message in recent years. The Michigan arm of the party seems to have found a message: "Don't vote for the other guys! They're all cheats and liars!"

I would rather vote for a good candidate than against a poor one, and I plan to vote for Jennifer Granholm... again, but not based on any information on the MDP Web site's News Archive. Her name appeared in a headline only once out of 66 stories. What's worse, she had to share the headline with DeVos.

If this is the best Democrats can do to make the case for being elected, no wonder so many Americans vote Republican.

More later,
Russ

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

2006-06-26T07:16:00.000-04:00

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

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

2006-06-25T17:24:00.000-04:00

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

2006-06-25T16:59:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-06-25T14:24:00.000-04:00

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

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

2006-06-24T15:01:00.000-04:00

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

Oh say can you see... more hypocrisy?

2006-05-03T11:29:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post published an update on the controversy over singing the National Anthem in Spanish. Turns out the United States Government posts Spanish versions of the Star-Spangled Banner on some .gov Web sites, and Mr. Bush himself may have sung the anthem in Spanish at a campaign event in 2000. So much for consistency.

More later,
Russ

Cold War tactics? Of course, the Bush administration has a cold war mentality.

2006-04-30T13:22:00.000-04:00

This New York Times piece on United States' strategy toward Iran invokes the Cold War. I suspect we're seeing this strategy because Mr. Bush would like to take this country back to the 1950s.

More later,
Russ

Detainee abuse: Is the U.S. Government hypocritical or delusional?

2006-04-30T12:47:00.000-04:00

How U.S. officials can feed this stuff to the media with a straight face is beyond me. Apparently, even the Bush administration says many (100s) of the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility should be released. The U.S. Government wants to release them and send them back to their home countries. The U.S. won't release the detainees, however, because the governments in their home countries might torture them!

It's all right for the United States to torture the detainees, and it's all right to use extraordinary rendition to send people that the United States wants tortured to those same countries specifically so they will be tortured for any information they might have, but any torture not approved by the United States is not cool.

Interestingly, many of the detainees the United States wants to release are citizens of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (more than 100 from each country according to the NYTimes article linked above) -- U.S. allies. Also, the article reports that 267 detainees have already been sent home. These items leave me with some questions:

1) How have the 267 released detainees been treated at home? If the U.S. Government doesn't know what happened to them, does that mean this concern over detainee abuse is new? Can you say "mid-term elections"?

2) Why is the United States the only country that can decide when torture is acceptable? Moot point. Torture is never acceptable.

3) Why is the U.S. allied with countries that practice torture? I guess this one doesn't matter because we are the "good guys" which makes everything we do OK.

More later,
Russ

P.S. - The extraordinary rendition link above goes to a CBS News item on the practice. I thought about linking to the Wikipedia entry on the topic, but if you look at my last post, you'll see why I didn't.

Political dirty tricks invade Wikipedia

2006-04-30T12:36:00.000-04:00

The Washington Times reports that political campaigns are using Wikipedia, the online, user-produced encyclopedia, to hype their own candidates and discredit their opponents. But of course, being the Washington Times, the story features mostly Democrats as evil doers, doing evil to each other, and it reprints the lies spread by the evil campaign staffers about Democratic candidates. Maybe there aren't any Republican candidates' campaigns fiddling with Wikipedia.

Does that seem as unlikely to you as it does to me?

More later,
Russ

Support the spirit of our national anthem, not the language

2006-04-30T11:49:00.000-04:00

President Bush says "The Star-Spangled Banner" should only be sung in English. I don't get it. Our national anthem is about the spirit of the country. What difference does the language make? I guess he's playing to his political base.

The most interesting part of the story to me was the different ways the New York Times and Washington Times covered the story. Both paper's quoted Mr. Bush directly, and mentioned a proposed resolution by Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., supporting the English version of the national anthem, but that's where the similarities end. The NY Times version quotes the song's producer and his reasons for producing a Spanish-language version of the anthem. The Washington Times story quotes no one in support of singing the anthem in Spanish and relies heavily on sources who actively support English as the national language. In fact, some of the Washington Times' sources make their living by promoting English. Can you say "conflict of interest"?

While I think the NY Times story isn't as strong as it could be (Why didn't they talk to more sources?), it presents the issue in a much more balanced way than the Washington Times. I know that shouldn't surprise me, but it does. I still think of journalists at purveyors of truth. My mistake.

More later,
Russ

Bush Says Lower Gas Prices By Destroying Environment

2006-04-26T10:03:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush has to be the most transparent person who has ever been president of the United States. Every move he makes is obviously based on preserving his political agenda rather than on good policy. In today's Lansing State Journal, an article from the Gannett News Service tells us that Mr. Bush intends to lower gas prices by relaxing environmental regulations to free up gasoline supplies.

Mr. Bush's record on the environment has not been good. His announcement is nothing more than a political ploy to reduce gas prices in time for the midterm elections. The sad thing is that it will probably work.

More later,
Russ

Iranian General Says "Bring It On, Bush"

2006-04-15T17:09:00.000-04:00

A line from "Limbo Rock" comes to mind: "How low can you go?"

How low has the world's opinion of the United States gone if an Iranian military official feels free to mock our ability to invade his country.

Of course, he's probably right, and that's why the Bush administration is allegedly considering a tactical nuclear strike instead of using conventional forces.

Today's Washington Times carried the story today. I didn't see it in email headlines from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or my local paper. The Washington Times seems to be supporting its reputation as a conservative newspaper. You could argue that by giving this story a lot of play, the paper is hyping military action against Iran. Hawks in and out of the government will take the taunts as a challenge and push for war to prove the general wrong.

Of course, papers with an allegedly liberal slant could use the story to show how much the Bush administration has hurt America's reputation in the world.

More later,
Russ

Walruses and Sea Ice From 2004

2006-04-15T16:45:00.000-04:00

Today's Washington Post includes a story with the headline:

"Warming Arctic Is Taking a Toll: Peril to Walrus Young Seen as Result of Melting Ice Shelf"

The story is interesting, but it comes from an article in Aquatic Mammals that is based on a two-month cruise by a Coast Guard icebreaker -- with scientists on board -- in 2004. The scientists also measured that the water temperature in the area was six degrees warmer than the water temperature in the same spot two years earlier. That would be 2002.

Reading a newspaper should be enlightening, rather than leaving readers with questions. This article leaves questions. Although the Post article does mention other possible reasons for abandoned walrus calves, it presumes that Arctic warming and melting sea ice are the culprits.

People I talk to, even some smart ones, don't want to believe that global warming is real. One suggests this is just part of a general weather pattern that has been going on for centuries. Sometimes it gets warmer, he says, sometimes it gets colder. He's no expert on meteorology or climate, but reads the anti-global warming rhetoric.

I don't know if global warming is real. I suspect it is. But articles like this one from the Post don't provide answers because the reporter didn't follow up with good questions. That leaves the readers with questions of their own.

More later,
Russ

Georgia Student Suing for the Right to Verbally Bash Gays

2006-04-12T14:15:00.000-04:00

***** READ THIS FIRST *****

DON'T MISINTERPRET MY MENTION OF NEO-NAZIS IN THIS POST. I AM NOT EQUATING CHRISTIANS WHO OBJECT TO HOMOSEXUALITY WITH NAZIS.

IN MY MIND, THE ONLY THINGS THE TWO GROUPS HAVE IN COMMON ARE THE DESIRE TO RECRUIT NEW "MEMBERS" (THE MOTIVATIONS TO RECRUIT ARE VERY DIFFERENT) AND THAT I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAY.

ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT MY ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IS TO SUPPORT RUTH MALHOTRA'S RIGHT TO SPEAK HER MIND.

I'm all for tolerance, but I also am a strong, even radical, supporter of free speech, which leaves me somewhat ambivalent about what can be considered a free speech story in the April 10 Los Angeles Times. Here are the first few sentences:

ATLANTA -- Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant. Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation. Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

I don't see this as a religious freedom issue. Someone might want to speak out against homosexuality (and plenty of other things that some people don't approve of) for other than religious reasons. Speech is the issue for me, and it's an issue that is receiving plenty of recent discussion here in Lansing, Mich.

Some members of the community are up in arms over a neo-Nazi rally scheduled here for April 22. There are plans for counter rallies and other demonstrations. My take is to just let them have their rally. Don't ignore it, but don't get all worked up about it either.

Arguing with people who spout hate speech or intolerant speech merely lends credibility to the speakers. Let them speak, and then evaluate their ideas calmly. You'll find that the ideas are easy to poke holes in, even if some of them are cleverly disguised as logical. Get to know the ideas you oppose. Get to know the underlying values of the people that spread these ideas. You can't refute what you don't know.

I can hear the objections now: "But what about the stupid people who will accept hateful ideas? We shouldn't let stupid people be exposed to hateful ideas." To this I say: GET OVER YOURSELF! I know that I have beliefs that don't square with my own values (I'm working on that.), and so do you. But the more we know, the more our beliefs will come into line with our values. At least that's what I believe. (And I'm pretty sure that squares with my values.)

Besides, espousing hateful or intolerant ideas doesn't require stupidity. Plenty of smart people believe hateful and intolerant things about their neighbors, but hate and intolerance generally can't stand up to scrutiny when we get to know each other. That's why the tolerant among us need to encourage discussion and take a few insults, or even hateful statements, and keep the discussion going.

More later,
Russ

U.S. and European Union Disrespect Democracy

2006-04-08T14:52:00.000-04:00

It's official. the United States and European Union are cutting off aid to the duly elected Palestinian government because the Hamas party is in power. This action is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Specifically, President George W. Bush has said on many occasions that the United States supports democracy and democratically elected governments. What he apparently left out was that only U.S.-friendy and Israel-friendly governments are considered legitimate.

I guess it's only genocide when you do it in your own country

2006-04-05T22:09:00.000-04:00

Saddam Hussein was charged April 4 with genocide in the deaths of 50,000 Iraqis. Hussein's soldiers did the dirty work; Hussein just gave the orders.

Estimates of the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Operation Iraqi Freedom, or whatever it's being called these days, run from 33,000 to 100,000, depending on who's doing the counting.

George W. Bush gave the orders that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, so why isn't he being charged with genocide? Oh yeah, Americans are the good guys.

Too good to be true?

2006-04-05T17:57:00.000-04:00

Massatchusetts has a plan for universal health care. That's great, I think. The New York Times story leaves some of my questions unanswered.

For example, the story says that businesses with more than 10 employees that don't offer insurance to their workers will be charged $295 per employee. I'd say that's a great deal for the employers. Insurance for my family through a former employer's COBRA plan was more than $850 a month and only lasted 18 months. A current employer offers insurance at more than $1,100 a month.

But as I read the story, employers don't have to pay for the insurance, they just have to offer it. I'm sure there's a cost associated with offering the insurance even without paying for it, but $295 per employee per year may be the lesser of the two costs.

The proposed employer fee may not matter much, Governor Mitt Romney says in the story that he will use his line-item-veto to get rid of it.

In any event, this isn't really universal health insurance coverage. The Massachusetts legislature is merely forcing insurance companies and employers to offer the insurance and forcing the citizens of the state to buy it. Goverment subsidies to help the working poor pay for insurance will be available, but in my experience, the working poor don't have anything to spare. The article doesn't answer my questions about how much people will be forced to pay. Seems like the same logic involved in Heath Care Savings Accounts -- the government will give you a tax break to self-insure by setting money aside for an emergency. If I had the money to set aside, I'd use it to buy insurance.

Evidence, schmevidence!

2006-04-03T23:56:00.000-04:00

An article under the Opinion tab on TomPaine.com by John Prados tells us that Bush's Paper Trail Grows regarding the Downing Street memo. Wasted cyberspace!

If we know anything about the Bush administration, we know that factual evidence provides no deterrent. The whole point of the memo is to show that facts aren't a consideration for the Bushies.

Condi Rice embarrassed by protesters? What makes you think so?

2006-04-02T12:55:00.000-04:00

The New York Times ran an article this morning headlined Rice Finds British Muslims Want to Give Her an Earful that says U.S. Secretary of State Rice faced "public embarrassment" from protesters. Perhaps the writer, Joel Brinkley, thinks Ms. Rice should be embarrassed, and maybe she should, but nothing in the article suggests that she is embarrassed. In fact, a quote lifted from another newspaper and included in Mr. Brinkley's article suggests that she isn't embarrassed at all, or at least doesn't want anyone to believe she is embarrassed.

"People can say whatever they wish," she told The Lancashire Evening Telegraph. "I know where I stand. We made the right decision" in Iraq. "I was fully supportive of the decision."

One of the things I learned early on in journalism school was that you can't report on what people think or feel. Reporters don't know what sources think or feel. Reporters only know what sources said. Mr. Brinkley made a mistake here, and his editors didn't catch it. The New York Times should be embarrassed -- again.

The Best April Fool's Day Pranks Fool People, but Don't Make Fools of Them

2006-04-01T23:20:00.000-05:00

April Fool's Day should be more fun.

A NY Times Op-Ed suggests that what April Fool's Day needs is a "patron saint," and that may help, but I think targeting our creativity is the answer.

Most of the best April Fool's Day events have been imaginative hoaxes. "Fooling" others in a light-hearted way is the soul of April 1.

To really work, the hoax needs to be fairly widespread, not mean-spirited, and the hoaxer must let everyone know it's a hoax relatively quickly. The prank should also be the type of thing that lets the people taken in by the hoax laugh at themselves for being so gullible. It needs to spark a response without starting a fire.

April Fool's Day 2006 is over, but a good hoax takes considerable thought, so you'd better start planning your 2007 prank now.

Showing our weaknesses

2005-11-25T17:32:00.000-05:00

The so-called "War on Terror" has shown the world both the strengths and the weaknesses of the U.S. Government and of the American people.

The strengths are easy to see. We have unmatched military might and the will to use it. We have the strength of will to fight for freedom, not just our own, but also the freedom of Afgan and Iraqi citizens, and, presumably, citizens of any other country who are not free. And we will apparently borrow any amount of money needed to complete the task.

The weaknesses are less obvious but just as important.

We don't have is the strength of will to embrace the ambiguities and pitfalls of freedom, or to support the principles of freedom whatever the result. Americans want the Iraqi people to have freedom, as long as they make the "right" choices. American-style democracy may not be the Iraqi choice, and we won't stand for it.

But if the Iraqis don't have the freedom to make what we might consider bad decisions, or actual bad decisions, they don't really have freedom at all. Freedom must include the independence to make poor choices.

Americans have had the freedom to make poor choices. Basing our government on the Articles of Confederation, precursor to the Constitution, was arguably a poor choice.

We've also made some poor choices in electing presidents. Not everyone agrees which presidents were the poor choices and which were the good ones, but we have used our freedom to choose. Or not. We also have the freedom to opt out of the process by not voting.

Another sign of our weakness as a nation is that not many of us have shown the strength to stand up for the individual rights we claim to believe in. In the name of fighting terrorism, we have created a new class of non-people known as "enemy combatants."

We claim that our rights don't come from the government or the Constitution which merely enumerates them, but that each human being is "endowed by their creator" with certain rights. Most Americans believe in God, or so surveys show, but not, apparently, in rights for everyone.

The enemy combatants have few, if any, of the rights each American expects and even demands that the government respect. If we feel our rights have been violated, we sue. The enemy combatants don't have access to the courts. They depend on receiving their God-given rights from the American people through the government.

We've said no. They have no right to appeal their incarceration, no right to due process, no rights of any kind apparently, including the human right not to be tortured.

Granted, prisoners of war are generally not returned to their country of origin while battles continue, and the enemy combatants are probably more easily defined as criminals than soldiers, but they aren't even accorded the rights guaranteed to criminals in America.

To our credit, we are equal opportunity hypocrites. Congress passed the Patriot Act to limit the rights of American citizens and aid in the fight against terrorism. We even give up our own rights in the name of freedom.

Giving up rights and freedoms, or taking them from others, is a sign that we don't believe in
the very principles we are fighting for.

President Bush recently said that questioning the original reasons why the United States went to war in Iraq hurts our troops and helps our enemies, and many Americans agreed.

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rich, poor, black, white, and every other category of American includes citizens, possibly a majority, who support the actions the United States has taken in the war on terrorism. We as a people are supporting the suppression of freedom both directly and through our silence.

Freedom to dissent and question the actions of government were principles of freedom our founding fathers embraced as reasons for starting a revolution.

If we don't have enough confidence in the strength of freedom and its principles, the rest of the world, friends and enemies alike, will believe that we are weak, and they will be right.

Threats on the judiciary aren't surprising

2005-03-20T12:55:00.000-05:00

The New York Times* today has an article on threats to the judiciary. No kidding. And why shouldn't criminals threaten court officials? It's the same behavior we see today in U.S. foreign policy.

The criminals are saying "I'm right and you're wrong. Do what I say or someone will kill you." How is that different from "You're either with us or against us" as President Bush put U.S. policy on terrorism? If it's good enough for the country, why isn't it good enough for everyone else?

I'm sure Mr. Bush would say it's because he's the elected leader of the most powerful country in the world, but that does not excuse uncivilized behavior. We are heading toward -- if we haven't already arrived at -- a might makes right, your wrong because I'm right, society. Tolerance and working together are hanging by a thread, because we and our leaders are embracing an ethic of no compromise and no retreat.

If this continues, we will all either be belligerent bullies imposing our will on others, or spineless slaves doing the bullys' will.

Compromise is an American value I'd like to see more of inside and outside of government.

*I do read papers other than the Times.

Freedom? Sure, as long as I agree with your choices.

2005-03-19T13:22:00.000-05:00

Congress has decided to invite (read: subpoena) a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Why? If I'm being charitable, I might say it's because our Senators and Representatives are concerned with Terri Schiavo's rights.

In my less charitable moments, which when it comes to Congress is most of the time, I say these political opportunists are taking advantage of a family's tragedy and making it worse. Bad enough that this poor woman is a vegetable, and her parents and husband are at odds over whether to let her die (I can certainly see both sides in this argument), but to have politicians using her as a cause is despicable. Particularly when these upstanding public servants are arguing against some of the basic principles they choose to tout when it serves their purpose.

The federal government should not interfere in decisions that belong to the states, many conservatives say. Unless, of course, the states aren't making the "right" decisions. And, individuals should be able to make their own decisions about their health care, unless they don't make the "right" choices.

Who's leading the fight? According to the New York Times: "For Republicans, it was a chance to try to carve out new territory in the "culture of life" issues so paramount to passionate religious conservatives, who have flooded Congressional offices with messages beseeching help in keeping Ms. Schiavo alive."

You can read "religious conservatives" as Christian conservatives. You can have freedom of religion as long as you make decisions that are acceptable to the Christian right.

And the Democrats are doing it, too. They want to show that they have moved to the center and are good people that should be re-elected.

I guess freedom isn't an American value after all.

Isn't this UNethical?

2005-01-05T10:38:00.000-05:00

I don't know if House Republicans are being genuinely or deliberately obtuse, but today's piece in the New York Times on House Ethics Committee changes tells me that they are either a little thick... or pretending to be.

According to the Times, "The House, on a vote of 220 to 195, enacted a change that would effectively dismiss a complaint in the event of a deadlock in the ethics committee, which is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans."

Apparently, votes in the Ethics Committee have deadlocked along party lines fairly frequently. The senior Democrat on the rules committee said in the article that no ethics complaints would have "seen the light of day" if this rule had been in place during the last session of Congress. Everyone voted along party lines which leads to the assumption of partisanship on both sides and obtuse statements like this one:

"I think it takes the politics off the table," said Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York.

The problem with that kind of thinking, is that it assumes that the only reason for a vote is partisanship. Democrats always and only vote with Democrats, and Republicans always and only vote with Republicans. Seems like a safe assumption. After all, don't all Republicans hold the same values? And all Democrats hold the same values, although different from Republicans. Right?

This assumption about partisanship is demeaning to the members of Congress. I can't believe that no one in Congress ever votes against their party because it's the right thing to do, and voting evidence shows that not all votes are divided strictly along party lines. Voting conscience rather than party is a reality, if not a common one.

Republicans are using the partisanship that they say is so problematic to their own advantage. In fact, they pretty much admit that they are changing the Ethics Committee rules to protect majority leader Tom DeLay from penalties for his alleged ethical infractions. Whether real or pretend, that's obtuse.

For another opinion, check out this Washington Post editorial.

Who's money is it, really?

2004-10-13T19:29:00.000-04:00

I passed a Bush/Cheny billboard today that said something like "It's your money." I presume they are referring to the "tax and spend liberal agenda" that so many conservatives like to talk about. The message implies that the money we pay in taxes will go to fund programs we don't approve of if Kerry is elected.

Seems to me, however, that this could be a big mistake. For one thing, the current administration has turned a surplus into a deficit (let's not go into the neocon reasons why) which means our tax money for generations already belongs to someone else because Bush borrowed it to fund his programs, which by the way, I mostly don't support.

I think the idea of a tax and spend liberal is a lot more appealing than the idea of a borrow and spend conservative. At least the liberal tries to pay the bills as we go along.

I haven't been able to find this billboard online, but it's part of a campaign here in Michigan.

This Blog's Title

2004-07-21T18:58:00.001-04:00

The title of this blog comes from a 1970s TV show — Banacek — starring George Peppard. Banacek solved crimes for various insurance companies and took a fee of 10% of the recovered items. Along the way he regaled the audience with "old Polish proverbs," one of which was: "When an owl comes to a mouse picnic, it's not for the sack race."

More later,
Russ