There was a report in the morning's Dallas Morning News about the health care bills winding their way through Congress. The bills are all mind numbing in their complexity. More significant is the wording in the various bills. The proposals being put forward all contain the words "must", "have to", and "required to." As much as the bills proposed are portrayed as simply seeking to provide health care to people who need it, they increasingly represent an attempt to coerce health care agencies, insurance companies, and business into meeting the political goals of Washington. Washington has decided it wants to provide health care to all. It cannot fulfill its promise because it cannot afford to do so. Congress therefore is seeking instead to coerce the insurance companies, the health care industry, and the private sector, into making good on its promise.
Employers with payrolls over $500,000 would be compelled to provide insurance to their employees. Larger companies likely will raise prices in order to offset the cost. For those unable to raise their prices, the costs will have to be absorbed. If it is not possible to absorb the costs, then they will have to be reduced in other ways, such as trimming the payroll or outsourcing jobs. There is no free lunch.
The "rich", those making over $500,000 a year, will have their income taxes raised. This is always a popular proposal with the "middle class." But it should be remembered that when the federal income tax was first enacted, it too was limited to the "rich." Now, all but the very poor pay it. A maze of federal regulations is being discussed on how to manipulate the tax code to assist the middle class in meeting the obligations that will be imposed upon them. The problem here is that the tax code can always be manipulated. In the future, as the cost of health care rises, and it will, there will be pressure to raise and expand those taxes. It is inevitable that the health care taxes imposed on the "rich" will someday be extended to the middle class.
With a health care system run by the secretary of health and human services, it is also inevitable that politics will be injected into health care. No good can come of that. Treatments and procedures would all acquire a political significance. Abortion, while the most salient, would not be the only one. Different lobbying and special interest groups would all demand a say in coverage, treatment, and the allocation of federal funds.
If it could be guaranteed that federal involvement in health care would be limited to underwriting health care, the prospect of its involvement would be less menacing. Such a guarantee is impossible. Even if the government today promises to stay out of the managing of health care, it cannot be guaranteed that this will not change in the future.
Where government money goes, government follows. Where government goes, politics follow. It is a law of nature. No politician can argue otherwise. No person should believe otherwise.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Dallas is Watching You
The city of Dallas recently announced the instillation of cameras along a busy street in a popular part of the city. The cameras were heralded as "an added measure measure of security to residents and workers." A system of 11 cameras will monitor the area. Unlike many surveillance cameras, these cameras will be actively monitored by the Dallas Police Department. Naturally, police welcomed the new system, as did residents and merchants. There is not a crime problem in the area. The monitoring devices are simply intended to keep it that way.
It is not surprising that law enforcement welcomes any new device or technology that aids them in deterring crime and apprehending those who violate the law. After all, that is their job. Nor is it surprising that many seem willing to sacrifice their privacy for the peace of mind such monitoring offers to provide. There has been a growing, and for many, welcome trend in this direction for some time. As law enforcement technology improves, there is a demand to use that technology, not simply to apprehend criminals, but to deter them. The problem, as I see it, is that every one within the range of such surveillance is monitored. The innocent are watched as well as the suspicious. Because cameras cannot distinguish between the two, everyone is treated as a suspect and potential criminal. Being watched doesn't seem to bother people as much as it once did, but it should.
Technology is neutral. It can be employed by those with sinister intent as easily as by those with benign intent. There is no way of knowing what will be considered worthy of surveillance in the future. Nor is there anyway of knowing what technology will be available, what use will be made of that technology, or who will be using it. The prospect of a near omniscient state is not as far fetched as it once was. Some might shrug off such concerns by believing the people, the government, and the courts would prevent any such scenario from developing. Given the welcome such technology frequently receives from the public, clearly they cannot be relied upon as an effective deterrent. The enthusiasm displayed by government to employ surveillance technology is evidence that they are an unreliable defense of privacy and liberty. The security claimed needed by the state makes law less of an obstacle than it might have been in the past, particularly when laws can be changed. The courts have proved increasingly willing to acquiesce to the needs claimed necessary by the government to protect the people and the nation.
The question I have, and many should have, is what guarantee do we have that the monitoring technology we have, and will have in the future, will not be extended to ever larger segments of society and to ever more crimes deemed worthy of prevention through surveillance? If such technology proves effective in reducing crime in one neighborhood, why not use it to deter crime in the city at large? And if it is effective for a city, why not the country? A camera on every street and inside every building would go a long way towards reducing crime in this country; or a least towards identifying and apprehending suspects.
Threats come and go. They always have. Liberties and rights, once lost, tend to stay lost.
It is not surprising that law enforcement welcomes any new device or technology that aids them in deterring crime and apprehending those who violate the law. After all, that is their job. Nor is it surprising that many seem willing to sacrifice their privacy for the peace of mind such monitoring offers to provide. There has been a growing, and for many, welcome trend in this direction for some time. As law enforcement technology improves, there is a demand to use that technology, not simply to apprehend criminals, but to deter them. The problem, as I see it, is that every one within the range of such surveillance is monitored. The innocent are watched as well as the suspicious. Because cameras cannot distinguish between the two, everyone is treated as a suspect and potential criminal. Being watched doesn't seem to bother people as much as it once did, but it should.
Technology is neutral. It can be employed by those with sinister intent as easily as by those with benign intent. There is no way of knowing what will be considered worthy of surveillance in the future. Nor is there anyway of knowing what technology will be available, what use will be made of that technology, or who will be using it. The prospect of a near omniscient state is not as far fetched as it once was. Some might shrug off such concerns by believing the people, the government, and the courts would prevent any such scenario from developing. Given the welcome such technology frequently receives from the public, clearly they cannot be relied upon as an effective deterrent. The enthusiasm displayed by government to employ surveillance technology is evidence that they are an unreliable defense of privacy and liberty. The security claimed needed by the state makes law less of an obstacle than it might have been in the past, particularly when laws can be changed. The courts have proved increasingly willing to acquiesce to the needs claimed necessary by the government to protect the people and the nation.
The question I have, and many should have, is what guarantee do we have that the monitoring technology we have, and will have in the future, will not be extended to ever larger segments of society and to ever more crimes deemed worthy of prevention through surveillance? If such technology proves effective in reducing crime in one neighborhood, why not use it to deter crime in the city at large? And if it is effective for a city, why not the country? A camera on every street and inside every building would go a long way towards reducing crime in this country; or a least towards identifying and apprehending suspects.
Threats come and go. They always have. Liberties and rights, once lost, tend to stay lost.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Our Violent Society
There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News by The Reverend Gerard Britt Jr., vice president of policy at Central Dallas Ministries concerning the scourge of youth violence in the U.S. Reverend Britt chronicles the disturbing statistics concerning the growing violence among teenagers, and society in general over the last twenty years. Rev. Britt partly attributes public alarm over the sometimes terrifying acts of violence among youth to sensationalist reporting on the part of the media. There may be something to this.
But Rev. Britt also acknowledges the real rise in such crime. He also laments society's response to the rise in violence by emphasizing law enforcement as a primary tool in combating this violence. He advocates the position shared by many in this country that youth violence is a national problem that must be addressed nationally by exploring how, since U.S. society as a whole contributes to rise of violence, the problem should be addressed nationally. This is where I take issue with Rev. Britt.
Certainly there is an epidemic of youth violence in the U.S. But I am not responsible for it. Neither are my neighbors. Neither is my family or my friends. I am sure many Americans across the U.S. would be hard pressed to find any connection between their lives and youth violence. To make a connection between me and youth violence in Chicago or Baltimore is a stretch beyond credulity. Yet, Rev Britt makes that connection effortlessly.
For Britt and others, society is responsible for the rise in violence. I am part of society, ergo, I am responsible. There is an irresistible appeal of this argument to the universally and socially conscious. Nevertheless, it is a position that does little to address the problem, and even less to solve it. The appeal of this argument is that it provides an opportunity for many to involve themselves in issues and policies across the nation. Secondly, and more importantly, the "universal" nature of this problem requires the intervention of society, which all too often is synonymous with government. To say society must get involved is, to the liberal mind, to say that government must get involved. How else can the narcissistic, selfish, and small minded millions in this country be made to participate in the measures and programs advocated by the socially progressive?
Violent youth are not the product of an "unjust" or "oppressive" society. They are the product of a society increasing bereft of normative values (what used to be called morality) and an absence of attentive, responsible parenting and socializing institutions. Our youth are not neglected or ignored by society. They are neglected and ignored by their parents, families, and neighbors.
Poverty and ignorance have always existed. They always will exist. Oppression and discrimination have always existed. They, too, will always exist. Violence on the scale we are experiencing in this country has not always existed, and need not exist. The question to be asked is what is it about our modern, liberal society that is fueling this violence. After decades of undermining the ethics, morals, and institutions that, since the beginning of time, have served to socialize individuals and make communal living possible, liberals are concerned, if not shocked, to find a society in which ethics, morals, and socializing institutions are increasingly ineffective.
But Rev. Britt also acknowledges the real rise in such crime. He also laments society's response to the rise in violence by emphasizing law enforcement as a primary tool in combating this violence. He advocates the position shared by many in this country that youth violence is a national problem that must be addressed nationally by exploring how, since U.S. society as a whole contributes to rise of violence, the problem should be addressed nationally. This is where I take issue with Rev. Britt.
Certainly there is an epidemic of youth violence in the U.S. But I am not responsible for it. Neither are my neighbors. Neither is my family or my friends. I am sure many Americans across the U.S. would be hard pressed to find any connection between their lives and youth violence. To make a connection between me and youth violence in Chicago or Baltimore is a stretch beyond credulity. Yet, Rev Britt makes that connection effortlessly.
For Britt and others, society is responsible for the rise in violence. I am part of society, ergo, I am responsible. There is an irresistible appeal of this argument to the universally and socially conscious. Nevertheless, it is a position that does little to address the problem, and even less to solve it. The appeal of this argument is that it provides an opportunity for many to involve themselves in issues and policies across the nation. Secondly, and more importantly, the "universal" nature of this problem requires the intervention of society, which all too often is synonymous with government. To say society must get involved is, to the liberal mind, to say that government must get involved. How else can the narcissistic, selfish, and small minded millions in this country be made to participate in the measures and programs advocated by the socially progressive?
Violent youth are not the product of an "unjust" or "oppressive" society. They are the product of a society increasing bereft of normative values (what used to be called morality) and an absence of attentive, responsible parenting and socializing institutions. Our youth are not neglected or ignored by society. They are neglected and ignored by their parents, families, and neighbors.
Poverty and ignorance have always existed. They always will exist. Oppression and discrimination have always existed. They, too, will always exist. Violence on the scale we are experiencing in this country has not always existed, and need not exist. The question to be asked is what is it about our modern, liberal society that is fueling this violence. After decades of undermining the ethics, morals, and institutions that, since the beginning of time, have served to socialize individuals and make communal living possible, liberals are concerned, if not shocked, to find a society in which ethics, morals, and socializing institutions are increasingly ineffective.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Immigrants and English
Yesterday, Ernestina Mondragon sat behind a desk in Oak Cliff, Texas. She, her interpreter, and her lawyer had called a press conference to explain her indignation, and her lawyer's, at a ticket she received recently for "driving without being able to speak English." She had been pulled over after she had made an illegal U-turn. When the officer approached her, he discovered that she should could not speak English, and so wrote her a ticket.
Many are upset at this. The officer who wrote the ticket has been reprimanded and is under investigation. Unmentioned in the article was whether the fact that Ms. Mondragon's inability to speak, and presumably read, English might have contributed to her error. The interesting thing in the article was the fact that Ms. Mondragon has lived in the U.S. for eighteen years. It seems that even after almost two decades, Ms. Mondragon has not learned enough English to explain herself to a policeman. If this is the case, it is hardly an encouraging anecdote for the pro-immigration movement. Not satisfied that the ticket has been dismissed and the officer reprimanded, she will likely seek some financial compensation for the indignation she suffered. She has already retained an attorney. (Who says America is no longer a land of opportunity?) Perhaps if she wins her lawsuit she will have the time and money to finally get around to learning English; presuming she wants to learn English. She clearly doesn't feel she needs to.
Years ago, I lived overseas while in the military. It was only a matter of weeks before I was out learning the language and customs of the country where I had been posted. Others soldiers, less curious and enthusiastic than I was, were content to stay on the base. If they learned any of the language, it was rarely more than was needed to harass women they found attractive and insult men they found irritating. They were disinclined to learn the language because they didn't need to. They were able to work and socialize amongst themselves, so there was no need to know the local language. Secondly, they were able to get what they wanted, or needed, through merchants who catered to them and their inability to speak the language. Classes were offered on the base for anyone who wanted or needed to learn the language. Few wanted to. Even fewer needed to.
The question we should be asking here in the U.S. about immigration and the need to know English is, of the growing numbers of immigrants in the U.S. who do not speak English, how many of them cannot do so because they haven't had the opportunity to learn it, and how many simply because they haven't needed to learn it?
Many are upset at this. The officer who wrote the ticket has been reprimanded and is under investigation. Unmentioned in the article was whether the fact that Ms. Mondragon's inability to speak, and presumably read, English might have contributed to her error. The interesting thing in the article was the fact that Ms. Mondragon has lived in the U.S. for eighteen years. It seems that even after almost two decades, Ms. Mondragon has not learned enough English to explain herself to a policeman. If this is the case, it is hardly an encouraging anecdote for the pro-immigration movement. Not satisfied that the ticket has been dismissed and the officer reprimanded, she will likely seek some financial compensation for the indignation she suffered. She has already retained an attorney. (Who says America is no longer a land of opportunity?) Perhaps if she wins her lawsuit she will have the time and money to finally get around to learning English; presuming she wants to learn English. She clearly doesn't feel she needs to.
Years ago, I lived overseas while in the military. It was only a matter of weeks before I was out learning the language and customs of the country where I had been posted. Others soldiers, less curious and enthusiastic than I was, were content to stay on the base. If they learned any of the language, it was rarely more than was needed to harass women they found attractive and insult men they found irritating. They were disinclined to learn the language because they didn't need to. They were able to work and socialize amongst themselves, so there was no need to know the local language. Secondly, they were able to get what they wanted, or needed, through merchants who catered to them and their inability to speak the language. Classes were offered on the base for anyone who wanted or needed to learn the language. Few wanted to. Even fewer needed to.
The question we should be asking here in the U.S. about immigration and the need to know English is, of the growing numbers of immigrants in the U.S. who do not speak English, how many of them cannot do so because they haven't had the opportunity to learn it, and how many simply because they haven't needed to learn it?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Cowboys and Owners
I sat down to watch a football game today. The Cowboys were playing the Falcons. Despite growing up in New England, I have always been a Cowboys fan. But I am not much of a fan anymore. When I was young, I knew the name of every starting player on the Cowboys, both offense and defense. I even knew the name of the coach. Year in and year out I cheered the Cowboys. But not so much anymore.
I began to lose interest in the NFL with the advent of free agency. Once players began changing teams, and teams began changing uniforms, names, and cities, I started losing my interest in the NFL in general, and the Cowboys in particular. And why shouldn't I? Over the years it seems the only constants with the Cowboys, other than a quarterback and a handful of other players, is that they are still in Dallas (well, near Dallas) Jerry Jones is still the owner, and they still have a star on their helmet. I used to root for players such as Bob Lilly, Harvey Martin, Walt Garrison, and Roger Staubach. I even knew the names of all the starting offensive linemen. Had Bob Lilly or Walt Garrison been traded, I would not have known what to do. (If Roger Staubach had been traded, I probably would have gone to live in a hole somewhere.) I would have been torn between rooting for whichever team they had been traded to, and the Cowboys. For me, Bob Lilly, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, and all the others, including Coach Landry, were indistinguishable from the Cowboys. They were the Cowboys. For the longest time, I did not know who owned the Cowboys, nor did I care.
Now, each year, players come and go. Coaches, and uniforms change. Players you hated and booed the season before, you are expected to cheer simply because they are now on your team. A team can change it's name, and the city it plays in. It can win the Superbowl one year, and three games the next. As fluid as the NFL has become, I do not understand how a fan can root for a team year after year. In regard to the Cowboys, I am still a fan. But increasingly, I no longer understand what is it I am supposed to root for. The star on the helmet? One thing is for sure: I am not going to root for Jerry Jones, or his shiny new stadium.
I began to lose interest in the NFL with the advent of free agency. Once players began changing teams, and teams began changing uniforms, names, and cities, I started losing my interest in the NFL in general, and the Cowboys in particular. And why shouldn't I? Over the years it seems the only constants with the Cowboys, other than a quarterback and a handful of other players, is that they are still in Dallas (well, near Dallas) Jerry Jones is still the owner, and they still have a star on their helmet. I used to root for players such as Bob Lilly, Harvey Martin, Walt Garrison, and Roger Staubach. I even knew the names of all the starting offensive linemen. Had Bob Lilly or Walt Garrison been traded, I would not have known what to do. (If Roger Staubach had been traded, I probably would have gone to live in a hole somewhere.) I would have been torn between rooting for whichever team they had been traded to, and the Cowboys. For me, Bob Lilly, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, and all the others, including Coach Landry, were indistinguishable from the Cowboys. They were the Cowboys. For the longest time, I did not know who owned the Cowboys, nor did I care.
Now, each year, players come and go. Coaches, and uniforms change. Players you hated and booed the season before, you are expected to cheer simply because they are now on your team. A team can change it's name, and the city it plays in. It can win the Superbowl one year, and three games the next. As fluid as the NFL has become, I do not understand how a fan can root for a team year after year. In regard to the Cowboys, I am still a fan. But increasingly, I no longer understand what is it I am supposed to root for. The star on the helmet? One thing is for sure: I am not going to root for Jerry Jones, or his shiny new stadium.
The Matter of Truth
There was an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News by Jonathan Last concerning the "wisdom" of crowds. Drawing on some sociological studies, Last throws his support behind those who advocate the idea that crowds are often better at determining truth than any individual can be. Apart from the scant historical evidence for this assertion, (crowds once believed the world was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe), Last continues writing in support of this idea. He cites the not inconsiderable scientific support for this idea.
While there are some areas of social and political life where this theory may be valid, one should be cautious in embracing it. There are many areas of social life where truth is not a matter of opinion. In such cases, the theory can be misleading, even harmful.
While there are some areas of social and political life where this theory may be valid, one should be cautious in embracing it. There are many areas of social life where truth is not a matter of opinion. In such cases, the theory can be misleading, even harmful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)