In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, Froma Harrop wrote an editorial in which she addressed the languor of the American consumer. Consumers have become more cautious. Investors have become more wary. Americans have become decidedly more hesitant to part with their money. They have become inclined to hold on to their money because they are uncertain about the future. As a result, the economy is suffering.
After a lengthy and informative discussion of the topic, Harrop concludes that the remedy for the economic torpor affecting the U.S. is the passage of national health care. Harrop's reasoning is that if the American people did not have to worry about obtaining or keeping health insurance, their mood would improve and they would go out and boost the economy by spending their money on new dresses and tool boxes and taking the family to Disneyland. There may be something to this. Harrop just might be on to something. But why stop at health care? If people did not have to fret over auto insurance, they would be more apt to spend money in ways more productive to the economy. They could buy new shoes or take a day at the spa. If they did not have to worry about paying rent or mortgages, their delight would only increase and they would spend even more money fueling the economy by purchasing flat screen televisions and new lawnmowers. One can only marvel at the economic wonders that would occur if the American people did not have to concern themselves with paying their bills and taking care of themselves.
It is doubtlessly true that most Americans, if they did not have to spend their money on health insurance, or hoard it in trepidation, would spend it on something. National health care would go a long way towards lifting a burden from the public. Being released from burdens and obligations does much to improve one's spirits. Buoyed spirits would certainly be a benefit to the economy. Many would be happy if they woke up one morning and were told that their health care will now be taken care of. Perhaps they would go shopping to celebrate. But that happiness will be fleeting. Sooner or later the public will come into contact with that bureaucratic monster and feel its cost. Going hundreds of billions of dollars deeper into debt and creating a mammoth new federal bureaucracy is certainly a long way around to lifting public spirits.
So, according to Harrop, even if national health care does nothing to improve health care in the U.S., it is still a good program because as a "mood enhancer" it will encourage hesitant consumers. I can't help but suspect that there must be a better way to enhance the mood of the American consumer than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a health care program that many don't want and there is little consensus will work. Why not simply give that money back to the public? There are few things better to lift a consumer's spirit than getting a check in the mail. If nothing else, a few hundred billion dollars in the hands of consumers would certainly give the economy a boost.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
2nd Amendment
During oral arguments yesterday before the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of Chicago's ban on handguns, Justice Antonin Scalia stated in response to an argument before the court that "The right to keep and bear arms is right there...in the Bill of Rights." I checked. He is right. It is there.
Moreover, the right to keep and bear arms is not in the Eight Amendment, nor in the Fourth Amendment. It is in the Second Amendment; the amendment right after the one that grants us freedom of speech. Clearly the right to keep and bear arms was important to the Framers. So much so that they put it right near the top. If other Amendments can sometimes be stretched to the very limits of credulity, why cannot the Second Amendment be read to include what it states plainly?
Moreover, the right to keep and bear arms is not in the Eight Amendment, nor in the Fourth Amendment. It is in the Second Amendment; the amendment right after the one that grants us freedom of speech. Clearly the right to keep and bear arms was important to the Framers. So much so that they put it right near the top. If other Amendments can sometimes be stretched to the very limits of credulity, why cannot the Second Amendment be read to include what it states plainly?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Fly in the Ointment
Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky is single handedly blocking legislation to keep several government programs up and running. Among the things affected by Bunning's blockage are such things as extending unemployment benefits, worker furloughs, and the provision of highway funds. While the amount appropriated in the legislation is near infinitesimal by Washington standards, a mere $10 billion, the effects will be felt. Bunning's obstinacy lay in his insistence that the $10 billion appropriation bill actually be paid for rather than simply piled atop the massive federal deficit. One reason for Bunning's obstinacy is that he is not running for reelection. "If we can't find $10 billion to pay for it," said Bunning, "then we're not going to pay for anything." Unlike many in Washington, Bunning's decision not to seek reelection gives him the luxury of being responsible.
Bunning's stand is causing problems in Washington. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican Senator from Maine lamented that there are 500 people in Maine whose benefits would expire as a result of Bunning's action. With due sympathy for those workers, I do not see how maintaining benefits for 500 unemployed workers in Maine is justification for supporting a $10 billion federal appropriations bill. The state of Maine sent $6.3 billion in federal taxes to Washington in 2007 alone. It wouldn't have taken very much of that to keep 500 people employed.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood accused Bunning of playing political games. "As American families are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important projects around the country" he said in a statement. LaHood spoke as if "playing political games" was only limited to opposing legislation and did not include the practice of jumbling bills together to inhibit opposition. Despite the billions sloshing back and forth in Washington, money is tight. And, while the national debt swells and many programs and agencies are facing shortfalls and budget cuts, Obama insists on pushing a health care bill that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars the federal government does not have.
The state of California had $37.5 million in federal highway funds put on hold due to Bunning's action. The state of Virginia had $49.5 million put on hold. The state of California sent nearly $414 billion in tax receipts to Washington in 2007 (roughly $8,590 per person). The state of Virginia sent nearly $62 billion (roughly $8,000 per person). If only a small percentage of those federal tax receipts were left in the hands of those two states, social programs could be funded and very few roads would go unpaved. If only a portion of the taxes collected were left in the hands of the tax payers of those two states, their economies would be much better off and therefore far fewer workers would have been laid off. Those states could also spend that money on things they needed, such as extending unemployment benefits, improving education, and providing social services besides simply repairing roads and maintaining bridges. In short, they could spend that money on things they needed rather than on things Washington wanted. And therein lies the rub.
"I don't know how you negotiate with the irrational" said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs speaking of Bunning. This presumes that spending billions of dollars one does not have is rational. When it comes to Bunning's maneuver, the administration and Congress are coming to sound like the customer who, while attempting to buy a new television suddenly has his credit card cut up and then laments "how will I feed my children?" The children are hungry, the roof is leaking, the porch needs repair, and the washer and dryer are broken. But Washington is still trying to buy a flat screen television.
Demanding that federal programs be paid for is not a game. Insisting the government spend only what it takes in is not irrational. It is just the opposite. Many in Washington are being irresponsible when they suggest that insisting on fiscal sobriety is a game. It is time someone stepped up and said no.
Bunning's stand is causing problems in Washington. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican Senator from Maine lamented that there are 500 people in Maine whose benefits would expire as a result of Bunning's action. With due sympathy for those workers, I do not see how maintaining benefits for 500 unemployed workers in Maine is justification for supporting a $10 billion federal appropriations bill. The state of Maine sent $6.3 billion in federal taxes to Washington in 2007 alone. It wouldn't have taken very much of that to keep 500 people employed.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood accused Bunning of playing political games. "As American families are struggling in tough economic times, I am keenly disappointed that political games are putting a stop to important projects around the country" he said in a statement. LaHood spoke as if "playing political games" was only limited to opposing legislation and did not include the practice of jumbling bills together to inhibit opposition. Despite the billions sloshing back and forth in Washington, money is tight. And, while the national debt swells and many programs and agencies are facing shortfalls and budget cuts, Obama insists on pushing a health care bill that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars the federal government does not have.
The state of California had $37.5 million in federal highway funds put on hold due to Bunning's action. The state of Virginia had $49.5 million put on hold. The state of California sent nearly $414 billion in tax receipts to Washington in 2007 (roughly $8,590 per person). The state of Virginia sent nearly $62 billion (roughly $8,000 per person). If only a small percentage of those federal tax receipts were left in the hands of those two states, social programs could be funded and very few roads would go unpaved. If only a portion of the taxes collected were left in the hands of the tax payers of those two states, their economies would be much better off and therefore far fewer workers would have been laid off. Those states could also spend that money on things they needed, such as extending unemployment benefits, improving education, and providing social services besides simply repairing roads and maintaining bridges. In short, they could spend that money on things they needed rather than on things Washington wanted. And therein lies the rub.
"I don't know how you negotiate with the irrational" said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs speaking of Bunning. This presumes that spending billions of dollars one does not have is rational. When it comes to Bunning's maneuver, the administration and Congress are coming to sound like the customer who, while attempting to buy a new television suddenly has his credit card cut up and then laments "how will I feed my children?" The children are hungry, the roof is leaking, the porch needs repair, and the washer and dryer are broken. But Washington is still trying to buy a flat screen television.
Demanding that federal programs be paid for is not a game. Insisting the government spend only what it takes in is not irrational. It is just the opposite. Many in Washington are being irresponsible when they suggest that insisting on fiscal sobriety is a game. It is time someone stepped up and said no.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Time is Running Out
"It is time for us to act. It is time for us in Washington to live up to our responsibilities to the American people and get this done" said president Obama recently. He was not speaking of addressing the exploding national debt or the still flagging economy. He was speaking in regard to his plan to overhaul health care in the United States. He not only wants national health care reform passed, he needs it passed. The failure of his health care plan would deal a major blow to his presidency. The action he was referring to was in regard to the use of parliamentary maneuvering to circumvent opposition in the Senate. It is a maneuver that even some of his allies are warning him against.
President Obama is growing increasingly irritated at those who are standing between him and destiny. His ambition to enshrine government as the single most salient force in the lives of Americans and himself in history is at risk of being thwarted by 41 Republican Senators. Obama went on to say somewhat ominously that "we cannot have another year-long debate about this. So the question that I'm going to ask myself and I ask all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few weeks time or six week's time we could actually resolve something? And if we can't, then I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions, that is what elections are for."
He is very much correct. That is what elections are for. Of course, Obama was referring to the election 17 months ago, not the election 7 months from now. I suspect it is his apprehension regarding the upcoming elections that underlay his growing impatience. Polls are showing that, not only is Obama's Health Care plan steadily losing support among the public, but that the Democrats can expect to lose a considerable number of seats in the House and the Senate this Fall. While they may not lose their majority, they very well may lose enough seats that they will no longer be able to muscle their agenda through Congress. Significant losses would chasten surviving Democrats in Congress and make their support less reliable for Obama as well as embolden Republican opposition. On the other hand, if it turns out the Democrats fair well in the elections, Obama can claim his policies have been vindicated. Not only that, but Republican intransigence would undoubtedly be softened. But Obama doesn't want to take a chance. Which is to say, he doesn't really want to put his health care plan up for a vote, not to the American people anyway.
In the contest to move his agenda forward and keep the support of the American people and Congress, time is not on Obama's side. That, perhaps, is the true cause of Obama's sense of urgency. If Obama and his allies in Congress are so convinced that this bill is what the American people want, why can't they wait seven months to see if they are correct? If they are, surely the American people will still want national health care reform in November. Moreover, the public frustration with those obstructing it would only increase in the intervening months which in turn could only work to Obama's and the Democrats' advantage in the Fall.
The stakes are indeed high. We should put health care to a vote. But we should put it to the American people for a vote, not the U.S. Senate. It is the people, after all, who will have to pay for it. They will also have to live with it. They ought to have a say. It is not often when an election occurs amidst heated debate over a major policy issue. We should not waste the opportunity. Why not wait seven months and let emotions cool. Then we can see what the people have to say about national health care. With so much invested in its existence, it is unlikely the health care issue is going to go away. If it gets worse, so much the better for the Democrats in the Fall. In the mean time, there are plenty of other things to keep Obama and Congress busy.
As for Washington living up to its responsibilities to the American people, whether and to what extent those responsibilities include providing health care is precisely what the debate is about.
President Obama is growing increasingly irritated at those who are standing between him and destiny. His ambition to enshrine government as the single most salient force in the lives of Americans and himself in history is at risk of being thwarted by 41 Republican Senators. Obama went on to say somewhat ominously that "we cannot have another year-long debate about this. So the question that I'm going to ask myself and I ask all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few weeks time or six week's time we could actually resolve something? And if we can't, then I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions, that is what elections are for."
He is very much correct. That is what elections are for. Of course, Obama was referring to the election 17 months ago, not the election 7 months from now. I suspect it is his apprehension regarding the upcoming elections that underlay his growing impatience. Polls are showing that, not only is Obama's Health Care plan steadily losing support among the public, but that the Democrats can expect to lose a considerable number of seats in the House and the Senate this Fall. While they may not lose their majority, they very well may lose enough seats that they will no longer be able to muscle their agenda through Congress. Significant losses would chasten surviving Democrats in Congress and make their support less reliable for Obama as well as embolden Republican opposition. On the other hand, if it turns out the Democrats fair well in the elections, Obama can claim his policies have been vindicated. Not only that, but Republican intransigence would undoubtedly be softened. But Obama doesn't want to take a chance. Which is to say, he doesn't really want to put his health care plan up for a vote, not to the American people anyway.
In the contest to move his agenda forward and keep the support of the American people and Congress, time is not on Obama's side. That, perhaps, is the true cause of Obama's sense of urgency. If Obama and his allies in Congress are so convinced that this bill is what the American people want, why can't they wait seven months to see if they are correct? If they are, surely the American people will still want national health care reform in November. Moreover, the public frustration with those obstructing it would only increase in the intervening months which in turn could only work to Obama's and the Democrats' advantage in the Fall.
The stakes are indeed high. We should put health care to a vote. But we should put it to the American people for a vote, not the U.S. Senate. It is the people, after all, who will have to pay for it. They will also have to live with it. They ought to have a say. It is not often when an election occurs amidst heated debate over a major policy issue. We should not waste the opportunity. Why not wait seven months and let emotions cool. Then we can see what the people have to say about national health care. With so much invested in its existence, it is unlikely the health care issue is going to go away. If it gets worse, so much the better for the Democrats in the Fall. In the mean time, there are plenty of other things to keep Obama and Congress busy.
As for Washington living up to its responsibilities to the American people, whether and to what extent those responsibilities include providing health care is precisely what the debate is about.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Health Care Push.
President Obama refused to be chastened by the recent election of Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the U.S. Senate. On Monday, he revealed his proposal to push his health care plan through the Senate by using the procedure of reconciliation. The maneuver would allow a simple majority vote that would undermine any filibuster by the GOP. Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's information director stated that "the American people deserve an up or down vote on health care reform." GOP senator Olympia Snowe of Maine said using the procedure would be a "big mistake." The reason for the urgency on the part of Obama is that, according to administration officials, reconciliation is "the last, best hope for comprehensive health care reform."
This is most likely true. If the election of Scott Brown is any indication of the sentiment of the American public, the Democrats are facing significant losses in the upcoming elections. Reconciliation could very well be the "last best hope" to get the bill passed before anyone, including the public, can do anything about it. Waiting seven months for the next election to see what the public really thinks about health care reform would not be the end of civilization as we know it. But waiting seven months very well could be the end of Obama's health care plan. There is little indication that the public is clamoring for a quick passage of health care reform. The parliamentary maneuver of reconciliation would reflect the administration's urgency to get health care reform enacted, not the public's.
This is most likely true. If the election of Scott Brown is any indication of the sentiment of the American public, the Democrats are facing significant losses in the upcoming elections. Reconciliation could very well be the "last best hope" to get the bill passed before anyone, including the public, can do anything about it. Waiting seven months for the next election to see what the public really thinks about health care reform would not be the end of civilization as we know it. But waiting seven months very well could be the end of Obama's health care plan. There is little indication that the public is clamoring for a quick passage of health care reform. The parliamentary maneuver of reconciliation would reflect the administration's urgency to get health care reform enacted, not the public's.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Hurling Lead in Afghanistan
The President of Afghanistan pleaded to the United States and Great Britain that their troops make a greater effort to stop killing civilians. The plea came recently after 16 civilians, including a family of 12, were killed accidentally in a western offensive in Marja. "We've been hurling lead all day" said a Marine lieutenant involved in the assault. In a recent NATO air strike, 27 civilians were killed. The planes did not know that the convoy they attacked consisted of civilians. Last Thursday, 7 Iraqi policemen were killed in an air strike after they were suspected of planting a bomb. Last Monday, 5 more Iraqis were killed in another mistaken air strike. NATO commander, U.S. General McChrystal apologized. The U.S. said it will see what it can do to prevent civilian casualties. On the bright side, of the 2,412 civilians reported killed last year, only 30 percent were attributed to NATO. It is unclear how many Afghans accepted McChrystal's apology.
While the death of Iraqi soldiers, policemen, and civilians is "regrettable" to Western military officials, it is tragic to the families of those killed. Moreover, civilian deaths and the destruction of property and livestock do little to endear villagers to the Western troops responsible for those deaths and damage. The death and destruction remain long after the insurgents are dead and soldiers and Marines are gone. Western officials say the civilian casualties cannot be helped when enemy insurgents hide among civilians and ambush troops. But is it necessary to launch a determined military assault on a village because some insurgents are holed up there, or launch an air strike to destroy a car or a handful of men lurking suspiciously beside a road? To the military it is. That is their job. They are trained to assault villages and drop bombs. They are not police. They have artillery, tanks, and aircraft. When a village is bombarded and assaulted by soldiers and Marines, it is near certain that civilians will be harmed and killed and property will be damaged. The Taliban know this. Indeed, they count on it.
In regard to the mistaken air attack, a NATO official stated that "a group of suspected insurgents driving SUVs, believed to be en route to attack a joint Afghan-ISAF unit was engaged by an airborne weapons team." What is disturbing is that there were no Afghan forces operating in the area. Neither was their any record of Afghan soldiers requesting an air attack. Dutch soldiers responsible for the area denied requesting air support. If an air strike had not been called for and there were no reports of Afghan insurgents in the area, let alone insurgents driving SUVs, why would the aircraft take it upon themselves to attack two vehicles driving down a road? Who, besides the pilots, suspected that the occupants of the vehicles were insurgents and believed they were on their way to attack NATO forces?
Despite using technology and adopting measures to limit civilian casualties and property damage, civilians are still dying and property is still being destroyed. Once a village is surrounded, the insurgents have nowhere to go. It becomes a matter of ferreting them out; a task better suited the Army or even the police than the Air Force. If it is a case where only a small number of insurgents are suspected of holding out in a village, or planting a bomb, air strikes should not be needed. Air strikes and machine guns may be the surest and safest way to attack a target, but if one wants to win the hearts and minds of the locals, "hurling lead" and dropping bombs on villages and cars is probably not the best way. Bombs and missiles cannot see inside houses or know who or what is in them. Neither can the see inside vehicles or know where they are going. Less impersonal methods may take more time and entail higher risks, but the pay off would be better in the long run.
War is a violent business. People get killed and property gets destroyed. When fighting takes place amidst civilians, it is inevitable that civilians will be killed and injured. Nevertheless, we should give them a chance. Civilians can find refuge from small arms fire. If all else fails, they can come out with their hands up. You cannot surrender to missiles and you cannot hide from bombs.
While the death of Iraqi soldiers, policemen, and civilians is "regrettable" to Western military officials, it is tragic to the families of those killed. Moreover, civilian deaths and the destruction of property and livestock do little to endear villagers to the Western troops responsible for those deaths and damage. The death and destruction remain long after the insurgents are dead and soldiers and Marines are gone. Western officials say the civilian casualties cannot be helped when enemy insurgents hide among civilians and ambush troops. But is it necessary to launch a determined military assault on a village because some insurgents are holed up there, or launch an air strike to destroy a car or a handful of men lurking suspiciously beside a road? To the military it is. That is their job. They are trained to assault villages and drop bombs. They are not police. They have artillery, tanks, and aircraft. When a village is bombarded and assaulted by soldiers and Marines, it is near certain that civilians will be harmed and killed and property will be damaged. The Taliban know this. Indeed, they count on it.
In regard to the mistaken air attack, a NATO official stated that "a group of suspected insurgents driving SUVs, believed to be en route to attack a joint Afghan-ISAF unit was engaged by an airborne weapons team." What is disturbing is that there were no Afghan forces operating in the area. Neither was their any record of Afghan soldiers requesting an air attack. Dutch soldiers responsible for the area denied requesting air support. If an air strike had not been called for and there were no reports of Afghan insurgents in the area, let alone insurgents driving SUVs, why would the aircraft take it upon themselves to attack two vehicles driving down a road? Who, besides the pilots, suspected that the occupants of the vehicles were insurgents and believed they were on their way to attack NATO forces?
Despite using technology and adopting measures to limit civilian casualties and property damage, civilians are still dying and property is still being destroyed. Once a village is surrounded, the insurgents have nowhere to go. It becomes a matter of ferreting them out; a task better suited the Army or even the police than the Air Force. If it is a case where only a small number of insurgents are suspected of holding out in a village, or planting a bomb, air strikes should not be needed. Air strikes and machine guns may be the surest and safest way to attack a target, but if one wants to win the hearts and minds of the locals, "hurling lead" and dropping bombs on villages and cars is probably not the best way. Bombs and missiles cannot see inside houses or know who or what is in them. Neither can the see inside vehicles or know where they are going. Less impersonal methods may take more time and entail higher risks, but the pay off would be better in the long run.
War is a violent business. People get killed and property gets destroyed. When fighting takes place amidst civilians, it is inevitable that civilians will be killed and injured. Nevertheless, we should give them a chance. Civilians can find refuge from small arms fire. If all else fails, they can come out with their hands up. You cannot surrender to missiles and you cannot hide from bombs.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Department of Homeland Security and its Guns
It was reported this morning that according to the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, General Richard Skinner, 289 handguns, shotguns, and automatic rifles belonging to the Department had been lost or stolen between 2005 and 2008. The 289 weapons included those left by agents in restrooms, bowling alleys, and fast food restaurants. Some weapons were stolen after they were left in truck beds. Others were lost after the agents left their weapons on their vehicle bumpers as they drove away. In a report, the DHS concluded the obvious when it wrote laconically that the department "through its components did not adequately safeguard and control its firearms."
According to its web site, the Department of Homeland Security's "overriding and urgent mission is to lead a unified national effort to secure the country and preserve its freedoms." One would think that a key to achieving its mission would be to secure its firearms. Nevertheless, the department and its agents didn't fail. It was the "components" that failed. Even then, its "components" did not screw up by losing or misplacing their weapons, they simply performed "inadequately."
Agents and officers are not "components." They are men and women hired and trained to protect us us. An agent leaving his weapon in a restroom or unattended in the bed of his truck is not a component performing its task inadequately, it is an agent demonstrating negligence of the highest order. As someone who was in the Army, it is near incomprehensible to me how someone officially charged with a weapon can misplace it or leave it somewhere. In the Army, if a weapon was lost or misplaced, the repercussions of that incident would be felt all the way up the chain of command to the battalion commander and perhaps beyond. Even an unattended weapon was a grave offense.
We are not talking about the local constabulary. We are talking of trained federal law enforcement officers. The U.S. is not Mayberry. If agent Fife leaves his weapon in a restroom or on the bumper of his truck, he is not to be chuckled at or chided. He should be fired. Moreover, Sheriff Taylor should have to explain himself as well. The loss of 289 weapons indicates a more systemic problem than simply a hand full of poorly trained or negligent officers. At some point, someone has to take responsibility, and it should be the ones responsible for hiring, training, and setting rules for agents. A bland statement in a report issued by an office listing disciplinary actions taken simply serves to minimize the gravity of an issue. A simple recommendation that "tighter rules" by adopted may also be reassuring, but unless someone is held accountable and made responsible, it is likely that bureaucratic inertia and indifference will continue. A professional law enforcement agency, let alone a federal law enforcement agency, should not need tighter rules concerning keeping and storing firearms. Common sense should be enough. A rule against leaving weapons in restrooms and bowling alleys should be an embarrassment.
Blaming components and rules has become common in explaining errors and oversights. It allows blame to be assigned impersonally. But "components" are people. Rules are created by people. They are applied by people and they are followed by people. Moreover, those people are trained to create, apply, and follow those rules. If a system or rule fails or errs, it is not enough to simply reexamine the rules. Systems and rules do not fail on their own. They need help. If a "component" fails, it should be replaced. If enough components fail, the system is flawed and should be overhauled. The human element in creating systems and implementing rules should never be overlooked. Components and rules don't lose shotguns and leave side arms in lavatories. People do.
If tighter rules and better training are needed to keep federal agents from leaving their weapons on truck bumpers or from being left behind in rest rooms, fast food restaurants, and bowling alleys, God help us all.
According to its web site, the Department of Homeland Security's "overriding and urgent mission is to lead a unified national effort to secure the country and preserve its freedoms." One would think that a key to achieving its mission would be to secure its firearms. Nevertheless, the department and its agents didn't fail. It was the "components" that failed. Even then, its "components" did not screw up by losing or misplacing their weapons, they simply performed "inadequately."
Agents and officers are not "components." They are men and women hired and trained to protect us us. An agent leaving his weapon in a restroom or unattended in the bed of his truck is not a component performing its task inadequately, it is an agent demonstrating negligence of the highest order. As someone who was in the Army, it is near incomprehensible to me how someone officially charged with a weapon can misplace it or leave it somewhere. In the Army, if a weapon was lost or misplaced, the repercussions of that incident would be felt all the way up the chain of command to the battalion commander and perhaps beyond. Even an unattended weapon was a grave offense.
We are not talking about the local constabulary. We are talking of trained federal law enforcement officers. The U.S. is not Mayberry. If agent Fife leaves his weapon in a restroom or on the bumper of his truck, he is not to be chuckled at or chided. He should be fired. Moreover, Sheriff Taylor should have to explain himself as well. The loss of 289 weapons indicates a more systemic problem than simply a hand full of poorly trained or negligent officers. At some point, someone has to take responsibility, and it should be the ones responsible for hiring, training, and setting rules for agents. A bland statement in a report issued by an office listing disciplinary actions taken simply serves to minimize the gravity of an issue. A simple recommendation that "tighter rules" by adopted may also be reassuring, but unless someone is held accountable and made responsible, it is likely that bureaucratic inertia and indifference will continue. A professional law enforcement agency, let alone a federal law enforcement agency, should not need tighter rules concerning keeping and storing firearms. Common sense should be enough. A rule against leaving weapons in restrooms and bowling alleys should be an embarrassment.
Blaming components and rules has become common in explaining errors and oversights. It allows blame to be assigned impersonally. But "components" are people. Rules are created by people. They are applied by people and they are followed by people. Moreover, those people are trained to create, apply, and follow those rules. If a system or rule fails or errs, it is not enough to simply reexamine the rules. Systems and rules do not fail on their own. They need help. If a "component" fails, it should be replaced. If enough components fail, the system is flawed and should be overhauled. The human element in creating systems and implementing rules should never be overlooked. Components and rules don't lose shotguns and leave side arms in lavatories. People do.
If tighter rules and better training are needed to keep federal agents from leaving their weapons on truck bumpers or from being left behind in rest rooms, fast food restaurants, and bowling alleys, God help us all.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Knee-Jerkers and Flip Floppers.
"As the Democrat's disregard voters' concerns and attempt to isolate Americans with divisive and partisan rhetoric, we recommend you stay on offense." So reads a memo from the NRSC communications director, Brian Walsh, suggesting campaign strategy for GOP candidates in the fall elections. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued a memo of their own in which they urged Democratic candidates to "frame their opponents early - and drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-style conservatives." Both parties are laboring to prepare "talking points" for their respective candidates. "Do you believe the $787 billion 'stimulus' bill worked?" is a question suggested to GOP candidates. The Democratic memo provided tips to create unrest in GOP camps. It recommends that Democratic candidates "trap" their GOP opponents into committing themselves on "polarizing issues" and using those statements to put their opponents in a corner. This trap would incite conflict and turmoil in the opponents camp and thereby fragment support for the candidate. Ideally, a dreaded "flip-flop" could be produced by provoking a statement conflicting with an earlier position taken by the candidate. Should a "flip-flop" be produced, it should be pounced on immediately and well circulated. The Republicans in turn, are counseled to paint their Democratic opponents as purveyors of the "knee-jerk politics that have kept Washington trapped in political gridlock for decades." The apparatchiks of both parties are staying busy propping up their candidates, making strategy, preparing "talking points", and working to undermine opponents.
It would seem that for many party professionals, it is not enough to nominate good candidates and put forward policies and positions for public consideration. The primary purpose of politics is to win. The preferred method is to traduce. Once victory is in hand, the victors can get on about implementing their agenda. "Partisan parlor games" are to be denounced, yet candidates are urged to "stay on offense" and "trap" their opponents. Certainly, an eye must be kept out for public disenchantment and an ear must be kept open to public opinion. Steps have to be taken to reassure the public that they are involved and have a say in policy. Nevertheless, when it comes down to it, parties are less concerned with the thoughts and opinions of the voter than they are in his vote. They are willing to go to great depths to get that vote.
The public is increasingly viewed as an accomplice to the political ambitions of a party, rather than a partner. The voter is to be lured, tricked, enticed, and cajoled. Better politicians might try to persuade. Very few will listen. Like a pushy car salesman, the parties want to sell the public a car. But they are less interested in what the customer is looking to buy, than what they want to sell. No one runs for office to follow. They run to lead, whether or not it is to a place the public wants to go. As the line between policy and tactics becomes ever more blurred, discourse becomes replaced by slogans and posturing. The public is at risk of becoming little more than a prize to be won or lost in a political contest.
If the parties succeed in their campaign strategy, in the upcoming elections the voters will have to choose, not between Republicans and Democrats, nor between liberals and conservatives. They will have to choose between knee-jerkers and flip floppers. However, in a nation where the highest ranked TV show is Dancing with the Stars, perhaps the parties don't bear all the blame.
It would seem that for many party professionals, it is not enough to nominate good candidates and put forward policies and positions for public consideration. The primary purpose of politics is to win. The preferred method is to traduce. Once victory is in hand, the victors can get on about implementing their agenda. "Partisan parlor games" are to be denounced, yet candidates are urged to "stay on offense" and "trap" their opponents. Certainly, an eye must be kept out for public disenchantment and an ear must be kept open to public opinion. Steps have to be taken to reassure the public that they are involved and have a say in policy. Nevertheless, when it comes down to it, parties are less concerned with the thoughts and opinions of the voter than they are in his vote. They are willing to go to great depths to get that vote.
The public is increasingly viewed as an accomplice to the political ambitions of a party, rather than a partner. The voter is to be lured, tricked, enticed, and cajoled. Better politicians might try to persuade. Very few will listen. Like a pushy car salesman, the parties want to sell the public a car. But they are less interested in what the customer is looking to buy, than what they want to sell. No one runs for office to follow. They run to lead, whether or not it is to a place the public wants to go. As the line between policy and tactics becomes ever more blurred, discourse becomes replaced by slogans and posturing. The public is at risk of becoming little more than a prize to be won or lost in a political contest.
If the parties succeed in their campaign strategy, in the upcoming elections the voters will have to choose, not between Republicans and Democrats, nor between liberals and conservatives. They will have to choose between knee-jerkers and flip floppers. However, in a nation where the highest ranked TV show is Dancing with the Stars, perhaps the parties don't bear all the blame.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Problem With Whites.
Yesterday, the Democratic candidate for governor in Texas, Farouk Shami, stated that "Hispanic labor is essential to the Texas economy." To the extent Texas relies upon cheap labor, he is right. Nevertheless, given the contentious nature of debate over immigration, particularly in a state like Texas, perhaps that was not a statement someone running for governor of Texas should make. It is true that without immigrant labor, illegal immigrant labor in particular, many products and services would become more expensive. It is not just that business parks, homeowners and golf courses would have to pay more to keep their lawns manicured. It would affect all Texans. For example, it would cost the state more money to maintain roads if the companies they contracted with could not rely on immigrants (legal and otherwise) to pour asphalt and lay drainage pipe in the blistering Texas sun for minimal wages.
It is argued that many homes and apartment complexes might not be built if paying minimal wages to the construction workers could not be relied upon. Those that would be built would require using cheaper material in the absence of cheap labor. (Often, cheaper materials are used even in the presence of cheap labor). Years ago, when I worked construction and built houses, there was an abundance of white workers to be found. This was because the pay was good. Once some companies decided to increase profits by lowering costs, not only were cheaper materials sought, but cheaper labor as well. Once one company did so, the other companies were obliged to do so to stay competitive. It was not long until cheap material and immigrant labor were found at nearly every building site. Many workers making $10 to $15 an hour were replaced my immigrants making $5. The houses built were of inferior quality with inferior material. Homeowners were able to acquire a house cheap, but that was because it was a cheap house. Nearly every step taken to reduce the costs of those houses became apparent to the homeowner in a few years. The houses may have been affordable, but they were not very good.
Many roads would not be built or paved without cheap labor. Even the state relies upon the cheap labor supplied by contractors who use immigrants. Immigrant labor, illegal or otherwise, is cheap because it is abundant. If a laborer refuses a job because he feels the pay is insufficient, another will gladly take it. And therein lies the problem. Many whites, and others for that matter, will not pour asphalt, mow golf courses, build houses, or generally do any other laborious or unpleasant task for the wages that are usually offered. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants will. A business that needs, or wants cheap labor can find it. There is absolutely no incentive to pay workers more. Wages stay low. Immigrants stay employed. Products and services stay affordable. Everyone wins. Well, not everyone.
The downward pressure immigration puts on wages may keep prices low, but it also keeps wages low. It also keeps people unemployed and poor that would not be so otherwise. When some whites refuse a job, objecting to the paltry wages they are being offered, they are often characterized as haughty, lazy, or pampered. To the people who object at being asked to pour asphalt, work construction, or toil in factories for near poverty wages, an employer can simply mention that if they are unwilling to do the work for the wages offered, he can easily find someone who will. The person he will find will likely be an immigrant. It is not unlikely the immigrant he finds will be an illegal immigrant.
Against the benefit to the economy that cheap labor offers is set the unemployment and poverty caused by that cheap labor. "Cheap labor" is simply another way of saying low wages. One benefit of cheap labor is cheap products and cheap services. The other benefit is higher profits. There would seem to be a cycle at work. Cheap pay leads to low income. Low income demands cheap products and services. In order to produce cheap products and provide cheap services, one must pay low wages. Competition serves to keep the cycle going.
If many whites will not accept wearisome and unpleasant jobs under the wages and conditions offered, it is likely because they are just not desperate enough. It was the desperation of the characters in the novels of Dickens that led them to lives toiling at the miserable jobs under the horrible conditions for the paltry wages that they did. It is the desperation of immigrants that lead them to accept the jobs and wages they do. As a very successful business owner, Shami is no doubt familiar with how demanding and selfish workers can be. Especially the white ones.
Shami continued his blundering when he stated that "You don't find white people who are willing to work in factories." Curiously, back in the day when people could earn good money working in factories you could find many whites working in them and many more who wanted to. Maybe many white workers just haven't become desperate enough or are too slow in abandoning their hopes and sense of pride to take difficult and menial jobs at the wages offered. Maybe when they become desperate enough and their pride is broken they will once again be competitive. Until then, white workers will be scorned by "business men" like Shami for their haughty and pampered ways.
Many suffer when wages are kept low, not just the workers. Households suffer when they struggle to meet their needs. Consumers suffer because the quality of products and services decline. Business suffers because their markets are truncated. Communities suffer because their residents frequently require more services than they can pay for. But businessmen like Shami not only thrive, they get rich. It is not good policy to chastise a large sector of the electorate for wanting more for their labor. It may be good business to keep costs down and wages low, but unless the benefits of good business are spread around, it is not really good business at all. Certainly not for workers. Moreover, it is bad politics.
It is not that Americans, white or otherwise, are lazy or effete. It is not difficult to find Americans willing to work in factories, pave roads or shingle roofs. But it is difficult to find Americans willing to do those things for $5.00 an hour. That is the problem.
It is argued that many homes and apartment complexes might not be built if paying minimal wages to the construction workers could not be relied upon. Those that would be built would require using cheaper material in the absence of cheap labor. (Often, cheaper materials are used even in the presence of cheap labor). Years ago, when I worked construction and built houses, there was an abundance of white workers to be found. This was because the pay was good. Once some companies decided to increase profits by lowering costs, not only were cheaper materials sought, but cheaper labor as well. Once one company did so, the other companies were obliged to do so to stay competitive. It was not long until cheap material and immigrant labor were found at nearly every building site. Many workers making $10 to $15 an hour were replaced my immigrants making $5. The houses built were of inferior quality with inferior material. Homeowners were able to acquire a house cheap, but that was because it was a cheap house. Nearly every step taken to reduce the costs of those houses became apparent to the homeowner in a few years. The houses may have been affordable, but they were not very good.
Many roads would not be built or paved without cheap labor. Even the state relies upon the cheap labor supplied by contractors who use immigrants. Immigrant labor, illegal or otherwise, is cheap because it is abundant. If a laborer refuses a job because he feels the pay is insufficient, another will gladly take it. And therein lies the problem. Many whites, and others for that matter, will not pour asphalt, mow golf courses, build houses, or generally do any other laborious or unpleasant task for the wages that are usually offered. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants will. A business that needs, or wants cheap labor can find it. There is absolutely no incentive to pay workers more. Wages stay low. Immigrants stay employed. Products and services stay affordable. Everyone wins. Well, not everyone.
The downward pressure immigration puts on wages may keep prices low, but it also keeps wages low. It also keeps people unemployed and poor that would not be so otherwise. When some whites refuse a job, objecting to the paltry wages they are being offered, they are often characterized as haughty, lazy, or pampered. To the people who object at being asked to pour asphalt, work construction, or toil in factories for near poverty wages, an employer can simply mention that if they are unwilling to do the work for the wages offered, he can easily find someone who will. The person he will find will likely be an immigrant. It is not unlikely the immigrant he finds will be an illegal immigrant.
Against the benefit to the economy that cheap labor offers is set the unemployment and poverty caused by that cheap labor. "Cheap labor" is simply another way of saying low wages. One benefit of cheap labor is cheap products and cheap services. The other benefit is higher profits. There would seem to be a cycle at work. Cheap pay leads to low income. Low income demands cheap products and services. In order to produce cheap products and provide cheap services, one must pay low wages. Competition serves to keep the cycle going.
If many whites will not accept wearisome and unpleasant jobs under the wages and conditions offered, it is likely because they are just not desperate enough. It was the desperation of the characters in the novels of Dickens that led them to lives toiling at the miserable jobs under the horrible conditions for the paltry wages that they did. It is the desperation of immigrants that lead them to accept the jobs and wages they do. As a very successful business owner, Shami is no doubt familiar with how demanding and selfish workers can be. Especially the white ones.
Shami continued his blundering when he stated that "You don't find white people who are willing to work in factories." Curiously, back in the day when people could earn good money working in factories you could find many whites working in them and many more who wanted to. Maybe many white workers just haven't become desperate enough or are too slow in abandoning their hopes and sense of pride to take difficult and menial jobs at the wages offered. Maybe when they become desperate enough and their pride is broken they will once again be competitive. Until then, white workers will be scorned by "business men" like Shami for their haughty and pampered ways.
Many suffer when wages are kept low, not just the workers. Households suffer when they struggle to meet their needs. Consumers suffer because the quality of products and services decline. Business suffers because their markets are truncated. Communities suffer because their residents frequently require more services than they can pay for. But businessmen like Shami not only thrive, they get rich. It is not good policy to chastise a large sector of the electorate for wanting more for their labor. It may be good business to keep costs down and wages low, but unless the benefits of good business are spread around, it is not really good business at all. Certainly not for workers. Moreover, it is bad politics.
It is not that Americans, white or otherwise, are lazy or effete. It is not difficult to find Americans willing to work in factories, pave roads or shingle roofs. But it is difficult to find Americans willing to do those things for $5.00 an hour. That is the problem.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Fighting Obesity With the Government's Help.
First Lady Michelle Obama recently gave a speech on the need to fight childhood obesity. To soften, or perhaps hide the politics of her speech, she told the audience she was addressing them not simply as the first lady, but as a mother and as a wife. To underline the point, she noted the difficulties she and her family had eating right on the campaign trail. She even mentioned how she was "shocked" when she noticed that her children had put on a "few pounds". It was this disturbing observation that contributed to her commitment to launch a campaign against childhood obesity.
Throughout her speech, the First Lady stressed how obesity among children is not simply a personal or familial issue. Neither is it a local or state issue. It is a national one. It is necessary for obesity to be a national one if the federal involvement is to get involved in the eating and exercise habits of America's children. The veneer of limited government must be preserved. Her calm, measured tone and her personal anecdotes of fighting the battle of childhood obesity gave the speech a feeling of deep sincerity. Her "shock" at finding that her own children had gained weight while on the campaign trail made the issue personal. She felt shocked because she believed she was a good mother and that she was "doing what I was supposed to do." The experience of discovering her children had gained weight was "disorienting." If childhood obesity can sneak up on the first family, how much more sinister a problem is it with the nation at large?
Her bona fides established, she went on to list a series of alarming statistics associated with the rise in childhood obesity as well engaging in economic casuistry by noting the costs associated with it due to lost work, the greater occurrence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and other afflictions that affect the overweight. She stated that her husband's administration will join the private sector in combating the rise in childhood obesity. It should be pointed out that the government joins nothing. Like the Mafia, once the government becomes a partner in something, it becomes the government's.
Because she came at the problem as a mother, not a politician, any implication that her speech had a political agenda was blunted. Being a concerned mother is not a partisan position. Everyone is this together, from the First Lady on down. Secondly, it is much more problematic to be critical of a caring and loving parent who is only trying to help than a politician proposing policy. Yet, despite her soothing and sincere tone, she was proposing policy. Once her credentials were established, she laid out a list of programs she and her husband were pursuing to address the problem: and the list was a long one. From increasing physical activities in school to increasing the number of farmers markets, it was clear a lot of thought had been given to the issue. I can only presume the government will create farmers markets by giving tax breaks. I would hope that Obama is not considering opening a government franchise but, given his disdain for the free market and his appetite for government expansion, it cannot be ruled out.
The First Lady's speech was not simply a response to an alarming report or the realization that her family had put on a few pounds. It was a postion that had been given a lot of thought. Celebrities have been lined up to make speeches and commercials. Task forces have been established and policies prepared to offer support and guidance to schools. The FDA will work with food retailers to revise food labels so as to help parents make "healthy choices" in the supermarkets, as if the government and labels are needed to tell people that macaroni and cheese, ice cream, Twinkies, and soda pop will make you fat.
The creation of the FDA task force is perhaps the most disturbing thing of all. Implicit in the need for a task force to be formed is the notion that Americans are incapable of addressing the issue on their own. The plots of the fast food industry and the merchants of sloth are simply too seductive and too wily to be discovered and resisted by the average individual. The secrets of eating in moderation and exercising are too well kept to be stumbled upon. But the sinister machinations of the food industry are only part of the problem. The torpor of the American public must be overcome as well. It is believed that many Americans will only get off the couch and stay out of the ice cream section at the grocery store if the government makes them.
Of special irritation to those who seek to help the public shape up and lose weight are the many adults and children who know they are overweight and don't care. Their disinterest in their appearance and improving themselves is a bewilderment to the vain and self absorbed. They are the ones who would buy Twinkies no matter how largely or how prominently the number of calories or percentage of fat is printed on the box. They are the ones who, if they are to be helped, must be compelled or reeducated to change their ways. So compel and reeducate them the government will, especially if they do not want help or do not care that they are obese. They must be helped lest they grow ever in size and number to the point where they threaten to undermine the economy and bankrupt the nation.
The obesity problem in the U.S. we are told has become too large and too dangerous for anyone but the federal government to address. Parents have proven unable to prevent or reduce their own, or their children's size or weight. State and local governments have been ineffectual in their attempts to limit the girth of their citizens. Without the federal government's help, many will be condemned to obesity, illness, and early death. Perhaps most tragically, those people will have suffered and died needlessly. If only they had known that being overweight was unhealthy and that there were ways to avoid obesity, their fate would have been different. Only if the government is allowed to help, will people no longer be condemned to live their lives being unhealthy and obese. A solution is finally at hand, but only if counterrevolutionaries and the merchants of sloth and gluttony can be kept from hiding it.
According to modern liberalism, every overweight child is society's problem. Society's problems are the government's problems. Anyone with doubts concerning the motives or sincerity behind the desire for government involvement in the struggle against childhood obesity, need only look to the First Lady. She is a mother fighting the same struggle against childhood obesity as every other. If she thinks the government can help, who are we to doubt her?
Throughout her speech, the First Lady stressed how obesity among children is not simply a personal or familial issue. Neither is it a local or state issue. It is a national one. It is necessary for obesity to be a national one if the federal involvement is to get involved in the eating and exercise habits of America's children. The veneer of limited government must be preserved. Her calm, measured tone and her personal anecdotes of fighting the battle of childhood obesity gave the speech a feeling of deep sincerity. Her "shock" at finding that her own children had gained weight while on the campaign trail made the issue personal. She felt shocked because she believed she was a good mother and that she was "doing what I was supposed to do." The experience of discovering her children had gained weight was "disorienting." If childhood obesity can sneak up on the first family, how much more sinister a problem is it with the nation at large?
Her bona fides established, she went on to list a series of alarming statistics associated with the rise in childhood obesity as well engaging in economic casuistry by noting the costs associated with it due to lost work, the greater occurrence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and other afflictions that affect the overweight. She stated that her husband's administration will join the private sector in combating the rise in childhood obesity. It should be pointed out that the government joins nothing. Like the Mafia, once the government becomes a partner in something, it becomes the government's.
Because she came at the problem as a mother, not a politician, any implication that her speech had a political agenda was blunted. Being a concerned mother is not a partisan position. Everyone is this together, from the First Lady on down. Secondly, it is much more problematic to be critical of a caring and loving parent who is only trying to help than a politician proposing policy. Yet, despite her soothing and sincere tone, she was proposing policy. Once her credentials were established, she laid out a list of programs she and her husband were pursuing to address the problem: and the list was a long one. From increasing physical activities in school to increasing the number of farmers markets, it was clear a lot of thought had been given to the issue. I can only presume the government will create farmers markets by giving tax breaks. I would hope that Obama is not considering opening a government franchise but, given his disdain for the free market and his appetite for government expansion, it cannot be ruled out.
The First Lady's speech was not simply a response to an alarming report or the realization that her family had put on a few pounds. It was a postion that had been given a lot of thought. Celebrities have been lined up to make speeches and commercials. Task forces have been established and policies prepared to offer support and guidance to schools. The FDA will work with food retailers to revise food labels so as to help parents make "healthy choices" in the supermarkets, as if the government and labels are needed to tell people that macaroni and cheese, ice cream, Twinkies, and soda pop will make you fat.
The creation of the FDA task force is perhaps the most disturbing thing of all. Implicit in the need for a task force to be formed is the notion that Americans are incapable of addressing the issue on their own. The plots of the fast food industry and the merchants of sloth are simply too seductive and too wily to be discovered and resisted by the average individual. The secrets of eating in moderation and exercising are too well kept to be stumbled upon. But the sinister machinations of the food industry are only part of the problem. The torpor of the American public must be overcome as well. It is believed that many Americans will only get off the couch and stay out of the ice cream section at the grocery store if the government makes them.
Of special irritation to those who seek to help the public shape up and lose weight are the many adults and children who know they are overweight and don't care. Their disinterest in their appearance and improving themselves is a bewilderment to the vain and self absorbed. They are the ones who would buy Twinkies no matter how largely or how prominently the number of calories or percentage of fat is printed on the box. They are the ones who, if they are to be helped, must be compelled or reeducated to change their ways. So compel and reeducate them the government will, especially if they do not want help or do not care that they are obese. They must be helped lest they grow ever in size and number to the point where they threaten to undermine the economy and bankrupt the nation.
The obesity problem in the U.S. we are told has become too large and too dangerous for anyone but the federal government to address. Parents have proven unable to prevent or reduce their own, or their children's size or weight. State and local governments have been ineffectual in their attempts to limit the girth of their citizens. Without the federal government's help, many will be condemned to obesity, illness, and early death. Perhaps most tragically, those people will have suffered and died needlessly. If only they had known that being overweight was unhealthy and that there were ways to avoid obesity, their fate would have been different. Only if the government is allowed to help, will people no longer be condemned to live their lives being unhealthy and obese. A solution is finally at hand, but only if counterrevolutionaries and the merchants of sloth and gluttony can be kept from hiding it.
According to modern liberalism, every overweight child is society's problem. Society's problems are the government's problems. Anyone with doubts concerning the motives or sincerity behind the desire for government involvement in the struggle against childhood obesity, need only look to the First Lady. She is a mother fighting the same struggle against childhood obesity as every other. If she thinks the government can help, who are we to doubt her?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Why Would He Even Run?
Recently, Scott Lee Cohen was nominated as the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor in Illinois. Last night, less than a week after his nomination, he dropped out of the race. The reason he dropped out of the race is because it was recently revealed that he had been accused of abusing his wife. Not only that, but it was also revealed that an ex-girlfriend of his was a prostitute. Not only that, he was accused of threatening his ex-girlfriend and holding a knife to her throat. Not only that, he admits to using steroids. The steroids might help explain some the allegations against him.
The question should not be why he dropped out of the race. The question should be why did he even think of running in the first place. Society has become rather lax in its insistence on the moral rectitude of those who would hold public office. Infidelity is certainly no longer the obstacle it once was. Using steroids and even visiting a prostitute these days are things a politician might try to explain. But abusing your wife and holding a knife to your ex girlfriend's throat, (even if that ex girlfriend used to be a prostitute) are thankfully things still out of bounds. Perhaps Cohen was just pushing the envelope. I hope not. It would be depressing to think that Cohen was simply ahead of the curve.
Cohen might have just thought no one would ever find out. If so, that was his biggest mistake. That blunder alone should render him unfit for public office.
The question should not be why he dropped out of the race. The question should be why did he even think of running in the first place. Society has become rather lax in its insistence on the moral rectitude of those who would hold public office. Infidelity is certainly no longer the obstacle it once was. Using steroids and even visiting a prostitute these days are things a politician might try to explain. But abusing your wife and holding a knife to your ex girlfriend's throat, (even if that ex girlfriend used to be a prostitute) are thankfully things still out of bounds. Perhaps Cohen was just pushing the envelope. I hope not. It would be depressing to think that Cohen was simply ahead of the curve.
Cohen might have just thought no one would ever find out. If so, that was his biggest mistake. That blunder alone should render him unfit for public office.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Weight of Gold.
In an editorial in Friday's Dallas Morning News, Barbara B. Johnson lays out the sometimes unhappy plight of rich children by noting how affluence can "cheat" children. She cites Madeline Levine's book, The Price of Privilege which chronicles the difficulties rich children sometimes face in growing up. At the top of the list is the "toxic brew" of pressure parents of rich kids often place on their children to to succeed academically and socially and earn admission to prestigious universities. The success and competitive nature of wealthy parents is cited next as a cause of many of the problems besetting rich children. Successful parents expect to have successful children and so they set high goals for them and urge ambition and pressure them to excel. Johnson argues that the high expectations of wealthy parents lead them to put pressure on their children to also achieve success, both inside and outside the classroom. That pressure in turn is a cause for stress because the children feel compelled to succeed. The stress can be even more burdensome when the child's definition of success is not the one being urged by their parents. If high expectations are a cause of stress, our public schools should be filled with content and relaxed children since little pressure is put on them to succeed. The pressure to succeed is most acutely felt by those who are urged or expected to succeed.
The pressure to become a doctor is only a burden to the child who expects, or is expected to become a doctor. The stress felt by wealthy children can also be the result of a conflict between their ambitions and that of their parents. The child whose ambition is to be an artist will be frustrated by parents who insist she become a corporate attorney. There is also the pressure of competing against one's peers. But this is self inflicted pressure borne of competitiveness and ego: two traits seen as admirable by many. It is self inflicted when the desire to succeed in achieving one's goal is eclipsed by the desire to match or exceed the accomplishments of others. When the desire to be a successful architect becomes exceeded by the desire to be the best architect, or at least better than others, pressure and stress to succeed grow significantly. That is why stress can be a self inflicted phenomenon. Where there is little or no desire or expectation to succeed or achieve, there is little disappointment. No doubt this is why the poor are so content.
Johnson next criticises ambition and wealth as inhibiting the satisfaction in the "internal success" that comes from trying one's best. There is something to this. Napoleon probably took no satisfaction in his many victories after he was finally defeated. Given Napoleon's ambition and vanity, giving his best was likely of little satisfaction or solace. His ultimate defeat likely was more keenly felt than all his victories. The greater the ambition and expectation to succeed, the more bitter the failure. Since wealthy children tend to have higher expectations of success and greater ambition, failure to achieve their goal can be more painful and sharply felt, even if their failures are by degree. Having lofty goals is not all it is cracked up to be.
Taking satisfaction in an earnest attempt in the face of failure is a rare and difficult thing to achieve, particularly in a culture which emphasizes victory and success. To many, "at least you gave it your best shot" is simply a phrase used to console those who do not win. The disappointment that comes with failure is no less common among the poor than it is with the wealthy, and, if it is, it is more likely due to the tendency of poor children to set low goals for themselves and have low expectations of achieving them. When the goals and expectations are high, the failure of the poor child who fails in her ambition to get into law school is likely just as disappointing as that of the rich child who fails to get in. The low expectations placed on poor children and, not uncommonly, working and middle class children, to succeed is a significant factor in the reduced stress felt by them. If less fortunate children do not suffer the stress and feel the pressure that rich children do, it is because they are not as expected to succeed or urged to excel, and so their failure to succeed or excel is less likely to be viewed as a failure, than circumstance.
Contentment in a simple, austere, and humble life has long been a staple in fiction and in Hollywood. But, when it does occur in real life, it only occurs among the simple, the austere and the humble. In a culture as preoccupied with vanity, success, and acquisition as ours, simplicity, austerity, and humility, are things more spoken of than pursued. And, when they are spoken of, they are almost always spoken of nostalgically or in the context of "society" and very rarely a sincere goal of whomever is advocating it. When Mother Teresa or Gandhi spoke of simplicity and austerity, they were speaking from experience and wisdom. When an editorialist writes of it, it should be read with skepticism.
When Henry V spoke wistfully about the simple, uncluttered life of the peasant, he was speaking romantically with no intention of ever living such a life or any experience of ever truly having to live one. His fond memories of his youthful experiences living among the common man were borne more from nostalgia than longing. The burden of wealth and power, though heavy, was a burden he felt he had to bear. Along with the castles, privileges, and perks of his position, King Henry was willing to bear the heavy burden and stress of being powerful and rich. Indeed, he was even nobler for his resignation to live the life of a king. Shakespeare no doubt wrote this with an eye towards his patrons as well as to dampen envy and encourage sympathy for the powerful and positioned by pointing out that a life of wealth and position was not all play and no work. It was a heavy burden to be borne nobly. The powerful and the rich are to be pitied, not envied.
The wealthy and powerful sometimes sigh at the difficulties and complexities they face and the burdens they have to bear. But if the stress of success and wealth and the pressure to achieve and maintain them ever become unbearable to the wealthy, they can always quit their jobs, get rid of their wealth, and lower their expectations. And if wealthy kids ever get overwhelmed by the pressure put on them to succeed, they can always quit school or drop out of college and get a job at Walmart and live lives free of stress. And, if their parents really loved them, they would not put pressure them to reconsider, but encourage them in their new career. Nothing is keeping Johnson from pruning her responsibilities or jettisoning her possessions to take up a simpler, less stressful life.
Having grown up with kids and families in poverty, and kids and families that were affluent, I find it difficult to share Johnson's sympathy for wealthy kids and their troubles. If some people think that growing up wealthy can be difficult, they should try poverty. It may be hard to run with the weight of gold but it is just as hard to run with the weight of lead. All things considered, most people would prefer the weight of gold to the weight of lead.
The pressure to become a doctor is only a burden to the child who expects, or is expected to become a doctor. The stress felt by wealthy children can also be the result of a conflict between their ambitions and that of their parents. The child whose ambition is to be an artist will be frustrated by parents who insist she become a corporate attorney. There is also the pressure of competing against one's peers. But this is self inflicted pressure borne of competitiveness and ego: two traits seen as admirable by many. It is self inflicted when the desire to succeed in achieving one's goal is eclipsed by the desire to match or exceed the accomplishments of others. When the desire to be a successful architect becomes exceeded by the desire to be the best architect, or at least better than others, pressure and stress to succeed grow significantly. That is why stress can be a self inflicted phenomenon. Where there is little or no desire or expectation to succeed or achieve, there is little disappointment. No doubt this is why the poor are so content.
Johnson next criticises ambition and wealth as inhibiting the satisfaction in the "internal success" that comes from trying one's best. There is something to this. Napoleon probably took no satisfaction in his many victories after he was finally defeated. Given Napoleon's ambition and vanity, giving his best was likely of little satisfaction or solace. His ultimate defeat likely was more keenly felt than all his victories. The greater the ambition and expectation to succeed, the more bitter the failure. Since wealthy children tend to have higher expectations of success and greater ambition, failure to achieve their goal can be more painful and sharply felt, even if their failures are by degree. Having lofty goals is not all it is cracked up to be.
Taking satisfaction in an earnest attempt in the face of failure is a rare and difficult thing to achieve, particularly in a culture which emphasizes victory and success. To many, "at least you gave it your best shot" is simply a phrase used to console those who do not win. The disappointment that comes with failure is no less common among the poor than it is with the wealthy, and, if it is, it is more likely due to the tendency of poor children to set low goals for themselves and have low expectations of achieving them. When the goals and expectations are high, the failure of the poor child who fails in her ambition to get into law school is likely just as disappointing as that of the rich child who fails to get in. The low expectations placed on poor children and, not uncommonly, working and middle class children, to succeed is a significant factor in the reduced stress felt by them. If less fortunate children do not suffer the stress and feel the pressure that rich children do, it is because they are not as expected to succeed or urged to excel, and so their failure to succeed or excel is less likely to be viewed as a failure, than circumstance.
Contentment in a simple, austere, and humble life has long been a staple in fiction and in Hollywood. But, when it does occur in real life, it only occurs among the simple, the austere and the humble. In a culture as preoccupied with vanity, success, and acquisition as ours, simplicity, austerity, and humility, are things more spoken of than pursued. And, when they are spoken of, they are almost always spoken of nostalgically or in the context of "society" and very rarely a sincere goal of whomever is advocating it. When Mother Teresa or Gandhi spoke of simplicity and austerity, they were speaking from experience and wisdom. When an editorialist writes of it, it should be read with skepticism.
When Henry V spoke wistfully about the simple, uncluttered life of the peasant, he was speaking romantically with no intention of ever living such a life or any experience of ever truly having to live one. His fond memories of his youthful experiences living among the common man were borne more from nostalgia than longing. The burden of wealth and power, though heavy, was a burden he felt he had to bear. Along with the castles, privileges, and perks of his position, King Henry was willing to bear the heavy burden and stress of being powerful and rich. Indeed, he was even nobler for his resignation to live the life of a king. Shakespeare no doubt wrote this with an eye towards his patrons as well as to dampen envy and encourage sympathy for the powerful and positioned by pointing out that a life of wealth and position was not all play and no work. It was a heavy burden to be borne nobly. The powerful and the rich are to be pitied, not envied.
The wealthy and powerful sometimes sigh at the difficulties and complexities they face and the burdens they have to bear. But if the stress of success and wealth and the pressure to achieve and maintain them ever become unbearable to the wealthy, they can always quit their jobs, get rid of their wealth, and lower their expectations. And if wealthy kids ever get overwhelmed by the pressure put on them to succeed, they can always quit school or drop out of college and get a job at Walmart and live lives free of stress. And, if their parents really loved them, they would not put pressure them to reconsider, but encourage them in their new career. Nothing is keeping Johnson from pruning her responsibilities or jettisoning her possessions to take up a simpler, less stressful life.
Having grown up with kids and families in poverty, and kids and families that were affluent, I find it difficult to share Johnson's sympathy for wealthy kids and their troubles. If some people think that growing up wealthy can be difficult, they should try poverty. It may be hard to run with the weight of gold but it is just as hard to run with the weight of lead. All things considered, most people would prefer the weight of gold to the weight of lead.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Sound Fiscal Advice
Obama's proposed $3.5 trillion budget is claimed will cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. However, the budget proposed by the administration for 2010 is projected by some to come up $1.7 trillion short. The national debt is predicted to rise to just over $14 trillion by the end of the year. Adding another trillion plus dollars in red ink is a peculiar way to go about cutting the deficit. The projected deficit is an amount just slightly over the nearly $1.7 trillion spent last year to "stabilize" and "stimulate" the economy.
The numbers estimated to be saved by Obama's "scouring" so far barely register in budget calculations. Perhaps Obama is counting on an economic recovery of historic proportions as well as the savings from not having to bail out the financial industry or the stabilize the economy again. I would hope this is the case. Obama's stated goal to scour $2 trillion in six years from a $3 trillion annual budget is something easier promised than delivered, particularly from an administration as ambitious and idealistic as his. Despite the administration's forecast of deficit reductions, the federal government is on course to add at least $8.5 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years according to CNNMoney.com. Whatever the case, even in the unlikely event Obama delivers on his promise, you can bet that $2 trillion in budget savings will be spent, not put in the bank, and so not really saved at all.
Naturally, Obama blames the Republicans for the budget woes. The economy is a mess because of the poor management, excessive spending, and lack of oversight by the Bush administration as well as its wars in the Middle East: two wars that Obama, despite his rhetoric, is pursuing with vigor. The mess must have been considerable since two years into his administration, Obama has yet to make any significant headway into cleaning it up. Indeed, the mess has gotten worse. Despite his criticism of the Bush administration's reckless spending, Obama plans to go even deeper into debt and unleash a blizzard of still more spending and regulation. He will try to keep a veneer of fiscal responsibility by proposing tax increases on the wealthy (the usual suspects), and imposing "financial responsibility fees" on the banks. Meanwhile, he wrestles with the economy, proposing multifarious incentives and "fees" and promising new regulations and restraints. He seems willing to try anything. Anything that is but significantly cutting the budget or limiting his plans and ambitions to increase the size and role of government to accommodate reality.
It is estimated that the national debt will increase 31.6% by the end of the Obama administration, dwarfing the %12.2 rise under the Bush administration. Some figures indicate that at the rate Obama is spending, by the end of his first term the national debt will be 100.8 percent of the U.S.'s GDP. Even if that figure turns out to be exaggerated, the percentage of increase should mortify us. Still, even amidst all the financial woes and alarming predictions and statistics, Obama has still not given up on his plan for national health care or expanded government. He wants his place in history, no matter how much it costs or who has to pay for it.
Determined to keep himself and his party afloat in the eyes of the public, Obama continues to flail away at the economy, spending vast amounts of money and making bold promises. Recently, Obama gave a speech at a high school in Nashua, N.H. In it, he lectured his audience on the need for fiscal responsibility in difficult economic times. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage" he told them. Sound advice. Now if only Obama would only heed it.
The numbers estimated to be saved by Obama's "scouring" so far barely register in budget calculations. Perhaps Obama is counting on an economic recovery of historic proportions as well as the savings from not having to bail out the financial industry or the stabilize the economy again. I would hope this is the case. Obama's stated goal to scour $2 trillion in six years from a $3 trillion annual budget is something easier promised than delivered, particularly from an administration as ambitious and idealistic as his. Despite the administration's forecast of deficit reductions, the federal government is on course to add at least $8.5 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years according to CNNMoney.com. Whatever the case, even in the unlikely event Obama delivers on his promise, you can bet that $2 trillion in budget savings will be spent, not put in the bank, and so not really saved at all.
Naturally, Obama blames the Republicans for the budget woes. The economy is a mess because of the poor management, excessive spending, and lack of oversight by the Bush administration as well as its wars in the Middle East: two wars that Obama, despite his rhetoric, is pursuing with vigor. The mess must have been considerable since two years into his administration, Obama has yet to make any significant headway into cleaning it up. Indeed, the mess has gotten worse. Despite his criticism of the Bush administration's reckless spending, Obama plans to go even deeper into debt and unleash a blizzard of still more spending and regulation. He will try to keep a veneer of fiscal responsibility by proposing tax increases on the wealthy (the usual suspects), and imposing "financial responsibility fees" on the banks. Meanwhile, he wrestles with the economy, proposing multifarious incentives and "fees" and promising new regulations and restraints. He seems willing to try anything. Anything that is but significantly cutting the budget or limiting his plans and ambitions to increase the size and role of government to accommodate reality.
It is estimated that the national debt will increase 31.6% by the end of the Obama administration, dwarfing the %12.2 rise under the Bush administration. Some figures indicate that at the rate Obama is spending, by the end of his first term the national debt will be 100.8 percent of the U.S.'s GDP. Even if that figure turns out to be exaggerated, the percentage of increase should mortify us. Still, even amidst all the financial woes and alarming predictions and statistics, Obama has still not given up on his plan for national health care or expanded government. He wants his place in history, no matter how much it costs or who has to pay for it.
Determined to keep himself and his party afloat in the eyes of the public, Obama continues to flail away at the economy, spending vast amounts of money and making bold promises. Recently, Obama gave a speech at a high school in Nashua, N.H. In it, he lectured his audience on the need for fiscal responsibility in difficult economic times. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage" he told them. Sound advice. Now if only Obama would only heed it.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Show Trial
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the accused terrorist mastermind behind the September 11th attack, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death yesterday by the President of the United States. President Obama declared that Mohammed will "likely be executed for the crimes he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans." Actually, Obama added with gravity that Mohammed's execution is more than just likely. It is certain. "That you can be sure of" we were promised. Among the details that remain to be worked out are where Mohammed's trial will be held and the length of the trial before his conviction and death sentence are formally pronounced. Other details concerning the date, site, and method of Mohammed's execution are still being discussed. The process should not be a long one. While safety and costs are factors in deciding where to hold the trial, New York is the preferred site because it is locus of the crime and a trial there is assured to have the greatest political significance. Wherever it is ultimately held, the trial to formalize the verdict and document the crime will begin later this year.
Once the trial begins, "justice will be swift" the president said. Not too swift though. The trial must be long enough to ensure maximum political effect. To this end, it was decided to forgo military trials for the "accused." With the verdict assured, a civilian trial can be risked. The benefit of holding a civilian trail is it will bestow a veneer of objectivity to the conviction and ultimate execution of the criminals and allow a public record of the atrocities committed by Mohammed. As importantly, it will also permit the participation of the public in the catharsis of convicting, sentencing, and executing him. To increase the political drama, the trial will commence on the anniversary of the attack. With Obama's declaration of Mohammed's guilt, and the sentence already in place, everything has been prepared for Mohammed's show trial to begin. It is expected other trials will soon follow.
I have not met Mohamed nor have I seen or heard all the evidence against him, or for that matter, any the other convicted "terrorists" in custody. But I do have the government's assertion that they are all guilty. I suppose that should be good enough. Any possible doubt or trepidation I, or any others might have regarding the guilt of Khalid or the others in custody should be erased by the spectacle of their trial and the indignation of the prosecution. By the end of the trial, it is likely I too will be thirsting for Khalid's blood and professing renewed admiration, gratitude, and loyalty to the state as well as a reinvigorated hatred for its enemies. That is the real motivation behind holding a show trial after all.
Once the trial begins, "justice will be swift" the president said. Not too swift though. The trial must be long enough to ensure maximum political effect. To this end, it was decided to forgo military trials for the "accused." With the verdict assured, a civilian trial can be risked. The benefit of holding a civilian trail is it will bestow a veneer of objectivity to the conviction and ultimate execution of the criminals and allow a public record of the atrocities committed by Mohammed. As importantly, it will also permit the participation of the public in the catharsis of convicting, sentencing, and executing him. To increase the political drama, the trial will commence on the anniversary of the attack. With Obama's declaration of Mohammed's guilt, and the sentence already in place, everything has been prepared for Mohammed's show trial to begin. It is expected other trials will soon follow.
I have not met Mohamed nor have I seen or heard all the evidence against him, or for that matter, any the other convicted "terrorists" in custody. But I do have the government's assertion that they are all guilty. I suppose that should be good enough. Any possible doubt or trepidation I, or any others might have regarding the guilt of Khalid or the others in custody should be erased by the spectacle of their trial and the indignation of the prosecution. By the end of the trial, it is likely I too will be thirsting for Khalid's blood and professing renewed admiration, gratitude, and loyalty to the state as well as a reinvigorated hatred for its enemies. That is the real motivation behind holding a show trial after all.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Allure of Trains.
Federal money was recently awarded to California, Illinois, and Florida to assist them in their development of high speed rail projects. Many championed the awards as a significant step towards helping the environment, ending traffic congestion, and reducing pollution. It is true that rail systems can help achieve those goals. But only if they are used.
Many in America are infatuated with Europe. Many have been to Europe. They likely have fond memories of traveling from city to city aboard a trains, and once there, taking buses or hiking to see the sights. I know I do. Many in the U.S. seek to recreate that experience here in the U.S. They fancy the idea of ambling down to the train station (never more than a comfortable distance away), where they could board the next train (rarely more than a 30 minute wait) to wherever it is they want to go. After a modest and comfortable trip, they are dropped off in the center of town where many of the attractions they seek are often a stroll away. Reading of the newer, high speed trains in Europe where a train can be boarded in Paris and exited in Rome in a day or less only increases their ardor for trains. Even the slower, local trains in Europe provide the convenience of travelling from town to town while providing scenic pleasures without the burden of acquiring or owning a motor vehicle. The idea of someday strolling down to the train station in Chicago and catching the next train to Milwaukee or Pittsburgh some afternoon might be an attractive one. But it is also an unrealistic one.
The U.S. is a very large country. Towns and cities are much farther apart in the U.S. than they are in Europe. It is 694 miles from Rome to Paris. It is 1,373 miles from Houston to New York City. 1,661 miles from Houston to L.A. There are many towns and mid size cities in between that one simply cannot take a train to, let alone a high speed train. Even when a train can be taken, the problematic nature of exiting the train at the town of one's choice would have to be considered along with the inconvenience and the time it would take to get about after exiting the train. Riding buses around London can be part of the adventure. Riding buses in Cleveland is another matter.
Additionally, not everyone traveling to a city is going downtown. Unlike cities in Europe, many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas are incredibly vast, covering hundreds of square miles. The city of Houston, TX covers 600 square miles. While European cities can be large, usually most activity and sites within those cities are concentrated within tight geographic locations. Many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas have no downtown. They spread seemingly endlessly in every direction, further complicating the issue of mass transit. Being dropped off by train in Houston can still leave one 50 miles or more from their destination. An effective rail system in the U.S. would require much more than simply linking cities. There would have to be enough convenient mass transit system within the city to make it attractive and effective. We are a long way from when the train station was just down the street from the saloon.
Not every U.S. city is like New York or Washington, D.C. Taking a train to Los Angeles may sound like a good idea if one is not in a hurry. But once one gets there and contemplates its mass transit options, the preferred choice to get around will be by car; which, of course, will do nothing to ease traffic or reduce pollution. The low density and sprawl of cities like Los Angeles and Houston makes creating efficient public transportation within them prohibitively expensive.
An effective rail transit system in the U.S. would have to be vast beyond the imaginations of those enamoured with it. A rail system linking cities would have to be accompanied by an efficient mass transit within those cities. High speed trains linking Chicago to New York might be useful because those cities have effective local mass transportation. In cities without such well developed systems, rental cars, cabs, and, in some cases, buses would have to be relied upon to get about once there, all of which only add to congestion and pollution. In any event, trains would have only a modest effect on traffic between many cities. A good train system might reduce traffic between New York and Philadelphia, but likely have little effect on traffic between New York and Chicago. Few people drive from New York to Chicago.
In most cities, relying upon public transportation once there is an option to be avoided if at all possible. Being dropped off at a train station in Houston or Los Angeles would be little better than useless. I dare one to find a person traveling to LA or Houston that intends to rely upon public transportation after they arrive. When it comes down to it, travelling is about convenience. Mass transit is not simply about traffic congestion or reducing pollution. An inconvenient mass transportation system is an all but useless mass transportation system. An effective and convenient mass transportation system in a city like Houston or Los Angeles is possible, but it would take a very long time to build, and it would cost a fortune.
Cities could choose to buy more buses and put up billboards urging people to use them for all the good that would do. If nothing else, it would be cheaper than trying to build a mass transit system. But buses do little to flatter the ego of cities preening themselves to be the next Manhattan.
Many in America are infatuated with Europe. Many have been to Europe. They likely have fond memories of traveling from city to city aboard a trains, and once there, taking buses or hiking to see the sights. I know I do. Many in the U.S. seek to recreate that experience here in the U.S. They fancy the idea of ambling down to the train station (never more than a comfortable distance away), where they could board the next train (rarely more than a 30 minute wait) to wherever it is they want to go. After a modest and comfortable trip, they are dropped off in the center of town where many of the attractions they seek are often a stroll away. Reading of the newer, high speed trains in Europe where a train can be boarded in Paris and exited in Rome in a day or less only increases their ardor for trains. Even the slower, local trains in Europe provide the convenience of travelling from town to town while providing scenic pleasures without the burden of acquiring or owning a motor vehicle. The idea of someday strolling down to the train station in Chicago and catching the next train to Milwaukee or Pittsburgh some afternoon might be an attractive one. But it is also an unrealistic one.
The U.S. is a very large country. Towns and cities are much farther apart in the U.S. than they are in Europe. It is 694 miles from Rome to Paris. It is 1,373 miles from Houston to New York City. 1,661 miles from Houston to L.A. There are many towns and mid size cities in between that one simply cannot take a train to, let alone a high speed train. Even when a train can be taken, the problematic nature of exiting the train at the town of one's choice would have to be considered along with the inconvenience and the time it would take to get about after exiting the train. Riding buses around London can be part of the adventure. Riding buses in Cleveland is another matter.
Additionally, not everyone traveling to a city is going downtown. Unlike cities in Europe, many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas are incredibly vast, covering hundreds of square miles. The city of Houston, TX covers 600 square miles. While European cities can be large, usually most activity and sites within those cities are concentrated within tight geographic locations. Many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas have no downtown. They spread seemingly endlessly in every direction, further complicating the issue of mass transit. Being dropped off by train in Houston can still leave one 50 miles or more from their destination. An effective rail system in the U.S. would require much more than simply linking cities. There would have to be enough convenient mass transit system within the city to make it attractive and effective. We are a long way from when the train station was just down the street from the saloon.
Not every U.S. city is like New York or Washington, D.C. Taking a train to Los Angeles may sound like a good idea if one is not in a hurry. But once one gets there and contemplates its mass transit options, the preferred choice to get around will be by car; which, of course, will do nothing to ease traffic or reduce pollution. The low density and sprawl of cities like Los Angeles and Houston makes creating efficient public transportation within them prohibitively expensive.
An effective rail transit system in the U.S. would have to be vast beyond the imaginations of those enamoured with it. A rail system linking cities would have to be accompanied by an efficient mass transit within those cities. High speed trains linking Chicago to New York might be useful because those cities have effective local mass transportation. In cities without such well developed systems, rental cars, cabs, and, in some cases, buses would have to be relied upon to get about once there, all of which only add to congestion and pollution. In any event, trains would have only a modest effect on traffic between many cities. A good train system might reduce traffic between New York and Philadelphia, but likely have little effect on traffic between New York and Chicago. Few people drive from New York to Chicago.
In most cities, relying upon public transportation once there is an option to be avoided if at all possible. Being dropped off at a train station in Houston or Los Angeles would be little better than useless. I dare one to find a person traveling to LA or Houston that intends to rely upon public transportation after they arrive. When it comes down to it, travelling is about convenience. Mass transit is not simply about traffic congestion or reducing pollution. An inconvenient mass transportation system is an all but useless mass transportation system. An effective and convenient mass transportation system in a city like Houston or Los Angeles is possible, but it would take a very long time to build, and it would cost a fortune.
Cities could choose to buy more buses and put up billboards urging people to use them for all the good that would do. If nothing else, it would be cheaper than trying to build a mass transit system. But buses do little to flatter the ego of cities preening themselves to be the next Manhattan.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
News from Afghanistan
It was reported today that an Afghan tribe signed a pact to "burn down the houses" of those found to have sheltered insurgents. Nothing was said about how the tribe would determine who has sheltered insurgents and who hasn't. The U.S. rewarded the determination and resolve of the tribe and pledged $1.2 million in aid and job programs. It was not said that any houses would actually have to be burned down to ensure the aid. The pledge was enough.
It is unlikely that the village possesses a sophisticated police force, let alone qualified investigators. Most likely, authorities will have to rely upon accusation, rumor, and circumstantial evidence to determine who is supporting the insurgents and who isn't. It is also unlikely the U.S. is overly concerned about this. No doubt, both the U.S. and the local authorities are relying upon the threat of burning houses down to deter any from considering aiding the insurgency. Maybe some houses will be burned just to demonstrate the resolve of the local police force and demonstrate to U.S. forces that the $1.2 million was money well spent. Little thought apparently was given to the repercussions of burning houses down because a member of the household was accused, or perhaps just suspected of aiding the Taliban. The site of police setting fire to homes and the smoking ruins left behind are sure earn the villagers' loyalty and set them against the Taliban. Or maybe not.
Of course the tribe may have simply pledged to burn houses. $1.2 million is a lot of money in Afghanistan. In either case, both the U.S. and the villagers win. The village gets $1.2 million, and the U.S. gets the victory of prying one more village from the Taliban. Or maybe not.
In related news, it was also reported that the Taliban had refused an offer to lay down their arms in exchange for jobs and financial assistance from the government. The offer was made by the Afghan government at the behest of the U.S. The Taliban rejected the offer saying they are not "fighting for money, property, and position", but for Islam. U.S. special representative to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke expressed skepticism at the reason given by the Taliban. His skepticism is based on interviews with prisoners and returnees indicating 70% of those fighting Afghan and U.S. forces are not fighting for Islam or against U.S. forces: an unsurprising thing for men captured by U.S. or government forces to say. It is also based in part on the U.S.'s inability to understand religion as something worth fighting about.
It might be the case the the Taliban is paying villagers to fight U.S. forces. If this is the case, times must indeed be rough in Afghanistan if young men are turning to fighting against drones, gunships, and special forces to make a living.
It would be a grave error for the U.S. to assume that the Taliban is not fighting for Islam or to end what they see as U.S. occupation. The inability of the U.S. to see beyond economic and political motives for conflict is one that cannot but harm our foreign policy objectives. Not everyone is as indifferent to religion as the U.S. Neither is everyone as motivated by the desire for comfort and wealth or easily placated by holding elections. There are many in the world that hold principles and beliefs that they are willing to fight for; even die for, that have nothing to do with political representation, wealth, or physical comfort. Until we take that into account, we will continue to fumble our way about, dropping bombs, offering bribes, imposing elections, and propping up sympathetic governments.
It is unlikely that the village possesses a sophisticated police force, let alone qualified investigators. Most likely, authorities will have to rely upon accusation, rumor, and circumstantial evidence to determine who is supporting the insurgents and who isn't. It is also unlikely the U.S. is overly concerned about this. No doubt, both the U.S. and the local authorities are relying upon the threat of burning houses down to deter any from considering aiding the insurgency. Maybe some houses will be burned just to demonstrate the resolve of the local police force and demonstrate to U.S. forces that the $1.2 million was money well spent. Little thought apparently was given to the repercussions of burning houses down because a member of the household was accused, or perhaps just suspected of aiding the Taliban. The site of police setting fire to homes and the smoking ruins left behind are sure earn the villagers' loyalty and set them against the Taliban. Or maybe not.
Of course the tribe may have simply pledged to burn houses. $1.2 million is a lot of money in Afghanistan. In either case, both the U.S. and the villagers win. The village gets $1.2 million, and the U.S. gets the victory of prying one more village from the Taliban. Or maybe not.
In related news, it was also reported that the Taliban had refused an offer to lay down their arms in exchange for jobs and financial assistance from the government. The offer was made by the Afghan government at the behest of the U.S. The Taliban rejected the offer saying they are not "fighting for money, property, and position", but for Islam. U.S. special representative to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke expressed skepticism at the reason given by the Taliban. His skepticism is based on interviews with prisoners and returnees indicating 70% of those fighting Afghan and U.S. forces are not fighting for Islam or against U.S. forces: an unsurprising thing for men captured by U.S. or government forces to say. It is also based in part on the U.S.'s inability to understand religion as something worth fighting about.
It might be the case the the Taliban is paying villagers to fight U.S. forces. If this is the case, times must indeed be rough in Afghanistan if young men are turning to fighting against drones, gunships, and special forces to make a living.
It would be a grave error for the U.S. to assume that the Taliban is not fighting for Islam or to end what they see as U.S. occupation. The inability of the U.S. to see beyond economic and political motives for conflict is one that cannot but harm our foreign policy objectives. Not everyone is as indifferent to religion as the U.S. Neither is everyone as motivated by the desire for comfort and wealth or easily placated by holding elections. There are many in the world that hold principles and beliefs that they are willing to fight for; even die for, that have nothing to do with political representation, wealth, or physical comfort. Until we take that into account, we will continue to fumble our way about, dropping bombs, offering bribes, imposing elections, and propping up sympathetic governments.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
No Trials for the Guilty
In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, radio talk show host Mark Davis takes President Obama to task for proposing that those detained in Guantanamo and elsewhere as terrorists be allowed to challenge their detention in court before a judge. He sneers at the prospect of terrorists being "paraded into federal court...to argue for their innocence." Davis goes on to criticize Obama as exhibiting a "softness [that] rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Clearly, Davis believes that everyone held in Guantanamo is guilty. Why else would they be detained? Davis, and many like him, are satisfied with the government's claim that everyone detained in Guantanamo is guilty. To allow those detained the opportunity to deny their guilt and challenge their detention in court would be the very height of weakness and timidity. To hold hearings to assess the evidence and determine the validity of the charges levied against the detainees - and they are just that; detainees - would be more than a waste of time, it would be perilous because it is claimed the evidence against them is too sensitive to be revealed in court.
Years ago, there was a Star Trek episode where the crew of the Enterprise were brought to trial before an omnipotent being. Convening the court, the judge said, "bring the guilty forward." The captain of the Enterprise protested at being identified as "guilty" even before the trial had commenced. The judge dismissed the captain's protest, saying of course they were guilty. "It wouldn't be fair to put the innocent on trial."
The Bush administration adopted the same policy. Obama has continued that policy. Those detained by the U.S. are denied due process and trials because they are guilty. According to Davis, even reading detainees their Miranda rights and allowing them to argue for their innocence is a "softness that rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Of course everyone apprehended and detained is guilty. Why else would they have been apprehended and detained? To accord them the fundamental right to challenge their detention and the evidence against them would be feckless.
Many are willing to take the government's word that those detained are guilty. The government's claim that there is evidence to justify their detention is enough to assure the public that the government knows what it is doing, even if that evidence is never revealed. The government says it exists, therefore it must exist. And if those men are convicted in a closed trial, or just plain imprisoned as "terrorists", the public will be satisfied that justice has been done, even if they never learn who it was that was convicted, what the evidence against them was, or even what exactly they were convicted of. The public will be satisfied that whoever it was that was convicted was guilty. They had to be right? Why else would they have been detained?
Davis may believe that everyone in custody is guilty. We should not.
Years ago, there was a Star Trek episode where the crew of the Enterprise were brought to trial before an omnipotent being. Convening the court, the judge said, "bring the guilty forward." The captain of the Enterprise protested at being identified as "guilty" even before the trial had commenced. The judge dismissed the captain's protest, saying of course they were guilty. "It wouldn't be fair to put the innocent on trial."
The Bush administration adopted the same policy. Obama has continued that policy. Those detained by the U.S. are denied due process and trials because they are guilty. According to Davis, even reading detainees their Miranda rights and allowing them to argue for their innocence is a "softness that rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Of course everyone apprehended and detained is guilty. Why else would they have been apprehended and detained? To accord them the fundamental right to challenge their detention and the evidence against them would be feckless.
Many are willing to take the government's word that those detained are guilty. The government's claim that there is evidence to justify their detention is enough to assure the public that the government knows what it is doing, even if that evidence is never revealed. The government says it exists, therefore it must exist. And if those men are convicted in a closed trial, or just plain imprisoned as "terrorists", the public will be satisfied that justice has been done, even if they never learn who it was that was convicted, what the evidence against them was, or even what exactly they were convicted of. The public will be satisfied that whoever it was that was convicted was guilty. They had to be right? Why else would they have been detained?
Davis may believe that everyone in custody is guilty. We should not.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
This Year Will Be Different
It is expected that in his upcoming State of the Union Address, President Obama will resolve to quit his spending, or at least get it under control. After a year of excess and extravagant government spending, Obama will vow to sober up and take steps to address the exploding federal deficit. Obama's resolution was forced because his sweetheart, the public, is threatening to leave him if he doesn't. He will promise to quit spending in October, right after he presents his budget proposal. There are still a few things he needs to buy first. After things calm down in the fall, he promises, he will get his spending under control. There is to much stress at work to quit right now. It is hoped that Obama's resolution to cut down will assuage a public increasingly concerned with his excessive and compulsive spending. He will be a new man. A thrifty and responsible man. A simple, hard working man we can trust once again and rely upon to keep a roof over our head and burglars from our door. Things will be different, he will promise, you'll see.
According to today's Dallas Morning News, Obama will propose a three year freeze on spending not related to national security and other programs deemed necessary to the safety of the public. (Presumably, it is Obama and his allies in congress who will deem what what is necessary and what isn't.) The freeze will take place in October, ten months from now. Obama will promise not to begin any major new spending projects regarding domestic issues such as education or the environment in the upcoming year. It is predicted that those spending limits will save no more than $15 million over the next fiscal year: an unnoticeable amount when considered against the massive federal debt expected to grow more than $9 trillion over the next decade. The interest paid monthly on that debt swamps the $15 million that is claimed will be saved. Nothing is being said about how exactly he plans to address the debt, but we are assured that something will be said. Something had better be said if he plans to convince us that he is serious about his promise to quit spending, especially because he is once again going to tell us about how much more money will have to be spent. His resolve to cut the deficit so far amounts to little more than rummaging around under the sofa cushions looking for loose change.
When Obama makes his address, and offers his promise of fiscal sobriety for the new year, he will already be working on obtaining another $150 billion for "stimulus" spending which, so far, has done little to stimulate anything but the government. Against the trillions that have been spent and are going to be spent, he will promise to save us millions. It is likely a great many will be assuaged by Obama's eloquence and sincerity regarding his promise to change his ways. There are many who want to be convinced. When he stands there and soothingly tells us how things are going to be different now, how he will stop spending and work hard to fix things, and we look into those big, brown eyes of his, many of us will believe him. But, like many addicts, Obama will not quit today, or even tomorrow, but soon, he will promise, when things are better and the time is right. He had better, otherwise the American public will leave him.
According to today's Dallas Morning News, Obama will propose a three year freeze on spending not related to national security and other programs deemed necessary to the safety of the public. (Presumably, it is Obama and his allies in congress who will deem what what is necessary and what isn't.) The freeze will take place in October, ten months from now. Obama will promise not to begin any major new spending projects regarding domestic issues such as education or the environment in the upcoming year. It is predicted that those spending limits will save no more than $15 million over the next fiscal year: an unnoticeable amount when considered against the massive federal debt expected to grow more than $9 trillion over the next decade. The interest paid monthly on that debt swamps the $15 million that is claimed will be saved. Nothing is being said about how exactly he plans to address the debt, but we are assured that something will be said. Something had better be said if he plans to convince us that he is serious about his promise to quit spending, especially because he is once again going to tell us about how much more money will have to be spent. His resolve to cut the deficit so far amounts to little more than rummaging around under the sofa cushions looking for loose change.
When Obama makes his address, and offers his promise of fiscal sobriety for the new year, he will already be working on obtaining another $150 billion for "stimulus" spending which, so far, has done little to stimulate anything but the government. Against the trillions that have been spent and are going to be spent, he will promise to save us millions. It is likely a great many will be assuaged by Obama's eloquence and sincerity regarding his promise to change his ways. There are many who want to be convinced. When he stands there and soothingly tells us how things are going to be different now, how he will stop spending and work hard to fix things, and we look into those big, brown eyes of his, many of us will believe him. But, like many addicts, Obama will not quit today, or even tomorrow, but soon, he will promise, when things are better and the time is right. He had better, otherwise the American public will leave him.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
It's Not Obama's Fault.
Acknowledging possible defeat on the health care bill, Obama refuses to take any responsibility for the opposition to his plan. It is not facing failure because the plan is flawed. It is the long, complicated political process and the political machinations of those opposed to it that are making it look flawed. The protracted negotiations that threaten health care reform are being criticized by Obama. He asserts that the possible failure of his plan is because those opposed to it are trying to make his health care plan look like a "monstrosity." His plan is not facing defeat because it is a monstrosity he claims, but because the "legislative process" is making it look like one. Moreover, it is asserted that it is not Obama at risk of losing, but the American people. Obama has conceded that, while he might have made some errors in the handling of his health care plan, it is the maneuvering and machinations of the pharmaceutical companies, the health care industry, and their allies in Congress that are putting his plan in jeopardy.
The lapses in security that led to the near disaster several weeks ago were not his fault. Even though Obama stood up to take the blame for those errors, he was careful to point out that they were not his fault. It was the "system" that failed. Never mind that fact that the "system" is Obama's responsibility. The failure of the economy to rebound under his policies and massive spending is not his fault either. Economic factors beyond his control are to blame.
Obama has become adept at taking the blame in a way that makes him look like he is not to blame. His mea culpas are always presented in a way that, rather than making him look mistaken or negligent, make him look noble and gracious. When things go wrong, Obama's magnanimity and grace absolve him of blame. Obama's skill at taking the blame while avoiding the blame is remarkable to say the least.
The lapses in security that led to the near disaster several weeks ago were not his fault. Even though Obama stood up to take the blame for those errors, he was careful to point out that they were not his fault. It was the "system" that failed. Never mind that fact that the "system" is Obama's responsibility. The failure of the economy to rebound under his policies and massive spending is not his fault either. Economic factors beyond his control are to blame.
Obama has become adept at taking the blame in a way that makes him look like he is not to blame. His mea culpas are always presented in a way that, rather than making him look mistaken or negligent, make him look noble and gracious. When things go wrong, Obama's magnanimity and grace absolve him of blame. Obama's skill at taking the blame while avoiding the blame is remarkable to say the least.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Edward's Shame
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards finally admitted to having an affair with his mistress and fathering a daughter with her. His confession came in advance of a soon to be released book by a former aide where Edward's affair will be chronicled. "It was wrong of me to ever deny she was my daughter" Edwards said solemnly. After denying the affair and his paternity, Edward's confession was finally forced by uncontroversial evidence to the contrary. Edward's previously had attempted to avoid his culpability, even to the point of maneuvering to have one of his aides take responsibility for being the father. Speaking of his daughter, Edwards said "hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me." I am sure he hopes we will forgive him as well once we understand.
Edwards' affair, which occurred while his wife has been struggling with cancer, is reprehensible by every standard of human decency. It is understandable why he would try to conceal it. In his confession, Edwards admitted that he had done "wrong" when he denied the affair and that he could only hope for his wife's forgiveness. What he did was much more than wrong. It was despicable.
Edwards' confession was made in the now popular style of admitting wrong while at the same time seeking understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is also a style that seeks to minimize the gravity of the deed. The deed is most often portrayed as an isolated act committed out of frailty and momentary weakness, part of the human condition as it were. Something all of us can understand and appreciate. But having an affair while one's spouse is battling cancer is more than "wrong", or borne from human weakness. Neither is it something most people can, or should understand. It is a reprehensible act, not borne of human weakness, but of lust and selfishness. Weakness can be understood and sympathized with. Lust and selfishness cannot, except by the lustful and the selfish.
The humble and sincere nature of Edward's confession was more a plea for understanding than an admission of guilt. Perhaps worst of all, because his admission was made only in the face of inevitable exposure, it belies the appearance of penitence that no doubt was sought. As if to demonstrate his sincerity and compassion, Edwards made the confession while travelling in Haiti helping those suffering in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. Given that, and the humility and contriteness of his confession, how bad can he really be? Edwards would like us to believe that maybe he is not such a despicable man after all. Perhaps he is just a man who gave into temptation and acted selfishly. He is not. He is much worse. He is a man who cheated on his dying wife and lied about it. Honesty in the face of inevitability is not a virtue. It is a tactic.
Infidelity on the part of elected officials is something that should be treated with gravity. If a politician is willing to deceive and betray the person closet to him, a person to whom he has made a solemn vow of fidelity, how can he be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers that is the public?
Edwards' affair, which occurred while his wife has been struggling with cancer, is reprehensible by every standard of human decency. It is understandable why he would try to conceal it. In his confession, Edwards admitted that he had done "wrong" when he denied the affair and that he could only hope for his wife's forgiveness. What he did was much more than wrong. It was despicable.
Edwards' confession was made in the now popular style of admitting wrong while at the same time seeking understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is also a style that seeks to minimize the gravity of the deed. The deed is most often portrayed as an isolated act committed out of frailty and momentary weakness, part of the human condition as it were. Something all of us can understand and appreciate. But having an affair while one's spouse is battling cancer is more than "wrong", or borne from human weakness. Neither is it something most people can, or should understand. It is a reprehensible act, not borne of human weakness, but of lust and selfishness. Weakness can be understood and sympathized with. Lust and selfishness cannot, except by the lustful and the selfish.
The humble and sincere nature of Edward's confession was more a plea for understanding than an admission of guilt. Perhaps worst of all, because his admission was made only in the face of inevitable exposure, it belies the appearance of penitence that no doubt was sought. As if to demonstrate his sincerity and compassion, Edwards made the confession while travelling in Haiti helping those suffering in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. Given that, and the humility and contriteness of his confession, how bad can he really be? Edwards would like us to believe that maybe he is not such a despicable man after all. Perhaps he is just a man who gave into temptation and acted selfishly. He is not. He is much worse. He is a man who cheated on his dying wife and lied about it. Honesty in the face of inevitability is not a virtue. It is a tactic.
Infidelity on the part of elected officials is something that should be treated with gravity. If a politician is willing to deceive and betray the person closet to him, a person to whom he has made a solemn vow of fidelity, how can he be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers that is the public?
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Puzzle of Obesity.
More news on the obesity front: the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force has concluded that pediatric obesity programs can prove successful. Five years ago, they concluded otherwise. The change of heart was due to the success of pediatric obesity programs. The success was attributed to "intensive behavior programs." Those programs, however are "costly, hard to find and hard to follow." Task force chairman Dr. Ned Colonge stated that "this is a recommendation that says there are things that work." Gyms, exercise, and diet have been eclipsed by "behavior modification." One can expect that it will be only a matter of time before there is pressure to extend health care insurance to cover those behavior programs.
Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor cook their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.
Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.
It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be improved by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.
The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Watching TV or playing video games does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.
Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.
Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the person them self can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.
Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor cook their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.
Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.
It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be improved by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.
The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Watching TV or playing video games does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.
Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.
Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the person them self can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Costs of Obesity
Although the rate of obesity in the U.S. did not rise over the last year, (perhaps due the poor economy), it was reported in this morning's Dallas Morning News that in the U.S. more than two thirds of adults, and a third of children remain overweight. The percentage of "extremely obese" children and young adults has risen from 9 percent in 2000 to fifteen percent today. "We haven't turned the corner yet" said Dr. William Dietz, an expert on obesity with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to statistics, the majority of Americans are overweight. Sixty four percent of Americans are described as overweight. Thirty four percent of those are considered obese. Seventeen percent of children were reported as obese. Most of those children were "extremely obese" as measured by the body mass index. Ten percent of of babies and toddlers are "precariously heavy." The statistics, if nothing else, indicate that growth does not stop after puberty. The good news is that the rate of obesity, as troubling as it is, has remained steady over the last five years. The bad news is that the obese are getting even more obese.
The health care costs associated with obesity are substantial. The costs include not just the direct costs of treating obesity related illness, but also the loss of productivity and loss of work due to obesity related illness. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and colon cancer are among the plagues that affect the obese at higher rates than those who are not obese. There is also the spectre of premature death hanging over the obese. According to the Department of Medicine, Brigham Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, "the direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are approximately 24 billion dollars, or 9.4% of the U.S. health expenditures." The CDC reports that in 1998, $78.5 billion was spent on obesity related illness. In a 2006, report, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy estimated that the health related costs of obesity to California was $12.8 billion. The health care costs related to physical inactivity were pegged at $7.9 billion (That is a lot of money in a cash strapped state like California.) Smoking, on the other hand, was estimated to cost the U.S. $157 billion between 1995-1999. It is worth pointing out that while the number of smokers in the U.S. declines every year, the number of obese is rising.
A lot of money is being spent in the U.S. to treat illness caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity. Once the government becomes involved in health care, a person's health will no longer be their own business. It will be the government's business as well. And you can bet the government will not be content to simply write checks. There will be pressure to use the power and influence gained by the government over health care to manipulate society to achieve health care goals desired by the government and special interests. One goal will almost certainly be to control the health care costs presented by the obese. The only way to control those costs will be to reduce the number of obese. The only way to reduce the number of obese will be to get people eat less and exercise more. This was the conclusion of the California report.
The most likely way to achieve the goal of reducing obesity would be through the usual method: manipulating the tax code. Indeed, the California report concluded that "policies must be established at all levels to promote healthy eating and physical activity." The traditional method of manipulating the behavior of the public is by adjusting the tax code. If this method is adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of legislation and regulation. Might there someday be tax breaks for fitness? Would cheeseburgers be taxed? Would french fries? Will there be tax breaks for vegetables? Will there someday be mandatory exercise? Will people be taxed according to their body fat index?
If manipulation of the tax codes doesn't succeed in getting people to lose weight and get into shape, I suppose the government could try shaming and exhorting them. Maybe every household in America should receive a free subscription to Vogue and GQ. After all, if regulation and taxes aren't enough help to reduce obesity and encourage people to get into shape, maybe vanity and shame will.
Like it or not, when national health care becomes law, we will all have a greater share in bearing the burden of the obese. Each American will have a stake in the health of his or her neighbor. Like with smokers, many will feel that since society must bear the costs of that vice, society has a right to insist that the obese desist in their unhealthy ways. Not only should those who are over weight be concerned, but those with bad posture or who do not eat their vegetables should be uncomfortable. They might be next. The ire of the left is rarely placated for long.
The health care costs associated with obesity are substantial. The costs include not just the direct costs of treating obesity related illness, but also the loss of productivity and loss of work due to obesity related illness. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and colon cancer are among the plagues that affect the obese at higher rates than those who are not obese. There is also the spectre of premature death hanging over the obese. According to the Department of Medicine, Brigham Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, "the direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are approximately 24 billion dollars, or 9.4% of the U.S. health expenditures." The CDC reports that in 1998, $78.5 billion was spent on obesity related illness. In a 2006, report, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy estimated that the health related costs of obesity to California was $12.8 billion. The health care costs related to physical inactivity were pegged at $7.9 billion (That is a lot of money in a cash strapped state like California.) Smoking, on the other hand, was estimated to cost the U.S. $157 billion between 1995-1999. It is worth pointing out that while the number of smokers in the U.S. declines every year, the number of obese is rising.
A lot of money is being spent in the U.S. to treat illness caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity. Once the government becomes involved in health care, a person's health will no longer be their own business. It will be the government's business as well. And you can bet the government will not be content to simply write checks. There will be pressure to use the power and influence gained by the government over health care to manipulate society to achieve health care goals desired by the government and special interests. One goal will almost certainly be to control the health care costs presented by the obese. The only way to control those costs will be to reduce the number of obese. The only way to reduce the number of obese will be to get people eat less and exercise more. This was the conclusion of the California report.
The most likely way to achieve the goal of reducing obesity would be through the usual method: manipulating the tax code. Indeed, the California report concluded that "policies must be established at all levels to promote healthy eating and physical activity." The traditional method of manipulating the behavior of the public is by adjusting the tax code. If this method is adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of legislation and regulation. Might there someday be tax breaks for fitness? Would cheeseburgers be taxed? Would french fries? Will there be tax breaks for vegetables? Will there someday be mandatory exercise? Will people be taxed according to their body fat index?
If manipulation of the tax codes doesn't succeed in getting people to lose weight and get into shape, I suppose the government could try shaming and exhorting them. Maybe every household in America should receive a free subscription to Vogue and GQ. After all, if regulation and taxes aren't enough help to reduce obesity and encourage people to get into shape, maybe vanity and shame will.
Like it or not, when national health care becomes law, we will all have a greater share in bearing the burden of the obese. Each American will have a stake in the health of his or her neighbor. Like with smokers, many will feel that since society must bear the costs of that vice, society has a right to insist that the obese desist in their unhealthy ways. Not only should those who are over weight be concerned, but those with bad posture or who do not eat their vegetables should be uncomfortable. They might be next. The ire of the left is rarely placated for long.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Hair in the eyes of Texas
The contest in Mesquite, TX over a young boy's hair is dragging on. Four year old Taylor Pugh attended school Tuesday with his long locks flowing. He was promptly sent to the library. The young Pugh and his parents have been in a contest with the school district for the last three months over the length of Taylor's hair. His hair violates the school's dress code because it covers his eyes and falls to his shoulders. Mesquite school district officials have argued that the dress code is necessary to provide an environment free of distraction. Several appeals courts have upheld the legality of student dress codes.
School officials have tried to accommodate young Taylor's vanity by telling him he could keep his long hair if he tied it in tight braids and wore them above his collar. His parents objected, saying it would not be possible. They said they had tried braiding Taylor's hair but it caused Taylor's scalp to bleed. The school attempted another compromise, albeit a half hearted one, by saying Taylor would be allowed to attend school but in the school office rather than letting him study in the school library with a teacher's aide as had been asked. Taylor's parents disapproved of the idea.
The issue has become a major headache for those involved. All this because a four year old boy does not want his hair cut. Taylor's parents are unhappy that they are being requested to make their son do something that their son doesn't want to do. How his parents get him to eat his vegetables is beyond me. His father declared "there is no reason [Taylor] should have to cut his hair."
Actually, I can think of a good one: so his child can go to school with the rest of the kids. I am sure there are many in Mesquite who can think of some good reasons too. I suspect the only people who cannot think of a reason why Taylor should cut his hair are his parents. And, of course, little Taylor.
School officials have tried to accommodate young Taylor's vanity by telling him he could keep his long hair if he tied it in tight braids and wore them above his collar. His parents objected, saying it would not be possible. They said they had tried braiding Taylor's hair but it caused Taylor's scalp to bleed. The school attempted another compromise, albeit a half hearted one, by saying Taylor would be allowed to attend school but in the school office rather than letting him study in the school library with a teacher's aide as had been asked. Taylor's parents disapproved of the idea.
The issue has become a major headache for those involved. All this because a four year old boy does not want his hair cut. Taylor's parents are unhappy that they are being requested to make their son do something that their son doesn't want to do. How his parents get him to eat his vegetables is beyond me. His father declared "there is no reason [Taylor] should have to cut his hair."
Actually, I can think of a good one: so his child can go to school with the rest of the kids. I am sure there are many in Mesquite who can think of some good reasons too. I suspect the only people who cannot think of a reason why Taylor should cut his hair are his parents. And, of course, little Taylor.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Paying Back the Taxpayers
It was reported this morning that President Obama wants to make sure that the taxpayers are paid back the $700 billion the government provided to troubled financial sector. This is a fine position to take. But I have to wonder, even if the financial sector pays the money back, will the taxpayers really be repaid? Or will it be the government that is repaid?
The $700 billion, if and when it gets paid, undoubtedly will be absorbed by the government and in the end, simply be entered into the ledgers. I suspect it would be a waste of time to stand by the mailbox waiting for a check from the financial sector. I will simply save myself some aggravation and assume it is the government that will be repaid, not the taxpayers. When it comes down to it, "paying back the taxpayers" is little more than a figure of speech. Taxpayers will not see a dime of that $700 billion.
The $700 billion, if and when it gets paid, undoubtedly will be absorbed by the government and in the end, simply be entered into the ledgers. I suspect it would be a waste of time to stand by the mailbox waiting for a check from the financial sector. I will simply save myself some aggravation and assume it is the government that will be repaid, not the taxpayers. When it comes down to it, "paying back the taxpayers" is little more than a figure of speech. Taxpayers will not see a dime of that $700 billion.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Harry Reid's Big Mouth
Republicans are seeking to get some mileage out of Senator Harry Reid's recent comments saying that Obama is "light skinned" and speaks without a "negro dialect." Many republicans relish the opportunity to turn the table on the democrats. Republican National Chairman Michael Steele has called for Reid to resign from the Senate. "There is a standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouth of one of their own" said Steele. There is truth in this. Democrats and liberals are far more likely to give the benefit of doubt when one of their own makes an insensitive or insulting comment. They are inclined to understand it as a misstatement or slip of the tongue signifying no sinister or malicious motivation. If a Republican says something insensitive, or just plain foolish, Democrats are quick to perceive the worst.
Curiously, Democratic Party Chairman Tim Cain came to Reid's aid by telling Fox news that Reid's comments were "clearly in the context of praising Obama." If Reid and Cain believe Obama's light complexion is something that merits praise, there might be something to the accusations of racism in the Democratic Party after all.
Senator Reed's comments were insensitive and foolish. But it is difficult to interpret them as racist, that is unless Cain is correct concerning Reid's motivation. Apart from the poor choice of words, and the poorer choice of subject, there was no malice or intent to slight or demean the president or African Americans. At least I assume that from what I have read. I did not hear the tone of his voice or see the look on his face when he made those comments. Reid's comment that President Obama is "light skinned" is simply a description. If one were to try and describe Obama's appearance to a friend, "light skinned" would not be a racist remark. Clumsy and in poor taste perhaps, but not insulting. I am sure Obama has been described by many as "light skinned", just as Sophia Loren was often described as "olive skinned". It is not necessarily a remark made in distaste.
"Negro dialect" is another matter. Again, apart from the poor choice of terms, African American dialect is recognized by many as a distinct manner of speaking. Not all understand it as an insult. It too can simply be a descriptive term. John Baugh, a professor of psychology and the Director of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, has asserted that Ebonics is, among other things, "the equivalent of Black English and is considered to be a dialect of English." While there are those who contest this idea, many African American scholars share it. If we accept this understanding of Ebonics as an African American dialect, then it is true that Obama speaks without using it. It is difficult to interpret Sen. Reid's statement as a racist remark: particularly since Obama prides himself on his oratorical abilities. It might be that Sen. Reid intended his comment to be a back handed attempt to demean African Americans. But why would he do that? Is it because Reid is so filled with secret racism that, despite his best efforts to conceal it, some if it just sloshed out? No doubt this is what many Republicans would like us to believe.
If Reid's comments were made in regard to Obama's popularity with the public, this would also be difficult to interpret as racist. If anything, it would indicate an accusation on Reid's part of racism among the American public by implying Obama's popularity is due to his inoffensiveness to white sensibilities. Furthermore, why would Reid see fit to demean the popular leader of his own party? It makes little sense.
It is hard to understand why Reid felt it necessary to make those observations. It is even harder to understand why Reid felt Obama's complexion was relevant and worth praise. It may be that Reid might have been trying to insult Obama's eloquence, bearing, and appearance. But that is hardest to believe of all. After all, Obama was considered attractive enough to adorn a billboard and his eloquence has frequently been commented on. His bearing is near impeccable. It most likely the case that Reid simply said something stupid and regrettable.
Curiously, Democratic Party Chairman Tim Cain came to Reid's aid by telling Fox news that Reid's comments were "clearly in the context of praising Obama." If Reid and Cain believe Obama's light complexion is something that merits praise, there might be something to the accusations of racism in the Democratic Party after all.
Senator Reed's comments were insensitive and foolish. But it is difficult to interpret them as racist, that is unless Cain is correct concerning Reid's motivation. Apart from the poor choice of words, and the poorer choice of subject, there was no malice or intent to slight or demean the president or African Americans. At least I assume that from what I have read. I did not hear the tone of his voice or see the look on his face when he made those comments. Reid's comment that President Obama is "light skinned" is simply a description. If one were to try and describe Obama's appearance to a friend, "light skinned" would not be a racist remark. Clumsy and in poor taste perhaps, but not insulting. I am sure Obama has been described by many as "light skinned", just as Sophia Loren was often described as "olive skinned". It is not necessarily a remark made in distaste.
"Negro dialect" is another matter. Again, apart from the poor choice of terms, African American dialect is recognized by many as a distinct manner of speaking. Not all understand it as an insult. It too can simply be a descriptive term. John Baugh, a professor of psychology and the Director of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, has asserted that Ebonics is, among other things, "the equivalent of Black English and is considered to be a dialect of English." While there are those who contest this idea, many African American scholars share it. If we accept this understanding of Ebonics as an African American dialect, then it is true that Obama speaks without using it. It is difficult to interpret Sen. Reid's statement as a racist remark: particularly since Obama prides himself on his oratorical abilities. It might be that Sen. Reid intended his comment to be a back handed attempt to demean African Americans. But why would he do that? Is it because Reid is so filled with secret racism that, despite his best efforts to conceal it, some if it just sloshed out? No doubt this is what many Republicans would like us to believe.
If Reid's comments were made in regard to Obama's popularity with the public, this would also be difficult to interpret as racist. If anything, it would indicate an accusation on Reid's part of racism among the American public by implying Obama's popularity is due to his inoffensiveness to white sensibilities. Furthermore, why would Reid see fit to demean the popular leader of his own party? It makes little sense.
It is hard to understand why Reid felt it necessary to make those observations. It is even harder to understand why Reid felt Obama's complexion was relevant and worth praise. It may be that Reid might have been trying to insult Obama's eloquence, bearing, and appearance. But that is hardest to believe of all. After all, Obama was considered attractive enough to adorn a billboard and his eloquence has frequently been commented on. His bearing is near impeccable. It most likely the case that Reid simply said something stupid and regrettable.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Knowing When to Take the Blame
On Thursday, President Obama stepped up and took responsibility for the security lapses that led to the failed attempt to blow up an airliner Christmas day. He had previously criticized the intelligence agencies responsible for preventing just such attacks. After being careful to point out that he was not to blame - it was the "system" that failed - Obama nevertheless decided to take responsibility. "When the system fails," he stated, "it is my responsibility to take the blame." By taking the blame he showed character and demonstrated his resolve to fix what went wrong. His determination to identify and implement the steps necessary to ensure it never happens again redounds to his credit. It is certain he will get applause for taking the blame.
Today it was reported that the economy was still far from recovering. Over a year into Obama's presidency, the economy is still in a recession. Although there were some encouraging, or at least not depressing statistics, such as a slowdown in the pace of layoffs and the addition of 47,000 new jobs in December, the overall numbers are troubling. The 47,000 new jobs created in December were more than offset by the loss of 85,000 jobs in manufacturing and construction reported by the Department of Labor. The health care industry was one of the few bright spots in the economy. It gained 22,000 jobs. (It is also the industry that is in Obama's cross hairs.) Hourly wages only increased by a meager 2.2% There are many other discouraging statistics.
Despite the best efforts of Obama, the economy is still showing little sign of recovery. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent by Washington at Obama's behest have yet to produce the results anticipated or promised. If Obama's efforts to rescue the economy are not quite a failure, they are certainly not a success. Yet so far, Obama has shown little inclination to take any blame, either for the poor economy or the failure of his policies to resuscitate it.
There are times when taking the blame shows character. There are also times when taking the blame shows failure. Obama clearly knows the difference between the two.
Today it was reported that the economy was still far from recovering. Over a year into Obama's presidency, the economy is still in a recession. Although there were some encouraging, or at least not depressing statistics, such as a slowdown in the pace of layoffs and the addition of 47,000 new jobs in December, the overall numbers are troubling. The 47,000 new jobs created in December were more than offset by the loss of 85,000 jobs in manufacturing and construction reported by the Department of Labor. The health care industry was one of the few bright spots in the economy. It gained 22,000 jobs. (It is also the industry that is in Obama's cross hairs.) Hourly wages only increased by a meager 2.2% There are many other discouraging statistics.
Despite the best efforts of Obama, the economy is still showing little sign of recovery. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent by Washington at Obama's behest have yet to produce the results anticipated or promised. If Obama's efforts to rescue the economy are not quite a failure, they are certainly not a success. Yet so far, Obama has shown little inclination to take any blame, either for the poor economy or the failure of his policies to resuscitate it.
There are times when taking the blame shows character. There are also times when taking the blame shows failure. Obama clearly knows the difference between the two.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Immigration & Health Care
President Obama and Democratic members of Congress have stated that the health insurance plan being proposed will not cover those illegally in the U.S. "We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers. That issue is too politically explosive" said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. Despite his assertion, the matter is ambiguous. Some plans being proposed to extend coverage to the uninsured contain no method of determining legal residency. Plans that do require proof of eligibility will rely on easily forged documents such as drivers licences and social security cards. The very same documents often used to fraudulently obtain jobs and other public services. Some states even provide drivers licences to illegal immigrants, further complicating the matter. There is little reason to suppose the federal government would be any more thorough in checking those documents, particularly if there is no sincere desire to authenticate those documents. While it may be true that the bill as worded may be interpreted as disallowing coverage to illegal immigrants, the issue is not so clear cut. An amendment put forward by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving subsidized health care under the bill was defeated, further casting doubt on the government's determination to exclude illegal immigrants from receiving benefits.
Curiously, it is being argued that it is necessary to spend $1 trillion over the next decade to contain, not check, not reduce, but contain the costs of health care. And the costs are substantial. If immigration reform is not coupled with health care reform, the effort to contain costs will be even more futile. In 2004, almost $3 billion was spent providing health care to illegal immigrants in California, Virginia, Florida, and Texas alone. Transferring those costs to Washington does not reduce them. Neither will obscuring them in the details of a massive, trillion dollar, health care bureaucracy.
If and when national health care reform is enacted, is unlikely that Americans, or Congress will sit idly while 12 million illegal immigrants languish without health care. The only decent thing to do will be to extend health care to them. The cost of doing the decent thing will be high. The pressure illegal immigrants will put on the health care system is considerable. Since illegal immigrants bypass health care screening when they enter the country, some bring with them diseases nearly absent in the U.S. Leprosy, Malaria, and Dengue fever are among the diseases making a return to U.S. soil. There were only 900 cases of leprosy in the U.S. between 1962 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, there were 9,000 cases, mostly among illegal immigrants. 38 of 61 health districts in California have experienced cases of tuberculosis. Also largely among illegal immigrants. The rate of tuberculosis in Mexico is ten times that in the U.S. Drugs recently developed to combat a new strain of drug resistant TB are expensive, often running into the thousands of dollars. Other diseases that have shown up in immigrant populations are Chagas disease, hepatitis, and whooping cough. In the vast majority of instances, they were found among illegal immigrants. It is doubtful that many immigrants, legal or otherwise, would be able to afford the drugs needed to treat those illnesses, which leaves the states or the federal government to pick up the tab; something Obama and many in Washington are happy to do.
While providing free health care to illegal immigrants will help reduce the occurrence and spread of these diseases, it will not prevent their reintroduction, particularly since the presence of these diseases in illegal immigrants will often only be known when their symptoms become manifest. By then, it will already be too late since those diseases will already be here along with their host. Detecting, treating, and preventing the spread of these diseases, which would be the prudent thing to do, will add to health care costs. But in order to do this we will have to know who is here and where they are. Both are problematic endeavors when it comes to illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal immigrants grows, and in the absence of immigration reform it will grow, there will be pressure brought to bear to provide them health care. Tales of their suffering and misery will sooner or later ring in the capitol and in the press and there will be an outcry that the plight of illegal immigrants be addressed. And if and when health care is extended to illegal immigrants, it will be yet another incentive for them to enter the U.S. If the situation were reversed, I would certainly try; particularly if I or a loved one were ill.
The demand for health care will only increase in the future. The cost of the plan will only go up. The rear guard actions being fought by Republicans will in time be overwhelmed. It will be morally difficult and politically dangerous to oppose the expansion of health care when it is deemed necessary to "justice" or required by human decency. To oppose an expansion or an increase in coverage would likely be portrayed as miserly or callous; two things politicians will go to great lengths to avoid being accused of.
Curiously, it is being argued that it is necessary to spend $1 trillion over the next decade to contain, not check, not reduce, but contain the costs of health care. And the costs are substantial. If immigration reform is not coupled with health care reform, the effort to contain costs will be even more futile. In 2004, almost $3 billion was spent providing health care to illegal immigrants in California, Virginia, Florida, and Texas alone. Transferring those costs to Washington does not reduce them. Neither will obscuring them in the details of a massive, trillion dollar, health care bureaucracy.
If and when national health care reform is enacted, is unlikely that Americans, or Congress will sit idly while 12 million illegal immigrants languish without health care. The only decent thing to do will be to extend health care to them. The cost of doing the decent thing will be high. The pressure illegal immigrants will put on the health care system is considerable. Since illegal immigrants bypass health care screening when they enter the country, some bring with them diseases nearly absent in the U.S. Leprosy, Malaria, and Dengue fever are among the diseases making a return to U.S. soil. There were only 900 cases of leprosy in the U.S. between 1962 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, there were 9,000 cases, mostly among illegal immigrants. 38 of 61 health districts in California have experienced cases of tuberculosis. Also largely among illegal immigrants. The rate of tuberculosis in Mexico is ten times that in the U.S. Drugs recently developed to combat a new strain of drug resistant TB are expensive, often running into the thousands of dollars. Other diseases that have shown up in immigrant populations are Chagas disease, hepatitis, and whooping cough. In the vast majority of instances, they were found among illegal immigrants. It is doubtful that many immigrants, legal or otherwise, would be able to afford the drugs needed to treat those illnesses, which leaves the states or the federal government to pick up the tab; something Obama and many in Washington are happy to do.
While providing free health care to illegal immigrants will help reduce the occurrence and spread of these diseases, it will not prevent their reintroduction, particularly since the presence of these diseases in illegal immigrants will often only be known when their symptoms become manifest. By then, it will already be too late since those diseases will already be here along with their host. Detecting, treating, and preventing the spread of these diseases, which would be the prudent thing to do, will add to health care costs. But in order to do this we will have to know who is here and where they are. Both are problematic endeavors when it comes to illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal immigrants grows, and in the absence of immigration reform it will grow, there will be pressure brought to bear to provide them health care. Tales of their suffering and misery will sooner or later ring in the capitol and in the press and there will be an outcry that the plight of illegal immigrants be addressed. And if and when health care is extended to illegal immigrants, it will be yet another incentive for them to enter the U.S. If the situation were reversed, I would certainly try; particularly if I or a loved one were ill.
The demand for health care will only increase in the future. The cost of the plan will only go up. The rear guard actions being fought by Republicans will in time be overwhelmed. It will be morally difficult and politically dangerous to oppose the expansion of health care when it is deemed necessary to "justice" or required by human decency. To oppose an expansion or an increase in coverage would likely be portrayed as miserly or callous; two things politicians will go to great lengths to avoid being accused of.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The Joy is in the Details
Amidst the recent tumult over national health care some interesting details were overlooked. According to an article in this mornings Dallas Morning News, only 41 percent of the health goals set by the government in 1990 have been achieved. The results for the goals set in 2000 were even worse, 24 percent. The results forecast for 2010 look to be little, if at all better. The statistics in other areas were equally disappointing. While there were some positive statistics such as a rise in vaccination rates and a reduction in the numbers of strokes and heart attacks, the overall numbers were at best disappointing, especially considering how much money was spent. The poor statistics must certainly have played a role in the government's decision to take things in hand.
It is of no surprise that things did not work out according to plans. They rarely do. It is difficult to make plans and preparations for a nation of over 200 million people. Some eat well, others don't. Some exercise, others don't. Some get their vaccinations, others don't. Some engage in healthy lifestyles, others don't. The list goes on. In order to make a prediction concerning the rate of heart disease 10 years into the future one must have some idea how people are going to conduct their lives over those ten years. Some are content to make observations and extrapolate. Others are less patient and less scientific. They know the results they want and they are determined to do what they can to achieve those results. They are also the ones that make every body's business their business because they sincerely believe that every body's business is their business. The best way to achieve the results you want is to control the variables. Government believes it can control the variables. Indeed, for many, controlling the variables is where the true pleasure of legislation lay. For them, the joy is in the details.
The CDC expects only 20 percent of the health care goals set for 2010 will be achieved. Among other things, people are still not exercising enough, and are still eating too much and too poorly. They are not getting their vaccinations as they should. Tooth decay and blood pressure are up. There was some good news as well. Deaths from stroke, cancer and heart disease all dropped. Health care in the U.S. is not a complete disaster. Perhaps instead of remaking the health care system, we should have first seen what we could have done to fix the one we had. But where is the glory in that?
I suppose we can hope that we do better than achieve 24 percent of the health care goals we have set out to achieve. Perhaps we can even match the 41 percent of the goals that were set in 1990. 41 percent is better than nothing, even if it will be 59 percent less than what we paid for. Perhaps once the government takes over they will be more effective in getting people to eat right and take better care of themselves. You can bet that now that they are paying for it, they will get around to trying. That voice you hear in the morning telling you you need to get out of bed and exercise might one day be the government's.
It is of no surprise that things did not work out according to plans. They rarely do. It is difficult to make plans and preparations for a nation of over 200 million people. Some eat well, others don't. Some exercise, others don't. Some get their vaccinations, others don't. Some engage in healthy lifestyles, others don't. The list goes on. In order to make a prediction concerning the rate of heart disease 10 years into the future one must have some idea how people are going to conduct their lives over those ten years. Some are content to make observations and extrapolate. Others are less patient and less scientific. They know the results they want and they are determined to do what they can to achieve those results. They are also the ones that make every body's business their business because they sincerely believe that every body's business is their business. The best way to achieve the results you want is to control the variables. Government believes it can control the variables. Indeed, for many, controlling the variables is where the true pleasure of legislation lay. For them, the joy is in the details.
The CDC expects only 20 percent of the health care goals set for 2010 will be achieved. Among other things, people are still not exercising enough, and are still eating too much and too poorly. They are not getting their vaccinations as they should. Tooth decay and blood pressure are up. There was some good news as well. Deaths from stroke, cancer and heart disease all dropped. Health care in the U.S. is not a complete disaster. Perhaps instead of remaking the health care system, we should have first seen what we could have done to fix the one we had. But where is the glory in that?
I suppose we can hope that we do better than achieve 24 percent of the health care goals we have set out to achieve. Perhaps we can even match the 41 percent of the goals that were set in 1990. 41 percent is better than nothing, even if it will be 59 percent less than what we paid for. Perhaps once the government takes over they will be more effective in getting people to eat right and take better care of themselves. You can bet that now that they are paying for it, they will get around to trying. That voice you hear in the morning telling you you need to get out of bed and exercise might one day be the government's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)