In 2009, health care spending grew by 5.7 percent, now reaching $2.5 trillion. It is the largest increase since the federal government began tracking these figures in 1960, according to a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Health care costs also made up 17.3 percent of the US's gross domestic product (GDP), which was 1.1 percent higher than in 2008. CMS's 2009-2019 projections indicate that health expenditures will continue to grow "increasingly faster," at an annual rate of 6.1 percent - 1.7 percentage points faster than annual GDP growth - and climb to $4.5 trillion.
With the loss of the Democratic 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, it seems likely that the Health Care Reform legislation passed by both houses of Congress and scheduled for Conference Committee deliberation is on terminal life support. While the legislation produced to date is a weak excuse for real reform of the industry stranglehold on the economy and well being of the public, it was a step in the right direction. Even if the Conference Committee could craft a compromise that satisfied a perceived majority and was in the best interests of the public, that compromise would have to pass both houses. The new configuration provides the GOP their coveted procedural tool of blocking any form of public oriented legislation. The lobbyists for Insurance Industry groups and major health care conglomerates like WellPoint, Humana and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, that hold legislators in their thrall [if not by their scrota] will not allow any reform to pass that might challenge their irrational profit scheme.
In an environment of recession, economic meltdown and sacrifices that have destroyed not only economic stability but even the hope of many families and households in the country, these so-called “health care industry” agents have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve increasing revenues that outstrip the economy by approximately 200%. But that is not the true problem that the country and the people face.
In light of this seeming irrational imbalance of power in which the health care industry is figuratively raping the populace and at the same time excluding more and more families from basic health care, the voters are following, like a herd of lemmings, the clarion call of the Right Wing leadership to advance a campaign to block any real effort to try to restore a modicum of balance. Brown was elected as a new GOP Senator from Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy with the express purpose of defeating health care reform. Using fear mongering tactics about "government expense" and taxes associated with health care reform, they conveniently ignore the fact that, according to the CMS Report: “Without the passage of a health care reform bill, currently stalled in the House, public spending will comprise more than 50 percent of all national health expenditures by 2012.”
Ironically, major factors in the inexorable climb of health care costs and public spending for health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid are: a) the amount of per patient usage and b) the rising unemployment rate from a worsening economy. In the first instance, the health care industry has managed to induce US customers to spend more than twice the average per capita amount spent by developed nations for health care, although the impact and level of overall health derived from such expense places the USA below average among the same developed nations. In the second instance, the Health Care industry has managed to profit from the disadvantage of millions of people in the US resulting from the failing economy.
Behaving as though it is experiencing a psychotic break, the public is being exhorted to get behind right wing demagogues in an effort to prevent any development or passage of legislation that might actually benefit the average citizen and which might both limit the increase in health care costs and provide basic health care coverage to all families in the country. It is only a few steps removed from the mass insanity that led the group in Jonestown to drink the lethal kool aid punch. As long as the public can be driven to mass delusional behavior, believing in actions directly contrary to their own future physical and economic health, then the health care industry will be able to exploit this public mental illness to their economic advantage. And why not? Can you name a single health care executive who does not have the best health care services available 24 hours a day for his family? How fortunate that the very people being exploited can be duped into attacking the ones seeking to help them, rather than the ones profiting from their misery.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
The P. Diddy School of Business – “Bling Academy”
I read a news article, or actually an “infotainment” article yesterday that made me laugh. In the article, it describes a plan by P. Diddy to form a business school for “young entrepreneurs.” Now, don’t get me wrong, I am no hater. I won’t even get down on the source of much of the entertainer’s wealth, the promotion of misogyny and violence. He does own other more “mainstream” enterprises that manufacture and sell consumer goods. If anyone wants to establish an enterprise to promote educational opportunity, I am usually one of the first in line to support such efforts. Considering the wealth that P. Diddy has gained from his entertainment career and enterprises, the benevolent idea that he may want to give something back to the community by helping inspire and support nascent Black entrepreneurs is heartwarming. So, why the chuckle, you ask?
Earlier in the week, I also read an “infotainment” article about the very same P. Diddy spending over $360,000 to buy a car for his 16 year old son. Yes, this astute businessman who would want to establish a school to communicate his ideas, values and methods to a new generation of entrepreneurs apparently has the sensibilities and the sensitivity to spend well over a third of a million dollars on one vehicle to be driven by an inexperienced 16 year old boy. The purchase was announced at the same time that millions of Haitians are homeless and starving and well over 100,000 have been confirmed dead. I can understand the deep wellsprings of a father’s love for his son. But what lesson is P. Diddy teaching his son by spending in such a profligate and irresponsible way just to demonstrate “Bling” or perhaps to buy the affection of his child. Remember that this child to whom the car is entrusted is in the highest risk rating category of all drivers. Will it be necessary to hire a bevy of bodyguards to surround the child whenever he wants to drive his new toy, in order to prevent damage to the expensive vehicle?
But more to the point, would it not have shown better judgment and parenting to buy the kid a moderately priced, say BMW or Mercedes, car and make a donation of a quarter of a million dollars to Haitian relief in his son’s name with the leftover cash? That would have done more to advance the formation of the son’s character than having the boy walking around bragging that he owns one of the most expensive cars in the world. As a proposed educator, what values and lessons can P. Diddy be expected to teach others that are less dear to him, if that is the caliber of teaching he demonstrates to his son?
Perhaps P. Diddy lives in a different world that the rest of us and has no need for regular values of honesty, compassion for fellow human beings or hard work. Considered judgment and careful planning may be outdated values in the world of P. Diddy entrepreneurs. Unreasonable risk, reckless spending and disregard of humanitarian concerns may be the touchstones of this new “school of business” that P. Diddy wants to establish. Unfortunately, the throng of wanna-be rappers, street hustlers and pseudo gangsters that emulate the image P. Diddy cultivates to promote his career and enterprises would probably be waiting in line to sign up for his business school. And if P. Diddy is true to form, he would charge them high tuition and give them nothing but smoke, in true Barnum & Bailey flim-flam style.
P. Diddy certainly has learned some lessons that his progenitors, like M.C. Hammer, failed to learn when they rose to the top of a somewhat peculiar market of entertainment. But along the way, he appears to have never learned or lost sight of some basic values that generally apply to humanity and those seeking a worthwhile role as contributors to society. There are, to be sure, people who have struck it rich by scamming and deceiving others, selling nothing for something and getting people eager to throw money to purchase that valueless “thing.” Bernie Madoff is a good example, and current heads of Wall Street concerns like Bank of America who are walking off with millions of bonus dollars essentially from scamming public taxpayers are too numerous. The DIFFERENCE is that none of these latter gentlemen are offering the pretense that they have anything to share or teach to budding entrepreneurs. They understand that their wealth and success derives from unwholesome greed and deception, from taking advantage of a defective system. Their money does not come from exceptional hard work or even superior talent. Their revenues are wholly disproportionate to the value of their service. So they have nothing of value to “teach” without exposing the chimera that has enabled them to get over.
I am not suggesting that P. Diddy is a crook like Madoff. I am suggesting that if he believes, for even a moment, that he has something of true value to provide as an educator to aspiring young business people he should think again. The judgment that allowed him to spend a third of a million dollars on a car for a 16 year old amply demonstrates his inability to guide the formation of business leaders of the future.
Earlier in the week, I also read an “infotainment” article about the very same P. Diddy spending over $360,000 to buy a car for his 16 year old son. Yes, this astute businessman who would want to establish a school to communicate his ideas, values and methods to a new generation of entrepreneurs apparently has the sensibilities and the sensitivity to spend well over a third of a million dollars on one vehicle to be driven by an inexperienced 16 year old boy. The purchase was announced at the same time that millions of Haitians are homeless and starving and well over 100,000 have been confirmed dead. I can understand the deep wellsprings of a father’s love for his son. But what lesson is P. Diddy teaching his son by spending in such a profligate and irresponsible way just to demonstrate “Bling” or perhaps to buy the affection of his child. Remember that this child to whom the car is entrusted is in the highest risk rating category of all drivers. Will it be necessary to hire a bevy of bodyguards to surround the child whenever he wants to drive his new toy, in order to prevent damage to the expensive vehicle?
But more to the point, would it not have shown better judgment and parenting to buy the kid a moderately priced, say BMW or Mercedes, car and make a donation of a quarter of a million dollars to Haitian relief in his son’s name with the leftover cash? That would have done more to advance the formation of the son’s character than having the boy walking around bragging that he owns one of the most expensive cars in the world. As a proposed educator, what values and lessons can P. Diddy be expected to teach others that are less dear to him, if that is the caliber of teaching he demonstrates to his son?
Perhaps P. Diddy lives in a different world that the rest of us and has no need for regular values of honesty, compassion for fellow human beings or hard work. Considered judgment and careful planning may be outdated values in the world of P. Diddy entrepreneurs. Unreasonable risk, reckless spending and disregard of humanitarian concerns may be the touchstones of this new “school of business” that P. Diddy wants to establish. Unfortunately, the throng of wanna-be rappers, street hustlers and pseudo gangsters that emulate the image P. Diddy cultivates to promote his career and enterprises would probably be waiting in line to sign up for his business school. And if P. Diddy is true to form, he would charge them high tuition and give them nothing but smoke, in true Barnum & Bailey flim-flam style.
P. Diddy certainly has learned some lessons that his progenitors, like M.C. Hammer, failed to learn when they rose to the top of a somewhat peculiar market of entertainment. But along the way, he appears to have never learned or lost sight of some basic values that generally apply to humanity and those seeking a worthwhile role as contributors to society. There are, to be sure, people who have struck it rich by scamming and deceiving others, selling nothing for something and getting people eager to throw money to purchase that valueless “thing.” Bernie Madoff is a good example, and current heads of Wall Street concerns like Bank of America who are walking off with millions of bonus dollars essentially from scamming public taxpayers are too numerous. The DIFFERENCE is that none of these latter gentlemen are offering the pretense that they have anything to share or teach to budding entrepreneurs. They understand that their wealth and success derives from unwholesome greed and deception, from taking advantage of a defective system. Their money does not come from exceptional hard work or even superior talent. Their revenues are wholly disproportionate to the value of their service. So they have nothing of value to “teach” without exposing the chimera that has enabled them to get over.
I am not suggesting that P. Diddy is a crook like Madoff. I am suggesting that if he believes, for even a moment, that he has something of true value to provide as an educator to aspiring young business people he should think again. The judgment that allowed him to spend a third of a million dollars on a car for a 16 year old amply demonstrates his inability to guide the formation of business leaders of the future.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Two Steps Back.....
"The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale, and award government to the highest bidder." Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) statement introducing legislation to counter the High Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that effectively guts the McCain-Feingold Act which regulates campaign practices and funding in federal elections. A lower court had ruled that the broadcast of a corporate funded attack campaign advertisement against Hillary Clinton within the 30 day window preceding a federal election violated the McCain-Feingold Act. Two issues were at stake in the case.
First, and probably most important, was the question whether corporations have the same free speech rights as human citizens in the context of campaign funding. Opponents, including legal scholars, argue that corporations are fictitious “persons” or “citizens” whose rights are a creation of statute and not derived from any Constitutional principle. The limited rights created were for the purpose of allowing corporations to make legally binding agreements on behalf of the entity instead of in the name of a regular person representing the interests of the organization. In addition, corporate persons could go into a court of law to enforce those legal agreements. From its inception, the corporation acts were never intended to grant these fictitious persons the “natural rights” deemed inalienable under the Founders’ concept of government and society.
There is good reason for the distinction. Corporations were created to permit the aggregation of wealth and economic power that individuals typically could not muster. When the purpose was limited to the commercial sphere, this “accommodation” in the form of a fictitious person or entity enabled the investment of private capital to be employed for economic growth and expansion. This salutary purpose is, however, the precise reason why corporations should not be given unbridled license in the sphere of electoral politics. The ability to amass huge amounts of capital to influence or even “buy” elections distorts the electoral process and takes it out of the realm of democracy. Individuals simply cannot compete with these aggregated economic giants in trying to communicate a message relating to candidates or elections.
And there is currently a more insidious level in the communication process. The individual seeking to get his or her opinion or message to the public has to purchase airtime from the media. Aside from the obvious disadvantage in competing with corporation budgets in attempting to bid for that airtime, the media is owned and controlled by corporations. This incestuous relationship of corporate campaign funding through corporate owned media conglomerates further excludes the individual citizen from the democratic electoral process.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” President Barack Obama
The Supreme Court ruled that corporate speech could be regulated through “disclaimer and disclosure” requirements, but could not be precluded altogether. The Court did not squarely address how such disclosure requirements, such as the name of the organization sponsoring the advertisement, would counter the damage or imbalance when the corporate speech is effectively the only message broadcast.
Ironically, those Justices who rant most audibly against judicial legislation and in favor of “strict construction” or “original intent” look like the most shallow hypocrites by turning their backs on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution in order to accommodate the interests of the corporate elite.
The second issue in the case relates to the window of 30 days prior to elections in which certain types of advertisement are banned under the McCain-Feingold Act. Logically, if Corporations are free to spend as much as they like on campaign ads, then we can expect a barrage of attack ads up to the opening of polls in future elections. Since there will be virtually no time to investigate blatantly false, misleading and even fraudulent ads until after the election has been held and the damage done, the Supreme Court can reasonably be said to have sold and subverted the democratic electoral process. On its face, this is not a partisan issue because progressive messages could be broadcast as easily as right wing advertisements. However, experience tells us that corporations nearly always favor deregulation, reduction of protections for average citizens and government interference only for the purpose of granting corporate subsidies.
The idea that corporate funding in elections would go to support candidates who favor environmental controls, fair trade regulation, restrictions on Wall Street and Investment practices, universal health care, additional public support for education of our children or any other concept directed to public well-being is fanciful at best and more aptly described as delusional. Corporations have no ethics, conscience or moral constraints as natural citizens are believed to have. Corporations only have economic interests. This is no more a condemnation than is the assertion that cars have no emotions, it is simply a fact due to the inherent nature of the thing.
That is why cases like the Ford Pinto case, deadly drug recalls, Bhopal, Black lung cases, Asbestos Cases, Exxon-Valdiz and a host of other remedial lawsuits have been necessary. Corporations act to increase and protect corporate profits, even if it means the death or destruction of thousands of human lives. A Corporation cannot be subjected to the theoretical deterrent of the death penalty for acts of intentional murder. A corporation cannot even be effectively put to death to prevent future crimes or reckless behavior. Its shareholders simply incorporate or “reincarnate” the entity and continue on with business as usual.
Congress was designed to provide a House of Representatives to balance lawmaking with the voice of individual citizens. Perhaps a third House of Congress needs to be established to channel the voice and representation of corporations. Then corporate funding would have to be directed only to election of representatives speaking and acting in behalf of these “corporate citizens.” Without some form of alteration, however, the current electoral process has just been destroyed and sold to the highest corporate bidder.
The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that effectively guts the McCain-Feingold Act which regulates campaign practices and funding in federal elections. A lower court had ruled that the broadcast of a corporate funded attack campaign advertisement against Hillary Clinton within the 30 day window preceding a federal election violated the McCain-Feingold Act. Two issues were at stake in the case.
First, and probably most important, was the question whether corporations have the same free speech rights as human citizens in the context of campaign funding. Opponents, including legal scholars, argue that corporations are fictitious “persons” or “citizens” whose rights are a creation of statute and not derived from any Constitutional principle. The limited rights created were for the purpose of allowing corporations to make legally binding agreements on behalf of the entity instead of in the name of a regular person representing the interests of the organization. In addition, corporate persons could go into a court of law to enforce those legal agreements. From its inception, the corporation acts were never intended to grant these fictitious persons the “natural rights” deemed inalienable under the Founders’ concept of government and society.
There is good reason for the distinction. Corporations were created to permit the aggregation of wealth and economic power that individuals typically could not muster. When the purpose was limited to the commercial sphere, this “accommodation” in the form of a fictitious person or entity enabled the investment of private capital to be employed for economic growth and expansion. This salutary purpose is, however, the precise reason why corporations should not be given unbridled license in the sphere of electoral politics. The ability to amass huge amounts of capital to influence or even “buy” elections distorts the electoral process and takes it out of the realm of democracy. Individuals simply cannot compete with these aggregated economic giants in trying to communicate a message relating to candidates or elections.
And there is currently a more insidious level in the communication process. The individual seeking to get his or her opinion or message to the public has to purchase airtime from the media. Aside from the obvious disadvantage in competing with corporation budgets in attempting to bid for that airtime, the media is owned and controlled by corporations. This incestuous relationship of corporate campaign funding through corporate owned media conglomerates further excludes the individual citizen from the democratic electoral process.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” President Barack Obama
The Supreme Court ruled that corporate speech could be regulated through “disclaimer and disclosure” requirements, but could not be precluded altogether. The Court did not squarely address how such disclosure requirements, such as the name of the organization sponsoring the advertisement, would counter the damage or imbalance when the corporate speech is effectively the only message broadcast.
Ironically, those Justices who rant most audibly against judicial legislation and in favor of “strict construction” or “original intent” look like the most shallow hypocrites by turning their backs on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution in order to accommodate the interests of the corporate elite.
The second issue in the case relates to the window of 30 days prior to elections in which certain types of advertisement are banned under the McCain-Feingold Act. Logically, if Corporations are free to spend as much as they like on campaign ads, then we can expect a barrage of attack ads up to the opening of polls in future elections. Since there will be virtually no time to investigate blatantly false, misleading and even fraudulent ads until after the election has been held and the damage done, the Supreme Court can reasonably be said to have sold and subverted the democratic electoral process. On its face, this is not a partisan issue because progressive messages could be broadcast as easily as right wing advertisements. However, experience tells us that corporations nearly always favor deregulation, reduction of protections for average citizens and government interference only for the purpose of granting corporate subsidies.
The idea that corporate funding in elections would go to support candidates who favor environmental controls, fair trade regulation, restrictions on Wall Street and Investment practices, universal health care, additional public support for education of our children or any other concept directed to public well-being is fanciful at best and more aptly described as delusional. Corporations have no ethics, conscience or moral constraints as natural citizens are believed to have. Corporations only have economic interests. This is no more a condemnation than is the assertion that cars have no emotions, it is simply a fact due to the inherent nature of the thing.
That is why cases like the Ford Pinto case, deadly drug recalls, Bhopal, Black lung cases, Asbestos Cases, Exxon-Valdiz and a host of other remedial lawsuits have been necessary. Corporations act to increase and protect corporate profits, even if it means the death or destruction of thousands of human lives. A Corporation cannot be subjected to the theoretical deterrent of the death penalty for acts of intentional murder. A corporation cannot even be effectively put to death to prevent future crimes or reckless behavior. Its shareholders simply incorporate or “reincarnate” the entity and continue on with business as usual.
Congress was designed to provide a House of Representatives to balance lawmaking with the voice of individual citizens. Perhaps a third House of Congress needs to be established to channel the voice and representation of corporations. Then corporate funding would have to be directed only to election of representatives speaking and acting in behalf of these “corporate citizens.” Without some form of alteration, however, the current electoral process has just been destroyed and sold to the highest corporate bidder.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Bye Bye Miss American Pie – or – Death of the Commonwealth
If one is to believe the “national consensus” as reflected in the “dialogue” of the Blogosphere and internet commentary, the events in Massachusetts are a fitting memorial to the death of a republican democracy, a true “Commonwealth.” In the main, the rhetoric of these commentaries is characterized by self-righteous and self-centered “nattering nabobs of negativity,” to borrow a phrase from former GOP Vice president Spiro Agnew. Government can do nothing right when it attempts to aid the jobless, homeless, aged or infirm. We are urged to ignore years of destructive and divisive policies by the former Administration that pushed a solvent nation into near bankruptcy, lost or wasted jobs at a rate in excess of three quarters of a million or more each month, expended billions of dollars every month to support a war effort that was proven to be fraudulently and unnecessarily started in Iraq, and guided financial markets to a point where pensioners lost a minimum of one-third of the value of their retirement savings or benefits. Attempts to ameliorate the devastation wrought by such faulty and mean spirited policies and incompetent stewardship are attacked as “too costly” or because they failed to remedy over a decade of damage in less than one year.
The legacy of the Kennedys is hallmarked by the phrase coined by former President, John F. Kennedy, when he chided and challenged the American people to “ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.” It was a philosophy, belief and commitment that the collective good will of the American people, when channeled through the reasonably efficient machinery of government, could improve life for the citizens of the country and give hope to the world. Robert Kennedy, prior to his assassination, used his power and talents to try to shape government policy in the direction of providing equal rights and equal protection under the law to all citizens. Ted Kennedy, the last of the brethren clan gave his last full measure and his dying breath to see the enactment of legislation that would bring universal health care to the USA, the richest and most powerful so-called developed nation lacking such fundamental regard for the well-being of its people.
Now Massachusetts has turned its back on Ted Kennedy and elected a GOP senator who is almost certain to derail the dream that Teddy fought tirelessly for decades to bring to fruition. While brain cancer technically laid the "Lion of the Senate" to rest, it is perhaps best that he did not live to see his constituency stab him in the back and turn from his values as they have done.
As a practical matter, what Freshman Senator Brown thinks is irrelevant. His ego may cause him to believe that his personal views matter, but his party affiliation is all that really does count. He is merely a tool of the GOP and the Health Insurance lobby to sabotage the health care legislation. As a new senator of the minority party, he cannot realistically be expected to achieve or even try passage of any meaningful personal initiative. As the 41st GOP vote in the opposition bloc, he can be expected to do exactly as he is told and support the obstruction of any and every progressive or citizen oriented initiative of the White House or the Democratic Majority in Congress. In 2012, the citizens of Massachusetts may recognize their folly and elect a different senator to represent their interests, but the damage will have been done. It will be interesting to see how hard the GOP fights and how much they are willing to spend to actually retain the Brown US Senate seat at that time.
Let us be frank, the GOP is intelligent. As a party of leadership, they have proven repeatedly to be a failure in the last three decades. They understand that limitation. While Democrats cannot claim any great comfort in their leadership accomplishments, there is a record of at least trying to make the life of US citizens as a whole better. For all his faults, Clinton left the nation with a positive budget and a relatively stable economy. The subsequent Administration turned that surplus into a staggering deficit by granting tax cuts that the country could not afford to people and corporations that did not need them. No, leadership is not the objective, that would be too difficult and require more work and more risk.
Instead, the GOP has adopted a strategy of negation and negativity. Consider the children playing on the beach. How easy it is for the belligerent bully to knock down the hours of effort spent by a child constructing a sand castle. And if the child tries again to construct anything of beauty or value, the bully can knock it down and destroy it in seconds. Maybe the sand castle was not of the best design, but it was a positive effort to build something. The bully stands by the side, proud of his efforts, but never having to build or defend anything worthwhile. His sole accomplishment is to destroy and frustrate constructive effort.
Look at the record, if you think this assessment unduly harsh. Other than some earmarks and pork for his home state, I have struggled to identify a single constructive initiative by Mitch McConnell. The former Senate majority leader was known, not for any constructive legislation, but rather for browbeating and intimidating fellow GOP members into submission to his will or whimsy. Until beaten down by criminal prosecution for his misconduct, he was justifiably known as "The Hammer." There have been Senators who have made furtive attempts to cross the aisle in the interests of the people of the country as a whole, but they have been chastised, ostracized and punished by GOP leadership for doing so. Witness the public opprobrium heaped upon Sen. Collins and Sen. Snowe of Maine for supporting full consideration of the Health care legislation on the senate floor. This despite their equivocation and backpedaling that they had not committed to vote for the legislation, but only to enable it to be debated openly. Their votes really symbolized only a rejection of blind, mindless opposition and obstruction. They were brought to heel on the final vote.
On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats need to shoulder blame as well. They were elected and given a majority mandate. they promised to act with vision and courage to repair serious damage by the prior Administration and to change the course of the country back to one in which the collective well being, the “Commonwealth,” once again meant something real. Weak kneed pandering to GOP representatives who had already openly declared that there was “No set of circumstances" under which the GOP would support an Administration health care initiative, was a mistake. The Democrats failed to move forward with a reasonable measure, regardless of GOP opposition. They instead allowed that measure to be shot down by unified GOP obstruction and disinformation. They opted to risk the measure being undermined by allowing the GOP time to expend hundreds of millions in lobbying funds to sabotage the effort, while pretending to “bipartisanship.” If the GOP threatened filibuster, make the issues clear and let them go on public TV. No matter how much sophistry they might employ, their fundamental opposition to any measure that would benefit average citizens in favor of protecting the interests of large corporate and private investment campaign donors would smell so ripe that even the least sophisticated citizen would have to detect it. Their argument is tautological. Because GOP Administrations have failed to provide for the common good, government is incapable of working for the common good.
But the Obama Administration has generally walked in the same path as his predecessor in too many ways. He has failed to make a clear and instill faith in his promise to end the phony and expensive military escapade in Iraq. Indeed he is embarking on another costly adventure in Afghanistan. He appointed the foxes to oversee the hen house in the financial industry, and we are still seeing executives rewarded with multi-million dollar bonuses while reporting billion dollar losses, after being bailed out by public taxpayer funds. The sham of military trials for GITMO detainees continues to mock the fundamental values and principles of the American Justice system. And no effort has been made to hold prior Administration officials accountable for clearly provable criminal actions. An ethic of non-accountability and a philosophy of "it doesn't matter what I should do, it only matters what I can get away with" carries over into much of the current Administration. It is no wonder the public has lost faith in all quarters of the government, at least based upon what they have seen for the past 13 years. But just because this is what HAS happened, does not mean that this is what MUST happen.
The pundits would have us believe that support for the jobless and universal health care are unworthy and unachievable goals, despite steps in the direction of both having seen some success. But perceptions can too quickly become reality in the political sphere. If the Democrats continue to act without spine and without principles, they very well could play into the GOP strategy and lose the Congressional majority. The GOP does not want or need the White House [consider McCain’s running mate] to achieve its goals. It needs only a sufficient voting block to obstruct or derail any Administration initiative. The democrats appear to lack the stomach and the nerve to take the initiative and the fight to the GOP and publicly expose them.
If we look behind the curtain of the loud mouthed spokespersons attacking the progressive agenda, we see how little they really have in common with the “people” they purport to speak for. When is the last time Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck ever entertained a concern about health care or unemployment benefits? [While Limbaugh’s did have concerns about obtaining his OxyContin legally, this was not an economic issue.] When is the last time either of them had to manage a small business payroll? I recall Jesse Ventura running for Governor of Minnesota pledging to end student aid subsidies [Jesse never went to college] and obtaining support from misguided college aged students, the primary beneficiaries of such public support. Perhaps these college students thought it was a rerun of "Animal House." But in any event, so many people were swayed to act and vote directly contrary to their self interest and the interests of average people generally. People who fail to hang together, as the saying goes, are likely to hang separately. And the current plight of the individual families all across the USA attests to the wisdom of that adage.
This can only occur in an environment where all faith and trust in a government’s ability to protect and advance the common well being of its citizens has been abandoned. This is not a time for alarmist rants, but it is a time for cold eyed and realistic assessment. The title of “United” should legitimately be removed from the name of a nation in which a policy of “every man for himself” prevails. And the government should be ashamed to proclaim a Judeo-Christian foundation when the admonitions of Jesus concerning care for the poor and “whatsoever thou doest unto the least” of my people are rejected as unworthy values. If that kind of nation is not truly what the people want, then they should wake up and realize that it is what they currently HAVE and get to work changing the status quo.
The legacy of the Kennedys is hallmarked by the phrase coined by former President, John F. Kennedy, when he chided and challenged the American people to “ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.” It was a philosophy, belief and commitment that the collective good will of the American people, when channeled through the reasonably efficient machinery of government, could improve life for the citizens of the country and give hope to the world. Robert Kennedy, prior to his assassination, used his power and talents to try to shape government policy in the direction of providing equal rights and equal protection under the law to all citizens. Ted Kennedy, the last of the brethren clan gave his last full measure and his dying breath to see the enactment of legislation that would bring universal health care to the USA, the richest and most powerful so-called developed nation lacking such fundamental regard for the well-being of its people.
Now Massachusetts has turned its back on Ted Kennedy and elected a GOP senator who is almost certain to derail the dream that Teddy fought tirelessly for decades to bring to fruition. While brain cancer technically laid the "Lion of the Senate" to rest, it is perhaps best that he did not live to see his constituency stab him in the back and turn from his values as they have done.
As a practical matter, what Freshman Senator Brown thinks is irrelevant. His ego may cause him to believe that his personal views matter, but his party affiliation is all that really does count. He is merely a tool of the GOP and the Health Insurance lobby to sabotage the health care legislation. As a new senator of the minority party, he cannot realistically be expected to achieve or even try passage of any meaningful personal initiative. As the 41st GOP vote in the opposition bloc, he can be expected to do exactly as he is told and support the obstruction of any and every progressive or citizen oriented initiative of the White House or the Democratic Majority in Congress. In 2012, the citizens of Massachusetts may recognize their folly and elect a different senator to represent their interests, but the damage will have been done. It will be interesting to see how hard the GOP fights and how much they are willing to spend to actually retain the Brown US Senate seat at that time.
Let us be frank, the GOP is intelligent. As a party of leadership, they have proven repeatedly to be a failure in the last three decades. They understand that limitation. While Democrats cannot claim any great comfort in their leadership accomplishments, there is a record of at least trying to make the life of US citizens as a whole better. For all his faults, Clinton left the nation with a positive budget and a relatively stable economy. The subsequent Administration turned that surplus into a staggering deficit by granting tax cuts that the country could not afford to people and corporations that did not need them. No, leadership is not the objective, that would be too difficult and require more work and more risk.
Instead, the GOP has adopted a strategy of negation and negativity. Consider the children playing on the beach. How easy it is for the belligerent bully to knock down the hours of effort spent by a child constructing a sand castle. And if the child tries again to construct anything of beauty or value, the bully can knock it down and destroy it in seconds. Maybe the sand castle was not of the best design, but it was a positive effort to build something. The bully stands by the side, proud of his efforts, but never having to build or defend anything worthwhile. His sole accomplishment is to destroy and frustrate constructive effort.
Look at the record, if you think this assessment unduly harsh. Other than some earmarks and pork for his home state, I have struggled to identify a single constructive initiative by Mitch McConnell. The former Senate majority leader was known, not for any constructive legislation, but rather for browbeating and intimidating fellow GOP members into submission to his will or whimsy. Until beaten down by criminal prosecution for his misconduct, he was justifiably known as "The Hammer." There have been Senators who have made furtive attempts to cross the aisle in the interests of the people of the country as a whole, but they have been chastised, ostracized and punished by GOP leadership for doing so. Witness the public opprobrium heaped upon Sen. Collins and Sen. Snowe of Maine for supporting full consideration of the Health care legislation on the senate floor. This despite their equivocation and backpedaling that they had not committed to vote for the legislation, but only to enable it to be debated openly. Their votes really symbolized only a rejection of blind, mindless opposition and obstruction. They were brought to heel on the final vote.
On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats need to shoulder blame as well. They were elected and given a majority mandate. they promised to act with vision and courage to repair serious damage by the prior Administration and to change the course of the country back to one in which the collective well being, the “Commonwealth,” once again meant something real. Weak kneed pandering to GOP representatives who had already openly declared that there was “No set of circumstances" under which the GOP would support an Administration health care initiative, was a mistake. The Democrats failed to move forward with a reasonable measure, regardless of GOP opposition. They instead allowed that measure to be shot down by unified GOP obstruction and disinformation. They opted to risk the measure being undermined by allowing the GOP time to expend hundreds of millions in lobbying funds to sabotage the effort, while pretending to “bipartisanship.” If the GOP threatened filibuster, make the issues clear and let them go on public TV. No matter how much sophistry they might employ, their fundamental opposition to any measure that would benefit average citizens in favor of protecting the interests of large corporate and private investment campaign donors would smell so ripe that even the least sophisticated citizen would have to detect it. Their argument is tautological. Because GOP Administrations have failed to provide for the common good, government is incapable of working for the common good.
But the Obama Administration has generally walked in the same path as his predecessor in too many ways. He has failed to make a clear and instill faith in his promise to end the phony and expensive military escapade in Iraq. Indeed he is embarking on another costly adventure in Afghanistan. He appointed the foxes to oversee the hen house in the financial industry, and we are still seeing executives rewarded with multi-million dollar bonuses while reporting billion dollar losses, after being bailed out by public taxpayer funds. The sham of military trials for GITMO detainees continues to mock the fundamental values and principles of the American Justice system. And no effort has been made to hold prior Administration officials accountable for clearly provable criminal actions. An ethic of non-accountability and a philosophy of "it doesn't matter what I should do, it only matters what I can get away with" carries over into much of the current Administration. It is no wonder the public has lost faith in all quarters of the government, at least based upon what they have seen for the past 13 years. But just because this is what HAS happened, does not mean that this is what MUST happen.
The pundits would have us believe that support for the jobless and universal health care are unworthy and unachievable goals, despite steps in the direction of both having seen some success. But perceptions can too quickly become reality in the political sphere. If the Democrats continue to act without spine and without principles, they very well could play into the GOP strategy and lose the Congressional majority. The GOP does not want or need the White House [consider McCain’s running mate] to achieve its goals. It needs only a sufficient voting block to obstruct or derail any Administration initiative. The democrats appear to lack the stomach and the nerve to take the initiative and the fight to the GOP and publicly expose them.
If we look behind the curtain of the loud mouthed spokespersons attacking the progressive agenda, we see how little they really have in common with the “people” they purport to speak for. When is the last time Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck ever entertained a concern about health care or unemployment benefits? [While Limbaugh’s did have concerns about obtaining his OxyContin legally, this was not an economic issue.] When is the last time either of them had to manage a small business payroll? I recall Jesse Ventura running for Governor of Minnesota pledging to end student aid subsidies [Jesse never went to college] and obtaining support from misguided college aged students, the primary beneficiaries of such public support. Perhaps these college students thought it was a rerun of "Animal House." But in any event, so many people were swayed to act and vote directly contrary to their self interest and the interests of average people generally. People who fail to hang together, as the saying goes, are likely to hang separately. And the current plight of the individual families all across the USA attests to the wisdom of that adage.
This can only occur in an environment where all faith and trust in a government’s ability to protect and advance the common well being of its citizens has been abandoned. This is not a time for alarmist rants, but it is a time for cold eyed and realistic assessment. The title of “United” should legitimately be removed from the name of a nation in which a policy of “every man for himself” prevails. And the government should be ashamed to proclaim a Judeo-Christian foundation when the admonitions of Jesus concerning care for the poor and “whatsoever thou doest unto the least” of my people are rejected as unworthy values. If that kind of nation is not truly what the people want, then they should wake up and realize that it is what they currently HAVE and get to work changing the status quo.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Say It Ain’t So….
Despite continual protests that it is unfair or untrue that the media and US society has a virulent racist undercurrent, repeated experience tells us that the charge rings true. Consider the recent and ongoing tragedy in Haiti. Tens of thousands of people are already confirmed dead. Hundreds of thousands of people are displaced and without adequate food, water and shelter. It is, by any human standard, a tragedy warranting an international outpouring of assistance.
What is the response of the US mainstream media? Alleged Christian and televangelist Pat Robertson makes a public statement that the Haitian people deserved this calamity because of some “pact with the Devil” made to free the Haitian people from oppression by the French colonizers. Rush Limbaugh, that sage of the GOP limelight, announced that US citizens need not worry about giving aid to the sufferers in Haiti because the US government has already provided some foreign aid to Haiti. And today MSNBC features a “top story” attacking an aid foundation led by Haitian born recording artist Wyclef Jean. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Aside from the abject and deplorable ignorance of Robertson regarding some alleged superstition, making an announcement that the people of Haiti deserved such a disastrous fate at a time when calls have gone out for immediate international relief aid is, at best, monstrous. It is insensitive and falls outside the realm of acceptable human behavior. If that is the mindset and the value system of Robertson and his true believers, it is a wonder that the Bible does not shrivel up on his desk or in his pocket. What WOULD Jesus do in response to such human suffering? Would he have turned his back and declared that they victims deserved to suffer? I think not.
Rush Limbaugh may have been on another of his drug induced stupors when he announced that aid was not really needed, in the face of clear and irrefutable evidence of deaths, injuries, hunger and suffering. Rush has never been one to extol the virtues of treating your fellow humans with respect or dignity, but this rant lacks even the appearance of logic or common sense. When actions defy logic, rationality and simple standards of human decency, chances are that we are dealing with bigotry. How else can you reconcile his positions advocating the “rights” of white folks in the Southwest against an “invasion” by brown skinned Mexicans without mentioning white illegal immigrants from Canada and Eastern Europe, this latest pronouncement against Black skinned Haitians and the basic principles of coherent logic. I suggest that it cannot be done by any stretch of sophistry.
The MSNBC story lacks all sense of proportion or relevance. It fails to consider that the entire revenue of the Haitian Foundation set up by Wyclef Jean last year was $1.9 million while a single couple in the US just won a Power ball lottery of $128 million. The need in Haiti will certainly exceed hundreds of millions as schools, hospitals and other basic systems need to be rebuilt. But the lead story is to attack a Haitian for making an attempt to help the people of his birthplace, and indirectly accuse him of tax fraud or the lack of organizational resources to provide effective aid. Step aside and let the white-run big boys agencies provide the aid. A Black man is unfit to help his own people. Those are the messages of the MSNBC story, both in content and decision to lead with the story. No mention is made of the many Haitian American communities, as in Boston, who are banding together to raise and deliver aid and reconnect with relatives in Haiti. No, that story element would have provided balance and focused upon the FACT that aid is needed no matter where it comes from. It would have shown how working class and professional Haitian born US citizens [yes, I did say professionals] are shouldering an effort to help in this human catastrophe. But all that MSNBC can do is denigrate such aid efforts.
Now, what of this "unfounded" charge of racism in the US media?
What is the response of the US mainstream media? Alleged Christian and televangelist Pat Robertson makes a public statement that the Haitian people deserved this calamity because of some “pact with the Devil” made to free the Haitian people from oppression by the French colonizers. Rush Limbaugh, that sage of the GOP limelight, announced that US citizens need not worry about giving aid to the sufferers in Haiti because the US government has already provided some foreign aid to Haiti. And today MSNBC features a “top story” attacking an aid foundation led by Haitian born recording artist Wyclef Jean. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Aside from the abject and deplorable ignorance of Robertson regarding some alleged superstition, making an announcement that the people of Haiti deserved such a disastrous fate at a time when calls have gone out for immediate international relief aid is, at best, monstrous. It is insensitive and falls outside the realm of acceptable human behavior. If that is the mindset and the value system of Robertson and his true believers, it is a wonder that the Bible does not shrivel up on his desk or in his pocket. What WOULD Jesus do in response to such human suffering? Would he have turned his back and declared that they victims deserved to suffer? I think not.
Rush Limbaugh may have been on another of his drug induced stupors when he announced that aid was not really needed, in the face of clear and irrefutable evidence of deaths, injuries, hunger and suffering. Rush has never been one to extol the virtues of treating your fellow humans with respect or dignity, but this rant lacks even the appearance of logic or common sense. When actions defy logic, rationality and simple standards of human decency, chances are that we are dealing with bigotry. How else can you reconcile his positions advocating the “rights” of white folks in the Southwest against an “invasion” by brown skinned Mexicans without mentioning white illegal immigrants from Canada and Eastern Europe, this latest pronouncement against Black skinned Haitians and the basic principles of coherent logic. I suggest that it cannot be done by any stretch of sophistry.
The MSNBC story lacks all sense of proportion or relevance. It fails to consider that the entire revenue of the Haitian Foundation set up by Wyclef Jean last year was $1.9 million while a single couple in the US just won a Power ball lottery of $128 million. The need in Haiti will certainly exceed hundreds of millions as schools, hospitals and other basic systems need to be rebuilt. But the lead story is to attack a Haitian for making an attempt to help the people of his birthplace, and indirectly accuse him of tax fraud or the lack of organizational resources to provide effective aid. Step aside and let the white-run big boys agencies provide the aid. A Black man is unfit to help his own people. Those are the messages of the MSNBC story, both in content and decision to lead with the story. No mention is made of the many Haitian American communities, as in Boston, who are banding together to raise and deliver aid and reconnect with relatives in Haiti. No, that story element would have provided balance and focused upon the FACT that aid is needed no matter where it comes from. It would have shown how working class and professional Haitian born US citizens [yes, I did say professionals] are shouldering an effort to help in this human catastrophe. But all that MSNBC can do is denigrate such aid efforts.
Now, what of this "unfounded" charge of racism in the US media?
Saturday, January 09, 2010
How Bizarre – How Hypocritical
Having lived in and spent considerable time in New England, and particularly in Boston, there is little that can be truly surprising anymore. However there are stories that can still amuse and perhaps dismay. A very recent news article details how dozens of immigrants, accused of illegal status and under detention from INS, were trucked to Gillette Stadium to clear snow before the NFL Playoff Game.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/08/detained_immigrants_were_set_to_clear_gillette_snow/
While the article spent considerable time bemoaning the fractured immigration agency operation and faulty immigration policies, little attention was focused on the obvious issue of the use of detainees for impromptu labor details for the convenience of the city’s professional sports franchise. In years gone by, it was common in the Southern States of the USA for local police to arrest people on charges of “vagrancy” and other pretextual justifications and turn them over to be used as slave labor to politically influential landowners or companies. Their labor was supposed to be part of their penalty, though frequently the impressments occurred prior to any presentment or judicial determination of guilt. Of course, the police officials received “gratuities” for assisting the local politicos in obtaining virtually free labor.
We do not know whether these detainees forced to shovel snow at Gillette Stadium were actually paid for their services. If they were, then there was a direct breach of law relating to employment of illegal aliens. Claims that the contractor did not know the workers' status seems flimsy, at best, when a truckload of workers arrive in a vehicle marked “INS.” If the workers were not paid for their services, then the problem of using work gangs as slave labor rears its ugly head.
Certainly, in light of weather problems, Boston and its beloved professional sports franchise and fans needed to have the snow cleared. And the practice of graft and questionable "under the table" schemes involving government officials and local bigwigs is all but endemic to life in Boston. Police and Fire employees on disability collecting more from off duty jobs than they did for regular service is fairly common. The current head of the Massachusetts National Guard is to be court-martialed for fraudulent creation and misuse of a “slush fund” of about $6 million. So it is not surprising that the event sparked little outrage in Boston. I suppose if the fruit of their labor were actually going to be put to use to pay for deportation transport, a thin rationalization could be constructed. But my experience in Boston causes me to seriously doubt that the money paid for the services will ever wind up in the pockets of the workers or public coffers.
However, the question begs asking whether it is appropriate, legal or ethical to force detainees to perform work in this manner. Many of the immigrants came to the USA to flee poverty and political instability in their home country. They would gladly have taken jobs performing the same kind of backbreaking work that they have been forced to do, legally, if that were possible. After all, in the current economy, if the work assignment paid a reasonable wage and there were plenty of legal workers who wanted the job, why was the impressment of detainees necessary? So, if these workers were performing manual labor no-one else wanted, why are they denied legal opportunity to do the much needed work? Seems to me more than a little hypocritical. And for a city that was once the center of the abolitionist movement, this corrupt use of slave labor seems especially unworthy.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/08/detained_immigrants_were_set_to_clear_gillette_snow/
While the article spent considerable time bemoaning the fractured immigration agency operation and faulty immigration policies, little attention was focused on the obvious issue of the use of detainees for impromptu labor details for the convenience of the city’s professional sports franchise. In years gone by, it was common in the Southern States of the USA for local police to arrest people on charges of “vagrancy” and other pretextual justifications and turn them over to be used as slave labor to politically influential landowners or companies. Their labor was supposed to be part of their penalty, though frequently the impressments occurred prior to any presentment or judicial determination of guilt. Of course, the police officials received “gratuities” for assisting the local politicos in obtaining virtually free labor.
We do not know whether these detainees forced to shovel snow at Gillette Stadium were actually paid for their services. If they were, then there was a direct breach of law relating to employment of illegal aliens. Claims that the contractor did not know the workers' status seems flimsy, at best, when a truckload of workers arrive in a vehicle marked “INS.” If the workers were not paid for their services, then the problem of using work gangs as slave labor rears its ugly head.
Certainly, in light of weather problems, Boston and its beloved professional sports franchise and fans needed to have the snow cleared. And the practice of graft and questionable "under the table" schemes involving government officials and local bigwigs is all but endemic to life in Boston. Police and Fire employees on disability collecting more from off duty jobs than they did for regular service is fairly common. The current head of the Massachusetts National Guard is to be court-martialed for fraudulent creation and misuse of a “slush fund” of about $6 million. So it is not surprising that the event sparked little outrage in Boston. I suppose if the fruit of their labor were actually going to be put to use to pay for deportation transport, a thin rationalization could be constructed. But my experience in Boston causes me to seriously doubt that the money paid for the services will ever wind up in the pockets of the workers or public coffers.
However, the question begs asking whether it is appropriate, legal or ethical to force detainees to perform work in this manner. Many of the immigrants came to the USA to flee poverty and political instability in their home country. They would gladly have taken jobs performing the same kind of backbreaking work that they have been forced to do, legally, if that were possible. After all, in the current economy, if the work assignment paid a reasonable wage and there were plenty of legal workers who wanted the job, why was the impressment of detainees necessary? So, if these workers were performing manual labor no-one else wanted, why are they denied legal opportunity to do the much needed work? Seems to me more than a little hypocritical. And for a city that was once the center of the abolitionist movement, this corrupt use of slave labor seems especially unworthy.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Small Meditation
What we strive for daily is to accomplish “something.” Like tuning a fine violin in a changeable climate, we each hit the high notes from time to time. Yet even failing to reach such pinnacles may often yield pleasant and sometimes even beautiful results. The magnitude of our deeds, and their worth, is really not for ourselves to judge. To entertain the notion that our works are of great importance would be the height of hubris.
We are, after all, just cogs in a much larger machination. As such, our respective roles should neither be inflated nor diminished. For the functioning of the whole is but a reflection of collective contributions of the multitudinous parts. Any facet improperly honed or poorly employed will lessen the effect of the whole and create disharmony.
And lest the realization of the limitations of our individual roles be disheartening, meditate upon the watchmaker’s dream. For even the smallest lever, wheel or cog is important. When finely crafted and polished, when properly placed and employed to its fullest potential, even the smallest cog may observe and measure the tics and tocks of inexorable time, and record with exquisite precision the march of eternity.
We are, after all, just cogs in a much larger machination. As such, our respective roles should neither be inflated nor diminished. For the functioning of the whole is but a reflection of collective contributions of the multitudinous parts. Any facet improperly honed or poorly employed will lessen the effect of the whole and create disharmony.
And lest the realization of the limitations of our individual roles be disheartening, meditate upon the watchmaker’s dream. For even the smallest lever, wheel or cog is important. When finely crafted and polished, when properly placed and employed to its fullest potential, even the smallest cog may observe and measure the tics and tocks of inexorable time, and record with exquisite precision the march of eternity.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Public Finance - an Oxymoron?
There has been a great deal of heat, but far less light shed on the state of affairs surrounding the financing of public debt and investments through the use of speculative and risk laden derivatives. Like impressionable juveniles, officials of cities, municipalities, public pensions and utility coops were lured into investment schemes that promised euphoric high returns. Once hooked, they scarcely paid notice to the perilous provisions tied to a failure to pay for the continuing “fix” or the cost of “withdrawal” should the entity need to divorce itself from these derivative schemes. After all, Congress and the White House had driven regulatory monitors underground and given a clear green light to these bankers and financiers to peddle these feel good products. Why should the cities and municipalities worry about a downside?
The underbelly of these wonderful "investment opportunities" was indeed ugly. Let us start with the fees. Many of these derivative peddlers charge the funds they speculate with a management fee of from 1% to 3% of the total fund. A reasonable charge for dedicated expertise you say? Well, consider the Texas Teachers Retirement Fund with assets of more than $15 Billion. Do the math! THEN consider that the dedicated expertise has resulted in a loss of between 15% and 33% of the Fund’s value. Retirees under the Fund have not seen a cost of living increase since 2001 and are very unlikely to see another in the lifetime of many beneficiaries. Yet the investment managers continue to get paid the investment management fee. In addition, penalty clauses for failure to make payments or for withdrawing from these toxic deals can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, in addition to the lost values of assets suffered.
The fact that these funds are public assets should not be overlooked. Many of these assets are needed to serve very important functions, like providing public transportation, keeping public schools open and maintaining public utilities. The collision of two very interesting forces created this perfect storm. The first was the desensitized condition of public officials. They had been so used to constant operation on the verge of financial crisis because of tight budgets, continuous borrowing and shifting funding levels that they believed that they would be able to find some solution, somewhere. The lure of investments that promised to save on borrowing costs and provide potential breathing room was a seductive offer. The second force was the GOP mantra, essentially anti-government, that created a public hatred of any suggestion of tax increases. Even when things actually COST more, the ideology was that taxes should not be raised to generate the money to pay those additional costs. The combination of these forces drove the public officials into the waiting arms of the derivative peddlers.
The result, in human terms has been the cut of public services, the reduction of educational programs and closure of schools, public transportation systems required to push aged equipment to the margins of safety, and the reduction of police and fire safety services. Social services, or what was left of them from the anorexic taxation philosophy being employed, have nearly disappeared in many larger cities hit by these derivative scams.
But all this is merely prologue to the real punch line, the genuine travesty in all this. In the starving and emaciated condition of the cities as a result of decreased tax revenue when the housing bubble burst, municipalities and public coops faced failure to make payment on these speculative investments. The federal government responded by giving billions of dollars to the bankers and financiers to bail them out and relieve them from the pressure of the failed and reckless investments. This decision apparently reflects a belief that, while the cities and the people of the country whose tax money was being thrown about were not important enough to save, the banks were “too big to fail.” It is not at all clear why a moratorium on termination payments or late payment penalties could not have been used, and the federal money used to help cities and municipalities meet their current payment obligations in the form of federal no interest loans. The process seems to stand the notion of public finance [emphasis on public] on its head.
To add insult to injury, the banks and financier receiving taxpayer bailouts have taken hundreds of millions of dollars of the public bailout funds to pay bonuses to executives whose primary accomplishments have been to dupe investors, lose their assets and hoodwink the federal government into handing over billions of bailout dollars.
It may be too much to ask, but perhaps someone in charge of the federal public funds should take a moment to peruse the US Constitution and see what purposes taxpayer money was supposed to be collected and used for. I doubt that paying bonuses to Wall Street charlatans who have helped to bankrupt cities and endanger citizens through starvation of capital and public services would fit under even the most tortured reading of the founding document.
The underbelly of these wonderful "investment opportunities" was indeed ugly. Let us start with the fees. Many of these derivative peddlers charge the funds they speculate with a management fee of from 1% to 3% of the total fund. A reasonable charge for dedicated expertise you say? Well, consider the Texas Teachers Retirement Fund with assets of more than $15 Billion. Do the math! THEN consider that the dedicated expertise has resulted in a loss of between 15% and 33% of the Fund’s value. Retirees under the Fund have not seen a cost of living increase since 2001 and are very unlikely to see another in the lifetime of many beneficiaries. Yet the investment managers continue to get paid the investment management fee. In addition, penalty clauses for failure to make payments or for withdrawing from these toxic deals can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, in addition to the lost values of assets suffered.
The fact that these funds are public assets should not be overlooked. Many of these assets are needed to serve very important functions, like providing public transportation, keeping public schools open and maintaining public utilities. The collision of two very interesting forces created this perfect storm. The first was the desensitized condition of public officials. They had been so used to constant operation on the verge of financial crisis because of tight budgets, continuous borrowing and shifting funding levels that they believed that they would be able to find some solution, somewhere. The lure of investments that promised to save on borrowing costs and provide potential breathing room was a seductive offer. The second force was the GOP mantra, essentially anti-government, that created a public hatred of any suggestion of tax increases. Even when things actually COST more, the ideology was that taxes should not be raised to generate the money to pay those additional costs. The combination of these forces drove the public officials into the waiting arms of the derivative peddlers.
The result, in human terms has been the cut of public services, the reduction of educational programs and closure of schools, public transportation systems required to push aged equipment to the margins of safety, and the reduction of police and fire safety services. Social services, or what was left of them from the anorexic taxation philosophy being employed, have nearly disappeared in many larger cities hit by these derivative scams.
But all this is merely prologue to the real punch line, the genuine travesty in all this. In the starving and emaciated condition of the cities as a result of decreased tax revenue when the housing bubble burst, municipalities and public coops faced failure to make payment on these speculative investments. The federal government responded by giving billions of dollars to the bankers and financiers to bail them out and relieve them from the pressure of the failed and reckless investments. This decision apparently reflects a belief that, while the cities and the people of the country whose tax money was being thrown about were not important enough to save, the banks were “too big to fail.” It is not at all clear why a moratorium on termination payments or late payment penalties could not have been used, and the federal money used to help cities and municipalities meet their current payment obligations in the form of federal no interest loans. The process seems to stand the notion of public finance [emphasis on public] on its head.
To add insult to injury, the banks and financier receiving taxpayer bailouts have taken hundreds of millions of dollars of the public bailout funds to pay bonuses to executives whose primary accomplishments have been to dupe investors, lose their assets and hoodwink the federal government into handing over billions of bailout dollars.
It may be too much to ask, but perhaps someone in charge of the federal public funds should take a moment to peruse the US Constitution and see what purposes taxpayer money was supposed to be collected and used for. I doubt that paying bonuses to Wall Street charlatans who have helped to bankrupt cities and endanger citizens through starvation of capital and public services would fit under even the most tortured reading of the founding document.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Congressional Chicanery – Parliamentary Perversion
The USA legislative process has been held up as a model of democratic process to the world; but the homage may be ill deserved. Too often, the legislative process is corrupted by greed, unethical conduct and deceitful methods that prevent fulfillment of declared goals and aspirations. This concern is well illustrated in the current debate and legislative process involving reform of the health care system in the USA.
With slightly less than 300 million people in the richest country on the planet, it is shameful that over 50 million lack reliable access to health care services and health insurance coverage. This is exponentially embarrassing in a country supposedly founded upon the principle that government’s duty is to provide for the common welfare of its citizens. From the standpoint of Sociology and Psychology, the distorted use of legislative tricks seems abusive. There is a cognitive dissonance in claiming to be a government of the people committed to the welfare of all, with representatives sworn to uphold those principles, and at the same time allow use of disingenuous procedures to prevent the poor and disenfranchised from governmental protection and largesse. This is not a question of socialism, but rather a question whether government intervention is needed when individual and private commercial interests cannot or will not meet a critical public need. It is then that the national government is supposed to rise up as the champion and the protector of the lesser and indeed ALL citizens of the country.
Deception is so deeply embedded in the US legislative process and psyche that the term “honest politician” has become largely oxymoronic. People in the USA no longer generally expect their elected representatives to act honestly and with the best interests of the public or constituency in mind or heart. Sometimes that failure is a result of ignorance and incompetence, a failure to investigate or think through legislative measures before acting. Too often, however, the failures are a direct result of deceit and trickery intended to corrupt the process.
Historically, sleight of hand and semantics have played a critical role in the legislative process. When the founders of the nation spoke of “We the People,” they were not referring to women or people of color. That tradition of deception has been refined and repeatedly used to deprive people ostensibly protected by national and Constitutional principles of equal protection under the law. When the Civil Rights Acts were adopted in the 1960’s to protect against actions of willful discrimination in employment and housing, an amendment to cover gender was inserted with the insidious intent of derailing the legislation. National embarrassment over the treatment of Blacks and the backroom deals of Lyndon B. Johnson had forced a vote on legislation to ban overt discrimination against Blacks, but it was believed that extending such protection to women would galvanize Southern resistance and block passage of the laws. The underhanded ploy failed and women were extended protection under the law, accidentally.
In the current example, relying upon the same “poison amendment” strategy, Rep Stupak has engrafted an amendment to the Health Care Bill that prohibits any poor person from gaining access to government supported health insurance if the plan includes coverage for abortion services. It is like saying that the government will agree to provide necessary support for health care as long as coverage is denied to Black people or to Gays. The belief or strategy is that the amendment is so offensive to fair and decent Congressional representatives, that they would rather kill the entire legislative measure than adopt it with a provision that is morally and ethically offensive. This was a typical strategy of the Late Jessie Helms, representative from North Carolina who championed racism and bigotry through such deceit and indirection.
The Stupak Amendment has additional power to corrupt, by perverting the medical lexicon, which is an added twist and level of sophistication. Medically and scientifically, the D&C procedure [dilation and curettage] used to perform safe abortions is indistinguishable from routine medical procedures to treat such conditions as endometriosis and to remove cysts, ectopic pregnancies and polyps from the uterus. Indeed the procedure would even be denied when the fetus is dead and the risk of sepsis and death of the woman is involved. The procedure is coded the same for insurance and medical record purposes. As a result, poor people who may need any level of government subsidy to afford health insurance under the reform legislation would be denied access to virtually EVERY insurance plan currently available. In addition, Roe v. Wade and state insurance laws would probably prohibit insurance companies from drawing a line and provide coverage for D&C procedures, generally, while denying coverage for use of the procedure for abortion related purposes. So even if passed, the amendment may render health care reform legislation unconstitutional and invalid.
To be sure, the government cannot and should not be expected to do everything. And past failures of government, particularly in the last decade of the George W. Bush administration, urge caution against the government trying to do too much. There is a fair debate whether extensive use of government financial resources can be sustained in light of current economic struggles. At the same time, it is argued that the cost savings from employing health care reform will actually reduce the federal deficit over time, while reducing the growth of health care costs. This latter proposition is central to the debate, because reduction in health insurance industry profits is the primary reason why billions of dollars are being spent by these special interests to kill any type of reform. These economic projections do not even include the less tangible and less measurable positive impact on productivity for a healthier labor force and population. So the economic debate centers on saving money [actually, not spending it on health care is more accurate] in the short term, or investing in the general welfare of the citizens over a longer term.
Another very unfortunate aspect of this process is the insidious dishonesty involved, the parliamentary perversion. Rather than face these difficult questions directly and openly, the opposition would rather resort to backdoor measures to kill the legislation while pretending to take principled stances. Examination of the bank accounts of the campaigns of Congressmen Stupak, Sen. Lieberman* and others leaves little room for doubt that their motivation is more about garnering a share of the large purse of contributions doled out by health insurance lobbyists than about taking a moral stand. Playing a numbers game, however, Stupak and his ilk realize that mindless GOP opposition to reform plus a few negative votes from Democrat [or pseudo-Democrat] legislators could derail reform and thus create a potentially powerful bargaining position. Such manipulation is not inherently bad, if the intended use of power were for ethical and honorable purposes rather than simply to have power and for personal financial gain. But ethical use is not Stupak’s or Lieberman’s goal.
Perhaps the ultimate parliamentary perversion lies in the ulterior motives of legislative posturing. It is said that many GOP representatives actually want health care reform to pass, but are voting against it because they know that the majority support will assure passage. Yet they can posture publicly against the reform measure. In the case of Stupak, it may be even more subtle. His obstructionist Amendment can be stripped from the legislation in Conference as a concessionary move to gain passage, and the reform measure enacted while he keeps his treasure trove from the moneyed interests. This is the type of political corruption and chicanery that led to the Principate rule in Ancient Rome and to the Caesars declaring the ostensibly democratic, but in practice totally corrupt, Senate an irrelevancy. The Roman populace, the citizenry, was unable or unwilling to rise up and demand more honest government from an increasingly corrupt and insular Senate ruled by greed and venality. The experiment in representative democracy thus failed and Rome ultimately fell as a result of internal corruption. Will the USA experience the same fate? Will the US citizens rise up and demand more honesty of their “elected” representatives? The future of the nation hangs in the balance.
* Lieberman had taken a stance against inclusion of a “public option” in health care reform, a proposal that would allow for creation of a government alternative to private insurance in order to assure that insurance and health care costs will be restrained and health insurance will be truly available to all, a safety net. The device is different than the one used by Stupak, but the strategy is the same.
With slightly less than 300 million people in the richest country on the planet, it is shameful that over 50 million lack reliable access to health care services and health insurance coverage. This is exponentially embarrassing in a country supposedly founded upon the principle that government’s duty is to provide for the common welfare of its citizens. From the standpoint of Sociology and Psychology, the distorted use of legislative tricks seems abusive. There is a cognitive dissonance in claiming to be a government of the people committed to the welfare of all, with representatives sworn to uphold those principles, and at the same time allow use of disingenuous procedures to prevent the poor and disenfranchised from governmental protection and largesse. This is not a question of socialism, but rather a question whether government intervention is needed when individual and private commercial interests cannot or will not meet a critical public need. It is then that the national government is supposed to rise up as the champion and the protector of the lesser and indeed ALL citizens of the country.
Deception is so deeply embedded in the US legislative process and psyche that the term “honest politician” has become largely oxymoronic. People in the USA no longer generally expect their elected representatives to act honestly and with the best interests of the public or constituency in mind or heart. Sometimes that failure is a result of ignorance and incompetence, a failure to investigate or think through legislative measures before acting. Too often, however, the failures are a direct result of deceit and trickery intended to corrupt the process.
Historically, sleight of hand and semantics have played a critical role in the legislative process. When the founders of the nation spoke of “We the People,” they were not referring to women or people of color. That tradition of deception has been refined and repeatedly used to deprive people ostensibly protected by national and Constitutional principles of equal protection under the law. When the Civil Rights Acts were adopted in the 1960’s to protect against actions of willful discrimination in employment and housing, an amendment to cover gender was inserted with the insidious intent of derailing the legislation. National embarrassment over the treatment of Blacks and the backroom deals of Lyndon B. Johnson had forced a vote on legislation to ban overt discrimination against Blacks, but it was believed that extending such protection to women would galvanize Southern resistance and block passage of the laws. The underhanded ploy failed and women were extended protection under the law, accidentally.
In the current example, relying upon the same “poison amendment” strategy, Rep Stupak has engrafted an amendment to the Health Care Bill that prohibits any poor person from gaining access to government supported health insurance if the plan includes coverage for abortion services. It is like saying that the government will agree to provide necessary support for health care as long as coverage is denied to Black people or to Gays. The belief or strategy is that the amendment is so offensive to fair and decent Congressional representatives, that they would rather kill the entire legislative measure than adopt it with a provision that is morally and ethically offensive. This was a typical strategy of the Late Jessie Helms, representative from North Carolina who championed racism and bigotry through such deceit and indirection.
The Stupak Amendment has additional power to corrupt, by perverting the medical lexicon, which is an added twist and level of sophistication. Medically and scientifically, the D&C procedure [dilation and curettage] used to perform safe abortions is indistinguishable from routine medical procedures to treat such conditions as endometriosis and to remove cysts, ectopic pregnancies and polyps from the uterus. Indeed the procedure would even be denied when the fetus is dead and the risk of sepsis and death of the woman is involved. The procedure is coded the same for insurance and medical record purposes. As a result, poor people who may need any level of government subsidy to afford health insurance under the reform legislation would be denied access to virtually EVERY insurance plan currently available. In addition, Roe v. Wade and state insurance laws would probably prohibit insurance companies from drawing a line and provide coverage for D&C procedures, generally, while denying coverage for use of the procedure for abortion related purposes. So even if passed, the amendment may render health care reform legislation unconstitutional and invalid.
To be sure, the government cannot and should not be expected to do everything. And past failures of government, particularly in the last decade of the George W. Bush administration, urge caution against the government trying to do too much. There is a fair debate whether extensive use of government financial resources can be sustained in light of current economic struggles. At the same time, it is argued that the cost savings from employing health care reform will actually reduce the federal deficit over time, while reducing the growth of health care costs. This latter proposition is central to the debate, because reduction in health insurance industry profits is the primary reason why billions of dollars are being spent by these special interests to kill any type of reform. These economic projections do not even include the less tangible and less measurable positive impact on productivity for a healthier labor force and population. So the economic debate centers on saving money [actually, not spending it on health care is more accurate] in the short term, or investing in the general welfare of the citizens over a longer term.
Another very unfortunate aspect of this process is the insidious dishonesty involved, the parliamentary perversion. Rather than face these difficult questions directly and openly, the opposition would rather resort to backdoor measures to kill the legislation while pretending to take principled stances. Examination of the bank accounts of the campaigns of Congressmen Stupak, Sen. Lieberman* and others leaves little room for doubt that their motivation is more about garnering a share of the large purse of contributions doled out by health insurance lobbyists than about taking a moral stand. Playing a numbers game, however, Stupak and his ilk realize that mindless GOP opposition to reform plus a few negative votes from Democrat [or pseudo-Democrat] legislators could derail reform and thus create a potentially powerful bargaining position. Such manipulation is not inherently bad, if the intended use of power were for ethical and honorable purposes rather than simply to have power and for personal financial gain. But ethical use is not Stupak’s or Lieberman’s goal.
Perhaps the ultimate parliamentary perversion lies in the ulterior motives of legislative posturing. It is said that many GOP representatives actually want health care reform to pass, but are voting against it because they know that the majority support will assure passage. Yet they can posture publicly against the reform measure. In the case of Stupak, it may be even more subtle. His obstructionist Amendment can be stripped from the legislation in Conference as a concessionary move to gain passage, and the reform measure enacted while he keeps his treasure trove from the moneyed interests. This is the type of political corruption and chicanery that led to the Principate rule in Ancient Rome and to the Caesars declaring the ostensibly democratic, but in practice totally corrupt, Senate an irrelevancy. The Roman populace, the citizenry, was unable or unwilling to rise up and demand more honest government from an increasingly corrupt and insular Senate ruled by greed and venality. The experiment in representative democracy thus failed and Rome ultimately fell as a result of internal corruption. Will the USA experience the same fate? Will the US citizens rise up and demand more honesty of their “elected” representatives? The future of the nation hangs in the balance.
* Lieberman had taken a stance against inclusion of a “public option” in health care reform, a proposal that would allow for creation of a government alternative to private insurance in order to assure that insurance and health care costs will be restrained and health insurance will be truly available to all, a safety net. The device is different than the one used by Stupak, but the strategy is the same.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
“Differentiated Education”
A recent report in an education journal caught my attention. Some schools in New Jersey are experimenting with a form of modified “curriculum” that enables schools to provide students with courses that focus exclusively on standardized test preparation instead of taking elective courses. While perhaps not exactly innovative, the approach is rational and pragmatic. The idea is to free teachers from the burden of training the students to pass the standardized tests, a special “skill,” and allow them to spend time on teaching actual content.
In the current raging debate about how to reform education, the corporate and commercialized product driven philosophy seems to be holding sway as the “sausage” making process of education policy progresses [and I use the term cautiously]. Thus, the move to tie funding and public support for education to standardized test results – production metrics- is gaining momentum. The ethic of mass production, however, does not inherently incorporate the concept of quality. If the corporate goal is to produce as many units as possible that meet minimum criteria, then the system derived from that goal will be one that yields high numbers of units that satisfy minimum criteria.
The New Jersey approach, then, is a logical and pragmatic response to the corporate directive. Whether or not it is proven that students who pass the standardized tests are actually better educated, this approach is likely to yield higher numbers of students that satisfy that minimum criterion. As a consequence of producing the “results” defined by corporate policy, the New Jersey schools should obtain the reward of continued or additional funding that will enable them to go about the real job of educating students. In some ways, this strategy is like shoveling snow in the winter or removing lint from the dryer filter. These chores have no intrinsic value, but they are necessary to maintaining access to the building or continued operation of the appliance.
The teachers view this strategy as a beneficial adaptation that supports their mission. Many feel that the standardized tests emphasize “reading, rote and regurgitation” skills, rather than critical thinking and higher order analytical competencies. Thus, removing that type of training from the regular classroom frees their time to spend with students trying to further their education in competencies that will be more crucial to success in life and their careers. Moving the test training process to elective or “differentiated” classes is seen as politically expedient, although not directly educationally germane. The realities of politics these days dictate that these students will need to pass the standardized tests as their ticket to that future life and career. Driver’s license exams have not been historically or empirically shown to ensure competence to actually operate a motor vehicle safely and well. However, they are required to enable the driver to get behind the wheel legally. Similarly, standardized tests have not been proven as an accurate or effective measure of the students’ competence to critically analyze and creatively resolve a broad array of problems that they are likely to face in the future. Yet education funding requires that schools demonstrate that the students can pass the tests.
The politics of production/scarcity has thrown education in the barrel with other taxpayer supported governmental services that are perhaps more easily amenable to metrics. For example, fire protection services can be measured by response times and resources can be allocated to that function with predictable and measurable consequences. Social services, including education, are more difficult to qualify if taking the quantify approach to evaluation. The number of cases that a social worker processes does not tell us about the well being of the clients processed. Indeed, we may speculate that there is an inverse relationship. Similarly, the number of students passing standardized tests does not tell us how well they are educated. It does indicate whether the school factory is effective at producing units.
And taxpayers have been encouraged, if not misled, to believe that the decision to allocate resources to education should be measured by such production numbers. At the same time, the taxpayers are reading study after study that shows the failure of schools to improve the quality of education and that large gaps remain in student achievement. What politicians are reluctant to focus attention on, however, is the logical disconnect. Simply put, the level of production does not indicate the level of quality. In many cases, the increase in production, for its own sake, will yield no better and perhaps poorer quality.
And so the New Jersey schools have taken a pragmatic approach. Let’s give the politicians what they want, and try to give the students what they actually need. By differentiating the two, they have dispensed with the illusion that the two are the same.
In the current raging debate about how to reform education, the corporate and commercialized product driven philosophy seems to be holding sway as the “sausage” making process of education policy progresses [and I use the term cautiously]. Thus, the move to tie funding and public support for education to standardized test results – production metrics- is gaining momentum. The ethic of mass production, however, does not inherently incorporate the concept of quality. If the corporate goal is to produce as many units as possible that meet minimum criteria, then the system derived from that goal will be one that yields high numbers of units that satisfy minimum criteria.
The New Jersey approach, then, is a logical and pragmatic response to the corporate directive. Whether or not it is proven that students who pass the standardized tests are actually better educated, this approach is likely to yield higher numbers of students that satisfy that minimum criterion. As a consequence of producing the “results” defined by corporate policy, the New Jersey schools should obtain the reward of continued or additional funding that will enable them to go about the real job of educating students. In some ways, this strategy is like shoveling snow in the winter or removing lint from the dryer filter. These chores have no intrinsic value, but they are necessary to maintaining access to the building or continued operation of the appliance.
The teachers view this strategy as a beneficial adaptation that supports their mission. Many feel that the standardized tests emphasize “reading, rote and regurgitation” skills, rather than critical thinking and higher order analytical competencies. Thus, removing that type of training from the regular classroom frees their time to spend with students trying to further their education in competencies that will be more crucial to success in life and their careers. Moving the test training process to elective or “differentiated” classes is seen as politically expedient, although not directly educationally germane. The realities of politics these days dictate that these students will need to pass the standardized tests as their ticket to that future life and career. Driver’s license exams have not been historically or empirically shown to ensure competence to actually operate a motor vehicle safely and well. However, they are required to enable the driver to get behind the wheel legally. Similarly, standardized tests have not been proven as an accurate or effective measure of the students’ competence to critically analyze and creatively resolve a broad array of problems that they are likely to face in the future. Yet education funding requires that schools demonstrate that the students can pass the tests.
The politics of production/scarcity has thrown education in the barrel with other taxpayer supported governmental services that are perhaps more easily amenable to metrics. For example, fire protection services can be measured by response times and resources can be allocated to that function with predictable and measurable consequences. Social services, including education, are more difficult to qualify if taking the quantify approach to evaluation. The number of cases that a social worker processes does not tell us about the well being of the clients processed. Indeed, we may speculate that there is an inverse relationship. Similarly, the number of students passing standardized tests does not tell us how well they are educated. It does indicate whether the school factory is effective at producing units.
And taxpayers have been encouraged, if not misled, to believe that the decision to allocate resources to education should be measured by such production numbers. At the same time, the taxpayers are reading study after study that shows the failure of schools to improve the quality of education and that large gaps remain in student achievement. What politicians are reluctant to focus attention on, however, is the logical disconnect. Simply put, the level of production does not indicate the level of quality. In many cases, the increase in production, for its own sake, will yield no better and perhaps poorer quality.
And so the New Jersey schools have taken a pragmatic approach. Let’s give the politicians what they want, and try to give the students what they actually need. By differentiating the two, they have dispensed with the illusion that the two are the same.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Take a Deep Breath
Sometimes it is useful to take a step back from posturing and argumentation to assess whether what one is arguing actually makes sense any longer. In the heat of an argument it is not unusual to continue ranting and pursuing heated and entrenched positions even after the basis for those positions has been thoroughly discredited.
Witness current relations between the US and Iran. US Secretary of State, Clinton recently met with Russian President Medvedev in an attempt to get the Russians to endorse sanctions if Iran failed to satisfy US demands that it does not intend to use its nuclear research capability to develop nuclear weapons. This diplomatic ploy was rejected by Medvedev and by Russian Prime Minister Putin as “premature” in light of ongoing negotiations and signs of Iranian cooperation. The US approach could fairly be interpreted of a continuation of the George W. Bush strategy of bluster and threat diplomacy: “Do what I tell you to do or face aggressive punitive actions against you.” It is not really unpredictable that the Russians would reject that approach. The question to be asked is whether the Russian rebuff was really a rebuke or simply a wake up slap on the cheek.
Consider the current circumstances. Iran is struggling to maintain control of Ahmadinajad as the legitimate head of state, after an election that yielded massive protests and claims of fraud and vote rigging. Iran just suffered another suicide attack against its Revolutionary Guard leadership in its southeastern region, the Sistan-Baluchistan province, presumably by an insurgent Sunni group. These signs of internal struggle suggest that Iran has more pressing issues at the moment than developing nuclear weapons to threaten its neighbors. It is not very likely that Iran would be developing such weapons for use inside Iran against insurgent forces or protesters.
Consider also that Russia has more to lose directly from Iran achieving nuclear capability than does the US. Given geographic and geopolitical realities, Iranian support of rebel factions in the former Soviet states of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, and the risk of international warfare in the region are a greater direct threat to Russia than to the US. Of course, both superpowers have “interests” in the area. But the point is that there is little reason to believe that Russia has not taken a carefully considered stand regarding its positions on threatening sanctions against Iran. Although it has not yet complied, Iran has apparently promised to allow International inspection of its facilities and has agreed to send plutonium from its research program to Russia for refinement. This latter concession of sovereignty could be viewed as a gesture of good faith by the Iranian government by anyone unbiased enough to accept such a gesture.
Finally, consider the position that the US is pursuing. It is generally agreed that Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons or the ability to effectively make them. Iran’s government has stated that it does not plan to develop such weapons, though it reserves the right of any sovereign nation to decide whether to do so in the future. Russia and the international community are in negotiations with Iran regarding international concerns about nuclear development for peaceful purposes in Iran. The great majority of nations agree that Iran cannot be precluded from developing nuclear capability for peaceful purposes, such as electricity generation for commercial production and consumer uses. However, the position of the US is to demand measures [as yet unclearly stated] that satisfy the US that Iran does not really have intentions of developing nuclear weapons at some point in the future.
The US demands could be viewed as not only unreasonable, but unduly paranoid. If the shoe were on the other foot, would the US be prepared to satisfy Iran that the US has no intention of unfairly exploiting oil reserves in Iran’s region or that the US does not intend to engage in covert activities to destabilize and overthrow the current Iranian government? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the US is not already engaged in such activities, it is pretty clear that the US would never agree to accept whatever demands Iran might make to satisfy itself that such threats would not occur in the future. How reasonable then, when one steps back, is the US position in the current context. The current approach appears driven by political, and some would say racist, desires by the US government to demonize Iran. Of course, to even consider such an argument would entail respecting Iran as a sovereign nation. It requires acceptance of the idea that a nation has a right to self determination, even when its policies or philosophy does not hew to the desires of the US government.
The lesson from Iraq, and the philosophy espoused by President Obama when campaigning for office, was that diplomacy should be given an opportunity to work, and reasonable measures must be exhausted before engaging in threats and gunboat diplomacy. It is an open question why that philosophy is not being pursued by Obama in the current circumstances toward Iran.
There is undoubtedly time to intervene in Iran if diplomacy fails and there is actual evidence of Iranian action to manufacture nuclear weapons [or otherwise develop Nuclear weapons capability]. Given that objective reality, the Russian rejection of the US position seems both prudent and wise. If cooler heads exist inside the Obama Administration, they should counsel that Obama return to the philosophy that he espoused in seeking a mandate from the electorate and refrain from hysterical tactics that are likely only to remind the international community of the reasons his predecessor failed.
Witness current relations between the US and Iran. US Secretary of State, Clinton recently met with Russian President Medvedev in an attempt to get the Russians to endorse sanctions if Iran failed to satisfy US demands that it does not intend to use its nuclear research capability to develop nuclear weapons. This diplomatic ploy was rejected by Medvedev and by Russian Prime Minister Putin as “premature” in light of ongoing negotiations and signs of Iranian cooperation. The US approach could fairly be interpreted of a continuation of the George W. Bush strategy of bluster and threat diplomacy: “Do what I tell you to do or face aggressive punitive actions against you.” It is not really unpredictable that the Russians would reject that approach. The question to be asked is whether the Russian rebuff was really a rebuke or simply a wake up slap on the cheek.
Consider the current circumstances. Iran is struggling to maintain control of Ahmadinajad as the legitimate head of state, after an election that yielded massive protests and claims of fraud and vote rigging. Iran just suffered another suicide attack against its Revolutionary Guard leadership in its southeastern region, the Sistan-Baluchistan province, presumably by an insurgent Sunni group. These signs of internal struggle suggest that Iran has more pressing issues at the moment than developing nuclear weapons to threaten its neighbors. It is not very likely that Iran would be developing such weapons for use inside Iran against insurgent forces or protesters.
Consider also that Russia has more to lose directly from Iran achieving nuclear capability than does the US. Given geographic and geopolitical realities, Iranian support of rebel factions in the former Soviet states of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, and the risk of international warfare in the region are a greater direct threat to Russia than to the US. Of course, both superpowers have “interests” in the area. But the point is that there is little reason to believe that Russia has not taken a carefully considered stand regarding its positions on threatening sanctions against Iran. Although it has not yet complied, Iran has apparently promised to allow International inspection of its facilities and has agreed to send plutonium from its research program to Russia for refinement. This latter concession of sovereignty could be viewed as a gesture of good faith by the Iranian government by anyone unbiased enough to accept such a gesture.
Finally, consider the position that the US is pursuing. It is generally agreed that Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons or the ability to effectively make them. Iran’s government has stated that it does not plan to develop such weapons, though it reserves the right of any sovereign nation to decide whether to do so in the future. Russia and the international community are in negotiations with Iran regarding international concerns about nuclear development for peaceful purposes in Iran. The great majority of nations agree that Iran cannot be precluded from developing nuclear capability for peaceful purposes, such as electricity generation for commercial production and consumer uses. However, the position of the US is to demand measures [as yet unclearly stated] that satisfy the US that Iran does not really have intentions of developing nuclear weapons at some point in the future.
The US demands could be viewed as not only unreasonable, but unduly paranoid. If the shoe were on the other foot, would the US be prepared to satisfy Iran that the US has no intention of unfairly exploiting oil reserves in Iran’s region or that the US does not intend to engage in covert activities to destabilize and overthrow the current Iranian government? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the US is not already engaged in such activities, it is pretty clear that the US would never agree to accept whatever demands Iran might make to satisfy itself that such threats would not occur in the future. How reasonable then, when one steps back, is the US position in the current context. The current approach appears driven by political, and some would say racist, desires by the US government to demonize Iran. Of course, to even consider such an argument would entail respecting Iran as a sovereign nation. It requires acceptance of the idea that a nation has a right to self determination, even when its policies or philosophy does not hew to the desires of the US government.
The lesson from Iraq, and the philosophy espoused by President Obama when campaigning for office, was that diplomacy should be given an opportunity to work, and reasonable measures must be exhausted before engaging in threats and gunboat diplomacy. It is an open question why that philosophy is not being pursued by Obama in the current circumstances toward Iran.
There is undoubtedly time to intervene in Iran if diplomacy fails and there is actual evidence of Iranian action to manufacture nuclear weapons [or otherwise develop Nuclear weapons capability]. Given that objective reality, the Russian rejection of the US position seems both prudent and wise. If cooler heads exist inside the Obama Administration, they should counsel that Obama return to the philosophy that he espoused in seeking a mandate from the electorate and refrain from hysterical tactics that are likely only to remind the international community of the reasons his predecessor failed.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
AH, STATESMANSHIP!
Ah, statesmanship! The ability to shape facts, to bend truth to manipulate a situation to advantage and achieve a determined goal is a practiced art. Witness the drama or “mini-series” being played out in Washington respecting the Health Care reform proposals. The latest plot twist has been President Obama’s assessment that the basis for the belligerent and uncivilized reaction to proposed reform is not fundamentally racism, but rather an exhibition of the political dialectic regarding the ability of government to function in the best interests of the common good.
Following a summer of staged insurrections and histrionic disruption of reasoned debate about the actual details of proposed reforms, the battle erupted in an intemperate outburst in front of voracious media cameras by Rep. Joe Wilson accusing president Obama of “lying” to Congress. President Obama's actual statement that drew the specific outburst was entirely accurate, and it reflected the language of the reform proposal. But accuracy and truth are not the currency of this debate. Wilson either knew or cared little about the actual details of the reform proposal, as his agenda was simply to incite opposition and embolden right wing extremists. As with any “show stealing” maneuver, Wilson’s subsequent apology is but a small price to pay for the advantage of hijacking the debate and disrupting rational consideration of the underlying issues. the news media focused upon the outburst, minimizing the content of Obama's speech.
Former President Carter stepped forward to assess the behavior as generated, at its root, in racism. He lamented that there are a substantial number of people in the United States that refuse to accept any proposal made by a Black President, precisely because he happens to be a Black man. This pre-emptive rejection and denial of any political authority because of race is the essence of racism. Bigotry is only the superficial manifestation. Those who rose to Wilson’s defense mistake or misunderstand the difference. It does not matter whether Wilson and his followers are patent bigots, when their actions and strategy is primarily to emasculate any political initiative by the President because of his race.
Like the dynamics that underlay the incident involving arrest of Harvard professor Skip Gage, an amicable meeting for a beer to eschew personal animosity does not eradicate the existence of the systemic factors that caused the abusive exercise of police power against Gage because he is a man of color. Police professionals from as varied quarters as the head of the national Black policemen’s organization to the chief of police of a white North Carolina community agree that the white officer in the Gage incident overreacted and sought to “put Gage in his place” when he challenged the white officer. That the officer may well have not even been acting on a totally conscious level, but rather responding viscerally to what he perceived as a challenge to a construct of white privilege, serves not to excuse, but rather to reinforce the racist nature of the actions.
Obama, in statesmanlike fashion, has come forward to state that the basis of the confrontation is about the proper role of government in addressing public welfare issues. He focused upon the contention of some that government fundamentally lacks the ability to do ANYTHING right in the public interest. Obama, contrary to the media headlines, did not dispute Carter’s assertion that there is a large contingent of US citizens who oppose his efforts because of race. His strategy, however, was to try to reshape the issue to a less emotional playing field where at least the potential for rational discussion might occur. Obama wisely understands that as long as the debate is based upon name calling, the emotional component would overshadow any consideration of the practical issues. The right wing opponents know this as well, and that is likely the reason for attempting to obstruct debate by racist assaults. The disruptions in the summer town hall meetings, as well as the Wilson outburst, are merely tactics to derail debate. They are not attempts to assert or defend a position or to argue the merits of any reform strategy.
Statesmanship has, at its base, the pragmatic objective of moving some policy initiative forward. Obama understands that nothing he can do will eliminate the racist attitudes that have been part of the fabric of the American psyche since at least the time when Europeans first stepped upon the soil of the American continents. The history of the US is replete with examples of how repeated attempts to expose and overcome such racism have failed. It is so ingrained in the system that even those progressive white individuals who oppose the philosophy are unable to shed the cloak of privilege and counter the force of the collective weight of a racist system. While it is likely that Obama knows in his heart of hearts that much of the opposition against him is racially motivated, and one reading his actual interview transcript sees that he concedes as much, he also knows that engaging the battle on that front is unlikely to yield any significant progress toward the goals of providing access and reasonable health care options to the millions who lack such basic protections.
Following a summer of staged insurrections and histrionic disruption of reasoned debate about the actual details of proposed reforms, the battle erupted in an intemperate outburst in front of voracious media cameras by Rep. Joe Wilson accusing president Obama of “lying” to Congress. President Obama's actual statement that drew the specific outburst was entirely accurate, and it reflected the language of the reform proposal. But accuracy and truth are not the currency of this debate. Wilson either knew or cared little about the actual details of the reform proposal, as his agenda was simply to incite opposition and embolden right wing extremists. As with any “show stealing” maneuver, Wilson’s subsequent apology is but a small price to pay for the advantage of hijacking the debate and disrupting rational consideration of the underlying issues. the news media focused upon the outburst, minimizing the content of Obama's speech.
Former President Carter stepped forward to assess the behavior as generated, at its root, in racism. He lamented that there are a substantial number of people in the United States that refuse to accept any proposal made by a Black President, precisely because he happens to be a Black man. This pre-emptive rejection and denial of any political authority because of race is the essence of racism. Bigotry is only the superficial manifestation. Those who rose to Wilson’s defense mistake or misunderstand the difference. It does not matter whether Wilson and his followers are patent bigots, when their actions and strategy is primarily to emasculate any political initiative by the President because of his race.
Like the dynamics that underlay the incident involving arrest of Harvard professor Skip Gage, an amicable meeting for a beer to eschew personal animosity does not eradicate the existence of the systemic factors that caused the abusive exercise of police power against Gage because he is a man of color. Police professionals from as varied quarters as the head of the national Black policemen’s organization to the chief of police of a white North Carolina community agree that the white officer in the Gage incident overreacted and sought to “put Gage in his place” when he challenged the white officer. That the officer may well have not even been acting on a totally conscious level, but rather responding viscerally to what he perceived as a challenge to a construct of white privilege, serves not to excuse, but rather to reinforce the racist nature of the actions.
Obama, in statesmanlike fashion, has come forward to state that the basis of the confrontation is about the proper role of government in addressing public welfare issues. He focused upon the contention of some that government fundamentally lacks the ability to do ANYTHING right in the public interest. Obama, contrary to the media headlines, did not dispute Carter’s assertion that there is a large contingent of US citizens who oppose his efforts because of race. His strategy, however, was to try to reshape the issue to a less emotional playing field where at least the potential for rational discussion might occur. Obama wisely understands that as long as the debate is based upon name calling, the emotional component would overshadow any consideration of the practical issues. The right wing opponents know this as well, and that is likely the reason for attempting to obstruct debate by racist assaults. The disruptions in the summer town hall meetings, as well as the Wilson outburst, are merely tactics to derail debate. They are not attempts to assert or defend a position or to argue the merits of any reform strategy.
Statesmanship has, at its base, the pragmatic objective of moving some policy initiative forward. Obama understands that nothing he can do will eliminate the racist attitudes that have been part of the fabric of the American psyche since at least the time when Europeans first stepped upon the soil of the American continents. The history of the US is replete with examples of how repeated attempts to expose and overcome such racism have failed. It is so ingrained in the system that even those progressive white individuals who oppose the philosophy are unable to shed the cloak of privilege and counter the force of the collective weight of a racist system. While it is likely that Obama knows in his heart of hearts that much of the opposition against him is racially motivated, and one reading his actual interview transcript sees that he concedes as much, he also knows that engaging the battle on that front is unlikely to yield any significant progress toward the goals of providing access and reasonable health care options to the millions who lack such basic protections.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The False Health Care Debate – Part 1
“Grant me a premise and I will construct you a world.”
This principal tenet of sophistry lies near the core of the current controversy surrounding the Health Care Reform debate. The converse of the maxim is that a false premise will yield a false construct. If the argument of the debate were based upon a fallacious premise, then the whole of the rationale used would be unfounded. Much of the opposition concerning Health care reform proceeds, intentionally or not, from false premises and assumptions. A more careful examination of the arguments reveals their flaws.
The first obvious flaw lies in the generalized description of “Health Care” as the object of discussion. In the context of delivery of medical services, it is critical to note that the components of medical services and health insurance are very different subjects. To institute real reform in the system, measures must address BOTH aspects. The experience in Massachusetts is a clear object lesson. Hailed as a “breakthrough” in reform, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted legislation and a program to provide universal health insurance. Employers were obliged to cover employees, and those without employment based insurance were required to purchase coverage. However, what the program lacks is a system of limits on health care costs. As a result, the premiums for health care in Massachusetts are about the highest in the United States. The compromise struck with the Industry to obtain universal coverage was to refrain from imposing mandatory controls on health care costs. The compromise now threatens to swallow the program, as the government costs to subsidize the rising insurance premiums could bankrupt the state budget.
A second glaring flaw in the arguments raised in opposition is the presumption or premise that the current system is of sufficient quality that it is inherently worth protecting. The medical care systems that operate in the US are not the worst in the world, but they collectively are far from the best, despite being about the most expensive on a per capita basis. The reference to medical care delivery as a plurality is intentional, because there are different delivery systems for different classes of people in the country. For the wealthy, the best technology and the most skilled health professional specialists are available. They have no significant barriers to access or to the best care that their information and networking sources can identify.
A second tier of health care delivery is available to those with employer sponsored health insurance. These people have access to a broad range of primary and specialized health care services. Their options are limited by the provider networks that are established by the insurers in ways that the customer/patient is not even aware. This group pays the illusory cost of “co-pays” that creates a false impression of the true charges being assessed for their health care services. What most failed to realize, until the recent loss of 7 million jobs in the current recession, is that their protection is transitory and is not really “insurance.” It is subsidized health care coverage that can be taken away at the discretion of others, even when the employee is paying a substantial part of the cost of premiums for his or her family.
The third class of health care is for those who are poor and or unemployed. They have no health insurance to protect them from catastrophic or even moderate health incidents. The full impact of the high medical services costs are evident to this group and most simply avoid or defer medical care until the condition is severe. At this point, their deliver system is the local emergency room of the nearest hospital, if the institution will admit them even for temporary urgent care. Of the approximate US population of 300 million, there are about 50 Million in this third category, approximately 1/6 of the entire population.
Thus, on a macro view, the health care delivery system in the US provides no guaranteed support for about 17% of the population, limited and rationed services to the majority of the population and true health care insurance and coverage to less than 5%. The “outcomes” of this delivery system, the statistical measure used in medical parlance to assess the quality and effectiveness of medical services delivery, place the US in the middle of the pack of “developed” nations in quality of care. The per capita costs of the system, however, are nearly the highest. Consequently, it would be very difficult to sustain an argument that maintenance of the status quo is a critical objective.
The mentality of the US consuming public is easily misled and inclined to self delusion. The adherence to buying habits for automobiles is a prime example. When damage to the environment from excess carbon emissions from cars was evident and the cost of gasoline for energy inefficient vehicles was consuming higher and higher portions of the consumer’s take home pay, the public stubbornly refused to embrace change and resisted a shift to smaller more energy efficient cars. They preferred to stay with a broken model to accepting change and adaptation to a new model that was in their own best interest. This same problem is evident in the Health Care Reform debate, as fear mongering and disinformation seeks to turn consumers away from any reform that would alter the status quo. In their fear and stubborn “conservatism” they seek to retain and protect a seriously dysfunctional system that fails to serve the needs and best interests of the public.
To Be Continued….
This principal tenet of sophistry lies near the core of the current controversy surrounding the Health Care Reform debate. The converse of the maxim is that a false premise will yield a false construct. If the argument of the debate were based upon a fallacious premise, then the whole of the rationale used would be unfounded. Much of the opposition concerning Health care reform proceeds, intentionally or not, from false premises and assumptions. A more careful examination of the arguments reveals their flaws.
The first obvious flaw lies in the generalized description of “Health Care” as the object of discussion. In the context of delivery of medical services, it is critical to note that the components of medical services and health insurance are very different subjects. To institute real reform in the system, measures must address BOTH aspects. The experience in Massachusetts is a clear object lesson. Hailed as a “breakthrough” in reform, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted legislation and a program to provide universal health insurance. Employers were obliged to cover employees, and those without employment based insurance were required to purchase coverage. However, what the program lacks is a system of limits on health care costs. As a result, the premiums for health care in Massachusetts are about the highest in the United States. The compromise struck with the Industry to obtain universal coverage was to refrain from imposing mandatory controls on health care costs. The compromise now threatens to swallow the program, as the government costs to subsidize the rising insurance premiums could bankrupt the state budget.
A second glaring flaw in the arguments raised in opposition is the presumption or premise that the current system is of sufficient quality that it is inherently worth protecting. The medical care systems that operate in the US are not the worst in the world, but they collectively are far from the best, despite being about the most expensive on a per capita basis. The reference to medical care delivery as a plurality is intentional, because there are different delivery systems for different classes of people in the country. For the wealthy, the best technology and the most skilled health professional specialists are available. They have no significant barriers to access or to the best care that their information and networking sources can identify.
A second tier of health care delivery is available to those with employer sponsored health insurance. These people have access to a broad range of primary and specialized health care services. Their options are limited by the provider networks that are established by the insurers in ways that the customer/patient is not even aware. This group pays the illusory cost of “co-pays” that creates a false impression of the true charges being assessed for their health care services. What most failed to realize, until the recent loss of 7 million jobs in the current recession, is that their protection is transitory and is not really “insurance.” It is subsidized health care coverage that can be taken away at the discretion of others, even when the employee is paying a substantial part of the cost of premiums for his or her family.
The third class of health care is for those who are poor and or unemployed. They have no health insurance to protect them from catastrophic or even moderate health incidents. The full impact of the high medical services costs are evident to this group and most simply avoid or defer medical care until the condition is severe. At this point, their deliver system is the local emergency room of the nearest hospital, if the institution will admit them even for temporary urgent care. Of the approximate US population of 300 million, there are about 50 Million in this third category, approximately 1/6 of the entire population.
Thus, on a macro view, the health care delivery system in the US provides no guaranteed support for about 17% of the population, limited and rationed services to the majority of the population and true health care insurance and coverage to less than 5%. The “outcomes” of this delivery system, the statistical measure used in medical parlance to assess the quality and effectiveness of medical services delivery, place the US in the middle of the pack of “developed” nations in quality of care. The per capita costs of the system, however, are nearly the highest. Consequently, it would be very difficult to sustain an argument that maintenance of the status quo is a critical objective.
The mentality of the US consuming public is easily misled and inclined to self delusion. The adherence to buying habits for automobiles is a prime example. When damage to the environment from excess carbon emissions from cars was evident and the cost of gasoline for energy inefficient vehicles was consuming higher and higher portions of the consumer’s take home pay, the public stubbornly refused to embrace change and resisted a shift to smaller more energy efficient cars. They preferred to stay with a broken model to accepting change and adaptation to a new model that was in their own best interest. This same problem is evident in the Health Care Reform debate, as fear mongering and disinformation seeks to turn consumers away from any reform that would alter the status quo. In their fear and stubborn “conservatism” they seek to retain and protect a seriously dysfunctional system that fails to serve the needs and best interests of the public.
To Be Continued….
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Americans, What Are Your Values And Standards?
A recently released report from the Inspector General of the CIA reveals what many have already known. We do not know whether life imitates are or the reverse. We do know that film depictions of a rogue agency with operatives who feel respect no constraints of law, morality or human rights are pretty accurate images of the type of agency run under the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld regime. It may well be that such practices went on at some level in prior administrations, but the heinous practices described in the report and in prior leaks to the media appear to have become systemic during the George W. Bush Administration. The level of abuse is directly related to the level of permissiveness and tolerance shown at the top.
Practices that have been detailed at Abu Ghraib, at GITMO and other detention facilities cannot be excused as necessary or effective. They simply defy all principles of human rights and violate conventions against torture and cruel and inhuman treatment. Threatening a detainee with execution by putting a gun to his head, water boarding, putting a power drill to his head or other body parts has no place in a civilized society. It is not only unethical and morally corrupt, it is expressly illegal. Urinating on the holy book of a prisoner, or using psychological tactics that are intended not to extract information, but primarily to humiliate and degrade the prisoner or mock his religious and cultural beliefs is morally unjustified.
Right wing devotees who fall into the easy hateful and racist inspired rhetoric argue that “suspected” terrorists or terrorist supporters, in their view, are subhuman and deserve no rights. This way of reasoning, if it can be called such, is fallacious and short-sighted. The adherence to fundamental standards of humanity and the rule of law is primarily an internal value. When a murderer enters a health club and guns down several customers in an exercise class, such action is both illegal and immoral. But the societal response is not to torture and kill the perpetrator without due process. The internal values of the society are upheld and strengthened when a process involving the rule of law and incorporating human rights and civility standards is applied. To argue that the response should drop to the level of the actions of the perpetrator, or lower, only degrades and undermines the society.
President Obama is wrong in his position that we need to look forward instead of prosecuting the perpetrators of these horrible activities in the name of, and with the sanction of, the US government and its people. It will not suffice to try to sweep these activities under the rug. The people of the US are entitled to know the types of activities that have been carried out in their name and the legal and moral standards that govern such officially sanctioned conduct. To fail to expose these behaviors, such as assassination squads, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition for the specific purpose of promoting torture and the official use of unregulated mercenaries like Blackwater, is to advise the perpetrators that their conduct is acceptable and can be renewed at the first wink and nod from higher ups in the Administration.
This is not about one President or Administration trashing a predecessor. It is a concern that goes far beyond political retribution. The US citizens and the world need to know that certain minimum standards of conduct are valued and upheld, regardless of the political stripe of the current Presidential Administration. At present, and until Obama take more assertive steps to change the message and image, the standards to which the US government holds its agents is one that ignores the Geneva Conventions, condones and supports torture and promotes racial and ethnic profiling and bigotry. President Obama needs to make a decision whether he accepts that message and image on behalf of the country. If he does not, then he needs to take more aggressive action to hold accountable those who are responsible for approving and carrying out those practices, including George W. Bush if that is where the evidence leads.
Practices that have been detailed at Abu Ghraib, at GITMO and other detention facilities cannot be excused as necessary or effective. They simply defy all principles of human rights and violate conventions against torture and cruel and inhuman treatment. Threatening a detainee with execution by putting a gun to his head, water boarding, putting a power drill to his head or other body parts has no place in a civilized society. It is not only unethical and morally corrupt, it is expressly illegal. Urinating on the holy book of a prisoner, or using psychological tactics that are intended not to extract information, but primarily to humiliate and degrade the prisoner or mock his religious and cultural beliefs is morally unjustified.
Right wing devotees who fall into the easy hateful and racist inspired rhetoric argue that “suspected” terrorists or terrorist supporters, in their view, are subhuman and deserve no rights. This way of reasoning, if it can be called such, is fallacious and short-sighted. The adherence to fundamental standards of humanity and the rule of law is primarily an internal value. When a murderer enters a health club and guns down several customers in an exercise class, such action is both illegal and immoral. But the societal response is not to torture and kill the perpetrator without due process. The internal values of the society are upheld and strengthened when a process involving the rule of law and incorporating human rights and civility standards is applied. To argue that the response should drop to the level of the actions of the perpetrator, or lower, only degrades and undermines the society.
President Obama is wrong in his position that we need to look forward instead of prosecuting the perpetrators of these horrible activities in the name of, and with the sanction of, the US government and its people. It will not suffice to try to sweep these activities under the rug. The people of the US are entitled to know the types of activities that have been carried out in their name and the legal and moral standards that govern such officially sanctioned conduct. To fail to expose these behaviors, such as assassination squads, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition for the specific purpose of promoting torture and the official use of unregulated mercenaries like Blackwater, is to advise the perpetrators that their conduct is acceptable and can be renewed at the first wink and nod from higher ups in the Administration.
This is not about one President or Administration trashing a predecessor. It is a concern that goes far beyond political retribution. The US citizens and the world need to know that certain minimum standards of conduct are valued and upheld, regardless of the political stripe of the current Presidential Administration. At present, and until Obama take more assertive steps to change the message and image, the standards to which the US government holds its agents is one that ignores the Geneva Conventions, condones and supports torture and promotes racial and ethnic profiling and bigotry. President Obama needs to make a decision whether he accepts that message and image on behalf of the country. If he does not, then he needs to take more aggressive action to hold accountable those who are responsible for approving and carrying out those practices, including George W. Bush if that is where the evidence leads.
Friday, August 21, 2009
When Greed and Arrogance Equal Economic Opportunity
Recent publication of a nearly 900 page report in China preceded an upcoming debate by Chinese lawmakers on a resolution to cap emissions by 2050 and to accelerate CO2 reduction strategies as soon as possible. If the Chinese, who have shown greater discipline than the US in organizing its financial markets, can organize its industrialization processes this suggests a positive path forward for China as it continues aggressive development. While there has been significant discussion and debate in the US about climate change and global warming, the discipline and commitment to actually do anything concrete and constructive about the problem is at best questionable. President Obama has touted the development of “green industries” as a significant component in his plans to revive the economy. Yet the mobilization of opposition by the GOP and the Right Wing Conservatives to any measures that would change the status quo ante bode ill for effective change. This penchant for individualism, greed and arrogance may well serve as an important resource that China can use to build its competitive future.
In the past, debate about the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 has bogged down over the issue of differentiated responsibilities. The US negotiators, predominantly from the conservative camp, have demanded that lesser developed or industrialized countries like China should match emission reductions called for on the part of the US. In response, the developing countries have argued that the US got rich off of industrialization and pollution that has created the existing crisis and was in no position to deny those countries the right to develop as the US has done. In fact, they argue that the US has greater responsibility for emission reduction because it had a greater role in creating the mess that the world now must collectively address. At this point the discussion has broken down and the US has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. With the expiration of the Protocol comes the new conference in Denmark [U.N. Climate Change Conference that will be held in Copenhagen this December]. Subsequent developments in climate change and scientific evidence of accelerating deterioration lend urgency to the debate. In addition, the importance of climate change to sustainable economic growth has also risen.
The opportunity for the Chinese in this situation is to focus on the development of technologies that limit or reduce carbon emissions while providing manufacturing and industrial production capacity that is needed for economic growth. For example, the growth of the auto industry in China is staggering. More Chinese are able to own a car now than ever before. The development and production of alternative energy and low emission vehicles would not only further Chinese goals for CO2 limits, but would provide potential export capacity for those countries seeking to meet emission targets but that lack capacity to produce low emission vehicles. This is the “green industry” model that Obama refers to but which the US public is slow and resistant to embrace.
This arrogance on the part of the US public, including both politicians and consumers, will continue to be a weakness that developing countries can exploit. At present, the bulk of growth in sales for US based car manufacturers comes from overseas markets. Though stepping back from the brink of oblivion through bankruptcy, government bailouts and reorganization, these companies still have not been able to convince the US consumers to purchase energy efficient and low emission vehicles. Their near term future depends upon sales to non-US consumers of products manufactured by US workers. However, if China succeeds in developing a strong production capacity for alternative fuel and low emission vehicles, it can continue on its development path while competing effectively with the US for those foreign markets.
At the same time, China has nowhere near the saturation level that the US market has regarding automobile purchases. A recent study suggested that the US was approaching the point at which there was one vehicle owned for almost every licensed driver. In contrast, China may only have less than 10% saturation in the coming decade. If incomes rise to the level that allows more Chinese to purchase cars, the population provided an almost unlimited market potential. In any event, the demand will almost certainly outstrip supply and manufacturing capacity for quite some time. Think back to the US during the inception of Henry Ford and you can grasp a comparison. Yet the difference will be that the Chinese will start with the production of environmentally sensitive products while the US will still be in the process of retooling to manufacture a different type of vehicle that might satisfy US consumer tastes. At the same time the US manufacturers would be stressed with the duality of manufacturing cars to sell in foreign markets in competition with makers like Toyota, Kia and others who have been focused for years on manufacture of environmentally friendly vehicles.
The questions presented are whether the Chinese can take advantage of the economic opportunity presented by the arrogance of the US consumers, and whether the US public can recognize and overcome its arrogance and convert to a more environmentally conscious attitude before other developing countries like China can effectively take advantage of the weakness that current attitudes creates. Unless and until the US consumers and policy makers can get their collective act together, the greed and arrogance of the US public will serve as an attractive economic resource and competitive advantage for developing nations seeking to increase industrialization and prosperity.
In the past, debate about the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 has bogged down over the issue of differentiated responsibilities. The US negotiators, predominantly from the conservative camp, have demanded that lesser developed or industrialized countries like China should match emission reductions called for on the part of the US. In response, the developing countries have argued that the US got rich off of industrialization and pollution that has created the existing crisis and was in no position to deny those countries the right to develop as the US has done. In fact, they argue that the US has greater responsibility for emission reduction because it had a greater role in creating the mess that the world now must collectively address. At this point the discussion has broken down and the US has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. With the expiration of the Protocol comes the new conference in Denmark [U.N. Climate Change Conference that will be held in Copenhagen this December]. Subsequent developments in climate change and scientific evidence of accelerating deterioration lend urgency to the debate. In addition, the importance of climate change to sustainable economic growth has also risen.
The opportunity for the Chinese in this situation is to focus on the development of technologies that limit or reduce carbon emissions while providing manufacturing and industrial production capacity that is needed for economic growth. For example, the growth of the auto industry in China is staggering. More Chinese are able to own a car now than ever before. The development and production of alternative energy and low emission vehicles would not only further Chinese goals for CO2 limits, but would provide potential export capacity for those countries seeking to meet emission targets but that lack capacity to produce low emission vehicles. This is the “green industry” model that Obama refers to but which the US public is slow and resistant to embrace.
This arrogance on the part of the US public, including both politicians and consumers, will continue to be a weakness that developing countries can exploit. At present, the bulk of growth in sales for US based car manufacturers comes from overseas markets. Though stepping back from the brink of oblivion through bankruptcy, government bailouts and reorganization, these companies still have not been able to convince the US consumers to purchase energy efficient and low emission vehicles. Their near term future depends upon sales to non-US consumers of products manufactured by US workers. However, if China succeeds in developing a strong production capacity for alternative fuel and low emission vehicles, it can continue on its development path while competing effectively with the US for those foreign markets.
At the same time, China has nowhere near the saturation level that the US market has regarding automobile purchases. A recent study suggested that the US was approaching the point at which there was one vehicle owned for almost every licensed driver. In contrast, China may only have less than 10% saturation in the coming decade. If incomes rise to the level that allows more Chinese to purchase cars, the population provided an almost unlimited market potential. In any event, the demand will almost certainly outstrip supply and manufacturing capacity for quite some time. Think back to the US during the inception of Henry Ford and you can grasp a comparison. Yet the difference will be that the Chinese will start with the production of environmentally sensitive products while the US will still be in the process of retooling to manufacture a different type of vehicle that might satisfy US consumer tastes. At the same time the US manufacturers would be stressed with the duality of manufacturing cars to sell in foreign markets in competition with makers like Toyota, Kia and others who have been focused for years on manufacture of environmentally friendly vehicles.
The questions presented are whether the Chinese can take advantage of the economic opportunity presented by the arrogance of the US consumers, and whether the US public can recognize and overcome its arrogance and convert to a more environmentally conscious attitude before other developing countries like China can effectively take advantage of the weakness that current attitudes creates. Unless and until the US consumers and policy makers can get their collective act together, the greed and arrogance of the US public will serve as an attractive economic resource and competitive advantage for developing nations seeking to increase industrialization and prosperity.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Opinions and Opinionators
There is a very crude saying about “opinions” that has been around a long time. It says – “Opinions are like A#@ holes, everybody has one.” The tag line is that just because everyone has one, does not provide any quality assurance of the product.
Reading the stream of so-called “experts” advancing opinions on just about every current issue of importance reveals how lax the journalistic establishment has become regarding its duty to provide reasonably reliable information to the public. We have shifted from an information based media to an infotainment based media. Talking heads are pushed in our face, not because they have any credibility or special knowledge to justify their labels as “experts” in the subject, but because they are willing to provide good theater in an organized shouting match.
The agenda seems to be to pit two talking heads against each other and let them battle until time for the interview runs out. Never mind that the so-called experts lack substantive knowledge and are being paid or subsidized by the corporate interests whose “position” they are arguing. Forget that very few if any real facts are being published to actually inform the audience. News has become just another branch of PR and propaganda.
And reporters no longer have any semblance of objectivity in this process. If they want to write an article, like one I read today, about rising taxes in State governments, [http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com] they go find a representative from a [conservative] “tax monitoring organization” to provide sound bites to support the opinion or slant that the writer has chosen in advance. While railing against the increases in tax rates on higher bracket incomes, the representative “expert” makes no mention that these same protesters have demanded level or increased services from the State governments while resisting any measures to fund those services.
If one looks at the situation rationally, the gravy train had to come to an end. The “No NEW Taxes” mantra of the GOP resulted in continued services to the wealthy with tax reductions and no increases in taxes to pay for the rising cost of the public services. The benefit to the wealthy came at the expense of reducing essential social services and education funding. Now, in a recession economy when all the fat and flesh is gone and State governments are hacking at the bone, these same wealthy folks are whining because State governments are increasing marginal tax rates on those with income over $150,000. I weep for them in my cheap beer as they cry in their Perrier-Jouet. But the “reporter” seems to feel no obligation to take a critical look at the views of the so-called “expert.” There seems little if any effort to challenge the logic or veracity of the opinions being espoused.
Not every issue has two sides of equal merit or is appropriate for drama. I heard one interview a few days ago on Public radio that backfired. The host put on two police chiefs to discuss the Gates arrest in Cambridge and the police officer’s handling of the situation. One Chief was the head of a Black Police Officers’ organization, the other a White chief in a southern town in North Carolina. To the dismay of the host, looking to incite a race debate, BOTH chiefs said the same thing. They both gave the opinion that the police officer should have withdrawn and de-escalated the situation rather than arrest Prof. Gates. Despite several attempts by the host to incite an argument, both chiefs maintained that solid professional training of officers requires that they not allow themselves to be baited by irritated detainees or persons they encounter during investigations. Neither would recommend arrest of Gates, even if he had used abusive language after becoming upset. To the disappointment of the radio host, the experts actually knew what they were talking about and gave insightful information and opinions during the interview. Though this SHOULD have been the purpose of the interview, it resulted more from accident than from design or intent.
Another appalling example has been the media time and attention given to the “Birthers.” This right wing group of nutcases is arguing that President Obama has not sufficiently “proven” that he is a real American that was entitled by birth to US citizenship. Given that Obama went through perhaps the most scrutiny of any Presidential candidate in US history prior to election, and was sworn in as an official act by a Supreme Court Justice, it is absolutely certain that there is no shred of credible or even newsworthy evidence to support the position of this fringe group. Yet at a time when the public should be getting reliable information about health care proposals, media time and attention is devoted to supposed “debates” involving the position of these “Birthers.” If any example supports the saying, this example shows its veracity.
It is questionable whether the news media will ever be able to return to a level of professionalism in which stories are checked out before publication, in which the financial or political [often synonymous] interests of the so-called “experts” are disclosed when allowing the talking heads to offer their opinions. There is a line between censoring or filtering the news and exercising professional editorial judgment. By all means publish opposing viewpoints on important issues of the day. But in doing so, take care to do the homework expected of good journalists. Expose bias, hidden agendas and interests on the part of so-called experts. And above all, exercise some common sense. The freedom of press also entails some responsibility. Not every opinion deserves to get on the air or in the newspaper. Newspapers are going under in this country daily or being sold to conglomerates like News Corp. If a media organization cannot hew to the basic principles of solid honest professional journalism, why should we really care if they fail? But if we find a news organization that DOES adhere to those standards, then the public should rally to their support and help them stay alive.
Reading the stream of so-called “experts” advancing opinions on just about every current issue of importance reveals how lax the journalistic establishment has become regarding its duty to provide reasonably reliable information to the public. We have shifted from an information based media to an infotainment based media. Talking heads are pushed in our face, not because they have any credibility or special knowledge to justify their labels as “experts” in the subject, but because they are willing to provide good theater in an organized shouting match.
The agenda seems to be to pit two talking heads against each other and let them battle until time for the interview runs out. Never mind that the so-called experts lack substantive knowledge and are being paid or subsidized by the corporate interests whose “position” they are arguing. Forget that very few if any real facts are being published to actually inform the audience. News has become just another branch of PR and propaganda.
And reporters no longer have any semblance of objectivity in this process. If they want to write an article, like one I read today, about rising taxes in State governments, [http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com] they go find a representative from a [conservative] “tax monitoring organization” to provide sound bites to support the opinion or slant that the writer has chosen in advance. While railing against the increases in tax rates on higher bracket incomes, the representative “expert” makes no mention that these same protesters have demanded level or increased services from the State governments while resisting any measures to fund those services.
If one looks at the situation rationally, the gravy train had to come to an end. The “No NEW Taxes” mantra of the GOP resulted in continued services to the wealthy with tax reductions and no increases in taxes to pay for the rising cost of the public services. The benefit to the wealthy came at the expense of reducing essential social services and education funding. Now, in a recession economy when all the fat and flesh is gone and State governments are hacking at the bone, these same wealthy folks are whining because State governments are increasing marginal tax rates on those with income over $150,000. I weep for them in my cheap beer as they cry in their Perrier-Jouet. But the “reporter” seems to feel no obligation to take a critical look at the views of the so-called “expert.” There seems little if any effort to challenge the logic or veracity of the opinions being espoused.
Not every issue has two sides of equal merit or is appropriate for drama. I heard one interview a few days ago on Public radio that backfired. The host put on two police chiefs to discuss the Gates arrest in Cambridge and the police officer’s handling of the situation. One Chief was the head of a Black Police Officers’ organization, the other a White chief in a southern town in North Carolina. To the dismay of the host, looking to incite a race debate, BOTH chiefs said the same thing. They both gave the opinion that the police officer should have withdrawn and de-escalated the situation rather than arrest Prof. Gates. Despite several attempts by the host to incite an argument, both chiefs maintained that solid professional training of officers requires that they not allow themselves to be baited by irritated detainees or persons they encounter during investigations. Neither would recommend arrest of Gates, even if he had used abusive language after becoming upset. To the disappointment of the radio host, the experts actually knew what they were talking about and gave insightful information and opinions during the interview. Though this SHOULD have been the purpose of the interview, it resulted more from accident than from design or intent.
Another appalling example has been the media time and attention given to the “Birthers.” This right wing group of nutcases is arguing that President Obama has not sufficiently “proven” that he is a real American that was entitled by birth to US citizenship. Given that Obama went through perhaps the most scrutiny of any Presidential candidate in US history prior to election, and was sworn in as an official act by a Supreme Court Justice, it is absolutely certain that there is no shred of credible or even newsworthy evidence to support the position of this fringe group. Yet at a time when the public should be getting reliable information about health care proposals, media time and attention is devoted to supposed “debates” involving the position of these “Birthers.” If any example supports the saying, this example shows its veracity.
It is questionable whether the news media will ever be able to return to a level of professionalism in which stories are checked out before publication, in which the financial or political [often synonymous] interests of the so-called “experts” are disclosed when allowing the talking heads to offer their opinions. There is a line between censoring or filtering the news and exercising professional editorial judgment. By all means publish opposing viewpoints on important issues of the day. But in doing so, take care to do the homework expected of good journalists. Expose bias, hidden agendas and interests on the part of so-called experts. And above all, exercise some common sense. The freedom of press also entails some responsibility. Not every opinion deserves to get on the air or in the newspaper. Newspapers are going under in this country daily or being sold to conglomerates like News Corp. If a media organization cannot hew to the basic principles of solid honest professional journalism, why should we really care if they fail? But if we find a news organization that DOES adhere to those standards, then the public should rally to their support and help them stay alive.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
American Justice, in Black & White
Time will shortly give us a glimpse of the so called “progress” that so many claim to have been made in race relations in the United States, as evidenced by the election of President Obama. Compare two cases of interpretation of “justice” and the rule of law in present day America.
In one case, the question was whether a school system acted unlawfully in requiring the equivalent of a strip search of a young white student who authorities suspected of hiding prescription drugs. The court decided that the school authorities acted outside the law by treating the student inappropriately when they were not faced with any serious threat and they lacked sufficient evidence to suggest that the student was, in fact, in possession of any dangerous substance. The situation reflected a routine school policy enforcement process that got out of hand. Although the authorities had the right to maintain the policy against drug possession, the manner in which they enforced that policy was subject to constraints relating to the respectful treatment of a student suspect. Without sufficient justification and probable cause to believe that the student was violating the law or school policy, the school was not entitled to humiliate the young student by subjecting her to a search of her underwear. Moreover, the court suggested that the nature of the alleged violation should inform the nature of the enforcement response. In other words, if the student were suspected of gun possession accompanied by evidence of a threat against other students or staff, harsher treatment may have been justified. But in this case, suspicion of having Tylenol or some similarly innocuous substance did not justify the invasive assault on her person. The student's rights were violated by the humiliating treatment, the court ruled, although there was no force used, no arrest and the search was done by female officials in a private setting.
Now consider the case of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Returning home to his Cambridge, MA, house near Harvard Square, Gates found the front door stuck. After he and his driver were unable to open the door, he went around to the back door, unlocked it and went inside to disarm the alarm system and to unlock the front door. He then returned to the front door and again tried to open it forcefully and was successful. Apparently, a neighbor called police to report a break-in and a police officer came to the door to confront Gates. Understandably surprised, Gates first challenged the officer, who would not accept that Gates owned and belonged in the home, and then Gates showed him his Harvard Identification as well as his personal identification, proving that he lived at the house. This should have been the end of the incident, since the alarm system had not gone off and the resident had shown documented proof that he lived there.
In light of recent events at Harvard, including other instances in which Black male professionals have been targeted and detained or questioned by Harvard Security and Cambridge Police, Gates questioned the officer whether the same encounter would be happening if he had been a white professor. In particular, Gates questioned why the officer continued to treat him disrespectfully and with suspicion after having been presented with ample proof and documentation of Gates’ legitimate presence in the house. He demanded of the officer his name and badge number so that he could follow up. The officer refused and Gates was then arrested for “disorderly and tumultuous conduct” and placed in handcuffs and taken to jail. In addition to being one of Harvard’s most distinguished professors, Gates needs a cane to get around, so he obviously was not a threat to the officer or the community.
Most of the Harvard professional community hopes that the charges will be dropped and that the matter can be resolved peacefully. Other professors were stunned and disappointed by the treatment that Gates received. The underlying motif here was that a Black man did not belong in the neighborhood and could not possibly be a legitimate resident in a nice home in such a prestigious location. For that reason, the police officer was unwilling to follow what would have been typical protocol for a white citizen, and demanded additional proof that Gates belonged in the house. When questioned about the underlying racism, the officer responded defensively with the use of force to arrest Gates, not for any charge of unlawful entry onto property or breaking and entering, but for questioning the officer's authority.
The test will be whether the obvious racism that was the foundation for the actions of the officer are exposed. We will see whether the police are reprimanded or sanctioned as were the authorities in the student case. In the case of Gates, placing an elderly Black man in chains [an obviously humiliating and culturally insensitive action] and taking him to jail was at least as invasive as the search in the student case. The official justification was even weaker, because the officer had PROOF that there was no crime BEFORE making the arrest. In the student case, the administration still had at least a weak suspicion that the search would have revealed a violation of school policy.
Taking action that impacts some in a racially distinct way requires justification under current precedent. In the case of the white firefighters’ challenge to the New Haven authority's decision to abandon the results of a promotional exam because the results suggested improper race bias, the Court ruled that discriminatory treatment requires solid evidence rather than mental impressions or “belief” on the part of officials. The officer in the Gates incident clearly acted beyond his authority and the law, if this is the standard applied. There was no “evidence” of wrong or wrongdoing other than the racial stereotypical “belief” on the part of the officer that the Black man [regardless of his credentials or accomplishments] was out of place in a prestigious white neighborhood. The community, he thought, had to be protected from the presence of someone of color. At a second level, the officer apparently believed that a Black man, wrongly accused and inappropriately treated, had no right to challenge or question the actions of the officer.
Perhaps a more intelligent or more culturally competent officer would have diffused the situation and would have acknowledged the excessive questioning of Gates’ presence in his home as error. It is likely that such a response would have ended the encounter; Gates [being a teacher] would have felt that the officer had learned something in the encounter and would be unlikely to react as he did in the future. The officer’s response is typical of those who wield the legitimized authority to use force, but who are culturally stunted and perhaps intellectually challenged. The officer instead chose to react defensively and “put the Black man in his place” by arresting him. This case adds to the Black males' suspected crime portfolio experience of "driving while Black" and "shopping while Black" the new level of "entering your own home while Black."
There has been much debate in the selection of Judge Sotomayor as nominee for Supreme Court Justice about racial bias and the rule of law. That her cultural background may make her more sensitive to the context and fair application of the law than a white male judge with no similar exposure to cultural differences got conservatives up in arms and salivating like rabid dogs. Yet clearly a typical white judge with limited cultural competency may fail to see the injustice in the treatment of Gates, where someone with cultural competency would recognize the elements of racism in what transpired. Such competence is critical, whether that competency has been gained through learning and education, or through the inescapable experience of growing up in America as a person of color. Recognition of those elements by a jurist is essential to the administration of true justice and fair application of the rule of law.
Without understanding the reasons for Gates’ challenge to the officer and the impropriety and provocation in the officer’s prior actions, a judge might simply find a charge of disorderly conduct supportable. Authorities felt that the young woman, as a female and a student, deserved less respect and had fewer rights than an adult male would receive. It is a good thing that the court had the sensitivity to recognize that bias and consider it in applying the rule of law. It remains to be seen whether the same cultural competence is applied in the context of racial bias. Without the ability to tie construction of the letter of the law to the real world and real world experiences, including the pervasive cultural nuances that color and motivate the facts to which the law must be applied in American society, there will continue to be a racially divided system of justice in America, one for Blacks and another for Whites.
In one case, the question was whether a school system acted unlawfully in requiring the equivalent of a strip search of a young white student who authorities suspected of hiding prescription drugs. The court decided that the school authorities acted outside the law by treating the student inappropriately when they were not faced with any serious threat and they lacked sufficient evidence to suggest that the student was, in fact, in possession of any dangerous substance. The situation reflected a routine school policy enforcement process that got out of hand. Although the authorities had the right to maintain the policy against drug possession, the manner in which they enforced that policy was subject to constraints relating to the respectful treatment of a student suspect. Without sufficient justification and probable cause to believe that the student was violating the law or school policy, the school was not entitled to humiliate the young student by subjecting her to a search of her underwear. Moreover, the court suggested that the nature of the alleged violation should inform the nature of the enforcement response. In other words, if the student were suspected of gun possession accompanied by evidence of a threat against other students or staff, harsher treatment may have been justified. But in this case, suspicion of having Tylenol or some similarly innocuous substance did not justify the invasive assault on her person. The student's rights were violated by the humiliating treatment, the court ruled, although there was no force used, no arrest and the search was done by female officials in a private setting.
Now consider the case of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Returning home to his Cambridge, MA, house near Harvard Square, Gates found the front door stuck. After he and his driver were unable to open the door, he went around to the back door, unlocked it and went inside to disarm the alarm system and to unlock the front door. He then returned to the front door and again tried to open it forcefully and was successful. Apparently, a neighbor called police to report a break-in and a police officer came to the door to confront Gates. Understandably surprised, Gates first challenged the officer, who would not accept that Gates owned and belonged in the home, and then Gates showed him his Harvard Identification as well as his personal identification, proving that he lived at the house. This should have been the end of the incident, since the alarm system had not gone off and the resident had shown documented proof that he lived there.
In light of recent events at Harvard, including other instances in which Black male professionals have been targeted and detained or questioned by Harvard Security and Cambridge Police, Gates questioned the officer whether the same encounter would be happening if he had been a white professor. In particular, Gates questioned why the officer continued to treat him disrespectfully and with suspicion after having been presented with ample proof and documentation of Gates’ legitimate presence in the house. He demanded of the officer his name and badge number so that he could follow up. The officer refused and Gates was then arrested for “disorderly and tumultuous conduct” and placed in handcuffs and taken to jail. In addition to being one of Harvard’s most distinguished professors, Gates needs a cane to get around, so he obviously was not a threat to the officer or the community.
Most of the Harvard professional community hopes that the charges will be dropped and that the matter can be resolved peacefully. Other professors were stunned and disappointed by the treatment that Gates received. The underlying motif here was that a Black man did not belong in the neighborhood and could not possibly be a legitimate resident in a nice home in such a prestigious location. For that reason, the police officer was unwilling to follow what would have been typical protocol for a white citizen, and demanded additional proof that Gates belonged in the house. When questioned about the underlying racism, the officer responded defensively with the use of force to arrest Gates, not for any charge of unlawful entry onto property or breaking and entering, but for questioning the officer's authority.
The test will be whether the obvious racism that was the foundation for the actions of the officer are exposed. We will see whether the police are reprimanded or sanctioned as were the authorities in the student case. In the case of Gates, placing an elderly Black man in chains [an obviously humiliating and culturally insensitive action] and taking him to jail was at least as invasive as the search in the student case. The official justification was even weaker, because the officer had PROOF that there was no crime BEFORE making the arrest. In the student case, the administration still had at least a weak suspicion that the search would have revealed a violation of school policy.
Taking action that impacts some in a racially distinct way requires justification under current precedent. In the case of the white firefighters’ challenge to the New Haven authority's decision to abandon the results of a promotional exam because the results suggested improper race bias, the Court ruled that discriminatory treatment requires solid evidence rather than mental impressions or “belief” on the part of officials. The officer in the Gates incident clearly acted beyond his authority and the law, if this is the standard applied. There was no “evidence” of wrong or wrongdoing other than the racial stereotypical “belief” on the part of the officer that the Black man [regardless of his credentials or accomplishments] was out of place in a prestigious white neighborhood. The community, he thought, had to be protected from the presence of someone of color. At a second level, the officer apparently believed that a Black man, wrongly accused and inappropriately treated, had no right to challenge or question the actions of the officer.
Perhaps a more intelligent or more culturally competent officer would have diffused the situation and would have acknowledged the excessive questioning of Gates’ presence in his home as error. It is likely that such a response would have ended the encounter; Gates [being a teacher] would have felt that the officer had learned something in the encounter and would be unlikely to react as he did in the future. The officer’s response is typical of those who wield the legitimized authority to use force, but who are culturally stunted and perhaps intellectually challenged. The officer instead chose to react defensively and “put the Black man in his place” by arresting him. This case adds to the Black males' suspected crime portfolio experience of "driving while Black" and "shopping while Black" the new level of "entering your own home while Black."
There has been much debate in the selection of Judge Sotomayor as nominee for Supreme Court Justice about racial bias and the rule of law. That her cultural background may make her more sensitive to the context and fair application of the law than a white male judge with no similar exposure to cultural differences got conservatives up in arms and salivating like rabid dogs. Yet clearly a typical white judge with limited cultural competency may fail to see the injustice in the treatment of Gates, where someone with cultural competency would recognize the elements of racism in what transpired. Such competence is critical, whether that competency has been gained through learning and education, or through the inescapable experience of growing up in America as a person of color. Recognition of those elements by a jurist is essential to the administration of true justice and fair application of the rule of law.
Without understanding the reasons for Gates’ challenge to the officer and the impropriety and provocation in the officer’s prior actions, a judge might simply find a charge of disorderly conduct supportable. Authorities felt that the young woman, as a female and a student, deserved less respect and had fewer rights than an adult male would receive. It is a good thing that the court had the sensitivity to recognize that bias and consider it in applying the rule of law. It remains to be seen whether the same cultural competence is applied in the context of racial bias. Without the ability to tie construction of the letter of the law to the real world and real world experiences, including the pervasive cultural nuances that color and motivate the facts to which the law must be applied in American society, there will continue to be a racially divided system of justice in America, one for Blacks and another for Whites.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sotomayor Hearings: Much too much ado about NOTHING.
Does anyone truly believe that the Supreme Court Justices who denied freedom to the plaintiff in Plessey v. Ferguson, stating that the Black man had no rights regarding which the White man need be concerned, made the decision free of the inherent prejudices of personal ethnicity and upbringing? A brief look at the decisions of current Supreme Court Justice Scalia will show virtually NO decisions in which the rights of ethnic minorities have prevailed over Whites, despite his southern European heritage once viewed as a negative by the same power elite he currently bows down to. Roberts and Alito were chosen precisely because they would rely upon their White heritage to protect the interest of the WASP establishment from any significant attempt to protect or expand the rights of ethnic minorities [swiftly becoming majority]. Clearly the Right has been burned in the past,Rehnquist turned out not to be as racist as his right wing champions had hoped and O'Connor was virtually branded as a traitor. So they are very prickly about any attempt to rebalance the Court by appointment of a non-White female who is exceptionally bright and qualified.
So all this claptrap about Sotomayor persists in nonsense and hypocrisy. Sotomayor wisely acknowledged that her background gives her a perspective and backdrop against which she could evaluate issues that might come before her, and perhaps view them with greater sensitivity than someone from a more limited experiential background. There are, unfortunately, still people in the echelons of power who have never had a genuine encounter with an everyday person of color, a person in poverty or someone disenfranchised. These "select few" are the ones who Sessions and others of his stripe would prefer to see on the Supreme Court Bench. How sad. The very essence of the values upon which the country and the concept of a Supreme Court was supposedly founded lies in the ability to recognize, understand and empathize with people of any walk of life, ethnicity and socio-economic class.
The fallacy of slavish adherence to "law" or precedent is that many of those precedents were created by Courts and justices who lacked comprehension and empathy. This is where precedent can depart from "law." Prior decisions, stare decisis should not be cast aside lightly, but sometimes it is just plain WRONG, as in the example of Plessey v Ferguson. A wiser, more mature and empathic reading and interpretation of the "law" later obliged the Supreme Court to cast that decision aside. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." It is these small minds that are attempting to conjure fears built upon ignorance of the public [and perhaps their own] about the legal process and the selection of Judge Sotomayor.
By any objective measure, Judge Sotomayor is more qualified by intellect, maturity and experience, to be a Supreme Court Justice than half the men with who she will share the responsibilities of the Court. It is fondly to be wished that she will share that wisdom borne of her experiences [the quote being used to attack her] with those empathically stunted jurists with whom she will work. If she does, we can indeed hope for better and wiser decisions from the Court that reflect the rights, needs and interests of all Americans instead of decisions that merely use twists of sophistry and talismanic references to reliance upon the "law" to preserve and protect the current system that unjustly favors a small group of socio-economic elitists.
So all this claptrap about Sotomayor persists in nonsense and hypocrisy. Sotomayor wisely acknowledged that her background gives her a perspective and backdrop against which she could evaluate issues that might come before her, and perhaps view them with greater sensitivity than someone from a more limited experiential background. There are, unfortunately, still people in the echelons of power who have never had a genuine encounter with an everyday person of color, a person in poverty or someone disenfranchised. These "select few" are the ones who Sessions and others of his stripe would prefer to see on the Supreme Court Bench. How sad. The very essence of the values upon which the country and the concept of a Supreme Court was supposedly founded lies in the ability to recognize, understand and empathize with people of any walk of life, ethnicity and socio-economic class.
The fallacy of slavish adherence to "law" or precedent is that many of those precedents were created by Courts and justices who lacked comprehension and empathy. This is where precedent can depart from "law." Prior decisions, stare decisis should not be cast aside lightly, but sometimes it is just plain WRONG, as in the example of Plessey v Ferguson. A wiser, more mature and empathic reading and interpretation of the "law" later obliged the Supreme Court to cast that decision aside. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." It is these small minds that are attempting to conjure fears built upon ignorance of the public [and perhaps their own] about the legal process and the selection of Judge Sotomayor.
By any objective measure, Judge Sotomayor is more qualified by intellect, maturity and experience, to be a Supreme Court Justice than half the men with who she will share the responsibilities of the Court. It is fondly to be wished that she will share that wisdom borne of her experiences [the quote being used to attack her] with those empathically stunted jurists with whom she will work. If she does, we can indeed hope for better and wiser decisions from the Court that reflect the rights, needs and interests of all Americans instead of decisions that merely use twists of sophistry and talismanic references to reliance upon the "law" to preserve and protect the current system that unjustly favors a small group of socio-economic elitists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)