Friday, December 24, 2010

Welcome to the Corporate States of America


The Los Angeles school district, one of the largest and (overall) most cash-strapped in the country, has approved a proposal to allow corporate names to be posted on school buildings, school district vehicles, and other places, possibly including sports fields. Nothing is to be allowed in classrooms, and companies are to be thoroughly vetted so that no age-inappropriate or other unseemly (e.g., alcohol and junk food manufacturers) companies will be approved for participation. The school district spokesperson said that this still would not end the district's financial woes, but it would make it possible to "avoid further cut-backs in services and programs." Nor is Los Angeles alone in this; Milwaukee's school district started a similar program in 2009.

I'm not the only one who sees what's wrong with this picture. At least one of the parents of a Los Angeles school district fourth-grader noted on NPR's "Morning Edition" today that "there's no such thing as free." There will be a quid pro quo.

What is wrong with Americans? We apparently have become so indoctrinated by corporate and right-wing double-talk that we think it's safer to have businesses, each of which has its own agenda, run our school systems than it is to make sure the government has the funds to do what it needs to fulfill one of its most basic missions, to provide high-quality, free, public education to our youth. The right-wing has succeeded in making "taxes" such a dirty word that we have forgotten Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's profound observation that "[t]axes are the price we pay for civilization."

Yes, government can take our money and spend it in ways we do not like--but WE are the government in this country. We have the power to change what we do not like. Besides, government in this country has systems in place to appeal abuses of the system. If a corporation treats you unfairly and there is no law [read that "government"--Ed.] which provides you access to redress, you are SOL.

I absolutely do NOT understand how so many Americans can mistrust their own government so much that they prefer to turn control over much of their lives to businesses whose sole purpose for existing is to maximize their own bottom line--even if that be at the expense of the rest of us.

But at the rate we are abdicating our duty to each other to make sure we have the best government on Earth, it won't be long before our kids begin each school day pledging their allegiance to "The Corporate States of America."

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Yet Another Modest Proposal

(and with still more apologies to Dean Jonathan Swift)

Mr. Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,

You are correct in asserting both that compromise is the heart of our system and that your job as president is to do what's best for all the American people. However, this deal you brokered with Republican leaders in Congress is neither a compromise nor in the best interests of the American people.

It may look like a compromise when people at both ends of the political spectrum in this country are angry about what's been done, but detailed analysis demonstrates that in this case, looks are deceiving. A compromise is typically defined as a "meeting in the middle," but this deal started out so far to the right of center that what in reality is the middle has been moved so far to the left as to seem dangerously radical. Look: the far right is going to be angry at you no matter how much you give, because they are not angry about the substance of the issues--they are angry that YOU, as a black man, are the president. Nothing you can do will change their anger, so you might as well stop trying to appease them. They deny that they are racists or bigots, but if what they say they want about fiscally responsible political leadership is true, they would have voted all the Republicans OUT off office this past November, not voted more of them in. The disconnect between their proclaimed beliefs and their behavior should be telling you something.

Many on the left, however, are angry at you because you are starting to the right of center, which makes an agreement truly embodying the center, by definition, impossible. We all know that progress is slow, that we can't always get what we want, and that real progress in this country typically happens incrementally. Your behavior since you took office has been to start at the true center and move to the right, however, unlike your soaring rhetoric of hope and change promised during your 2008 campaign. By starting where you've been starting in every discussion so far with the GOP, you aren't giving even incremental progress a chance. I know you're in a tough position, and I know you have an eye to history, but as a fellow academician, I also know that your instinct is to expect people to respond to reasonable behavior by behaving reasonably themselves. In politics, however, that doesn't happen.

Your assertion that you got the GOP to concede several benefits to ordinary Americans that the GOP wouldn't otherwise approve may be true, but is meaningless. A "compromise" that gives 13 months of bare-bones sustenance to the millions of Americans who are the long-term unemployed while bestowing additional billions on the already ultra-rich in this country for 24 months (if not longer--it seems clear that in 2012 we're going to have deja vu all over again about what's happened during the past few months)--billions that will be added to the entire nation's fiscal deficit--is emphatically NOT in the best interests of the American people as a whole. Several analyses of the other terms of this "compromise" say that it will actually increase the burdens on the already-strained middle class instead of helping them. And adding nearly a trillion dollars to the long-term deficit by extending the tax cuts to the ultra-rich does not help the 98% of the American people who have seen their true earning power and purchasing power stagnate (if not downright erode) over the past 40 years.

The ultra-rich seem to have forgotten (if they ever knew) that people without secure, well-paying jobs do not spend money, and since spending money is what drives our overall economic growth, you'd do better by giving no more than a pittance (at the most) to the ultra-rich and bestowing the bulk of your fiscal largesse on us "regular" people. When the economic crisis began, back in 2008, I said that a real economic stimulus plan would devote itself 100% to putting people to work on improving our infrastructure and putting money in our pockets, not to giving money to those who did not need it and who would not spend it. History has borne me out--the rich are even richer than they were when the crisis started, the big ("too big to fail") Wall Street firms are even bigger than they were before 2008, infrastructure improvements are not being done on a big enough or fast enough scale, and the rest of us have become in a real way invisible. Indeed, in 2008, if you simply would have handed a million dollars to every single American, you'd have done more to help the vast majority of us than the stimulus plan as passed ever could, while increasing the long-term deficit only about half as must as the actual stimulus plan did. But the GOP would never have stood for that. (Millionaires and billionaires must be kept a small, elite group. The vast majority of Americans need not apply.) And no, I am not saying by this that you should engage in a short-term, unwinnable political fight. I am calling on you to do in fact what you claim you were doing in the first place, to wit: looking out for the best interests of the American people as a whole.

Listen to and study everything Sen. Bernie Sanders said in his most powerful and fact-laden oratory of December 10th. He is exactly right about it all, but the oligarchic few with most of the money have the power to thwart the will of the real majority of Americans at every turn. You said yourself, correctly, that the vast majority of the American people were aligned with you about not extending tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires. Yet you still gave in to GOP intransigence and signed off on this "compromise" that gives way more to the ultra-rich 2% than it does to the 98% rest of us. The ultra-rich and their allies were playing a cosmic game of "chicken" with you, Mr. President. You blinked first. There is still time, however, to undo the damage this "compromise" has done.

Before I make my "modest proposal," however, let me tell you a little bit about myself, so that you'll understand the strength of my conviction about my idea. I am a life-long non-smoker who got a lung disease; I now must have, around the clock, 6 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen just to function. At that rate, a portable oxygen tank lasts maybe 2-3 hours, so I am effectively prevented from working outside my home. My sole sources of income for the past several years have been approximately 1/3 of my ex-husband's military retirement pay and Social Security disability payments (note that my 3 highest years of earnings were when I lived outside the U.S. to be with my now ex-husband in connection with his military duties, and so my income from those years does not count toward my benefit, leaving me getting less than half the average disability payment). Because of the austerity measures you've already implemented, this will be the second year in a row that I have not had any COLA at all. However, my cost of living has increased measurably over that period, so in real terms, my income is declining, not staying steady.

Nevertheless, I think you should scuttle this "compromise" you made with the GOP and let ALL the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Not only will that fulfill the promises that were made at the time those tax cuts were first enacted, it will restore some modicum of fiscal responsibility to the ultra-rich in this country. The Reagan/Clinton era tax rates (which are the ones that will return once the Bush era cuts expire) did not demand from them a true "fair share" of the burdens all Americans bear for their country. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes himself noted that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Thus, letting the Bush era cuts expire would be better than extending them for another 2 years (or more). And if letting the tax cuts for the middle class expire at the same time is the price we must pay, so be it. The cuts never made a huge difference to most of us, anyway, so ending them isn't going to make a noticeable difference in the other direction, either. The only thing that this "compromise" has done is to let us stall getting our fiscal house in order--again. Letting all the cuts expire in 20 days will be the wake-up call we need to start dealing with our real problems now, instead of sniping at each other while the problem gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

Extending unemployment benefits can be brought up as a stand-alone bill. House Speaker-elect John Boehner is on the record as having said--tellingly, before the deal you brokered with the GOP--that not even the GOP would fail to extend unemployment benefits at Christmastime. What would really do this nation good is to scuttle the "compromise," force a vote before the end of the lame-duck session on extending unemployment benefits alone, and talking to the American people about what the true costs to all of us will be of continuing to give in to the GOP's notion of "fiscal responsibility." If you don't, Dean Swift's "modest proposal" about solving the Irish problem may become applicable here.

Sincerely,

A Very Concerned Citizen

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

What's Wrong With This Picture?


Let me get this straight. Americans are very unhappy with the state of the economy, the level of federal debt, and fiscal irresponsibility in general. The GOP has spent much of the past two years doing 3 things: (1) blocking the Obama administration's attempts to address these issues: (2) diluting to virtual ineffectiveness that which it could not block; (3) lying about the results when the dilutions didn't work and administration initiatives actually did a lot of good. Yet voters yesterday overwhelmingly gave the reins back to the GOP, largely on the grounds that "the country was moving in the wrong direction." Huh?!?!

I take no comfort in the fact that most of the craziest of the crazies (Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Carl Palladino, and Joe Miller--though that last is not yet official) went down to sound defeats. A full third of the voters yesterday still voted for those textbook examples of nuttiness.

And the official pronouncements of those GOP members poised to take over say with one voice that their first goal is to repeal the health care bill, the one they derisively have named "Obamacare." A bill which, admittedly, most people hate when asked about it as a whole, but which, when asked about it feature by feature, an overwhelming majority of people like.

The financial bailouts (which people say they hated and also cite as a reason for the way they voted yesterday) happened under President George W. Bush, REPUBLICAN, but voters yesterday also cited bailouts as one of the reasons they voted for the GOP to retake control of the US House of Representatives. Said voters also hated the alleged governmental take-overs of the US auto industry, but Ford didn't participate, and both GM and Chrysler have roared back to health, and the interest the government bought in those companies is already being sold, the companies having paid off their debts--ahead of schedule.

The level of federal debt owes at least a trillion dollars of its total to President Bush's (and a GOP-controlled Congress's) war spending, which the GOP kept off the books. It pre-existed the Obama administration, but because President Obama kept one of his promises by putting that debt back on the books--where it belonged in the first place--Obama is being blamed for excessive spending.

We are in the worst economic crisis we've seen since the days of the Great Depression, yet the stimulus package, as watered down and weak as the GOP could make it, has kept things from being much, much worse . . . and yet the perception is that the stimulus "failed." Or so the GOP keeps saying. If a lie is repeated long enough, it seems no longer to be a lie, I guess. So I say again, "Huh?!?!"

Wherever H.L. Mencken is, he's laughing his head off. I'm not laughing, however. I'm crying. We've just given the car keys back to the idiots who drove us into the ditch in the first place. The late 19th century has been dubbed "The Gilded Age." I suspect our current time may go down in history as "The Stupid Age."

Monday, November 01, 2010

Rest In Peace

Ted Sorensen, Nebraskan, attorney, counselor and speechwriter for John F. Kennedy, witness to history, has died at the age of 82. May he rest in peace. He embodied the most famous line from JFK's inaugural address: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Indeed, it has long been the common understanding that he, not JFK, actually penned it. Modest and wise, however, when asked directly about that he never lied, but he never said "yes," either. He pointed out that Kennedy made the decisions about what his administration and its policies would be, and Kennedy authored the speech. So Sorensen admitted his role without actually admitting it.

Such understatement is typical of the best Nebraska has to offer, and it's one of the main reasons I so like living here even though it's one of the reddest of the so-called "red states." I highly recommend Sorensen's biography, Counselor, to anyone who wants to gain insight into not just American politics, but into the entire world, especially the world of the early 1960s. It was a vastly different place from the world of today. Yet people of good and noble character are as needed now as they ever have been.

Mr. Sorensen, you will be missed. Requiescat in pace.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Poetic Justice


Alex Rodriguez, third baseman for the New York Yankees, made the final out in last night's American League Championship Series Game Six, which gave the Texas Rangers a 4-2 series victory and its first ever trip to the World Series.

Alex Rodriguez started his big league life as the starting shortstop for the Texas Rangers, but he left that club back in 2003 so that he could go play for "a winner" (said Yankees). He had played for the Rangers since 2000, and was, after only 3 seasons, not patient enough to stay and be the center around which the Rangers would build a championship team. He was so desperate to leave that he even deferred to Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter, moving of his own volition to third base.

Yes, it took another 7 years, during which time the Yankees have won it all (they are the defending World Series champions), but the Rangers have their championship at last . . . after they struck out the man who was slated to be their leader yet who'd bailed on them the first chance he had. That it was the final out of the ALCS was deliciously ironic.

Such poetic justice would not be believable in a novel. It's too perfect. But in real life, it is a treat to be savored.

Now if we could only get rid of artificial turf and the designated hitter rule . . .

Monday, September 27, 2010

It All Depends On How You Look At It


One of the things that bugs me the most about the people yammering for us to get the country back in line with the Founding Fathers' original intent for the Constitution is this: their lack of perspective. They seem to believe that there was a brief, Golden Age in our American past wherein the Constitution was implemented 100% perfectly according to the Founders' intent, and that there also is NO question as to what the Founders' intent was. [The fact that their interpretation of the Founders' intent fits the failed Articles of Confederation more closely than the Constitution is a topic for another post.--Ed.]

I do not condemn them for wishing for "the good old days." All humans seem to have the tendency to think of the past as being a more idyllic, happier, easier time than the present day. [Though in my own defense, I will say that my "good old days" have to do with things that have happened in my own lifetime and thus are formed not just out of my own desires or even my own memories, but are measurable against objective records and facts as corroborated by other living people's memories.--Ed]

I do condemn them for their vision of a "good old days" that can be proven never to have existed except in their own minds. I also condemn them for asking the wrong question to begin with and misusing the principles of logic in answering same. They hold that the Constitution according to the Founders' original intent had (and has) one and only one clear, specific, unambiguous meaning . . . and they point to assorted writings of the Founders to justify their saying so. They conclude that nowadays, the Founders' true original intent has been not just ignored, but positively stomped on . . . mostly by progressives and other evil liberals. They are unshakably rigid in these beliefs.

The problem is, they are not asking the correct question. It's not the case that the Founders had a single, clear, unambiguous original intent, which we sinners have abandoned. The question is: What actually was the Founders' intent in the first place? The Founders' original intent could well have been to create a framework for the government that was strong enough to stand (unlike the already-proven worthless Articles of Confederation), yet flexible enough to let people of the future deal with the problems of the future, problems that not even the Founders could predict. That is, the Founders' original intent could well have been to create a strong yet flexible framework for government, not dictate some unchangeable, perfect, set-in-stone proclamation.

Consider what objective evidence and untwisted logic reveal. First, the mere existence of the copious Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and other articles, essays, correspondence, and publications by the Founders proves that the Founders were NOT of one rigid and united mind-set about the Constitution's meaning. In all these writings they frequently, often vehemently, disagreed with one another about what the Constitution meant and would do once ratified. The sheer physical quantity of the documents establishes that, even without reading all the competing claims those documents actually make.

Second, these "originalists" cherry-pick from all these documents to support their point of view. The opinions of every one of the men considered the Founding Fathers is given equal weight [as long as they agree with it, that is--Ed.]. James Madison, however, has long been recognized as the primary author of the actual Constitution. One would think that he'd have a better idea of what he meant when he wrote any particular phrase or clause than would anyone else. His words explaining what he wrote thus should be given more weight than the words of someone who, even though considered a Founder, did not have a large or even direct role in the Constitution's authorship. Yet Madison is ignored or even actively condemned by these same people when they don't like what he says he meant.

[I have the same problem with the way a lot of people who claim to be Christians interpret the Bible. Excuse me, but not only should the New Testament be given precedence over the Old, Jesus' own words should matter more than anyone else's in either the Old OR New Testament. "Whatsoever you do unto the least of My brethren, you do unto Me" (Matthew 25:40) is the essence of God's New Covenant with humanity, and thus should guide our behavior a lot more than the fire and brimstone, Us against Them, tales of a vengeful Old Testament God.--Ed]

Third, the Founders were no dummies, and they of all people knew the only constant throughout history has been change. Heck, the enormous changes they'd seen just during their own lifetimes at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution illustrate that. Their world was moving from a rural, agrarian social structure to an urban, industrialized one. Enormous improvements in the standard of living for an emerging middle economic class had been seen in just the length of one average lifetime--which was shorter in those days than it is now, remember. While the concept of government by the consent of the governed was not new [don't forget the Magna Carta, dating back to the early 13th century--Ed.], the definition of which "people" were included was broadening, dramatically, as more and more people became economically better-off than their forebears had been. [It's most amusing that many of these "originalists" wouldn't have been considered qualified even to vote, let alone to take a turn at governing, by the standards of the 13th-16th (rich, white, male, titled nobility), 17th (rich, white, male owners of large pieces of real property) and 18th (white, male, property owners)--and 19th (black and other minority males), and even 20th (women)--centuries . . . even the more enlightened, dare I say "revolutionary," standards expressed by some of the Founders.--Ed.]

Individuals no longer had to spend every waking moment providing the bare necessities of food, shelter, and clothing for their families. They had the money, and thus the power, to begin to accumulate goods. They had the time to pay attention to "the larger issues of the day." They could take more control of their own lives than could have any generation before them. [People like Abigail Adams (our first feminist) and the abolitionists just pushed the concept to its logical extremes. But someone has to be on the "far left," as it were, or else what is truly the "center" will appear to be the "far left" to those on the "far right." Again, a topic for detailed exploration on another day.--Ed.]

Fourth, the Founders knew full well that no one could predict the future. They knew that problems would arise; they had no way to anticipate exactly what those problems would be. That's why they were willing to scrap the Articles of Confederation when that framework for government proved impotent. If they could have predicted the future, they'd never have made the mistake of writing the Articles of Confederation--instead of the Constitution--in the first place. They'd have started with the Constitution to begin with. History happens; reality "is." The Founders' miserable experiences under the terms of the weak, states'-rights-oriented Articles of Confederation demonstrated for them that they needed to create something with more teeth. They weren't married to some rigid and unchanging concept of what the right formula for the government would be. Under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, they could not fix the problems of weak government created by those same Articles of Confederation, so they started over with the Constitution. I daresay their experiences with the Articles suggested to them that they needed to build not only teeth, but some measure of flexibility, into the Constitution. But one never hears any of these "originalists" talking about the Articles of Confederation and the actual history that happened while it was in effect . . . most likely because they recognize (at some level) that doing so would demolish their entire argument about the Constitution's meaning and scope.

Fifth, as far as I know, at least, none of the Founders ever claimed to be perfect. And isn't it axiomatic that imperfect beings cannot create perfection? The Founders clearly knew this. Remember, the Preamble to the Constitution says "to create a more perfect Union" and not "to create a perfect Union."

The logic is inescapable. The problem is, none of the people decrying our alleged lack of adherence to the Founders' presumed "original intent" care a whit about logic, though they'd like us to think they do. If they cared about logic, they'd not be so het up about the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York City. They'd recognize that the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom and the Constitution's overall respect for the concept of private property trump any raw emotional reactions of individuals. They'd also be equally upset that there are many fundamentalist Christian churches close to the Alfred P. Murrah building site and memorial in Oklahoma City, but we've heard nary a peep from any of them about that. They'd also recognize that just as a putative Christian killed Christians in Oklahoma City, so did Muslims kill Muslims when the Twin Towers were attacked. There were two mosques at the World Trade Center, one in each of the towers, remember.

I do hate to sound like a broken record, but this is the same reason I get mad when people claim Ronald Reagan was the greatest president the USA has ever had "because he ended the Cold War." That's not the right question. The right question is whether ending the Cold War was such a good idea in the first place. Admire the Soviet Union or despise it, you cannot deny that the USSR kept the lid on its allied Muslim states, and when it had problems, it was the USSR's money and precious manpower that were put in harm's way, not ours. Thus, ending the Cold War was not a bad idea just from the standpoint of what it did in ballooning our own budget deficits. It was a bad idea in terms of what it loosed on the rest of the world in the decades subsequent.

I have the same reaction to people who won't accept blood transfusions or other modern medical procedures because "God will provide." Maybe the doctors and the modern technology ARE how God has provided. Consider this little morality tale: one March, a frail old man found himself trapped atop the roof of his house during extreme springtime floods. A neighbor came by in his rowboat and offered the old man a lift to the rescue shelter on higher ground, but the old man declined, saying "God will provide." Shortly thereafter, Coast Guard personnel came by in a motor boat and offered their assistance. Again, the old man declined. "God will provide." Still later, a National Guard helicopter crew flew by and prepared to lift the old man to safety, but again, he said no. "God will provide," he said, serenely.

Well, the old man drowned that night. After his orientation tour of Heaven he raised his hand. "I have a question," he said. "I had faith. I was sure that God would provide, and I said that, repeatedly--so why am I here?" St. Peter answered, somewhat sadly, "God provided you a rowboat, a motor boat, and even a helicopter. What were you waiting for, the Titanic?"

If you don't ask the correct question, you'll never get the correct answer, even when it's under your nose or next to your flooded house.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Which Would YOU Choose?

I heard a most interesting segment on "This American Life" this morning (locally aired on KIOS, 91.5 FM). The theme of the show was superheroes and superpowers, and the specific segment to which I refer was one in which a gentleman [whose name escapes me--I obviously lack super memory--Ed.] spent some time asking everyone whether they'd rather have the power of flying or of being invisible. His calculations and conclusions were fascinating. He says more women than men prefer the idea of being invisible; more men than women prefer the idea of flying. He goes on to say, with support from several of the people he queried on the subject, that this is because people with something to hide prefer invisibility, and people who "let it all hang out" in terms of who they are prefer the power of flight.

Why I found this so fascinating was that, as usual, I don't fit in. When he first asked the question, I answered "flying." I was 100% certain; the rest of the segment did not change my mind; I said it promptly and out loud, which got quite a reaction from my cats Linus and Lucy, who were, after all, trying to have their morning nap (in the sunny spot in the dining room) in peace.

The auteur says there are 5 stages of decision, and while I don't have the exact titles he used, this is the rough equivalent of what they are: (1) initial choice; (2) justifications; (3) reconsideration; (4) bargaining; (5) final choice, which over 90% of the time wound up being the opposite of the initial choice. He also went on to say that almost everyone who chose invisibility admitted sooner or later that they'd use that power either to spy on family, co-workers, and friends, or to shoplift or watch naked people who thought they were in the privacy of their own showers and tubs.

Ask me how glad I am that I chose flying, immediately and without going through all the stages he set forth. It's nice to get confirmation every now and again that one's own view of oneself is correct, that one is neither lying to oneself or fooling oneself, and that the way one thinks one presents herself to the world is, in fact, the way one presents herself to the world.

Especially on the 28th anniversary of the day I made the most stupid mistake of all the stupid mistakes I've made in my life . . . yes, today, down to its being a Saturday, is the anniversary of the day I got married . . . to a man who doubtless would choose invisibility over flying every time. It took me 16 years (5 of knowing him, 11 of being married to him) to realize that he was not the open, frank, and above-board person I thought he was. In retrospect, I have come to realize that he was always hiding something. I don't think he could go even 24 hours without lying about something to someone. I think it gave him a sense of power, as in "I know something you don't know, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah." Yep, invisibility would have been right up his alley.

Realizing that makes me even more glad I was not only so quick to choose flying, but that I was so sure of that choice.

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Another Modest Proposal, By Me

I understand why everyone with a brain is in an uproar about the new Arizona anti-immigration law. It violates one of the oldest precepts of common law, since enshrined into our Constitution, to wit: people are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but this law requires people to be able to prove their "innocence," i.e., that they are in this country legally.

I wish someone besides me would frame the argument in such basic terms. Perhaps that would force people who favor the law to rethink their priorities--do they value their bigotry more than their alleged devotion to the Constitution? I know, it will never work, because asking someone who has taken an irrational position to think rationally is like tilting at windmills. So call me Don Quixote.

In any event, I have a very modest proposal that as a practical matter will get around the most odious provision of the law, which is that the police are REQUIRED to confirm the immigration status of anyone they've stopped (for other reasons, if memory serves) when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not in this country legally. The answer? NEVER suspect anyone of being here illegally. That will restore the proper constitutional balance. People are presumed to be here legally, period. It will save the local and state police lots of time, money, and hassles; it will, as a matter of fact, preserve the federal government's power over immigration law and enforcement, and it will let the bigots think they won one.

Then again, it's probably not a good idea to encourage the bigots. Besides, preserving the federal government's proper supremacy in this area as a matter of fact though not technically as a matter of law probably isn't good enough. Other states with bigots in office will still be tempted to pass similar legislation.

Still, it's a perfectly good stopgap until the court system sorts it out once and for all. Unless the courts wind up saying the law as it stands is legal . . . in which case, America has stopped being the America I grew up knowing about, and I will have to throw my arms in the air in frustration and doom. And wish I were healthy enough to move.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Final Score: Money, 11, er 12, uh 13 . . . Tradition, 0


Leave it to Nebraska. In this college football-crazy state, even the heat and storms typical of August but happening in June cannot keep the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers off the front page. The University's Board of Regents, in conjunction with some governing board for the entire Big Ten college athletic conference, has announced that Nebraska will be leaving its affiliation with the Big XII [pretentious, isn't it?--Ed.] and joining the Big Ten by the end of 2011. [And if you think I am kidding, I assure you, I am not. Local TV stations took down their weather warning crawlers this afternoon to announce first, that the Regents were meeting to discuss the change in affiliation; second, that the Regents were voting on it; and third, that the affiliation was going to change.--Ed]

The Regents have justified this by saying that several other members of the current Big XII will not commit to staying long-term in that conference, so it's in Nebraska's best interest to be proactive rather than wait until presented with a "fait accompli." The Regents also touted certain academic affiliations and certifications which both Nebraska and every school in the Big Ten maintain, and apparently to which not every school in the Big XII ascribes or aspires.

I don't care how they try to justify it. It's just wrong, on so many levels . . . let me count a few of the ways: (1) there are no natural rivals for Nebraska in the Big Ten; Iowa doesn't count. I don't care that Iowa is right next door; NU is used to chewing on Iowa State once a year. Cyclones go better with Cornhuskers than Hawkeyes do, and even that fit is not great. NU has always looked to its west and south for its main competition every year, clear back to the days of the Big Six. Looking east and north is not what we do--that's going backwards. We are natural affiliates of the other Plains States, not the Rust Belt.

Besides, Ohio State and Michigan already have their own classic rivalry going. NU's most natural rival is and always has been Oklahoma, from the glory days of the Big Six through the Big Eight and even the Big XII. Yes, bad enough when the Big Eight turned into the Big XII and split into North and South divisions, thus forcing NU's annual "big game" rival to be Colorado and not Oklahoma. Colorado football does not have the same historic cachet as NU-OU. Colorado just hasn't been good enough, long enough. [Not to mention that Colorado has already announced its plans to switch to the Pac 10 from the Big XII.--Ed.] I'm sorry, but football on Thanksgiving weekend MUST include the NU-OU game. Traditions matter in college football more than in just about any American sporting endeavor other than baseball. Eating turkey sandwiches while watching NU play anyone but OU on the day after Thanksgiving has never felt or tasted quite right. Knowing it's never coming back will feel and taste even worse.

OK, in the Big Ten, there IS Penn State, against whom Nebraska has played some memorable bowl games, but that just leads me to my second point. (2) The Big Ten cannot count. It already has eleven schools in its membership; what's it going to call itself after NU is officially embraced, too? "The Big Ten Plus Two"? Awkward. "The Big Twelve"? Allowing for the "XII," already taken . . . though who knows? If the Big XII really is falling apart the way the NU Board of Regents seems to think, maybe the name will become available. But will the conference still have only twelve members at that point? Rumors have been rife for years that Notre Dame has been recruited heavily by the Powers That Be in the Big Ten. Maybe the Fighting Irish will stop fighting assimilation. Whether ND stays independent or joins the conference, however, the conference's name still won't match its numbers. And that leads me to my third point: (3) despite the NU Board of Regents' touting of NU's and the Big Ten's high academic standards and qualifications, that inability to count has taken us back to the days where the "N" on the NU football helmet stands for "knowledge."

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics


US Representative Lee Terry (R-NE, 2nd District) just e-mailed the results of a poll of his constituents revealing their attitudes towards certain pressing issues of the day. Included was everything from whether we should continue offshore drilling in the wake of the BP disaster to whether we should repeal the recently passed health care reform bill.

In results that should shock no one [for reasons I am about to explain--Ed.], Terry reported results reflecting that an average of over 77% of his constituents think about these issues the same way he does--which, for those of you out there [you ARE out there, aren't you?--Ed.] who read my postings, are diametrically opposed to my views on the same issues. Terry also reported that while a minority of around 20% of his constituents held views similar to mine, as many as 6% of his constituents were undecided on specific issues.

That's what gave me pause. For, you see, this poll's results were not the result of random, door-to-door canvassing of Nebraska 2nd Congressional District voters. These results came from 2nd District constituents ANSWERING an e-mail Terry himself had sent out to "ascertain" the public feeling. This "poll" was designed to elicit the answers it got, as you can be certain that at least 70% of the people who received it were Terry supporters because those voters make up the majority of his e-mail list.

Doubtless several people like me, who've contacted Terry regularly to express our opposition to his stands on particular issues, also got the e-mails, but we are in a preselected minority for several reasons which have nothing to do with the actual makeup and mindset of 2nd District voters in general. It's axiomatic that people tend to respond to and be more involved in things they support than things they oppose. So not only are those of us who oppose Terry's politics a predetermined minority of his potential polling population, we are less likely than Terry supporters to respond to Terry's e-mail poll invitation than are those who agree with him. People want validation, not rejection. That was Terry's motive in creating and distributing his "poll," and that was the motivation of most of the people who responded to it by agreeing with him.

The real problem with the numbers Terry reported, however, comes in the guise of the alleged "undecided" answers. In a "poll" such as this, where people participated by invitation, who is going to respond "undecided"? More likely, such folks just wouldn't respond at all. Terry said he got over 1,100 answers to his invitation to participate, but I do not recall seeing anywhere the total number of invitations he sent in the first place. Given that there are probably close to a million people living in the 2nd District as a whole, and that as many as half of them are not in the uber-urbanized metropolitan Omaha area, and given that many of them probably don't have computers or the time to respond to such e-mailed invitations as Terry's to begin with, it's impossible for Terry to claim that the 1,100 responses he received were any kind of valid scientific sampling.

This "poll" was much less an effort to find out what his 2nd District constituents think than it was a self-congratulatory exercise whereby he and his supporters could pat themselves on the back in mutual admiration. Mark Twain, as usual, was right. There are 3 kinds of data: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Guess which Twain held in the deepest contempt.

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Gut Reaction


I just heard an NPR report on the US Supreme Court's decision, 5-4, saying that to invoke one's Miranda rights, one has to speak up and inform the police that one is doing so. Silence alone is not enough. The newest associate justice, Sonja Sotomayor, dissented. Law professors across the country, be they politically to the right or to the left, also dissented. They are all correct.

It's simple logic: if you have to speak up to invoke your right to remain silent, then you do not really have a right to remain silent. Bad enough that the police are allowed to question you for hours on end in the face of your silence, to, in essence, badger you until you crack (which is what happened in the case at hand), but to allow the police and prosecutors then to use what you say against you simply shocks the conscience.

It's as if the razor-thin Supreme Court majority thinks nothing else matters because you are actually guilty. The hallmark of a truly civilized society is how it treats the most helpless of its members: the disabled, the elderly, the poor, those facing -- alone -- the full police power of the state weighing down on them. Today, we are officially less civilized than we were yesterday.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

The Two Most Basic Errors Of Libertarian Thought


US Senate candidate Rand Paul has been saying in public since at least 2002 that his Libertarian beliefs mean that while he personally would abhor anyone who ran his/her business by discriminating against others on the basis of race or skin color, the government should not be able to stop them from doing so, all for the sake of the sanctity of private property rights. So even though he says he supports the aims, goals, and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if it had been up to him, the title in that act which ended the ability of businesses engaged in interstate commerce to discriminate would never even have come up for a vote, let alone get passed.

And this perfectly illustrates the first basic error in Libertarian thinking [and I use the term "thinking" loosely--Ed.]--for what it does is elevate the rights inherent in property ownership above and ahead of the rights of individuals. That is exactly backwards. Since the earliest days of the English common law, the rights of people have trumped the rights of property. While you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself [or someone else--Ed.] against the use or threat of deadly force against you, you most assuredly are NOT allowed to use deadly force to protect your property from someone posing a threat to it. And if you should choose to use deadly force to protect your property, you will be held responsible for the consequences of your actions, be it under criminal OR civil law. People matter the most under the law. Period.

It is also tempting to go into a long diatribe about how that's in essence the same objection to the entirety of "states' rights" claims, but I'll leave those details for another post. And even if my assertion technically were not true, the outcome of the US Civil War decided it contrary to the Libertarian/states'-righters position anyway. I raise the same argument to those who cite carefully selected excerpts from the Federalist Papers to support such views, by the way. Maybe some of the Founders did intend such topsy-turvy interpretations to be the law of the land. Nonetheless, the outcome of the Civil War [including the passage and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments--Ed.] changed everything. We no longer live in an eighteenth-century, rural, locality-based world and economy. While the intent of the Founders is important to discern, it is literally impossible to implement 100% of that intent in the 21st century. I, for one, think the Founders would recognize that, were we able to ask them.

Thus the second basic error in Libertarian thinking: they have taken the adage, "the government that governs best, governs least" as their own, but too often have used it to force the government not so much to "govern least" as to "govern not at all." If they were pressed, I think most Libertarians would admit that at least SOME government is necessary. But they seem to have an abiding faith in either the notion that individuals will do the right thing or the notion that whatever anyone does is no one else's affair. The whole of human history illustrates the folly of both those notions.

I confess to having some sympathies favoring the Libertarians' position, at least in regard to an individual's right to privacy, but the absolutest stand most libertarians take against the role of government is impossible to implement in the real world. It would be anarchy. Let's face some facts: governments exist to do the things that people want or need to have done but which they cannot do by or for themselves. Setting out that framework is what the Founders intended in creating the Constitution in the first place. They had tried the much weaker Articles of Confederation, and scrapped that experiment as soon as practical experience with it showed that it was too weak to do what America needed to survive as an independent country.

No one will be in 100% agreement with anyone else 100% of the time. But without some framework that's sturdy enough to say what is to be done when disagreements arise, and to enforce that procedure on those who disagree issue by issue, there is no government but chaos. And chaos is no government. If you doubt this, consider the essential IN-action of the US Senate during most of the past year-and-a-third. Yes, some things, some important things, have been accomplished, but at what cost? In the US Senate, a minority of ONE can hold the will of the vast majority of American voters hostage . . . and for what? To protect British Petroleum from having to pay for the immense damage its own reckless behavior has caused? T'ain't right, Magee.

I confess to fearing I am on the losing, even though correct, side of this issue, the philosophy of governmental power. When I see US Supreme Court decisions such as the one in Citizens United, the campaign financing case, and I see people on all bands of the political spectrum nodding seriously and giving more than due consideration to the concept of "states' rights," I marvel at how such things could have come to pass in America. Have we learned nothing from the Civil War, the Great Depression, the paroxysms of the Sixties, and the other traumas we have suffered throughout our history? America today, with all its emphasis on corporate welfare and the rights of artificial "persons," evokes the melody of "The World Turned Upside Down" and the sarcastic observation in Animal Farm that "some are more equal than others." Yes, George Orwell was railing against communism, but his words are equally applicable to modern corporate power. Control and repression of the individual are the same whether the one doing the controlling is Stalin or Goldman Sachs.

Tom Lehrer Would Have Loved This . . .

. . . a/k/a Talk About Your Freudian Slip!

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton again spoke very strongly of the need for the world to unite in holding North Korea accountable for the unjustifiable act of sinking a South Korean warship and killing its crew of 46. In reporting this during the 7:00 a.m. CDT broadcast of NPR's "Morning Edition," NPR newsman Paul Brown at one point started to say "North Caro--" before correcting himself and saying "North Korea."

I, of course, immediately thought of Tom Lehrer's "Who's Next?", his early Sixties' commentary on both nuclear proliferation and civil rights. Its tag line? "We'll try to stay serene and calm, when Alabama gets the bomb--Who's next?"

Once I stopped laughing, I marveled at how what goes around, comes around. Who'd have thought, nearly half a century later, with Rand Paul's case of foot-in-mouth and North Korea's eternal petulance, that both civil rights and nuclear proliferation would still be in the headlines?

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

One Quick Question


Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has raised a loud voice decrying the lack of federal involvement and initiative in cleaning up the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the oil spill that is now fouling Louisiana's precious and fragile coastal marshlands. Governor Jindal is a Republican. Governor Jindal delivered the GOP response to President Obama's first address to Congress after Obama's election (the non-State-of-the-Union State of the Union speech). Governor Jindal in that response decried the overreaching scope of federal government and said we need less government in our lives, not more.

What's wrong with this picture?

Monday, May 24, 2010

That's a Fifteen-Yard Penalty for Unnecessary Bias



I renew my objections to the biased content of the History Channel's "America: The Story of Us" project, sponsored by the Bank of America, and indeed, make my objections even more strenuously than I have before. I admit that I have not watched every single second of every single segment that has aired so far, but I've watched more than enough to realize that the problems I had with what I'd seen as of a couple of weeks ago have not only not gone away, but have gotten worse.

Objection the first: the B of A ads have been deliberately designed to be very difficult for a casual viewer to tell from the content of the actual program. Historical narrative (timed to coordinate with the period being discussed at that moment in the program itself) intercut with comments by various "experts" extolling the B of A . . . someone who didn't know much about American history or who wasn't paying really close attention would be left with the impression that the B of A has actually been THE central player in all of US History. One almost expects to see painted portraits of B of A executives at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional Convention, the Gettysburg Address, and so on.

Give me a break!

Objection the second: the program itself is designed to exalt the role of business and banking in US history at the expense of actual fact. For an example from what aired last night, one need consider only the segments "explaining" the Dust Bowl, Great Depression, and the lead-up to America's participation in World War II.

(1) More time was given to explaining how the dust storms of 30s affected urban centers such as New York City and Washington, D.C., than was given to explaining how the farming practices of rural America contributed to their creation, and how the rural American economy had been in shambles for years before the technical start of the Great Depression, namely the stock market crash of October, 1929.

(2) I never heard FDR mentioned by name regarding the bank holiday called after he was inaugurated in 1933, to stop the runs on all American banks that threatened to plunge the country into a crisis so deep there would be no digging out from under, ever. One sentence--ONE SENTENCE--was devoted to the fact that economic deregulation had produced excessively risky economic speculation which led to the crisis in the first place . . . while several verbal paragraphs were devoted to the admittedly anonymous single investor who entered a bank in 1933 and demanded ALL his deposited funds back, which triggered the nationwide run on all banks. The result? An impression that this one anonymous individual with his one self-preservative act was responsible for the downfall of our entire economic system, and not the decade-plus of irresponsible behavior by the baking industry that was the hallmark of the Roaring Twenties.

(3) The assertion that FDR's [again, he was never mentioned by name, which makes me wonder whether this was done to avoid a more direct protest against the program's contents by those who know what FDR did for this country--Ed.] public works programs didn't end the Depression; it was our being dragged into World War II that ended the Depression. The writers and producers of this biased interpretation omitted or ignored several salient facts.
--The Republicans, then as now, objected to spending directly to help the American people, and never gave FDR sufficient funding even for his programs that were put into law and effect.
--FDR himself erred in early 1937 when he listened to some of his more conservative economic advisers and pulled back on even the relatively paltry amount of money he had been given to use for his "great economic experiment." This had the effect of shutting down a proto-recovery that had, in fact, begun by 1936, once his public works programs had been in effect long enough to have had real effect on the overall economy.
--The assertion that it was WWII and not FDR's programs that ended the Depression is totally specious. What was it about the war that ended the Depression? Here's a clue: GOVERNMENT SPENDING. It's just that what the money was being spent on had changed from domestic programs designed to help people survive, to armaments production and the entire panoply of what has become the modern military-industrial complex. The source of the spending didn't change. The purpose of the spending did. The amount of the spending increased, dramatically. Had FDR been able to spend on domestic initiatives what he was given to spend on the war effort, the Great Depression would never have been so deep nor long-lasting is it actually proved to be.
(4) The program's continued emphasis on recounting individual anecdotes and what amounts to winning info for the trivia-mad [of which I confess to being one--Ed.] as opposed to focusing on the greater significance of many of the events it describes. Indeed, some of the anecdotes chosen seem to contradict whatever larger point they are cited to "support." A traditional and valid sub-narrative of the Great Depression story is how people, desperate for work, gladly took on any jobs they could find no matter the working conditions, just to be able to bring home even the most paltry pay. The building of Hoover Dam and the sculpting of Mount Rushmore are two of the most commonly cited illustrations, and "America: the Story of Us" does not surprise by choosing them.

However, its telling of the story of Hoover Dam has as its upshot that the money the men earned went to a nearby little, dusty, gambling town of Las Vegas. So the great work of constructing Hoover Dam ahead of schedule and under budget has by implication been reduced to the spark that ignited the boom of decadence in the desert. Talk about your damnation with faint praise!

The story of Mount Rushmore's creation likewise has been trivialized by what the program's writers and producers chose to emphasize. They didn't explain that there was no incentive to implement real safety measures at the site because there were far more men willing to do the work than there were openings available, even allowing for the number of deaths and disfigurements that made new openings available on a regular basis. No, the program implicitly pooh-poohed the dangers by telling the story of one worker who was in the wrong place at the wrong time when a nearby lightning storm hit some power lines, thus ultimately igniting almost 100 dynamite charges 30 minutes early . . . only to suffer naught but a broken ear drum and the loss of his shoes, which had literally been blown off his feet.

One is left with the impression that the work wasn't so much dangerous as quirkily amusing. Truth would have been better served had the actual death and disfigurement totals been cited . . . but oh, yeah! Numbers and statistics are so BORING! We can't have that, now, can we? Well, numbers and statistics may be boring, but they are facts. And it's facts, not anecdotes, which lead to truth.

This entire program is insidious. It's dangerous. It's not the history of America; it's a paean to a right-wing, pro-business interpretation of American history which omits so many salient facts that it cannot be deemed substantively accurate. I cannot protest it strongly enough. It's another example of why certain things, like history programs, should never be put in the position of having to make a profit in order to justify their creation.

Lest any of you think that I protest because of my own biases, let me remind you: my sole bias is for the truth. The truth based on facts. I was not a fan of FDR who thus interprets his response to the Great Depression based on any predisposition favorable to him. I was someone who learned about the Great Depression by studying what happened, and gained an admiration for FDR as a result of that study. Developing an opinion based on fact is not the same as shoe-horning selected facts to fit one's predispositions. I do the former. That's why I'm at heart a historian. "America: The Story of Us" does the latter. That's why it's a piece of pro-business propaganda.

So my love-hate relationship with the History Channel continues. I love that more Americans are being exposed to history, in often interesting and frequently innovative ways designed to pique interest. I hate that this is coming at the behest of corporate sponsors who have their hands in production from Day One, and which call the shots about how that which is being presented will be interpreted. I hope that even such biased efforts will spur viewers to do some investigating of their own--and thinking of their own--about what they discover. I fear that that won't happen. I am left with this question: is exposure to some, albeit biased, history better than no exposure to history at all? 'Tis a puzzlement.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

I'd Take It With Several Grains of Salt, But I'm Supposed To Be On A Low Sodium Diet


I have been watching parts of the History Channel's current extravaganza explaining American history, "America: The Story of Us." I am not impressed with what I have seen so far. Rather than being a real recounting of American history, what I've seen has been a collection of anecdotes, designed at once to attract the more salacious of the viewers' tastes and to promote the pro free-market, pro laissez-faire agenda of its corporate sponsor, the Bank of America.

No attempt has been made, that I've seen anyway, to provide a larger context for the events described beyond the notion that Americans were and are always moving forward, grasping and grappling with problems, all in the name of economic "freedom." The Lewis and Clark expedition has been reduced to a search for new sources of beaver pelts, the most luxurious and profitable furs of that long-gone trade. The tragedy of the Donner party has been reduced to a bad episode of "Unsolved Mysteries," emphasizing the bodies which were never found and the fact that one of the survivors was found next to a cauldron of human blood.

Frankly, recent PBS examinations of both subjects were about a million times better, each.

Nor am I impressed with another basic presumption of the History Channel's series, which is that Americans have always been reaching out for new problems to conquer, and our history moves from success to success, the heroic tale of a unique and heroic people. I'm not denigrating American history--I LOVE American history. But such a non-nuanced telling not only makes the American story two-dimensional, it cheapens it. The truth is more complex, and even more amazing. Just as many--if not more--Americans were trying to get away from oppression (real and perceived), boredom, or their own fiscal and familial woes as were moving forward with a dream of a new ideal in mind. They were running away, not consciously and deliberately moving toward anything. Important aspects of America's story are accidental, not part of some unseen, grand, even God-given, design.

Perhaps worst of all, the sponsor's ads have been deliberately designed to make it difficult to tell the ads from the body of the program. I'm sure Bank of America will claim it was just tailoring the ad content to reflect the importance of the program. Given the usual excesses of unchecked commerce, however, I doubt that. The ads really were designed to make viewers who aren't paying close attention think that B of A is part and parcel of the entire panoply of American history. [Here's where, in conversation, I'd insert one of the best bits from the movie My Favorite Year: "Captain from Tortuga? Captain from crap!"--Ed.]

So watch the series, or even buy the DVDs so that you can watch it again, and again, and again. But watch with a skeptical eye and several grains of salt. I'll have to pass on the salt, however, as part of my new regimen is keeping my sodium intake to under 2 grams per day.

Friday, April 30, 2010

Le Roi est mort! Vive le roi!


I don't know about you, but I find the Burger King "King" with the oversized head creepy. However, I have to admit that ever since the ad agency handling Burger King's account dug him up, the "King" has on occasion provided some very clever commercial fodder, indeed.

My own all-time favorite so far is the one from a few years ago, wherein the King and Darth Vader were standing nose-to-nose, and the only sound was Vader's breathing. What cemented its place in the firmament for me was when a very dear friend suggested it reminded him of the old Saturday Night Live sketch "Quien Es Mas Macho? Fernando Lamas, o Ricardo Montalban?"

There have been any number of lame ads since, but one of the current ones is vying hard for a place in my "best of" list. The Burger King is seen breaking into a corporate headquarters building, stealing the secret recipe for the Egg McMuffin. What makes this ad so great is the voice-over, which says something to the effect that while the Burger King's breakfast sandwich may not be original, "it's only a buck." I snorted my hot tea through my nose, I was laughing so hard.

So, creepy as you are, I salute you, Burger King. Anyone or anything that can poke fun at its own self is not all bad. I just have to remember not to drink anything when a commercial comes on.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

So Much For The Belmont Stakes


Every now and again, I need to be reminded that my lung disease is not the only thing running my life. I just had a "lovely" hospital stay, with tons of tests and lots of blood draws for labs, trouble getting an IV line started, new medicines and disagreements with techs about doctors' orders, all to be reminded that just because I have a chronic and ultimately terminal lung disease, it doesn't mean that some other health problem won't reach up and bite me on my butt.

The upshot? I have been diagnosed with congestive heart failure, and am now taking Lasix and potassium chloride in addition to the pharmacopoeia of other meds I must ingest both for my lung disease and for the side effects of same.

Several states allow race horses which are being given Lasix to race, but New York state is not one of them. I have just lost my chance to run in and win the Belmont Stakes.

I am heartbroken.

Overall, my time in the hospital wasn't bad, considering that I was mentally unprepared for the entire experience. Still, I do have a few standing complaints which may serve as warnings for anyone out there who finds him/herself in similar circumstances. First, be 100% aware of not only what the doctors have ordered, but why. My pulmonologist wanted to get readings of my breathing and oxygenation rates overnight while using my BiPap machine, to make sure my machine was working properly. The respiratory tech who was assigned to set up the test didn't want to use my BiPap, because of "liability issues." I had to explain it to her about 7 times that using the hospital's BiPap would defeat the entire purpose of the test. She STILL didn't want to do it, probably for fear she'd get in trouble somehow. I held my ground, and she eventually either checked with one of her higher-ups, or finally realized I was right. I mean, she had the doctor's order right in front of her, and it specifically said that MY BiPap machine was to be used. Good grief!

If she hadn't done it according to the doctor's order, I'd have been forced to stay an additional overnight, which would not have done my mental health any good, and she probably would have gotten in trouble for not following the doctor's order in the first place.

Second, don't let the nurses gouge you over and over in the attempt to start an IV line. I admit to not being steadfast enough here, mostly because I know I am what they call "a tough stick." I sympathize with the difficulties the RNs have in finding a good place to start an IV on me. But I am learning to say "not only 'NO,' but 'Hell, NO.'" to someone sticking me repeatedly and, upon missing the vein, keeping the needle in and digging around to try to find it. It didn't prevent me from winding up with both arms--and hands--black and blue. But what backbone I exhibited did keep my arms and hands from being abused even worse than they had been. Next time [and there will be one, I know--Ed.], I'm not even going to give them two chances. One try, no digging, and if it fails, I'm going to insist that someone else be called upon to start the IV line.

Third, there are some things that just are not worth getting upset about. Leads and wires and oxygen tubes and phone cords and TV remotes will get tangled up. Live with it, be patient (pun intended), and just untangle them as needed. Fourth, even teaching hospitals are overworked and understaffed, so learn to be proactive. If an alarm on something you're hooked up to goes off, and you know why, AND it's not for a true emergency, turn it off! When I finally did receive an IV, the pump monitoring the rate of infusion clanged horridly once the IV was empty. I waited about a minute, and then, realizing everyone was too busy to drop everything and come for such a minor thing, I just shut it off. The patient in the other bed was happy, I was happy, and the RN on duty was relieved that he had one fewer bit of drudgery to accomplish.

Finally, remember that the hospital is no place to get any rest. Set things up so that you have at least 48 hours after you get home wherein you have to do nothing, so that you can catch up on your sleep and get your mind and attitude recalibrated. Your family will love you for it.

Monday, April 12, 2010

What This Country Needs Is A Good Civics 101 Course


While certain aspects of the right-wing political yowling in this country have made perfect sense to me, other aspects didn't--until I realized something, that is. What I realized is that social studies, or civics [as opposed to straight "history"--Ed.] education seems to have disappeared from our educational system.

When the Tea Partiers, for example, yammer about their rights and freedoms being taken away by an oppressive government, and when idiots like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich pontificate about the current administration being "the most radical" secular, socialist government in US history, and people take them seriously, what other conclusion can be drawn?

The Tea Partiers have taken the name for their movement in honor of the Boston Tea Party, which I hope even people with virtually no knowledge of American history recognize was a protest against a British imperial tax on tea imposed upon its then-colonies in North America. Fair enough. Empires, almost by definition, are despotic and largely opposed to the will of their subjects. But the Tea Partiers in fact are more like the governments in southern states before and during the US Civil War

The distinction the Tea Partiers have failed to recognize or even acknowledge is that the British government imposed its taxes on its American colonies without the colonials [more precisely, the colonials' representatives--Ed.] being able to vote on the imposition of those taxes in Parliament. The secessionists, on the other hand, were (as they well knew) a minority population in the country as a whole. They HAD representation in the national government. They HAD legal recourse and access to get their opinions known and their voices heard. They HAD a place within that very government they railed against. They just didn't like being on the losing end of the votes.

I remember social studies in junior high and high school. One of its most fundamental teachings was that when people come together to form a government and participate in an attempt to form "a more perfect Union," their obligation under that social contract or social compact is that everyone agrees to accept, peacefully, the outcomes of the votes that go against them, and that their recourse is to work within the system to win enough votes to change the outcome in the future--and unless and until they regain that majority, that they abide by the results they do not like, and peacefully comply with the law. WE all ARE the government. It is not some alien thing being imposed upon us by some distant, evil, nefarious "them" which wants to destroy us and take away "our freedom."

This teaching seems largely to have been lost on members of the Tea Parties and the GOP toadies who further incite them. This teaching is so basic, so fundamental to what being a responsible American citizen is all about, that its failing to have taken hold in the minds and hearts of the Tea Partiers mystifies me. I conclude, therefore, that this teaching is no longer offered in our school systems, and I for one mourn its passing. In the long run, it means the end of what the American dream really constitutes.

And I know that rhetoric often gets heated in the course of the discussion. But I'm not talking about heated rhetoric. I'm talking about people threatening to "take back" what they feel has been "taken away" from them by force of arms or even revolution. I'd have said "or secession," given the proclivity of numbskulls like Texas Governor Rick Perry to resort to that language, but anyone who knows the outcome of the US Civil War should know that secession as an idea is dead. The Confederacy lost. Get over it, already.

What scares me at this point is the increasingly violent stridency with which these allegedly disenfranchised people are pushing their agenda. America, it seems, is for everyone--only so long as everyone is just exactly like them [which is the unstated but essential linchpin of their equation--Ed.]. And they are willing to say they'll shoot people who disagree. Watch very carefully all the pro-gun, pro-Tea Party rallies that have been scheduled to take place near Washington, D.C., on April 19th. The tone of our political discourse is changing in some fundamental--and I use that term deliberately--way. Threats of violence should not be a part of everyday politics, but of late, such threats have become all too common. Two quick examples: I remember a sign at one of the Tea Party rallies. It said "We left our guns at home. This time." Second, a recent political cartoon in the Washington Post may be about to come more literally true than anyone with even half a brain should want. The cartoon depicts the exterior of the US Supreme Court building, with bullets whizzing everywhere all around it, and a speech balloon coming from inside the building [probably from Justice Scalia--Ed.] saying in a self-satisfied tone, "Ah, a robust Second Amendment in action!"

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

How Much Is 2+2? How Much Do You Want It To Be?


Some days I wake up grumpy . . . and some days, I let him sleep. No, no. Seriously, some days I wake up grumpy, and it usually has something to do with what's on the radio news as I am coming to in the wee hours. This morning, I am beyond grumpy. I am positively curmudgeonly.

NPR's "Weekend Edition Sunday" aired an interview this morning with Fank Newport of Gallup Polls, discussing public reaction to the passage of the health care reform bill. The general tenor of the discussion was that once the bill passed, a plurality of the public indicated support for the bill according to Gallup's own poll from last Monday. Mr. Newport added that even other polls which showed more people didn't like the bill than did like it constituted not "a vast majority of the American people," contrary to GOP talking points, but only a bare plurality of about 3 points [which, I note, statistically is within the margin of error--Ed.].

I have no quarrel with that. I do have a quarrel with the way all the polls discussed seem to have been formatted. If I understand the recap correctly, the polling was to learn the level of support for the bill. But it seems that what was asked was along the lines of "do you support the legislation, yes or no." That is no way to determine support for the bill. The only thing it indicates with any reliability is whether someone supports what s/he thinks the bill entails, and due to the months and months and months of negative spin spewed out by right-wing talking heads, what people think the bill entails and what the bill actually does are two very, very different things.

The only legitimate way to measure public support for the bill is to ask a series of questions about each key provision of the bill, to wit: do you support or oppose ending the ability of health insurers to deny coverage for "pre-existing conditions"? Do you support or oppose ending the ability of health insurers to drop your coverage if you get sick? Do you support or oppose allowing families to carry their adult children on their parents' policies until those children reach the age of 26? Do you support or oppose eliminating the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare's Part D prescription drug coverage? Do you support or oppose reducing the federal budget deficit by billions of dollars over the course of the next 10 years, as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined this bill will do?

I could go on, but I'll spare you. I will say that I am aware that the way I've phrased some of the questions I listed may not be "value-neutral." But I do not claim to be a pollster. I do think a pollster worth his or her salt could frame the questions in a valid value-neutral way. My point is not about the framing of specific questions in any event. My point is about the way to get the most accurate snapshot possible of the public's true opinions about the legislation, by asking questions about each of its provisions as opposed to asking a meaningless question about the bill as a whole.

Heck, even the overly broad question about the bill as a whole would be instructive IF there had been follow-up questions to determine what people actually think is in the bill in the first place. Without those follow-ups, the poll as it stands is meaningless. Anyone can take its results and twist them into whatever shape suits one's purposes, just as the CPA in the classic joke said "What do you want it to be?" when he was asked "What's two plus two?"

Mark Twain was right: there are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

I Don't Care If It's the First Act of Henry V

Yes, that's the punch line to the old joke about recognizing "the last act of a desperate man." I hope that will be history's take on the continued uproar by the self-styled Tea Partiers and the entire spectrum of far-right nut jobs. I haven't seen such a spate of juvenile name-calling and bullying since junior high school . . . only this is even scarier, because this time the bullies have guns.

The behavior and tactics of these people [and I use the term both loosely and advisedly--Ed] consist of willful denial of facts, delivered loudly, and now not just overt threats of violence [anyone remember the Tea Party rally sign "We came unarmed--this time"?--Ed], but actual incidents of brick-throwing and other acts of violence against their perceived opponents, including increasingly overt threats involving guns.

To its great shame, the "mainstream" wing of the GOP has been encouraging this increasingly apocalyptic reaction. Sarah Palin has tweeted her followers that it's "time to reload" and has posted a map online targeting selected Democratic-Party-held House seats through gun sight cross hairs. This must stop before we wind up with a totally Balkanized nation. Palin and her ilk can disavow overt acts of violence all they want, but whether they admit it or not, they are morally responsible for encouraging the hyper-extremists in their increasingly unstable behavior.

I try to comfort myself with the knowledge, based on history, that this is what always happens when the forces of reaction realize they are losing 100% control of any given situation. It's akin to the notion that the darkest hour is just before the dawn. But the race to the bottom seems to be not just on, but in full swing. I am afraid that this time there will be even darker hours before that new dawn breaks.

Friday, March 05, 2010

Happy Belated Grammar Day, Everyone!


I have it on good authority that yesterday was officially Grammar Day. In honor of the day, at least one web site hosted a limerick contest. The winning entry naturally referred to the web site's owner [suck up!--Ed.], which didn't occur to me, but for the sake of posterity, I'd like to enshrine my own, non-winning entry here:

A woman accused of apostasy
Told grammar geeks to stop accosting me
Possessives ending in "s"
Can be plural; don't guess--
I'll tell you where to put your apostrophe.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Cough, Choke, Wheeze, HACK!



The US Representative for the 2nd District of Nebraska, Lee Terry (R), announced last week that he's running for re-election--again. This will be his seventh campaign, so he's held the seat for 12 years and wants to keep it for at least two more. I make special note of the length of time he's been in Congress for two reasons:

(1) When he ran the first time, and in his first two (or so) re-election bids, he flat-out promised that he would "serve" no longer than he'd be able to under a term-limits law, which he said at the time was a maximum of three or four terms at the most. He said he'd not keep running even if no term-limits law were ever actually passed. No term-limits law ever was passed . . . but he's still there. You do the math.

(2) The article in the Omaha World-Herald announcing the opening of Terry's most recent re-election bid headlined the puff piece by saying Terry was going to continue to work to accomplish "core issues." Well, if he hasn't gotten anything accomplished toward implementing his core issues in the last 12 years, why in the world should he be given another two?

My problem with him is that he's a total party hack. He spouts the GOP line chapter and verse, and just ignores facts that contradict the lies he's spreading. I can live with "my" Representative in the House being of a different political party--hell, I have lived with it, for far too long, frankly. But whomever "my" Representative is, I wish fervently that he or she would have a brain and USE it instead of being a corporate ventriloquist's dummy.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Lawyers, Guns, and Bu . . . uh, Mon . . .uh, Snakes?



It has been argued that even a government on a war footing can satisfy the needs of its citizens at home, the classic economics expression being "guns and butter." FDR had some success in that regard, despite rationing of certain products and raw materials during World War II. LBJ's efforts to make the same argument got less and less credible with every escalation in Vietnam, despite the fact that rationing was never imposed within the US during the 1960s. Warren Zevon brought an entirely new layer of meaning to the phrase by changing "butter" to "money" and throwing lawyers into the mix, to boot.

And today the US Supreme Court hears another Second Amendment case, one with potentially drastic consequences for the entire nation. In the case at hand, a Chicago citizen is challenging Chicago's ban on possession of handguns, even in one's own home. The citizen concedes that under Chicago's law, he could legally have a shotgun, but he wants a handgun because a shotgun is "inconvenient."

The Second Amendment case (a 5-4 decision) from two years ago determined that gun ownership is a fundamental individual right, but since that case arose out of the District of Columbia's handgun ban, it applied only to federal enclaves such as DC itself and the national parks. [See the post "Strict Constructionist--NOT" for my take on the previous case.--Ed.] This case seeks to expand the judicially-defined meaning of the Second Amendment to all state and local government entities, as well.

Set aside for a moment the delicious irony of so-called conservative "strict constructionists" like Antonin Scalia imposing a massive expansion of federal control over the states. The ramifications of the case at hand could literally mean anarchy--for extended to its logical conclusion, the 100% unfettered right of individual Americans to own guns would result in the eventual overturning of even the paltry gun-control measures we have now, such as licensing and registration of handguns.

There is a workable solution, however, based on long-standing (and thus settled) First Amendment precedent. One's right to the religion of one's choice is unfettered--except where it is regulated. You have an absolute right to believe whatever the heck you want. You do not have an absolute right to act on those beliefs. The classic example is the handling of poisonous snakes. Certain churches have held that God will protect the faithful, and that they will suffer no harm from passing rattlesnakes around amongst themselves, even to their children. Well, the Supreme Court put the kibosh on that a long, long time ago. There's a larger concern: the protection of children and the general public safety and welfare. So the church members are not forbidden to believe that they can handle poisonous snakes with impunity. They just cannot demonstrate their beliefs by actually handling such snakes as part of their religious observances.

It will be instructive to see how the Supremes decide this case, and by what sort of a margin. I'm predicting--and dreading--a 5-to-4 split, with Antonin Scalia again writing for the majority, and dictating that guns rule. Scalia has already shown, by his majority opinion in the DC handgun ban case, that he's willing to throw away all his other cherished philosophical beliefs about strict construction and avoiding judicial activism for the sake of being able to shoot 'em up.

I wonder whether anyone who's considered the looting problems in Haiti and Chile after their recent earthquakes has stopped to think about how much harder it would be for the Haitian and Chilean police and military to restore order if the looters had the unfettered right--and ability--to shoot back.

Monday, March 01, 2010

Still More Things That Make You Go "Hmmm . . ."



I heard a report on NPR this morning about how the human brain changes during its lifespan. The latest research indicates that while middle-aged brains aren't very good at multi-tasking and are also not as fast as they once were in processing information, they are at their life's peak of being able to perform complex reasoning tasks, and are also at maximum capacity for seeing issues from someone else's point of view, a/k/a empathy. Teenaged brains, on the other hand, while being able to cope with levels of information input that would disorient the rest of us, have very little, if any, capacity to empathize and even less to recognize and anticipate the consequences of the actions they prompt.

The common element affecting both ages of brain is the presence and thickness of myelin, the fatty sheath around nerve endings that improves nerves' ability to process information. Middle-aged brains have a lot of myelin. The quantity and thickness of the myelin enhances complex reasoning functions. Teenaged brains have less myelin, especially around the nerves connecting to the brain's frontal lobes, which are the home of these same higher reasoning functions.

I've bemoaned for years our society's seeming race to the bottom in terms of public behavior, expression of opinions, and general attitude towards civic discourse and political and philosophical differences. Almost nobody cares anymore to be polite, to speak with a civil tongue, and to argue based on the issues and the facts. It seems as if whomever shouts the loudest and longest is declared "the winner," correct on the merits or not. Usually not, too, or else there'd be no need to scream and shout. I always used to think of it in terms of my generation's [yes, I'm talking to and about you, fellow Baby Boomers.--Ed] tendency to raise its children to be its friends instead of raising its children to be good citizens, which in turn those children replicated when raising their own, resulting in at least 3 generations now of selfish brats being at the forefront of society.

But now I wonder. Is there a genetic difference that makes certain people more likely to have less myelin in their brains all their lives? And if so, does this explain the schoolyard bullying and high-school-cliquish behavior of people like Rush Limbaugh and the anchors on Fox "News"?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Texans are to Americans the way Ugly Americans are to the rest of the world. This could also mean, based on the previous observation, that Texans, too, tend to be permanent teenagers. It's as good an explanation as any for what is largely boorish behavior. Please don't get me wrong. I have lived in Texas. I have friends and family members who have lived in Texas--indeed, some of them are still there. There are a lot of things to love about Texas and Texans. But that does not include the Texans making all the noise about how Texas is better at everything than everybody else, ever, period.

And that constant crowing gets real old, real quick. [Maybe at its deepest heart, it's a sign of fundamental insecurity--the most frightened act the bravest?--Ed.] And it's even worse when listening to Texans turn on one another, as they have during the current campaign among GOP candidates for governor. I will not repeat the accusations, lies, and mud that has been slung. I will say only this: when candidates who've openly claimed to support Texas' secession from the Union are accused by their fellow candidates of not being conservative enough, well, let's just say the train has derailed. [Thank God the primary is this-coming Tuesday, so we'll soon have an at least brief respite.--Ed.]

I always shake my head in rueful wonder when I hear talk of secession as though it were a viable option. The Civil War ended 145 years ago, people. Secessionists lost. Get over it. Besides, as a purely practical matter, would those pro-secessionists really be so keen to leave the Union when doing so would cost them incalculably? I'd like to see Texas try to survive without all the money the federal government dumps into its economy through military bases, NASA, local jobs with everything from the National Park Service to the IRS, and contracts for everything from oil and gas leases to research and weapons development.

Still, Texas and Texans can be as grating as fingernails running down a blackboard. And just because they can't secede doesn't mean we can't throw them out, does it?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I see from this morning's news that all the financial pundits have their collective knickers in a twist about the fact that Americans' spending levels have gone up again, even though incomes have not. One consequence is that what we're saving has declined again, down to approximately 4 percent of income, though that figure is still twice as high as it has been for most of the past few decades. The pundits are wailing about Americans' bad habits and predicting the end of the world as we know it [hey--a little hyperbole is never out of order when being sarcastic.--Ed.].

I don't think it's any particular cause for alarm, and I want to know what world these pundits inhabit, because it certainly isn't the real one in which I and my fellow normal Americans live. It's simple, really. When times are hard, purchases are put off. I don't buy a new car just because my current car is 15 years old. I wait. But there comes a time when, no matter how bad my economic circumstances are, I can wait no longer. My car is no longer repairable, for any amount of money. So I go and buy another car (even if it's not brand new, it's new for me). So I'm putting myself back into a financial hole, but that hole would be twice as deep if I lacked dependable and reasonably safe transportation to and from my job (if I'm one of the ones lucky enough to still have one) or to and from job interviews (if I'm one of the too many who doesn't).

Frankly, it's no different from how people without health insurance are forced to live. Minor injuries and illnesses are ignored or given band-aids, and only when circumstances have gotten so bad that there's no other option will people go to the emergency room. This is not a good way to live. It's more costly to everyone in society in the long run than stopping problems while they are still minor and treatable would be. But when wages are stagnant, costs are rising, and those with the money and power are more concerned with maximizing their own comfort than in making society better for every one of its members, there really aren't other options.

Such are the consequences of letting those with the mentality of teenagers run the world.