Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Quality of Life


Now that we're all "adults" and have to fend for ourselves in the "real world", I was thinking about the American Dream and what opportunities are available for people like us. I address you guys since we had fairly similar upbringings.

As far as I can tell, all of us did what was expected of us by our parents, teachers, and mentors. We studied hard, mostly stayed out of trouble (or avoided Johnny Law at least), did fine in college, and maybe even pursued additional education/credentials. Growing up, I think there was the assumption that if we jumped through those hoops, we would be "entitled" to some job security, summer holidays, the picket fence, station wagon + 2.5 kids, and comfortable retirement. Maybe some of us expected to conquer the world and have the mansion, stock options, and Benz, but at minimum I think we considered ourselves middle class. But I guess that is really an antiquated myth and nothing is guaranteed. I mean... I know we weren't Paris Hilton, but we grew up mostly without want or worry. Our parents provided for us and we hit the real world with a lot of advantages vs. other people. It's not like we're recent immigrants having to battle culture shock, language barrier, green card paperwork, and support relatives back home.

But for most of us, rent is kicking our ass (and it's not like we live luxuriously; many of us in old, small apts or just renting a room) and saving is pretty hard considering the rising costs of basic living essentials, car/student loan payments, etc. Maybe we can move farther away for cheaper rent, but then commute is a killer. We come home fairly drained, maybe getting a simple meal together and watching TV for a bit before bed and repeating the cycle. Maybe some of us have to study at night or attend evening classes to try to better our situations. I can't imagine how much time proper parenting would require on top of our current commitments. I know we're lucky that we don't have to work 3 minimum-wage jobs to even hope to make ends meet, but that's what education supposedly bought us - though what has it really gotten us so far? I know we're still young and our earning power will increase with time, but really - do you expect your salaries to increase 10% annually and get promoted on a regular basis, without some major luck, achievements, or extra education? Some white-collar salaries aren't even keeping up with inflation, even though worker productivity and business efficiency have steadily climbed since the 1980's. Though operating costs and employee benefits have also become much more expensive.

Our career counselors in high school basically told us to find something we enjoy, study that in college, and we'll be fine. Great in theory. But if we don't have a medical degree, JD, software engineer, or MBA/finance, how the heck are we supposed to save up a nest egg for a small house or even a condo ($500,000+ in some parts of the US), and future tuition for our kids (probably will be 50% higher than our day)? Some of our high-achieving friends already have homes and nice cars, but it's not easy street for professionals either; they have huge school debt and may work grueling hours to earn the bucks (they don't throw money at you for nothing). And the extra time/stress you need for higher degrees takes away from your personal life, and you may not even be able to start thinking about spouse/family until you're balding and need Viagra. There isn't enough time for everything. Many scientists and engineers don't make great money either, unless they have 10 years experience or become managers (it also depends a lot on Wall St. and the company/institution you decide to peg your future to). I guess some of us may happen to excel in a niche talent (dunk a basketball, entertainment, art, etc.), so we can be well compensated for a more recreational career. Of course I'm being cynical, and plenty of people make a good living in other jobs like accounting or retail. Even less-educated folks can do well in construction, real estate, etc. But it's a riskier proposition, and many more fail than succeed.

Like those "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" books, I guess we can't count on salary to provide for us and our loved ones. The theory goes that we should invest in real estate, bonds, and the market too, but when do we have the time to learn those skills or the capital necessary for substantial investing? Instead we have to place our money and trust with a corrupt mutual fund manager and pay the annual "account maintenance fee", even if we're losing money. Plus plenty of people lose their shirts playing with fire and not knowing what they're doing. Or others just get lucky with high-risk speculation, or being at Google at the right time (but how many other startups failed and their millions of options worth zilch?). Then there are those who were honest and worked hard, yet saw their 401(k)'s dissolve at Enron or Worldcom. The Baby Boomers in CA were so lucky and saw the Dow quadruple and home prices rise 3X during their mid-to-late careers when they actually had job security and money to invest. No wonder why all of our folks are getting their homes remodeled, buying luxury cars, and taking more vacations now. Well, they earned it. Though I doubt any of us are expecting the Dow to similarly reach 48,000 and homes to appreciate so much in our lifetimes.

The frustrating part is I hate thinking about all this money and job stuff, but we almost have no choice. If you're not improving, you're falling behind (or so it feels). I just want to be left alone and make an honest living not beholden to anything or anyone (isn't that freedom and liberty?). I was this close to living in a hut in Africa for F sakes. I still wear clothes from the '90s, and I LIKE it that way. I don't need much. Unfortunately I wasted a lot of money after my dad died, as an immature, self-destructive way of dealing with my grief, which I regret a lot. I also spent too much on my wedding, but my excuse was the missus had expensive tastes haha. However, now I would like a small, safe 2BR/2BA cottage a decent distance from work, with a small garden and a dog running around. So far, I can only afford that in East Palo Alto or the bad part of Oakland/Hayward (which are not close to work either). I would like to provide for my wife so maybe she doesn't have to work full time if she doesn't want to, or maybe can raise our kids instead of relying on the TV babysitter. I would like to pursue side interests and do other things with my life besides work, eat, and sleep. Most days I just put my head down and get through it, but I guess I felt like venting now. I know I am just being a whining baby and should sack it up like everyone else (plus I don't have it that bad), but I bet you guys feel similarly sometimes. Our lives have challenges, but it could be a lot worse. Though we supposedly did "everything right" in our childhoods and now we are supposed to reap the rewards of a more comfortable adult existence, right? But one challenge just seems to lead to a new, larger one.

So I really wish someone would have better prepared us for this reality. I guess there's no way a suburban parent or underpaid public employee could have predicted $5 gas and the effects of globalization when we were kids, but still. Or maybe you guys knew it all along and I was the only naive one? I almost wish someone told us to forget about finding a job that we like and just get proficient at boring, marketable skills. Now I understand why my doctor relatives force their kids to go to medical school (if they can get accepted), because they think it gives them a good shot at a better life over most other careers (though it takes a lot of sacrifice too). I guess it seems that we don't have access to the time or resources that we thought we would as part of the white-collar middle class existence. Our American existence is greedier, more expensive, more complicated, faster, and more unstable than when we were in high school, and the trend won't reverse any time soon. And we're not even at the point yet when a sibling may get in deep debt, we have to care for our kids AND aging parents, and we're always one car accident or medical crisis away from fiancial ruin. We also have our own retirements to worry about. Well, somehow in Western Europe most "common folk" like us get paid less in their jobs, yet enjoy free or very cheap health care/university/pension, more vacation and a higher quality of life. Their societies aren't falling apart and their companies aren't kaput either.

All in all, I'd hope that we're happy and comfortable with our living situations. I know many people have it much harder than us. But supposedly we did everything "right" in our youth and got a head start in the rat race. I am sure many of our parents were able to afford a mortgage for a small home after 5 years of working or so. I don't think that will be the case for us, though of course the world is very different now. Work sucks, but I guess there are some redeeming and enjoyable aspects of it. And once in a while, we can save up for a vacation or new toy. But is that all there is to it?

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The New Yorker: How Chicago Shaped Obama


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

Some interesting tidbits about Obama's political experiences in Chicago prior to his US Senate run. Not sure if they're all true, but they certainly paint him in a different light than we usually see. Instead of the idealistic dreamer and agent of change from his acclaimed autobiographies, we find a shrewd, cunning insider who is very skilled at playing the connections and money games in politics. Actually, it seems he has gone with the flow and accommodated the establishment more than he has "worked for change". He is a cocky tactician who is able to reinvent himself when advantageous, adapting to various constituencies and aggressively pouncing on opportunities for upward movement. And his strategy has been tremendously successful. He came from nothing and has risen faster than most politicians in US history. In a sense, he is quite like Bill Clinton.

Since his early days walking the streets as a community organizer, he often took career advancements as springboards towards the next larger goal (some say that he dreamed of becoming president since the 1990's), instead of doing his best in the current position he had just won. Some former allies and supporters even felt that Obama was quite disloyal, shunning them and not showing appreciation for their help after they had outlived their usefulness to him. He often clashed with and sidestepped the "old guard" of black politicians who lived through the civil rights struggle, and actually he was more popular with white professionals in Chicago. I don't really fault him for these aspects of his record, as it mimics the biographies of 99% of politicians out there. The ascendancy stories of people like Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, and Richard Nixon are fraught with conflicts. Obama still might become an excellent president, and frankly one needs a big ego and ruthless ambition to win the head of state job. But when his campaign and some in the media seek to paint him as cut from a different cloth and a visionary who will clean up Washington, I am now a little skeptical. Well, I guess a great leader has to be a tough-nosed asshole to fight his or her way out of obscurity, and once they reach the top, then they finally have the power to do a lot of good?

Excerpts from the long-ass New Yorker article in italics, my synopsies in normal text.

----------
Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them. When he was a community organizer, he channelled his work through Chicago's churches, because they were the main bases of power on the South Side. He was an agnostic when he started, and the work led him to become a practicing Christian. At Harvard, he won the presidency of the Law Review by appealing to the conservatives on the selection panel. In Springfield, rather than challenge the Old Guard Democratic leaders, Obama built a mutually beneficial relationship with them. "You have the power to make a United States senator," he told Emil Jones in 2003. In his downtime, he played poker with lobbyists and Republican lawmakers. In Washington, he has been a cautious senator and, when he arrived, made a point of not defining himself as an opponent of the Iraq war.

Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right.

Obama's establishment inclinations have alienated some old friends. During the 2004 Senate primary, Obama sometimes reminded voters of his anti-machine credentials, but at the same time he shrewdly wrote to Mayor Daley's brother, William, who had backed one of Obama's primary opponents, asking for his support if he won the primary. As he outgrew the provincial politics of Hyde Park, he became closer to the Mayor, and this accommodation, as well as his unwillingness to condemn the corruption scandals ensnaring Daley and Blagojevich, both of whom he supported for reëlection, have some of his original supporters feeling alienated and angry. "I am not thrilled with Barack, simply because we elected him as an Independent, and he switched over to Daley," Alan Dobry said. Ivory Mitchell, speaking of Obama's Senate race, said, "When he won the primary out here and he went downtown, it appears as though Daley took over the campaign for him. . . . We were excluded." David Axelrod told me, in response, that some of the Independents on the South Side blame Daley for just about anything. "I think there's kind of this Wizard of Oz mystique," he said. "Daley had virtually no role in the Senate campaign."

Another transition from primary to general election is now under way for Obama, and it is causing him a similar set of problems, all of which stem from a realization among his supporters that superheroes don't become President; politicians do. Judging by the reaction to Obama's most recent decisions—his willingness to support legislation to modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, his rightward shift on interpreting the Second Amendment, his decision to "refine" his Iraq policies—some voters will be crushed by this realization and others will be relieved. In another episode that has Obama's old friends feeling frustrated, Obama recently blamed his first campaign manager, Carol Anne Harwell, for reporting on a 1996 questionnaire that Obama favored a ban on handguns.

Obama's rise has often appeared effortless. His offstage tactics—when he is engaged in the sometimes combative work of a politician—are rarely glimpsed by outsiders. Penny Pritzker, a friend and fund-raiser for Obama, remembers meeting with him at her office in 2006 to discuss his Presidential campaign. "We were talking about whether he was ready to do this or not," Pritzker told me. She was blunt, telling Obama, "As I see it, the two things that you're going to need to address are your executive leadership skills, because your résumé doesn't have that in it, and the second would be your credentials in national security." Obama returned with an organizational chart indicating how the campaign would be structured—one of his great tactical advantages over the disorganized Clinton campaign—along with a list of advisers. Pritzker agreed to become his finance chair. Obama has frequently been one step ahead of his friends and the public in anticipating his own rise. Perhaps it is all those people he has met over the years who told him that he would be President one day.

----------
Although many of Obama's recent supporters have been surprised by signs of political opportunism, Preckwinkle wasn't. "I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors," she told me. "I spent ten years of my adult life working to be alderman. I finally got elected. This is a job I love. And I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm not sure that's the way that he approached his public life—that he was going to try for a job and stay there for one period of time. In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have."

On issue after issue, Preckwinkle presented Obama as someone who thrived in the world of Chicago politics. She suggested that Obama joined Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. "It's a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners," she said. As we talked, it became increasingly clear that loyalty was the issue that drove Preckwinkle's current view of her onetime protégé. "I don't think you should forget who your friends are," she said.

There was also a more general belief that, after Obama won the 2004 United States Senate primary, he ignored his South Side base. Preckwinkle said, "My view is you have to bring your constituency along with you. Granted, you have to make some tough decisions. Granted, sometimes you have to make decisions that people won't understand or like. But it's your obligation to explain yourself and try to do your supporters the courtesy of treating them with respect." Ivory Mitchell, who for twenty years has been the chairman of the local ward organization in Obama's neighborhood—considered the most important Democratic organization on the South Side—was one of Obama's earliest backers. Today, he says, "All the work we did to help him get where he finally ended up, he didn't seem too appreciative." A year ago, Mitchell became a delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Some Obama supporters professed shock when, recently, he abandoned a pledge to stay within the public campaign-finance system if the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, agreed to do the same. Preckwinkle's concern about Obama—that he is a pure political animal—suddenly became more widespread; commentators abruptly stopped using the words "callow" and "naïve."

----------

In this early foray into politics, Obama revealed the toughness and brashness that this year's long primary season brought into view. As Burns, who has a mischievous sense of humor and a gift for mimicry, recalled, "Black activists, community folks, felt that he didn't respect their role"—Burns imitated a self-righteous activist—"in the struggle and the movement. He didn't engage in obeisance to them. He wanted to get the job done. And Barack's cheap, too. If you can't do it and do it in a cost-effective manner, you're not going to work with him." Ivory Mitchell, the ward chairman in Obama's neighborhood, says of Obama that "he was typical of what most aspiring politicians are: self-centered—that 'I can do anything and I'm willing to do it overnight.' "

----------

If Project Vote and Miner's firm introduced Obama to the city's lakefront liberals and South Side politicians, it was his wife who helped connect him to Chicago's black élite. One of Michelle's best friends was Jesse Jackson's daughter Santita, who became the godmother of the Obamas' first child. Michelle had worked as an aide to the younger Daley—hired by Valerie Jarrett, who is now one of Obama's closest advisers. It was also through Michelle that Obama met Marty Nesbitt, a successful young black entrepreneur who happened to play basketball with Michelle's brother, Craig. Nesbitt became Obama's closest friend and a bridge to the city's African-American business class.

----------

Many people who knew Obama then remember him for his cockiness. He had good reason to be self-assured. A number of his accomplishments had been accompanied by adoring press coverage. When he was named president of the Harvard Law Review, in 1990, he was profiled by, among others, the Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Vanity Fair, and the Associated Press. Even then, the essential elements of Obama-mania were present: the fascination with his early life, the adulatory quotes from friends who thought that he would be President one day, and Obama's frank, though sometimes ostentatious, capacity for self-reflection.

His work for Project Vote was similarly applauded. In 1993, Crain's Chicago Business reported that Obama had "galvanized Chicago's political community, as no seasoned politico had before," and an alderman told Crain's, "Under Barack's leadership, we had the most successful, cost-effective and orderly voter registration drive I've ever been involved with." When "Dreams from My Father" was published, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive; Booklist included the memoir in a "guide to some of the best books of 1995."

----------

In October, he was one of the thousands of African-Americans from Chicago who travelled to Washington for the Million Man March. (Obama criticized the march, telling a local alternative newspaper that it was a waste of energy.) When he returned home, he had more immediate problems. In December, 1995, the South Side coalition that he had cobbled together began to fall apart. Palmer's congressional campaign was eclipsed by her Democratic-primary opponents—Jesse Jackson, Jr., who had star power, and Emil Jones, a longtime leader in the State Senate. The Chicago Defender reported that Obama was asked "to step aside like other African Americans have done in other races for the sake of unity and to release Palmer from her commitment"—so that she could reclaim her State Senate seat. Obama left the meeting noncommittal.
But, almost as fast as the threat to his campaign appeared, Obama stamped it out. The Dobrys were surprised that Palmer had so quickly gathered the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot. They went to the Chicago board of elections and reviewed her petitions; as they suspected, they were filled with irregularities. One skill that the Independents had mastered in the years of fighting the first Mayor Daley was the machine's tactic of challenging ballot petitions, and the Dobrys were experts at this Chicago ritual. Publicly, Obama was conciliatory about the awkward political situation, telling the Hyde Park Herald that he understood that some people were upset about the "conflict between old loyalties and new enthusiasms." Privately, however, he unleashed his operators. With the help of the Dobrys, he was able to remove not just Palmer's name from the ballot but the name of every other opponent as well. "He ran unopposed, which is a good way to win," Mikva said, laughing at the recollection.

Instead of arriving in Springfield as the consensus candidate of his district, Obama was regarded as a troublemaker. "He had created some enemies," Emil Jones, who in 2003 became president of the Illinois Senate, said. Burns described the fallout of the Obama-Palmer race this way: "It established a reputation that 'you're not going to punk me, you're not going to roll me over, you're not going to jam me.' I think it established him as a threat. You have his independence with Project Vote, you have his refusal to knuckle under during the Alice Palmer thing, and so now you have a series of data points that have some established leaders in the black community feeling disrespected. And so the stage is now set for the comeuppance during the congressional race. That was their payback."

The payback refers to the 1999 US Congressional race between Obama and Bobby Rush in their home district of South Side Chicago. Obama thought he had a good chance, because Rush had recently lost a mayoral race against Richard Daley and was perceived to be politically weak. Then-Senator Obama was trailing badly in the fundraising battle (which, by the 1990's, became much more important to winning elections than the door-to-door get-out-the-vote battle), and eventually lost to Rush (who had the support of the established black community that was hostile to Obama) by 30 points. He was also plagued by bad luck, as Rush's son and father both died during the campaign, making him a sympathetic figure. Obama also went to Hawaii to visit his ill grandmother during a crucial gun-control debate in Springfield that failed without his vote, which caused a lot of negative press for him (the media accused him of going "on vacation" to the islands, instead of fighting for a bill that he had previously endorsed in the papers). This was his first big defeat, a defining moment in Obama's young political career, and he almost considered quitting politics.

But instead of leaving the game, he decided to play differently. He honed his oratory skills (before 2000, he rarely had a memorable speech). He shed his roots as an inner-city Hyde Park politician, and courted white voters more than blacks. And most importantly, he enlisted a Democratic consultant to help him redraw his Senate district in Chicago after the 2000 census. His old district encompassed poorer, black neighborhoods and the University of Chicago (a by-product of the 1990 Republican redistricting to concentrate black Democrat voters into the fewest districts). His new district still encompassed his home neighborhood and was majority black, but also contained some of the Gold Coast - richer North Side lakefront property. The poorer areas in the district also belonged to Tony Rezko and other developers friendly with Obama, who were in the process of gentrifying those blocks.

In an article in the Hyde Park Herald about how "partisan" and "undemocratic" Illinois redistricting had become, Obama was asked for his views. As usual, he was candid. "There is a conflict of interest built into the process," he said. "Incumbents drawing their own maps will inevitably try to advantage themselves."
The partisan redistricting of Illinois may have been the most important event in Obama's early political life. It immediately gave him the two things he needed to run for the Senate in 2004: money and power. He needed to have several times as much cash as he'd raised for his losing congressional race in 2000, and many of the state's top donors now lived or worked in his district. More important, the statewide gerrymandering made it likely that Obama's party would take over the State Senate in 2002, an event that would provide him with a platform from which to craft a legislative record in time for the campaign. Obama's political activity from 2001 to 2004 reveals a man transformed. The loss to Rush drained him of much of the naïveté he once exuded.

----------
Obama has benefitted from impeccable timing. As the national Party entered a period of ideological timidity, he was at the vanguard of a Democratic revival in Illinois that had begun in 1992, when Clinton and Braun won the state, and grew stronger when, four years later, Democrats took over the Illinois House of Representatives. It continued through 2002, when Democrats won the State Senate and the governor's office. By 2004, when Obama ran for the United States Senate, Illinois was a solidly blue state.

Not all of this was due to Democratic ingenuity; during this period the state Republican Party collapsed under the weight of corruption scandals. That is something of an Illinois tradition: four of the last nine governors have been indicted on charges of corruption, and three were convicted. As Saul Bellow once remarked, "Politics are politics, crime is crime, but in Chicago they occasionally overlap. The line between virtue and vice meanders madly—effective government on one side, connections on the other."

----------
E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about this transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reëlected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for reëlection. "They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest," Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

----------

Almost as soon as he got to Springfield [as a State Senator], he was planning another move. He was bored there—once, he appeared to doze off during a caucus meeting—and frustrated by the Republicans' total control over the legislature. He seemed to believe, according to colleagues at the time, that he was destined for better things than being trapped in one of America's more notoriously corrupt state capitals. Obama spent little time socializing with "the guys basically from Chicago," the veteran senator Emil Jones said. "He hung around a lot of the downstaters. They became good friends."
Obama voted—a parliamentary error, Obama says—to block funding for a child-welfare facility in [rival Senator and Alice Palmer-ally Rickey] Hendon's district. Hendon rose and criticized Obama for the vote. The two men became embroiled in a yelling match on the Senate floor that looked as if it might become physical; they were separated by Courtney Nottage, then the chief of staff for Emil Jones. Nottage led Obama off the floor to a room that legislators used to make telephone calls. "It looked like two men that were having a serious disagreement and they had walked up to one another really close," Nottage told me. "I didn't think anything good could come of that."

Hendon told me, "He's the one that got mad, because he said I embarrassed him on the Senate floor. That's when he came over to my desk." Before Nottage broke them up, Obama, who had learned to box from his Indonesian stepfather, supposedly told Hendon, "I'm going to kick your ass!" Hendon said, "He said something like that." He added that more details will appear in a book that he's written, entitled "Black Enough, White Enough: The Obama Dilemma."

---------

Obama took at least one concrete step to turn this notion of the legislator as community organizer into a reality. In his first column in the Hyde Park Herald, the same one in which he addressed welfare, he announced that he was "organizing citizens' committees" to help him shape legislation. He asked his constituents to call his office if they wanted to participate. That kind of airy talk about changing politics gave way almost immediately to the realities of the job. I asked a longtime Obama friend what ever became of the committees. "They never really got off the ground," he said. By 2001, if there was any maxim from community organizing that Obama lived by, it was the Realpolitik commandment of Saul Alinsky, the founding practitioner of community organizing, to operate in "the world as it is and not as we would like it to be."

---------

In his biography of Obama, David Mendell, noting that Obama's speech occurred a few months before the official declaration of his U.S. Senate candidacy, suggests that the decision to publicly oppose the war in Iraq was a calculated political move intended to win favor with Saltzman. The suggestion seems dubious; the politics were more in the framing of his opposition, not the decision itself. As Saltzman told me, "He was a Hyde Park state senator. He had to oppose the war!"

The sensitive language of his September 11th statement was gone. Instead, Obama distanced himself from the pacifist activists who were surely present. "Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an antiwar rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances," he told the crowd. He then went further, defending justifiable wars in almost glorious terms. "The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's Army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow-troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars." It took some nerve to tweak the crowd in this way. After all, it was unlikely that many of the protesters knew who Obama was, and in a lengthy write-up of the event in the Chicago Tribune the following day he was not mentioned. Yet the speech reads as if it had been written for a much bigger audience.

During this period, Obama also became more of a strategist, someone increasingly comfortable discussing the finer points of polls, message, and fund-raising. According to his friends, Obama does not delegate campaign planning. This was in 2002, and things seemed to be going his way. The incumbent Republican, Peter Fitzgerald, was unpopular, and the race was attracting a large field of Democrats. "He didn't start telling people he was interested in running for Senate until he figured out what the road map was," Nesbitt said. "He had a good sense of the odds, and he knew there were certain things that had to happen. . . . The first thing he said was, 'O.K., nobody with approval ratings like this has ever been reëlected, so it's not gonna be him, right?' And then he said there's a bunch of candidates who can potentially run, one of whom was Carol Moseley Braun. And he said, 'If she runs, I probably don't have a chance, because there's gonna be certain loyalty within the African-American community to her, even though she had some mistakes, and I'm probably not gonna get those African-American votes, which I need as my base if I'm gonna win. So if she runs, I don't run.'

"Then he just laid out an economic analysis. It becomes about money, because he knew that if people knew his story they would view him as a better candidate than anybody else he thought might be in the field. And so he said, 'Therefore, if you raise five million dollars, I have a fifty-per-cent chance of winning. If you raise seven million dollars, I have a seventy-per-cent chance of winning. If you raise ten million dollars, I guarantee victory."

---------

In the State Senate, [Senator Emil] Jones did something even more important for Obama. He pushed him forward as the key sponsor of some of the Party's most important legislation, even though the move did not sit well with some colleagues who had plugged away in the minority on bills that Obama now championed as part of the majority. "Because he had been in the minority, Barack didn't have a legislative record to run on, and there was a buildup of all these great ideas that the Republicans kept in the rules committee when they were in the majority," Burns said. "Jones basically gave Obama the space to do what Obama wanted to do. Emil made it clear to people that it would be good for them." Burns, who at that point was working for Jones, was assigned to keep an eye on Obama's floor votes, which, because he was a Senate candidate, would be under closer scrutiny. The Obama-Jones alliance worked. In one year, 2003, Obama passed much of the legislation, including bills on racial profiling, death-penalty reform, and expanded health insurance for children, that he highlighted in his Senate campaign.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Is America "ready" for Obama?


With all the BS so far about Obama's American-ness, patriotism, and all the associated quasi-controversies (and it's only July), do you think that this shows that mainstream America is just not comfortable or ready for a president like him? Even the New Yorker's attempt to satirize the lie-spreaders and fear-mongers will probably only serve to perpetuate incorrect stereotypes about him. He still might win of course, but people don't have to necessarily like it, and that may bode poorly for the prospects of accomplishing a lot during his presidency.

I don't know; it is all very discouraging and disappointing to me as an American.

---------

I tend to think most younger Americans are pretty comfortable with him. We all grew up in California and are used to multi-ethnic settings. I'd wager to say most of us probably knew a guy like Obama growing up or in college - somebody with an unusual background but was smart and hooped it up pretty well. In that regard, he's certainly more ambitious than many we know, but his experiences and background are not even the most unique that we probably know.

However, for the older generation, especially in states that do not have that same history, I'm not so sure. WVa, etc; these kinds of places are not exactly the center of melting-pot America. I think Obama tends to do well in the midwest because he's got some of that hard-work ethic and aversion to partisanship that most midwesterners find familiar. But in the heavily racialized areas of the country, and particularly among older voters, I think there's probably a lot of discomfort with understanding who, exactly, a guy like this is. Most voters in America decide whom to vote for based on the reptilian elements of their brain and then rationalize around that decision (the smarter among us just come up with better rationalizations), and so I think this plays a pretty big role.

---------

Yes I'd agree with that. Or at least it seems that educated younger people and urban people seem to focus on a candidate's platform and record when deciding whom to support, not necessarily stereotypes regarding his/her identity. The NY Post article below discusses the famous Bradley-Deukmejian race for CA governor, where the black man Bradley seemed to be well ahead in the polls, yet the white man Deukmejian won in a surprise result. It's not that white voters felt guilty or worried about being called racist, so they lied that they would vote for a black candidate (then chickened out on election day), but maybe the phone pollsters didn't evenly sample the population, with certain demographics (that may be most averse to a black leader) being under-represented in the polls - yet they still come out on election day and change the result. So I worry that the "Obamaniacs" may be over-represented in the media/polls, and the hesitant or reptilian type voters are under-represented.

Your mentioning of the "reptilian elements" of our judgment brought me to consider another related issue. There's nothing wrong with opposing Obama because of legitimate differences in viewpoints/policy issues/etc., but of course the "reptiles" will prejudge and dismiss Obama based on his identity and nonconformity with their comfort zone. Though maybe the "high school" elements of our psyche might produce the opposite, yet also dangerous, reaction. Some people just flock to the most popular, captivating figure, like moths to light, without really thinking their decision through.

If Obama is the best possible candidate who also happens to be hip and well-liked, then it's all good. Though prominent black conservatives like Colin Powell, Alan Keyes, etc. have said that they will endorse Obama (or at least the decision will be harder this time to stick with the GOP), partly due to the fact that we can "make history" by electing a non-white president (or at least a half-non-white one). While making history is definitely appealing, there's no benefit in making history by picking the wrong guy. Germans made history by electing the Nazis to power too. Of course I am not equating Obama with Hitler, but you get my point. As I said, if Obama is the best choice (which most of us believe), then there's no problem with supporting him AND making history. But I do believe that there are plenty of less-informed, superficial, sheep-like voters out there who would just like to see a cooler, younger guy and/or black man in office, and vote out of that impulse - which does no good for the country.

It's clear that Nixon had the experience edge on JFK in 1959, but he happened to be a lot less photogenic and youthful, and didn't come from a famous family. Actually Nixon did some very un-GOP things like engaging the USSR/China and creating the EPA (he also did his share of damage of course), while JFK was a former supporter of McCarthyism, Elanor Roosevelt didn't endorse him in the primaries, and his civil rights achievements have been overstated (RFK and LBJ cared a lot more, though maybe JFK would have done more if he lived past 1963). So when we vote based on associations and appearances, we obviously risk missing some of the picture.

Racists may refuse to vote for Obama because he is black, but "pop culture idolizers" may want to vote for Obama just because he is fresh and cool (a few steps up from a protest vote). It's funny, the first compliment some politicians say of Obama when interviewed on the media is usually "he's a great orator". Like Colin Powell, who "speaks so well". While that is clearly an important political skill, it is not the whole story, and kind of simplistic/demeaning actually. Of course most of us believe that Obama is a good leader who also happens to give great speeches, but I worry that some voters pay more attention to how he speaks instead of what he is saying. And he has said some fairly dumb or un-progressive things in the last 18 months, but so does every politician, and 24-7 news coverage catches everything these days. I wouldn't go so far as Jesse Jackson, but I do believe that Obama changes his delivery and tone when he speaks to predominantly black crowds vs. his prime time interviews on the big networks. Some might call that "dumbing down" or "talking down", which is not becoming of a "uniter". Side comment: you can kind of understand why people like Jackson would lash out at Obama. He came out of nowhere yet people instantly love him, and really he hasn't done much for America yet. If you read the New Yorker piece about his Chicago roots (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza), you know how many lucky breaks (and hard work of course) it took to get Obama to the IL Senate, much less a White House bid. Jackson, despite all his flaws, actually walked and suffered with MLK. He didn't go to Harvard, but has been fighting grassroots-style for Black America for years, though he could never make it big in politics, and now he's an afterthought. There must be some frustration and jealously there.

But then again, Hillary and most others engage in pandering to some crowds also. Bush doesn't, because he talks dumb to rednecks and heads of state alike, haha (to Silvio Berlusconi at the G8 summit: "Hey Amigo!", but the word is "amico" in Italian). Obama makes people feel good about themselves by supporting/idolizing him, but that is kind of pathetic. He is a candidate for head of state, not a prophet. Fortunately he also makes people feel good about America and have hope that things can get better, which is important.

So on one hand we have the anti-Obama racists, and on the other, the cult of Obama. Neither is good for America or Obama. I guess I would like to see the national discussion get more concrete and rational, shifting from the existential "How cool would it be for Obama to be president?" to "In what ways will the Obama presidency make things better?".
NOT BLACK & WHITE
OBAMA POSES A PUZZLE FOR POLLSTERS
By CARL CAMPANILE
June 16, 2008

Barack Obama's historic candidacy is a potential nightmare for political pollsters who must confront how racial attitudes will impact their surveys. Can public polls tracking a race between Obama, set to become the first black major-party presidential nominee, and John McCain, a white candidate, be accurate? Pollsters told The Post they were definitely concerned. "It will be a challenge. The question is how much of a challenge," said Andrew Kohut, head of the Pew Research Center.

Said pollster Scott Rasmussen, "No pollster will be sure until the votes are counted on Election Day."

Historically, public-opinion surveys of voters in statewide races have overstated a black candidate's support and undercounted a white candidate's backing. The most egregious example is that of Democrat Tom Bradley, the longtime popular black mayor of Los Angeles who ran for governor in 1982. All the California polls had Bradley comfortably ahead right up until Election Day, and one paper even ran a front-page headline declaring him the winner. But when the votes were counted, Republican George Deukmejian defeated Bradley.

The conventional wisdom was that white voters lied by telling pollsters they backed Bradley but actually voted for Deukmejian. The misreading of voter sentiment in a black-white contest has been dubbed "the Bradley factor" ever since. "People should look at the polls with a large grain of salt," said University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has analyzed racial impact on polling.

Kohut's contention is not that white voters lie to pollsters, but that pollsters fail to fully capture the views of lower-income, working-class and elderly white voters who disproportionately refuse to participate in telephone surveys, even though they vote on Election Day. Consequently, surveys end up skewed and prone to overstate a black candidate's support by not accounting for white "refuseniks." Rasmussen recently surveyed Americans on whether they would vote for an African-American for president. About four in 10 voters said either that family, friends or co-workers would not vote for a black candidate, or were not sure.

carl.campanile@nypost.com

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Washing your hands could be bad for your health


Some studies suggest that antibacterial soaps don't even offer much added protection against microbes than regular soap anyway (and encourage bacterial resistance to those agents), so why risk these health problems too?

Safety of Antibacterial Soap Debated
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=89871
Researchers See Potential Health Hazards; Manufacturers Say Products Are Safe

By Martin F. Downs
WebMD Health News

Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD

May 29, 2008 — Millions of Americans use antibacterial soaps and household cleaners every day, believing that their germ-killing ability will keep them and their families healthier. But could these same chemicals that fight germs also be hazardous to your health? That's a question being studied by a group of researchers at the University of California, Davis. In three separate studies, the researchers showed that the chemicals — triclosan and triclocarban — have potential to affect sex hormones and interfere with the nervous system. They also may become suspects in the search for causes of autism.

Dan Chang, PhD, a professor of environmental engineering at U.C. Davis and one of the researchers involved, says he doesn't want to cause a panic, but "the public should be aware of some of the concerns."

While Chang and the other researchers involved in the studies admit that it's too early to know whether the chemicals pose a serious health risk, it's already been shown that the cleaners don't work any better than regular soap and water — and may contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria. So, they ask, why take the risk?

In October, the researchers will pose that question when they meet with representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the CDC, and some of the product manufacturers to talk about what they view as a potential public health problem. The stakes are high for the manufacturers: Antibacterial products account for about $1 billion in sales annually. Triclosan is found in 76% of all liquid soap sold in stores and is also added to toothpaste, mouthwash, cosmetics, fabrics, and plastic kitchenware. Triclocarban is a common additive in antibacterial bar soap and deodorant. "These compounds should be voluntarily removed by consumer product manufacturers," Chang tells WebMD, or at least, consumers should "be provided precautionary information regarding their use."

Industry Reaction
Brian Sansoni, spokesman for the Soap and Detergent Association, an organization headquartered in Washington D.C. that represents manufacturers of all kinds of cleaning products, says studies have shown the products are safe. "They have been reviewed and analyzed and studied by scientists and government agencies for decades," Sansoni says. "We're disappointed at some of the alarmist conclusions made by the authors."

Sansoni confirms that a representative of the association plans to meet with U.C. Davis researchers. But he says their findings aren't too worrisome. "Consumers can continue to safely use antibacterial soap and hygiene products with confidence," he says.

The Government's Perspective
Developed in the 1950s and 1960s, triclocarban and triclosan were first used mainly as antiseptic agents in hospitals. Sales of consumer antibacterial products took off in the early 1990s, backed by multimillion-dollar ad campaigns for popular soap. By 2004, manufacturers were introducing hundreds of new antibacterial products every year. The EPA is in the process of re-evaluating triclosan. A draft report published in the Federal Register in May 2008 concludes that it doesn't pose any serious safety concerns for consumers. The European Commission reached the same conclusions about triclosan in 2002 and triclocarban in 2005.

The data on toxic effects cited in these reports primarily come from animal studies dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, which were not designed to detect the same kinds of effects that the U.C. Davis researchers are now studying in the lab and in animals. "The science itself I think is quite good," says Kevin Crofton, PhD, a neurotoxicologist with the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, when asked about the U.C. Davis research. "The conclusions are where it gets hard. They're pointing out something that's new. Does it require further study? Absolutely. But the thing that I think you have to keep in mind is that what we don't really know is the relationship between human exposures and the exposures in those studies."

The effects seen in the laboratory may not necessarily occur in people. "We need to follow that up," Crofton says.

What the Reseachers Found: Triclosan
Chang, who coordinates the university's studies on triclosan and triclocarban as part of the Superfund Basic Research Program, supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health, says the U.C. Davis research doesn't contradict findings that triclosan and triclocarban are safe for most people. But it does show that "there may be sensitive periods in development when these compounds could have a very subtle detrimental effect." Translation: If the compounds cause harm, they are most likely to do so during pregnancy, early childhood, and adolescence.

Chang argues that antibacterial soaps don't do enough good to risk this potential harm. In 2005, the FDA concluded that antibacterial soaps, as used by the general public, don't prevent illness any better than ordinary soap, and they may contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria.

In one study, recently accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and made available online, Isaac Pessah, PhD, director of the U.C. Davis Children's Center for Environmental Health, looked at how triclosan may affect the brain. Pessah's test-tube study found that the chemical attached itself to special "receptor" molecules on the surface of cells. This raises calcium levels inside the cell. Cells overloaded with calcium get overexcited. In the brain, these overexcited cells may burn out neural circuits, which could lead to an imbalance that affects mental development.

Some people may carry a mutated gene that makes it easier for triclosan to attach to their cells. That could make them more vulnerable to any effects triclosan may cause. This is one reason why Pessah named triclosan (and related compounds with similar properties) as a prime target for research into environmental factors that might cause autism. "These are the compounds you should be going after," he said last April at the Current Trends in Autism conference held in Boston.

While Pessah's new study does not link triclosan directly to autism, many scientists suspect that having certain genes, plus exposure to something in the environment, might trigger processes that lead to autism. "We already have a list of candidate genes," Pessah says These are genes commonly found in people with autism that may increase vulnerability to things that impact excitable brain cells.

What the Researchers Found: Triclocarban
Other researchers at U.C. Davis found that the other chemical under study, triclocarban, has an unusual effect on hormones. Triclocarban is a common additive in antibacterial bar soap and deodorant. For many years, some scientists have suspected that chemicals in the environment, known as "endocrine disruptors," may interfere with the human sex hormones and reproductive development. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, endocrine disruptors may cause reduced fertility in women and men, early puberty in girls, and increases in cancers of the breast, ovaries, and prostate.

In the March 2008 issue of Endocrinology, the researchers published results of studies in animals showing that triclocarban appears to amplify the effects of hormones, telling cells to keep doing something after they normally would have stopped. Researchers tested triclocarban on human cells grown in the lab. When exposed to estrogen and triclocarban together, the cells produced more of an enzyme than with estrogen alone. In a separate test published in the Environmental Health Perspectives study, the prostate glands of rats exposed to triclocarban and testosterone grew bigger than those given testosterone alone.

Such studies cannot be repeated in humans for ethical reasons, so researchers must infer that triclocarban could have the same effect in humans. Lathering up for a single bath with soap containing triclocarban gives a person the same dose of triclocarban that rats got in the study. "We do know that people, after a shower, or after an acute exposure, can have levels that could have an effect on their hormones," says Bill Lasley, PhD, a researcher in the department of population health and reproduction at U.C. Davis. "I have no doubt that it has a subtle effect, but I of course question whether it has a serious effect."

Chemical Buildup in Environment
The U.C. Davis researchers are the first to use cutting-edge molecular technology to study potential effects of triclosan and triclocarban on the human nervous system and hormones. Studies show that these chemicals are building up in the environment at an alarming rate. Americans dump more than 1 million pounds of triclosan and triclocarban into the environment every year. Rolf Halden, PhD, a scientist at Arizona State University, found that sewage treatment captures only about 50% of the triclosan and less than 25% of the triclocarban that goes down people's drains.

Halden published a study this month in Environmental Science and Technology showing that the chemicals don't quickly break down in the environment. He found these chemicals in sediment dating back 40-50 years. A recent CDC study detected triclosan in the urine of 75% of Americans aged 6 and older. "The disappointing news is that we continue to use these chemicals against better knowledge," Halden says. "They do not have an observable benefit. But we do know they persist in the environment, and now these more recent studies show that they are not as benign as we might have thought."

Antonia Calafat, PhD, a laboratory scientist at the CDC, says the agency does not know if any health problems in the population are linked to triclosan exposure. "We need additional research to determine whether or not, at the levels we have detected, triclosan can be a cause of concern," she says.

SOURCES: Dan Chang, PhD, professor emeritus, department of civil and environmental engineering, University of California, Davis. Isaac Pessah, PhD, professor, department of molecular biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis; director, U.C. Davis Children's Center for Environmental Health and Disease Prevention. Antonia Calafat, PhD, research chemist, division of laboratory sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC. Bill Lasley, PhD, professor emeritus, department of population health and reproduction, Center for Health and the Environment, University of California, Davis. Brian Sansoni, vice president of communication, Soap and Detergent Association, Washington, D.C. Kevin Crofton, PhD, neurotoxicologist, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency. Rolf Halden, PhD, associate professor, Center for Environmental Biotechnology, The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University; adjunct associate professor, Center for Water and Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

© 2008 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Mussolini would be proud


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7500605.stm

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/03/gypsies-fingerprinted.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92529373

The right-wing Berlusconi government in Italy has decided to fingerprint gypsies living in Italy (just gypsies, not all Italians), even those who are Italian citizens. They claim it is a necessary measure to reduce crime and illegal immigration. But Italy has very low crime on average vs. the US, and much of that is due to Mafia-type home grown gangs (see Napoli garbage crisis), not immigrants.

Transient gypsies, known as "Roma" in Italy, have been distrusted, and in some cases, persecuted for centuries - especially during the WWII fascist period in Europe. But now there are over 150,000 Roma living in Italy, and 60% of them are citizens with supposedly equal rights and freedoms with ethnic Italians. Yes it is true that some Roma do engage in crime and other undesirable behaviors, just like any people. But where are the DATA that show convincingly that Romas are the chief cause of Italy's crime, and fingerprinting them will fix the problem? I suppose this is just another ignorant, xenophobic, knee-jerk backlash against a marginalized minority - unjustly blaming them for larger social anxieties and problems (like Latino immigrants in America).

Human rights activists also blame Italian media, of which Berlusconi is a major player, for playing the fear game and stirring up anti-Roma stereotypes. Some estimates suggest he controls over 50% of all Italian media, like the Rupert Murdoch of Italy or something (separation of powers, hello?). It's probably no coincidence that many hate crimes have been reported against Roma this year too.

The Italian Government claim that they are partially doing this to "help" the Roma children, many of whom live "off the grid" in dirty camps and may be abused by misguided parents - forced to pick pockets or engage in debauchery for money - instead of going to school. But if so, this is a really Gestapo-esque humanitarian effort. "Where are your papers!?!"

Already the EU has condemned this move and demanded that Italy rescind it (in a non-binding declaration of course). Many Italians and others see the decision as prejudiced if not blatantly racist, and some non-Romas got fingerprinted as a show of solidarity with their fellow Italians. Italy is a G8 nation for heaven's sake, and it is shameful that they would even consider such a plan, much less implement it.

Other related headlines...

All Things Considered, July 14, 2008 · Italy is moving ahead with plans to fingerprint the country's Roma, or gypsy, people. The government says the fingerprinting is necessary to fight crime, identify illegal immigrants and protect Roma children from exploitation. The plan has critics.

All Things Considered, May 31, 2008 · There has been a swell of anti-immigrant sentiment in Italy, including attacks on the Roma population. Italy's politicians and Rome's new mayor, a former neo-fascist, are helping fuel anti-immigrant feelings.

Morning Edition, May 19, 2008 · An immigration crackdown by Italian authorities has been accompanied by vigilante justice against the Roma — or gypsies — in Naples. Italian officials have been strongly criticized by the European Union and human rights groups for their treatment of the ethnic group. Now the new right-wing government wants to create a special body to deal with the Roma.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Israeli collective punishment on the families of "terrorists"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92398760

"If we have to destroy houses then we must do so, and if we have to stop their social benefits, we must do so." - Ehud Olmert

Earlier this year, a gunman opened fire at a religious school in Israel, killing several. He was an Israeli citizen of Palestinian descent. Recently, a Palestinian Israeli drug addict and construction worker rammed his bulldozer into other vehicles, killing 3 and wounding 30. His mental state and motives were unclear, though of course PM Olmert immediately declared the tragedy a terrorist act. This has prompted calls in the Israeli Parliament for new laws to punish the families of Israeli citizens who commit violent acts of terrorism, by destroying their residence, cancelling benefits like health care and unemployment insurance, etc. They hope it will deter terrorists from striking, if they know that their families will suffer because of their actions. Critics say that this proposal is racist, because they wonder if the punishments will also apply to Jewish Israelis who go on rampages against Arab Israelis or other Jews (and it has happened plenty of times in the Occupied Territories, as well as the Rabin assassination). But that is basically the equivalent of Japanese internment by the US Government during WWII. Collective punishment and guilt by association shouldn't be practiced by civilized societies. Moral arguments aside, this "deterrent" may not even be effective, since Hamas or other organizations would probably compensate the families for their losses at the hands of the Israeli Government, in order to score propaganda points.

Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have major travel restrictions on them, so they have very little ability to harm Israelis, apart from firing pop gun rockets over the security barrier. But when Israel annexed the predominantly Palestinian East Jerusalem after the 1967 War (a move deemed illegimitate by the UN, and most everyone else but the US), they granted Israeli legal status to the people there (not sure if they are full citizens). Although they can't vote, those Palestinians can travel freely in Israel and enjoy state benefits as Jewish Israelis do. A fifth of Israel's population is non Jewish Palestinian-Arab, and they are growing at a faster rate than their Jewish compatriots. But now Tel Aviv is wondering whether the "enemy from within" is a security threat to them, especially after the last two highly-publicized attacks (even though the majority of Arab Israelis are law-abiding and some even serve in government). So apart from imprisoning or killing terrorists involved in attacks on Jews, they also seek to punish the terrorist's family.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0721-31.htm

Similar to my previous emails on the issue, is this really about defense, or is it humiliation and revenge? Sadly, this "family punishment" proposal in Israel is eerily similar to NAZI tactics during WWII. Many conquered European nations resisted Nazi occupation, from France to Ukraine. The Nazis knew that the resistance/partisans/terrorists/whatever-you-want-to-call-them were happy to give their lives in battle. But maybe they would think twice if their families would suffer and ancestral villages were razed in retaliation. Maybe the occupied peoples would discourage resistance among their ranks, because they feared Nazi reprisals. But in practice, punishment as counterterrorism failed miserably. Nazi atrocities against locals as payback for resistance only served to outrage previously neutral parties and galvanize resistance. In fact it increased subsequent attacks on Germans, which prompted even more outrageous retaliation, and the cycle of violence continued. In fact, some in the Nazi High Command warned Hitler that this would happen and discouraged the use of collective punishment for resistance, but they were overruled.

Most of us would agree that collective punishment is wrong (don't tell that to Bush, McCain, and even Obama who are calling for more sanctions on Iran and Zimbabwe). Even the "wrathful God" of the Old Testament said he would spare a sinful city if there was but one just person living there. A family can exert only so much control over one of their own, so why should all of them have to pay for the crimes one person committed? Many Palestinians in East Jerusalem kept to themselves and weren't political, but after 1967 they suddenly found themselves living "inside Israel". They never asked for Israeli citizenship, yet never advocated or participated in Israel's destruction either. I am sure that many Arab Israelis disagree with some of the decisions of their government, just as many Americans disagree with Washington. This is what happens (and should happen) in a democracy and free society, and doesn't mean that those people are security threats. Unfortunately, some citizens do abuse their freedoms and lash out in violent ways against their perceived enemies. But why involve the rest of the family? That is petty and barbaric actually. Even the Mafia and other criminals show enough honor to heed the basic rule of gang violence: the families shouldn't be harmed. Did the US destroy Tim McVeigh's home and revoke citizenship/benefits for all his relatives?

As commander of a Nazi einsatzgruppen death squad in occupied Poland, Dr. Werner Best came to believe that the most effective response to terrorism was collective punishment. After the fall of France he went on to draft the Third Reich's counterterrorism policy for countries occupied by Germany. Towns where acts of "passive" resistance such as the cutting of telegraph cables had taken place were placed under curfews, fined and slapped with travel restrictions. "Active" resistance--the killing of a German soldier--would be met by reprisal killings of local civilians... Convinced that collective punishment was failing because it wasn't severe enough, the führer issued a September 1941 order to use "the harshest measures" against civilians in areas where the Resistance was active. Arguing that "only the [collective] death penalty can be a real means of deterrence," Hitler ordered that 50 civilians be executed for each German soldier killed.

- Ted Rall, CommonDreams.org

The 4th Geneva Conventions of 1949: Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Are US doctors paid too much?


http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/22708684.html?location_refer=Opinion

Recently there has been some squabbling over budget cuts to Medicare/Medicaid and state-sponsored health care that may cause doctors to decline services to those patients, because they won't be "properly compensated" by the government. So the doctors are revolting, and Bush has threatened to veto any cuts proposed by Congress. Right now they're debating a 10% cut, actually as part of a mechanism that was previously approved in the event that costs exceed certain markers, which is happening now in a big way. The pay cut survived the House, but will probably stall in the Senate and will definitely be killed at the Oval Office.

I know doctors are businessmen/women too, and they have a bottom line to maintain. They are skilled professionals who went through rigorous training ($30,000/year tuition + living expenses), and deserve compensation for their critical contributions to society. But I don't know how they can morally refuse to treat needy people dependent on government health care, just because they'll be reimbursed $2,700 for an arthroscopic knee surgery instead of the "going rate" of $3,000. Are they pinching pennies that much, even with a $200,000 salary? The cars they drive surely don't suggest it.

And what other industry but health care can the providers dictate costs and the consumers just have to accept it? Equally greedy HMOs and others might try to negotiate a "fairer" price, but in the end the doctors bill Medicare as they like, and our tax dollars go up in smoke (in many cases, overcharging Uncle Sam). In other markets like automobiles and air travel, competitors are cutting prices left and right in order to secure customers. But can we "shop around" for doctors who can provide the best service at the most reasonable cost? We just go where our insurance tells us to go, and actually most of the process is a black box to us. I guess most of us just feel lucky that we weren't refused care!

There was an interesting NYT article last year (below) discussing whether US doctors are paid too much, and whether they have more impact on the insanely high costs of health care than even prescription drugs. Pharmaceuticals are 30-50% more expensive in the US vs. Europe, but doctors' salaries are sometimes 100% more. A typical UK doctor in 2002 made $60-120,000 and lives well, if you've seen Michael Moore's "Sicko". But US specialists make $300-400,000, and we all know the young doctors graduating from school all want to be specialists. But how many radiologists and anesthesiologists do we need, versus the pediatricians and GPs who deal with normal patient problems and practice normal medicine "in the trenches" (ironically the lowest-paid doctors)? Relatively few new doctors are going into those "unglamorous" fields versus the huge demand, so no wonder we have to import them from other nations - yet some patients complain about foreign accents and demand an "American" doctor. Well, blame the American medical system and its students then, who would rather be Nip/Tuck than Patch Adams!

Because the fees they charge are so high (and patients have no choice but to pay), doctors also have a financial incentive to over-prescribe treatment in order to make more money. I am sure we can Google many examples of this to back up the NYT's claim, as well as cases of defrauding Medicare/Medicaid. And unlike Europe, Medicare lacks the resources (and/or motivation) to scrutinize a doctor's treatment request, veto if unnecessary, or maybe suggest a cheaper alternative. Doctors in other developed nations are more-or-less paid flat salaries from their national health systems, with performance-based incentives. Their doctors are paid less, yet deliver better services on average, based on WHO rankings and other studies. In fact, socialized medicine nations like the UK, Canada, and Australia outperformed the US in terms of medical errors and patient satisfaction (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/tb/2074). So maybe there is a real problem with the "quantity over quality" approach by many US doctors.

From NYT:

"Almost all expenditures pass through the pen of a doctor," he said. So a doctor may decide to perform a test that costs a total of $4,000 in order to make $800 for himself — when a cheaper test might work equally well. "This is a highly inefficient way to pay doctors," Dr. Bach said.

Medicare, especially, does not like to second-guess doctors' clinical decisions, said Dr. Stephen Zuckerman, a health economist at the Urban Institute. "There's not a lot of utilization review or prior authorization in Medicare," he said. "If you're doing the work, you can expect to get paid."

As a result, doctors have steadily increased the number of procedures they perform on Medicare beneficiaries — and thus have increased their income from Medicare, Dr. Zuckerman said. But the extra procedures have not helped patients' health much, he said. "I don't think there's any real strong evidence of improvements in health status."

Private insurers like H.M.O.'s are more aggressive than Medicare in second-guessing physicians' clinical decisions, and they will refuse to pay for imaging scans or other expensive new procedures. Now Medicare and private insurers are moving cautiously to change the current system. Recently, they have proposed pay-for-performance measures that would give doctors small bonuses if their care meets the standards set by national medical organizations such as the American Heart Association.

BUT all those measures are a minor fix, said Dr. Alan Garber, a practicing internist and the director of the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University. Instead, he argues, the United States should move toward paying doctors fixed salaries, plus bonuses based on the health of the patients they care for.

Even in the existing system, some health insurers, notably Kaiser Permanente, already have large networks of salaried doctors. But it would require doctors to give up some of their autonomy and move into larger group practices or work directly for insurers, a step they have been reluctant to take. About 40 percent of doctors are in single or two-physician practices, Dr. Garber said.

Nor is the American Medical Association, which represents doctors, eager for wholesale changes in the system, said Dr. Edward L. Langston, chairman of the A.M.A. board.

But Dr. Goldman of RAND said that doctors are misleading themselves if they think the current system serves patients' needs. For example, if a diabetic patient visits a doctor, he said, "the doctor is paid to check his feet, they're paid to check his eyes; they're not paid to make sure he goes out and exercises and really, that may be the most important thing."

"The whole health-care system is set up to pay for services that are rendered," he said, "when the patient, and society, is interested in health."


Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that doctors are often paid the same from insurance/Uncle Sam whether they perform a procedure brilliantly or totally botch it. Some legislation was proposed to only pay doctors in full upon successful completion of the procedure, but of course the physician's lobby fought it and watered it down. Now the government doesn't have to pay doctors for a few specific errors, like if surgical instruments are left in patients, catheters are improperly implanted, and won't cover the costs of preventable hospital-acquired infections. Doctors warned that such rules would cause legal nightmares and actually reduce overall care, as patients would have to disclose their entire medical histories before doctors would agree to treat them, so various post-op complications wouldn't be blamed on them. And then doctors might even refuse to treat the most at-risk patients to avert potential consequences. Well, I guess we shouldn't revere doctors as selfless heroes. They look after #1 just like the rest of us.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/28/medicare-and-medical-mistakes/
http://www.bcbs.com/news/national/medicare-won-t-pay-for-hospital-mistakes.html

So if our presidential candidates do seriously want to overhaul and improve the US health system, trimming doctors' salaries may be a politically daunting but absolutely necessary component of the solution.

----------

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/weekinreview/29berenson.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


The Nation
Sending Back the Doctor's Bill


By ALEX BERENSON
Published: July 29, 2007

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

National Geographic: Why the West is burning


Ironically, it seems our firefighting efforts are the primary cause of the larger, nastier fires we see today. We're so fixated on protecting every single structure from harm, and fighting fires whenever and wherever they start, that we don't let small fires run their natural course. Controlled burns do take place, but not nearly enough. We dump so much money into fighting wildfires with very little benefit, the numbers are staggering.

And even if we stop a small fire from becoming large, it has its consequences. Forest health suffers without fires naturally releasing nutrients and catalyzing other biochemical processes, making them more likely to burn in the future. Some forests are 30X denser with wood fuel than they were 100 years ago, making them much more dangerous.

The West region has seen the biggest population boom in the US over the last 50 years, yet there are no real deterrents in place to discourage people from settling down in "stupid zones" where fire danger is great. Also there are few incentives/laws in place to promote/mandate fire-resistant home building (house timber serves to spread fires in populated areas like trees do in a forest). Even after the recent big fire in Lake Tahoe, people haven't learned anything and are rebuilding their homes just as before (thinking beauty and comfort before safety), even though new building codes require additional fireproofing measures. They probably won't even be penalized, because there aren't enough resources/personnel for thorough inspections. Governor Arnold is planning to increasing property taxes to pay for a new fire emergency fund, with higher-risk homeowners paying more than lower-risk, but I doubt that will be enough to discourage people from living in fire zones.

And probably climate change is negatively affecting weather and vegetation patterns as well.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/07/fire-season/shea-text
Under Fire
From the Rocky Mountains to the coast of California, wildfires are burning bigger, hotter, and closer to home. Why is the West ablaze?
By Neil Shea
Photograph by Mark Thiessen
Both National Geograhic Staff

Excerpts I found interesting...
This is how we deal with fire in America, in small wagers. Fighting fire with fire, trying to prevent the landscape from doing what even firefighters say it wants to do: burn.

Wildfire advances by transforming vegetation into fuel. As plant matter heats, it releases compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and other flammable elements, which react with oxygen to release more energy, starting a chain reaction. Air around the fire warms and rises, sometimes creating winds that fan the flames. Extremely hot fires can manufacture their own weather systems, feeding and driving themselves, covering ground far faster than a sprinting human. Sudden wind shifts have pushed fire onto firefighters who believed they were safe.

The Western wildfire season generally begins in late spring and lasts into fall. Like other seasonal disturbances—hurricanes, tornadoes, ice storms—we have learned to fear its approach. Red walls of flame, leaden pillars of smoke. But fire is the one natural event we regularly treat as though it were alive and battle vigorously as if it were an invading host.

More and more, we lose. While fire in densely populated California draws the most attention, forests and rangelands throughout the American West are burning at unprecedented rates. In 2006, wildfires burned 15,000 square miles across the country, a record nearly matched last year. Two-thirds of the burned acreage was in the West. One obvious cause is a decade of drought and warmer temperatures. Mountain snow melts earlier, and winter storms arrive later, extending the fire season in some regions by several weeks. Vast tracts of drought-weakened forest have succumbed to insects and disease, turning trees to tinder. In response, we have bolstered our fighter ranks, padded them with private contractors, provided them more hoses and axes and trucks. Annual federal spending on firefighting has leaped from $1 billion when the recent drought began in 1998 to more than $3 billion last year, with even greater costs forecast for the future. But the drought is only one part of the burn equation.

"The more money we spend, the worse it gets," one fire scientist told me last summer. "If that's not a condemnation of our fire policies, I don't know what is."

Historically, the American approach to wildfire has been to try to suppress it whenever and wherever it appears. This strategy is often traced to the great fires of 1910. That year, massive blazes across the West burned millions of acres and killed dozens of firefighters. Smoke drifted as far as New England, along with tales of tragedy and devastation. Gifford Pinchot, first director of the nascent U.S. Forest Service, was convinced that fire threatened the economic well-being of the nation, and as the man in charge of a huge, federally owned empire of forested land, he was in a position to turn his ideas into policy. He began a campaign to banish fire. "We understand that forest fires are wholly within the control of man," he declared.

Under Pinchot and his successors, firefighting became a courageous struggle. We grew adept at killing fires, especially small ones. But we did not understand that fire, like rain, is necessary. Those firefighting campaigns, combined with a decline in logging and a growing conservation movement, meant vegetation—potential fuel—began to pile up. A study published in 2005 reflects the sort of change seen across the West. Researchers at Northern Arizona University studying two patches of Arizona forest estimated that in the late 1800s they contained about 50 trees for every 2.5 acres. After nearly a century without fire, up to 1,700 trees now crowd the same area.

By stamping out small fires and allowing fuel to stockpile, our policies ensured that when conditions were right, fire would return—bigger, hotter, more destructive than ever. And the right conditions could become routine. Most climate models now strongly suggest that the recent drought is not just a temporary phenomenon but part of a long-term drying trend made worse by global warming. There comes a point where no amount of money, no measure of heroism, is enough. Far from "wholly within the control of man," fire becomes unstoppable.

Idaho's Lucky fire represents the American firefighting world in miniature. Crews from all over the West and beyond have come to fight it and a few other fires nearby. They work dawn to dusk, sleeping in tents or on bare ground. Helicopters costing up to $80,000 a day rattle overhead, dropping water and blood-red fire retardant. In a command tent far from the fire, the bill is tallied. By July 26, nine days after the fire began, it was $1.5 million. July 29: $2.6 million. August 1: $4.5 million. Dozens of fires burn elsewhere in Idaho alone.

He also faces another problem, one that greatly complicates wildland firefighting today. If the fire jumps the river, houses and ranches lie in its path. Since the end of World War II, people have streamed into the West, injecting houses and roads and towns into places they never existed before. In the 1990s, eight million new homes sprouted along the borders of parks and forests, where fires regularly start. The government spends exorbitantly attempting to defend property in these areas. Formally this is known as the wildland-urban interface. Some firefighters call it the stupid zone.

A helicopter passes, its orange bucket sailing overhead like a comet, mist trailing behind. Justin Bone, one of Barrett's lieutenants, watches it go and shakes his head. "We're spending millions on 1,500 acres," he says. "How many city fire departments would that pay for? They might as well be pouring dollars on the fire."

Like Barrett, Bone loves his job. And he shares with many others the belief that trying to fight all fires is a loser's game. Bone favors an alternative strategy called "wildland fire use," in which some wildfires are monitored but allowed to burn, gradually thinning the forests and clearing out fuel. It is not a new approach. Native Americans burned forests and grasslands to create game habitat and clear fields. Many plant species benefit from a periodic purging. Bone stabs a finger toward the forest, heavy with ponderosa pine. With their thick, tough bark, the trees can survive all but the most severe burns. Other pines require fire for reproduction; their seed cones are coated in a waxy resin that must be melted off by heat to free the seeds. As fire burns dead wood and live plants, it also releases nutrients into the soil. This is crucial in arid zones, where decomposition without fire would take decades. Not all fires can be left to run their course, but the ecological argument behind the idea is compelling. "That's the future, man," Bone says. "We need to learn to let things burn."

---------

The federal government has recently begun using a computer-modeling program he helped develop to try to understand how small fires grow into monsters and how we might fight them. The three most important ingredients driving fire are weather, terrain, and fuel. Finney's program, called Fire Spread Probability (or FSPro), is the latest attempt to make sense of these interacting forces. It can simulate thousands of weather scenarios, based on years of records. It accounts for local topography (fire often moves faster uphill, for example) and the type of fuel: thick stands of trees, grass or chaparral, slash left by loggers. FSPro mathematically synthesizes all of these data on massive computers in Kansas and assigns burn probabilities to individual bits of land. Then it builds a map showing how a fire could advance across a landscape. The amount of data is immense. Modeling can take hours. Eventually the map emerges from Finney's printer covered with multicolored inks. A stand of drought-stricken pine near the fire might have an 80 to 100 percent chance of igniting; it appears red on the map. A wet meadow farther away might have a 5 to 20 percent chance: blue. Fires tend to grow in elliptical shapes, so the maps are blotched with rainbow rings, like tie-dyed T-shirts. FSPro can be used with other powerful programs, such as Google Earth, to create intricate maps showing the location of houses, roads, dams, even wildlife habitat—crucial information for firefighters. As a fire moves, the maps are updated and fed to commanders, helping them decide which areas are most likely to burn, where best to deploy their armies.

--------

The Jocko Lakes fire burned some 36,000 acres and cost over $30 million. At the time, it seemed large. Then came California. For three weeks last fall, fires swept the southern part of the state. Firefighters arrived in force. They fought and retreated and retreated again. There was little they could do but make sweat-drenched stands outside homes, and hope for the wind to die. More than half a million people were evacuated and over 2,000 homes were destroyed. Images of disaster saturated newspapers and television. Plumes of smoke, visible from space, arced over the Pacific. If the nation was shocked, most experts weren't. "If anyone was surprised, it was because they were young or inexperienced," says Jack Cohen, a federal fire researcher who lived in southern California for a decade and often returns to study the wildland-urban interface. Cohen names other deadly, destructive California fires. Oakland–Berkeley Hills, 1991. Laguna Hills, 1993. Cedar and Old–Grand Prix, 2003—a year even worse than 2007.

The state's fire environment differs in significant ways from the rest of the West. Southern California fires often begin and grow in chaparrals, dry thickets of shrubs and trees, many of them oozing combustible resins, all of them well adapted to fire and ready to burn. Usually the fires are ignited directly or indirectly by humans. A boy playing with matches caused one of 2007's major blazes; arsonists lit others. The fires become fierce because Santa Ana winds—strong seasonal winds unique to California—act as giant bellows. When the Santa Anas blow, California often burns.

The region is also the extreme expression of the trend to place ourselves in fire's way. California is the most populous state, growing by roughly ten million people every 20 years. Much of the south is particularly crowded. Houses clot the furrowed landscape. Factors that once constrained settlement—sparse water and remoteness, for example—no longer apply. Americans have been increasingly freed, even encouraged, to spread out and pick plots based less on logic and more on the view. The government policy on this migration into fire territory has been no policy at all, and Americans generally want it that way.

"The scale of the evacuation was bizarre, quite frankly," he says. "When you evacuate 300,000 houses, to me that's a suggestion that you don't really know what you're doing. With all of our technology, we are obviously incompatible with the environment that we live in."

Cohen is an expert on how houses catch fire. If you examine a neighborhood after a large fire, he says, one of the most striking details is the green, unburned vegetation that often remains between the ashen heaps. It's a sign that what probably ignited the houses was not burning trees or chaparral; instead, the houses touched off one another as embers blew like wind-borne viruses. They landed on the roof or blew under the eaves. They sifted through ceiling vents. In dense neighborhoods, houses replace trees as the primary fuel.

Houses need not serve as tinder, Cohen says; they can be built with fire-resistant roof shingles and siding. "In California there were significant cases of communities that did not burn and did not evacuate because they were fire resistant." Some California communities require fire-resistant construction. Many others do not. "We have the ability to be compatible with fires," Cohen says. "But we mostly choose not to be."

No single action will reduce fires or their damage. Saw-wielding crews may thin the fuel load, but there is simply too much overgrown land. Prescribed burning, fires set on purpose, is a common, if risky, method. It remains to be seen if Americans will voluntarily stop moving into fire-prone areas, or if they will take to the idea of letting natural fires burn unchecked. The best approach would consider all these measures and apply each where appropriate. That would also require a rare symphony of government effort and public will.

And yet, regardless of policy, a basic problem remains: Fire is a force beyond control. Americans in particular have been reluctant to acknowledge that no government or technical solution, no matter how well funded, or brilliant, can halt natural processes or remove their power to affect lives. For this reason, and with an eye toward the increasing costs, many experts believe it is time for a new era of American responsibility, perhaps with policies like those in Australia, another country facing massive wildfires. There the government does not attempt to protect all private property. Responsibility is placed largely on individuals. Citizens are encouraged to evacuate well before wildfires arrive—when weather forecasts indicate danger—and government programs teach methods for making homes less vulnerable.

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Response to NPR's interview about the FARC


Dear All Things Considered,

I am usually very impressed and informed by Robert Siegel's reporting, but I was disappointed with his recent interview with Professor Marc Chernick concerning the FARC rebel group in Colombia. Although the guest showed little to no bias, I felt that Mr. Siegel lost his journalistic impartiality and was painting the issue as FARC = bad guys and US-allied Colombian government = good. In this kind of ugly struggle, no side is purely the victim or purely the righteous.

Mr. Siegel could have also mentioned or asked the guest about the FARC's social motivations, positive contributions to the Colombian people, or the many atrocities that the Colombian government and its henchmen have inflicted on nonthreatening FARC supporters or rural peoples. By no means do I condone the FARC's terroristic activities, kidnapping, or drug trading, but I also disapprove of the US-backed Uribe regime violating Uruguay's sovereignty to assassinate a FARC leader and almost provoking a regional conflict. I don't approve of the billions of US taxpayer dollars funneled into Plan Colombia, an anti-narcotics program supposedly protecting our kids from smack, but actually a marginally effective, corrupt campaign against the FARC. Right-wing groups in Colombia also participate in the drug trade, but are much less targeted. The audience might also like to learn about how ultra-right the Uribe government is on some issues, and how they contributed to Mrs. Betancourt's kidnapping by derailing the peace process (probably at Washington's behest). "We don't negotiate" with terrorists, communists, and drug dealers I suppose, and would rather continue a tragic conflict than work towards a diplomatic settlement.