Another mass murder, this time in Pennsylvania. A man who had trouble getting girlfriends went into a fitness center and randomly shot twelve women, three of whom died, before turning the gun on himself. After a couple of days the story subsided. Ho hum, just another day in what passes for normal in the U.S.A.
I was interested to know how common this kind of thing is around the world. I mean, not counting war and terroristic murders perpetrated for some political end, are other societies having this kind of problem with homicidal individuals going over the edge and the American press just isn't reporting about it here, or what?
I googled the issue and it seems we really are in a class by ourselves in terms of serial and mass killers. The United States has 76% of these kinds of murders. We have 4.6% of the world's population but 76% of the world's deaths at the hands of maniacal murderers. Does that sound healthy to you? No, not to me either.
There seems to be precious little discussion about it. Some of the facts we know are that 90% of the killers are men and 68% of the victims female. Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote an op-ed August 8 attributing much of the carnage to misogyny.
There is some evidence the problem is getting worse. Mark Kopta, psychology chair at the University of Evansville in Indiana, presented a paper on the topic at the recent Midwestern Psychological Association meeting in Chicago. Defining a mass killing as causing "the deaths of at least five people," including the killer's suicide when that is part of the toll he found only three such incidents from 1930 to 1970, three in the 1970s, ten in the 1980s, seventeen in the 1990s and 25 in the 2000s, which still have a year and a half to go. Six occurred in 2008 alone, and eight in a little over half a year so far in 2009.
You would think there would be a lot of interest in determining the cause or causes of such a development, but such does not appear to be the case. Economic and racial explanations do not seem to hold up. The mass killing rate was not high in the 1930s, for instance. It went up both in the 1990s when the economy was good and the 2000s when it was bad. In terms of race, 84% of the killers and 89% of their victims have been white.
Misogyny could be a factor. So could the ease with which mentally ill individuals can get their hands on weapons capable of killing many people. What about the prevalence of violence and the sexual exploitation of women in the entertainment media, including music, film, advertising and video gaming? Two common elements in the phenomenon are rage and firearms. As Dr. Kopta says, "Anger is the most seductive emotion of all. When people get angry, they don't want to stop being angry."
We as a society really ought to be talking about this. Behavior like this is extremely sick. Other societies are not experiencing it. That tends to indicate there is something seriously amiss here. Are there ways to better prevent such antisocial attitudes from developing and to identify individuals who are exhibiting the telltale signs, to get them the psychological help they need or to protect the rest of us from them? Or do we just shrug and accept is as the new normal? The answer to this question will say a lot about the state of American society these days.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Health Reform Hangs in the Balance
Battle lines are now firmly drawn over the fate of the health care initiative. Republican and industry opposition has coalesced. The unity moment in the White House featuring President Obama and moguls from insurance, HMOs and pharmaceuticals is revealed for the cover-providing photo-op it was. When congress reconvenes in September the nation will find out whether these allies will be successful again as they were in 1994. By shooting down health care the Republicans would stop the Obama administration in its tracks and likely set themselves up for good gains in the 2010 midterm election. For the industry's part, doing so would likely put a health overhaul on the back burner for another 15 years as it did after their last victory.
The industry lobbyists, in their joint appearance with Obama, were careful to announce they supported the president's idea that everyone should have health coverage-actually, that everyone should be required to buy it, guaranteeing them more customers. As it turns out of course, they disagree on everything else associated with the issue. They want to be able to pick and choose their customers. They want to be able to rescind coverage when people get too sick. They don't want cheaper drugs used. They want to be able to determine what will be covered and what will not. They do not want to have to compete with other private providers within regions or with a public alternative program.
The current strategy is to slow things down and raise questions about cost and "government control." Their greatest fear is that any program, once in place, will prove overwhelmingly popular with the public and hold the industry up to a tougher standard of competition. Look at the earlier public service agencies. Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal Congress instituted Social Security in 1935, and Republicans have been trying to end it ever since. Senator Robert Taft during the Eisenhower years, President Reagan in the 1980s and President Bush 43 in the 2000s attempted to discontinue, water down or privatize it. All ran into buzz saws of senior and general public opposition and were stymied. Social Security has become known as the "third rail of American politics." Like the electrified central rail of a subway system, touch it and you die.
President Johnson and the Great Society Congress passed Medicare in 1965. Ever since, all senior citizens have had medical coverage paid by the government that allows them to choose their own physicians and has minimal intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. President Obama joked the other day that he gets letters, calls and emails every day now from senior citizens who plead with him to do two things: not institute a "government health plan" and also not to touch their medicare. The irony makes clear how pathetically they are being duped by the industry and its water carriers.
There is certainly a good deal of hypocrisy going on. Congress, of course, has long voted to cover itself with a government-provided health plan which allows each Member to choose his or her own physicians. And even neoconservative intellectual Bill Kristol, speaking on the Daily Show with John Stewart last week, said that the government-run health system for the military was superior to the civilian system and deserved because they were defending the country. Not much support for the argument of the alleged inferiority of taxpayer-funded health in either case. And, as Obama has been saying for two years, everyone who has private insurance and wants to keep it will be able to do so. These arguments do not stand up. They are transparent efforts to sow fear and protect profits.
Another consistent theme is the "what's the rush?" canard. The rush is that this idea was first proposed 62 years ago by President Truman, that the U.S ranks 37th in health care, just after Slovenia, that we spend 17% of GDP on health while the rest of the advanced world spends 11%, and that despite this their longevity and infant mortality are pulling away from ours. Another part of the rush is that when the Clinton health initiative was defeated in 1994 there were 38 million uninsured and 5% of health industry revenues went to overhead while today it is 49 million uninsured and 20% to overhead. The system continues to deteriorate. If the US spent just 11% of its $13 trillion GDP on health it would save $780 billion a year for other, more productive purposes.
To put things in perspective, on March 31, 2009 PBS Frontline reported that approximately 20,000 Americans die every year because they lack or have inadequate health coverage. When 3,000 died on 9/11 we suspended large portions of the Constitution and invaded Iraq. The health crisis is equivalent to more than six 9/11's every year. Yet the mantra of the comfortably ensconced is, "what's the rush?"
While congressional Republicans are ideologically in step with industry and largely bought by their campaign cash in any event, there are Democrats in their pay as well. With Democratic majorities of 80 in the House and 20 in the Senate, the fact that health care reform may be in trouble makes it plain that a number of them are drinking the kool aid too. See an ad here that crystallizes the issue with Nebraska's Democratic Senator Ben Nelson from the perspective of a small businessman. It also gives you an opportunity to help.
Eight months into the Obama presidency will either cement his place in history as one of the most successful of new administrations or will find him dead in the water, apparently impotent, and his political foes gleefully triumphant. Meanwhile the lives of thousands and the competitiveness of the American system hang in the balance. It will be a suspenseful few weeks.
The industry lobbyists, in their joint appearance with Obama, were careful to announce they supported the president's idea that everyone should have health coverage-actually, that everyone should be required to buy it, guaranteeing them more customers. As it turns out of course, they disagree on everything else associated with the issue. They want to be able to pick and choose their customers. They want to be able to rescind coverage when people get too sick. They don't want cheaper drugs used. They want to be able to determine what will be covered and what will not. They do not want to have to compete with other private providers within regions or with a public alternative program.
The current strategy is to slow things down and raise questions about cost and "government control." Their greatest fear is that any program, once in place, will prove overwhelmingly popular with the public and hold the industry up to a tougher standard of competition. Look at the earlier public service agencies. Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal Congress instituted Social Security in 1935, and Republicans have been trying to end it ever since. Senator Robert Taft during the Eisenhower years, President Reagan in the 1980s and President Bush 43 in the 2000s attempted to discontinue, water down or privatize it. All ran into buzz saws of senior and general public opposition and were stymied. Social Security has become known as the "third rail of American politics." Like the electrified central rail of a subway system, touch it and you die.
President Johnson and the Great Society Congress passed Medicare in 1965. Ever since, all senior citizens have had medical coverage paid by the government that allows them to choose their own physicians and has minimal intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. President Obama joked the other day that he gets letters, calls and emails every day now from senior citizens who plead with him to do two things: not institute a "government health plan" and also not to touch their medicare. The irony makes clear how pathetically they are being duped by the industry and its water carriers.
There is certainly a good deal of hypocrisy going on. Congress, of course, has long voted to cover itself with a government-provided health plan which allows each Member to choose his or her own physicians. And even neoconservative intellectual Bill Kristol, speaking on the Daily Show with John Stewart last week, said that the government-run health system for the military was superior to the civilian system and deserved because they were defending the country. Not much support for the argument of the alleged inferiority of taxpayer-funded health in either case. And, as Obama has been saying for two years, everyone who has private insurance and wants to keep it will be able to do so. These arguments do not stand up. They are transparent efforts to sow fear and protect profits.
Another consistent theme is the "what's the rush?" canard. The rush is that this idea was first proposed 62 years ago by President Truman, that the U.S ranks 37th in health care, just after Slovenia, that we spend 17% of GDP on health while the rest of the advanced world spends 11%, and that despite this their longevity and infant mortality are pulling away from ours. Another part of the rush is that when the Clinton health initiative was defeated in 1994 there were 38 million uninsured and 5% of health industry revenues went to overhead while today it is 49 million uninsured and 20% to overhead. The system continues to deteriorate. If the US spent just 11% of its $13 trillion GDP on health it would save $780 billion a year for other, more productive purposes.
To put things in perspective, on March 31, 2009 PBS Frontline reported that approximately 20,000 Americans die every year because they lack or have inadequate health coverage. When 3,000 died on 9/11 we suspended large portions of the Constitution and invaded Iraq. The health crisis is equivalent to more than six 9/11's every year. Yet the mantra of the comfortably ensconced is, "what's the rush?"
While congressional Republicans are ideologically in step with industry and largely bought by their campaign cash in any event, there are Democrats in their pay as well. With Democratic majorities of 80 in the House and 20 in the Senate, the fact that health care reform may be in trouble makes it plain that a number of them are drinking the kool aid too. See an ad here that crystallizes the issue with Nebraska's Democratic Senator Ben Nelson from the perspective of a small businessman. It also gives you an opportunity to help.
Eight months into the Obama presidency will either cement his place in history as one of the most successful of new administrations or will find him dead in the water, apparently impotent, and his political foes gleefully triumphant. Meanwhile the lives of thousands and the competitiveness of the American system hang in the balance. It will be a suspenseful few weeks.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Cuts to Your Locality
For you California residents, here's an informative link to a source that will tell you how much the recent state budget resolution will be taking away from your locality. This Sacramento Bee database gives you the skinny. Find the name of your county in the drop down menu. It will show you how much the state is "borrowing" from the county, from all the cities in the county and from all other entities, primarily redevelopment agencies.
In my own case, for example, the county of Tulare will fork over $7.2 million to the state, the city of Visalia will yield up $1.9 million and the Visalia Redevelopment Agency will get raided for another $2.2 million. That works out to about $49 per Visalia resident the state of California is borrowing from local government. These reductions will mean big cuts to things like health, fire and law enforcement. That means, a lot of county and city employees will get laid off, adding to recessionary pressures and conditions in my own area and throughout the state. This is in addition to the state budget cuts in education, parks and throughout the system.
This is what happens when we are governed by the rule of the minority, as the California Constitution permits if legislative Republicans stick together as they did in this process. One friend of mine perceptively remarked that the Visigoths were the ones who pulled down Rome's libraries, schools and aqueducts and ushered in the Dark Ages. In the Golden State, however, we moderns are doing it to ourselves.
In my own case, for example, the county of Tulare will fork over $7.2 million to the state, the city of Visalia will yield up $1.9 million and the Visalia Redevelopment Agency will get raided for another $2.2 million. That works out to about $49 per Visalia resident the state of California is borrowing from local government. These reductions will mean big cuts to things like health, fire and law enforcement. That means, a lot of county and city employees will get laid off, adding to recessionary pressures and conditions in my own area and throughout the state. This is in addition to the state budget cuts in education, parks and throughout the system.
This is what happens when we are governed by the rule of the minority, as the California Constitution permits if legislative Republicans stick together as they did in this process. One friend of mine perceptively remarked that the Visigoths were the ones who pulled down Rome's libraries, schools and aqueducts and ushered in the Dark Ages. In the Golden State, however, we moderns are doing it to ourselves.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Don't Text and Drive
You probably remember hearing the news about these two fatal accidents. On June 28, 2007 four teenage girls died in a head-on collision with a tractor/trailer rig in western New York state when their SUV crossed the line into oncoming traffic. On September 12, 2008 25 were killed and 135 injured when a Los Angeles Metrolink commuter train operator drove through a red light and collided with a freight train. You probably also remember another detail about these accidents: both drivers had been sending text messages up to the moment they died. A Virginia Tech study now pinpoints the risks of texting while driving. The bottom line: if you want to live and don't want to kill anyone else, you should never text while in control of a vehicle.
In the VT study, cabs of long haul trucks were fitted with video equipment and the drivers were monitored over an 18-month period. Text messaging while driving is currently illegal in only 14 states. In the other 36, drivers can text all they want. The truckers were tracked for a total of 3 million miles. The results? The collision risk was 23 times greater when the drivers were texting than when they were not. By comparison, other studies estimate the risk of a collision is four times higher than normal when a driver is drunk or talking on a cell phone.
The AAA has polling data that shows "87% of people consider drivers texting or e-mailing a 'very serious' safety threat (roughly equal to the 90% who consider drunken drivers a threat.)" Yet though 2,501 drivers surveyed this spring said "that texting was unacceptable behavior" 21% said they had texted or e-mailed behind the wheel recently themselves. The behavior is disproportionally common among the young. Nearly half the drivers 16 to 24 years old said they had done so, while only 22% of the 35-44 age group had.
It is obvious that reading or composing copy is a huge distraction for someone trying to operate a motor vehicle, with all the split-second judgments and reactions that activity entails. Now you know just how hazardous it is. For all our sakes, be smart and don't do it. If you just can't wait until the end of your trip to read a message or write one, pull over. The few seconds you spend may literally save your life.
In the VT study, cabs of long haul trucks were fitted with video equipment and the drivers were monitored over an 18-month period. Text messaging while driving is currently illegal in only 14 states. In the other 36, drivers can text all they want. The truckers were tracked for a total of 3 million miles. The results? The collision risk was 23 times greater when the drivers were texting than when they were not. By comparison, other studies estimate the risk of a collision is four times higher than normal when a driver is drunk or talking on a cell phone.
The AAA has polling data that shows "87% of people consider drivers texting or e-mailing a 'very serious' safety threat (roughly equal to the 90% who consider drunken drivers a threat.)" Yet though 2,501 drivers surveyed this spring said "that texting was unacceptable behavior" 21% said they had texted or e-mailed behind the wheel recently themselves. The behavior is disproportionally common among the young. Nearly half the drivers 16 to 24 years old said they had done so, while only 22% of the 35-44 age group had.
It is obvious that reading or composing copy is a huge distraction for someone trying to operate a motor vehicle, with all the split-second judgments and reactions that activity entails. Now you know just how hazardous it is. For all our sakes, be smart and don't do it. If you just can't wait until the end of your trip to read a message or write one, pull over. The few seconds you spend may literally save your life.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Trip to Austria
It's been nearly three weeks since my last post. The reason is my wife and I have been on vacation in Austria. Austria is the low key and Alpine part of the German-speaking world, most definitely not to be confused with Australia, as we were told some Americans are embarrasingly wont to do. Locals told us some have been known to ask, "When will we see some kangaroos," when a more appropriate question might be, "When will we hear some yodeling?"
At any rate, I'll pass along some ruminations gathered along the way as we toured fabulous palaces, churches and public buildings from Austria's glory days as seat of the Holy Roman and then Austro-Hungarian empires, heard magnificent concerts from its musical virtuosos such as Haydn and Mozart, went on the "Sound of Music" Tour around Salzburg and to Hitler's mountain "Eagle's Nest" just across the border, sailed the Danube, ate schnitzel, strudel and other wunderbar desserts and hiked to mountaintop glaciers and ice caves. Some things they do better than we do and we ought to emulate them. In other things we have the better way.
The first remarkable item is their outstanding public transportation system. We never needed to rent a car, and hired taxis only twice, to get us from the train station to our hotel in Salzburg and to take us to the Vienna airport at 4:00 A.M. on our way out. For 5.70 Euros, about $8, you can buy a daily ticket allowing you to hop on any bus, subway, tram or train in Vienna for 24 hours. For $40 you can ride the train from one end of the country to the other. For sure, their country is a lot smaller than ours, but it's still economical and efficient. You even get private compartments for about six people on the inter-city trains.
Practically everyone speaks some English. We learned it was taught in school beginning at age 10. We noticed the people in the hospitality industry all spoke English and were well trained. Unlike here, where working at a small hotel desk or serving at a restaurant is often considered a rather lowly or temporary job for people who are looking for something better, they actually train and prepare for such positions at college and treat the position as a real profession.
They are very green. Big wind turbines are common in the farmlands, generating electricity. The rail system is almost all electric. They recycle. Most cars are about two-thirds the size of the cars here. Despite the many centuries of civilization there is still a lot of wooded land left. They keep their logging and fishing sustainable. Cities are densely populated, so there is less suburban sprawl around them. This leaves more land available for agriculture.
Things are usually designed in a people friendly way. There are pedestrian only areas of cities. They foster the cafe culture ambiance Europe is famous for. Consequently very little urban territory has to be given over to parking lots. In Vienna, traffic congestion is remarkably low for a city of 1.2 million. They're mostly on the subway or busses, and many ride bicycles. More common things have an aesthetic component to them, rather than being merely functional.
People were very happy about the change in American political leadership. From conversations on trains and the two days I wore my "Obama '08" shirt, people frequently brought up Obama and said he was not only good for America but for the world. Time and again they likened him to John Kennedy. It was positive to see the country's image improving.
There were some negatives, too. Amazingly, a very high percentage of Austrians still smoke. It's not allowed on the transit system, but can be annoying in the cafe or restaurant. They don't apparently have anything like our concern for providing access for the handicapped. Thus, long flights of stairs are still the norm for getting into many buildings. The elevators they do have are usually too small and too slow. Graffiti has arrived, though I never saw any on churches, monuments, or private residences. Finally, and this can be either good or bad, a lot of places accept payment only in cash. If you go to countries off the main tourist beat be prepared to encounter this.
At any rate, I'll pass along some ruminations gathered along the way as we toured fabulous palaces, churches and public buildings from Austria's glory days as seat of the Holy Roman and then Austro-Hungarian empires, heard magnificent concerts from its musical virtuosos such as Haydn and Mozart, went on the "Sound of Music" Tour around Salzburg and to Hitler's mountain "Eagle's Nest" just across the border, sailed the Danube, ate schnitzel, strudel and other wunderbar desserts and hiked to mountaintop glaciers and ice caves. Some things they do better than we do and we ought to emulate them. In other things we have the better way.
The first remarkable item is their outstanding public transportation system. We never needed to rent a car, and hired taxis only twice, to get us from the train station to our hotel in Salzburg and to take us to the Vienna airport at 4:00 A.M. on our way out. For 5.70 Euros, about $8, you can buy a daily ticket allowing you to hop on any bus, subway, tram or train in Vienna for 24 hours. For $40 you can ride the train from one end of the country to the other. For sure, their country is a lot smaller than ours, but it's still economical and efficient. You even get private compartments for about six people on the inter-city trains.
Practically everyone speaks some English. We learned it was taught in school beginning at age 10. We noticed the people in the hospitality industry all spoke English and were well trained. Unlike here, where working at a small hotel desk or serving at a restaurant is often considered a rather lowly or temporary job for people who are looking for something better, they actually train and prepare for such positions at college and treat the position as a real profession.
They are very green. Big wind turbines are common in the farmlands, generating electricity. The rail system is almost all electric. They recycle. Most cars are about two-thirds the size of the cars here. Despite the many centuries of civilization there is still a lot of wooded land left. They keep their logging and fishing sustainable. Cities are densely populated, so there is less suburban sprawl around them. This leaves more land available for agriculture.
Things are usually designed in a people friendly way. There are pedestrian only areas of cities. They foster the cafe culture ambiance Europe is famous for. Consequently very little urban territory has to be given over to parking lots. In Vienna, traffic congestion is remarkably low for a city of 1.2 million. They're mostly on the subway or busses, and many ride bicycles. More common things have an aesthetic component to them, rather than being merely functional.
People were very happy about the change in American political leadership. From conversations on trains and the two days I wore my "Obama '08" shirt, people frequently brought up Obama and said he was not only good for America but for the world. Time and again they likened him to John Kennedy. It was positive to see the country's image improving.
There were some negatives, too. Amazingly, a very high percentage of Austrians still smoke. It's not allowed on the transit system, but can be annoying in the cafe or restaurant. They don't apparently have anything like our concern for providing access for the handicapped. Thus, long flights of stairs are still the norm for getting into many buildings. The elevators they do have are usually too small and too slow. Graffiti has arrived, though I never saw any on churches, monuments, or private residences. Finally, and this can be either good or bad, a lot of places accept payment only in cash. If you go to countries off the main tourist beat be prepared to encounter this.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
What is Palin Up To?
Sarah Palin's latest turn really caught everyone by surprise. The Alaska Governor, 2008 McCain running mate and social conservative darling shocked us all on the third by announcing she would resign as Governor by the end of the month. Her rambling, disjointed and often self-contradictory statement of explanation left most observers scratching their heads. You can watch a video of her statement here.
So what is she up to this time? I don't think she's setting up a run for 2012. How could she convince voters she is serious about governing when she quits a little more than halfway through a stint as governor of a state? Does anyone think the presidency is a less onerous position? Even Karl Rove feels this disqualifies her for national office. Palin's bizarre words that she is serving the state of Alaska in an unconventional way like a basketball point guard passing off to a teammate is true but laughable as a justification of her own worth. Why is passing off to the lieutenant governor better for the state? The obvious answer is that she is not up to the job. And why does she decry those who "take the quitter's way out" and then quit, herself? To think that this half-wit would have been a 72-year-old's heartbeat away from the leadership of the free world is pretty chilling stuff.
Neither does it seem she is getting out of national politics. Palin said in her resignation annnouncement that she will be serving the conservative cause in a new way, freed from the restrictions she's lately been under. She pointed a finger at the standard "liberal media elite" as the scapegoat for her problems and has said since it's "really sad" the national media doesn't get that her latest move is "all about country," along with other threadbare cliches and non sequitors of the type her vice presidential campaign speeches were full of.
Instead, it appears she is getting ready to cash in on her notoriety financially. Palin's appeal to the hard right is all about her image; it was never about any accomplishments, much less a command of the issues. She is a hockey mom with a Down's Syndrome child who "knows how to field dress a moose." Exactly what that has to do with fixing the financial industry or stemming nuclear proliferation is anybody's guess. But that was never the point. Right wing identity politics is about a personal narrative, not about administrative competence or cogent thinking. A sense of victimization is often an important component of that identity, and Palin now wraps herself in that mantle. Those meanies drove her from office.
Look to the example of Rush Limbaugh. The man is seen as an extremist or a buffoon by most. He will never get elected to national office. But his hard core of 20 million "ditto head" listeners make him a wealthy and influential person on the American scene. So it can be for Sarah Palin. She is reputed to have a book deal in the works. She will be able to command $40,000 an appearance on the speaking circuit. She will be in demand to help far-right candidates in the Deep South and extremely conservative districts across the country. She wants to cash in while she is still a hot commodity and before the realities of the problems of governance or the many ethical probes launched against her possibly start finding paydirt. The people of Alaska are the farthest thing from her mind. They'll probably be a lot better off with Sean Parnell in the Governor's chair anyway. The guy is a politician with 16 years of state government experience, much of it dealing with budget issues. That's got to be an improvement over the circus sideshow they've had in Juneau lately.
So what is she up to this time? I don't think she's setting up a run for 2012. How could she convince voters she is serious about governing when she quits a little more than halfway through a stint as governor of a state? Does anyone think the presidency is a less onerous position? Even Karl Rove feels this disqualifies her for national office. Palin's bizarre words that she is serving the state of Alaska in an unconventional way like a basketball point guard passing off to a teammate is true but laughable as a justification of her own worth. Why is passing off to the lieutenant governor better for the state? The obvious answer is that she is not up to the job. And why does she decry those who "take the quitter's way out" and then quit, herself? To think that this half-wit would have been a 72-year-old's heartbeat away from the leadership of the free world is pretty chilling stuff.
Neither does it seem she is getting out of national politics. Palin said in her resignation annnouncement that she will be serving the conservative cause in a new way, freed from the restrictions she's lately been under. She pointed a finger at the standard "liberal media elite" as the scapegoat for her problems and has said since it's "really sad" the national media doesn't get that her latest move is "all about country," along with other threadbare cliches and non sequitors of the type her vice presidential campaign speeches were full of.
Instead, it appears she is getting ready to cash in on her notoriety financially. Palin's appeal to the hard right is all about her image; it was never about any accomplishments, much less a command of the issues. She is a hockey mom with a Down's Syndrome child who "knows how to field dress a moose." Exactly what that has to do with fixing the financial industry or stemming nuclear proliferation is anybody's guess. But that was never the point. Right wing identity politics is about a personal narrative, not about administrative competence or cogent thinking. A sense of victimization is often an important component of that identity, and Palin now wraps herself in that mantle. Those meanies drove her from office.
Look to the example of Rush Limbaugh. The man is seen as an extremist or a buffoon by most. He will never get elected to national office. But his hard core of 20 million "ditto head" listeners make him a wealthy and influential person on the American scene. So it can be for Sarah Palin. She is reputed to have a book deal in the works. She will be able to command $40,000 an appearance on the speaking circuit. She will be in demand to help far-right candidates in the Deep South and extremely conservative districts across the country. She wants to cash in while she is still a hot commodity and before the realities of the problems of governance or the many ethical probes launched against her possibly start finding paydirt. The people of Alaska are the farthest thing from her mind. They'll probably be a lot better off with Sean Parnell in the Governor's chair anyway. The guy is a politician with 16 years of state government experience, much of it dealing with budget issues. That's got to be an improvement over the circus sideshow they've had in Juneau lately.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Paying the Price for Myopia
Reader Tom sent me an article from the New York Times that's topical right about now. You can read "Facing Deficits, Some States Cut Summer School" by Sam Dillon by clicking here. In it, Dillon describes how many hard-pressed states, facing declining revenue in the recession, are drastically cutting summer school programs despite strong evidence that it helps eliminate the "achievement gap" between rich and poor students and greatly improves the retention of academic skills. While America's competitors, particularly in Asia, spare no expense when it comes to education, we shortchange the future to save some money in the present.
The practice is highly characteristic of us. It illustrates the mindset that's primarily responsible for most of the problems we face today, one we see over and over again. In a host of ways it cripples us, affecting business, finance, politics, defense, the environment, health care, education -- you name it.
Tom calls the mindset evidenced in the article "myopia," and I agree. In ophthalmology myopia is nearsightedness, the ability to see things close up but not far away. The American Heritage Dictionary includes a second definition that characterizes the thinking conveyed in the article, a "lack of discernment or perspective in long range planning." It is that perspective that defines how we have gotten into virtually every problem we currently confront.
In business and finance, we languish in the most serious downturn since the Great Depression, mainly because it was decided to get rid of common sense regulations that promoted long-term stability but restricted the mortgage industry from running up incredibly risky but lucrative short term profits. GM persisted in relying on gas-guzzling SUVs and heavy trucks when the long-term price of gasoline could only go up. Corporate CEO's reap multimillion dollar bonuses even when their companies lose money, a perspective reflective of a buccaneer spirit rather than the long-term health of the organization. Employee pensions rather than such bonuses and two million dollar office redecorations are, famously, what have been pared.
Environmentally, because it is initially cheaper to dig coal or drill oil and burn them than it is to build and install solar panels and wind turbines we have neglected clean power for over thirty years. Now we are seeing the true costs of this short-term savings, including hundreds of billions subtracted from our economy and lavished on petroextortionists as hurricanes grow more powerful, drought spreads, sea levels rise, fisheries plummet and the formerly cheap oil inexorably grows more expensive.
In world affairs, it is easy to see the trouble we have created for ourselves by supporting odious friends for temporary convenience. The CIA's complicity in the 1953 coup against Iran's freely elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh and subsequent support for the monarchy of the Shah was followed by assistance to Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran in the 1980s. It should cause little wonder that Iran has been largely hostile ever since. The effects of our support for any anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1987, no matter who they were, are well-known by now, of course. Osama bin Laden is the most prominent of these.
We have "saved money" by not enacting universal health care and depending on the "efficiency" of the HMO and Insurance Company system. Now we spend 17% of our GDP on health care and have 16% of the populace uncovered while the rest of the developed world spends an average of 11% and leaves no one uncovered. See some stats on that here.
For over thirty years we have reduced real per pupil spending on education to save money. We have watched as our children's standardized scores have fallen in rank against the world. Now we are saving additional money by eliminating summer school and aid to young adults who want to go to college. We do this at the same time we are becoming increasingly uncompetitive in the kinds of manual and old-style manufacturing jobs where such undereducated people would formerly have found employment. Where will they go in the knowledge and tech-based economy of the future?
With all the money we are saving we are on the way to saving ourselves right into the poor house.
The practice is highly characteristic of us. It illustrates the mindset that's primarily responsible for most of the problems we face today, one we see over and over again. In a host of ways it cripples us, affecting business, finance, politics, defense, the environment, health care, education -- you name it.
Tom calls the mindset evidenced in the article "myopia," and I agree. In ophthalmology myopia is nearsightedness, the ability to see things close up but not far away. The American Heritage Dictionary includes a second definition that characterizes the thinking conveyed in the article, a "lack of discernment or perspective in long range planning." It is that perspective that defines how we have gotten into virtually every problem we currently confront.
In business and finance, we languish in the most serious downturn since the Great Depression, mainly because it was decided to get rid of common sense regulations that promoted long-term stability but restricted the mortgage industry from running up incredibly risky but lucrative short term profits. GM persisted in relying on gas-guzzling SUVs and heavy trucks when the long-term price of gasoline could only go up. Corporate CEO's reap multimillion dollar bonuses even when their companies lose money, a perspective reflective of a buccaneer spirit rather than the long-term health of the organization. Employee pensions rather than such bonuses and two million dollar office redecorations are, famously, what have been pared.
Environmentally, because it is initially cheaper to dig coal or drill oil and burn them than it is to build and install solar panels and wind turbines we have neglected clean power for over thirty years. Now we are seeing the true costs of this short-term savings, including hundreds of billions subtracted from our economy and lavished on petroextortionists as hurricanes grow more powerful, drought spreads, sea levels rise, fisheries plummet and the formerly cheap oil inexorably grows more expensive.
In world affairs, it is easy to see the trouble we have created for ourselves by supporting odious friends for temporary convenience. The CIA's complicity in the 1953 coup against Iran's freely elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh and subsequent support for the monarchy of the Shah was followed by assistance to Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran in the 1980s. It should cause little wonder that Iran has been largely hostile ever since. The effects of our support for any anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1987, no matter who they were, are well-known by now, of course. Osama bin Laden is the most prominent of these.
We have "saved money" by not enacting universal health care and depending on the "efficiency" of the HMO and Insurance Company system. Now we spend 17% of our GDP on health care and have 16% of the populace uncovered while the rest of the developed world spends an average of 11% and leaves no one uncovered. See some stats on that here.
For over thirty years we have reduced real per pupil spending on education to save money. We have watched as our children's standardized scores have fallen in rank against the world. Now we are saving additional money by eliminating summer school and aid to young adults who want to go to college. We do this at the same time we are becoming increasingly uncompetitive in the kinds of manual and old-style manufacturing jobs where such undereducated people would formerly have found employment. Where will they go in the knowledge and tech-based economy of the future?
With all the money we are saving we are on the way to saving ourselves right into the poor house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)