democratic views http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/ Political, social, and cultural commentary. en-US Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:59:21 -0400 http://www.typepad.com/ http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification DemocraticViewshttp://feedburner.google.com Goodhue and the Tooth Fairy http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/MpRePDDjBns/goodhue-and-the-tooth-fairy.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2011/09/goodhue-and-the-tooth-fairy.html Goodhue Wilson is a friend of mine. He’s been a great father to his children, helped his parents, has a good marriage, and takes civic responsibility seriously. He could be a role model. Maybe, now I’ve put it that way,...

Goodhue Wilson is a friend of mine. He’s been a great father to his children, helped his parents, has a good marriage, and takes civic responsibility seriously. He could be a role model. Maybe, now I’ve put it that way, I’m shortchanging him. Considering how many hours we spend talking about matters public and private, I should say he’s a good friend.

I guess that’s why, in a recent conversation, I was surprised to learn that he believes in the Tooth Fairy. He didn’t call it that, of course. Every child learns, about the time they also figure out there is no Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, that the money under the pillow is placed there by their elders, and that speaking of the Tooth Fairy means one is in on the joke. But when Goodhue told me that we don’t need to raise taxes on the rich and he thought the middle-class wisdom of Republican ideas on tax policy were better than Warren Buffet's, out of respect for our friendship I could only bring myself to agree to disagree. I mumbled something about meeting in the middle like any good centrist would.

Goodhue said the government’s revenue problems could be solved by what he called “good capitalists.” All it takes is for millionaires and billionaires such as Warren Buffet to voluntarily open their wallets and write a check to the U.S. Treasury. No need to tax them. That’s when I realized that the Tooth Fairy has a good future in the United States. My financial advice to the Tooth Fairy: she should she capitalize her prospects by selling shares in her brand, the way some popular artists have. Wall Street needs a good bond deal to rehabilitate its reputation after the mortgage securities mess: Tooth Fairy bonds could really help their image.

Think of it: you lose a tooth, and the Tooth Fairy leaves a dime or a dollar under your pillow. Lose your job, and a good capitalist sends a check to the U.S. government so that you have health insurance, or food, or maybe even a new job. With enough good capitalists we wouldn’t need any taxes at all. We could certainly get rid of the earned income tax credit. Good capitalists would realize their social obligation to repay society for the social order that gives them a peaceful citizenry, education systems that train up their human capital, a huge public works infrastructure, and the political and military might to make the United States a force for good: they would just write out a check to someone less fortunate, or to fund a bridge to nowhere because someone needs work.

I wish I saw in the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls some sign that one of them was a good capitalist, or even had Goodhue’s sweet naiveté and really believed in the Tooth Fairy. What I see, instead, is a pack of people acting as though they were in a dog-eat-dog world under some form of crude Darwinism in which they profess not to believe but demonstrate with each day’s campaign rhetoric. Actually, that’s insulting to dogs, who are some of our best friends in the animal kingdom. A pack of hyenas or jackals would be a better metaphor.

One reason I am so ruefully tolerant of Goodhue’s fantasy is that I, too, sometimes wish there was a Tooth Fairy. Unfortunately, we’ve got the Tea Party along with the Easter Bunny and other residents of a fantasy land. But betting against Tea Party futures is a risky business. Although David Bowie had some intellectual property to securitize, making David Pullman a rich banker, I’m not sure an offering based on the Tea Party’s intellectual capital would be a wise investment. But when I think fondly about my friend Goodhue, maybe, I wish, a Good Democrat will come along and put enough votes under pillows across America so that we don’t have to rely on good capitalists or drink tea.

]]> Jon Welsh Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:59:21 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2011/09/goodhue-and-the-tooth-fairy.html Why the Republicans Blew It over Health Care Reform http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/NpBx4tr15E0/why-the-republicans-blew-it-over-healthcare.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2010/03/why-the-republicans-blew-it-over-healthcare.html Democrats, as they reached certainty that they would have enough votes to pass health care reform, had the pragmatic wisdom to allow Democrats in contested districts to vote against the bill in order to improve their reelection prospects. Republicans, driven... Democrats, as they reached certainty that they would have enough votes to pass health care reform, had the pragmatic wisdom to allow Democrats in contested districts to vote against the bill in order to improve their reelection prospects. Republicans, driven by ideology and a media-frenzied right wing, were not so wise. This will cost them in the future.

Republican partisans believe that rhetoric, bolstered by a skewed reading of various polls "proving" that a majority of the American people are against the health-care bill will lead them to victory in many elections in November 2010, restoring their majorities in the Senate and the House. The supposed "majority" who opposed health care reform happens to include many liberals who were against the bill because it did not include a public option or provide other reforms favored by the political left. There's little chance that those partisans will somehow turn into votes for Republican candidates, so the rhetorical majority the Republicans claim doesn't have much political currency.

Republicans further believe that they will be able to repeal the health-care reform bill, which shows the extent of their naïveté. President Obama would surely veto any bill that tried to undo something over which he worked so hard. And in the bipartisan atmosphere that the Republicans have created during the Obama administration, it is highly unlikely that enough Democrats would vote with them to gather the 67 votes in the Senate required to override a presidential veto.

If only the Republicans had been as pragmatically wise as the Democrats. Once they realized that Obama's promise to sign an executive order reaffirming that federal funding for abortion rights would continue to be limited, winning the support of pro-life Democrats and thus assuring Democrats of enough votes to pass the bill, the Republicans should have released enough members in contested districts to vote for health-care reform. This would have allowed them to claim, at the end of the day, bipartisan support for the measure. As things stand, the Republicans remain "The Party of No." I for one am happy for the folly of their wisdom.

One reason the Republicans were so vehemently opposed to health-care reform is the number of new Democratic votes that the measure delivers. Have a child with birth defects, juvenile diabetes, or other early-onset diseases? They're covered. Have a child who is a college student who can't find a job in a recovery wrecked by an economy that squandered a budget surplus for the sake of tax cuts for the rich and two unfunded wars? They're covered until they're 26 years old. Have a pre-existing condition? You can't be denied affordable healthcare. Reach a so-called lifetime maximum on benefits coverage for chronic disease? Your coverage can't be canceled by the insurance company. Lose your job in one state and have to relocate to another state in order to find new employment? Your insurance travels with you. (That was a Republican idea that the Democrats incorporated into the final health-care reform bill, but strangely enough, the Republicans refused to support it when it came down to a vote.)

In future elections, not just in November 2010, but for decades to come, Democrats will be able to claim that they and they alone delivered these social benefits to the American people. The notion that in November 2010 Republicans will be able to urge the American people to vote for them in order to repeal these benefits exemplifies the wishful thinking typical of the media celebrities, right-wing bloggers, Tea Partiers and political celebrities such as Sarah Palin who have driven moderate and reasonable republicanism out of the nation's political dialogue.

Yes, on Hysteria Lane, the Republicans own most of the nice homes and urban tract mansions, unaffected by the recession and failures of Wall Street. The problem is, nobody's home.

]]> Jon Welsh Sun, 28 Mar 2010 09:37:37 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2010/03/why-the-republicans-blew-it-over-healthcare.html Our Lady of Perpetual Misery http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/y3TYNmajEsU/our-lady-of-perpetual-misery.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/11/our-lady-of-perpetual-misery.html A U.S. Army psychiatrist goes bonkers and kills thirteen people, wounding dozens others. U.S. soldiers suffer grievous mental trauma, and when they find mental health care, the mental health professional they see is increasingly likely to suffer therapy-induced stress disorders.... A U.S. Army psychiatrist goes bonkers and kills thirteen people, wounding dozens others. U.S. soldiers suffer grievous mental trauma, and when they find mental health care, the mental health professional they see is increasingly likely to suffer therapy-induced stress disorders. Perhaps the healers help the sick; but the healers themselves all too often end up needing treatment. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Every act of violence against civilians creates traumas which may or may not be treated. If there are not enough mental health professionals in the U.S. military to care for military personnel in need without traumatizing the caregivers, imagine what the cost among the civilian population is and globalize it. Iraq. Afghanistan. Pakistan. India. Sudan. Myanmar. Iran. China. Indonesia. Ireland. Colombia. Mexico. Korea. Syria. Lebanon. Palestine. Zimbabwe. Israel. Egypt.

Bring it home and look at the domestic costs of violence in our cities. Chicago, where a schoolchild is shot every day and one dies of gunshot wounds every two weeks. We count the soldiers killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan one by one, but school-age children being shot by the dozen doesn't make the national news on a regular basis. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and This Week with George Stephanopoulos don't give us a moment of silence with pictures and ages for schoolchildren who die while doing their duty to build America's future.

The Army has 408 mental health professionals for 553,000 personnel, or one caregiver for every 1,355 soldiers. That ratio is close to what the general population has, where the American public finds about 1 specialist for every 1,115 people. Those numbers suggest that there aren't enough health professionals to treat the cases of human-induced traumas, after factoring in data across the United States for assault, gunshot wounds, domestic violence, disease and other incidents that result in trauma needing mental health treatment. Violence seems to be winning. We're left without much in reserve to help when natural disasters disrupt thousands of lives instantly, and sometimes permanently. In the Army's case they clearly don't have enough resources: soldiers suffer trauma at a far higher rate than the average civilian.

The developing world is a mess. One example: Pakistan, a country in which we claim to have vital interests, has some 1,455 mental health professionals for a population of roughly 158 million, or 1 for every 108,000 people. Factor in the prejudice against acknowledging mental distress and seeking help, and the situation is dire. According to the World Health Organization, Afghanistan is in even worse condition, with only 1 provider for every 300,000 people. Yet these countries have dislocation and refugee problems; research shows that as many as one-quarter of the population is suffering some form of mental distress. In Canada, by contrast, there are over 50,000 mental health professionals for a population of about 32 million, a ration of 1 to every 630 people, nearly twice as many as in the United States.

There's something to be said about national health care and what it means for people to have access to the help they need. When we treat other people as a means to an end, and push American soldiers back into battle repeatedly or sacrifice human rights concerns for civilian populations in countries that are decimated by war or despotism, we sow the seeds of future tragedies, and do not advance the cause of peace or the best American ideals of liberty and justice for all.

]]> Jon Welsh Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:26:11 -0500 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/11/our-lady-of-perpetual-misery.html The Failure of Too Big to Fail http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/xUORH9mhRH0/the-failure-of-too-big-to-fail.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/the-failure-of-too-big-to-fail.html As the government moves forward with plans to put more stringent controls on financial institutions and Wall Street, Robert Reich and Paul Krugman don't think the proposals go far enough. Not so, says Edward L. Yingling, president of the American... As the government moves forward with plans to put more stringent controls on financial institutions and Wall Street, Robert Reich and Paul Krugman don't think the proposals go far enough. Not so, says Edward L. Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association. Speaking of the reform proposals he says "you don't want to create a system that raises great uncertainty and changes what institutions, risk management executives and lawyers are used to." Really.

Let's check Mr. Yingling's statement. We already have a system that not only has created but perpetuates great uncertainty not only among the American public, but for other economies around the world. If not, how did we get into this mess? If Yingling has an answer to when credit will flow, businesses will recover, jobs will be created, workers will have pensions and will recover the losses they've suffered over the past decade as banks and financial services firms gorged at the trough and took outsize risks, it would be good to hear it. If reducing uncertainty for the public means shaking up Wall Street, gee, that's tough.

Of course we want to change what financial institutions, risk management executives and lawyers are used to. They're used to using shareholder and depositor money to pay themselves big salaries, investment banking fees, and bonuses. They're used to taking risks to increase their personal fortunes knowing that if something goes wrong the government will step in with taxpayer money to rescue them so that they can keep their jobs, lifestyles, and bonuses. What they're used to is way out of line with their past performance and there's every reason to deny them a future that perpetuates their ability to reap outsized rewards for the boom-and-bust cycle that has been punishing the American people for too long.

Krugman thinks the political moment for the radical change that's needed has already passed. In other words, what we're going to see in the way of financial reform is likely to be too little, too late. When President Obama signed into law on May 22 a bill providing for modest reforms in credit card practices, the card issuers had asked Congress for time to get their systems ready. So the bill effective date was pushed back to February 22, 2010. The credit card issuers then turned around and started increasing rates (up an average 23% between December 2008 and July 2009), calling credit lines in, and raising fees. Their greed provoked Congress and there are now efforts underway to freeze things until the law goes into effect, and one proposal to move the effective date forward to December 1, 2009.

George Harrison wrote "I, Me, Mine" about the ego problem that many suffer, and apparently none more so than the denizens of finance and Wall Street. It should be their theme song. Every time we hear their objections to meaningful reform let's just sing "I, me, me, mine" to them.

]]> Jon Welsh Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:03:10 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/the-failure-of-too-big-to-fail.html The Energy to Go the Distance http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/kCpKjZDJLvY/the-energy-to-go-the-distance-even-as-president-obama-presses-for-renewable-energy-he-reminds-us-that-not-only-will-the-entr.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/the-energy-to-go-the-distance-even-as-president-obama-presses-for-renewable-energy-he-reminds-us-that-not-only-will-the-entr.html Even as President Obama presses for renewable energy, he reminds us that not only will the entrenched oil and coal lobbies, and backward-looking business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce resist the change, but that we will need... Even as President Obama presses for renewable energy, he reminds us that not only will the entrenched oil and coal lobbies, and backward-looking business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce resist the change, but that we will need carbon-based fuels for decades. Energy reform is a strategic challenge and a matter of national security and economic security for the United States. In a speech he gave on Oct. 23 at MIT, Obama said "nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to producing [sic] and use energy. The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy." It's a race we have to win.

Oil prices are already rising with the declarations by economists and governments that the recession and global economic crisis is over. The oil companies are doing their best to show good corporate citizenship and become energy companies with oil as just one component of their inventory. Nevertheless there are competing explanations for what sent gasoline prices over $4 per gallon just before the economy imploded, and it's likely to happen again. Some would like to blame speculators and Wall Street traders. As China and India grow their large economies they will need more energy and competition for oil will drive up the market price again. If other countries recover from the economic downturn more quickly than the United States, we may see gas at $4 a gallon long before the unemployed have found jobs so they can pay for gasoline to get to work.

When the President utters the words "clean coal" some environmentalists hear it as today's code for "I want your vote" to those in the coal industry and its powerful lobby, including many of Obama's Illinois constituents who gave him his start in politics. However, we're going to have a carbon-based economy for decades, and many more decades if we don't get going on renewable energy. That's plenty of time to find greener ways of using black coal to reduce the environmental impact while coal remains part of our energy production. So far the coal industry continues to dig in its heels and opposes mining regulation, carbon cap-and-trade legislation and limits on or the elimination of mountaintop removal.

"Clean coal" may be an oxymoron, but winning the race on developing more environmentally benign ways to manage coal production and use it in power plants could yet be an economic bonanza. However, China currently has the lead in putting the greenest coal production plants available online. India and China have huge coal reserves and tremendous shortfalls in their production capabilities. They will be using coal for decades and could be buying clean coal technologies from the United States. What's certain is that if we don't develop clean coal technology ourselves and improve it to the point where others can buy it from us, we'll be buying it from China.

There's a startling report just released by the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory that shows the tremendous boom in coal plants in China compared with the United States, and historical data and forecasts for wind energy and natural gas production in the United States. It's not a pretty picture.

I'm rooting for the University of Chicago's Laurens Mets, who's found a way to convert wind and solar energy into natural gas. If his method can be industrialized, we may escape the cyclical nature of solar and wind energy production. Right now these systems can deliver electricity only when there is demand, because there is no battery technology sufficient to store power on a large scale, and other ideas are unproven. Converting electricity produced by wind and solar farms into natural gas would provide a way to store energy in a form for which we already have technologies and infrastructure and use it to produce power when it is needed.

The Chamber of Commerce has its head in the sand. It has paid little heed to losing the membership of major energy companies such as Excelon, Pacific Gas and Electric, and PNM Resources, over its refusal to accept the science behind climate change and its resistance to energy reform. It has also lost consumer companies such as Apple Computer and Nike.

The Yes Men spoofed the Chamber last week, putting up a fake web site, calling a press conference at the National Press Club, and announcing on the Chamber's behalf that the organization had reversed its position on climate change. It would have been a welcome change; but the Chamber was not amused. Although there are some funny moments in the farce staged by the Yes Men's offensive against the Chamber, energy reform is not a laughing matter, and if we don't get going we won't even be in the race.

]]> Jon Welsh Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:58:07 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/the-energy-to-go-the-distance-even-as-president-obama-presses-for-renewable-energy-he-reminds-us-that-not-only-will-the-entr.html Fox News Pokes Obama in the Eye: Chris Wallace Crosses the Line http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/ClxrmxyCpLo/fox-news-pokes-obama-in-the-eye-chris-wallace-crosses-the-line.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/fox-news-pokes-obama-in-the-eye-chris-wallace-crosses-the-line.html Fox News has a stellar lineup of commentators who say outrageous things, and their opinions got the entire Fox News organization in trouble with the White House. No matter what punches commentators like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity throw, getting... Fox News has a stellar lineup of commentators who say outrageous things, and their opinions got the entire Fox News organization in trouble with the White House. No matter what punches commentators like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity throw, getting the President involved in blacklisting Fox News was a bad idea. The Becks, Hannitys, and Coulters just aren't that important. If Obama stepped into the fracas on his own, perhaps he should have taken advice. If that's the advice he was given, well, someone should be taken to the woodshed. Sometimes smart people are too smart by half. The president's advisors didn't clean up the lawn after the dogs were out, and now he's stepped in it.

It's never a good idea to argue with billionaires unless, like Vladimir Putin, you can rig criminal cases against them, lock them up, and seize their assets. The White House took on Rupert Murdoch, and it's hard to see them winning this scuffle. It's one thing for Democratic leaders to call out commentators when they make racist comments or cross the line. That's just political dog fighting. Rupert Murdoch has his pit bulls on the right – and they don't play fair, if there's such a thing as fairness in dogfighting. But there are plenty of pit bulls on left that can be thrown into the ring. Just because commentators uttering words with more vitriol than respect for civil discourse find an audience doesn't make them newsworthy.

So the White House has made several mistakes. Now Chris Wallace of Fox News has exacerbated the situation, and put not only his journalistic credibility at stake, but that of Fox News as well. Rahm Emanuel must be pounding his desk with glee.

Wallace closed his show today by asking panelists what they thought of the dust-up between the White House and Fox News. That's a questionable gambit, since he's part of the story. It's like a little kid asking someone to agree that he's being pushed around while he's in a fight. Wallace then went on to cite some supportive entries on his blog as if to say "See, Mr. President, even the people agree with me that you're a bully." Dana Perino, former press secretary to President Bush, answered Wallace's plea with a couple of swipes at the President and his advisors on her way to getting to the fundamental principle.

When we push other countries to respect freedom of the press, when we criticize them for jailing reporters, we must lead by example, and the example set by the Obama White House takes us off the moral high ground. The White House doesn't get to decide who is press and who is not; especially if they want to tell Iran, Russian, China, Myanmar and a host of other countries to stop harassing the media, that freedom of speech and of the press are fundamental principles of good governance. This week's White House blunder of trying to remove Fox News from the correspondent pool was way off base. It only compounded the errors already made in this showdown, which has been going on for more than a month.

Then Wallace and Fox News gave the White House a gift, and blew their entire case for being a news organization. Fox News Sunday's guest next week will be none other than that expert on everything, with in-depth knowledge of all worldly affairs equal to the decibel level of his opinions: Rush Limbaugh. Now there's someone capable of serious news reporting and coverage of the issues. If I were Chris Wallace I'd be concerned that Fox management might be giving Rush a test run to see if he can take over the Fox News Sunday segment.

This would be entertaining and maybe informative if it was some university president taking on the student newspaper. As it is, every two-bit dictator around the world can now justify using the bully pulpit to be a bully. So much for a shining city upon a hill; it's rough to be reminded that Washington was built on a swamp.

]]> Jon Welsh Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:56:17 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/fox-news-pokes-obama-in-the-eye-chris-wallace-crosses-the-line.html Fabulous Insurance http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/67TqI0VRXRA/fabulous-insurance.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/fabulous-insurance.html In the country of Havahart, citizens got tired of privatized medicine and health insurance companies doing outrageous things. In one case, the insurance plan doubled its premiums, raised deductibles, and changed co-payments from a nominal flat fee to a percentage... In the country of Havahart, citizens got tired of privatized medicine and health insurance companies doing outrageous things. In one case, the insurance plan doubled its premiums, raised deductibles, and changed co-payments from a nominal flat fee to a percentage of the bill. Outraged citizens knew that the companies were playing hardball, sending a signal to leave them alone to do business as usual, to forget about health care reform. The people also grew tired of elected politicians who lacked courage to do what was right. So a bold new movement took hold among the public: they stopped paying their insurance premiums. The Great Insurance War began.

As in any war, there were casualties. But once the number of people without insurance coverage reached a critical mass – somewhere over half the land – the insurance industry had no choice but to raise rates on the smaller numbers of insured, and the rates became unaffordable for everyone. The insurance industry collapsed. Thousands of claims representatives were put out of work. Executives lost their high salaries and country club benefits.

Hospital emergency rooms were flooded as many private physicians stopped seeing patients who didn't have the cash to pay, and no insurance to cover the services. Other doctors, unable to generate enough revenue to continue their practice, simply closed their doors, adding to the unemployment numbers as medical technicians, receptionists, and lab service company employees lost their jobs.

A neighboring country, Lackahart, encountered a somewhat different health care crisis that toppled the government. The land collapsed under the crush of unemployed who lacked the money to pay for health care insurance, especially after their unemployment benefits ran out. Insurance companies running their little shop of horrors continued raising rates and feeding on those who still had jobs and incomes high enough to pay premiums. But it wasn't enough; as more and more were unemployed and premiums rose too high for the few remaining with jobs, the system collapsed under its own weight. The weight, some say, of greed and selfishness.

Other countries where universal health care is provided because all contribute through taxes and all are covered without questions or qualifying conditions began recommending that their citizens stop traveling to Havahart and Lackahart. They considered these two afflicted countries to be suffering from a social disorder known as antisocialismus, which was the root cause of the breakdown in their social and public health systems. There would be no place for travelers to receive medical care if they got sick or were injured, because emergency rooms and hospitals were overwhelmed, and many that could not get government funding had closed. Both Havahart and Lackahart saw their tourist industries collapse further depressing their economies.

Havahart eventually recovered from this social pandemic led by churches without borders and a broad coalition of secular humanitarian organizations and local community groups. New candidates emerged for elections, and those who opposed universal health care coverage were hounded out of office. Spending priorities were revised drastically. The few remaining health insurance providers were placed under strict regulatory controls. Seeing health care as a matter of national security, the model of a nationalized military served as a blueprint for restricting states' rights in this sensitive area, and instituting universal health care.

The new legislators also revised the health care and pension plans their predecessors had put in place. Because the country could not afford the blue-chip plans the previous regimes had granted themselves, their health benefits were brought into line with the coverage available to everyone. While changing the pension plans provoked a bit of controversy, once the details were explained to the public in plain language there were few former legislators who dared to oppose reform, especially when so many remained out of work.

Lackahart set a different course, and remains a shadow haunted by its recent past. It has very little economic output and is dependent upon global aid agencies for its survival. It borrowed so heavily to finance its activities that a crushing debt settled in on a people that had no jobs, no insurance, and no retirement funds. Because of the pathology of the particular strain of antisocial thinking in Lackahart, no strong or heroic leader has emerged and the country has reverted to a very stratified social order with groups of people banding together by race, religion, wealth, or their favorite sports team. The only real sport left is soccer, because the country can't afford more than a few balls and using some of its open space for fields.

We'll have to wait for historians to write the definitive history of these two countries and their misfortunes. However, it seems clear that the excesses of the free-market private health insurance industry were a significant factor in their eventual collapse.

]]> Jon Welsh Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:45:35 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/fabulous-insurance.html Pseudo-Science: The Anti-Vaccine Epidemic http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/VAyiZFbA6FM/pseudo-science-the-anti-vaccine-epidemic.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/pseudo-science-the-anti-vaccine-epidemic.html In 2000, measles was eradicated in the United States. No more measles, due to successful vaccination programs. In 2008 measles returned with the largest number of cases since 2000. This trend in the U.S. – rising numbers of measles cases... In 2000, measles was eradicated in the United States. No more measles, due to successful vaccination programs. In 2008 measles returned with the largest number of cases since 2000. This trend in the U.S. – rising numbers of measles cases – is the opposite of a worldwide reduction in cases of measles, which still kills 540 children every day. The reason: a growing number of parents who won't allow their children to be vaccinated; and backward-looking public school districts that do not require proof of vaccinations before a child can attend school. Pseudo-scientific claims questioning vaccine safety continue to drive parents into making bad decisions for their children.

Superstition and folk lore about the risks of vaccines is putting our children at risk. The H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic is hard upon us, and there are some who are trotting out the canards that vaccines aren't safe or will cause autism in their children. They are refusing vaccination for themselves or their children, despite the fact that the flu vaccines are proven life-savers. The H1N1 flu is a variant of an earlier flu virus, and the swine flu vaccine is produced with the same time-tested methods used for seasonal flu vaccines.

Abortion rights and gun control are not the only subjects that incite rabid partisans to make death threats against those who favor a right to choose and limiting firearms. Scientists working on vaccines, and even the staff of the Centers for Disease Control have been harassed, intimidated and received death threats from anti-vaccine zealots. Amy Wallace's article on the vaccine wars in the November 2009 issue of Wired is a chilling story about the lack of science and surplus of rage that characterizes many opponents of vaccination.

The National Vaccine Information Center is a group whose name sounds neutral but is a leader in the anti-vaccine movement. Looking at the public comments on their web site it is clear that most of those who frequent the site and post comments approach the subject with their minds made up. They show no interest in science, medical studies, or statistics that support the obvious benefits of vaccine programs. Instead, they are full of grievances: they're tired of the government telling them what to do; vaccines are just a drug industry ploy to make billions more, and vaccines themselves cause problems such as autism. Their conclusion, reached before reason could take effect: there's no way they'll allow their children to be vaccinated.

Never mind that the autism claims have been thoroughly debunked and that several courts have thrown out lawsuits saying that there is no evidence available to support the idea that vaccination causes autism. Never mind that recent research is pointing to genetic factors as likely elements in autism, and that the increasing numbers of autistic children may be due more to better diagnoses than any actual increase in numbers of children afflicted with the condition. Their logic, in the absence of accepting scientific findings, is "my child was vaccinated, my child is autistic, and therefore the vaccines caused autism."

The Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety provides a comprehensive and accessible body of work on vaccines – those that have been developed, their safety, and other issues. Their web site points to a recent New York Times Op-Ed by Arthur Allen on the vaccine controversy. He argues that the government needs to take the lead in promoting the safety of vaccines. Someone should step up and go after the anti-vaccine position with the same courage that US Surgeon General Luther L. Terry did in 1964 called smoking a public health menace. Liza Gross's A Broken Trust: Lessons from the Vaccine Wars makes the case that the government is losing the battle. There have been missteps and political blunders, and with cultural icons such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Hollywood stars such as Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy winning the charm offensive, public health is at risk.

If only there was a vaccine to prevent superstition and flawed logic, and inoculate us against pseudo-science.

]]> Jon Welsh Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:29:09 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/pseudo-science-the-anti-vaccine-epidemic.html From Sea to Shining Sea http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/HlxlFBw71KM/from-sea-to-shining-sea.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/from-sea-to-shining-sea.html The United States has a geography that until recently worked greatly in our favor. Although the U.S. isn't an island nation it might as well be. Two vast oceans, a friendly country with great tracts of wilderness to the north,... The United States has a geography that until recently worked greatly in our favor. Although the U.S. isn't an island nation it might as well be. Two vast oceans, a friendly country with great tracts of wilderness to the north, and southern neighbors that have been largely under our sphere of influence with the isthmus of Panama serving as a natural choke point. It's been hard to attack us unless you drive a truck bomb into buildings or commandeer airplanes.

The protection afforded by our geography is also our Achilles heel. As a young country we had sufficient resources for our own needs. Isolationists could make an argument that we were better off keeping the world at arm's length and not engaging in world affairs. Two world wars and the rise of Fascist and Communist threats of world domination revealed that to be a selfish and short-sighted argument. Today it is downright dangerous, as foolishly idealistic as the notion that everyone wants democracy and we are the best ones to deliver them into the cradle of freedom.

The energy and many other natural resources we need are now in the hands of countries where we have no claim to the goods other than the contracts we can negotiate. Colonial expropriation is not a tenable means of obtaining what we need. We face a bidding war with China, who has one-party rule and lots of cash – our cash – on hand.

China also does not face internal dissent if it ignores human rights in countries such as Myanmar, Sudan, or Guinea where it wants to do business. We tread lightly – dance around – the topic of human rights in China because we have put ourselves in a weakened position that will persist for some time. Maybe the Dalai Lama will say a prayer for us when he's finally allowed to visit the White House.

So while we celebrate those amber waves of grain – which feed much of the world – we also have to find a way to pull the extremes back to the center. We have to make clear that extremism in the United States is no more tolerable at home than the extremism we condemn in other countries. The Chinese have been shamed into moderating their stance on the genocide in Darfur. Perhaps it's time to deploy a little shame here at home and see if the shock jocks, vitriolic pundits and their rabid followers have any moral sense.

]]> Jon Welsh Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:45:29 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/from-sea-to-shining-sea.html Afghanistan is not Vietnam: It’s an Energy War http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/o3TZv3qai0I/afghanistan-is-not-vietnam-its-an-energy-war.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/afghanistan-is-not-vietnam-its-an-energy-war.html Politicians and a complicit mainstream media are doing a good job of framing the war in Afghanistan and its long shadow in Pakistan as a fight against Islamic fundamentalists who want to attack the United States. Let the Taliban win... Politicians and a complicit mainstream media are doing a good job of framing the war in Afghanistan and its long shadow in Pakistan as a fight against Islamic fundamentalists who want to attack the United States. Let the Taliban win in Afghanistan and they and Al-Qaida will destabilize Pakistan, which even now is on the verge of a civil war. Let terrorists fracture the government in Islamabad and they will have nuclear weapons to use against us, and tensions with India may boil over into a regional nuclear conflict. This may be true, but it is not the complete story. Our transparent government is wrapping the entire show in the cloak of fear and waving the flag of patriotism.

President Obama is right to say Afghanistan is a war of necessity; but when he stops his sentence there the unspoken reasons leave the impression that it's all about following up on 9/11, that the Taliban and Al-Qaida are the sole enemy. We're being told it will be years, if not decades, before our presence will end. No wonder the war doesn't add up and public support is dwindling: it's based on a weak premise. What no one is talking about on the nightly newscasts is that Afghanistan is a proxy war being fought over carbon-based energy sources.

Russia is the world's largest energy supplier (second in oil exports, first in natural gas) and is trying to protect its markets. Europe is a hostage to Russian energy, and every so often Moscow finds an excuse to remind our European allies to play nice by cutting natural gas deliveries. Russia's invasion of Georgia also demonstrated that energy resources moving through Georgia and Turkey on their way to Europe can be cut off whenever Moscow feels it necessary. Georgia may wish to be a member of NATO, and its importance to energy supplies for NATO allies might be enough to bring it in, but NATO willingness to commit to fighting for Georgia may keep it at arm's length for some time.

China knows it needs to get away from a suffocating coal economy, but that means massive oil and natural gas imports. Beijing has long-term deals with Iran for oil and gas supplies, investments in Iranian oil fields and with Myanmar for a seaport and oil and gas pipelines to China. Beijing is also nearing completion of another natural gas pipeline that will carry gas exported from Turkmenistan. Meanwhile China's investments in green energy make U.S. efforts look like a high school football team playing against the pros.

The U.S. and NATO are in Afghanistan because we cannot afford to cede regional hegemony to Russia, China, and an Iran that is flexing its muscle as an oil and natural gas producer. (Iran's oil reserves are third largest in the world, and its natural gas reserves second only to Russia). Iran may have the second largest natural gas reserves, but Turkmenistan also has large reserves. A natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India was planned during the 1990s and then put on hold after 9/11; it's now back on the table assuming we can stabilize the country.

India needed the nuclear power deal that George W. Bush put in place because the Turkmenistan pipeline project was derailed by the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It has maxed out its hydropower sources and is left with carbon-based energy sources from its own coal reserves and then from oil and natural gas imports. India already has massive shortfalls in its ability to delivery electricity and water to its population; nuclear power generation will help and also forge long-term relations between India and the U.S. The prospect of seeing India's economic development threatened by lack of energy, risking civil unrest, no doubt was seen as a greater threat than destabilizing relations with Pakistan. Because India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the U.S.-India nuclear pact is a clear example of how energy needs drive energy policies that will trump treaties and other international agreements.

Afghanistan is the U.S. foothold in a region where the several countries have a combined population that is half the world's population, and there are tremendous oil and natural gas resources. It will be decades before green energy replaces carbon fuels – never mind global warming and climate change. While it may be necessary for us to be there the war is about far more than preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Perhaps a candid acknowledgment of energy policy driving the necessity of this war would bolster U.S. public support. It would also let the U.S. put more pressure on friends and allies to step up and make this more than an American-led effort.

It's not a question of trusting America to stand by our commitments. Other countries that benefit from America's effort should not send token troops or refuse to participate, assuming that it's our war or that we're too big to fail. But we can't make that argument if we don't put energy on the table as an explicit reason. Assuming we're too big to fail while pinning the war on avoiding terrorist attacks may find mounting opposition marching in the streets, toppling Presidents and domestic as well as foreign policy initiatives. If that happens, then it won't be the war in Afghanistan that is like Vietnam, but the outcome.

]]> Jon Welsh Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:49:50 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/afghanistan-is-not-vietnam-its-an-energy-war.html Sheriff Joe: An Ugly American http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/ZjV7n2_VPTI/sheriff-joe-an-ugly-american.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/sheriff-joe-an-ugly-american.html The "Ugly American" is a storied phrase in American history, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona is doing his best to keep it alive. Sheriff Joe brought his armed deputies to county offices and took over a $25... The "Ugly American" is a storied phrase in American history, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona is doing his best to keep it alive. Sheriff Joe brought his armed deputies to county offices and took over a $25 million computer system that links police agencies and the court system. He's now in a court fight with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Sheriff Joe is defying the Federal government as it seeks to take away his authorization to enforce federal immigration laws. Sheriff Joe is battling the Mayor of Phoenix and accuses him of driving the calls for federal investigation of the Sheriff's practices. The Mayor's spokesman says that the investigations are both civil and criminal and began under the Bush administration. On all fronts the Sheriff runs an aggressive and well-oiled media operation that presents him as a defender of American liberty when the reality of his law enforcement practices may well be one of the greatest threats to our liberty.

The Federal government recently stripped the Sheriff of his authority to enforce federal immigration laws; amid the ongoing federal investigations it seems clear that racial profiling and other abhorrent tactics used against persons of color are part of his strategic arsenal. Maricopa County agreed with the Department of Homeland Security to sign an agreement limiting Sheriff Joe's authority. He remains defiant and says nothing has changed.

Joe Arpaio's tenure is a testament to the racial undercurrents in American society. His immigration enforcement tactics have gone over the line. Yet he's been elected and re-elected every four years since 1992. Attempts to recall him have failed. Voters continue to return him to office with double-digit margins. They applaud his putting prisoners in tent cities, giving them pink underwear, and conducting a forced march of inmates from one prison to another clad only in their pink underwear and flip-flops.

Arpaio boasts of cutting the budget for prison expenditures and news reports say that even while he makes prisoners pay for their meals he's cut the cost per meal below a dollar, less than is spent on food for guard dogs. Yet the county has lost numerous lawsuits that may have cost it more in judgments and moral damage than Sheriff Joe's grandstanding. Voters in Arizona don't seem to do the math of ostensible budget savings against multi-million dollar payouts to settle inmate lawsuits.

Sheriff Joe is a poster child for what's wrong with American law enforcement. All the good done by well-run, well-trained police who put their lives on the line with every seemingly minor traffic stop is undermined by the vigilante attitude and actions of a renegade sheriff. Sheriff Joe, who has been called "America's Worst Sheriff," continues to abuse our civil liberties and our moral standing by whipping voters into frenzy and playing to some of the worst tendencies in America's voting public. He is too proud and full of himself to admit failings or feel ashamed; but we should be ashamed of him, and regret the votes that keep returning him to power.

With a sheriff like Joe, no wonder we find a way to believe in heroes like Robin Hood.

]]> Jon Welsh Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:23:48 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/sheriff-joe-an-ugly-american.html Failing Education http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/IXtTPR93YL8/failing-education.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/failing-education.html Much is made of reforming education in America. In Washington, D.C. Chancellor Michelle Rhee is struggling to fix a dismal education system. A bit down the street in the U.S. Department of Education, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is figuring... Much is made of reforming education in America. In Washington, D.C. Chancellor Michelle Rhee is struggling to fix a dismal education system. A bit down the street in the U.S. Department of Education, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is figuring out how to use nearly $5 billion to create incentives and mandates that will improve education practices throughout the land; he calls it a "moon shot."

It's not enough to throw stimulus funds at education while at the same time cutting Title I funding and other education programs. Doing so threatens our legacy of upward mobility by taking away the one asset proven to give opportunity to all and to equalize the disparities between the disadvantaged and the privileged. Bill and Melinda Gates get it.

Money changes everything, and right now, as Paul Krugman points out, the lack of it is causing disproportionate job losses in education. These job losses endanger our future because they shortchange our children and future generations upon whose inventions and productivity our long-term wellbeing depends. Politicians who cut funding for education may be caught between a rock and a hard place, but even in a time of crisis taking away from those with the most unrealized potential is shortsighted and cowardly.

Cuts in education will hurt most those who have the least. Because local public schools are funded primarily by real estate taxes, those areas where the collapse of property values and the recession have hit hardest have no resources to replace loss of government funding. Bob Herbert wrote an article about the dismal life and diminished prospects for inner-city youth earlier this week and had some interesting math: 40,000 new troops requested for Afghanistan, and 40,000 teachers losing their jobs in the past year. The President's 2010 budget called for a $20.5 billion increase in military spending to $533 billion, while increasing education spending only $1.4 billion to $46 billion.

There's something wrong with a country that spends more than ten times its education budget on troops and weapons. Perhaps if we had a better educated citizenry we might have the intelligence to create jobs, industries, and sound domestic and foreign policies that would reduce our risk and thus our need for guns and foreign military expeditions. Perhaps with a better educated citizenry we would be free of the jingoism of talk show hosts whose only purpose is to rile up unthinking audiences and pile up cash in their own bank accounts.

We are failing to provide for our future as long as education remains a fee-for-service enterprise rather than a fundamental right. As long as elementary and secondary schools are funded by local taxes we will continue to see great disparities between wealthy communities and those less fortunate. As long as higher education remains an expensive undertaking that finds students in debt before they've graduated and found their first job (and when will they find that first job with employment being scarce and jobs being a "lagging indicator" of economic recovery?) we will be pricing ourselves out of our own future. At the rate we're going, the future is not something we'll be able to afford, and we'll be too ignorant to figure out why.

]]> Jon Welsh Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:32:52 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/failing-education.html One-Term Obama: A Profile in Courage http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/E8CnLn6WcrA/one-term-obama-a-profile-in-courage.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/one-term-obama-a-profile-in-courage.html We've spent trillions trying to make the country safe. But without fundamental reforms to health care and education there won't be anyone left to be kept safe. Reforms, not just tinkering around the edges of the current systems, trying to... We've spent trillions trying to make the country safe. But without fundamental reforms to health care and education there won't be anyone left to be kept safe. Reforms, not just tinkering around the edges of the current systems, trying to please every interest group and lobby. Someone dies every 12 minutes in America because they didn't have health care. Education is being ravaged by budget deficits at the state and local level. So our future looks like this: a country of undereducated citizens unable to find work in a knowledge economy, with a lifetime of depressed earnings because of their lack of learning, unable to pursue lifelong learning and dying early because they don't have or can't afford health care.

For all the good he can do, President Obama should stake his presidency on universal health care, a public option, and drive a stake through the heart of the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans. He should promise to veto any bill without a public option, and insist that implementation take place as soon as possible, not in several years. He's got the Nobel Peace Prize; let him seize the high ground on a moral issue that is essential to America, and one where we continue to lag behind the rest of the developed world, as we have for nearly a century.

He's given the legislators time to work out details, and they've dallied away days, weeks, and months. He's listened to the concerns of insurance companies, health care providers, drug companies, and they've dug in their heels to protect their markets. The Republicans have been enjoying a picnic lunch, watching the show and complaining that the meal wasn't catered for them.

Thank goodness the insurance industry provided an opening for the public option to be put back on the table with the self-serving and threatening report they issued today. They made it clear that without penalties to force everyone into the risk pool, insurance premiums could rise as much as $4,000 per person annually, and more for families. Shame on them, scaremongering like that.

What better argument could be made for ending state regulation of the insurance industry and providing a nationwide risk pool? Once the states are out of the game the industry would realize substantial reductions in administrative costs (whoa, we don't have to file and comply with 50 different sets of regulations? We'll have to downsize!). There would be huge consolidation in the industry – no need for several thousand health insurance providers in a single large market with a public option – further reducing administrative and executive costs. The government wouldn't have to regulate premiums or reimbursements, because its market power would essentially determine the competitive landscape. And when the public option provides coverage without regard for preexisting conditions, is portable when changing jobs or relocating, and doesn't cap or cut off coverage, the private market would adapt or die.

Under the current economic conditions it makes no sense to talk about penalizing people for not having health care coverage. It makes no sense at all to think about penalties for something that should be a basic human right. The selfish arguments of the insurance companies and their fear-peddling tactics show why they should be thanked for their opinions and given the choice to participate in a market with a public option or go seek employment elsewhere.

If the President is serious about making real change on an issue that he says defines our time, he has to push the Democrats to get behind a public option and be willing to leave them and his second term behind.

]]> Jon Welsh Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:20:38 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/one-term-obama-a-profile-in-courage.html A Lilliput in Googleland http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/HVr8IrGc-nw/a-lilliput-in-googleland.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/a-lilliput-in-googleland.html Years ago the stock broker I was dealing with couldn't (I think wouldn't) get his hands on any shares from Netscape's IPO, and I lost a fortune before I made it. He suggested I put the funds I'd given him... Years ago the stock broker I was dealing with couldn't (I think wouldn't) get his hands on any shares from Netscape's IPO, and I lost a fortune before I made it. He suggested I put the funds I'd given him into Micron Technologies, which promptly tanked and ate up a good portion of the capital I'd invested. After that debacle I started trading on my own and gave up believing in the integrity of Wall Street.

Then AOL went public. I knew I should sell the car, bike to work, and put every available penny into buying AOL stock, but I didn't. Nor did I jump ship, leaving my university position to go to work for AOL, taking stock warrants and becoming an AOL millionaire. There's more to that story, to be told another time. Another fortune lost. For the next few years I did fairly well buying AOL low and selling high as its stock values bounced around like a pinball machine racking up bonus points. When the Time-Warner/AOL merger came along, I bailed out as soon as I got the news, preserving most of what I'd gained selling AOL short.

There were other dalliances along the way: Novell, Iomega and eBay and a few others. There were times that I thought I should go to work for Microsoft instead of being paid a relative pittance for teaching others how to think about technology and how to use Microsoft.

Then came Google.

They were the best. Google's arrival reminded me of my first wife, who swept into a sunlit room at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday morning to conduct a meeting where I had been sent to gather intelligence. With her presence, her intelligence and ambition, her blond hair, a smile that called to me even before we'd met, a late-summer yellow-and-black print dress against the green-and-gold of an autumn morning bathing the room through the window behind her, providing backlighting that was nearly incarnate, I was in love with her before she knew who I was.

So it was with Google. Google came along and found things I didn't know I was looking for; and things I didn't know I'd lost or never had. They kept pushing the boundaries of internet possibilities, and while I marveled at their innovation, I also asked why the hell Microsoft or other software companies weren't paying attention and didn't think of this. I've been there at the beginning so many times, I thought, and still haven't reached the Promised Land.

Today Google is a behemoth, and I'm not a Google millionaire. That's good because I'm sure the next woman who provides a love spark in my life will not be chasing my dividends and net worth. If I become famous through blogging or my poetry or other creative writing that's another matter. Meanwhile Google continues to innovate and as they accrete power and grow older they suffer from both arrogance and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Sergey Brin, one of Google's founders, wrote an opinion piece this week that is both idealistic and self-serving. Much has been made of Google's ambition to provide all the world's information online and in particular, to manifest that goal by digitizing the world's books. All of them. It's a noble goal. No more risk that a library burning or flooding will destroy the only extant copy of a book (let's try to avoid global thermonuclear war). No more will the elite universities and libraries be able to restrict access and charge premium tuitions to reach into the rare book collections, a privilege I had when studying at the University of Chicago. No more will scholars be able to cite sources for their authority that readers will have to take on faith, unable to check the original citation. It is a noble ideal, and, as Brin points out, although the proposal came up early in Google's ascendancy, it was daunting even to them.

On the other hand, the issues of how authors get paid for internet access to their works and the related copyright issues, as well as Google's de facto monopoly over the emerging digitized book industry pose problems for many. Google negotiated a settlement to a class-action lawsuit from the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers that purports to deal with copyright and compensation issues. However, many other stakeholders in this seminal battle have taken issue with the terms of the proposed agreement, and the courts are revisiting the matter. The European Union has its own perspective, and at this time Google's project has been scaled back so that European books will not be digitized.

Ken Auletta published an informed and informative article about Google in the October 12 New Yorker. It's difficult to tell when opposition to Google is based on principle, whether its privacy concerns, restraining monopoly power, copyright issues or predatory behavior, and when those stated objections are just smokescreens for jealousy or reactions to Google's sometimes self-inflicted wounds. Auletta quotes a Microsoft executive who says "People dislike Google for the same reason they disliked us: arrogance."

Will Google be tied down enough by opposition to its innovations and by competition to prevent it from becoming too big to fail? What would happen to American and worldwide commerce if Google, which now pulls in forty percent of all online advertising and whose revenues are more than two-thirds of all U.S. newspaper advertising? I liked the recent New Yorker cartoon caption contest showing Gulliver being lashed down by the Lilliputians, although I would have voted for the more edgy caption showing the behemoth searching for his safe word, as Google now tries to negotiate freedoms to achieve its goal of digitizing all the world's information while recognizing that the ties that bind can cut off its circulation.

Let's see what happens when Google gets free of Lilliput and lands in Brobdingnag.

]]> Jon Welsh Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:57:18 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/a-lilliput-in-googleland.html Infernal Fires http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/wG1Qlbqd8a4/infernal-fires.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/infernal-fires.html Today is the anniversary of the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. Many remember it by the now-discredited story of Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicking over a lantern. Fewer remember that today is also the day of the Great Peshtigo Fire in... Today is the anniversary of the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. Many remember it by the now-discredited story of Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicking over a lantern. Fewer remember that today is also the day of the Great Peshtigo Fire in Wisconsin, and several other fires that same day which destroyed towns and tracts of land across Wisconsin, Michigan, and into Canada. According to local lore, many in Peshtigo did not flee the disaster because they believed the end of the world was at hand.

Peshtigo was a small town full of immigrants of largely Germanic and Scandinavian descent working the lumber mills and local industries. Most of what burned was timberland, but the fire was the deadliest U.S. wildfire on record. It took more than 800 lives from a village of 1,700, and when adding in deaths from neighboring villages and rural areas the death toll is reported as between 1,200 and 2,500. That's more lives lost than in any other natural disaster in the United States. Hurricane Katrina's death toll is now estimated at around 902 directly from the storm, and around 1,500 total.

Fires had been smoldering in the peat bogs of northern Wisconsin and small outcroppings of fire here and there had created a smoky atmosphere that forced ships to stand offshore and use their fog horns. The air was hazy, full of smoke, and difficult to breath. Preachers were warning of the second coming, the end nigh at hand, and many believed them. When the fire exploded and torched the land, many believed attempts to flee would be futile. Having made no preparations those who believed that nonsense gave in to the delusion that the world was ending. Their world ended in the fire of prophecy.

Chicago's fire burned some 2,000 acres with relatively few lives lost, perhaps 300. 100,000 were left homeless, however, which is a tragedy of a different kind, and the property loss was tremendous. The Peshtigo fire burned some 1,200,000 acres, making it one of the largest wildfires on record, covering nearly as much land as all U.S. wildfires did in 1998. Although the true cause of the Chicago Fire is unknown, the coincidence of so many fires over such a large geographical area led some to speculate that meteor showers are to blame. Absent firm knowledge, the more fantastic say it was fire from heaven. Invaders from outer space. Judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah.

It's typical of our species to look for causes, and to invent explanations where we are unable to discern a reason. Because death, pain, and suffering are unavoidable many believe the devil is at work; once the devil is at hand, God is necessary. In politics, because we are now so polarized, Republicans demonize Democrats (Democrats are too fractious to demonize anyone although many still exhibit inexcusable manners). This situation is repeated over and over throughout the world, tribe against tribe, sect against sect, nation against nation.

These behaviors seem obvious in some ways, although I'm sure the genetic researchers and those mapping the brain will offer many competing explanations for their origins, persistence, and remediation. Some believe in fate and thus resign themselves to events that prove fatal. Some blame others who disagree with them and consider opposition the root of all evil.

What seems clear to me is that anger and hate, and the willful enmity of those who cannot respect others, is far from the fire from heaven; not a cosmic accident; and something to be fought against both in our personal and political lives. Otherwise we risk being victims of a great fire like the ones that killed so many on the same day in 1871, but more likely a fire we start in ourselves that may consume us all.

]]> Jon Welsh Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:05:17 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/infernal-fires.html The Week in Entertainment http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/lTPAfj6xKA8/the-week-in-entertainment.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/the-week-in-entertainment.html Nancy Franklin writing in The New Yorker skewered Jay Leno and NBC, and rightfully so. Jay's talent is being wasted because NBC never had a hit they couldn't kill, and despite Leno's reported $30 million salary, the network is saving... Nancy Franklin writing in The New Yorker skewered Jay Leno and NBC, and rightfully so. Jay's talent is being wasted because NBC never had a hit they couldn't kill, and despite Leno's reported $30 million salary, the network is saving money.

Fred Armisen on Saturday Night Live roasted Barack Obama in a hilarious skit about change we haven't seen. Maybe someone at the White House was watching the show. Maybe some of Obama's majorities in Congress were still awake and got the message, too.

Mercedes Sosa, an Argentinian singer who was both musical and political, died at 74. Her courage in the face of the dictatorship and years of exile show how artists can be both great and socially responsible.

Tom DeLay, trying to get enough attention to soothe his ego by appearing on Dancing with the Stars, injured both his right foot and his other right foot and withdrew from the competition. He blamed it on his partner, saying he'd really wanted to dance with Sarah Palin. (Just kidding, as Kristen Wiig would say).

Rush Limbaugh got slammed by two conservatives. Joe Scarborough lit into him after he got sassier than usual and chortled about President Obama losing his bid to win the Olympics for Chicago, saying he got "bitch-slapped." David Brooks used Rush to pillory the Republican party in general. Great blood sport watching the dog fights among Republicans exercising their free speech rights while the pit bulls aren't muzzled.

How could we not mention Roman Polanski being asked to face the music after he fled the finale of his trial and conviction for taking advantage of a 13-year-old girl years ago? So far the Swiss have resisted calls to set him free or set bail, and he could spend years in prison simply appealing extradition if the United States requests that he be sent back here to face the consequences of his flight.

Then there's David Letterman proving that he knows the tune to George Harrison's "I Me Mine" as well as anyone mentioned here.

Thank goodness for all these stars and their ability to distract us from terrorist plots, earthquakes, global warming, and a host of other plagues.

]]> Jon Welsh Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:48:30 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/the-week-in-entertainment.html I’m Depressed and You Should Be Too http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/1kXI2oD-71E/im-depressed-and-you-should-be-too.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/im-depressed-and-you-should-be-too.html The only problem with what they're calling the "Great Recession" is that it isn't the "Great Depression." Really, we'd be far better off if the unemployment rate was 28% and more than half the country didn't have health care. Then... The only problem with what they're calling the "Great Recession" is that it isn't the "Great Depression." Really, we'd be far better off if the unemployment rate was 28% and more than half the country didn't have health care. Then the politicians would be motivated to fix something. If they didn't angry voters would make some serious changes, and losing that cushy Congressional job would put them out of work along with everyone else.

As it is, all our politicians have to do is continue raising corporate funds and stir the pot of their political agenda and corporate allegiances instead of helping people get jobs, health care, and improving the quality of life. I'm writing for scratch and members of Congress can't figure out how to give everyone in America the same health care benefits and pensions they enjoy. What's wrong with that picture?

What right do they have to enjoy such privilege and yet bow to corporate interests that deny everyone in the country the same necessities they enjoy? Since when did health care become an option dependent on the profit motive of insurance companies, and retirement benefits something that might or might not survive corporate bankruptcies and financial fraud? This is how we value human life in America? Health care depends on policies written by profit-seeking companies, and old-age security is put at risk by pension plans from companies that can abrogate their promises at any time?

That's why this "Great Recession" that so many are saying is "officially over" is such a calamity. If we had a true depression there wouldn't be stinkpot arguments about how big the stimulus package should be, or whether we need another one. There wouldn't be partisan arguments about health care reform in which Republicans who can say "No!" have found friends in enough pink-blooded Democrats to kill the public option and take profit out of dying. There would be government investments that would put people to work until the economy recovered, resulting in new roads, schools, public buildings, art and a host of other things that the private sector can't or won't provide at the moment.

Future historians may well write "The history of America's decline started with the Great Recession." It's bad with 50 million living without health coverage and nearly 10% unemployed (the number is higher if you add in those who have simply stopped trying to find work because they are depressed by the prospects). But it's not so bad that voters have thrown out of office those who stand in the way of meaningful reforms and regulation. I'm astonished that so many middle- and lower-class Americans still vote against their own best interests and support Republicans, angry that the Democrats remain such a fractured coalition, and mystified at independents who play both sides against the middle.

If we had experienced a true economic disaster – a depression – rather than what is being written up as an economic crisis – our recession – it might have been better. There's no question that millions of Americans (and many more around the world who invested in America and also lost their shirts) are suffering. We're being told the recession is over by government officials and economists (to whom we owe little thanks for their ideas and policy influence over the past few decades), yet there is little to show for it. Wall Street and the bankers are still running amok. Unemployment is still rising and we're being told it will be many years before jobs return. The long-term effects of such a slow recovery may be even more devastating for the economy and our children's future.

I thought I could make this piece a satire but it's too depressing. Sorry to bum you out too, but thanks for reading this far. If you're not too depressed and still have enough anger and motivation to take action, send a message to your elected representatives, local, state and federal. Send them this blog if you don't want to write something yourself.

]]> Jon Welsh Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:32:03 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/im-depressed-and-you-should-be-too.html The New You: Biobricks by Lego http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/_HsxcbaVPKg/the-new-you-biobricks-by-lego.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/the-new-you-biobricks-by-lego.html Synthetic. Completely programmed. Got cancer? Just kill the cells that are running amok by reprogramming their DNA, and program new, healthy cells to take their place. Want a green-eyed baby with curly brown hair? It's a DNA program your doctor... Synthetic. Completely programmed. Got cancer? Just kill the cells that are running amok by reprogramming their DNA, and program new, healthy cells to take their place. Want a green-eyed baby with curly brown hair? It's a DNA program your doctor can provide. Need a new drug or chemical? Grab a cell culture, dump in the DNA programming and make it. Want a new pet, a creature unique and never before seen? Make it yourself. Finally, if you really, really support the end of coal mining, oil drilling, and fossil fuel production, watch the U.S. Joint BioEnergy Institute at work making synfuels with nothing more than large vats of cell cultures and DNA strands. That's where synthetic biology is going. Quickly.

For one view of how it got started and what's happening check out Michael Specter's superb article in the September 28 New Yorker. An example: malaria, a global scourge for centuries and a target of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is a disease that may yield to the advances synthetic biology brings. However, a close look at the research shows how tenacious an enemy the parasite is, killing a child in Africa every 40 seconds of every day. Add in other countries around the world and the mortality is staggering. Let's hope the scientists get this right, and soon.

Technological utopianism of this kind is nothing new – and there are many dangers in placing too much hope in fundamental research before the hard lab work yields tangible results. No one will argue about the creation of cures for disease, or making fuels with less environmental impact. But the possibility of creating new forms of life, or engineering humans brings with it a set of ethical and moral questions, and very real dangers. There's always a risk of the Frankenstein effect, where the lab creation runs amok and creates havoc.

Former President George W. Bush convened a Council on Bioethics in 2001. The Council published a poor attempt at wrestling with the issues titled "Being Human" which was out of print and unavailable almost as soon as it was printed. That's a misuse of public funds, but given how widely the Council driven by a conservative agenda missed the mark, it's probably not a bad outcome. In 2005 they published a more credible report entitled "Human Dignity and Bioethics" which at least grappled with the issues avoided in the earlier report, even if the political slant remained decidedly conservative.

Oil-eating microbes that help cleanup oil spills are old news in synthetic biology. Great idea, fixing a man-made problem caused by our dependence on crude oil and its refined products. But one expert I talked to wondered what happens if the microbes mutate and start eating fish oil, and decimate ocean food stocks? No more sushi, no more tuna steaks. Without an ocean food chain who knows what would happen to our food supply? I'm not eager to know the answer to that question. Soylent Green comes to mind.

Now we have microbes that eat garbage and produce oil. If they scale up to commercial production there will be a sunset ceremony for petro dictators in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria and several other countries. We may have moved on to electric cars but we'll still need petroleum for heating and a wide variety of consumer products and packaging.

The technology for all the science fiction mentioned in the first paragraph is out and readily available, as Michael Specter points on, on eBay for a low price. The knowledge barrier is a bit higher, but not insurmountable. The threat of bioterrorism goes far beyond the crude anthrax attacks in the United States or the subway attacks in Tokyo.

Governments have to be on the lookout for attacks of new agents never before seen. Legislators have to think about the laws and treaties they will create to establish some social norms for that portion of civilization that they can control.

Will we allow – or can we prevent - the creation of new household pets? Will it be OK to genetically program our children before they are born? What if another country decides to genetically spawn 7-foot tall warriors with no fear of death, resistance to pain and disease, and little emotional capacity beyond following orders?

Scientists and governments are asking the questions, but may not be able to regulate and control the answers. Regulation and prohibition have not proven to be successful strategies across a wide variety of products and technologies; there's no reason to believe that they will succeed with biosynthesis. We'll see.

]]> Jon Welsh Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:49:07 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/10/the-new-you-biobricks-by-lego.html Red Sky All Day http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/XxBBXoeptKU/red-sky-all-day.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/09/red-sky-all-day.html "Red sky at night, sailor's delight. Red sky in morning, sailor's warning." What about when the sky is red all day, as it was during the recent dust storm that enveloped Sydney, Australia? Forget the lovely PR photos of the... "Red sky at night, sailor's delight. Red sky in morning, sailor's warning." What about when the sky is red all day, as it was during the recent dust storm that enveloped Sydney, Australia? Forget the lovely PR photos of the Opera House's full white sails rising up over blue water under a blue sky. We're talking about an ugly premonition of days to come as an overheated earth dries up, and then whips us with storms of increasing fury. I used to think that we wouldn't see red skies all day until billions of years from now when the sun enters old age, turning into a red giant and burning up the earth. By then, I hoped our descendants would have found some other planet to inhabit. I'm not sure we have the intelligence to make it that far.

You think today's health insurance companies are vultures because they limit coverage for conditions with a cure or cancel policies when someone gets sick? Just wait until the skies are red, or black, or cast in the colors of recurrent catastrophes. Wait until the property insurance companies realize that they going to lose their bets big time. Maybe they'll insure your home against arson; but they'll soon be excluding forest fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wind-toppled trees, and other natural disasters. In policy legalese, it will take an "Act of God" to get insurance and divine dispensation to collect on a claim.

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." There must be a reason so many love the idyll of living in harmony with nature. Who doesn't enjoy beautiful sunsets, a walk in the woods, vistas full of abundant crops, forests, and water? Our vain attempts to control and conquer nature and claim that humans place first in the order of things threaten our future. There is a certain savage irony here - the very efforts we make to sanctify life, to prolong and preserve life, bring us to the brink of ecological disaster based on population growth, energy consumption, and our continual rape of the earth for its natural resources. If once we had a love affair with nature, I'm sure that in Sydney, New Orleans, or eastern Tennessee they felt like it was a long time ago.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many others continue to deny the environmental threats and impending disasters threatening us. They ignore the scientific consensus that climate change driven by our population growth and flawed energy policies is rapidly tipping the earth toward conditions that will have negative consequences for all. We don't have a few thousand years to predict and prepare for the next ice age; we don't have to worry about the sun burning us up in a few billions years. At the current rate of change we're creating the conditions for disasters that will dramatically disrupt life as we know it. But weak-kneed legislators backed by powerful business interests ignore the science and push the opiates: buy now, consume now, it's all for me now, now, now.

The Chamber of Commerce is so misguided that Peter Darbee, CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric, cancelled his company's membership, accusing the Chamber of "disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality" of climate change. Many who argue against clean energy and taxing fossil fuels out of the market while funding new technologies use similar deceptive pro-consumer rhetoric. They cry that sound energy and conservation policies will cost the average family so many more dollars a year – and of course that's a bad thing. They argue it will cost us jobs – adding insult to injury in the current economic climate. But they ignore the jobs and industries we can create if we invest heavily in green technologies. China is doing it, and when they win that race we'll not only have lost additional jobs but we'll be paying China for every solar panel, every battery, and other core parts of our energy economy. They ignore the inevitable and catastrophic costs of paying for natural disasters whose violence and damage increase year by year because of global warming.

When the skies turn red and we eat dust maybe we'll rethink our refusal to invest in a cooler future.

]]> Jon Welsh Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:58:03 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/09/red-sky-all-day.html Smoke ‘Em Out http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DemocraticViews/~3/EB-XQta1rcc/smoke-em-out.html http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/09/smoke-em-out.html Smokers in China inhale three times as many cigarettes as an American addict. This is great, because with three times our population and the threat that their economy will overrun ours we need the highest Chinese mortality figures we can... Smokers in China inhale three times as many cigarettes as an American addict. This is great, because with three times our population and the threat that their economy will overrun ours we need the highest Chinese mortality figures we can get without starting yet another war. Because they're godless communists, have that wonderful one-child rule leading to state-sponsored abortion and infanticide, we should be looking for some enlightened social policy foundation to give them an award. Americans who stop smoking are showing their patriotism by enlisting in the tobacco war against China.

In India they smoke bidis, which is good news because they too have a billion people and are growing much too quickly. Fortunately, bidis are three to five times more toxic than cigarettes. The only way the U.S. and other developed nations will maintain their economic power is if they continue to reduce tobacco use while the developing world remains largely uneducated and increasingly addicted to tobacco products. Because tobacco kills someone every six seconds and shortens a smoker's life by about fifteen years, it's a classic silent killer that should be a foundation for our imperialist foreign policy.

Forget gunboat diplomacy and large expeditionary forces. Buy stock in tobacco companies so they have the capital to continue expanding into the developing world. Those "socially responsible" retirement and 401(k) plans that don't buy stock in tobacco companies have it exactly backwards, a typical socialist inversion of human values. The Democratic Views Perverse Fund recommends buying stock in Philip Morris, British American Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International.

Even though tobacco is the only legally available consumer product which kills people when it is used entirely as intended we can't outlaw it in America, no matter how good that would be. First, we know prohibition doesn't work. Look at our past success with outlawing alcohol and our current failures with marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, and amphetamines. But most important, trying to ban tobacco would be hypocritical. We have enough geopolitical problems driven by our commitments to Israel, to oil despots, or our own nuclear weapons programs. Adding yet another hypocrisy to the list would not be in our national self-interest.

As long as we have smokers in the U.S. then China, India, and other countries can't accuse us of trying to poison them pure and simple. We can say "oh no, we're in the same boat as you are; tobacco is a problem, we agree." Smokers, somewhat ironically, are our first line of defense against complaints that we are waging a tobacco war: they give us plausible deniability.

Leaving this aside, we need a little Darwinian selection here, too. We should have humane and compassionate addiction treatment programs for those who sincerely want to quit. Let them chew gum. Dan Brown and Christopher Buckley apparently have uncovered classified memos that when released some years from now will show that we knew all along we had to end smoking in America. In the meantime, we need to figure out ways of letting those who persist in shortening their lives and costing our economy more that $47 billion every year go down that road as quickly as possible with minimal impacts on our health care systems. We need to bury them with honor.

We're all for health care reform as long as it doesn't address tobacco as a killing agent and lead us into another futile war on drugs. So smoke away. (Note to marijuana enthusiasts: be careful where you fire up that joint until medical marijuana and legalization efforts are more mainstream.) Smoke happily, secure in the knowledge that smokers are true patriots, putting their lives on the line for our country. Lead by example: the more developing countries want our lifestyle the sooner their mortality rates will rise to meet ours, and we won't look so bad in the public policy debates on our wasteful health care system. Follow all the links in this article and you'll discover that there are plenty of facts, you just have to smoke 'em out.

]]> Current Affairs Satire Jon Welsh Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:22:02 -0400 http://www.democraticviews.org/democratic_views/2009/09/smoke-em-out.html