"Blinding the Faithful"--Al Gore

I took my children to Paradise Lake today, and finished reading the chapter called "Blinding the Faithful" in Al Gore's book The Assault on Reason.

There is a passion these days to defend the Christian faith politically, because it is in danger of slipping away--at least in the form that has been known in by the faithful for centuries. The peculiarly European Protestant Christian heritage found refuge in the early United States, and there are many today who believe that this is a last stand to preserve it. And in this political movement, it is often claimed that America was founded as a "Christian" nation. I recently relayed a quote from John Adams cited early in the chapter by Gore. Adams signed a treaty, passed by the Senate, that clarified the issue for their day: "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan Nation."

In this chapter, Gore starts with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, who said that the leader of a state-sanctioned religion "has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

Gore recognizes that the Founders weren't "irreligious." He writes, "They knew then--as most of us feel now--that despite the many clashes between reason and faith, these cohabit much more easily in the mind than do reason and fear."

But there seems to be a rebirth of fundamentalism worldwide. Gore wonders if part of the reason for this could be the rapid rate of increase in technological change that is transforming our world. It makes people afraid, and they are possibly clinging ever more tenaciously to past tradition in response. And, as he says, "In simple terms, when fear and anxiety play a larger role in our society, logic and reason play a diminished role in our collective decision making."

Gore talks about the system of checks and balances within the federal government. And the Founder's wisdom at giving no preference to a particular religious sect. He talks about how one of the things that set our government apart was the belief that the government itself "has no God-given rights," but that the government derives its power from the people. It is the people who have God-given rights. For this reason, much of the Founder's emphasis was on combating any concentration of power.

But this entire beautiful system depends on a "well-informed citizenry" that reads, and has accept to information through an independent print media. He emphasizes print, because it is less easy for information to be "spun" in print. The mind is more actively engaged when reading than in the passive act of watching or hearing the news.

But he laments: "Our facility with rational analysis is not what it used to be. The truth is, reading and writing simply don't play as important a role in how we interact with the world as they used to."

He compares the informed citizenry to the body's immune system. It prevents disease from taking over, because it recognizes it and checks it before it can grow.

Gore believes that the current conservative movement has gone to war with this system through an alliance that has developed between what he calls the "economic royalists" who mainly want to cut taxes and regulations against the wealthiest creating more wealth, the foreign-policy hawks who simply want to spread U.S. power around the world, and the religious right. They all make use of a well-oiled propaganda machine led by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

This chapter focuses on the role of the religious right. George Bush has used it in many ways, but most especially when it came to the war. From the beginning, he proclaimed it to be a war of good versus evil. He went so far as to say he was going to "rid the world of evil." I think we'll have to be at war for a long time to accomplish that. (Forever.) In this war of good versus evil, he has said that you're either for us or against us. He originally said that in the context of other nations, but the same thought is true within our country. If you question the war, you're "unpatriotic," and a "traitor." Gore says that some pundits like Ann Coulter have even suggested that "liberals" should fear for their lives. They led us to a war that they called a "Crusade." And they tortured in the name of Jesus. Opinions that differed from the administration's coming from the military or the CIA were threatened with being fired.

There is an awful lot of important material in these pages, but I can't get it all in here. Let me conclude with this one paragraph:

"Make no mistake: It is the president's reactionary ideology, not his religious faith, that is the source of his troubling inflexibility. Whatever his religious views, President Bush has such an absolute certainty in the validity of his rigid right-wing ideology that he does not feel the same desire that many of us would in gathering facts relevant to the questions at hand. As a result, he ignores the warnings of his own experts, forbids dissent, and often refuses to test his assumptions against the best available evidence. He is, in fact, out of touch with reality, and his recklessness risks the safety and security of the American people."

And, by the way, there's a Draft Al Gore for President site, if you're interested. I have to say that if he were running, he'd be my choice at this point.

Pluto: What's in a Definition?

I came across an interesting article by Alan Boyle tonight that could work well in my Critical Thinking class.

Apparently, Alan Stern is NASA's lead man on Pluto, and he says that the new definition on planets by the IAU shouldn't be bowed to so quickly. "Many people just refuse to use the IAU definition," he explains. "Although a lot of teachers think the IAU [decision] is a done deal, people are slowly coming to realize, 'Not so fast.'"

When it was discovered that Eris and Ceres were even more distant small, icy planets, a choice had to be made. We could add to the list of planets, or classify Eris and Ceres as something else. But if Eris and Ceres aren't quite "true" planets, then is Pluto? The IAU decided that it is not. It would be better to say that our solar system has eight planets, and several dwarf planets, or planetoids, beyond those eight.

One aspect of their definition that has caused trouble is that it is said that a true planet must have "cleared the neighborhood of its orbit." But many have argued that if this is so, Jupiter might be argued to not be a planet, because of the asteroids in its orbit.

The point to be made for critical thinkers is that the definitions at the base of our arguments are a tricky business. It is sometimes difficult to say exactly what something is. Augustine, in the 11th book of his Confessions says he knows what 'time' is until someone asks him to define it. Then it gets problematic. The same could be said for planets. The same could be said for a 'person'. And as anyone who has spent much time on ethical issues knows, defining a 'person' makes all the difference in the world to many debates, not the least of which is the abortion question.

One of the important philosophical questions is what we expect to get out of a definition. Some of us believe that we're trying to say what something really is in itself. From a naive point of view, that seems obvious. From the point of view of philosophical training, it takes a little bit of nerve to argue the case.

One way of dealing with the problem raised by skeptics, who insist that we can't really know anything about the world as it is in itself, is the pragmatic solution. That's raised by Stern in this article. As Boyle writes, "Stern trusts that the scientific debate will eventually settle on the right answer - about Pluto, and about the worlds to come." Stern expresses the pragmatic point of view quite succinctly when he says, "Things that don't work fall by the wayside. Things that do work are the ones that we keep."

I am something of a pragmatist. I believe that some statements have more "cash value" as James put it than others. But pragmatism divides into two schools of thought: roughly the difference between William James and Charles Peirce. James seems not to have thought we could get at the truth. Peirce believed that we could, and certainly believed that the scientific enterprise is about trying to get it right. The former view is nominalistic. The latter is realistic. Peirce believed that much that had gone wrong in philosophy was due to nominalism. Nominalism is the view that our concepts are just names we give to things. On that view, we can call whatever we want a planet, and the only question is what works for us. It's up to us what a planet is, and what it is not. Peirce, like Stern, would have said that scientists will eventually "get it right." That's a realist's expectation. I agree with Peirce and Stern.

But it's not easy to see why nominalism isn't true. Is there any way to tell that the IAU's definition is right, and that its critics are wrong? Is there any way to tell that the critics are right and that the IAU is wrong? We'll have to wait and see. The reason pointed to above suggests that an inconsistency may shoot the IAU's definition down, unless they're willing to reclassify Jupiter as well.

What is a person? Can a machine be a person? Can a robot be a person? Can an animal be a person? Can a fetus be a person? Can we know the answer to these questions? Or is it a matter of whatever works for us?

What is God? How we answer that may go a long way toward determining whether we consider ourselves to be atheists or theists. If I had to accept the traditional definition of God, I'd probably have to agree with the critics who say that such a being can't exist. Can a perfect being create an imperfect world? No. Do we live in an imperfect world? I'd have to say that we do. But I have an experience of a power that I could call "the force" from having watched too many Star Wars films enthusiastically. I have an experience of what I could call "chi." And given the modifications I've made to the concepts that were taught to me about God from the Judeo-Christian heritage of my childhood, I still believe that there is an intelligent source behind this power that flows through everything. But not only is that source not a man with a grey beard resembling a cosmic Gandalf, but that source is not perfectly omnipotent or omniscient. The world is in flux, and my "God" doesn't coerce. It persuades. And that's all my God can do. It is limited in what it can do: in the illusory world of our everyday experience.

Is such an intelligent source worthy of the name "God"? Is it possible I should just give up on such a term? I personally believe that this source is worthy of our devotion. And I believe that the traditional God who would be personally responsible for all the devastation that the world has ever seen, including the Holocaust, is not worthy of devotion. From my point of view, if there is such a being that is worthy of devotion, then it deserves to be called "God." But I'm more of a stickler about the concept than the word. You can call it whatever you wish. If it's an intelligent source behind this life force that we feel, then we're in agreement, whether we call it the Tao, or Brahman, or Allah, the Absolute, or whatever.

But you see that our deductive arguments depend ultimately on premises that conclusions are deduced from. And our premises only have the power they do because they use concepts with agreed-upon definitions. And coming to such agreed-upon definitions can be a very tricky business indeed.

Is Our Water Safe to Drink?

There's an interesting interview with Laura Moser of Slate Magazine about tap and bottled water in The Washington Post. The following is but an excerpt:

New York: Isn't a lot of bottled water really just tap water?

Laura Moser: You're absolutely right -- about a third of all bottled water comes straight from our municipal water facilities. You may have read something about the Aquafina stink last month -- Pepsi has agreed to label its top-selling water more clearly, so that consumers know exactly what they're buying. Often, but not always, the repackaged tap goes through additional purification.

_______________________

Washington: About the leaching involved in reusable No. 7 bottles -- if you don't let the water sit in bottles in the sun, is it going to harm you? The use of plastic bottles for drinks needs to be reexamined -- let's look at recycling options, bottle refund options, etc.

Laura Moser: There's still way too much we don't yet know about the leaching in No. 7 bottles. The subject has stirred great controversy in recent years, as polycarbonate is the main plastic used in the manufacture of baby bottles, and Bisphenol A (the chemical that polycarbonate may or may not leach) poses particular risks to young children. The industry continues to claim that No. 7 is completely safe, but I'm not convinced yet. I don't think that keeping your bottle out of the sun will improve its safety, but I completely agree that re-examining our dependence on disposable bottles is urgently necessary.

Another point that comes out in the interview is that our recycling efforts are failing nationwide. We have diminishing rates of plastic recycling being done. That's astonishing to me. We must encourage legislation that requires deposits and returns on plastic bottles. It is unconscionable to simply throw 5 million plastic bottles in the earth every day.

Michael and Marcus Vick

Michael Vick, former quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons and Virginia Tech, is an exceptional athlete even among professional athletes. He comes with star power. It's not that he is, or ever could be, the best quarterback who ever played. I have been disgusted by the ridiculous praise that he's been given at times. The hope in some people's minds was that he'd learn to be a real passer, and with that, become the best quarterback that ever played the game. But there's every indication that he didn't have the mental acuity to read defenses to the degree he'd need to in order to be an elite quarterback. Nonetheless, Michael Vick has something that no one's ever seen in a quarterback before--at least, not to the extent that he has it. Vick has the athleticism at quarterback to always be a threat to turn a scramble into a touchdown on any given play. And for that reason he became the first quarterback to ever rush for over 1000 yards in the NFL.

We don't know if Michael Vick would be a good running back. He might not be. But when defenses are spread out worrying about Vick's rocket of an arm launching a pass down the field, Vick is as good as we've ever seen at taking advantage of that and romping down the field to turn a busted pass play into highlight-reel run.

There's a problem that comes with that, however, and that is that defenses begin gunning for you. There's a good chance that Vick could not get through many seasons without injury because he runs the ball so much. In 2001, he was on the injury report twice with a bad back. In 2002, he was on the injury report 6 times because of injuries to his hand and shoulder. In 2003, he was on the injury report 13 times, and missed 9 games, because of an injured leg. In 2005, he was on the injury report 4 times with leg and shoulder problems. 2004 and 2006 were his lucky years. In 2004, he was only on the injury report once. And he was never injured last year, and that's why he ran for so many yards. But how many years is he going to go uninjured when he runs the ball so much? Based on his history and the history of quarterbacks in general, he wasn't going to be so lucky too many years.

Even with his health last year, the Falcons weren't winning. It cost their coach his job. Vick was not living up to all the hype surrounding him, despite the highlight-quality runs he was pulling off. And so he, or his team, was getting booed. And Vick's response was to give his own fans not just one, but two middle fingers. Needless to say, this action didn't endear him with the fans, or Falcons management.

Before I go on, I should mention that in 2004, Michael Vick became the highest paid quarterback in NFL history, signing a 10-year, 130 million dollar contract with 37 million dollars in guaranteed bonus money besides that. This doesn't include the endorsement money that came to him left and right from companies like Nike, hoping to find the Michael Jordan of football. Would everyone want to be like Mike? Nike and others banked on it.

We didn't hear what kind of person Michael Vick was. We didn't see much of Vick because he seemed a little shy, actually. He's not very good in front of a camera. But we did start hearing about his wayward brother Marcus, who was a quarterback following in his brother's footsteps at Virginia Tech until he was expelled from the college due to a series of infractions that they could no longer put up with. In one case, he was convicted of providing alcohol to minor girls. In other case, he was sued by a girl who said that she had sex with Vick while she was a minor for two years, and that Vick had encouraged her to have sex with other men during that period. She also said that he had supplied her with alcohol and marijuana. At another point, Vick was arrested for reckless driving and possession of marijuana.

Virginia Tech suspended Marcus Vick, but gave him another chance. They were glad that he did, as he led their team to a bowl game and a chance for the national championship.

The problem was that character issues always seemed to short-circuit Vick's talent. Vick gave fans at the University of West Virginia the middle finger. It seems to run in the family. Maybe that's not all that runs in the family? Then Vick, during what should have been the highlight of his college career--playing in the bowl game--stomped on the arm of the opposing teams downed lineman. He didn't accidentally step on the arm of someone who was down. He stopped, took aim, and stomped on the arm. Then, while Virginia Tech was considering what to do about that, Vick aimed a gun at three teenagers in a McDonald's parking lot for allegedly saying something disparaging to his girlfriend.

As for the expulsion from college, Marcus Vick showed no remorse. In his arrogance, Vick simply told the press, "It's not a big deal. I'll just move on to the next level, baby." By the next level, he meant the NFL. Vick told interviewers that he was the best quarterback in the college draft, and better even than his brother Michael. NFL executives evidently didn't think so. He went undrafted, but was signed as a free agent to try out with the Dolphins. He did not make the team, but was signed to its practice squad. Later in the year, he was called up to the team due to injuries and got to play briefly in one game, but while playing receiver, caught no passes. In May of this year, he was released from the team and hasn't been picked up by anyone else.

Initially, people wondered how Michael Vick's wayward brother Marcus could be so different than their hero was. Now, we have to wonder if he really is so different, because we've begun to see Michael Vick's true colors. In 2005, Vick was sued by a woman who alleged that Vick had knowingly given her herpes without letting her know she was at risk. It became known that Vick had sought treatment for the disease under the alias "Ron Mexico," and therefore had indeed known of his condition. He settled the suit out of court for an undisclosed amount of money. Then came the obscene gestures incident in front of his fans. Next, in January of this year, Vick tried to bring a water bottle with a hidden compartment onto a flight he was taking out of Miami. Vick didn't want to give the water bottle up, and threw it away. Miami police retrieved it and found the hidden compartment and a small particle of something that had the look and smell of marijuana, but they were unable to prove it and charges were dropped. It raised big questions, but then came the serious allegations. It seems that Michael Vick has sponsored an illegal dog-fighting racket from his farm in Virginia, and was gambling on the dog-fighting. And as if that weren't enough, he is now alleged to have personally executed dogs that he deemed inadequate as fighters. He lied to the Atlanta Falcons owner and the NFL commissioner about his involvement. And we now know this because he has pled guilty to the charges, which will lead to serious jail time. Vick was forced to plead guilty because there are too many witnesses against him, and if he doesn't take a plea bargain, he'll face federal racketeering charges.

Of everything I've seen written on this subject, the best article yet to appear is, I think, Sally Jenkins' article that appears today in the Washington Post. It's called "The Gall of it All." There are still quite a number of defenders of Vick and his dog-fighting. The defenses range from puzzled questioning as to what's the big deal about dog-fighting to pleas that Michael Vick is only human, and he's just made a mistake... an error in judgment. Along the way, of course, there are charges of racism, and people wondering what would have happened if it had been Peyton Manning instead of Michael Vick. The implication is that Manning, who is unquestionably one of the two best quarterback in football (along with with Tom Brady), would have gotten off because he's white. But this begs the question: Manning isn't involved. Everything we know about Manning is that his values are everything one could hope for in the person who is the face of his team and his city. The problem with Michael Vick isn't that he's black. It's that he is engaged in a criminal behavior that is heinous. Manning isn't involved in any criminal activities that we know of. So, the comparison is a red herring. It's ludicrous.

Jenkins writes: "If an animal didn't perform well enough, if it wasn't champion enough, if it was in Vick's judgment flawed, he strangled it, drowned it, electrocuted it or beat it to death on the ground. Vick and his pals deliberately enslaved and tormented weaker creatures, and killed those they considered inferior. The dogs had faces and voices that would have eloquently expressed their agony, and Vick hurt them anyway, repeatedly. The crimes may have been committed against canines, but at issue is basic humanity. Commit those crimes against people, and the words we'd use for it are fascism, and genocide. Don't kid yourself: The people who are so angry at Vick are angry for all the right reasons."

Jenkins quotes Vick's attorney, who says like so many of his other defenders, "Michael is a father, he's a son, he's a human being -- people oftentimes forget that." But Jenkins won't have any of that. She says, "Pardon, but if anybody forgot his humanity, it was Vick. Not us."

And that brings me to the real question, for me, as a philosopher and theologian. How does the human heart become so depraved that it cannot see that cruelty to other beings is wrong? How is it that we can have so many people in our own society who do not understand the seriousness of the crime that Vick was involved in?

There's another article about Vick written by Aaron Brown, who doesn't see why people can laugh at good ol' boy humor about shooting animals in other contexts, and yet get enraged over Vick's involvement in dog-fighting. Brown's article is representative of the reaction of a lot of people who don't really value animal life. Animals are just things to them. And they think that concern for other creatures, especially non-human creatures, are just dainty products of a sissified liberal culture. Brown rightly points out that for most of human history, dog-fighting and cock-fighting has been perfectly legal. So, he concludes, why the fuss about Michael Vick?

To begin with, the New York Times has an article by Michael Schmidt that suggests that Vick is in more trouble over his gambling involvement than for the dog-fighting or cruelty to animals. That's what has created the possibility of federal racketeering charges. But a good portion of the country, as Sally Jenkins says, is concerned more about the animal cruelty, and that's where my focus is as well.

I can't do more here than raise the question in this context. But to me, it gets at the heart of ethics, and touches on the heart of the question of spiritual awareness. Some people are not spiritually aware or sensitive. They believe that the world is no more than a mechanical device running according to some accident of nature. It may have interesting side-effects that create some pleasurable situations for us, but it most certainly creates pain as well. The goal, for them, becomes utilitarian: to create the most pleasure and avoid the most pain. The question is whether and how far we extend our ethical concern to other creatures. The egoist will only extend their ethical concern so far as it pleases him or her to do. Others might say that we have a tendency, produced by evolution, to realize that our own welfare is tied up with others. But again, when it comes to making choices, the question as to how far to extend our empathy for other creatures seems to be a practical one for the person making the decisions in the particular case. The spiritually aware person, in contrast to this materialist outlook, has sympathy for other creatures because they feel the life of the other creature in their being. The spiritually-aware person may also have practical questions they may have to face when it comes to confronting life and death situations with other creatures. In some cases, the spiritually-aware person may still feel that the death of the creature is warranted for some reason. But in all cases, the spiritually-aware person would only take the life of another with a deep sense of prayerfulness and compassion in connection to the web of life that we are all a part of. In the martial arts of the East, there are traditions of honoring one's opponent as another aspect of oneself. In such cases, there is no divide between the ego and the other that less than self.

Islam and the Age of Reason

It has often been remarked to the effect that the Middle East has missed out on the Enlightenment, and its reactionaries want to keep its villages in the Dark Ages.

Well, there's an important article by a beautiful Muslima woman named Irshad Manji called "Islam Needs an Age of Reason" that I'd like to draw your attention to. Manji is a senior fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, and founder of Project Ijtihad.

Manji writes of the Islamic concept of ijtihad, which is the equivalent, I would suggest, of a hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an. It seeks to reinterpret the Qur'an, rather than resting upon traditional interpretations. She uses the example, first of all, of an imam who has given a religious argument for allowing intermarriage between religions, and says, "What this imam did goes beyond matters of the heart. It reflects the power of using the mind to reinterpret the Qur’an for contemporary times. He has captured the spirit of ijtihad (pronounced ij-tee-had), Islam’s own tradition of creative reasoning. As globalization persists and pluralism spreads, both Muslims and non-Muslims need to know that Islam offers a positive alternative to the tribal mentality."

She goes on to speak of a woman's movement in Islam being possible because "the Qur’an states that women are subject to men’s authority only if men spend money to 'maintain' women. So if a woman earns her own assets, as did the Prophet Muhammad’s beloved first wife, Khadija, she can make decisions for herself."

Manji cites an example of a woman in Egypt starting her own business, reading the Qur'an for herself, and then gaining liberation from a previously abusive husband by citing passages she had discovered in the Qur'an.

We cannot stand still in our interpretation of texts. Jesus encouraged us to embrace the living law rather than a law written in stone, and this is what Irshad's ijtihad is doing. Sacred texts speak to the time when they're addressed most literally. But they speak to later generations through the spirit of the text.

As I've been saying elsewhere, there are few core principles that are most important, and the major religions all agree on them. So, "A-salamu aleikum" (Peace to you). The core of Islam (the peace that is found through submission to the source of peace that flows through us all) is peace.

Dick Cheney Quote

If you're looking for the Dick Cheney quote that I wrote to some of you about, look to my past blogs on the right, and click on the link for "Dick Cheney Got it Right." That's a title I never expected to write.

Cancer Research

In a recent article from the Manhattan Institute (July 17), Paul Howard writes "A Story Michael Moore Didn't Tell." Moore's stories in the movie "Sicko" reveal the weaknesses of the American health care system, and the strengths of the systems in Canada, Great Britain, and France. Howard writes about basketball star Derek Fisher's daughter, Tatum, and her bout with retinoblastoma, a rare form of eye cancer.

Howard writes: "Tatum's story is a microcosm of how the United States is revolutionizing cancer treatment. After her diagnosis, Fisher and his family flew Tatum to the world-renowned Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, where doctors are testing an experimental procedure that didn't exist even a year ago. At Sloan-Kettering, Dr. David Abramson and his colleague Dr. Pierre Gobin enrolled Tatum in a clinical trial where cancer-killing drugs are injected directly into the eye in an attempt to not only kill the tumor, but to save a child's eyesight. After treatment, Tatum's doctors were optimistic that her prognosis is good."

It's a wonderful story, and I was watching the basketball game when Fisher returned to the line-up with the Utah Jazz. I applaud our researchers, doctors, and Fisher's commitment to his daughter's health.

Howard's point in the article is that the free market incentives that we have in the United States are what is driving our research in areas such as cancer, and we are, without a doubt, a world leader in such research. He points out that in Europe, such treatments often are delayed due to negotiations with the government over prices. As a result, most launches of new drugs occur first in the United States.

The moral of the story, for Howard, is that we ought to celebrate the great system that we have here in the United States, and stick to a free market system rather than what conservative ideologues will disdainfully call the "socialist" system. But the point is lost on me, I'm afraid.

First, I'm glad that Derek Fisher, who makes millions of dollars a year to put a round ball through a hoop, can afford to fly his daughter into New York for the best treatment in the world. But how many people can afford that kind of care? I have no problem with some semblance of a free market existing for those who can afford the best care that money can buy. But what about the rest of us? I am not persuaded by this story, or statistics about first launches by companies that care more about making money than helping people, that we should continue to have an unregulated system where many of us are uninsured or underinsured. I am not persuaded that we are better off than the people of Canada, Great Britain, Germany, or France. Perhaps France would not have to haggle about price so much with these companies if the United States also regulated the prices of health care. One of their problems is that the U.S. provides a place to get rich quick without regard for the needs of the average citizen who couldn't afford such care.

Eventually, these other countries will have the same treatments available. The rich may just have to wait to get them.

As a philosopher, I look at this problem, and can't help but wonder why researchers can't work toward a cure for cancer without the promise of getting rich in the process. In Tolkien's The Hobbit, Bilbo refuses hordes of gold because he wonders what anyone like him could do with it all anyway. He accepts a modest reward instead. Most researchers are like Bilbo. They do their work for modest rewards. It's the corporations that thirst for gold. I'm all for the government regulating it, and having a system where we all have the basic health care that we need.

Good Will

George Will, whose father Frederick was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois, has many good and intelligent things to say. And I have to admit my past sins: I was swept up by Will's logic and wit when I was in my late teens and early 20's. Now I've seen the error of my ways, and his latest editorial is an example of how I was led astray.

Will, commenting on the current economic crisis, says "The ill wind blowing through that market has blown two goods: The public mind has been refreshed regarding the concept of moral hazard. And the electorate has been reminded of just how reliably liberal Hillary Clinton is."

He explains that "Moral hazard exists when a policy produces incentives for perverse behavior." I like that, and completely agree. What that means is that sometimes a policy produces unexpected behaviors that run contrary to what we desire, or should desire. And that should lead to reform of the policy, unless the goods of the policy outweigh the negatives.

Will has a point when he says that if lenders are bailed out by the federal government at this point, it could send the message to those lenders that they can do whatever they like, and "Big Daddy" will always come to the rescue. That would encourage the negative behavior. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Hopefully, what is happening is the realization that all the heavy-hitters in the financial world are in this together, and they'd better watch each other's backs. That's why banks all around the world are lending money to prop up the collapsing markets.

When I was younger, I guess I would have been persuaded by Will that you need to take all of the "feel-good" sentiment out of your reasoning, and stick to the cold facts that bailing out poor decision-makers only leads to more poor decision-making. But that's not the way the world really works, and we don't have to be so cold. The fact is that we are in this together, and that means all of us and not just the financial heavyweights. If the markets crash, soon the rest of us will be out of work, and losing our homes. And none of us want that. Will wouldn't care, I suppose. Let the chips fall where they may, because he's stuck on the logic of his ideology that is overly simplistic, even if in some ways true.

A better approach, and one that is more likely to be taken, is offered by William Gumede, Associate Editor of Africa Confidential. Gumede isn't even American. He's a scholar in South Africa. But as he says, "The world is indeed very much tied to American financial decisions. Bad or good ones can be felt in faraway markets. This latest round of financial market jitters is mostly the result of bad American investment decisions, yet the spillover effects are felt across the globe."

Gumede makes the commonsense suggestion that "there is an overwhelming case for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to be given additional regulatory powers to police irresponsible financial behavior -- behavior which in our interconnected world with the U.S. at its center has devastating consequences across the globe."

Will wouldn't think of this, because his ideology is dead-set against the government doing anything. But it should be what is done. The government must help the market, or we'll all get hurt... badly. But it shouldn't just be a no-strings-attached bail-out. It must come with regulations that require more responsible lending behavior in the future. There has to be a mechanism for catching lending institutions that lead the market astray through their irresponsible behavior.

Now... on to the other half of the Will comment: the one about Hillary's liberalism. Will explains: "Clinton leapt to explain the subprime problem in the terms of liberalism's master narrative -- the victimization of the many by the few. In a speech favorably contrasting a 'shared responsibility' society with an 'on your own' society, she said, in effect, that distressed subprime borrowers are not responsible for their behavior. 'Unsavory' lenders, she said, had used 'unfair lending practices.'" As someone who was once shamefully swept up by such rhetoric, I understand what he means. Do you want to personally bail out people who make bad decisions in their lives? Most of us would say "no!" to that, based on personal experiences. But it's not so simple.

Many people who got home loans under current lending practices were misled. They can't afford attorneys who can explain to them that they're getting in over their heads. They take the only chance they have to try to get ahead, and the subprime lenders were offering them low-interest rates to get into homes on the gamble that real estate prices would keep skyrocketing, and with the belief that even if their clients couldn't afford the higher payments later on, they'd inherit more valuable real estate.

One of the harsh realities of this country is that we have been too swept up in the rhetoric of being "on your own." Hillary is right to suggest that the humane approach is a "shared responsibility" society. The tendency of conservatives like George Will is to point to the "welfare queen" who gloats at the fact that she's able to sponge off of society, get money on the side, and live the life of Riley at our expense. But for every such bad story, there are many others that reflect simple people in need who can't live decently without our help. They need food, shelter, clothing, and educational opportunities so that they have a chance to become contributing members of society.

Will is suggesting that the sub-prime borrowers need to suffer for their bad decision-making. I don't think anyone's suggesting that we bail out those borrowers. They're losing their homes left and right. But we, as a society, have the shared-responsibility of making sure that such cruel lending practices aren't taken up again. For every person who knew what they were getting into with those low-interest loans, there were many others whose dreams were taken advantage of, and whose lives were destroyed.

For the lenders, it was all in a day's work. And I agree with Hillary that we need to regulate such unfair practices. I now completely repudiate the draconian thread in Will's ideology that suggests that government has no role in the creation and maintenance of a fair and just society.

The "Petraeus" Report

For weeks now, we have all awaited the Petraeus Report of September, which is to give us a progress report on the Bush strategy of a "surge" of troops in Iraq.

It was recently reported by Tim Russert that a Republican congressman informed the President: "The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There's no longer any credibility. It has to come from Gen. Petraeus." (White House Watch)

If any of you watched the interview with Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) at the bottom of a previous post ("Obama's Terrorism Policy is Correct"), you heard Biden, one of the most experienced foreign affairs experts in the country, say that he expected General Petraeus,to tell the truth when he came to Washington, D.C. From personal experience with the general, recently promoted to 4-stars, Biden believes that while he will be loyal to the President, he will also give a truthful assessment on Iraq.

Biden believes that while military has done its job in Iraq, the political solutions required have not been made and are not likely to be made. Prime Minister Nouri al-Malik is a Shiite politician with loyalties to Shiite tribes. After many years of oppression under the primarily Sunni Baathists, he has no desire to share power with them. This has led to continuing civil war, and we are caught in the middle of it. Biden believes that General Petraeus, when pressed, will agree with this assessment.

(Biden's solution, by the way, is that Iraq needs to become a federation of states with a small central government and relatively autonomous states in Kurdistan, the Sunni region in the West, and the Shiite region of the South. This sounds completely reasonable to me.)

The White House must have come to the same conclusion, because they have now announced that the progress report, the so-called "Petraeus Report," will be written by the White House. Great. That ought to be very informative.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) responded to that news by saying: "Americans deserve an even-handed assessment of conditions in Iraq. Sadly, we will only receive a snapshot from the same people who told us the mission was accomplished and the insurgency was in its last throes." (White House Watch)

Karl Rove

The fact is that Karl Rove, the President's Deputy White House Chief-of-Staff and closest confidant, has become a symbol of all that is wrong in Washington, D.C. for many of us. He has remained so hidden through so much of it that we have never been able to exactly pin down where his mark was. For a long while, it seemed that his specialty was domestic politics, while Cheney and Rumsfeld were the driving forces toward war. Given the President's inability to express himself clearly, leading to strong suspicions that he cannot think very clearly, it has remained doubtful that he has been the architect behind anything at all.

But be that has it may, the topic is Rove for now, as he has announced his retirement while under attack by Congress for his role in the firing of US Attorneys for political reasons.

Charlie Rose interviewed a panel on Monday about Rove, and some interesting points came out. Rove's strong-point, love him or hate him, was his ability to get Bush elected to the Texas governorship, and to the Presidency... twice. It was pointed out that he managed two very different campaigns for the victories in 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the campaign was about moderation, bi-partisanship, and compassionate conservativism. I have to admit that, feeling uneasy about what I perceived as an identity-crisis in Gore, I fell for this campaign that aimed for the middle-of-the-road voter... copying Clinton's successful approach to the White House. By 2004, however, Bush was the war president, and appealed to the Republican base, and some us believe, its basest instincts. The campaign to re-elect focused on drumming up fears about the war, terrorism, abortion, and gay rights. Bush had completely lost me by then.

This was not the first 'switcheroony' that Rove had managed to pull. Paul Burka of the Texas Monthly pointed out that Rove fought off the Christian right on his way to winning the Texas governorship. But in Washington, he became their "best friend."

Mark Halperin of Time Magazine suggested that it seems that Rove was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was far too partisan at a time when America was sick and tired of partisanship.

Burka admitted that it may have been a mistake on Bush's part to make his chief political advisor his chief policy man in Washington once he was elected.

The panel suspects that Rove's intention is to get the first book about the Bush presidency out so that he can resurrect the Bush image. Rove's legacy depends ultimately on what people think of Bush. And right now, the impression is not good, obviously.

Halperin thought that the Bush administration had had an opportunity to do good things on immigration reform and social security reform, both of which were supposed to be approached in a bipartisan way. But Rove's approach angered the Republican base on immigration, and efforts to privatize social security angered nearly everyone in the end.

Dick Cheney Got it Right

MoveOn.org has released some amazing video footage of Dick Cheney getting it right... in 1994. He explained all the reasons why the first President Bush didn't go to Baghdad after the Gulf War. And every one of those reasons applied in 2003. Watch Cheney's explanation. It's amazing.

An Experience of Togetherness and What Drives us Apart

This afternoon, I was fortunate enough to find out through my new friend Sergio that there would be a latihan in Chico. That's the spiritual training that I have been engaged in for more than 25 years now. This entire summer has been an extended meditation on a couple of themes. One of them has been this tension between aloneness and togetherness, both on a political and a personal level. Towards the end of today's latihan, I received a powerful indication that what drew us men in the Subud association together was a commitment to surrendering to God and receiving this latihan (or spiritual training). It's not that we're drawn together because of each other. We're drawn to a common endeavor. I felt great appreciation, not for their coming together with me, but for their commitment to this spiritual training that I'm also committed to. Our togetherness was created by this common bond of a common commitment. A few minutes later, I began to feel and think how, from generation to generation, rather than staying committed to a few core principles that could bind a family or community together in the most natural of ways while still allowing for growth, there is a tendency to extend these core principles to include dubious propositions that later generations question. Then there's a rift between the old and the new, and something has to give. But in the meantime, there are incredible tensions between people that needn't be that way. For instance, there a few core principles that all the major religions share with one another, and first and foremost amongst them is the common commitment to serve God. (If we include Buddhism, then it's a common commitment to come to the sacred, or Nirvana, which is much the same thing as God, only Siddhartha didn't personalize the concept.) If a Christian really believes that salvation depends on acceptance of Jesus, and that everyone else is going to hell, then there's little that can be said for tolerance, I guess. But if someone has more moderate leanings, then they'll believe that salvation really depends on our faith in God, and our submission to God's guiding power in our lives. And this they share with all faiths. To demand that other people believe more than a few core principles is an act of tyranny over the minds of others. To demand that others accept principles that are arbitrary myth is a tyranny over the minds of others.

Obama's Terrorism Policy is Correct

Obama caused a stir last week when he said that if he were president, there were actionable intelligence, and Pakistan failed to act on it, he would. He criticized the Bush administration for being so wrapped up in Iraq that he didn't put the focus where it should be: the terrorists holding up in western Pakistan.

Conservatives like Romney bellowed that Obama went from being a dove on Iraq to wanting to attack an allied nation. (And anyone who is persuaded by that sort of rhetoric needs really to take off their blinders, because that's a ludicrous summary of what Obama said.)

But even Senators Clinton and Dodd went after him on it, criticizing him for suggesting that we would attack a sovereign nation's territory without their permission.

Then, late last week, I watched Charlie Rose's interview with Senator Joe Biden. If you want a Democratic president that is an expert on foreign affairs, Joe Biden's your man. He is the most knowledgeable person running for the office this time around. It's very nearly enough for me to overlook his brashness and occasional abrasiveness. But I bring Biden up because he said that Obama was hardly setting a different direction for the country with what he was saying. It is, he said, the current American foreign policy that if we have actionable intelligence on terrorists plotting against us, and if we cannot get the cooperation of the country where the terrorists are located, we will act against them alone. Biden found it at once amusing and telling that neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Dodd appeared to know that. He was critical of Obama for actually saying it, however, as such things are better left unsaid. And he was also critical of Obama for having said that he would not consider the nuclear option if we were to be at war with a radically fundamentalist Pakistan, which is a nuclear power. Biden said you never take the nuclear option off the table, because of its deterrent effect. If they know that you might use it, they're less likely to use it themselves.

Biden knows his stuff. He should be considered seriously for the nomination. I know that however much I like Obama, I'll continue to consider Biden.

Below is the Charlie Rose interview with Senator Joseph Biden.

Reality Check on American Politics

There is a tendency to think that if we just vote for someone different, it is enough, and it will change things. Or if we just get a Democratic majority, it will change things. Barack Obama did us all a little favor with a reality check yesterday, I think.

Philip Elliot writes this morning that Obama "repeated his criticism of lobbyists, calling them the enemy and saying their donations are corrupt."

Obama said: "If they're spending a billion dollars on lobbying over 10 years -- they're averaging $100 million a year -- that carries weight in Washington. The congressmen will deny it, but they're not spending it just to provide good information."

One of the things that I've liked about Obama is his optimism:

"Don't let people tell you we can't solve our problems. Cynicism is our enemy. Don't let them convince you that it's too far gone, that Washington is too corrupt. Listen, there are problems in Washington but there are not problems we can't fix as citizens of the United States."

But electing him, or anyone else, is not the final solution to such problems.

"What's missing is not the plan, it's the sense of urgency and the willingness to take on special interests. It's not just enough to change political parties. For us to make those big changes, we're going to need all of you to be engaged."

Populism--and that is a movement of the people to take care of themselves rather than being willing to surrender their interests to politicians who otherwise will take care of lobbyists who are paying them--will only work if we are actively engaged in the process. We have to be willing to make a noise. We have to know what's going on, and write our Congressmen. We have to sign petitions. We have to warn them that if they don't vote in ways that help us, then we're going to vote them out of office.

The U.S. was not meant to be a "Christian" Nation

In his book The Assault on Reason (on page 49), Al Gore writes that the Founders made sure that "the new American nation would... be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent. This principle was so well established that in 1797 the U.S. Senate unanimously approved, and President John Adams signed, a treaty that contained the following declaration: 'The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan Nation."

There are plenty of texts in the American tradition that makes it clear that our country was established upon a backdrop of deist and theist principles. But this quote that Gore has supplied shows me the Founders were more clear than I was previously aware that this was never intended to be a "Christian nation." It was never an issue until recent evangelicals started rewriting history to make it seem that way. (Note, however, that the 'theism' and/or 'deism' is implicit in their saying that it is no more Christian than Jewish or Muslim. Yes, we believe in God, they were saying, but we're not only not going to privilege any one of the many Protestant faiths, but we're also not going to favor Christianity over Judaism or Islam.)

I am all for the defense of our theistic heritage--i.e., building our country upon belief in God. But that is not, despite what evangelicals may think, the same thing as mixing politics with specifically Christian principles and teachings. We do not have a theocracy. The theist element that is institutionally acceptable should be core principles alone, e.g. it's great that we have inscribed on our money "In God we Trust," and have defended the addition to the "Pledge of Allegiance," that this is a "nation under God." But we shouldn't confuse this core principle with the mistaken belief that the country was established as a "Christian" nation. There shall be no laws made respecting a particular religious creed. That's what our Constitution says. And it's a good idea. We're not an "us versus them" country when it comes to religion. Thank God.

Democrats

I watched the AFL-CIO sponsored Democratic presidential campaign debate in Chicago this evening. It was a good debate. I am encouraged by the fact that I'm hearing everything that I want to hear from these guys--all of them, Hilary included of course. With any of them, we're getting out of Iraq--more or less gracefully, we're going to try to get universal health care into place, and we're going to try to fix the problems associated with NAFTA. Beyond that, we're going to deal with China.

Aside from that, just from a personality standpoint, I was surprised to find that I liked Governor Richardson of New Mexico, and would be fine if he were the candidate. Obama is slightly uneasy about what to say on a number of questions. Clinton is quite sure of herself, but abrasive. The same is true with Biden. Dodd has a darkness about him that turns me off completely. Edwards seems like a nice guy. Kucinich is feisty like Ross Perot used to be. Not one of them wins it on personality alone. Obama and Edwards are my favorites on that count, however.

From a policy standpoint, there's not much difference between them. Kucinich doesn't pull any punches. He wants to pull the plug on Iraq, and he wants to do it now. When it comes to NAFTA, he's not interested in fixes. He wants to end it... now. When it comes to health care, he's for a single-payer system, and doesn't want to compromise. Actually, I think that it's too easy for the long shot candidate to say all of those things. Whoever is elected is going to have to find a compromise with the rest of the country that doesn't want any of those things. So, the mainstream candidates all talk about fixing NAFTA, and universal health care that's not single-payer, and getting out of Iraq carefully.

The only really fiery stuff tonight was caused by Senators Dodd getting after Obama. Senators Biden and Clinton did so, too, when asked their opinion on the matter. But I thought that Senator Obama held his own. He said that he found it "amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster... are now criticizing me for making sure we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war on terror."

Economics: Robert Novak and the Democrats

I've watched a three recent interviews by Charlie Rose today. One was with a retired Marine officer, Colonel Gary Anderson, who recently conducted war games to see how things might unfold in Iraq. Another was with the three economic advisors to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. And the third was with Robert Novak, whose new autobiographical book called The Prince of Darkness is out. Why any man would relish the name "The Prince of Darkness" is beyond me, but it takes all kinds to make the world go around.

I am most interested in the last of these interviews. I myself have been on the conservative side at times, and I have tried in my blogs to start sorting that out--why I'm so "middle of the road," and why I can politically swing from support of Jack Kennedy Democrats to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton... and why I detest George W. Bush. Well, I watched this interview with some reservation, because I've not liked the kinds of shows that Robert Novak has produced and been a part of. He is one of those guys who popularized the style of show where people yell back and forth at each other, and where no one really listens to what anyone else is saying. It's built upon and fosters politics of the basest kind of partisanship.

But I liked this interview. Charlie does such an excellent interview, no matter who he is interviewing, and Novak was the finest sort of gentleman in this interview. One really gets a chance to see the man behind the mask that he shouts through on the loud-mouthed CNN and Fox shows.

I like this interview, furthermore, because it helps me understand myself a little better. To my surprise, Novak voted for Kennedy. And as someone who still thinks that Kennedy and Reagan were great presidents, although I've learned to become a little more sharply critical of both through the years, this makes me eager to see Novak's view on the unfolding of the American political climate during the years he's covered it. Furthermore, Novak was against the invasion of Iraq, and thinks of Bush as "another failed president." (He thinks that Reagan has had the only successful presidency of the last 50 years.)

I disagree with Novak on some issues. He doesn't think deficits matter. I do. He is primarily concerned about one thing and one thing only on the domestic agenda, and that is lower taxes. He was a big Jack Kemp fan, as I was at the time, and so I understand that. Back in the day, we recognized, and maybe I even got this from Novak at the time, that it was Jack Kennedy who cut taxes, helping the American economy, and it was Kennedy who said "A rising tide lifts all boats." I picked up on that in the late '70s and early '80s, and firmly believed that. We felt, in the late '70s, that taxes were too high, and that we needed to give business a shot in the arm with lower tax rates as an incentive. If businesses could do better, then all of us would do better. And there are times when that is true. I don't disagree with the principle even now. It's true so far as that goes, and we'd do well to remember it.

But Novak holds onto that policy, and the general policy of small government, like a mantra that he builds his whole worldview upon, and I would say it's too narrow a framework upon which to the view the world. There are other factors to consider.

Most of progress in history and civilization, as Hegel emphasized long ago, is a dialectic of ideas. One thing is the right thing to say at one moment, but it can lead to extremes of its own. Another thing has to be said to balance it, and I think that's exactly what is missing in the conservative model of the type that Newt Gingrich and Robert Novak represent. The balancing statement is that for moral reasons, we have to be willing to share the great wealth that our country produces in order to make sure that we build the greatest society that we possibly can. There is no great society when the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. I have no problem with the rich getting richer to the extent that they build our economy and everyone benefits. But there are points at which a sense of shared personal responsibility for benefit of all of our citizens must come into play. The bottom line of profits is NOT everything. I think John Kennedy would have remembered that if he had lived, and not let his tax cuts become the only ideology that he lived by. And that's why I'm more of a Kennedy Democrat than I am a Reagan Republican, though I admire them both.

In the earlier interview, all three economic advisors to the major Democratic candidates--Gene Sperling, Tom Daschle, and Leo Hindery--still espouse the idea of open markets. At first, I was aghast. I have had a kind of protectionist reaction to what we've witnessed in the last 10 years, and I have considered Clinton's NAFTA to be the worst policy decision of his presidency. So, what's up with the continued support of this general idea of "open markets" by Democrats when American workers are so clearly suffering as a result of them?

Part of the answer came out for me in this interview with Sperling, Daschle, and Hindery: the argument being made by the Democrats now is that we all benefit from open markets, but only open markets that support improvements for workers in other countries, and that support environmental policy improvement in those countries. If we simply fling open the markets without enforcing our demands that the field be made more level, then it will bring everyone down, because we quite simply can't compete with countries that have low wages and no environmental sensitivity.

I don't know if I agree with that point of view. I'm not sure these other countries can improve in the ways that we demand. But it would be great if they could.

On that note, and back to the Novak interview: I realized that my point of agreement with Novak is that government needs to be as small as it can be, and that taxes need to be as low as they can be. We agree with those two fundamental principles. The difference, I realized, was that I believe that government is required to protect the American worker and citizen from any other power in the country--whether it be labor unions or big business--from getting so big that they hurt us. It is all part of the checks and balances that go beyond the Federal Government. The Government itself can be, and must be, a check against abuse of power in other sectors of our society.

One simple example of what I'm talking about is Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal, where he took on the monopolies that had formed during his day. They were too powerful. The economy needs competition. Most of us take that for granted now, but the Federal Government had to step in to make that happen. Another example is that the food industry needs to be regulated. China has recently reminded us of what happens when there is a lack of regulation: we get dangerous goods that can kill us. The Federal Government is needed to prevent that. A third example that readily comes to mind is the segregation policies of the old South. The Civil Rights of American citizens required protection that neither businesses nor state governments were proving. The Federal Government was required to provide a check against these abuses of power.

This is always where the debate should be, so far as I'm concerned. What is the least amount of government intervention that is required to assure human progress in our country? What is the least amount of government intervention that is required to assure that human beings in our country are not oppressed? (I say "in our country" because I don't believe we have a right, a responsibility, or the ability to fix every country's problems, but we should be aware of anything we can do to fix egregious problems elsewhere when we can. We should, at least, press for such changes diplomatically.) What is the least amount of government intervention that will assure as fair a system as we can create?

Right now, I believe that the government has to do more to balance the situation in order to protect the American worker and citizen against problems that arise from the free market system. It's as simple as that.

Local Girl Making Good in Hoops

One night, I was playing ball up at Terry Ashe, and a pretty blond-haired girl was watching from the sideline. A girlfriend of hers, whom she kept referring to as her "twin," though they look nothing alike, was the only girl playing in the pickup game I was in. We played a couple of games, and then we were one player short for another game, so the girl on the side was coaxed into playing, despite the fact that she was wearing a simple pair of thong sandals. I had been guarding the one girl on the court, being the "old man" on the court at 48, while most of these guys are in the 15-20 range. But with a second girl on the court, I switched with another guy, telling him to beware of the one I was guarding, because she had a good shot. The girl I'd been guarding, laughing, said of her friend, the new girl, "She's got a better shot than I do!" I smiled at the new girl, and said, "Well, at least you're wearing sandals. It kind of evens things out."

She was a very nice girl with a nice game, and it was a pleasant evening. She introduced herself as "Chelsey."

Little did I know how good she really is until yesterday's article in the Paradise Post by Paul Wellersdick called "Ruscillo returns from junior nationals in Ohio."

It turns out that the pretty young lady is Chelsey Ruscillo, and that she's becoming a bit of a star at 16. Wellersdick writes: "Not many high school students get letters from scouts asking them to play in invitational ball games in front of scouts." But Chelsey was invited to to play in two tournaments, including the USA Junior Nationals. Wellersdick reports that she even won the MVP "out of three pools at the nationals."

Much of the rest of the article is about her love for the game. She told the reporter: "The only reason I try hard for school is to play basketball. I just love it can't explain it, I love it too much to explain. I love the adrenaline and going crazy. Just feeling like our team could school your team."

There were times when high school sports were the only thing that motivated me through school as well. So, I understand.

By the way, this brings back a memory. When I was playing high school basketball at Pallotti High School in Laurel, Maryland, when we, by the way--and little thanks to me--made the top 20 in the DC area, I was invited by the head coach of an all girls Catholic High School to come practice with his girls one evening. They had a big game coming up, and he wanted to coach them up by having a guy high school basketball player for them to go against. Needless to say, it was a pleasure to help out.

Anyway, that's my little brush with fame. : )

Economic Patriotism

We have a right to defend ourselves as a nation. The conservative ideology today embraces an economic policy of completely free markets that does not defend our nation. The result, intended or not, simply makes--at least in our country--the rich richer and the poor poorer. And it is breaking the middle class.

William Greider's article in The Nation called "Now That's a Patriot Act" says: "Now here is a Patriot Act everyone can get behind. It's called the Patriot Corporation of America Act and it rewards the companies that don't screw their employees and weaken the country by moving the jobs to China and elsewhere.

"In these troubled times, doesn't that sound like common sense? Government policy presently works in opposite ways. It literally assists and subsidizes the disloyal free riders who boost their profits by dumping their obligations to the home country. It's called globalization. Establishment wisdom says there is nothing politicians can do about it."

Just like the "tight budget" mantra that I've begun to blog about, where everyone assumes there's no money to work with on anything when it comes to the government, there is a "globalization" mantra that says "there's nothing we can do about it." They say it's just a fact that we have to deal with. It's only a fact, however, because the political will and media are generally on the side of big corporations with money to give their campaigns and buy advertising, and not with the will of the people.

Greiders says: "The principle at stake is straightforward. Multinational corporations cannot continue to have it both ways--moving more and more value-added production and jobs offshore to capture cheap labor, while still enjoying all of the rewards and benefits of claiming American identity. It's not just the outrageous tax breaks. The American military defends their freedom to operate around the globe."

Isn't this true? I'd like companies to make up their minds if they're for us or against us, and let the chips fall where they may.

Greider has a book out called The Soul of Capitalism.

Jaime O'Neill on Universal Health Care

We have, in Paradise, a very good writer named Jamie O'Neill, whose article in the Paradise Post this morning is called "Get rich, get elected or don't get sick."

Apparently, Mr. O'Neill was as impressed as I was by Michael Moore's new movie, "Sicko," which compares the American health care system with countries like Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba, which practice universal health care. He frames his article this morning with the powerful scene from that movie where Moore is interviewing Americans who now live in France, gushing about the life they live there as compared to life in the States.

O'Neill writes: "Those advantages include no-charge-to-the-patient house calls from doctors when patients get sick in the middle of the night, plus freedom from the fear all Americans live with as we wait for the catastrophic illness that will either drive us to bankruptcy, or make us uninsurable, or even get our treatment denied as cost-conscious HMOs or insurance carriers look for ways to refuse payment for certain expensive medical procedures."

In our system, where politicians are bought and paid for by the richest amongst us, there are no curbs against health care industry abuse.

Again, O'Neill writes: "Our health care system is a mess, and most of us know this up close and personal. Co-pays increase steadily, pharmaceutical costs are wholly untethered from real value, and the number of uninsured fellow citizens grows each day. Even those of us fortunate enough to have insurance are not well served. As Moore's film makes clear, lots of middle class working people who thought they were covered have found their claims denied, or have been put through the wringer by insurance company indifference to their health problems as corporate minions sought ways to limit treatment."

Conservatives build their arguments on fears that the government helping people is a form of wicked "socialism," and we can't have any of that.

O'Neill counters: "But, as Michael Moore's movie points out, we wouldn't entrust police and fire safety to the private sector, leaving accountants in charge of deciding which emergency calls were covered or cost effective. Nonetheless, we've gotten used to having the health and safety of those we love being determined by people whose eyes are fixed firmly on the bottom line."

This is the problem with privatization. There are many things that we depend on as a people that can't be entrusted to the lowest bidders.

Finally, O'Neill observes: "In Michael Moore's movie, one of those Americans in Paris observes that in France, the government seems to fear the people, but in America the people fear the government. That would seem to be why the French people have a government so much more responsive to their needs than we've had of late. Politicians here seem to no longer fear being caught in lies, deceptions, or plain rip offs of taxpayer money. After all, the public has become so quiescent and sheeplike, so easy to fool, we're not likely to do anything at all about any outrage the government commits."'

Tara and I had a discussion with a friend, after seeing "Sicko" together, about this implication that the government fears the people in France, while we fear our government. I agree with Mr. O'Neill about the government getting away with pretty much anything it wants to do now. I wasn't sure, however, that we could say it's because we fear the government. The implication in that statement is that the government's authority is so powerful and tyrannical that we are cowering beneath their oppressive weight. While I'll admit that there are warning signs that it could easily go that way, I don't think we're there yet. But there seemed like there was truth in this remark by the American in France. But reflecting on it after reading it in Mr. O'Neill's column, I have a different understanding of it. Americans have come to the point where they have bought into an ideology that fears the concept of government. We have bought into an ideology that says any kind of government must be bad, and must be slashed or gutted to the point of ineffectiveness. The exception, of course, is the military and police force, built up because of the feeding of fears, but that's another discussion. America fears what Ronald Reagan called "Big Gov'ment," and is willing to suffer a whole range of abuses by business in order to avoid the appearance of "socialism." When will we learn that the government is of the people, and for the people, and that it is, as such, a tool to be used to help us?

The Horror in Latin America: Helping the Poor

Peter S. Goodman writes: "After two decades of reliance on the economic prescriptions of the United States, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Bolivia has turned left, embracing Venezuelan and Cuban aid, nationalizing industries and championing what its leaders call a pragmatic version of socialism."

This is to the horror of conservatives in our country, who believe that any help to the poor from the government is a crime that ought to be abolished from the earth as quickly as possible.

For years, the International Monetary Fund, based in Washington, D.C., lent billions to impoverished, so-called "developing" nations. But that lent money came with the price that these nations obey IMF, and largely conservative, strategies for dealing with their problems.

"The World Bank came with a model and applied it indiscriminately," said Bolivian Minister of Education Magdalena Cajias. "They ignored Bolivia's sense of its own identity."

But there are forces at work in the world that are threatening to change all of that. The prosperity of Venezuela, with its oil revenues, and China, with its broad resources, is creating a new socialist trend in many Latin American countries.

Goodman reports: "Lending by the IMF to Latin America and the Caribbean plunged from $49 billion in 2003 to $759 million last year, according to the fund."

On the one hand, that's a good thing, because the "developing" nations weren't really developing, and they weren't able to get out of debt. They were eternally beholden, in this way, to the rich financiers. And for the last decade, it has been clear that many would never pay back their loans. This prompted debt forgiveness, with more strings attached.

Anoop Singh, director of the IMF's western hemisphere department, sees these recent developments as a sign of success. IMF strategies have, to a large extent, taken hold in Latin America: "We find a much stronger commitment to balanced budgets and low inflation. This is really a historic breakthrough."

The systems put in place, though, were always designed to let the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor. The recent reversal is a determination to help the poor rise up.

"What drives things now is social conscience," said Florencio Choque, a government engineer. "This is rule by the poor."

Now, granted, simply taking money from the rich in order to redistribute it to the poor, could be construed as theft on a mass scale. But when the system has become corrupt, and the people of a society suffer, we don't look at Robin Hood as a thief. We look at Robin Hood as a hero.

The real question now is how to redistribute the funds that are available, especially from China and Venezuela. Much of it is going into health care and education, which I know conservatives will especially cringe at. (It's horrible to fund these things, I know. Conservatives begin to scream "socialist takeover!" at the first sign of money that might help those in need.)

"You have an extraordinary amount of liquidity in the world," said Albert Fishlow, an economist at Columbia University. "You have a much greater degree of freedom of individual countries to follow policies that would have previously been punished."

Bolivia is now expanding a Cuban literacy program while promoting the use of indigenous languages in addition to Spanish. Last year, the government used energy royalties to distribute $31 million to parents as a reward for keeping children in school -- about $25 per child.

This may not seem like much, but for parents who live on $50 per month, it makes all the difference in the world. So now, rather than keeping their kids home to work, parents are more willing to send the kids to school.

Goodman also reports about health care coming to Bolivia via Cuba's world-famous medical system: "Jacinto Calle raises cattle outside Caracollo, a smudge of a town where dogs root through trash. In his 63 years, Calle had never seen a doctor. But when an infection spread across his leg recently, he rode his bicycle three miles to a hospital built last year with gas royalties. The doctors were Cuban, a gift from President Fidel Castro. His leg is healing."

At the end of the movie "Sicko," by the way, Michael Moore takes a group of suffering Americans, including emergency workers who helped at the 9/11 disaster in rescue efforts, and became ill as a result, to Cuba for treatment because they couldn't be helped in the U.S. The government, at the time of the film's release, was considering pressing charges against Moore for getting these people help there. If you haven't seen it, see the film "Sicko."

Whereas we in the United States are impoverished--remember all our "tight budgets," as I write about in my previous blog--Bolivia must be doing great. Goodman writes that "Bolivian ministers acknowledged that money from energy royalties extracted from the foreign energy companies outstrips the country's capacity to spend it. About $500 million sits at the central bank, reserved for local governments that have yet to formulate projects."

"There's not yet really a system to absorb this money," Planning Minister Gabriel Loza said.

President Evo Morales tours the countryside, and offers money to help the people, but in many cases, they don't yet know how to propose plans that can be approved. And to Bolivia's credit, they're not just giving the money away willy-nilly.

He scolds them: "Before, you couldn't find any money," he said. "Now, there's money, but you don't come prepared."

Of course, the opposition remains in South America. Goodman quotes Carlos Bohrt, vice president of Bolivia's Senate and a member of the opposition: "These populist policies -- we've already lived through them in Latin America. They don't create long-term sustainable growth. It's just handouts. This funding could just disappear without any impact."

And Goodman also writes that "Detractors say Morales is handing the poor instant gratification at the expense of long-term prospects. Energy nationalization discourages foreign firms from sinking capital into Bolivia, jeopardizing efforts to attract investment to expand production, economists say."

Programs that are "just handouts" don't work. It's true. But programs that foster the growth of the rich at the expense of the poor don't work either. So, as usual, it is a question of balance. I, for one, applaud the efforts of Morales to improve the living conditions of the poor in Bolivia.

And while it's true that nationalization discourages investment by get-rich-quick corporations around the world, Bolivia apparently sees other investors they can turn to, and this has changed the whole dynamic.

I don't know if this will work or not, but I applaud their efforts to do what we won't do in the United States: to help the poor and not insist on a Randian type of "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" approach.

Tight Budgets or Tight Wads?

Yesterday, when I was listening to a news broadcast on MSNBC about the Minnesota bridge collapse into the Mississippi River, I heard conservative commentator Tucker Carlson introduce the subject by asking if, in "this era of tight budgets," we needed to give over the maintenance of our highways to private companies? Would they not do better than the government?

That's the conservative answer for everything. Privatize.

In other words, let's give the rich in this country another chance to make billions of more dollars than they already make, holding the country's infrastructure as hostage. Oh, yes: sounds great to me. (Not. Or as my best friend would say, "N't.")

Nick Miroff reports: "Once the sturdy pride of post-war America, the federal interstate system is now a vast network of aging roads and bridges, including many -- such as the span that collapsed in Minneapolis -- that engineers consider deficient or obsolete.

Despite record spending on highways, experts and engineers said federal funds aren't enough to save the interstate system's half-century old bridges and 47,000 miles of highway from further decay, as a network designed to connect the nation teeters under a crush of commuter traffic."

What are we going to do? We are so poor as a nation, and have to have "tight budgets," right? There's little hope, because we just can't afford to do it, right?

That's the impression that's given with California's education budget all the time, too. You would think that my job hangs in the balance every semester because the state just can't afford to fund the system.

But listen to this telling comment from Robert Poole, director of transportation studies at Reason Foundation and an adviser to the Federal Highway Administration: ""We're falling further and further behind. We're prospering as a nation, driving more as commuters and shipping more goods, and that's pounding the highways and wearing them out."

The key words here are: "We're prospering as a nation."

So, why do we have tight budgets?

The answer is because of an ideology. It's a conservative ideology that demands tight government budgets, because it hates government. I can see the rich wanting no government, because it takes all the restrictions off of them, and whatever government doesn't do, they get to make money off of in the government's place. But so many lower- to middle-income people have bought into this ideology. One reason is that government has a tendency to become wasteful. There's no doubt about that. And for many things, the competition of the marketplace makes for more efficiency. But for our roads? How are we going to have market competition for a highway? Bidding? Do we really want the care of our roads to always go to the lowest bidder? I don't think so.

In response to Tucker Carlson's question, former Congressman Tom Andrews (D-Maine), said something very interesting. There are two things that have to go into the planning of a budget, he said. First, you have to look at what's wasteful, and you weed it out to save money. But second, you look at your goals, and you invest toward the accomplishment of those goals. It's the second part of that plan that government is now failing to do.

Conservative ideology is often the cause of the government's failure to do its job well. If you under-fund everything, and demand that the primary emphasis is always on pruning what doesn't work, then you'll find that government efficiency will go down in an ever-downward spiral. On some things, like the Social Security system, it has often been said that it is the Bush Administration's policy to undermine the system so that they can eventually privatize it. It makes you wonder if it isn't a conservative plan to undermine government in general, so that everything can be privatized.

There are some elements of our society, like our infrastructure, that we don't want thrown into the market. This is especially so in the case where there can be no market mechanism except selling to the lowest bidder. In these cases, we have to cut wasteful spending, to be sure, but we also have to invest toward the accomplishment of our goals.

No Amount of Troops, No Amount of Time

Congress is interviewing the nominees for Chair and Vice-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And the answers that nominee Admiral Michael G. Mullen is giving are straight-forward and to the point, I believe. That is refreshing. I guess that King George can't keep firing generals forever.

In the first place, Mullen admits that our troops are "not unbreakable," and he believes that we need a "plan for an eventual drawdown" of troops. That probably sounds like heresy or treason to the rabid right, but there it is.

Senator Jack Reed, (D-R.I.), a former Army Ranger himself and critic of the administration's handling of the war, asked Mullen if his planned cap of tours of duty at 15 months, much less than what I'd heard the administration wanted, didn't force an end to the build-up in Iraq by April of next year "because we simply will not be able to put manpower on the ground unless we extend rotations." Mullen agreed.

When discussing troop morale, Mullen said "They believe in their mission . . . but there comes a point at which they're going to look at that and say, 'How much longer and for what price?' if progress isn't seen." Having been in the infantry myself, that's one of the most realistic statements I've heard yet.

There is clearly a conventional wisdom forming about this war. And it includes the view that "there is no purely military solution in Iraq." The politics of the war--the Iraqi politics--are seeming clearer and clearer with time. Mullen says that Iraq's leaders "need to view politics and democracy as more than just majority rule, winner-take-all, or a zero-sum game." And they need to take advantage of the "breathing space" that we're providing them at this time. If they don't, Mullen concludes, "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference."

I think that we should take seriously Mullen's warning that Iran is posing a greater threat over time, but this mustn't be used as a pretext for spreading the war. We must contain Iran, as we should have done with Iraq. Iran, he says, is not only supporting the Shiites in Iraq, but is also supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, sending them the powerful roadside bombs that have been so effective in Iraq.

Finally, Mullen listed the 7 "most significant mistakes" that were made by the U.S. in Iraq, including these 5:

1. We didn't "fully integrate all elements of U.S. national power in Iraq."

2. We didn't "establish an early and significant dialogue with neighboring countries."

3. We attempted to occupy the country with "an insufficient force."

4. We were wrong to disband the Iraqi Army, which could have been useful after the war, and would have kept many of them from becoming renegades.

5. And the "de-Baathification" of the government went to far too fast.