Why Can't We Debate Health Care in a Civilized Fashion?

Why, in the greatest democracy in the free world, can't we have a civilized, intelligent discussion of a very important national issue?

There have been reports of disruptions of town hall forums on the topic of health care reform. The disruptors shout down any discussion that is attempted. These demonstrations have been focused on Democrat Congressmen, particularly those supportive of reforms.

Accompanying this school-yard type bullying are the propagation of misleading information and outright lies about proposed changes. For example, some false rumors say you can't keep your existing private insurance or that the proposal is a single payer system (whereas it's a government alternative to private insurance). Today, President Obama spoke out about this misinformation.

Perhaps worse is the rhetoric of Rush Linbaugh and his ilk, comparing the proposed changes to Nazi programs, even comparing the logo for the proposed health program to the Nazi swastika. Rachel Maddow recently reported on these outrageous comparisons.

But isn't it ironic that Rush Linbaugh and others are labeling the Obama health care proposals as "Nazi" inspired while supporting this "mob rule" tactic of shouting down all civilized discussion. But, which is the really fascist tactic? Obama proposing a program that will be debated in Congress and throughout the country --- or, protestors shouting down any discussion of the issue? Add to that the death and other violent threats against Congressmen. As a result, some of these representatives are canceling public appearances to discuss health care.

What happened to democracy, where all sides are free to make known their opinions on current events? Why do these protestors prevent other citizens from exercising their democratic rights to debate this issue? Oppression of the practice of democracy sounds like fascism!

If the opponents of Obama's program have good points to make, why can't they present them to the nation in a civilized manner? If they have important facts and strong arguments, why do they resort to schoolyard tactics of intimidation and bullying?

So, again I say why, in the greatest democracy in the free world, can't we have a civilized, intelligent discussion of this very important national issue?

We have to say NO! to the bullies shouting down discussion at town hall meetings!

We have to say NO! to those knowingly propagating outlandish false claims!

We have to say NO! to schoolyard antics of shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with you!

We have to say YES! to acting like adults and having a lively debate about the real issues.

Two American Women Released in North Korea: Good News of Bad?

After former President Bill Clinton visits North Korea, two American journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, were released from prison.

The women were held for five months after their arrest on March 17th along North Korea's border with China. There were accused of entering the country illegally from China. The two were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. However, they were held in a guest house and not yet transferred to the labor camp when Kim Jong Il pardoned them. They returned to the US with President Clinton on August 5th.

Controversy
Was this is a happy outcome of private diplomacy or did it provide a diplomatic coup for Kim Jong Il?

Clearly, the journalists and their families and many Americans rejoiced that the unjustly imprisoned pair were free. Personally, I was very happy to see them reunited with their families and friends.

But what about the cost? Did the visit of a former US President reward North Korea for becoming a nuclear state?

Did it open a possible avenue for diplomacy with this reclusive leader and rogue state?

Or was this a follow-up to Clinton’s agenda of opening dialog with North Korea?

Commentators have expressed a variety of opinions. Conservatives and some scholars of North Korea have pointed out that the visit of Clinton will be seen as a great victory for Kim Jong Il. The critics see this as a bad move.

Which Path Should We Take?
But, in my opinion, Kim Jong Il is not your typical rational leader who plays by the rules and can be influenced by sanctions, criticism or a hands-off approach. The “Axis of Evil” label meant nothing and the North went on to develop their nuclear capabilities without regard to the constant criticism of the Bush Administration. The Bush approach did not accomplish anything. Our hands may be “clean” by not giving in, but we gained nothing.

On the other hand, Clinton was considering dialog with the North. While that did not happen on his watch, he did have a long talk with Kim Jong Il. Many speculate that the discuss was on a broad range of issues.

Some will say the North Korean leader is evil and maybe a little short of working on all cylinders, so therefore we should not talk, or at least not talk without conditions. But, we can continue to never talk and the North will continue their nuclear program. What does that get us?

My opinion is sometimes it’s best to talk directly with the devil. Engagement can provide opportunities for leverage. Maybe policy gains can be made.

So, while I’m not overly optimistic for a significant change in actions and policy in North Korea. But, maybe this trip has opened an opportunity for dialog that may lead to better relations.

In the Case of Professor Gates

This national headline story unfolded mere blocks from my home.

Yep, just down the street from me, on a dark side street the other side of the high school, Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was arrested for disorderly conduct. The details have been well reported in the media. And comments and analysis has been piled on from all sides.

So what can I add? Being near to home, I thought I should comment. But what to say? So, this will be my home town perspective on the "non-crime."

BTW—I’m calling it the “non-crime” as charges were dropped.

The Scene of the Non-Crime
First I walked past the house at night. Between the street light spacing and the canopy of the trees lining the street, it is exceptionally dark in from of the house.

Perhaps, if it were better lit, there might not have been a report of a crime. Many other residences in the area (see photo at right) have well-lit front doorways, and there would be less suspicion about what is going on. Seeing two men try to force a dark doorway off a dark street might cause many a person to call 911.

The Socioeconomics of the Scene of the Non-Crime
The Professor lives in the most prestigious zip code in our fair city of Cambridge. In 02138, single family homes begin at well over $1 million. To me, the scene of the non-crime involved real estate that could go for something in the $1 to $2 million range. This is socioeconomically distant from the neighborhoods with the higher percentages of minority residents.

So, here’s some questions:

1. If two black men were forcing a door in a poor minority neighborhood, would it have been less likely that someone would have called the police?
   
2. If two white men were forcing a door in a well-lit area of my middle class neighborhood, would someone first ask what’s going on before calling the police?

Here my thought is that the more wealthy the neighborhood, the more likely the call to the police.

The Socioeconomics Setting of Racial Profiling
At first one might expect more racial profiling to occur where minorities live. But is that true?

I’ve read that there are many incidents of citizen and/or police profiling in the richer non-minority communities. In these areas, there may be a greater assumption of “what are you doing here” when say a minority person (particularly a man) is seen in a very wealthy white neighborhood.

I’ve heard stories of minority municipal workers and others with legitimate business purposes stopped and questioned in some of the richer suburbs of Boston for little more than “working while being black.”

So here’s the irony: it’s a wealthy neighborhood, but this is the black man’s house. And it’s the owner that is being questioned.

Was It Racial Profiling?
This is the charged question and some will say “yes” and other will say “no.”

At first I suspected that the caller to 911 called because she could see the race of the men forcing the door. But she said she couldn’t tell, and having seen the lighting at the scene, I’d agree that it would be hard to determine skin color in the poor lighting.

Still, if you were Prof. Gates in your own home with the cops asking you to identify yourself, I think you’d be saying to yourself “This would not be happening if I were white!”

And then: “If this is happening to me, a Harvard professor, what is going on when police stop other black men who do not are not from such a privileged status?”

On the other side are the police who say they followed procedures. But do these procedures work?

Standard Operating Procedures Don’t Guarantee the Desired Outcome
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) can be a good thing in a business, in manufacturing or even in law enforcement. When there are so many possible choices, SOPs can narrow the range of decisions that need to be made.

Police SOPs can attempt to take prejudices out of the discretion that law enforcement officers have. In this case, it seems that Sgt. Crowley followed the proper procedures. In other words, there is no basis to criticize his actions.

But, we still had a controversial outcome.

The Irony of a Racial Confrontation in the Most Liberal City in Massachusetts
Some have pointed out of the irony of a racial incident in the most liberal city in Massachusetts. This is as though “liberal” or “progressive” meant “post-racial.”

So, perhaps there is an expectation that “this kind of thing doesn’t happen here.” Might this be a thought in Prof. Gates’ mind: “How can this be happening in Cambridge?” Maybe his anger was in part from the incredulity of the situation.

A couple of additional thoughts:

1. Latent racism exists in even the most progressive communities and individuals (including me).


2. Prejudice and segregation took longer to be routed out in “more liberal” northeast than in the “more conservative” south.
   
3. The local politicians, though quite liberal, have been unusually reticent, restrained and balanced in their comments. While I had expected a strong outpouring in support of Prof. Gates and maybe the sacking of the police commissioner, instead, the local response has been quite mild.
   

My Conclusion
The bottom line for me is that this shouldn’t have happened.

Not that the police can be faulted for following procedures. But sometimes, the best outcome involves a little more discretion and a little less simply following standard procedures.

Though the professor may have been highly agitated and upset, my preferred outcome would have been for the police to leave him alone once his identity was determined.

With Liberty and Justice for All: A Year in Review

Independence Day on July 4th represents the birthday of freedom for America. As our nation has completed its 233rd year, it is time to assess the state of liberty and justice in this land.

Overview

The last year saw an historic change, as the Bush Administration gave way to the new administration of America’s first African-America President, Barack Obama. Not only was this a change in party and racial background in the office of the president, but also there was a fundamental change in how liberty and justice would be applied both here and abroad.

While the Bush-Cheney Administration was intent on limiting liberty and justice to protect us from the “terrorists,” the Obama Administration brought the hope of a return to our principals of liberty and justice for all.

Foreign Relations: How Do We Treat Our Enemies?

In this regard, the US has always had enemies. The names change – British, Spanish, Germans, Russians, terrorists – but there have always been one or more enemies and we can expect this in the future. And there will always be evil in the world. The attacks of 9-11 are not the only incidence where evil deeds have or will result in the death of innocent people.

But, the question is how we deal with the perpetrators of such evil deeds.

Under Bush-Cheney, the deeds of terrorist were raised to a level of concern greater that of past enemies of the US. New methods were needed:

• indefinite detention
• extraordinary rendition
• special interrogation

Indefinite detention conveniently fit the loophole that some terrorists are not agents of a particular nation, and therefore not soldiers protected by international convention. Nor were they criminals, as they were committing acts of war and not crimes. This loophole was large enough to round up even suspected terrorists. Clearly some were associated with terrorists groups, but others may have been little more but in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Extraordinary rendition was also applied to these combatants. This is a fancy term for out-sourcing the imprisonment, torture, and possible execution of captured alleged terrorists. Some subjected to rendition were nationals of friendly nations such as Canada and the UK.

Special interrogation was the fancy term for what most would call torture. While Cheney argues to this day that waterboarding is not torture and was effective in gaining information, most Americans were not proud of a nation that used torture in interrogations carried out by the CIA, military or even government contractors.

Change Under Obama?

So far, we have seen positive steps under the new president. We’re seeing administration officials call waterboarding and other “special interrogation” methods as torture. We’ve heard the call to close the prison at Guantanamo. But we have heard of no call to end indefinite detention for these prisoners.

While official use of rendition appears to have ended, it was disappointing that the Obama administration still claimed “state secrets privilege” in February in regard to a lawsuit against Boeing Company for arranging rendition flights. (See my posts Rendition Revisited and Rendition Revisited-Update.)

Domestic Issues

Under Bush/Cheney we saw a reaction to the attacks of 9-11 that coupled fear with restrictions on liberties. Whereas FDR proclaimed “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” we saw Bush/Cheney emphasize the need to fear the terrorists. The change in administration has been accompanied by the end of this fear campaign.

On the liberty side, we saw greater restrictions for airline passengers, more surveillance cameras in public areas, and the wiretapping of citizens’ oversees calls. In this category, as the memory of 9-11 faded, there was some let-up, but most of these still remain.

Civil Liberties

The constitution guarantees equal rights for all. But theory and practice often diverge.

Minorities

Clearly, minorities are making advances, but poverty is still afflicts minorities to a greater degree. While some of this is economic disparity, there is also a correlation between economic means and the ability to ensure one’s rights are protected in legal and civil matters. We still see a much higher percentage of minorities in prison. Affirmative action remains controversial.

Women’s Rights

The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton raised the hope for women of crashing the ultimate glass ceiling. On the other hand, the choice of Sarah Palin for Republican vice presidential candidate was more problematic – clearly she did well as mayor and governor, but was not quite ready for the national stage and this became quite evident.

Women have generally arrived at the place where they are accepted in professional settings, but the economic disparity remains. And also the glass ceiling.

Immigration Issues

The question of what to do with millions of illegal immigrants remains a hot issue. Bush gets a positive mark from me on advocating a guest worker status, realizing the reality that so many have lived here a long time and contribute to the economy and their communities. However, while there remain many who want to deport all undocumented aliens, there is simply no political will for this. Therefore, the undocumented remain in this legal limbo where they remain here but lack many essential civil rights.

Perhaps most preposterous of the Bush-Cheney era proposals is the wall on the Mexican border. In many places, this would be like a prison wall with multiple fences and watch towers. Maybe it works in the desert border of Arizona or New Mexico, but along the winding Rio Grande River in Texas, the wall would be back some distance from the river bank, thereby appearing to cede territory to Mexico and leaving a good number of citizens and their property in this DMZ between the wall and the riverbank.

Trumping this preposterous idea was the funding provision exempting the wall construction from all federal laws and regulations! Like the terrorist, the illegals are such a threat that extraordinary means must be taken.

GLTB Rights

During the Bush-Cheney term, there was no spoken support for gay rights, even if the Vice President had a more inclusive view that the party line (because of a close family member). Under the Obama administration, there is some movement for additional rights for partners. However, “don’t ask, don’t tell” remains. At this point in time, when we all know gay people either in our family or at work or elsewhere, this policy no longer makes sense.

Gay marriage states are increasing, despite the referendum loss in California. As I mention in my post, I’d like to see the state get out of the marriage business – they’ve only been involved for 100 to 200 years of human history. I say let government administer legal contracts between people and let other institutions of society (e.g., religions) define “marriage” as they see appropriate. Lagging behind gay rights is transgender rights. Some states are enacting anti-discrimination provisions, yet understanding of these issues is lagging behind the progress for gay rights.

Summary

So, on this 4th of July, what is the overall status of “liberty and justice for all” in America? Definitely, the nation took some major steps backwards in the previous administration. While there has been positive motion under the current administration, we are not where we should be. Some policies and procedures of the Bush-Cheney administration have not been reversed. Minorities and women still have a ways to go to gain full equity. And “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a policy whose time has past.

While the struggle is still ongoing, we still remain a nation founded on the principal of liberty and justice for all. Happy Independence Day!

Supreme Court Rules Strip-Search of 13-Yr. Old Girl Illegal

As reported by the AP:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that school officials violated an Arizona teenager's rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, declaring that U.S. educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that Safford Middle School officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches with their treatment of Savana Redding. The court ruled that the officials could not be held financially liable but left it to lower courts to decide if the school district could.

In my post of April 21, 2009, I expressed my outrage of the violation of this girl's body by school officials looking for ibuprofin! Can you believe that? For the sake of finding maybe a couple of ibuprofin pills, they made her expose her breasts and her pelvic area!

I still say this is sexual abuse. And not far removed from rape and child abuse! Though the intent was not sexual, just the same her body was violated by having to expose herself to school officials.

In any other workplace in the US, the firm would be sued and management fired if a woman was required to expose her breasts and pelvic area for any reason!

While the Supreme Court ruled strongly in favor of justice for Savana Redding, they ruled that the officials could not be held financially liable. But I question if they should not be charged with indecent assault!

School officials have no right to violate the bodies of students. Period.

Does a Majority of Regular Churchgoers Favor the Use of Torture?

I heard a most unusual and upsetting statistic today on NPR: a majority of churchgoers favor the use of torture in certain circumstances.

Now, maybe it's just me, but I'm a regular churchgoer, but my understanding of the 10 Commandments differs. Granted there is no commandment: "Thou shalt not torture." But Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as thyself." All in all, I can find no reason to deliberately torture a human being. Period. Under any circumstances.

A commentator on NPR mentioned that there may be other factors contributing to this statistic. Perhaps those self-identifying as "regular churchgoers" then to be Republicans. Maybe they really believe terrorists are uniquely evil and in that there's a loophole. Who knows, but I, for one, don't understand it.

Torture is never acceptable. Period

Building A Bridge to Islam?

Our President Barack Obama has taken a major step in reaching out to the Muslim world. In a historic speach at Cairo University, he pledged "to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims," as reported by NPR.

Building a bridge over the great cultural and religious gulf that separates Islam and the West, the President quoted frequently from the Quran, as well as the Bible. The son of a Kenyan Muslim, his personal history itself is founded in both Islam and Christianity. As such, Pres. Obama has gone where no Bush could go.

I believe that reaching out in this manner is a positive step, not only for peace and understanding in the world, but, if sucessful, will prove more effective than any occupation or regime change. Clearly his words touch the hearts of many Muslims. And this follows in the traditions of Rev. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi, reaching out in peace, across cultural divides.

While the speach was well-received, some, such as Hamas and the Iranian government were not impressed. One speach will not undue 8 years of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. One speach will not transform America from the great satan to a great friend. One speach will not change the hearts of radicals and terrorists.

But we are on a much better path: the path to a new dawn of hope!