Morning Fog

Kill My Phone. Please!

I was intrigued by this little report from Saturday's paper.  DC Police Chief Lanier points out how many of the crimes local cops deal with involve cell-phone thefts, and suggests a seemingly effective and easy solution:  Phone companies should immediately disable any cell phone that is reported stolen.

Cell phone companies' collective response, via their industry lobby CTIA:  Not interested.  The main argument they offer is that this step wouldn't stop international trade in stolen cell phones.  But that's not what Chief Lanier and other law enforcement officials are trying to stop; it's the frequent phone-focused robberies that are of concern.

I'm not sure why remotely disabling stolen phones would be an issue.  The following advice has been available on the internet for some time:

To check your Mobile phone's serial number, key in the following digits on your phone: *#06# . A 15-digit code will appear on the screen. This number is unique to your handset. Write it down and keep it somewhere safe.  If your phone is stolen, you can phone your service provider and give them this code. They will then be able to block your handset so even if the thief changes the SIM card, your phone will be totally useless. You probably won't get your phone back, but at least you know that whoever stole it can't use/sell it either. If everybody does this, there would be no point in people stealing mobile phones.

Does anyone know if this is true?  I've never needed to try it.  If it is, it's harder still to understand CTIA recalcitrance.  If people can disable their phones themselves by calling in, where is the problem?  The only difference is that most people probably won't write down their cell phone identifier beforehand; the phone company could provide it easily.

CTIA members may have some conflicts here:  All those robberies resut in people going out to buy replacements, and probably create a greater demand for cell phone insurance, which not coincidentally, most of the cell phone providers sell.  Meanwhile the stolen phones themselves may generate demand for replacement SIM cards and other parts to make them usable again in their new home.  But their ads claim that the wireless phone industry pretty much invented "freedom" (forget the Magna Carta, Thomas Jefferson and all that), so if enough customers make clear they don't necessarily want the freedom to have their phone stolen and their personal data compromised, they might make some headway.

Health Care For Infidels

There has been a huge outcry from churches, religious groups, and right-wing columnists about the Obama administration's proposed plan that non-religious institutions being run by religious organizations must provide their employees the same healthcare that other Americans are entitled to.

Sorry, I just don't see the problem with such a proposal.  The only problem is that churches naturally don't wish to pay more money if they can escape doing so.  Yet the crux of the matter, to me, is that all Americans should have the same access to services.  

Churches themselves are exempt.  But the many linked institutions they spawn, ranging from schools to clinics to charitable organizations, are not.   These institutions employ thousands upon thousands of people who are not of the same faith as the sponsoring religious organization.   The churches say, in effect, they would like to disenfranchise those people, offering them second-class benefits compared to the rest of the population.  That seems uncharitable, to say the least. 

It cuts no ice, in my opinion, to argue that they forbid family planning and should not need to provide it.  In fact, they may forbid family planning if they want, but that can only apply to their own flock. They can't impose their religious doctrine on the population at large. 

Thus, t's hard to consider that the government proposal presents an ethical or moral dilemma; it seems to me far less ethical to deny a civil right to someone who's not of your religion.   Further, churches won't be paying the costs of these benefits themselves; there are insurance companies for that, so the church is not directly funding the activities it bans for its members.  As for cost, it seems only fair that a church, like any other employer, pick up the costs of standard benefits for its employees.  If they don't, the rest of us pay for them, and enrich the church in the process.  At any rate, churches can bargain for lower rates from insurers, since they can guarantee (?) that a certain percentage of the insured won't be seeking those benefits.

There is talk now that a compromise solution may be reached before the law goes into effect more than a year from now.  There is lots of room for that, so long as churches in one way or another can live up to the national ideal of equality of opportunity.

 

Big Projects, Tiny Minds

Another "wait-a-minute" moment arose when I read Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak's January 10 screed about a mansion being built to house the University of Maryland's president and to provide a huge fund-raising space.  Dvorak complains that the project should have been canceled rather than initiating it now, in an economic downturn.  No matter that the economic downturn shows signs of nearing its end, nor that the project is funded wholly from private funds -- it "looks bad."

This is knee-jerk political correctness, but it makes little sense.  There is a need; it's privately funded; there will be jobs connected with it.  More important, the project probably took years to arrange - the plans, the funding, the contractor.   These things can all unravel; investors find other uses for their money, contractors find other work to bid on, prices go up as the economy recovers.  So, to cancel it now could effectively derail it, not just for a year, but possibly for another several years, leaving the university at a disadvantage in its fundraising efforts until the ducks were all lined up again.

I'm reminded here of another regional project, the extension of the subway west into Virginia to Tysons Corner and Dulles International Airport.  The airports authority made a sensible decision to put the subway station underground, where it would provide a more convenient direct connection to the terminal without forcing passengers to add yet another time-consuming, inconvenient leg to their trip.  But local jurisdictions complained of the additional cost (an above-ground facility, a few hundred yards away from airport transport, would be cheaper).  The objectors won the day; we'll get the job done on the cheap; the station will be built above ground.  But travelers in the region will live with the unfortunate consequences (another nuisance on the way to the airport; longer travel time; another blight on the landscape) for decades to come.

The subway should have gone underground; the University of Maryland should go ahead with its plans.  Capital improvements should be recognized as the long-term, often permanent, effects they create.  They shouldn't be postponed or vitiated by short-term penny-pinching, much less just because they happen to "look bad."      

Your Name In Headlines? Not Necessarily A Good Thing (II: Paterno)

Continuing my look at recent headliners whose mommas might have been disappointed with their current fame, I come to Joe Paterno.

I'm of mixed mind about this one.  Crimes were committed.  But Paterno wasn't the one committing them.  He reported them and those he reported them to (who were also fired after these reports came to light) were the ones who bear the most direct blame for doing nothing.  It would be rare in any university (or for that matter any large corporation, etc.) to expect the football coach to deal directly with such sensitive and explosive matters. 

When they did nothing, we can all agree today that Paterno should have followed up on the matter; yet we should also realize that Paterno's whole code of relationship to authority was formed in an earlier era.   (Sports columnist Joe Litke injects a sense of reality about those who say they would certainly have done more, in Paterno's shoes: if all cases of sexual abuse/predation were reported and appropriate action taken immediately, there wouldn't be any serial abusers.)

I'm not at all a big sports fan.  Unlike Litke and the protesting students of Penn State, I'm not particularly concerned whether Paterno got to finish his last season or not.  I do think he may have been treated unfairly; but perhaps the university's overseers, in looking into the matter, had more information than they've made public.   In any case, they could not have done otherwise now, than to throw Paterno out - the question of his guilt, his responsibility, had become suddenly irrelevant.

For me, the main point of interest here is the grip that athletic programs - football in particular - have on many of our institutions of higher learning.   In my estimation, both the failure of university officials to pursue the matter back in 2002, and the absolute need for the overseers to conduct a Wednesday night massacre, stem from the same cause:  Successful football programs bring in money.   They didn't want to rock the boat in 2002 and risk the loss of income that such a scandal might produce; but once the story was broken in 2011, they couldn't risk seeming the least bit indulgent of anyone who might have been involved.

It will be interesting to see if they made the right call.  Will football alums/fans with the big bucks accept the belated crackdown, or might they consider why nothing happened nine years ago?  Will broadcasters be less avid to cover the Nittany Lions' games?  Meanwhile, if some want to think of Paterno as a sacrificial lamb, I believe he was sacrificed on the altar of the Almighty Buck.  Absent that influence, he might still be coaching, at least to the end of the season. 

Religion And Politics

We know things are getting desperate, and that the Republican field of candidates for President are on the verge of frantic to distinguish themselves in some way that will appeal to the Republican base.  Nevertheless, in the long run, a party that picks its candidates to appeal to a "base" runs a big risk of defining itself out of the race.   Political bases tend to be extreme; the great mass of American voters is not.

This is particularly true with religion.  We all make our judgments about a candidate's religion, I'm sure, and it's not unusual for religious figures to proclaim that a candidate of whom they approve is a right thinker.   But it's another matter when religous bigots attack a candidate they don't like, attempting to disqualify him/her in the eyes of a group of voters.

That's what pastor Robert Jeffress recently did, professing doubt that Mitt Romney is a Christian, and claiming that Mormonism is a "sect."  This accusation rings especially hollow coming as it does from another sect.   It also sounds manipulative, when you reflect that there is no requirement in the Constitution that the President be a Christian! 

The irony, however, is that more often than not, such accusations help rather than hurt the targeted candidate.   I wasn't yet a voter when John Kennedy ran for office, but even as a 15-year-old, I can recall there was a great deal of controversy about his Roman Catholic faith, some of it put in play purposely by political opponents.  The election results tell the story. 

I believe most voters resent being told what to think about a candidate's religion, and they object to obvious attempts to manipulate them.  They'll make up their own minds about that, thank you very much.      

Trivial Pursuit: The National Economy Version

Everywhere I look in the news today, the "I-want-mine" crowd is in evidence, especially where the do-or-die Congressional economic committee is concerned.  A couple of examples:

• Terry O'Neill, President of NOW, argues that half the new economic commission should be women, because women will be "disproportionately affected" by what the Committee does.
• Rep. Charles Gonzalez, Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, says that "the Latino community has the most at stake" from any cuts the Committee may make.
• It's a matter of record that both AARP and Nancy Pelosi, among others, still vow to fight to the death to preserve current benefits for seniors.
• Objectively viewed, it may be correct to argue that rich white males are most affected by the economic crisis; in absolute terms of money lost, that's probably true, and while no one to my knowledge has yet made this argument publicly, I'm sure there are a number of Republican politicians who would be glad to make it.  Meanwhile, it's worth noting that there is zero diversity among the six Committee members named by the GOP

All the quotes/positions come from people who pose as, and who should in fact be, opinion leaders and policy shapers.  Yet their key quality seems to be selfishness. 

They yammer about the narrow interests of their own constituency, be it large or small.  That's not right.  Our federal government must serve all the people.  It should, for example, try to ensure equality of opportunity and access to jobs and other benefits; but beyond what's necessary to accomplish that broad mandate, it categorically should not be developing measures aimed at the specific expectations of one group or another.   

They also argue for diversity, suggesting that only a Latino can possibly represent Latino interests, only a woman can speak to women's issues.  Diversity is a major buzzword these days; maybe those who represent interest groups feel they can't possibly not mention it.  They should. (Not mention it).   It's a factor that should be considered as a measure of our success in creating equal access and opportunity, but it can also be a red herring.  The counterargument is that IF a member of this high-powered committee happens to be a representative of a certain group, and sees his/her role as being to further the specific interests and needs of that group, then he/she shouldn't be on the commission.  (This applies to political parties as well as to socioeconomic factors like ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference by the way.) 

We need broad-ranging measures that will help to improve our economic well-being generally.  A rising tide floats all boats, even if some remain stuck on the sand bar just slightly longer than others. 

Should North Dakotans Be Represented In The Senate?

It was only a week ago that I commented about our skewed system of political representation, in which a state like North Dakota, which has only a fraction of one percent of the country's population, nevertheless can become the tail that wags the dog in the U.S. Senate.

In several previous posts, I have also criticized the continuing failure of Congress (and of the American people as a whole) to permit citizens of the District of Columbia a voting representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, or any representation at all in the Senate.  Opponents of DC voting rights have usually suggested that the District is just too small to have Senators. 

But if North Dakota, with 672,000 people, has two Senators; and Wyoming, whose population is 563,000, also has two, I think we have to ask why, in the 21st century, the District, with 601,000, should not be a state or should not have two Senators to represent its population.  

Other objections opponents have raised include that the District's special status, as defined in the Constitution, precludes such representation.  Of course, it's recognized that some special arrangements - mostly involving local government and the jurisdiction over federal facilities in the District -- would need to be made for the nation's capital.  However, the Constitution can be amended, and given the fundamental question of unequal representation here, all our states ought to be lined up to set about doing so.  That they are not reflects shame on the political leaders of every state in the union, and on the people of the U.S. who allow them to drag their feet on this simple question of justice. 

The real objection of politicos, of course, is political.  The District of Columbia typically votes heavily Democratic.  Sometimes they suggest a new House seat for the District should be counterbalanced by creating a new seat in some Republican stronghold, but that's poppycock.   DC is already balanced... by tiny North Dakota and Wyoming, among others.  This is not, should not be, a political question.  It's an issue of basic fairness.  How can we preach democracy to the benighted lands of the Middle East, when at home we disenfranchise 600,000 citizens?

What Republican political candidate will pledge to push through an amendment for statehood for the District of Columbia?  Now that might actually shift quite a few of those DC votes onto the Republican side of the ledger.

A side note:  I don't mean to pick on poor North Dakota, by the way, especially when they're currently suffering the terrible effects of our latest weather disaster.  Have you donated to North Dakota flood disaster assistance yet?  Relief is just a click away, at www.american.redcross.org. 

Planning For The End

A friend pointed out to me a recent CNN piece which is truly an excellent reminder for all of us - old and young alike - about the value of planning ahead for a loved one's death, or even your own. 

In today's busy world, many of us have trouble thinking ahead even about positive things, like what sort of life we'll want in retirement, let alone the more unpleasant topics like DYING.  It seems there's a tendency to think that "it can't happen to us," although the odds are heavily against that.

The article highlights a serious political point, too.   The author, Kristi Guillory, notes how the Obama administration's seemingly worthy efforts to focus attention on such planning have now been abandoned.  The whole issue of end-of-life planning became a political football when a certain former Alaska Governor decided that discussing such matters with your doctor equated to "death panels."  This foolish nonsense was picked up and echoed by other Republicans, who -- lacking rational arguments for opposing universal access to health care -- were desperate for any pretext to fan the flames of irrationality to kill the health care legislation. 

On this issue, at least, that tactic succeeded.  End-of-life planning became pure political poison, and will remain in legislative limbo for the foreseeable future.  The fact that it won't be provided for in any version of health care, of course, is not a reason to overlook doing such planning.  (You may want to hurry, before the GOP starts legislating against any sort of EOL planning, even on the state or private level.)

Meanwhile, the whole episode should be a reminder, as we have just emerged from a minor skirmish over budget issues and face more serious ones in the near future, what serious consequences the willful misrepresentations of a relative handful of extremist politicians can have. 

"Ignorance" is an interesting word, used contemporarily almost as a synonym for "uneducated."  But its root of course is "ignore," suggesting that the ignorant person knows certain facts, but chooses to overlook them.  In that sense, some of today's politicians are truly ignorant.  They should truly be ignored. 

Our Cup of Ignorance Runneth Over

Over time, I've become convinced that religion can be responsible for as much harm as good in the world.  That is, I suspect, especially true when it's wielded as a weapon in the hands of ignoramuses. 

That's how we come to have the spectacle of Terry Jones, the pastor of a tiny church in Florida dedicated apparently mostly to the worship of himself, burning a Koran and setting off riots in Muslim countries that got people killed.  Jones's whole approach to Christianity seems at odds with the principles that Christianity espouses, yet his case is far from unique.  This happens, I think, because once you accept a few premises "on faith," without challenge, it's easy to come to see the world as a realm of absolutes, a cosmos of black-or-white.

Ignorant too, we must admit, is the reaction of devout Muslims in Afghanistan, who responded to Jones's act with demonstrations that turned to riots that turned to murder.  We cannot excuse this behavior either, though we can understand it, as the action of relatively ignorant or unsophisticated people whose religious understanding is limited and who may have been subtly incited by terrorists.  Still, the reaction is ignorant, because it fails to understand the Western concept of free speech, it reflects a mistaken understanding of Islamic religious principles (just as Jones holds mistaken views on Christian ones), and it reconfirms the negative stereotypes that uninformed fools like Jones believe.

Overall, it's not quite a "wash," though.  Jones, in my mind, bears a heavier burden of responsiblity for fostering hatred.  He's an individual actor, responsible for his own decisions about knowingly confrontational acts in a way a mob, even a purposely incited one, is not.  

Even At The Local Level, Religion And Politics Don't Mix

I liked the little story I saw this morning about one local Maryland county commissioner by the name of Paul Smith.  "Liked" it, because it so clearly illustrates the dangers of mixing politics and religion.

Mr. Smith, it turns out, is a self-described devout Mormon.  And because he is, he wants to use his political position to apply Mormon religious doctrine to everyone in his county.  He explained his vote to cut the local HeadStart program by expounding his belief that "a woman's place is in the home."  No need to have a program to take care of the kids of working parents, who should just stay home with the kids instead (he's referring only to the women, of course).  Having stated this in a hearing on the issue, Smith should be grateful that he wasn't beaten to a bloody pulp.

The Commissioner is entitled to these quaint notions as a part of his faith and of his personal life choice.  Anyone may choose to be a narrow-minded bigot - in private.  But souch people shouldn't run for public office; and when they do, and when voters are foolish enough to elect them, they should have enough humility to see that they're not gods.  They become the representative of all the people; they lose the right to try to impose their worldview on everyone.   If they can't restrain themselves, then perhaps, to paraphrase Smith himself, they should just "stay home."

The Smiths of the world need to recognize that precisely because we live in a multi-faith society, our politics must remain secular.  To inject, or worse, try to legislate, the doctrines of one or another church is to descend into the morass of religious persecution - the kind of stuff which motivated our ancestors to flee Merrie Olde England. 

John F. Kennedy, as a Roman Catholic Presidential candidate, was controversial because of his religion, but validated voters' trust by avoiding religious justifications for his legislative proposals.  Richard Nixon was a Quaker but did not carry his pacifism into his foreign policy.  Voters still need to be extremely careful in assessing the religious intentions of the candidates they vote for.