Morning Fog

Man And Technology

In the Washington DC area a week ago, we had a bad subway accident.  One train collided into the back of another; nine people were killed.  Evidently circuits, intended to prevent exactly that kind of accident, failed.  Afterward, experts who have studied how humans interact with technological systems are suggesting that humans may come to rely so much on the proper working of complicated systems that they "tune out" and aren't prepared to provide human input when it's really needed.  Others point out this is an issue in many other transportation disasters, like the Air France flight that plummeted into the ocean north of Brazil, or recent train accidents.  This idea seems to have wide acceptance among analysts, and has a common-sense credibility, too. 

Also within the past day or two, I read somewhere an item (which I can't find now) forecasting that self-driving, accident-avoiding cars, based on a combination of sensors, GPS, and other new technology, may be "closer than we think."  But in light of my first paragraph, I have to ask, "Why?"  Don't we already suffer from too many people doing too many other things behind the wheel other than focusing on their driving?

I have little confidence in technology that is supposed to replace the engagement of the human brain in complex situations.  I guess my uneasy feeling is best encapsulated by the insurance commercial that has a driver, unperturbedly following the instructions of a voice from his GPS system, when the voice says "turn left" and he crashes head-on into a storefront.  Increasingly "smart" technology in various applications can be a boon, but it's foolish to become too reliant on it.

No News Is Bad News

Back in the early days of television there were people who thought the medium could become a fount of serious news and education.  How wrong they were.  Despite some early experiments, and work done by pioneers like Edward R. Murrow, "TV news" over the years steadily became more and more of a self-contradiction.  The daily news on PBS may be an exception, and occasionally there are network news special reports - more like documentaries, actually - devoted to a specific topic, which can demonstrate the potential power of TV.   

But by and large, news on network television takes a back seat to entertainment or, to be more accurate, news is like a hostage of entertainment, allowed to speak only when the tape is ripped off its mouth, and then often to make a statement prepared by its captor "entertainment."  That's why we see reports purporting to find deep newsworthiness in some new detergent-drama being aired on Channel X later this evening, and similar perversions.

The latest example, of course, is the coverage provided the recent death of Michael Jackson.  Friday, more than 24 hours after Jackson's death, after a full day of incessant repetition of the same facts, one national network still devoted its entire evening news to Jackson (with a 30-second exception about the entertaining affair of South Carolina's Governor).  There was news of his death (yes, we knew that), interviews with people who knew him "back when," a retrospective of his impact on pop music, a report that everybody was sold out of Michael Jackson CDs within a few hours...in short, the long-suffering hostage (news) was trotted out to read, not a ransom note but a fanzine.

Does this make sense?   The "news" part was that Michael Jackson died.  Fifteen seconds, end of story.  Or a full minute, maybe, to add one or two video clips -- that was the treatment that the equally though less weirdly deceased Ed McMahon and Farrah Fawcett got.  It's not that nothing was happening anywhere else in the world - Afghanistan, Iraq, Capitol Hill, or even Pierre, South Dakota.  No, it's evident that network execs and possibly anchors just realized the so-called King of Pop would attract more eyeballs for commercials than anything else, so information was hog-tied and hidden behind a curtain. 

I completely understand that Jackson's fans, who allegedly are numerous, would eat up all the coverage that could be thrown at them.  And plenty WAS thrown at them, not just in constant reports and retrospectives on television, but in all other media too.  Other "news" media (online services, print media) can offer blanket attention to one event while still providing real news in addition; but television's 30-minute doses of news are never going to be more than 30 minutes (and often are less) so if Michael Jackson gets all the time, nothing is left.  On any given day, if entertainment and celebrity are afoot, TV can't be relied on to tell an informed citizen what he/she needs to know.  That's the fatal flaw of television as an information medium; should the networks even bother?

The Seamy Side Of Private Health Insurance

Within a couple days of those new ads on TV trying to scare people about the nonexistent threat of single-payer government health care, it's poetic to see news items turn up that show how far private health insurers under our existing system have run amok.

First there was a report from the Senate Commerce Committee (which we might suppose is not unfriendly to business interests) regarding how "insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell 'junk' policies that do not cover needed care." (Quote is from the Washington Post story, not the committee report itself.)  A former insurance executive relates that "The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable -- publicly accountable -- health-care option," a tactic that "may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans."  The report also brings up that most companies use deliberately confusing forms, as well as purposely unrepresentative "usual and normal" cost figures on which to base compensation.  Click here for the full report and related materials.

The same day, news from the other side of the Hill reported a House committee looking into operational irregularities in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.  (Don't be confused by the name: That's not "government insurance," it's the plan under which private-sector insurance companies offer a vareity of policies to federal employees, including Congressmen.)  Here, Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, notes that the government has not sought to regulate the plan, relying instead on competition among private insurers to keep prices low (just as opponents of the "government option" propose that we all should do).  Guess what?  Prices aren't low...federal employees are being charged "substantially more" for prescriptions than in other plans, even while their medical information is often being sold without their consent by pharmacy managers.

Of course, I understand that these reports are coming at this time for a reason -- to influence the debate on health care reform.  I am certain that the abuses reported are not common to all companies (though probably to a large majority of them).   Nevertheless, these reports bring us actual statements by a variety of people in authority both within and outside the health care industry, so they are far more credible than the chicken-little fantasies conjured up by industry lobbyists to scare us about a "Canadian system." 

Both reports provide very strong evidence of why we need a government option in our health care mix. 

Lord Elgin To Lose His Marbles?

It came as a pleasant surprise for me to see that Greece has taken another step to enhance its claim for return of the so-called Elgin Marbles from the British Museum, where they have resided for two centuries.  The original removal and transfer to Britain of these marble sculptures and other artifacts from the Parthenon by Thomas Bruce, Earl of Elgin, who was British ambassador to the Ottoman court at the turn of the 19th century, was controversial even at the time.  In modern times, requests from the Greek government that they be returned have been declined for various reasons, including recently that the Greeks had no place to properly protect and exhibit them.

Now, with the opening of the new Acropolis Museum in Athens, Greek President Papoulias and his Culture Minister Samaras say with some apparent justification that that excuse is no longer valid.  The new museum was designed specifically to house the full reunited collection (those that Bruce removed and those that were left in Greece).   

The new museum does put more pressure on the Brits to act, but is unlikely to solve the argument immediately.  Of course, the British Museum also has a space designed to house them, but that seems somewhat irrelevant now.  There's also the argument that  Elgin had permission from the Ottoman Emperor, who controlled Greece at the time, to access, or even remove, the works; but the authenticity of that permission is also in doubt. 

Finally, museum officials everywhere will doubtless be reluctant to set any precedent for the return of art works once acquired.  A century or two ago, it was common for intrepid archaeologists and explorers to go off on an expedition and return with works of art or other artifacts, much as the great white hunter might bring back a rhinoceros head.  There are many, many huge works of architecture and art in western museums that have been removed from their original sites under such circumstances, and whose return might be claimed:  Think of the famous Pergamon Museum in Berlin, which houses both the Great Altar of Pergamon (an ancient site now in Turkey) and the Ishtar Gate of Babylon.

Ultimately, though, in cases like these, regardless of the strained legality of how such works were obtained, or the raw fact of simple possession, isn't it really about fairness and justice?  One recent example was the U.S. acquisition of the Crown of St. Stephen, captured by U.S. troops in 1945 and brought to this country to save it from the advancing Soviets; it was returned to Budapest in 1978.  The Elgin Marbles should go back to Greece.  Since it's not uncommon for museums to have, either by trade or purchase, objects from all over the globe, perhaps it would be possible to reach an agreement by which a relative few original pieces might be kept.  But as time passes, the continued holding of these raided works far from their cultural milieux seems less and less justifiable. 

Health Care Terrorism

The subject of health care for some reason excites the emotions of wild-eyed reactionaries more than most subjects; it also drives the less emotional but more calculating beady-eyed beancounters (we'll call them the CBBs) who run our major health care, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies into paroxysms of irrationality.

As a result, once again concerned that reforms now being discussed would eat into their profits, the CBBs are resorting to scare tactics, and the effort seems officially "on" to peddle the big lie.  I refer, of course, to the television ads that have started to appear this week, sponsored by the "PatientsUnitedNow.com" (we'll call them PUNc).  These "patients," like the "people" of the "People of America's Oil and Gas Industry" whom I've talked about before, are curiously wealthy, as they can afford to buy three 30-second spots in the single 30-minute evening news show I just watched, and presumably on many other shows too.  You might almost suppose they're not patients at all, because they sure sound like the CBBs!  Well, actually, the PUNc site is sponsored by one of those right-wing lobbying groups called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.  That way you won't think (if you're an idiot) that the CBBs are involved here.

Anyway...the Orwellian PUNc ad begins with an indictment of the Canadian health system (it's distorted but I'll ignore it because it's also completely irrelevant), and it moves on to the utterly false claim that "Washington" wants to impose a Canadian style system on the U.S. 

Actually, as I'm sure PUNc knows, no one is actually proposing a Canadian-style government-run health care system.  We all know, of course, that there are some radical Democrats who do favor a so-called "single-payer" option.  The PUNc offers a video clip of one, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, as their proof that "Washington" is planning to take over health care.  But these people are few, and there are equally extreme views on the reactionary right of the spectrum, and in both cases, nobody is listening to them. 

ALL the plans currently under consideration in Congress provide for building on the private-insurer based system that we already have.  Some of those plans include the "government option" that would be only one choice in a veritable ocean of hundreds, if not thousands, of privately-run plans.  The CBBs are scared to death of this public option, and they want you to be scared too.  So they just lie.  "Washington" is not planning to governmentalize our entire health care system.    

We might ask why the CBBs are SO frightened.  Since they and their paid sponsors in Congress profess to believe in the power of the private sector to do anything better and cheaper than government, what could possibly be the danger in one puny government-devised plan?  Surely it would be inefficient, costly, and would carry draconian rules forcing you to use a team of government-hired quacks for your health care.  So you'd choose one of the hundreds of private plans instead, right?  Maybe you're concerned that you don't choose your own health care plan, your employer does.  But since the private plans, all goosed up with the juice of free enterprise, would be able to offer care cheaper and more efficiently, believe me, no employer is going to pick the more expensive government plan.  

Does PUNc really think that the scary Congresswoman Schakowsky's prediction (everybody will race to get into the government option, leaving the poor CBBs bereft) can possibly materialize?  Hardly.  The American people would have to elect about 300 more Schakowskys (and if they did, wouldn't that be an expression of the will of the American people?)

The answer, as I've said before, is that maybe the private sector can indeed fashion a cheaper, better plan than the government.  But they don't want to because there isn't enough profit in providing fair coverage at a fair price.  Remember, these folks are not so different from the credit card companies (which have recently suffered a minor wrist-slap from Congress for their rapacious treatment of consumers).  And if the continue to resist competition instead of adapting to it, they'll be headed down the path of GM and Chrysler.  Corporations seek profits, the more profit the better.  That's what they do.  But without checks and controls from government, they easily get out of hand.

I diverge...the main point is that I resent PUNc's lying to me, and I dislike its scare tactics, straight out of the Rovian Swift-Boat-Veterans playbook.  This form of public "dialogue" is no different from the terrorist who sets off a bomb in a public place.  The objective is to frighten people into doing things without considering all the facts.

The PUNc TV blurb also says that "no government should come between you and your family" -- damned right, it's the CBBs who do that now, and they want to keep on doing it.  In one sense, perhaps we really should be scared...scared that if we swallow these companies' ..(er, "patients' ") tripe, they'll still be in unregulated, noncompetitive control of our health care, and just imagine what lies they'll tell us then.

My sense of the free exchange of ideas compels me normally to provide links to websites, even those with which I don't agree. I feel less compelled when the site propagates pure lies and clearly does not share my sense of editorial responsibility.  However, if you have read this far and haven't seen the TV ad, here's where you can see what they call "Shona's ad."  

Just A Little Gardening

With so much rancor in the political arena these days, it's nice to call attention to a great project with a lot of benefits, which to my knowledge no one has criticized -- namely, the White House vegetable garden.

Even if you live far from Washington D.C., you are probably aware that First Lady Michelle Obama decided back in March to create a vegetable garden on the White House grounds, the first such garden since the days of Eleanor Roosevelt.  One stated purpose was to provide the White House kitchen with more locally (very locally) grown fresh produce for the First Family and for White House guests.

The greater impact, though, was through Obama's decision to involve a group of fifth graders from a DC school in digging and planting the garden.  Last week, the same group returned to the White House for harvest time.  Like most of us in urbanized America, these kids are a long way from our farming tradition, but the entire experience -- wrapped up with a lunch utilizing the foodstuffs they grew, and a talk about the importance of fresh food and good nutrition, must make a huge and hopefully positive impact on them.  And because it's the White House, of course, the publicity for the effort creates ripples that will touch a lot more young people than just the few dozen who participated directly.

The timing is interesting.  Planting gardens has long been associated with hard economic times.  During both World Wars, "victory gardens" were encouraged in several countries, including the U.S., not just for the food that could be grown, but as a morale booster.  No one seems to have dubbed the current effort "victory garden" yet, but clearly at a time when the demand for garden seeds is outstripping demand, the time is ripe. 

Speaking of morale, one last positive effect of the White House garden goes far beyond lettuce or nutrition.  The vegetable patch was one element of a much broader effort both Obamas have made to get involved in the local community - out for a burger at lunch, serving food to the poor, planning events in schools.  Never before has a President or First Lady connected with the people of the Washington area in this direct a fashion; this, I think, is appreciated especially here in D.C. with its orphaned, "taxation-without-representation" status.   

Silliness On Iran

Sunday brought out a whole raft of foreign policy experts like Sen. Charles Grassley, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Sen. John McCain, as well as actor Fred Thompson, to suggest that the Obama administration's response to events in Iran has been weak or insufficient. 

Sen. Richard Lugar, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, who actually knows a thing or two about international policy, said that the Obama response was about right.  More important, Iranians in the U.S., who might also be expected understand the finer points of how the wrong official U.S. statement could redound against the cause of democracy in Iran, have also indicated they think the administration has taken an appropriate line.   

As some analysts are pointing out, there's a useful distinction to be drawn between our sticking in our two-cents'-worth regarding the fairness of the election (without further evidence of fraud), and expressing ourselves regarding the harsh police crackdown against protesters (which Obama has called "unjust").  I imagine we'll see a stronger Obama statement on this point soon. 

As for the contested elections, perhaps U.S. critics would prefer to apply the Iraq model:  take out the guy we don't like, force elections, and enthrone democracy .  But even if you think that worked in Iraq (I don't), the fact is that strong, lasting democratic institutions cannot be imposed or created at the snap of anyone's fingers.  They develop from within a country, from indigenous political currents.  Developments yesterday provide good evidence of this thesis.  Former President Rafsanjani has been critical of Ahmadinejad, and he failed to appear publicly to support the government's call to unite behind the "official" election results; Rafsanjani's daughter has supported Mousavi, and she and some other relatives have reportedly been arrested.  Evidently, differences exist within the ruling clerical clique.  This is the kind of ferment that over time can give birth to democracy.  But both Rafsanjani and Mousavi would be in far more tenuous political situations if our statements allowed Khamenei to paint them credibly as a stalking horse for the Great Satan. 

Health Care: The Government Option

We're hearing disturbing hints lately that the Obama administration will, or may be forced to, drop its insistence on a government-sponsored insurance program as part of the overall remedy for our health care system.  Obama himself has restated his determination to include a government option, but others like discredited former Senator Tom Daschle are murmuring that the reform effort is too important and too timely to be allowed to fall apart over any one issue. 

Meanwhile, insurance and pharmaceutical companies and their stalking horses in Congress continue to insist that the government option is a deal-breaker, or in the words of another has-been Senator, Bob Dole, "dead on arrival."  Some analysts, not just on the right, have this little red herring on a hook halfway down their throats and have begun to argue for "compromise" on this issue.

The problems we're now facing have resulted from a system in which we relied on the private sector.  It brought us skyrocketing costs, 40 million uninsured, severe treatment disparities based on income, and a not-very-healthy population.  Proponents of the private sector generally tell us that business can deliver anything more efficiently and at lower cost than the government, even when they're taking profits out of it.  That's true up to a point - the point where people need basic services but can't afford them (or get second-class care for other reasons).  If we were to enact revised rules on health care without a government option, how would that basic equation change? 

If the private sector is truly so efficient, why on earth would they fear competing with a stodgy ol' government program?   Basically, because the preferred and most profitable business strategy is not to compete at all, if you don't have to.  A no-frills government program at an honest cost would tend to set a standard against which private policies could be judged.  Presumably, the more efficient private sector could offer something similar at a lower rate, but profit margins would be slimmer.  A government program offering a handful of limited but understandable options would make it more difficult for for-profit companies to roil the waters with the welter of confusing, hard-to-compare options that they find so profitable.

Politics is the art of the possible, the art of compromise.  Yet I must agree with E.J. Dionne that the major compromises have already been made.  The idea of a single-payer, all government program isn't even on the table (even though some politicians continue to try to scare people with that prospect).  No one is suggesting programs that "won't allow you to choose your doctor," though that IS the model for most private sector HMOs.  (Incidentally, if a government plan wouldn't allow you to choose your doctor, and people really want to choose their doctors, wouldn't that be another inducement for them to go private?)  Moreover, the private health care industry is being handed 40 million new customers on a silver platter; they can't wait to get their hands on them, but they sure don't want anybody setting any bothersome new restrictions on how they deal with those customers. 

Up to now, the big private-sector players have been the problem; they say they want to be a part of the solution but haven't brought much to the table beyond some vague promises of future savings.   I can't imagine an effective fix that doesn't include the government option.  What if the government option were dropped but with strong, enforceable controls and regulation of all private policies?  I have a feeling that Sen. Dole would declare that option even deader on arrival.

Flashing Lights

It seemed a fairly routine news story:  Driver ticketed for flashing headlights after being warned of a speed trap, driver challenges ticket, ticket is dismissed.  Not something I'd think to blog about usually, but on reflection, I realized this mundane tale has so many facets that it's a perfect parable for the complexity of modern life.  Check out the link, then consider:

Our love-hate relationship with "government."  The whole question of speeding enforcement and avoidance is illustrative:   It's a sort of national sport, if not an obsession.  Few of us dispute that governments do, and should, establish speed limits.  Government authorities set them as a general guide for safety, and most are not unreasonable given roads, traffic conditions, and the generally bad driving habits of most Americans.  Still, everyone believes it's OK for him personally to drive faster.  So government attempts to enforce the law are declaimed as merely cynical attempts to increase revenue, the answer to radar is radar detectors, and the answer to speed cameras is new systems that load camera locations into software that warns you through your GPS.  

Lying in polls.  The newspaper running this story also had a reader survey.  When I saw it, 50% of respondents said they "always" warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap, and another 40% said they might, depending on circumstances.   If that were true, you'd see a veritable blaze of light like Fourth-of-July fireworks coming at you whenever you were approaching a speed trap.  Have you ever seen more than one or two?  I haven't.

Interpreting the law.  According to this article, Maryland law forbids "driving with flashing lights."  This seems to me to refer pretty clearly to a constantly flashing light such as highway maintenance vehicles might have.  Was the officer correct to issue a ticket to someone just flashing headlights once?  Probably not. After all, flashing headlights (once) does have legitimate functions; it can indicate you are letting somebody pull out ahead of you; sometimes it's a friendly gesture to acknowledge another driver's behavior or even that she drives the same puce VW bug as you do; it's also about the only way to tell some fool at night to get his high beams off.  And, as we see here, it's a way to let somebody know there's a speed trap ahead.  Could the Maryland lawmakers really have intended to negate all these legitimate uses of headlights? 

Writing legislation and regulation that really defines what it's about.  Could the law be written more clearly, so there would be no doubt about how the officer should have interpreted it? For this case, surely.  Sometimes it seems as if legislators and regulators purposely strive to write ambiguous legislation.  On the other hand, every regulation is bound to run up against unpredicted real-life complications.  By common sense and accepted usage, the law's reference to "flashing lights" pretty clearly rules out headlights.  But wait - when you're driving at 60 (in a 45-mph zone, of course), and your engine just dies on you, isn't punching on your four-way red flashers about the first thing to do, to warn others of a problem?  Did the state of Maryland really mean to outlaw that option?

Lawyerly excess.  The driver who got his ticket annulled isn't happy yet.  He's a lawyer, and he has demanded an apology, while threatening a lawsuit if he doesn't get one.  That's over the top, but it's what lawyers do.  It brings to mind a regionally notorious case in which a judge sued a dry cleaner for losing a pair of pants - for $50,000 in damages!  The case dragged on for months, drove the dry cleaner out of business, and still isn't fully resolved. 

Well, that's about it (and plenty enough, you say?).   But here in microcosm are many of the same factors and behavior patterns that make all today's bigger, national, front-page issues so complex, be it health care reform, the GM bankruptcy, consumer protection, climate change, revamping the financial system, or resuscitating the economy.  The answers our representatives in Congress come up with won't be entirely clear, they won't succeed in dealing with every contingency, they won't satisfy everyone, and they won't escape being challenged.  To a surprising degree, we are all still Charlie Chaplin wrestling with the complications of Modern Times. 

American Rust - A Novel

Every so often I find a book I like well enough for a quick plug here, even if it is not connected to some subject matter I'm writing about.  American Rust, by Philipp Meyer, is one such.  Not too long ago I read a mention of it somewhere.  It's a first novel, so it's not without a few minor faults, but I was impressed by its exploration of issues of guilt, friendship, and family ties, set against the realistic background of a western Pennsylvania town decaying because its main economic engine, a large factory, has closed. 

Want to purchase?  Link to Amazon.com in the right margin.>>>>>>