Morning Fog

Informational Filtering

I'm short on time lately but a recent piece by Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker, entitled The Things People Say, is an excellent read detailing how the internet helps insure that kook ideas gain currency over reality.  It explains a good deal about our recent health care debate, and also the persistence of such inanities as the so-called "birther" phonomenon.

  

The Next Wave Of Reform

A lot of people are pointing nowadays to declared abuses of the various rules and privileges that enable a small group of Congresspersons, or frequently just a single member fo the Senate, to block action on a bill or a simple confirmation.  Continuing to burnish their reputation as the Party of No, Republicans these days have sought to prevent practically anything from moving through Congress. 

The problem has arisen with respect to confirming Administration nominees to key government posts and to ambassadorial assignments.  In addition, as one comment on this blog pointed out yesterday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has singlehandedly stalled legislation that would make important fixes in veterans' health care.  Most recently, a handful of Republican Senators, including Sens. Sessions and Graham, tried to block a noncontroversial appointment to the federal bench.  No wonder these antediluvian representatives of the people look constipated all the time!   

This tyranny of one is but one manifestation of a Congress that is badly dysfunctional, frequently undemocratic, and often paralyzed in its attempts to accomplish the people's business.  It's not surprising that serious political analysts have begun to call for far-reaching reform of Congress itself. 

It's not only Republicans, of course.  A few Democrats are playing the same game to try to get their way within their party, but by being selfish, they're doing little more than handing victory to the Republican side.  Nevertheless, it's mainly Republicans at this time, since bringing the legislative process to a complete halt seems to be a GOP strategy, and because the Democrats are in power now.   Back when the Republicans were in control, of course, it was the Democrats who invoked the same privileges to try to prevent action by the Republican majority. 

And that, of course, is the problem.  Calls for reform of Congress, streamlining procedures, making things more democratic -- these have been heard for decades.  See, for example, The Broken Branch, by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, written several years ago.  But reform never occurs because neither party will countenance reform when it's in power, and proposals for changes come only from the minority party. 

It's a common negotiating problem.  I worked for a few years on "Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction" negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, aimed at reducing the levels of conventional forces in Europe and which would have brought security and cost benefits to both sides.  Depending on shifts in each side's relative strength, or differing perceptions of the political climate, we'd consistently get one side proposing something the other was adamantly opposed to.  Perhaps a year later, Side B would decide to accept Side A's proposal but by then the relative advantages would have changed and Side A would refuse.  These talks ran on for close to 17 years before an agreement was reached, under a different name (CFE ), by which time the Warsaw Pact was rapidly falling apart and the agreement much less essential.

Agreements for change are reached when opposing sides both consider it in their interest to do so; it's a matter of political will and relative advantage.  It's not clear what sort of electoral distribution of seats, or cataclysmic political event, might bring about the necessary epiphany to both parties.  I do know I'd prefer not to wait for the cataclysmic event.

Boobs, Boobs, Boobs

No, this isn't a post about the new recommendations on breast cancer screening for women (I wrote about that yesterday).

This is about the ancient wisdom of never underestimating people's intelligence.  We've had some recent examples of real dumbness in several areas.  The other day I mentioned the burglar who used his victim's computer to access his (the burglar's) Facebook page, but then failed to log off.  Another source of examples, often, is the Saturday column in the Washington Post in which A.J. ("Average Joe") Reader can write in to express his view on the really important issues of the day, like how a certain comic strip last week insulted his dog.

But today my attention was drawn to two separate items on the evening news (ABC, in this case).

One was contained in a report on reactions to yesterday's breast cancer recommendations.  In a hospital, a medical professional told the tale of a woman in her 40's who called in to cancel scheduled surgery on a suspicious lump in a breast.  Reportedly, the patient said that since the new guidelines said women didn't need to be screened until age 50, anything that was discovered when she had been screened (age 41) couldn't be really dangerous.  Wow, and she figured that out all by herself!  Frankly, I doubt anyone can be that dumb; I suspect if reporters tracked her down, they'd find someone who called in to make a political point, who will reschedule her appointment tomorrow.  Or maybe it was Sarah Palin. 

Speaking of Sarah, the other example comes from a woman-in-the-mall interview at her first book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  One woman waiting in line for her copy allowed herself to be photographed saying that Palin could win the Presidency "if the media leaves [sic] her alone."  Actually, that's not dumb.  Palin probably could win the Presidency if the media allowed her views to go unreported.  What's dumb is to suppose that the media should "leave her alone."

So yes, there are boobs everywhere.  Some even get elected to Congress, and occasionally one makes it to the White House.  Two in 20 years would be a bit much, though. 

Cancer Screening

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued new recommendations that routine screenings for breast cancer should be done only every two years rather than annually, and starting at age 50 rather than 40 for most women.  To the layman, this seems like news to be welcomed.  Reduced frequency of a painful and dreaded screening, with no difference in health outcomes for most patients?  What's not to like?  And indeed, some experts have already applauded these findings. On the other hand, very quickly after the announcement, other voices were raised in a chorus of protest.  Those early negative reactions seem baseless. 

First, the recommendations don't mean "doing away with screening," as one radiology professor complained.  In fact the PSTF's spokesman was at pains to point out the changes relate only to routine screening.  As with other diseases, a patient's history, doctor's advice, and other factors will continue to determine when the "standard" recommendations need to be ignored.  So it seems self-evident that some patients, who might need or want screening earlier than age 50, based on self-examinations, or on a doctor's recommendation, or even just a preference, will obtain it.

Second, the reasons provided for changing the "rules" seem rational:  Data suggest that more is lost under current norms (once a year after 40) in anxiety, false positives, and needless costly/painful procedures, than is gained by the screenings.  In this respect, breast cancer and prostate cancer are similar.  The real message here is that current screening tests for both diseases really don't work very well, and need improvement.

Third, I don't see politics in the situation.  Some have professed to see the PSTF's announcement, coming from a government agency, no less, as a harbinger of "denial of care" or "rationing" that's in store for us under health reform legislation.  But to me, that's seriously paranoid.  You can believe that the government is plotting to ration care and would make that public before any legislation is passed, or you could choose the more likely conclusion that only those opposing health care changes might hope to benefit from announcing these changes now.  In fact, making this announcement before reform bills are passed strongly suggests that the changes are proposed for sound health reasons.

Last, a word about cost.  Some who bemoan the changed recommendations worry that insurance companies might refuse to pay for any screening before age 40.  Undoubtedly that's at least a possibility.  But this complaint also reflects the distorted nature of "cost" perceptions in our health care system.  Existing bills, as many experts have pointed out, may result in more people being insured, or in fewer abuses of policy coverage, but they don't truly deal with the rising costs of most health care.  Here's a case where things do need to change.  When all care is essentially free (ie. covered by insurance), the consumer has no incentive to worry about the cost of what he "wants."  If consumers were focused on costs, a switch that would reduce the frequency of an expensive screening by half would be a no-brainer.  That's the next, and bigger task, for health care reformers.

Federal Regs for Subways

Out of nowhere, it seems, we suddenly have a move to provide federal safety regulation for subway systems (and bus systems too).  At first glance, I thought I'd be against this, as not really necessary - can't local systems be left to management by local authorities?  Reading on through the news report, though, it seems there may be advantages in providing at least a limited set of federal requirements, especially when some system directors say they would welcome the regulation, even when the details of the proposed rules haven't been developed yet.  Besides, other transportation systems (train, ship, and plane) have been regulated for years; subway systems were omitted from legislation back in 1965 only because when regulations were considered, there were only a handful of systems in the country. 

As always in the political system, it requires a crisis or a disaster to spur action.  It's pretty clear that the serious subway derailment here in the Washington DC system last June was the catalyst for the proposal for federal regulation.  It wasn't a disaster on the scale of an airplane crash, but because it was right in their back yard, it's hard for the government or Congress to ignore.

Even if I were inclined to argue against the creation of new federal regulations, realism suggests I should just stand aside before the steamroller crushes me.  Like "cash for clunkers" and the extension of the $8,000 new-home-buyer credit, this proposal has the magic ingredient that inevitably will cause lawmakers to line up behind it: an opportunity to look good and get favorable public exposure by pandering to our perceptions of what's good for us.  Security is "in," and almost anything can be justified under its broad umbrella.

That general view on security, by the way, gets diluted on the personal level, where we're all for safety that protects us from the actions of others (we think) but don't want to admit we have responsibility for our own safety.  So we will readily buy giant trucks and load them with airbags to protect ourselves from harm, but we'll resist simple technology to enforce speed limits and stoplights because those might interfere with our right to drive irresponsibly and endanger others.

On Afghanistan, It's Time

At least two columnists argue today that President Obama needs to make a decision on troops for Afghanistan and move ahead with it.  David Broder, in Enough Afghan Debate, says the internal discussion has been stretched "to the breaking point" and it's time to bring it to an end.  (Broder favors the McChrystal argument for more troops.)  Jackson Diehl, in "Obama's Reluctant Choice", suggests that Obama has to not just make a decision, but to demonstrate he believes the war in Afghanistan is really worth fighting.  Both writers accuse the President of "dithering," a word that's being used a lot elsewhere, too.

I agree with both of them, and last month pointed out the need to make the jump from lawyerly deliberation to active decision-making soon.  It hasn't happened.  What are the consequences?  Broder suggests that our commanders need to know, troop deployments need to begin, our allies must have certainty about U.S. intentions...all very true, but I think Diehl gets a little closer to the crux in saying that a couple more weeks won't have a great impact on the course of the war.  The real impact of the lengthy review and constant raising of new questions to be answered is on Obama's credibility as a decision-maker and on that front, the damage unfortunately is already done, and whatever decision comes now will already be too late to repair it. 

New York Terrorist Trials

The Obama Administration has decided to try a handful of the Guantánamo detainees in civilian courts in New York City.  While I'm sure this was a difficult decision for Attorney-General Holder and others, it seems to me the correct one.  It fulfills an Obama campaign pledge, it begins the process of extracting us from a Cheney-Bush mistake that made a mockery of our justice system, and it reaffirms that we're a nation of laws.  Could this possibly be controversial, and if so, why?

According to many Republican politicians, it can be and is.  If we take the word of House Minority Leader John Boehner, for example, their reasons lie in the realms of security (what if there is violence because of the trials?), publicity (what if the accused use the media to get attention for their views?) and incredibly, the possibility that the plotters might be found innocent, due to some "legal technicality."  (My emphasis, Boehner's words.)  

I'm dumbstruck by this line of argument.  Can the Republican Party, the voice of conservatism, the self-proclaimed defender of the U.S. Constitution and the American tradition which includes the rule of law, really not see how the other option (trial in closed military courts without the "niceties" of civilian rules of evidence) flies in the face of that tradition? 

Maybe Boehner should have a look at some of those old Ronald Reagan and John Wayne Westerns, in which the local sheriff stands alone to keep the lynch mob away from his prisoner, even if there might be some violence, or publicity for the prisoner's side of the story, so that the varmint can have a fair trial and maybe, just maybe, even be found innocent.  This is a drama that's playing out today, with a new cast:  Obama as the sheriff, Holder maybe as his stalwart deputy, the town-hall objector crowd as the mob and Boehner, apparently, as their spokesman.  In a saner, less partisan world, the GOP should be the old drunken has-been lawyer in town who is prevailed upon to sober up, break open his dusty old law books, and defend the accused.

The concern that Khalid Sheik Muhammed and his four partners in crime might be found innocent particularly attracts my attention, for that normally is cited as one of the strengths of our legal system.  

I wonder if anyone recalls the Angela Davis case back in 1970-72.  Ms. Davis, a Communist, a Black Panther, definitely a radical, was arrested in a case involving the murder of a judge.  She, her lawyers, and other supporters claimed at the time that she could never get a fair trial, yet she was acquitted.  The charges and countercharges surrounding the trial, in a period of intense left-right partisanship not so different from what we are experiencing today, were heated, and they were front-page news.  I suppose the verdict upset the right-wingers of the day, but I always thought it showed the strength and resiliency of our legal system.  Reading the Wikipedia article on Angela Davis today (link above), it's just amazing to see how short and matter-of-fact the paragraph about this trial is, compared to the furor it sparked at the time. We might conclude that the verdict averted a situation in which Ms. Davis might have become a martyr, or her trial might have touched off more controversy, or even violence -- and that's also a strength of our system.

The politics of the New York trials is clear.  The main difficulty in Holder's decision was concern about the political fallout from the mob.  Today's Republicans oppose anything and everything done or proposed by the Obama administration.  If that's a viable strategy at all, it shouldn't be applied in a way that weakens our commitment to the rule of law.  And (to address another GOP bugaboo I've heard), it's our law, and our tradition, that we want to preserve.  We're not doing this for a bunch of "furriners," but for ourselves. 

Last but not least, I should note there's another source of opposition to the Holder decision. At least some of the relatives of the 9/11 victims also object, evidently on pretty much the same grounds.  Those who do can be forgiven for their emotionalism, but for them there's a principle that should always apply:  the victims of a crime do not, and should not, have any influence in how justice is meted out. 

Veterans Day

A friend who has not served in the military recently expressed concern about how our veterans, like those being withdrawn from Iraq, for example, make the transition back to the civilian world, and what kind of help they get in doing so.  Today seems an appropriate time to address that.

First, those of us of older generations have to adjust our thinking a bit.  Unlike the days of World War II, or even Vietnam, when we had tens or hundreds of thousands of draftees returning to the civilian economy in a wave, today's military is all-volunteer.  Many of the troops pulled out of Iraq will not leave the military, but will remain to fight the next war.  Second, troop levels in our current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are far lower than the numbers engaged in some earlier conflicts.

Nevertheless, there are still large numbers of military members facing reentry.  There are the disabled, and those who just choose to leave service for one reason or another.  In addition, the 21st century has witnessed the call-up of Reserve and National Guard units on an unprecedented scale, and most of those men and women will return to civilian life. (Incidentally, for a detailed look at the National Guard experience, I recommend "As You Were," by Chris Davenport - see the link in the right margin to purchase from amazon.)

I won't go into the many forms of service and support provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs except to note that they exist (visit the VA website for a glimpse of the scope of these programs), and they continue to improve from one war to the next.  For example, in recent years the former "Veterans Administration" was upgraded to a full-fledged cabinet department; and as recently as this Monday, President Obama signed an executive order creating a special effort on veterans' employment.   But here too, there are gaps as rules and practices catch up to the changing realities of military service and military families, and complaints that more could be done.  

That brings me to the many and varied nongovernmental efforts being made by ordinary citizens, or by veterans themselves, to provide help that fills some of the gaps.  Let me just mention a few that I know of and/or have contributed to, that are serving veterans in innovative ways.   

• First, there is an effort focused especially on today (11/11/2009), being publicized by bloggers on both the left and right of the political spectrum, to encourage 11 million Americans to contribute at least $11 each for assistance to veterans. The idea seems to be a kind of "United Fund" whose beneficiaries are a wide range of veteran-assistance organizations. This struck me as a great idea, based on amount most of us can surely afford. For more info, or to contribute, try: http://www.eleven-eleven.org/.
• The Wounded Warrior Project  focuses on wounded and disabled vets with a number of excellent programs from the hospital bed on into civilian society.
• Some organizations focused on broader issues have programs specifically aimed at veterans -- one such is the Disability Rights Advocates for Technology (DRAFT), which runs a program known as Segs4vets to obtain those personal people-movers (Segways) to help disabled vets be more mobile.  
• Last but not least, you'll find efforts on the very local level too. A few individuals within Mitre Corp. have created an effort in the DC area to collect men's and women's business clothing in good condition to provide to veterans for job interviews or other occasions. Called "Suits for Vets," the program even provides free tailoring, including special adjustments for prosthetics as needed.

These are, of course, but a few of the myriad organizations devoted to the support of our veterans as they return to civilian life.  Your own internet search will turn up many more.   

A Handful of Jelly Beans

Jelly beans?  I never thought much about them until the Reagan years, when we were told that the President kept a dish of the Jelly Belly brand on his desk.  That must have awakened some ancient childhood memory, because since then, I've found it fun to buy a batch now and then.   I'm not much for sweets but what's intriguing about jelly beans is the variety of flavors, most of them pretty accurate renditions of the real thing, juxtaposed in sometimes jarring ways -- you can go from icky licorice (I've never cared for licorice) to "buttered popcorn," to watermelon or coffee (two of my favorites) in a trice.  That's why today's jelly-bean-style mashup brings together disparate items of unrelated "flavors," each of which may evoke different reactions, like these:

The Vain Burglar:  Thanks to Washington-DC area radio WBIG's Lisa for mentioning this odd tale of a burglar being sought by police who didn't like the photo they were using, so he sent them one he liked better over his cell phone.  This is being billed as a really dumb thief, and we do know those exist -- I heard a story somewhere yesterday about one who broke into a place but used the victim's computer to check his facebook page and didn't log off!  But to play devil's advocate, what if this photo-guy is really clever, and sent a photo he took of someone else, over a stolen cell phone?  Time will tell.  No reports yet that the gent has been collared by the long arm of the law.

Looking Ahead To Veterans Day:   Thanks to a friend who sent me this piece: http://www.rememberingthebrave.org/speech/.  It pretty much speaks for itself, with Veterans Day coming up.  It's about Marines, and appears to have been photographed at the Marine base and museum at Quantico, Virginia, but I think those of us who did our service in other branches will nevertheless be grateful for the Marines' legendary expertise with photographic equipment in addition to their weapons.  Don't forget to mark the day tomorrow.

I Was Just Lion Around When This Deer...:  Another DC-area tale of a confused deer who leapt the enclosure at the National Zoo and landed in with...two lions!  By the time the deer was rescued, it was a goner and had to be dispatched.  Evidently most spectators were rooting for the deer, and mothers rushed their innocent kids away.  My contrarian instincts tell me, however, that:

• This should have been a great learning experience for zoo visitors; isn't this why we have zoos?
• The report suggests that the lions were ineffectual or perhaps overfed, apparently failing to recognize "prey" for what it was; how otherwise could they have failed to kill the deer? It speaks to how our zoo animals aren't really "themselves" in the captive environment.
• Deer are in overpopulation almost everywhere in this country, including in the urban woods surrounding the National Zoo. In many places, hunters are sent in for a day or two to cull the populations so that forests aren't destroyed. This incident suggests another use for overpopulated deer, and could help address the other two issues I mentioned above.

Hasan The Terrorist?

Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan went off the rails a few days ago and killed a lot of innocent people.  We've had so many incidents of this kind over the years - we're familiar with the typology of these crimes.  Just within driving distance of my own house, we've had the shootings at Virginia Tech a few years ago, the closer-to-home killings committed by the "Beltway Sniper" John Muhammad,*  and the 80-year-old Nazi who attacked the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, to name but a few.

Something must be different about this one, though, because suddenly the specter of "terrorism" has arisen.  Two things are indeed different:  The perpetrator is a Muslim, and the shootings took place on an Army base.  But that's not much of a difference.  Everything so far supports the idea of another angry, isolated, wacko going off the deep end.  Examining the internet activities and reading habits of these characters after the fact is standard, and in most cases, they show connections to sites that might be considered suspect.   Is it really surprising that Hasan, as a Muslim, attended a mosque for prayer?  Don't many people, in confusion or despair, look to their religion?

But, terrorism? Sorry, I don't buy it.  I guess it's "terrorism" in a literal sense, i.e., any crime of this kind creates, by the intent of the killer, "terror."  This is the quaint old-fashioned kind of terrorism I first encountered in Paris in about 1950, where my U.S.-Army dad was assigned to help with rebuilding of military bases.  Communists ran through the Métro stations occasionally with their hands painted red, and they (or someone) vandalized our family car and threw dead rats over the fence in front of our house. 

But terrorism has grown up since then.  Now, we normally are referring to organized, often state-supported, international, terrorism.  Mr. Hasan's act has none of the characteristic markers of that.   Naturally, al-Qaeda and an occasional mufti will praise Hasan's act, but if they had organized it, I think we could count on it having been far better orchestrated, and claimed far more immediately and loudly. 

We'll see what investigators come up with, but for me, the answer lies in asking ourselves the simple question, if Hasan weren't a Muslim, would we be hunting for terrorism?  I think the answer is a clear "no."  Unfortunately the reactions of our officials and media suggest that terrorists - real terrorists - have been successful in shaping our thinking, and it's not healthy. 

* Since I have mentioned John Muhammad, it's worth noting that the Supreme Court today began the long, possibly quixotic process of restoring the American people's trust in it by denying a request to stay Muhammad's execution.