This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 28, 2010.
My Facebook Status: Revisit Health Care
Facebook, in case you've been living under a rock the past year or two, is a great Internet service for keeping in touch with friends and family.
According to Facebook, I have 173 friends. Most of the time, our interactions are simple. I post a status to say what's new in my life and my Facebook friends do the same. Every so often, I or they are moved to comment on those status updates in one way or another.
Status updates are generally of the "Wow, that movie was awful!" or "The recipe we cooked tonight was wonderful!" type. The kind of stuff that comedians like to poke fun at.
Last week, though, I was moved to post this (in the ubiquitous Facebook third-person):
"Steve is lamenting the loss in Massachusetts, but is thinking it needn't be the end of health care reform. It could just be the end to all the unseemly deals needed to get this far."
The update was, of course, about the loss in Massachusetts of Democrat Martha Coakley to Republican Scott Brown for a permanent replacement for Ted Kennedy's seat in the U.S. Senate. The win was a surprise not only because Massachusetts only has only 13 percent registered Republicans, but because just three weeks ago, Coakley was still leading in the polls. Brown's win was primarily due to his ability to sway the Massachusetts independent bloc, blowing pundit predictions out of the water.
The win means an end to the supposedly filibuster-proof 60-40 majority the Democrats gained once Minnesota's Al Franken finally took office back in July.
My Facebook status post brought comments from one of my liberal friends and several of my conservative friends, stirring a mini-debate.
Political debates on the Internet are nothing new, but often the debates take place behind the veil of some degree of anonymity. This debate, though, was not with anonymous avatars, with people I'd never met and never would. This debate was with friends, family, and co-workers. That meant that vitriol was at a minimum, and thoughtfulness and reflection were at a maximum.
Most of the posts agreed in particular with my final point — that the Senate bill is a perfect example of what's wrong with the legislative process. My conservative friends said that the abomination was because Republicans had been left out of the process. I replied that they seemed to forget all the committee hearings where the Republicans had more than ample time to give their input.
What was really responsible for the ugliness of the Senate bill, I noted, was how the Democratic leadership allowed the bill to be held hostage by other Democrats. Mindful of the razor-thin majority, a few Democrats were able to demand some pretty sweet deals for their states, deals the rest of us would be paying for. The most egregious example: Nebraska's Ben Nelson was able to guarantee that his state's Medicaid bill would be paid for by the federal government in perpetuity.
Thus far, I've supported passage of either the House or Senate version of the bill, despite these types of deals, so that we can get something out there, something that will stop insurance company abuses and save lives.
But given this change in the Senate, perhaps it is time to take a step back and have a fresh look at the problem. The debates have already been held, the discussion has already been had. We know those parts of the bills that have some Republican support. Let's pass those parts now. These include the complete elimination of pre-existing conditions and of retroactive policy denial, and a cap on insurance company profit-taking.
Then, using the momentum of change from these reforms and the goodwill they will create between the Congress and the people, we can continue to pound away at the health care problem, working toward a public option with teeth, rather than the limp impersonation that the current bills contain.
This sort of strategy should help both parties. The Republicans can tout their support for some reforms and hope the public forgets all the stalling tactics and the spreading of misinformation that started last summer. The Democrats can show some movement on an issue that the majority of the public wants fixed, giving them something to hang their hats on as election season nears.
Win-win for the parties; but more importantly, a win for the people. Something worth posting a Facebook status update about.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Humans versus Nature: The Challenge of Global Warming
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 14, 2010.
Humans versus Nature: The Challenge of Global Warming
Let's start with an assumption: global climate change is real and is happening now. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's data for 2009 confirms that the last decade was the warmest on record and that 2009 temperatures in the U.S. and the world were both above the long-term average.
Naturalist and author Richard Ellis's latest book, On Thin Ice, laments the loss of the polar bear because of the loss of its habitat. The polar ice cap, upon which the familiar white bear relies for hunting, is disappearing and the bear along with it. Within 50 years, Ellis writes, the polar bear will be gone -- no matter what we do, it will happen.
The images in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth are striking and disturbing: the melting of the polar ice caps leads to coastal flooding of a massive scale. In some projections, the entire state of Florida is submerged. We cringe when we think of the loss of a species like the polar bear, but what of the loss of an entire state?
Only a few pig-headed stalwarts completely deny global warming. For the rest of us, the question is not so much if it is happening, but why.
The first theory is that global warming is the result of natural processes, cycles that have repeated over and over again through history. For proponents of this Natural Theory, the Earth is too big, too complex, for the activities of our species to affect these cycles.
The second theory is that global warming is the direct result of the activities of we humans, especially since the dawning of the industrial age. This Human Theory recognizes long-term climate change cycles, as they are undeniable in the fossil record; but it alleges that we have either disrupted the natural cycle or we have accelerated it.
As a rule, liberals find themselves on the side of the Human Theory. The basic solution is that we need to cut back on our use of those things that make our society run, namely fossil fuels.
Conservatives mostly find themselves upholding the Natural Theory, and say that disrupting our economy by reducing the use of fossil fuels would be an economic disaster as bad as any natural one.
I can see the Natural Theory's side of the argument. One of the problems that Natural Theorists accuse Human Theorists of is a logical fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc — that is, that since A occurred after B, A must have caused B. Are Human Theorists guilty of this fallacy?
Al Gore's charts show what appear to be some clear and stark correlations. As global emissions rose, so did global temperatures. But did A, emissions, cause B, climate change? Since we cannot possibly test an alternative case, we cannot know that if our historical emissions had been lower that the global temperatures would also have been lower.
I have to admit, even as a Human Theorist, that it is possible we are guilty of the fallacy.
But rather than throw up my hands and admit defeat, which is more or less what Natural Theorists advocate, I think we have to make the leap of faith that since we cannot test our logic for the fallacy, we must assume the logic is correct. For if it is not, and we change our habits and nothing changes, then at least we tried. But if we could have averted global disaster by changing our habits and we did not, then we can rightly and truly be blamed for the consequences.
When the world met in Copenhagen last month, there were high hopes that some sort of binding and lasting agreement would come out of the meetings. But amid all the noise and clamor of protest and all the whispering in closed-door diplomatic meetings, all the world could muster was a tepid accord that acknowledges that global climate change is a challenge the whole world needs to address.
Richard Ellis says it is too late for the polar bear, and I fear he is correct. The loss of one species is a drop in the bucket compared to annual extinctions worldwide, but it would be a deep symbolic loss. Worse, however, would be the loss of New Orleans or Miami or Charleston or Boston to rising waters.
If we don't all agree to do something, soon, then it might be more than the polar bear that can only be seen in the history books.
Humans versus Nature: The Challenge of Global Warming
Let's start with an assumption: global climate change is real and is happening now. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's data for 2009 confirms that the last decade was the warmest on record and that 2009 temperatures in the U.S. and the world were both above the long-term average.
Naturalist and author Richard Ellis's latest book, On Thin Ice, laments the loss of the polar bear because of the loss of its habitat. The polar ice cap, upon which the familiar white bear relies for hunting, is disappearing and the bear along with it. Within 50 years, Ellis writes, the polar bear will be gone -- no matter what we do, it will happen.
The images in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth are striking and disturbing: the melting of the polar ice caps leads to coastal flooding of a massive scale. In some projections, the entire state of Florida is submerged. We cringe when we think of the loss of a species like the polar bear, but what of the loss of an entire state?
Only a few pig-headed stalwarts completely deny global warming. For the rest of us, the question is not so much if it is happening, but why.
The first theory is that global warming is the result of natural processes, cycles that have repeated over and over again through history. For proponents of this Natural Theory, the Earth is too big, too complex, for the activities of our species to affect these cycles.
The second theory is that global warming is the direct result of the activities of we humans, especially since the dawning of the industrial age. This Human Theory recognizes long-term climate change cycles, as they are undeniable in the fossil record; but it alleges that we have either disrupted the natural cycle or we have accelerated it.
As a rule, liberals find themselves on the side of the Human Theory. The basic solution is that we need to cut back on our use of those things that make our society run, namely fossil fuels.
Conservatives mostly find themselves upholding the Natural Theory, and say that disrupting our economy by reducing the use of fossil fuels would be an economic disaster as bad as any natural one.
I can see the Natural Theory's side of the argument. One of the problems that Natural Theorists accuse Human Theorists of is a logical fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc — that is, that since A occurred after B, A must have caused B. Are Human Theorists guilty of this fallacy?
Al Gore's charts show what appear to be some clear and stark correlations. As global emissions rose, so did global temperatures. But did A, emissions, cause B, climate change? Since we cannot possibly test an alternative case, we cannot know that if our historical emissions had been lower that the global temperatures would also have been lower.
I have to admit, even as a Human Theorist, that it is possible we are guilty of the fallacy.
But rather than throw up my hands and admit defeat, which is more or less what Natural Theorists advocate, I think we have to make the leap of faith that since we cannot test our logic for the fallacy, we must assume the logic is correct. For if it is not, and we change our habits and nothing changes, then at least we tried. But if we could have averted global disaster by changing our habits and we did not, then we can rightly and truly be blamed for the consequences.
When the world met in Copenhagen last month, there were high hopes that some sort of binding and lasting agreement would come out of the meetings. But amid all the noise and clamor of protest and all the whispering in closed-door diplomatic meetings, all the world could muster was a tepid accord that acknowledges that global climate change is a challenge the whole world needs to address.
Richard Ellis says it is too late for the polar bear, and I fear he is correct. The loss of one species is a drop in the bucket compared to annual extinctions worldwide, but it would be a deep symbolic loss. Worse, however, would be the loss of New Orleans or Miami or Charleston or Boston to rising waters.
If we don't all agree to do something, soon, then it might be more than the polar bear that can only be seen in the history books.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Despite its flaws, pass the bill
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 23, 2009.
Despite its flaws, pass the bill
Democrats are in a fine mess now. The public is watching closely to see what kind of health care reform the Democrats can actually pass. Even with sizable majorities in both houses of Congress, the sixty vote majority needed to stop debate in the Senate has been hard to find.
Part of the problem is one of the Democratic Party's strengths — the fact that it is a large tent, happy to encompass a wide diversity of opinion and position. This does, however, make the Party vulnerable to dissenters.
A major problem recently has been Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who threatened to hold up the health care bill unless he managed to have anti-abortion language added. Despite the opposition of many Democrats, Nelson had his way.
Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is another problem. He was, of course, a long-time Democrat, but defected from the party to run as an independent when primary voters managed to knock him out of the running for his seat as a Democrat in 2006. He has since been something of a curmudgeon, becoming a unknown quantity. Will he stick with his previous statements or will he allow his position to shift with the political winds?
The job of a Senator is to take how he feels about the issue at hand, and to combine that with how his constituents feel and his party platform. These three interests are often competing, and for both Senators Lieberman and Nelson, along with some others who have been on the fence, such as Maine's Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, the pull of one interest can sway their statements, their negotiations, their votes.
The problem, from my perspective, is when things are this close (close, of course, being a relative term, since there are more than enough votes for the full-on health care reform bill, complete with consumer protections and a public option — the closeness is in that insane cloture vote), the vote of one Senator can trump what's right, what's best for the country.
I understand Governor Howard Dean's frustration, and his call for the health care bill, in its current stripped-down form, be defeated by those who support true reform. I listened to his arguments with a wide-open mind. His suggestion is to kill the bill and use the reconciliation process, a special process for budget bills, which many have argued the health care bill can reasonably be considered, to pass something closer to what the House passed in November.
The biggest problem Dean has with the current bill is that it does nothing to combat the monopoly that the insurance industry has over the health care industry. In fact, it plays into the insurance industry's hands by requiring the uninsured to buy insurance, or face fines. The uninsured cannot choose a government-run plan, because there isn't one. The insurance industry loves this bill. The people want real choices, Dean says, and with this bill, there are no choices.
He feels the real reforms in the bill, such as the elimination of pre-existing conditions, funding for wellness and prevention programs, and support for community health care centers, should be pulled out, placed in a separate bill, and passed on their own.
He also must feel, considering his former job as chair of the Democratic National Committee, that the current bill be be a blow to Democrats in the 2010 elections — given the majorities Democrats have, we should be able to accomplish more. Will the voters give the Democrats another chance to get the work of government done?
Despite my deep respect for Governor Dean, and the appeal of his suggestion, I don't think that Democrats should take the advice. The current bill is sorely lacking in many areas, but one thing is agreed by all left-wing commentators: this bill, as it is now, will save lives. Yes, it will add undeserved profit to the insurance industry; but in the end, people who otherwise would have died will live.
We can blame many, perhaps even most, of the problems with the bill on the necessity to accommodate the single, contrarian Senator. But despite that, we do have a bill that does something substantive, something real and good. It gives the Democrats something to hang their hats on in 2010, even if it is not what all of us would have liked to see.
The bill should be supported, it should be passed, it should become law.
Despite its flaws, pass the bill
Democrats are in a fine mess now. The public is watching closely to see what kind of health care reform the Democrats can actually pass. Even with sizable majorities in both houses of Congress, the sixty vote majority needed to stop debate in the Senate has been hard to find.
Part of the problem is one of the Democratic Party's strengths — the fact that it is a large tent, happy to encompass a wide diversity of opinion and position. This does, however, make the Party vulnerable to dissenters.
A major problem recently has been Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who threatened to hold up the health care bill unless he managed to have anti-abortion language added. Despite the opposition of many Democrats, Nelson had his way.
Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is another problem. He was, of course, a long-time Democrat, but defected from the party to run as an independent when primary voters managed to knock him out of the running for his seat as a Democrat in 2006. He has since been something of a curmudgeon, becoming a unknown quantity. Will he stick with his previous statements or will he allow his position to shift with the political winds?
The job of a Senator is to take how he feels about the issue at hand, and to combine that with how his constituents feel and his party platform. These three interests are often competing, and for both Senators Lieberman and Nelson, along with some others who have been on the fence, such as Maine's Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, the pull of one interest can sway their statements, their negotiations, their votes.
The problem, from my perspective, is when things are this close (close, of course, being a relative term, since there are more than enough votes for the full-on health care reform bill, complete with consumer protections and a public option — the closeness is in that insane cloture vote), the vote of one Senator can trump what's right, what's best for the country.
I understand Governor Howard Dean's frustration, and his call for the health care bill, in its current stripped-down form, be defeated by those who support true reform. I listened to his arguments with a wide-open mind. His suggestion is to kill the bill and use the reconciliation process, a special process for budget bills, which many have argued the health care bill can reasonably be considered, to pass something closer to what the House passed in November.
The biggest problem Dean has with the current bill is that it does nothing to combat the monopoly that the insurance industry has over the health care industry. In fact, it plays into the insurance industry's hands by requiring the uninsured to buy insurance, or face fines. The uninsured cannot choose a government-run plan, because there isn't one. The insurance industry loves this bill. The people want real choices, Dean says, and with this bill, there are no choices.
He feels the real reforms in the bill, such as the elimination of pre-existing conditions, funding for wellness and prevention programs, and support for community health care centers, should be pulled out, placed in a separate bill, and passed on their own.
He also must feel, considering his former job as chair of the Democratic National Committee, that the current bill be be a blow to Democrats in the 2010 elections — given the majorities Democrats have, we should be able to accomplish more. Will the voters give the Democrats another chance to get the work of government done?
Despite my deep respect for Governor Dean, and the appeal of his suggestion, I don't think that Democrats should take the advice. The current bill is sorely lacking in many areas, but one thing is agreed by all left-wing commentators: this bill, as it is now, will save lives. Yes, it will add undeserved profit to the insurance industry; but in the end, people who otherwise would have died will live.
We can blame many, perhaps even most, of the problems with the bill on the necessity to accommodate the single, contrarian Senator. But despite that, we do have a bill that does something substantive, something real and good. It gives the Democrats something to hang their hats on in 2010, even if it is not what all of us would have liked to see.
The bill should be supported, it should be passed, it should become law.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Finishing the job in Afghanistan
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 10, 2009.
Finishing the job in Afghanistan
After the United States joined World War 2, the Allies had victory over the Axis war machine in less than four years. In doing so, the United States lost over 400,000 soldiers. Few, then or now, doubted that the war was necessary.
Our war in Afghanistan, by contrast, is very different. The first boots hit the ground in 2001, making this war eight years old, with the end only just a nebulous plan.
This war is not a war against a nation or alliance of nations. Our enemy has no capital to capture, no president to arrest. We all want victory, but few can express exactly what victory in the larger war means.
One reason that we are still in Afghanistan now, and will be for years to come, is that we were distracted from this fight by the war in Iraq. While our efforts in Iraq wane, and with the touch of a new commander in chief, we have been reminded of our unfinished business in Afghanistan.
The other reason I've already alluded to — our enemy is not a people, a country, or even a government. It is a loose alliance of organizations, with decentralized command, constantly moving troops, and with often-reluctant support from the people. Worse, they know no borders, and all that does is complicate matters even further.
The president's new plan for Afghanistan is relatively simple: to provide 30,000 additional troops to the war and to be in a position to begin pulling out again in 18 months.
To some, those on the left especially, any extension of the war is a broken promise. By the time the expansion is complete, the United States will have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is a far cry from Obama's campaign promise to end the wars and bring all the troops home.
Obama, however, has called the Afghanistan conflict the "right war", contrasting it with the Iraq conflict, the "wrong war." It is not surprising, then, that Obama would want to finish what the United States started in Afghanistan. We have fulfilled only part of what we set out to do. We have removed the Taliban from power, and a new government has been put into place.
These successes are not without issue.
The Taliban is no longer in power, but it is still a threat. Afghanistan security forces must be in a position to oppose and suppress uprisings after we leave, and we must get Pakistan to join the effort in earnest.
The Afghan government is seriously flawed, with corruption and graft the seeming norm, and the results of the last election are a nagging question. In an area with a history like Afghanistan, however, it is a wonder they are as far along as they are.
On the right, the president's plan to begin pull-outs in 18 months is seen as a sign of weakness, a signal to the enemy that all they need to do is wait us out and they can have free reign again. These criticisms ignore too much, though. The president never said we would pull out in 18 months, only that pull-outs could begin then. This past weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was clear that if the situation does not warrant a withdrawal, one will not happen.
As if to make the point even clearer, United States forces began offensives into Taliban-held towns in Afghanistan almost as soon as the president's announcement was made.
I don't want us to be in Afghanistan a moment longer than we have to be, and as 1500 Vermont Guard forces prepare to deploy there, I don't want any more of our soldiers to have to die over there. But at the same time, we made a commitment to bring peace and stability to the region. We took our eyes off that ball for a long time, and it is time we refocus there, do what we said we would do, and then get out.
The Afghan War may never have the equivalent of a VJ Day, with soldiers and civilians celebrating victory in Times Square. I would give up a thousand VJ Day celebrations to know that the people of Afghanistan have peace, stability, jobs, and prosperity, and no need for the Taliban. When that happens, when hope returns to the Afghan people, then we will have won, and we can bring all of our troops home with the knowledge that we kept our promises.
Finishing the job in Afghanistan
After the United States joined World War 2, the Allies had victory over the Axis war machine in less than four years. In doing so, the United States lost over 400,000 soldiers. Few, then or now, doubted that the war was necessary.
Our war in Afghanistan, by contrast, is very different. The first boots hit the ground in 2001, making this war eight years old, with the end only just a nebulous plan.
This war is not a war against a nation or alliance of nations. Our enemy has no capital to capture, no president to arrest. We all want victory, but few can express exactly what victory in the larger war means.
One reason that we are still in Afghanistan now, and will be for years to come, is that we were distracted from this fight by the war in Iraq. While our efforts in Iraq wane, and with the touch of a new commander in chief, we have been reminded of our unfinished business in Afghanistan.
The other reason I've already alluded to — our enemy is not a people, a country, or even a government. It is a loose alliance of organizations, with decentralized command, constantly moving troops, and with often-reluctant support from the people. Worse, they know no borders, and all that does is complicate matters even further.
The president's new plan for Afghanistan is relatively simple: to provide 30,000 additional troops to the war and to be in a position to begin pulling out again in 18 months.
To some, those on the left especially, any extension of the war is a broken promise. By the time the expansion is complete, the United States will have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is a far cry from Obama's campaign promise to end the wars and bring all the troops home.
Obama, however, has called the Afghanistan conflict the "right war", contrasting it with the Iraq conflict, the "wrong war." It is not surprising, then, that Obama would want to finish what the United States started in Afghanistan. We have fulfilled only part of what we set out to do. We have removed the Taliban from power, and a new government has been put into place.
These successes are not without issue.
The Taliban is no longer in power, but it is still a threat. Afghanistan security forces must be in a position to oppose and suppress uprisings after we leave, and we must get Pakistan to join the effort in earnest.
The Afghan government is seriously flawed, with corruption and graft the seeming norm, and the results of the last election are a nagging question. In an area with a history like Afghanistan, however, it is a wonder they are as far along as they are.
On the right, the president's plan to begin pull-outs in 18 months is seen as a sign of weakness, a signal to the enemy that all they need to do is wait us out and they can have free reign again. These criticisms ignore too much, though. The president never said we would pull out in 18 months, only that pull-outs could begin then. This past weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was clear that if the situation does not warrant a withdrawal, one will not happen.
As if to make the point even clearer, United States forces began offensives into Taliban-held towns in Afghanistan almost as soon as the president's announcement was made.
I don't want us to be in Afghanistan a moment longer than we have to be, and as 1500 Vermont Guard forces prepare to deploy there, I don't want any more of our soldiers to have to die over there. But at the same time, we made a commitment to bring peace and stability to the region. We took our eyes off that ball for a long time, and it is time we refocus there, do what we said we would do, and then get out.
The Afghan War may never have the equivalent of a VJ Day, with soldiers and civilians celebrating victory in Times Square. I would give up a thousand VJ Day celebrations to know that the people of Afghanistan have peace, stability, jobs, and prosperity, and no need for the Taliban. When that happens, when hope returns to the Afghan people, then we will have won, and we can bring all of our troops home with the knowledge that we kept our promises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)