Blog Here Now

Since I focused on a foible of Minnesota’s Governor Pawlenty in my last post, it seems only fair to point out that our neighboring state to the west apparently has a rather bright Senator in Amy Klobuchar. I was impressed by her ability to quickly counter Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) charge – made during the Kagan confirmation hearings yesterday – that the majority of Americans are very upset that they are less free than they were 30 years ago. (The following transcript of Klobuchar’s response is from the liberal website Think Progress)-

KLOBUCHAR: I was really interested and listening to Senator Coburn. … He was actually asking you, just now, back 30 years ago if you thought that we were more free. … But I was thinking back 30 years ago, was 1980. … And then I was thinking, were we really more free, if you were a woman in 1980? Do you know, solicitor general, how many women were on the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980?

KAGAN: I guess zero.

KLOBUCHAR: That would be correct. There were no women on the Supreme Court. Do you know how many women were sitting up here 30 years ago in 1980?

KAGAN: It was very striking when Senator Feinstein said she was one of two women. I thought, how amazing. So, how many?

KLOBUCHAR: There were no women on the Judiciary Committee until after the Anita Hill hearings in 1991. Do you know how many women were in the United States Senate in 1980, 30 years ago?

KAGAN: I’m stumped again.

KLOBUCHAR: No women were in the United States Senate. There had been women in the senate before, and then in 1981, Senator Kassebaum joined the Senate. So, as I think about that question about if people were more free in 1980, I think it’s all in the eyes of the beholder.

(Klobuchar later corrected herself later to note that Kassebaum was already serving in the Senate at the time, having been sworn in in 1978.)

As I was watching Coburn’s speech on C-SPAN, before Klobuchar spoke I was wondering whether African-Americans would agree that they had lost a significant amount of freedom over the last half century or so, particularly since the passage of civil rights legislation in the 60s. But Klobuchar’s response was better than mine would have been, since a different conservative talking point has been that the freedom of the majority has been diminished by the growing freedom of minorities, as if freedom were a zero-sum game. [To be fair, some conservatives have further argued that the federal government has tilted the playing field in favor of minorities (instead of simply keeping it level for all), but evidence of such favoritism is seldom offered.] Klobuchar may have recognized that no one could plausibly claim that women constitute a minority in this country. Of course, there is room for debate concerning whether more opportunity for women – as indicated by having more of them in positions of power – implies more freedom for women, but I’d be much happier arguing for that position than for its negation.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that government action can diminish freedom or it can increase freedom (by protecting citizens from restrictions that might be imposed on them by public or private entities). It all depends on the particular government action.

By the way, to get an idea of Senator Coburn’s self-righteous (and fundamentally misguided) views on the sorts of personal religious opinions a Supreme Court Justice should rely upon when deciding cases, see this post over at little green footballs.

It was rather late at night when I watched Tim Pawlenty, Republican Governor of the great state of Minnesota, tell John Stewart that he would like brick-and-mortar public universities to disappear in the not-too-distant future, and while I was somewhat surprised (to put it mildly), I was too tired to blog about it. But the more I thought about it, the more troubled I became. Then I discovered that others had taken notice, including USA Today-

When Jon Stewart asked Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty last week for some examples of how he intended to administer “limited and effective” government, the Republican governor did not roll out boilerplate rhetoric on welfare or farm subsidies. Instead, he took square aim at traditional higher education.

“Do you really think in 20 years somebody’s going to put on their backpack, drive a half hour to the University of Minnesota from the suburbs, haul their keister across campus, and sit and listen to some boring person drone on about econ 101 or Spanish 101?” Pawlenty asked Stewart, host of “The Daily Show.”

“Can’t I just pull that down on my iPhone or iPad whenever the heck I feel like it, from wherever I feel like it?” he said. “And instead of paying thousands of dollars, can I pay $199 for iCollege instead of 99 cents for iTunes?”

This might sound self-serving, given that I’m a boring professor at a public university myself, but the idea that 20 years from now a student could get the same quality of educational experience through their iPhone or iPad as they can presently get by actually interacting in real time with fellow students and faculty is so far from reality that it makes me wonder just what Pawlenty has been smoking. I doubt that a few hits of pot would do the job.

But, come to think of it, maybe the sort of education Pawlenty has supported in the past – including the teaching of Creationism (under the guise of “Intelligent Design”) in public schools as a theory of human origins on a par with evolution – could be gotten on an iPhone app.

(Don’t get me wrong: I love technology and look forward to the day when we can inhabit something like holographic classrooms via the internet and interact effectively in real time without having to share physical space. But I believe that technology will not reach that level of sophistication for a long time, and that in any case public universities will still have to exist within that virtual realm to insure academic integrity).

A headline story in The Northwestern today caught my eye-

MILWAUKEE (AP) – Wisconsin Republicans endorsed Ron Johnson in the U.S. Senate race Sunday after the Oshkosh businessman delivered a fiery speech in which he said it was time to end what he believes is the nation’s culture of entitlement.

This led me to wonder – rhetorically – about just which culture of entitlement Johnson delivered a fiery speech about. It seems to me that there could be at least three such cultures:

1) The culture that involves feeling entitled to survive from day to day – that is, having enough food, a few pieces of clothing, and some sort of shelter – while one looks for ways to improve one’s condition.

2) The culture that involves feeling entitled to decent education, decent health-care, and a decent retirement for those who are working hard, or who have worked hard most of a lifetime.

3) The culture that involves feeling entitled to become richer and richer, usually off of other people’s labor, and often without producing anything of value in the final analysis.

Republicans who criticize “the culture of entitlement” usually have (1) or (2) in mind. To support their disapproval of (1), they find examples of “freeloaders” who are living on the dole without putting any effort into improving themselves or their conditions. But for the most part, the feeling of entitlement here seems bound up with what some call a “natural right” to life, which, it seems to me, Republicans should feel uncomfortable criticizing. To support their disapproval of (2), they claim that we can’t afford to provide everyone with such goods. It seems to me that whether they are right about this depends on many factors that are rarely discussed in any depth: whether we can devise rational and efficient educational, health care, and retirement systems (the recent debate over mere health insurance reform showed just how difficult this can be); whether we need to support a military-industrial complex at the level we do (as a Republican president once wondered); and so on. However, it seems to me that the feelings of entitlement involved in (1) and (2) are at least as justifiable as those found in (3), a culture of entitlement that goes entirely unquestioned in mainstream politics, and almost entirely unmentioned by the mainstream media – an astounding omission, given the latest financial disaster.

I posted recently about an “Impeach Obama” billboard that had sprouted up along Highway 41 outside Oshkosh, and wrote a letter to the editor that was basically an edited version of that post (minus the last paragraph and the racist image of Obama). Much to my surprise, the billboard has changed its tune-

Here is my new letter to the editor, which I believe the Oshkosh Northwestern will publish in a day or two-

I was one of several Oshkosh residents who wrote letters to the editor criticizing the “Impeach Obama” billboard, which had a subtitle indicating displeasure over unidentified legislation affecting small business. I had two main concerns. First, the billboard writers admitted (through their lawyer) that they did not believe that President Obama had committed any impeachable offenses. So if insincerity and factual distortion are problems with the “Washington politics as usual” that their lawyer indicated they were upset about, they were guilty of these vices themselves. Secondly, they unfairly singled out Obama as being responsible for any legislation that might be harmful to small business, rather than focusing on Congress, which actually writes legislation. And finally, they did both of these things anonymously, indicating perhaps that on some level they recognized that their rhetorical tactics were nothing to be proud of.

I would now like to commend the billboard renters for recently changing its message. As The Northwestern reported 3/16/2010, it now reads: “Washington D.C. Is a Cesspool of Corruption and Liars. On November 2nd All Career Politicians Must Be Defeated”. While the charge may be over-the-top, and the prescription self-serving for the opposition party in a two-party system, I can easily believe that the renters are sincere, and the message does not unfairly single out any particular politician. I look forward to the next billboard these folks pay for, which I hope will read: “Campaign Finance Reform Now!”.

(By the way, I’m not holding my breath for that future billboard.)

UPDATE 3/18/10- The Northwestern published the letter today, under the slightly more rosy title: “New Billboard Message More Acceptable“. Curiously, they deleted the final sentence of the first paragraph, which they might have deemed less relevant than the rest and more personal than necessary. Given the way the letter fits on the page, they may have needed to shorten it by a sentence; if so, they deleted the right one.

When you read the poll numbers indicating that a majority of respondents disapprove of what can now safely be called “Obamacare” (since the President has finally made it clear what he thinks should be passed through reconciliation), it must be remembered that a large portion of that disapproval is coming from the left – from those who would prefer a single-payer, non-commercial health insurance system, often referred to as “Medicare for all”. One of the more articulate spokespersons for this view is Dr. Marcia Angell of the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard University Medical School. I happened to watch part of her latest interview on Bill Moyers’ show last night as I was channel surfing, and was impressed (and depressed) by her analysis of the bill presently being considered by Congress (roughly, the Senate bill plus President Obama’s recommended changes). I recommend that you watch the entire interview (about 15 minutes long), but here’s part of what she said:

BILL MOYERS: So, has President Obama been fighting as hard as you wished?

MARCIA ANGELL: Fighting for the wrong things and too little, too late. He gave away the store at the very beginning by compromising. Not just compromising, but caving in to the commercial insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. And then he stood back for months while the thing just fell apart. Now he’s fighting, but he’s fighting for something that shouldn’t pass. Won’t pass and shouldn’t pass.

What this bill does is not only permit the commercial insurance industry to remain in place, but it actually expands and cements their position as the lynchpin of health care reform. And these companies they profit by denying health care, not providing health care. And they will be able to charge whatever they like. So if they’re regulated in some way and it cuts into their profits, all they have to do is just raise their premiums. And they’ll do that.

Not only does it keep them in place, but it pours about 500 billion dollars of public money into these companies over 10 years. And it mandates that people buy these companies’ products for whatever they charge. Now that’s a recipe for the growth in health care costs, not only to continue, but to skyrocket, to grow even faster.

BILL MOYERS: But given that, why have the insurance companies, health insurance companies been fighting reform so hard?

MARCIA ANGELL: Oh, they haven’t fought it very hard, Bill. They really haven’t fought it very hard. What they’re fighting for is the individual mandate. And if they get that mandate, if everyone does have to buy their commercial products, then they’re going to be extremely happy with it.

The counterargument, of course, is that if you have the framework envisioned by the current bill in place, and costs indeed spiral out of control, then at least it is far easier to add a public option to the mix, and perhaps to eventually move to a single-payer system. Angell isn’t buying that scenario:

MARCIA ANGELL: I think the problem is this, Bill. If this plan is passed, and I think there’s real doubt as to whether it will be, and there’s even more doubt as to whether it would ever be fully implemented, but let’s say that it’s passed. It will begin to unravel almost immediately. And then what will people do? Well, they’ll say, “We tried health reform, and it didn’t work. Better not try that anymore.”

It’ll be like what happened after the Clinton plan failed. There’ll be another 16 years before anybody comes up with the courage to try that again. People say, “Too expensive. Just can’t have universal care. Tried that, did that, didn’t work, good-bye.” Whereas if the bill dies now, people can say, “This bill died because it was a bad bill.” And the problem is still on the front burner. And then one can hope that we get some version of Medicare for all. And that we don’t have to wait 16 years.

BILL MOYERS: What makes you think it would come back in 16 years or more? What makes you think it will ever be back on the table?

MARCIA ANGELL: Oh, I think it has to be. I mean, I think that this system is unraveling so fast, doing nothing or doing the Obama plan, so fast, that something will have to be done. Unless we want to, you know, explicitly be a third world country. So I don’t think it’s going to wait. But if we pass this plan, it’s going to delay.

Like I said: depressing.

The Oshkosh Northwestern ran a follow-up story today on the “Impeach Obama” billboard, emphasizing that George Bush similarly had to deal with calls to impeach him. The clear implication of this article, which was atop page A3 and not marked as editorial analysis, was that the two cases are basically the same; presidents just have to deal with such annoyances.

This is the worst sort of reporting: the sort that purports to be about facts, but stops at the surface without digging down even an inch. As The Northwestern itself reported six days ago, the anonymous folks who put up the “Impeach Obama” billboard admit (through their lawyer) that they do not believe Obama has committed any impeachable offense. By contrast, those who called for the impeachment of George Bush had lots of legal reasons in mind. Here are just a few of the least controversial ones, pulled from democrats.com-

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal “War of Aggression” against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

Now, I did not support impeaching George Bush (largely because the left tended in their enthusiasm to mix political with legal grounds), but the difference between the Bush and Obama cases couldn’t be clearer. It’s the difference between acting sincerely with legal grounds in mind versus acting insincerely with no legal grounds in mind, simply to reinforce resentment.

Remember the good old days, when political protesters courageously stood out on street corners with signs, putting their bodies on the line and proudly identifying their group so others could join them? Well, why go to so much trouble when you can hire a lawyer to rent a billboard for you (at $1000 a month), keep your actual affiliation secret, and scream out in ugly red Helvetica font-

The billboard, rented by...?

Even better, once you do this, why not have the gall to have your lawyer claim that the billboard doesn’t really mean what it is screaming in that towering font: “The billboard is not meant to allege any impeachable offense has been committed; It is simply an expression of frustration by my client that politics in Washington should change to better support small businesses…” Oh, Please! “IMPEACH OBAMA” merely expresses “Change politics in Washington”? Doesn’t screaming “IMPEACH OBAMA” when you admit he has committed no impeachable offense merely perpetuate politics at its worst, whether in Washington or Oshkosh? If you really had problems with one of Obama’s small business policies, wouldn’t you get much more bang for your buck by citing that policy, and preceding that citation with a big red “Stop”?

Anyway, last time I checked, it was Congress that actually passed laws relating to small business. All Obama can do is make suggestions (and so far his suggestions haven’t made much headway in Congress). So why would the anonymous folks renting this billboard single out Obama? Hmmm… maybe it has something to do with the mentality of folks who like to hold signs with images like this:

Here’s the story on yesterday’s Oshkosh Northwestern.

The Supreme Court Of The United States today reversed decades of precedent, deciding that corporate spending on political advertising cannot be regulated. They apparently decided this on the grounds that corporations are legally treated as persons that have first amendment rights, the first amendment guarantees free speech, and a corporation’s spending money on election ads is equivalent to a citizen’s expressing his or her political opinion. One could certainly take issue with the purported equivalence, but a more serious problem, it seems to me, is that corporations are legally bound to make the generation of profits for their stockholders their controlling priority; corporate leaders are legally forbidden from being guided by what they consider to be in the best interest of any other group (including the general citizenry of the United States or of the world).

The 2004 documentary “The Corporation” examines the history of this institution, and argues that if corporations are persons under the law, they are (by legal mandate) sociopathic persons, albeit very rich and powerful ones. The documentary illustrates this conclusion by focusing on the economic crises of the day (e.g., Enron, Worldcom, etc.). Of course, these corporate-driven crises pale in comparison to those of the 2008 meltdown, but the principles of corporate greed remain the same. If the documentary’s argument is cogent, then given that elections are often decided by small margins of voters who can be swayed by distorted election advertising, and corporations are now free to spend huge amounts of money on such advertising, it appears that many of our elections from now on will be decided by sociopaths.

I was surprised to discover that “The Corporation” can now be watched on YouTube in its entirety. Here’s the first part-

This documentary is itself a polished piece of propaganda, of course. Might such agitprop distributed through the internet help to mitigate the effects corporate spending on political advertising? Let’s hope so.

UPDATE- Here’s another option: to amend the constitution…

“In a democracy, people get the health care insurance and the health care costs they deserve.” -Alexis de Herzbergville

As the ironies pile up higher than NFL linemen on a fumbled ball, and the various media-spins cancel each other out to a wobbly rightward rotation, the question appears to be: will the House Democrats have the fortitude to hold their noses and vote for the Senate bill? Or will a year’s worth of work go down in huge bonfire flames, over which the Republicans can brew tea for at least the next three years?

I don’t have a lot hope for the former option, but stay tuned.

As Health (Insurance? Care?) reform (?) lurches forward like a headless chicken being shoved this way and that by a few senators from states with hardly any population (yeah, I’m talking ’bout you, Joe, and you, Ben), I’ve come to the conclusion that the Founders designed our system of government – or at least the Senate – as a sort of huge practical joke. What other explanation can there be?

Oh well. As our recent Defense Secretary Rumsfeld – himself quite an entertainer – might have put it, “You go to legislate with the Congress you have… not the Congress you might want or wish you had…”

By now you must have heard that President Obama “addressed” the question of marijuana decriminalization in his town hall meeting last week by, basically, laughing at those who propose it. A quick glance at the mainstream news blogs reveals that this strategy offended many people, including lots of non-users who favor decriminalization. While it didn’t offend me, it did irritate me, and given how strongly I supported Obama’s election (and continue to support his presidency), this suggests that he has some serious political fence-mending to do.

What bothered so many liberals and libertarians was not the specific position he took, which was very narrowly – and no doubt carefully – focused on the question of whether marijuana legalization would be a good way to grow the economy. Rather, it was his failure to address the decriminalization issue head on. According to NORML, in 2005 there were 786,545 arrests for violations of marijuana laws, and 88% of those were merely for possession or use. That’s a huge number of lives disrupted for indulging in an activity that, by almost all accounts, is less harmful – both to the individual and society – than either alcohol or tobacco use (at least if you subtract the negative effects of criminalization). If you add to the ledger the negative effects of criminalization, including the profits to organized crime and the social stigma that prevents genuine addicts from seeking medical help, you can see that this is not a laughing matter at all. It’s an important moral issue.

I’m hoping that all of the negative reaction to his comment will encourage Obama to take the matter more seriously in the future. And there is some reason to hope that he will do so. After all, he didn’t really say whether he favors decriminalization or not; like the conventional politicians he lambasted during the election, he simply dodged the issue.