Many have denounced Jeremiah Wright's comments as un-American, un-Christian, inappropriate for any sermon, racist, among many other criticisms. He did little to dissuade his detractors from declaring themselves justified and vindicated through his April 28th appearance at the National Press Club. The wake of the appearance brought the expectedly bland responses.
George Will summarized the Wright controversy as a nearly limitless source of political capital for McCain, which with every unfolding of the controversy seems unavoidably true. Additionally, he provides a mind-numbing analysis of Wright's rhetorical logic that tortures his Press Club words into denying that American government is representative.
Eugene Robinson takes on Wright's central claim that the controversy centers on "the black church" and not Wright himself. He concludes that Wright is wrong, that the controversy is about Wright, that he threw Obama under the now proverbial bus, and that Obama should return Wright's favor.
But there is an inconvenient truth out there: Wright has a point, in fact several. Let me lay out just a couple.
1) Wright criticizes the media for exhibiting a near-willful misunderstanding of his comments, fundamentally failing to provide requisite context, and failing to provide relevant, accurate facts. He is, to some extent, correct. His comments where he purportedly invoked God to damn America came in the midst of a sermon on the infallibility of God and the the fallibility of government. The sermon crescendoed when he claimed that God could damn America if it saw itself as God-like in its power. This is a fundamental Judeo-Christian belief that finds its roots in numerous biblical parables. One could argue that it is the dominant theme of the Old Testament (if not the entire bible).
2) Wright claims that the controversy revolves not around Wright but "the black church." First, E. Robinson is correct when he claims that Wright does not represent the entirety of the black church. But I don't think that is what Wright meant. In my view, when Wright says that the controversy is about the black church, he means that the black church (whatever that term means in any given usage) must be brought into the conversation when discussing the import of Christianity to the American social, political, and religious landscape.
One could offer further defenses of some of the now-celebrity comments. That being said, there are certainly many comments that are without evidence or merit, such as the accusation that the US government invented HIV/AIDS to exterminate African-Americans.
But what is more remarkable than Wright's comments is how unwilling many are to understand his positions, even listen to the entirety of his sermons. For example, in the context of the fallibility of governements, Rev. Wright argued that the government allowed the drug trade to continue to the US as a means for the Contras to supplement their income and help shoulder the cost of US provided arms. That is at least in the ballpark. In fact, the history of US involvement in South America should prompt us all to take a second look.
This controversy opens yet another opportunity to talk to each other, to understand each other, and substantively agree or disagree. Unfortunately, the current flash in the pan highlights our unwillingness to seek substance in debate.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
VA Pays for Waterboarding
According to the Navy Times, Veterans Affairs decided to pay for medical treatment of a veteran who underwent waterboarding as a part of Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training. The vet will receive counseling for PTSD and medication.
When will people have the courage to denounce the use of torture? Advocates of its use have but one dubious utilitarian argument for its justification: the information that it could potentially produce will potentially save more lives than the ones it will ruin. In its most callous formulation the previous argument substitutes a single American life for "saved lives." After all, if one has committed to torture, then one has committed to the abject devaluation of at least one life to glean information that only might be true, may not be valuable, and may save none. In other words, what makes torture such a horrible transaction is that the price of admission to the event must be paid with no knowledge of the contents of the mind of the person the torturer has committed to breaking. The economics of torture sets the cost to be the minds of men on the basis of a hunch, a guess, a grotesque hope that something valuable will be learned to retroactively justify that rueful price.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Too Long a Hiatus
For those of you who don't know, I have a new baby. Unfortunately, she seems alien to a natural talent for sleeping, so we have been trying to cultivate skills where those talents may have resided.
Stop back periodically to check for updates.
Hope to write to everyone soon.
Stop back periodically to check for updates.
Hope to write to everyone soon.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Obama and McCain: Fellowship of the Race
After a win in SC that is as stunning in its margin as it is revelatory of the voting public's thinking (very bad news for Hillary), Obama moves on to Super Tuesday states. McCain is running hard in Florida to achieve a lead and some momentum going into Feb. 5th.
But their fates are linked in so many ways. As one goes, so does the other.
From the opposite perspective, if Obama wins the nomination, Republicans know that his appeal among independents and moderates would probably overwhelm Romney. McCain does well against Obama in a general election and may reap the benefits in FL of Republican realism. So, McCain may actually get a bump going into the FL primary.
The double-effect of excitement over a win in SC and the realism that Obama is the competitive Democrat against McCain serves Obama very well going into Super Tuesday. But McCain must win for it to happen.
Once again, FL has the potential to significantly impact a presidential election.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
American Healthcare: Our Shame
By most estimates, at least 47 million Americans are without health-care coverage. Millions more are at risk of losing their coverage because, quite simply, they can barely afford it and losing it is better than losing their home. Thousands more will be severely financially impacted by a serious illness because their premiums and co-pays amount to more than they can pay or insurance companies issue a post hoc denial of benefits.
An important question in the debate is whether this is the best we or any society can do. Obviously the answer is "no." But another question strikes even deeper and at the heart of American politics, if not identity. It is: Are the best interests of a business always coincident with the best interests of an individual? The answer to that question seems almost obviously "no" in some cases, therefore "no" in the general case.
Health care and social assistance is a $1.6 trillion industry. That number is staggering. It accounts for a significant portion of the services that compose 55% of our economy. According to the 2000 World Health Organization report of health care around the world, our expenditure is #1 in the word, we are ranked #37 overall (right behind Costa Rica), and #72 for the level of health we achieve (right ahead of Bhutan and right behind Argentina). So, while the industry has been recording record profits and unprecedented wealth, we have been achieving the dizzying heights of wellness of countries like Bhutan.
Health care has been left in the hands of the free market for at least the last 35 years, since the Nixon administration, and in that time we have seen an escalation in the price of nearly every medical/wellness/social service or product while the health care/services industry has ballooned to almost unfathomable prosperity. All the while the numbers of people left without care they can afford or without care at all continue to swell. Don't forget, all those who were lucky enough to receive care/service have joined the ranks of the Bhutanese.
So, what are the arguments against universal health care (lest we forget that all best health care systems are government run and do more with less money)?
Position #1: Government sponsored health care is tantamount to socialism.
Response #1: OK, is government run firefighting tantamount to socialism? What about the Postal Service? If they are, is that a reason to privatize all fire departments? There are services that citizens need that most agree should not be withheld if they can't afford it, like fire fighting. The previous is a good working criteria for what services should be public. Hell, I'll pay for my postage if that means that people can see a doctor.
Position #2: A free market solution will save us money and give us the best care.
Response #2: The free market solution has not served us well to this point, why again should I place my faith in it? The best business model is to collect as much money while providing the least amount of care. That is what we have now. We are charged significantly for care we don't receive. Granted, world renowned experts practice in the US. Unfortunately, most of us can't afford them. Remember, US free market solution has given us Bhutanese level of health, now those are results.
Position #3: The government would be bankrupted.
Response #3: See Response #2 on how well the free market is doing. Admittedly, much would have to be done by way of tort reform to limit damages against the government. But with people given wellness and sickness care from cradle to grave, overall medical expenditures would come down as health improves (much the same way numbers of fires go down when we improved fire prevention and response infrastructure: detectors, sprinklers, etc.) There is plenty of fat to be cut out of our current federal budget. After all, how many Osprey's does the USN/USMC really need? Or, do we really need a federal department to tell old ladies to take their shoes off at the airport?
Position #4: People could afford health care if they just spent wisely.
Response #4: That is true but it is not true for all or even the majority of people without access to care. American economics is complicated but there is an alarmingly and increasingly applicable catch-22 that many don't want to admit. Our economy is as robust as it is because people spend beyond their means and many businesses need that to be true. Put differently, if Americans spent and saved wisely by living within their means, our economy would collapse. Put yet another way, the American economy presupposes consumers will be saddled with debt for goods that consumers will have to spend a lifetime working off. And let's face it, health care can't be repossessed so why should it be funded with a loan. (Note: the politics/economies of debt is worthy of further of discussion that will occur in a future post)
We can do better as a country. We are willing to sink trillions of dollars into wars every 15 years but we can't seem to come up with the money or will to take care of our infirmed? If war metaphors are the only way to motivate action, then where is the war on preventable illness, or infant mortality? So, instead of falling prey to the rampant demagoguery out there, give me the argument for why all of my countrymen should not have health care. I am happy to oblige with a response.
An important question in the debate is whether this is the best we or any society can do. Obviously the answer is "no." But another question strikes even deeper and at the heart of American politics, if not identity. It is: Are the best interests of a business always coincident with the best interests of an individual? The answer to that question seems almost obviously "no" in some cases, therefore "no" in the general case.
Health care and social assistance is a $1.6 trillion industry. That number is staggering. It accounts for a significant portion of the services that compose 55% of our economy. According to the 2000 World Health Organization report of health care around the world, our expenditure is #1 in the word, we are ranked #37 overall (right behind Costa Rica), and #72 for the level of health we achieve (right ahead of Bhutan and right behind Argentina). So, while the industry has been recording record profits and unprecedented wealth, we have been achieving the dizzying heights of wellness of countries like Bhutan.
Health care has been left in the hands of the free market for at least the last 35 years, since the Nixon administration, and in that time we have seen an escalation in the price of nearly every medical/wellness/social service or product while the health care/services industry has ballooned to almost unfathomable prosperity. All the while the numbers of people left without care they can afford or without care at all continue to swell. Don't forget, all those who were lucky enough to receive care/service have joined the ranks of the Bhutanese.
So, what are the arguments against universal health care (lest we forget that all best health care systems are government run and do more with less money)?
Position #1: Government sponsored health care is tantamount to socialism.
Response #1: OK, is government run firefighting tantamount to socialism? What about the Postal Service? If they are, is that a reason to privatize all fire departments? There are services that citizens need that most agree should not be withheld if they can't afford it, like fire fighting. The previous is a good working criteria for what services should be public. Hell, I'll pay for my postage if that means that people can see a doctor.
Position #2: A free market solution will save us money and give us the best care.
Response #2: The free market solution has not served us well to this point, why again should I place my faith in it? The best business model is to collect as much money while providing the least amount of care. That is what we have now. We are charged significantly for care we don't receive. Granted, world renowned experts practice in the US. Unfortunately, most of us can't afford them. Remember, US free market solution has given us Bhutanese level of health, now those are results.
Position #3: The government would be bankrupted.
Response #3: See Response #2 on how well the free market is doing. Admittedly, much would have to be done by way of tort reform to limit damages against the government. But with people given wellness and sickness care from cradle to grave, overall medical expenditures would come down as health improves (much the same way numbers of fires go down when we improved fire prevention and response infrastructure: detectors, sprinklers, etc.) There is plenty of fat to be cut out of our current federal budget. After all, how many Osprey's does the USN/USMC really need? Or, do we really need a federal department to tell old ladies to take their shoes off at the airport?
Position #4: People could afford health care if they just spent wisely.
Response #4: That is true but it is not true for all or even the majority of people without access to care. American economics is complicated but there is an alarmingly and increasingly applicable catch-22 that many don't want to admit. Our economy is as robust as it is because people spend beyond their means and many businesses need that to be true. Put differently, if Americans spent and saved wisely by living within their means, our economy would collapse. Put yet another way, the American economy presupposes consumers will be saddled with debt for goods that consumers will have to spend a lifetime working off. And let's face it, health care can't be repossessed so why should it be funded with a loan. (Note: the politics/economies of debt is worthy of further of discussion that will occur in a future post)
We can do better as a country. We are willing to sink trillions of dollars into wars every 15 years but we can't seem to come up with the money or will to take care of our infirmed? If war metaphors are the only way to motivate action, then where is the war on preventable illness, or infant mortality? So, instead of falling prey to the rampant demagoguery out there, give me the argument for why all of my countrymen should not have health care. I am happy to oblige with a response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
