Proportionate Force?

Oversimplification is an easy and dangerous thing to do. (That sentence being a perfect example.) So, I'm not going to do that with the current Israeli-Hamas conflict going on in the Middle-East. But I'm confused by statements from the international community and UN representatives like the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, among others, accusing Israel of the "disproportionate use of force" in its retaliation on Hamas's continuing rocket attacks. Nowhere have these experts on International Law and humanitarianism offered up what should be the obvious support for such an accusation: the appropriate proportionate force that Israel should be using against Hamas in Gaza.

The heavily left-leaning, Americans for Peace Now, asked this question in an interesting interview with Yossi Alpher:

Q. Is Israel employing disproportionate force?

A. I know of no way to counter terrorism with "proportionate" force. Should Israel fire rockets at Gazan civilians? Israel's use of massive force against aggression is legitimate under international law. It is more relevant to ask whether it will succeed.

It is far easier to accuse Israel of over-reacting than to suggest to Israel how it should have reacted.

Social Justice and Universal Health Care

I want to commend Rabbi Josh Yuter at YUTOPIA for an excellent article on the Jewish concept of Social Justice. After reading his article, I did take issue with one, minor, throw-away comment regarding universal healthcare. After taking the time to craft a comment, I figured I'd also post it here:

Excellent and well-written article. However, like the previous commenter, I wanted to nitpick on this one sentence:

"For example, a policy of universal health care may assist some of the currently uninsured but will most likely result in negative unintended consequences for other patients, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and drug manufacturers."

This is a huge oversimplification of the issues surrounding universal health care, the uninsured, and other affected parties. Universal health care has many iterations as can be seen by the widely varied approaches to universal coverage taken by nearly every other industrialized country in the world. The purpose is not merely to provide insurance, but to make access to affordable and quality healthcare a guaranteed right. Like the rights we have in this country to a free education (at least through high school), or to paved roads, or to 911 summoning emergency personnel to our homes or vehicles as rapidly as possible.

You've correctly pointed out that providing additional coverages for the uninsured will affect other stakeholders in the healthcare arena such as other patients, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, insurers (as well as, medical device companies, employers who provide insurance, the expense to government-funded plans, and ultimately the taxpayer too.) But to say the effects to these other parties will "most likely" be "negative", seems to reject the notion that there may be positive effects to those parties that may equal or outweigh any negative effect.

For example, it's true that universal health care often leads to rationing and waiting periods for some procedures. This would be a negative effect for other patients. But it's also true that many so-called insured patients are rationed now, some by HMO approvals, some by excessively high co-insurance payments which makes them hesitate to seek necessary care, and some by provider availability. Yes, even under our current system. Further, a universal health care plan may save current patients thousands to tens-of-thousands of dollars in health insurance coverage costs, which they may see as a greater benefit to offset giving up the immediate care they may currently enjoy. Moving further in such analysis, other patients' employers may save significant monies on their own healthcare expenditures, which some studies claim would reflect a dollar-for-dollar increase in employee paychecks.

Doctors? Some may make less money, some may make more money. Some may hate dealing with a new bureaucracy, but others spend all day dealing with existing insurance red tape, and may find a new system less frustrating. Again, not exactly a "most likely" to have "negative" consequences scenario.

Insurance companies? Juries out there too. They may make less money, or they may find it's more cost-effective to get into the health administrator business, or compete for privatized government funded plans like the current Medicare Part C. Drug manufacturers? Look at Medicare Part D. There's no telling what the likely result will be. Besides, I don't think your arguing for the welfare of corporate entities here, I think you're talking about the welfare of the people involved in such entities, and strong arguments can be made that the overwhelming majority of insurance employees and drug manufacturing employees would be better off under another, far less wasteful system.

Obviously, I've also engaged in much oversimplification above, but I hope it only helped illustrate my point. These issues are complicated, and there's no obvious winners or losers in universal healthcare nor is there only one flavor. It all comes down to the careful, reasoned analysis of each such proposal that comes under consideration.

To end my comment more positively, I only harped on this point because I enjoyed the rest of your article so much. Keep up the great work!

Two wrongs...

In light of the timing, the title of this post may be a little misleading, so let me set the record straight on one thing - I am not upset that Barack Obama is our President Elect. Although I did not vote for the man, it was not because I thought he was a terrorist or a Muslim or an anti-Semite or any of the other unsubstantiated (sometimes quite vicious) rumors that hit my inbox on a regular basis. It was because I thought he was a neophyte. As I explained to my daughters on the way home from the polls (one of whom expressed her disappointed that I did not vote for Obama), I thought McCain had the right qualifications and experience to run this country, and I did not know whether the same was true for Obama. (This was an oversimplification for the sake of an 8 year old and 6 year old, my reasons for voting McCain over Obama are deeper and more complex, but since that ship has sailed I'm not going to expand on them here.)

No, the reason for the title has to do with the passage of ballot question 2 in Maryland - slots. Now I'm all for raising money for education, outside of raising our taxes. But is bringing pernicious gambling into our localities the best way, or even an acceptable way, to accomplish this?

Last weekend I got 3 messages from State and County leaders (O'Malley & Leggett, Anthony Brown, and O'Malley again) urging me to vote yes on slots in Maryland and letting me know it would raise 650 million dollars for education without raising taxes. They claimed to do this by keeping Maryland money in Maryland - a reference to all the money Maryland gamblers spend out-of-state like in Charleston and Atlantic City benefitting their states and not ours. So the schools get money, the taxpayers don't have their taxes raised, and gamblers get slots closer to home - seems like a win/win/win doesn't it?

Well, I can tell you something about gambling. It's addictive. It ruins businesses, families and lives. It is arguably worse than any other addiction because the potential for loss is only limited to how fast and how often a gambler can put his money in the little holes. And it does the most harm to the folks who are most apt to do it - poor people.

The thing about gambling is, it's not easy to do it outside a venue. Sure the internet has made gambling available to anyone who really wants it, but for many poor people getting a credit card or bank account, much less a computer with internet access, makes that avenue of gambling pretty much inaccessible. So making slots accessible to all these poor folks? Wrong, wrong, wrong.

"So what?" you ask. "We have the lottery already, how is this any different?" Three ways. First, the lottery is more limiting, the big ones can only be played once a day, and you don't get the same thrill as real gambling. It's the thrill that's addictive - not dreaming about beating the ridiculous odds of the lottery. Second, most of the revenues from lottery go to the state, not the lottery vendors. In slots, half the revenues go to the casino owner/slot purveyors. Half. So we're giving $600 million of Marylander money to these guys. Third, the lottery is wrong too, but it was already here and good luck trying to get rid of something like that. Two wrongs, eh? Now slots are here, and good luck getting rid of them too. And casinos will have a great argument to get another foothold when they point to slots and say, hell you MD folks are already most of the way there.

"So, the people were squandering their money in WV, DE and NJ, let them spend it here in MD." Not so much, folks. Traveling to WV or NJ made gambling there, for any Maryland resident, signficantly less frequent then it will be when the slots are located a 10 - 20 minute drive from one's home. The 650 million dollars that will be (allegedly) raised for MD schools, are not going to come from 650 million dollars less money in the WV, DE and NJ treasuries, no sir. I suspect a small fraction will be lost out of state - no this will be new money that would otherwise have been spent by poor folks on frivoloites like food, clothing, and shelter. Or is their argument, well WV, DE and NJ are doing it so why not us? Two wrongs don't...

"Well, at least the money's going to our education system." Well half the money. And $100 million subsidizes the horse racing industry, annually. Why is this important? Got me. Also, there are no provisions that require the budget for education actually increase, so nothing stops the government from using slot money for education and other monies from the general fund on other things. Result - no net increase in education, and using that old "do it for the children" saw, was just a way to gain additional sympathy for the measure.

Do most Marylanders feel differently, they voted for this ballot question didn' they? Ah hell, I don't think most Marylanders know what the heck they're voting for after the President question, and many don't even understand that one either. I also believe in a "yes" inertia - anything a governing body proposes, the body instinctively wants to trust that body and vote yes on it. The same principle applies in the corporate world where boards of directors make proposals to shareholders at large that almost always get approved or ignored in the proxy votes. People are lazy, and going with the opinions of somebody in authority that they trust is easier than having to make up their own minds. Getting strong endorsement calls from Gov. O'Malley, Lt. Gov. Brown, and your local county executive didn't hurt either.

Despite all this, I maintain Marylanders have made a grevious mistake. All the good intentions in the world, all the endorsements from our leadership, all the money for schools, or starving children, or world peace...well that doesn't make it right.

Ah, well.

Sarah Palin, earmarks and bridge to nowhere

There are a number of very legitimate criticisms of the republican V.P. nominee, most notably, her lack of experience for the position. But I have noticed a lot of focus and attention being given to her claims of her role on the Bridge to Nowhere and being against earmarks. Much of her claims, and the backlash are not entirely accurate. However, after evaluating the facts, I think her claims are, more or less, legitimate, and the backlash is not.

Bridge to Nowhere - This bridge was a $223 million earmark lobbied by the Alaskan delegation under Palin's predecessor, Murkowski. Palin did support the bridge during her campaign, largely because the money had already been earmarked, and it was good for Alaska on the Federal dollar. Remember she was campaigning for Governer of Alaska, and her allegiance was to the people of Alaska, not to the Federal government, or the other 49 states.

Subsequent to her taking office, two things happened. First, the cost of building the bridge skyrocketed from $223 million to nearly $400 million dollars. Second, the congressional earmark was scuttled and Alaska was no longer bound to build the bridge with that money. Now Governer Palin made the choice to reverse course on the bridge and spend the $223 million on transportation and other Alaskan necessities.

Did she say "no" to the Bridge to Nowhere? Technically yes. Despite supporting it during her campaign, when the costs rose and the money became freed up, she said no.

Did she tell congress that if Alaskans wanted a bridge they'd pay for it themselves? Again, techincally yes. Alaska could have taken that money, added the additional cost, and built the bridge. Governer Palin thought it a terrible idea, all things considered, and put a halt to it. And she was right.

So why not return the $223 million to Congress? Palin gets some flack from not returning the money, as if she somehow kept federal money unethically. This is a very stupid notion. State governers do not voluntarily return federal money to the government. Ever. The reason is, state governers serve their states, not the country. Their job is to get as much federal money into the state as possible to provide the most benefits for their constituents. Alaska has no restrictions for residency - anyone is free to move there and take advantage of all the same benefits other Alaskans have. Had Palin "returned" the $223 million instead of spending it on Alaskan needs, she would have committed severe governer malpractice. I would definitely not want someone like that in an executive position for this country.

Earmarks - so Palin claims she's against earmarks but then hires lobbyists to get them for Alaska. This is a bit of a trickier area. Once again, Palin needs to secure federal funding and earmarks as part of her job. She may be against earmarking in principle, but she's not going to hobble her state by not applying for them. On the other hand, she scuttled a lot of wasteful earmarking from her predecessor, applying for 2/3 less funds ($500 million less) then her predecessor did. So she hates earmarks but takes them anyway for the good of her state. Once again, okay by me.

Sarah P. has a number of extreme positions that give me pause. But her stance on the bridge to nowhere and earmarking, along with her history of reforming and eliminating corruption in politics, well they don't pause me at all.

Just plain stupidity...

Last opinion of the day - this morning's hostage swap between Israel and Hezbollah. I must be woefully uneducated on this issue because the more I think about what happened, the more I'm wondering what Olmert or anyone in the Israeli Cabinet is really doing here.

The UN "brokered" this deal between Israel and the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah. Hezbollah "captured"/kidnapped Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in July 2006. Hezbollah held these two soldiers as hostages to barter the release of convicted Lebanese prisoners. No other justification has been given for their being held - they were on Israeli territory on the Northern border, and their capture was done during an illegal Hezbollah raid. Yet the UN works tirelessly to "resolve" the issue and "broker" this deal.

Cut to yesterday. Israeli Cabinet approves a swap of the two soldiers for five Lebanese prisoners - at least one of which is a convicted, remorseless killer of an Israeli policeman, a civilian and a 4 year old girl. Hezbollah won't let Israel know whether their soldiers are alive or dead, but the assumption is that they are dead because the Red Cross has not been allowed to see them and there's been no word otherwise. Yet despite the uncertainty, the swap is approved.

Today in Southern Lebanon. Five Lebanese prisoners are given the red carpet treatment in to a cheering mob of people. Liberated. Freed. A hero's welcome for these convicted murderers and felons who were released as the ransom for two Israeli soldiers.

Today in Israel. Two black coffins are released to Israeli authorities. DNA evidence confirms that they contain the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Israel has released terrorist criminals, who will no doubt go on to do greater things in the terror business, for body parts. Israel has shown the world that there's no advantage to keeping Israeli soldiers alive and healthy, when Israel will pay dearly for body parts.

What happened? Israel (or the UN) couldn't insist on knowing whether the soldiers were actually alive before agreeing to the trade? Or are we to accept that in Israel alive or dead soldiers are equally dear? Why? Shouldn't Israel have put a premium on their being alive? Some reason to incentivize, oh I don't know, NOT KILLING ISRAELI SOLDIERS? I'm thoroughly disgusted.

I confess a part of me would not have blamed Israel if, upon discovery of their soldier's nonliving status, Israel had executed the five prisoners scheduled for the swap. I'm not advocating senseless or retaliatory violence. But at least that would have been closer to an even exchange.

Parity...

I'm a little disturbed by the equal pay issue that's being kicked back and forth between the candidates. Obama supports the Fair Pay Restoration Act and McCain opposes it. The FPRA is Congress's attempt to address last year's Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear where the court, in a 5-4 decision, disallowed a woman's claim for discriminatory pay because it was filed too late. The majority's rationale there was that the discriminatory act occurred when the pay decision was made, and not when each affected paycheck was issued. Ledbetter argued that each paycheck was a discriminatory act and should be actionable under Title VII. Enter the FPRA.

FPRA wants to make each paycheck a discriminatory act regardless of when the original discrimation occurred which resulted in the lower compensation. This would mean an affected party (woman, minority, etc.) could sue an employer at any point, even many years later, as long as her claim is filed within 180 days of picking up her last discriminatorily-lower paycheck.

Now I'm all for equal pay, and I don't know that there's any rational, legitimate arguments not to be for equal pay. (Wingnut opinions that disparate pay is good to encourage women to stay in the home are not being considered.) But calling something a Fair Pay Restoration Act does not magically restore fair pay. (Any more than cleverly named acts determine one's level of patriotism, or that no child will indeed be left behind.) It should really be called an Indefinite Deadline Extension for Challenging Discriminatory Pay Act, because that's all it does. Does extending this deadline make things fairer for women in the workplace?

McCain's position is that this act does way more harm than good, opening up avenues of litigation to disgruntled employees that should have been closed years earlier. This drives up expenses for all businesses, both large and small, and increases, what is often, frivolous lawsuits by employees who, like many employees out there, feel underpaid, underappreciated, and maybe a little vindictive when they are ready to leave a job.

Obama's position is that this act will make it harder for companies to get away with discriminatory acts. I'm not sure that's even true, but even if it is, making something harder to do doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. You could force companies to report every pay dollar to a Federal agency by age, sex, race, religion and location. That would make discrimination more difficult, but it would raise tremendous costs for businesses and taxpayers, not to mention civil libertarian issues.

In addition, discriminated parties have less incentive to investigate discriminatory practices, knowing they can wait until they're ready to leave before filing a claim. These claims give them leverage which they can use to milk the company into generous settlements or severances so the company doesn't have to shell out tons of money in litigation expense fees, or insurance policies to cover these types of situations. This may make it less likely that discrimination will decrease, and more likely that the law will be abused.

The media casts this issue as pro-women, like abortion lite. I see it more as pro-plaintiff, not very different from the opposition to tort and medical malpractice reform. The same issues are at play.

Parody...

So, I have three things on my mind today, and none of them have to do with explaining why I have not blogged for almost a year. I will post them separately so the posts don't run too long.

First, about that infamous New Yorker cover of Barak and Michelle Obama...



You have to wonder what kind of drugs they're doling out in the press room to think this was a good idea. This is cowardly, sensationalist journalism at its worst. There's nothing clever or satirical about drawing a cartoon which depicts the most racist, misogynistic, anti-Muslim, anti-American, discriminatory drivel which festers around the bottomfeeding rumormongers who spam email inboxes, sell inflammatory T-shirts at GOP events, and otherwise pollute the system through which we choose our next leader. I am probably not voting for Barak Obama, for reasons which I may delineate in a later post. But none of those reasons include the abject stupidity depicted here.

The bigger question is, why does The New Yorker think this cover was, in any way, acceptable? By pointing out a controversy, do you have license to demonstrate it to an extreme? Or create an image that becomes it's own controversy? Case in point, would it have been okay if the New Yorker drew a cartoon of Curious George with Barak Obama's face on it? Perpetrating a controversy is not an effective way to comment, even satirically, on that same controversy. If anything, it has the opposite effect. A writer for the Huffington Post sums it up nicely: "Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image."