I’ve been reading stories about Iraqis who worked for the U.S. and now are seeking to migrate to this country. Many of them have fled Iraq and are living in nearby countries, such as Jordan. Pundits galore are talking about how we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, where we evacuated our own personnel and left behind friendly Vietnamese who feared retribution from the government that would take over the country.
Wait a minute. What’s wrong with this picture? In Vietnam, we were fighting off soldiers and sympathizers with North Vietnam. In essence, we were giving up and leaving the country, opening the way for those "enemies" to take over.
But in Iraq, didn’t we "win"? So why are those people who cooperated with us fearing for their lives? "There is no difference between Sunni and Shia when you work for the Americans," one Iraqi man said in a recent Washington Post story. "Both sides want to kill you."
O.K. So we "liberated" a country from a despot. Yet even the main faction s fighting each other for control over the country are united in their desire to punish U.S. "collaborators." Even though President Bush at one point claimed we "won" the war, Iraqis who worked with us fear for their lives if U.S. soldiers pull out. Or they even fear for our lives when our troops still are stationed there.
What did we win? This suggests, when and if we ever pull out, we’re going to be left with a government that is not friendly to the U.S. And a government not friendly to the U.S. indeed seems to be the one that would reflect the sentiments and will of the people. A majority? I don’t know. Could it be that Iraqis see us as invaders, and not as liberators? Who wouldda thought? Certainly not our President.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Money Grab
Some things you just kind of have to wonder about. During the summer, I got a bill from a laboratory for blood tests performed back at my physical exam in January. It said it was for the amount unpaid by my insurance company. That struck me as odd, since routine blood tests are supposed to be fully covered by my insurance -- and labs providing those services are supposed to accept the insurance payment as full reimbursement for those services.
So I called a customer service rep with my insurance plan, who couldn't understand why I was being billed, but said he'd rerun the bill through the payments folks. In the meantime, I sent the bill back with an accompanying letter to the laboratory saying I didn't understand why I owed them money and said I wouldn't pay unless I got an explanation.
All I kept getting was past-due notices and threats to turn the bill over to a collections agency. I called the laboratory customer service rep, who said she would look into it and get back to me. I never heard back. Finally, in fear of a bad mark on my credit report, I paid the bill with an accompanying letter of protest saying that I didn't understand why I owed them money. Apparently, they had passed my bill on to a collections agency because, shortly after I sent the payment off, I got a notice from a collections agency telling me I had to pay, plus interest. I sent a letter back explaining I already paid and didn't think I owed anything in the first place.
Well, I sent copies of my original letter protesting the payment to the superintendent of insurance, attorney general's office, my health plan, and the human resources department of my employer. My wonderful human resources rep followed up on it and called last week to tell me they agreed I shouldn't have paid anything and would send me a refund. We'll see if it shows up.
All of this boring detail leads up to my wondering if this is a scam by health care providers to try to collect more money than insurance plans are paying them. I already had paid a bill from the office that did my bone density scan, even though it didn't seem to me I should have owed them any money. But that bill was $10.99, and the lab bill was around $56. Plus, I had the time to question it and the annoyance from the other bill to make me want to fight it.
I have to wonder, though, if these billings are not mistakes, but are deliberate. After all, I drew the bill to the company's attention and pointed out that I didn't think I needed to pay it. They never replied and just kept sending bills. I wonder how many people have experienced something similar, and how many just shrug and pay the bills without questioning them. Insurance, after all, is a complicated business and it's sometimes hard to follow what is covered and what isn't and what you owe that your insurance doesn't cover. I have had other friends reporting similar experiences.
So, everybody out there who thinks the current health insurance system works well for the consumer, raise your hand.
So I called a customer service rep with my insurance plan, who couldn't understand why I was being billed, but said he'd rerun the bill through the payments folks. In the meantime, I sent the bill back with an accompanying letter to the laboratory saying I didn't understand why I owed them money and said I wouldn't pay unless I got an explanation.
All I kept getting was past-due notices and threats to turn the bill over to a collections agency. I called the laboratory customer service rep, who said she would look into it and get back to me. I never heard back. Finally, in fear of a bad mark on my credit report, I paid the bill with an accompanying letter of protest saying that I didn't understand why I owed them money. Apparently, they had passed my bill on to a collections agency because, shortly after I sent the payment off, I got a notice from a collections agency telling me I had to pay, plus interest. I sent a letter back explaining I already paid and didn't think I owed anything in the first place.
Well, I sent copies of my original letter protesting the payment to the superintendent of insurance, attorney general's office, my health plan, and the human resources department of my employer. My wonderful human resources rep followed up on it and called last week to tell me they agreed I shouldn't have paid anything and would send me a refund. We'll see if it shows up.
All of this boring detail leads up to my wondering if this is a scam by health care providers to try to collect more money than insurance plans are paying them. I already had paid a bill from the office that did my bone density scan, even though it didn't seem to me I should have owed them any money. But that bill was $10.99, and the lab bill was around $56. Plus, I had the time to question it and the annoyance from the other bill to make me want to fight it.
I have to wonder, though, if these billings are not mistakes, but are deliberate. After all, I drew the bill to the company's attention and pointed out that I didn't think I needed to pay it. They never replied and just kept sending bills. I wonder how many people have experienced something similar, and how many just shrug and pay the bills without questioning them. Insurance, after all, is a complicated business and it's sometimes hard to follow what is covered and what isn't and what you owe that your insurance doesn't cover. I have had other friends reporting similar experiences.
So, everybody out there who thinks the current health insurance system works well for the consumer, raise your hand.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Giving Up
I was reading a book from the library ("American Carnival: Journalism Under Siege in an Age of New Media") when I was surprised by the appearance of the name of a former New Mexico newspaper reporter, Mark Hummels. The author, Neil Henry, as associate professor at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, cited Hummels as an example of a young reporter who became frustrated by the limitations of journalism and left the business.
Henry writes: "Hummels wrote that it was terrific and engaging work, but that over time he became frustrated by both the `game’ mentality of daily political reporting and the mediocre standards of the newspapers he worked for. `I came to realize,’ he explained, `that government officials are so well-trained in obfuscation and spin that it’s next to impossible to get a real answer to most questions you ask them. This continues to drive me absolutely nuts with people in general, and with people in positions of trust especially. I came to think of reporting `both sides of the story’ as either 1) reporting `both’ sides of the octagon, or 2) giving `equal time’ for the Republicans and Democrats to tell their lies...’
Henry tells us that Hummels left the business, went off to law school, and now practices his profession as a husband and father of two. Again, Henry gives us Hummels’ comments about the low pay in journalism: "`...It wasn’t that I didn’t have enough money to live on, more that I felt the salary was an indication of my worth to the company. This was underscored by the fact that I knew ad-sales reps making five times more money than me.’
In time, one man who did recognize the value in hardworking, idealistic, and skilled but poorly paid young political journalists, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, began offering jobs to the reporters to use their writing and broadcasting skills to work for him instead. His office raided New Mexico’s newspapers, radio, and television stations luring some of the state’s best news reporters by offering better-paying work as public relations officers for the Richardson administration. Such is the lure, power, and triumph of public relations in American society today that more than twenty journalists in 2004 alone took Richardson up on the offer."
An interesting observation. But I don’t know if it was the lure and power of P.R. that attracted folks so much as it was the fact that one Albuquerque paper was in danger of folding and reporters wanting to stay in the state were on the lookout for other jobs. Or that their particular job situation was making them unhappy for certain personal reasons. And, while some pretty good reporters did go over to the Richardson administration, a whole lot of "the state’s best news reporters" stayed at their jobs and kept chipping away tirelessly at the dreck coughed out by the administration in the guise of news.
A tip of the hat to them. Keep at it.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Fiery Sign
Fires are sweeping across southern California and I am wondering who will be -- or perhaps already was -- the first believer who will interpret the conflagration as God's punishment on those wayward, sinning, godless denizens of the West Coast.
Then again, the flames aren't seeking out the gays of San Francisco, the wine-country liberals of Northern California, or the purveyors of porn among the L.A. hills (well, OK, maybe some sparks are flying in that direction). No, much of the fire is crackling across the San Diego area, home of staunch conservatives and members of the military.
Must not be divine retribution, then.
Then again, the flames aren't seeking out the gays of San Francisco, the wine-country liberals of Northern California, or the purveyors of porn among the L.A. hills (well, OK, maybe some sparks are flying in that direction). No, much of the fire is crackling across the San Diego area, home of staunch conservatives and members of the military.
Must not be divine retribution, then.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
A Moment of Silence
You might think that since I am a longtime (18-plus years, currently on leave) employee of the Albuquerque Journal, I'd be gleeful at the news that the afternoon competitor is up for sale -- a sign to most that it will close down. Far from it. I was quite sad to learn the news when I went online a few minutes ago.
Part of my sadness stems from the fact that I know and admire several of the hardworking reporters and editors at the Albuquerque Tribune. They are dedicated, talented people who deserve to continue to ply their craft. And part of my sadness comes from the fact that good, strong competition makes good newspapers. I remember grabbing the Tribune and gnashing my teeth if it had a story on my beat before I did -- and then doubling my resolve to not let it happen again.
Yet another element of my sadness comes from a wistful confusion over what is happening to newspapers today. All around the country, newspapers have been in trouble, cutting staff, cutting pages, cutting corners -- and cutting coverage. I know people contend its an inevitable result of many developments: free news on the Internet, other non-paper sources of news that are more immediate (TV, radio), increasingly busy lives in which people argue they don't have time to sit down and read.
I would argue they don't have time not to. To me, none of those other news sources can replace a newspaper. I can't imagine starting my day without the feel of that paper in my hands as I turn the pages and run my eyes up and down the columns. Can the Internet take its place? Perhaps, but I find one thing that disturbs me about Internet news. (Besides the fact that most of the solidest news on the Internet is from newspapers, which subsidize the online version.) At least when I go to the Internet to check news, I scan headlines, or maybe just go to the page or collection of stories that interest me the most (e.g., health stories, movie reviews).
With a newspaper, though, a story sitting there right in front of me might catch my attention as I start scanning the first few paragraphs. I don't have to push an extra button to decide to call the whole thing up. And thus I end up learning about some event, issue or condition that otherwise I would not have bothered to call up on the Internet. I become more informed. And I get more detail and understanding than I likely would get from a 30-second blurb on TV or quick summary on the Internet.
As we lose news outlets, we lose voices that challenge our public officials, reveal elements of our society, or discover wrongdoing. Blogsters don't replace that. The standards of neutrality, reliability and fairness are, yes, upheld by that mainstream media that get battered by critics. I will give credibility to something I read in the newspaper; I won't necessarily do that for something I read on the Web.
We can't afford to become an even more ill-informed society. Lack of solid information and knowledge makes us more easily manipulated by politicians, bureaucrats and corporate fat cats who have their own agenda, one that benefits them more than the public. Don't let them gain even more control than they already have. Keep news alive!
Part of my sadness stems from the fact that I know and admire several of the hardworking reporters and editors at the Albuquerque Tribune. They are dedicated, talented people who deserve to continue to ply their craft. And part of my sadness comes from the fact that good, strong competition makes good newspapers. I remember grabbing the Tribune and gnashing my teeth if it had a story on my beat before I did -- and then doubling my resolve to not let it happen again.
Yet another element of my sadness comes from a wistful confusion over what is happening to newspapers today. All around the country, newspapers have been in trouble, cutting staff, cutting pages, cutting corners -- and cutting coverage. I know people contend its an inevitable result of many developments: free news on the Internet, other non-paper sources of news that are more immediate (TV, radio), increasingly busy lives in which people argue they don't have time to sit down and read.
I would argue they don't have time not to. To me, none of those other news sources can replace a newspaper. I can't imagine starting my day without the feel of that paper in my hands as I turn the pages and run my eyes up and down the columns. Can the Internet take its place? Perhaps, but I find one thing that disturbs me about Internet news. (Besides the fact that most of the solidest news on the Internet is from newspapers, which subsidize the online version.) At least when I go to the Internet to check news, I scan headlines, or maybe just go to the page or collection of stories that interest me the most (e.g., health stories, movie reviews).
With a newspaper, though, a story sitting there right in front of me might catch my attention as I start scanning the first few paragraphs. I don't have to push an extra button to decide to call the whole thing up. And thus I end up learning about some event, issue or condition that otherwise I would not have bothered to call up on the Internet. I become more informed. And I get more detail and understanding than I likely would get from a 30-second blurb on TV or quick summary on the Internet.
As we lose news outlets, we lose voices that challenge our public officials, reveal elements of our society, or discover wrongdoing. Blogsters don't replace that. The standards of neutrality, reliability and fairness are, yes, upheld by that mainstream media that get battered by critics. I will give credibility to something I read in the newspaper; I won't necessarily do that for something I read on the Web.
We can't afford to become an even more ill-informed society. Lack of solid information and knowledge makes us more easily manipulated by politicians, bureaucrats and corporate fat cats who have their own agenda, one that benefits them more than the public. Don't let them gain even more control than they already have. Keep news alive!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Quagmire Revisited
I used to believe in the expression that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Now, I am beginning to believe the contention that, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true.
During the television news this evening, I saw repeated commercials saying that American troops should stay in Iraq. It used servicemen and family members of those killed in Iraq or the Twin Towers as the spokespeople. And their words suggest that our troops in Iraq are essential to curb terrorism. They make a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
Well, it's true that Iraq has become a strong center for terrorism -- after our invasion.
It's important that we keep some things in mind. Saddam Hussein was a nasty, brutal man. But he also headed a secular state, he opposed al-Queda and did not welcome its operations in his country, and he kept a nation running with different Islamic sects intermarrying and living among each other, with relatively effective health and education systems (until U.S.-led embargoes crippled supplies coming into that country).
So our country invaded Iraq, with, as far as I can tell, the intention only to topple Saddam. When that happened, our President said: "Mission accomplished." And then what? What did our political leaders think would happen? What did happen is that civil war has broken out, al-Queda has established a foothold in Iraq, the country appears to be leaning toward establishing an Islamic state (if any type of real government gets established at all), American arms have ended up in the hands of terrorists of all stripes, the most educated and reasonable citizens have fled the country, and the health, education and other civil systems have crumbled.
We must keep troops in Iraq, these commercials tell us, until we have victory.
And what, exactly, will victory look like? An American-style democracy? What if the voters choose an Islamic state? Will that be victory? How will we ever make happen what most of us probably think should happen?
In the meantime, while we've been trying to make Iraq into a Middle-Eastern America, the political influence of Iran has been increasing in the region, Pakistan has been increasingly destabilized (with the likelihood for an Islamic state arising there if the present government is overthrown), Russia is experiencing increasing oppression and growing power, and countries everywhere have learned a lesson of how impotent raw military power is against terrorism.
With the repression of civil liberties and reports of torture of prisoners, America has lost whatever moral authority it has held in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if this Iraqi adventure marks either the downfall of this country as the world superpower, or the uprising of this country as a hated, world bully, with eventual use of nuclear weapons.
I fear what we have unleashed, and I weep for what has been done in our name.
And I say all this not to argue for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. I'd like to think there is some way to clean up the mess we have made. But our President, who raises the spectre of the bloodshed that occurred after we left Vietnam, should keep another thing in mind. As far as I can tell, Vietnam now is a stable, peaceful, increasingly prosperous country.
During the television news this evening, I saw repeated commercials saying that American troops should stay in Iraq. It used servicemen and family members of those killed in Iraq or the Twin Towers as the spokespeople. And their words suggest that our troops in Iraq are essential to curb terrorism. They make a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
Well, it's true that Iraq has become a strong center for terrorism -- after our invasion.
It's important that we keep some things in mind. Saddam Hussein was a nasty, brutal man. But he also headed a secular state, he opposed al-Queda and did not welcome its operations in his country, and he kept a nation running with different Islamic sects intermarrying and living among each other, with relatively effective health and education systems (until U.S.-led embargoes crippled supplies coming into that country).
So our country invaded Iraq, with, as far as I can tell, the intention only to topple Saddam. When that happened, our President said: "Mission accomplished." And then what? What did our political leaders think would happen? What did happen is that civil war has broken out, al-Queda has established a foothold in Iraq, the country appears to be leaning toward establishing an Islamic state (if any type of real government gets established at all), American arms have ended up in the hands of terrorists of all stripes, the most educated and reasonable citizens have fled the country, and the health, education and other civil systems have crumbled.
We must keep troops in Iraq, these commercials tell us, until we have victory.
And what, exactly, will victory look like? An American-style democracy? What if the voters choose an Islamic state? Will that be victory? How will we ever make happen what most of us probably think should happen?
In the meantime, while we've been trying to make Iraq into a Middle-Eastern America, the political influence of Iran has been increasing in the region, Pakistan has been increasingly destabilized (with the likelihood for an Islamic state arising there if the present government is overthrown), Russia is experiencing increasing oppression and growing power, and countries everywhere have learned a lesson of how impotent raw military power is against terrorism.
With the repression of civil liberties and reports of torture of prisoners, America has lost whatever moral authority it has held in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if this Iraqi adventure marks either the downfall of this country as the world superpower, or the uprising of this country as a hated, world bully, with eventual use of nuclear weapons.
I fear what we have unleashed, and I weep for what has been done in our name.
And I say all this not to argue for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. I'd like to think there is some way to clean up the mess we have made. But our President, who raises the spectre of the bloodshed that occurred after we left Vietnam, should keep another thing in mind. As far as I can tell, Vietnam now is a stable, peaceful, increasingly prosperous country.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
How Much Is Enough?
I saw a brief news item in this morning's paper that said presidential spokesman Tony Snow was leaving his job. According to the story, he said he needs more money than the $168,000 per year that he's making now.
That brought me up short. That wasn't enough money? It occurred to me that we must live in such vastly different worlds, since I think I can live (and have lived) quite comfortably on less than one-third of what he says isn't enough. And my "less than one-third" is vastly more what the majority of people in the world are living on.
The story did mention that he is facing a recurrence of cancer. While I'm sure his current job offers health insurance, perhaps there are still uncovered costs in fighting his cancer. If that's the issue, though, what does that say about our health care system? And where does that leave the large majority of our population, who make far less money than that, when they are faced with a serious illness or injury?
I don't know Mr. Snow's reason for "needing" more money, but I think we should all think every once in a while about what true need is.
That brought me up short. That wasn't enough money? It occurred to me that we must live in such vastly different worlds, since I think I can live (and have lived) quite comfortably on less than one-third of what he says isn't enough. And my "less than one-third" is vastly more what the majority of people in the world are living on.
The story did mention that he is facing a recurrence of cancer. While I'm sure his current job offers health insurance, perhaps there are still uncovered costs in fighting his cancer. If that's the issue, though, what does that say about our health care system? And where does that leave the large majority of our population, who make far less money than that, when they are faced with a serious illness or injury?
I don't know Mr. Snow's reason for "needing" more money, but I think we should all think every once in a while about what true need is.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Peace Process
Everyone has his or her pet peeves. Sometimes it can be a word, expression or phrase. Listening to the news this morning, I was reminded of how annoyed I am by references to "the peace process."
Now what, exactly, is that supposed to mean? OK, I know what its intended meaning is. But every time I think about it, it makes no sense. "Peace process," I guess, means that people are talking about how they can stop fighting. Or how other people can make them stop fighting. Or what has to happen until they agree, at least on the official level, to stop fighting.
By referring to this as a "peace process," news reporters and pundits and politicians cast an unduly optimistic glow on the situation, as if, yes indeed, honest, we are marching along the path to peace and we'll get there, really, some day! Sounds so much better than saying, yeah, these folks are killing each other and still refuse to stop.
This seems like one of those situations where Yoda's advice applies: Do it, or do not.
Now what, exactly, is that supposed to mean? OK, I know what its intended meaning is. But every time I think about it, it makes no sense. "Peace process," I guess, means that people are talking about how they can stop fighting. Or how other people can make them stop fighting. Or what has to happen until they agree, at least on the official level, to stop fighting.
By referring to this as a "peace process," news reporters and pundits and politicians cast an unduly optimistic glow on the situation, as if, yes indeed, honest, we are marching along the path to peace and we'll get there, really, some day! Sounds so much better than saying, yeah, these folks are killing each other and still refuse to stop.
This seems like one of those situations where Yoda's advice applies: Do it, or do not.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Tacky TV News
I was watching the report about the chief justice's seizure on ABC news the other day, and the anchor mentioned more than once that he heard Roberts had been foaming at the mouth. After he repeated it a couple of times, the reporter in the field acknowledged that, yes, Roberts had been foaming at the mouth.
As much as my political leanings may cause me to relish the image of a foaming-at-the-mouth conservative chief justice, I found this line of questioning to be astoundingly tasteless and offensive. It's not uncommon for someone experiencing a seizure, accident or similar physical trauma to evacuate his bladder or bowels. Does that mean we can expect anchors on future stories to say, "I understand he peed/pooed in his pants. Is that true?"
Spare me.
As much as my political leanings may cause me to relish the image of a foaming-at-the-mouth conservative chief justice, I found this line of questioning to be astoundingly tasteless and offensive. It's not uncommon for someone experiencing a seizure, accident or similar physical trauma to evacuate his bladder or bowels. Does that mean we can expect anchors on future stories to say, "I understand he peed/pooed in his pants. Is that true?"
Spare me.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Flly the Smoky Skies
A German entrepreneur is trying to start up Smoker's International Airways (Smintair) for high-end travelers who want to indulge their vices -- smoking, drinking -- in the air. A story I read about it characterizes the goal as bringing air travel back to the days when it was glamorous.
Ah, yes, we remember the movies of a half-decade or more ago where a cocktail in one hand and a cigarette in the other was the epitome of glamour. The puffers and drinkers all looked like Lauren Bacall or Humphrey Bogart. People following their examples didn't think about the smokers who ended up with sallow skin and wrinkles, hacking up half a lung, or the drinkers who passed out and peed in their pants, or crashed their car or beat up their lovers.
Somehow that doesn't seem as glamorous.
This entrepreneur, Alexander Schoppmann, goes on to be quoted as saying that "I haven't seen a sick smoker in my life" and that concerns about second-hand smoke are "the biggest scam of all times." Apparently the guy hasn't spent enough time in hospitals or hospices, not to mention reading medical studies.
And his planes, he claims, will be so well-ventilated that "you will not even notice the smell of somebody smoking a cigarette or pipe in the next seat." Well, mabe not, if your sense of smell or taste has been completely destroyed by smoking, or if you're wearing an oxygen mask.
Give me a break.
Ah, yes, we remember the movies of a half-decade or more ago where a cocktail in one hand and a cigarette in the other was the epitome of glamour. The puffers and drinkers all looked like Lauren Bacall or Humphrey Bogart. People following their examples didn't think about the smokers who ended up with sallow skin and wrinkles, hacking up half a lung, or the drinkers who passed out and peed in their pants, or crashed their car or beat up their lovers.
Somehow that doesn't seem as glamorous.
This entrepreneur, Alexander Schoppmann, goes on to be quoted as saying that "I haven't seen a sick smoker in my life" and that concerns about second-hand smoke are "the biggest scam of all times." Apparently the guy hasn't spent enough time in hospitals or hospices, not to mention reading medical studies.
And his planes, he claims, will be so well-ventilated that "you will not even notice the smell of somebody smoking a cigarette or pipe in the next seat." Well, mabe not, if your sense of smell or taste has been completely destroyed by smoking, or if you're wearing an oxygen mask.
Give me a break.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Race and Politics
It seems the news media have been overrun with articles about Barack Obama and whether or not he's "black enough." Black enough for what? Apparently to be acceptable to the "black community," as if that's one monolithic entity where everyone thinks alike. Or else the stories flip the race card, and speculate on whether he's "white enough" to be an acceptable black.
Haven't we gotten beyond this yet? I am particularly puzzled by our approach to people of mixed race. Obama is called "black," even though he's the son of a black African man and a white American woman. Doesn't calling him "black" ignore or reject the entire heritage from his mother's side? I am reminded of the media focus on Tiger Woods as a black golfer, although his background is a delightful combination of races and ethnicities.
I know. I understand the history of the language and classifications, of how anyone with a speck of black blood was once labeled "black" and hence discriminated against. But now genetics tells us that we probably all descended from Africans (who, yes, were black) and that we share more genetics across so-called "races" than we do within races.
So, c'mon people, let's get over it already.
Haven't we gotten beyond this yet? I am particularly puzzled by our approach to people of mixed race. Obama is called "black," even though he's the son of a black African man and a white American woman. Doesn't calling him "black" ignore or reject the entire heritage from his mother's side? I am reminded of the media focus on Tiger Woods as a black golfer, although his background is a delightful combination of races and ethnicities.
I know. I understand the history of the language and classifications, of how anyone with a speck of black blood was once labeled "black" and hence discriminated against. But now genetics tells us that we probably all descended from Africans (who, yes, were black) and that we share more genetics across so-called "races" than we do within races.
So, c'mon people, let's get over it already.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Got Money? Buy the Gov's Ear
The Albuquerque Journal tells us this morning (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/577321nm07-11-07.htm) that the head of the University of New Mexico's Cancer Research and Treatment Center used her university e-mail to invite colleagues to a fundraiser for Gov. Bill Richardson at her home. Not something she should have done, but, maybe you, like me, can't see that it's such a big deal. A very minor rip-off, if any. One could argue, of course, that using the UNM account creates an impression that the event was sanctioned by the university, but anyone getting the invitation likely already knows who Cheryl Willman is. The clout rests within her, and wouldn't be changed substantially by the form of the invitation.
Lower in the story, though, are elements that are more disturbing. According to the story, Willman indicated Richardson and UNM Regents President Jamie Koch asked her to host the fundraiser. It appears she didn't initiate it on her own. And what might be implicit in such a request? Perhaps something like: "Hey, Cheryl, you're building that neat new cancer center at UNM, and I bet you're going to want more money down the road to complete it and operate it." Of course no one would say that. They wouldn't need to.
An even more disturbing element: The invitation said Richardson wanted to meet leaders in the state's bioscience community and Willman said attendees were grateful that they got a chance to talk to the governor (and Democratic presidential candidate) about their concerns. Somehow, I suspect that if Richardson wanted to get together with movers and shakers in the medical and research community, he could do it anytime he wanted, with the snap of his fingers. As a matter of fact, I could give him a list of names of people (well, OK, I'd probably need to doublecheck with them first) in the medical community who would be overjoyed to host a coffee or reception at their homes to meet the governor and share their insights.
The invitation was about money. And people shouldn't have to donate money to the governor in order to get his ear. And it raises even more questions about the governor's influence over our universities, which it sometimes appears he tries to operate as just another branch of state government that he can use for political hires and headlines. (Whatever DID happen to his big project to establish stem cell research at UNM?)
Maybe I'm even more sensitive to this than usual after reading about former surgeons general testifying about political interference from the President (current and past) in their reports and statements about public health: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?hp. It's true that many things get a little uglier when politics enters into the mix. And, while nothing is sacred, it seems some things should have a little buffer. When it comes to medicine and the nation's health, science and ethics should be the overriding principles.
That's not to say people in medicine shouldn't be accountable to the public. Lord knows, too many of the people with the grit and intelligence to make it through medical school and residency end up regarding themselves as demigods. That accountability should include our expectation that they should speak up when they see the public's health undermined.
Now, these stories are apples and oranges. There's no evidence Richardson has tried to censor findings on public health interventions, as apparently has happened at the federal level. But the federal testimony does raise questions about the wisdom of letting politics creep too far into medicine or public health.
Lower in the story, though, are elements that are more disturbing. According to the story, Willman indicated Richardson and UNM Regents President Jamie Koch asked her to host the fundraiser. It appears she didn't initiate it on her own. And what might be implicit in such a request? Perhaps something like: "Hey, Cheryl, you're building that neat new cancer center at UNM, and I bet you're going to want more money down the road to complete it and operate it." Of course no one would say that. They wouldn't need to.
An even more disturbing element: The invitation said Richardson wanted to meet leaders in the state's bioscience community and Willman said attendees were grateful that they got a chance to talk to the governor (and Democratic presidential candidate) about their concerns. Somehow, I suspect that if Richardson wanted to get together with movers and shakers in the medical and research community, he could do it anytime he wanted, with the snap of his fingers. As a matter of fact, I could give him a list of names of people (well, OK, I'd probably need to doublecheck with them first) in the medical community who would be overjoyed to host a coffee or reception at their homes to meet the governor and share their insights.
The invitation was about money. And people shouldn't have to donate money to the governor in order to get his ear. And it raises even more questions about the governor's influence over our universities, which it sometimes appears he tries to operate as just another branch of state government that he can use for political hires and headlines. (Whatever DID happen to his big project to establish stem cell research at UNM?)
Maybe I'm even more sensitive to this than usual after reading about former surgeons general testifying about political interference from the President (current and past) in their reports and statements about public health: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?hp. It's true that many things get a little uglier when politics enters into the mix. And, while nothing is sacred, it seems some things should have a little buffer. When it comes to medicine and the nation's health, science and ethics should be the overriding principles.
That's not to say people in medicine shouldn't be accountable to the public. Lord knows, too many of the people with the grit and intelligence to make it through medical school and residency end up regarding themselves as demigods. That accountability should include our expectation that they should speak up when they see the public's health undermined.
Now, these stories are apples and oranges. There's no evidence Richardson has tried to censor findings on public health interventions, as apparently has happened at the federal level. But the federal testimony does raise questions about the wisdom of letting politics creep too far into medicine or public health.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Freedom Fighters
An interesting story recently (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-iraqplay22jun22,1,4871859.story?coll=la-headlines-nation) told of students at Wilton High School in Connecticut who put together a play that told the story of recent war veterans in their own words. The teacher and students strove to make the presentation balanced, giving both the pluses and minuses of experiences in Iraq. But a parent protested, the principal caved, and the students were forbidden to put on the presentation. Too controversial.
Then the story made the news and the students ended up with an invitation to present their play in New York, to large and appreciative audiences.
Over the last few years, we have been told that our soldiers are in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting for our freedom, that our "enemies" there hate freedom. So why is it that the people who make this argument most vociferously are the ones who seem to do the most to try to cut back our freedoms? Freedom of speech should be one of the freedoms we defend and exercise to the utmost.
Then again, freedom did triumph, since the students were able to present their play. For that we can be grateful. But that doesn't excuse the impulse -- in this and in so many other cases over the years -- to try to silence people who may have something to say which the "powers that be" oppose.
Then the story made the news and the students ended up with an invitation to present their play in New York, to large and appreciative audiences.
Over the last few years, we have been told that our soldiers are in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting for our freedom, that our "enemies" there hate freedom. So why is it that the people who make this argument most vociferously are the ones who seem to do the most to try to cut back our freedoms? Freedom of speech should be one of the freedoms we defend and exercise to the utmost.
Then again, freedom did triumph, since the students were able to present their play. For that we can be grateful. But that doesn't excuse the impulse -- in this and in so many other cases over the years -- to try to silence people who may have something to say which the "powers that be" oppose.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Bugs Cause Happiness
I always find delightful and mind-bending info in Discover magazine. The article that has me jazzed this month (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/raw-data-is-dirt-the-new-prozac) is a fascinating study that suggests common bacteria in the soil might have the effect of releasing serotonin in the brain. In other words, they could relieve depression.
I find this fascinating because I, like many people, have found that gardening or hiking in the great outdoors often makes me feel happier, with a more positive outlook on life. I thought it was because of the beauty inherent in such activities. Who wouldda thought it might be the fact that I was inhaling these little bacteria as I tromped on them?
It also raises an interesting question, especially after reading stories about people concerned that children are suffering from "nature deficit disorder" -- not spending enough time outdoors and in natural settings. Studies have suggested the rates of depression are rising, particularly among children. Could it be that we all just need to play outside more often?
I find this fascinating because I, like many people, have found that gardening or hiking in the great outdoors often makes me feel happier, with a more positive outlook on life. I thought it was because of the beauty inherent in such activities. Who wouldda thought it might be the fact that I was inhaling these little bacteria as I tromped on them?
It also raises an interesting question, especially after reading stories about people concerned that children are suffering from "nature deficit disorder" -- not spending enough time outdoors and in natural settings. Studies have suggested the rates of depression are rising, particularly among children. Could it be that we all just need to play outside more often?
Ghostly Image
The story that has gotten the most attention in Santa Fe recently has been about an image on a courthouse security camera that some contend shows a ghost: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/63427.html. It's interesting how people come up with their ideas of what it shows. It may be a case of seeing what you expect to see -- or want to see.
I saw the tape a couple of days ago on the TV news. My immediate reaction was that it was a small spider or similar bug crawling on the camera lens. I reached that conclusion partly because it appeared to have a solid center with rays or spots around it -- legs extending from the body, in my eyes. A big part of my conclusion, though, also came from the pattern of movement. Just as I sometimes can distinguish a bird at a glance simply by the pattern of its flight, or people can recognize friends from a distance by the way they move, I think you can get a clue of what other things might be by their movement. And this light blob moved, to me, like a bug.
Check out the link and see what you think.
I saw the tape a couple of days ago on the TV news. My immediate reaction was that it was a small spider or similar bug crawling on the camera lens. I reached that conclusion partly because it appeared to have a solid center with rays or spots around it -- legs extending from the body, in my eyes. A big part of my conclusion, though, also came from the pattern of movement. Just as I sometimes can distinguish a bird at a glance simply by the pattern of its flight, or people can recognize friends from a distance by the way they move, I think you can get a clue of what other things might be by their movement. And this light blob moved, to me, like a bug.
Check out the link and see what you think.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Proper Penalties
I noticed news came out recently about a study that indicated use of the death penalty did appear to deter murders. That caused ethicists to say that perhaps we needed to reweigh the moral pros and cons of the sentence.
Perhaps we should consider other things: Cut off the hand of a thief; castrate rapists; cut out the tongues of liars (i.e., people who commit fraud). I strongly suspect those penalties will lead to a reduction in the related crimes.
Or are there other moral factors that need to be weighed here?
Perhaps we should consider other things: Cut off the hand of a thief; castrate rapists; cut out the tongues of liars (i.e., people who commit fraud). I strongly suspect those penalties will lead to a reduction in the related crimes.
Or are there other moral factors that need to be weighed here?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Buying Recognition
An ongoing story recently in Santa Fe has been naming a new library on the South Side. (Apparently "Santa Fe Public Library -- South Side" is too straightforward.) The powers-that-be said they'd name it after the first person to contribute $1 million. So a donation was promised, in the name of a recently-deceased liquor distributor and casino owner.
Folks protested. Most didn't raise the question of whether those activities should be honored in a building supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and freedom of information, but over whether one should be able to buy one's way into permanent community recognition. Both, I would argue, should be valid points to raise.
In response to the protest, the family withdrew the donation. Now... wouldn't it be nobler to still donate the money, but graciously turn down the name recognition? Doesn't that tell you, right there, that the intent was to glorify the family name instead of supporting a community institution?
I wish buildings weren't named after people at all. Just name them by their functions. And if you do want to honor someone, why not honor someone who has contributed to the library through longtime volunteer work, promotion, reading to kids, or other means that required commitment and dedication, rather than money?
In a society where sports stadiums and tournaments are named after donors, though, it's become increasingly apparent that everything is for sale. Maybe next we'll have the Toyota Olympics or the Microsoft Congress.
Folks protested. Most didn't raise the question of whether those activities should be honored in a building supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and freedom of information, but over whether one should be able to buy one's way into permanent community recognition. Both, I would argue, should be valid points to raise.
In response to the protest, the family withdrew the donation. Now... wouldn't it be nobler to still donate the money, but graciously turn down the name recognition? Doesn't that tell you, right there, that the intent was to glorify the family name instead of supporting a community institution?
I wish buildings weren't named after people at all. Just name them by their functions. And if you do want to honor someone, why not honor someone who has contributed to the library through longtime volunteer work, promotion, reading to kids, or other means that required commitment and dedication, rather than money?
In a society where sports stadiums and tournaments are named after donors, though, it's become increasingly apparent that everything is for sale. Maybe next we'll have the Toyota Olympics or the Microsoft Congress.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Factoid du Jour
So, I'm reading this book, "Salt: A World History" by Mark Kurlansky. (You never know what book will call my name from its library shelf.) And it says that, when England was still Catholic, it was a crime to eat meat on "lean" days -- back then, that meant every Friday and every day of Lent. How big a crime? You could be hanged for it.
Well. And when they wanted to generate more support for the fisheries, they even talked about forbidding the eating of meat on Wednesdays, too, but never did pass that law. Later, they relented a little, and didn't kill you for eating meat on "lean" days -- they simply threw you in jail.
Now, of course, this didn't necessarily apply to everyone. People could buy exemptions from the Church that would allow them to eat meat on those days. As a matter of fact, it was one of the bigger revenue-raisers back then.
I guess they didn't have Bingo yet.
Well. And when they wanted to generate more support for the fisheries, they even talked about forbidding the eating of meat on Wednesdays, too, but never did pass that law. Later, they relented a little, and didn't kill you for eating meat on "lean" days -- they simply threw you in jail.
Now, of course, this didn't necessarily apply to everyone. People could buy exemptions from the Church that would allow them to eat meat on those days. As a matter of fact, it was one of the bigger revenue-raisers back then.
I guess they didn't have Bingo yet.
Take a Pill
The news today is full of Alli, the new anti-fat weight-loss drug coming out over-the-counter. I don't know how much is hype and how much is real, but the reports I heard made it sound as if it's flying off the shelves.
All of which makes me sigh. Our society's impulse to turn to a pill for everything that ails us almost seems to create its own sickness. It makes health care increasingly expensive, that's for sure. But it also leaves us grabbing for the "easy way out." Don't exercise or improve our diets -- just take a pill. Don't take steps to reduce our stress -- just take a pill. We take a pill to sleep. To lose weight. To lower our blood pressure. To reduce our cholesterol. To stay awake. (Or maybe just caffeine, our favorite over-the-counter drug.) And, granted, some of those conditions are genetic and can't be controlled by behavior. But many of them can be.
So, instead of taking steps to make ourselves healthy, and create a society that encourates health, we make the pharmaceutical companies rich.
All of which makes me sigh. Our society's impulse to turn to a pill for everything that ails us almost seems to create its own sickness. It makes health care increasingly expensive, that's for sure. But it also leaves us grabbing for the "easy way out." Don't exercise or improve our diets -- just take a pill. Don't take steps to reduce our stress -- just take a pill. We take a pill to sleep. To lose weight. To lower our blood pressure. To reduce our cholesterol. To stay awake. (Or maybe just caffeine, our favorite over-the-counter drug.) And, granted, some of those conditions are genetic and can't be controlled by behavior. But many of them can be.
So, instead of taking steps to make ourselves healthy, and create a society that encourates health, we make the pharmaceutical companies rich.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Democrats in Suits
The news in New Mexico today has been a review of Gov. Bill Richardson's performance in Sunday's Democratic presidential candidates' debate in New Hampshire. I didn't watch the debate, but I was a little surprised by an AP listing in this morning's paper on what the candidates gave as their top priorities. Richardson's was listed as upgrading schools and enacting a $40,000 minimum wage for teachers.
Say what? I wanted to remind the big guy that he's already governor, and that his debate was about wanting to be president. Education normally is seen as a state, or even local, issue. Maybe he's looking to nab the teachers' unions endorsements and donations. If nothing else, he successfully separated himself from the rest of the candidates. They all talked about things like, well, world peace and restoring this country's moral authority in the world. Not one mentioned raising teachers' pay.
It's also always interesting to look over the photos of all the candidates lined up together. If you go by the contention that the tallest candidate has the best chance of winning, it looks as if Richardson and Obama would be tiptoe-to-tiptoe on that one. And, while it's hard to tell just by looks who you'd most want to have a beer with, Big Bill does look like the guy you'd most want to have a cheeseburger with.
Say what? I wanted to remind the big guy that he's already governor, and that his debate was about wanting to be president. Education normally is seen as a state, or even local, issue. Maybe he's looking to nab the teachers' unions endorsements and donations. If nothing else, he successfully separated himself from the rest of the candidates. They all talked about things like, well, world peace and restoring this country's moral authority in the world. Not one mentioned raising teachers' pay.
It's also always interesting to look over the photos of all the candidates lined up together. If you go by the contention that the tallest candidate has the best chance of winning, it looks as if Richardson and Obama would be tiptoe-to-tiptoe on that one. And, while it's hard to tell just by looks who you'd most want to have a beer with, Big Bill does look like the guy you'd most want to have a cheeseburger with.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Duct Tape Fixes Everything
I noticed an item in this morning's paper saying a family is suing a teaching intern who duct-taped a 6th-grader to his chair, also covering his mouth with tape, when he and others were too disruptive during a movie.
Well, first of all, let me make it clear that I don't condone this as a disciplinary measure in school. But I can't help but notice that all -- or at least most -- the stories on this 2005 incident dwell on the teacher's actions. That's probably proper, but a little part of me kept asking: What about the kids? There wasn't a whole lot of discussion of how disruptive they were, or how consistently they were disobeying the teacher, or how frequent such discipline problems are in classrooms today. And few seemed to suggest that the 6th grader might, just might, share a little bit of the responsibility for the incident. By 6th grade, a child certainly should know right from wrong, and should have developed a decent measure of self-control.
Maybe I find myself thinking this because I grew up with a father who took the approach of: "If I hear you got a spanking at school, you'll get another one when you get home." I was expected to behave. His attitude was that if the teacher thought I was stepping out of line, then he'd assume that was indeed what I had done. I never found out if he would follow up on that threat, because I never got spanked at school. But that was the point, wasn't it?
Yes, there's something wrong when a teacher feels such a loss of control over her class that she resorts to duct-taping children to their chairs and shuts them up by duct-taping their mouths. But I also think there's something wrong when parents think they can benefit by going to court over such an incident. And I'm left wondering if, in any way, the child was forced to take responsibility for his misbehavior in the first place.
Well, first of all, let me make it clear that I don't condone this as a disciplinary measure in school. But I can't help but notice that all -- or at least most -- the stories on this 2005 incident dwell on the teacher's actions. That's probably proper, but a little part of me kept asking: What about the kids? There wasn't a whole lot of discussion of how disruptive they were, or how consistently they were disobeying the teacher, or how frequent such discipline problems are in classrooms today. And few seemed to suggest that the 6th grader might, just might, share a little bit of the responsibility for the incident. By 6th grade, a child certainly should know right from wrong, and should have developed a decent measure of self-control.
Maybe I find myself thinking this because I grew up with a father who took the approach of: "If I hear you got a spanking at school, you'll get another one when you get home." I was expected to behave. His attitude was that if the teacher thought I was stepping out of line, then he'd assume that was indeed what I had done. I never found out if he would follow up on that threat, because I never got spanked at school. But that was the point, wasn't it?
Yes, there's something wrong when a teacher feels such a loss of control over her class that she resorts to duct-taping children to their chairs and shuts them up by duct-taping their mouths. But I also think there's something wrong when parents think they can benefit by going to court over such an incident. And I'm left wondering if, in any way, the child was forced to take responsibility for his misbehavior in the first place.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
TV "Accuracy"
I was just reading a story about medical and legal consultants hired by Hollywood to make sure their television dramas have the air of accuracy. That led me to chuckle about "Grey's Anatomy." I know that show has been popular forever, but I only got hooked on it this year. I started watching it only because it was on between "Ugly Betty" and "Men in Trees."
One of the continuing reactions I have to "Grey's Anatomy" is that those docs have wa-a-a-y too much time. First of all, let's be clear. It's not a medical show; it's a medical soap opera. The show focuses on who is in love with/sleeping with whom at any one point in time. In order to facilitate this soap opera, then, the docs end up spending more time interacting with each other than with their patients.
For example: A show earlier this year featured a ferry crashing, or blowing up, or something of the sort, causing a mass casualty accident for the Seattle hospital. Patients were flooding in with all sorts of injuries. So what do we see? When Meredith is injured, her fellow surgical interns end up lingering outside the door where she is getting treatment, worrying about what would happen to her. Hello? That hospital must be incredibly overstaffed to be able to have a gaggle of doctors loitering in the hallway during a mass casualty incident. Not to mention another intern who spent time going through bodybags to see if he could help identify one of the patients. Hmmm... there were no living patients who needed his attention at the time? Hard to believe.
A more recent incident that raised my eyebrow showed the obstetrical surgeon doing an ultrasound of a pregnant patient. Now, the more likely scenario would be that the doc wouldn't even be in the room, while an ultrasound technician did the test and later delivered the images to the doc. And if, for some unusual reason, the doc urgently wanted to see the results, she might have stood there watching while the technician did the test. But in the world of Grey, docs do everything themselves, from ultrasound tests to searches of body bags for patient identification.
And then there's the story line of the surgeon who oversees the interns starting up a free clinic at the hospital. Yes, that' s very nice... but surgeons generally are too busy doing surgery to run free clinics... Yet this character seems to do it all: surgery, oversight of surgical interns, supervision of the free clinic. So far, at least since I've been watching, she's the only one who hasn't managed to have an affair. At least she's been too busy.
One last quibble: The show has referred to the group of fledgling docs who are the core of the drama as "interns." And they all want to be surgeons. And they spend a lot of time either in surgery or watching surgery. Yet in my glancing familiarity with medical education, an intern is a medical school graduate in the first year of residency. While some may be sure what they want to specialize in, a specialty usually isn't declared in that first year. Instead, interns rotate among a variety of specialties throughout the year. Yet Grey's interns seem to spend most of their time either in the ER or the surgical suite. (When they're not in each others' beds, that is.) (Or interns popping into medical faculty's beds -- or into supply closets. Is that ethical?)
And the faculty, the full-fledged specialists, whether ob-gyn, neurosurgeon or cardiothoracic surgeon, also follow patients all the way from the ER to surgery to post-surgical follow-up. Never mind that, in the real world, trauma docs would be handling patients in the ER while the surgeons would be on another floor, studying CT scans or X-rays or whatever images get sent up, plotting the surgery, scrubbing up, and often not even meeting the patient until they're draped, under anesthesia and practically anonymous. But keeping docs in their specialty niches would make for a pretty choppy story line...
One of the continuing reactions I have to "Grey's Anatomy" is that those docs have wa-a-a-y too much time. First of all, let's be clear. It's not a medical show; it's a medical soap opera. The show focuses on who is in love with/sleeping with whom at any one point in time. In order to facilitate this soap opera, then, the docs end up spending more time interacting with each other than with their patients.
For example: A show earlier this year featured a ferry crashing, or blowing up, or something of the sort, causing a mass casualty accident for the Seattle hospital. Patients were flooding in with all sorts of injuries. So what do we see? When Meredith is injured, her fellow surgical interns end up lingering outside the door where she is getting treatment, worrying about what would happen to her. Hello? That hospital must be incredibly overstaffed to be able to have a gaggle of doctors loitering in the hallway during a mass casualty incident. Not to mention another intern who spent time going through bodybags to see if he could help identify one of the patients. Hmmm... there were no living patients who needed his attention at the time? Hard to believe.
A more recent incident that raised my eyebrow showed the obstetrical surgeon doing an ultrasound of a pregnant patient. Now, the more likely scenario would be that the doc wouldn't even be in the room, while an ultrasound technician did the test and later delivered the images to the doc. And if, for some unusual reason, the doc urgently wanted to see the results, she might have stood there watching while the technician did the test. But in the world of Grey, docs do everything themselves, from ultrasound tests to searches of body bags for patient identification.
And then there's the story line of the surgeon who oversees the interns starting up a free clinic at the hospital. Yes, that' s very nice... but surgeons generally are too busy doing surgery to run free clinics... Yet this character seems to do it all: surgery, oversight of surgical interns, supervision of the free clinic. So far, at least since I've been watching, she's the only one who hasn't managed to have an affair. At least she's been too busy.
One last quibble: The show has referred to the group of fledgling docs who are the core of the drama as "interns." And they all want to be surgeons. And they spend a lot of time either in surgery or watching surgery. Yet in my glancing familiarity with medical education, an intern is a medical school graduate in the first year of residency. While some may be sure what they want to specialize in, a specialty usually isn't declared in that first year. Instead, interns rotate among a variety of specialties throughout the year. Yet Grey's interns seem to spend most of their time either in the ER or the surgical suite. (When they're not in each others' beds, that is.) (Or interns popping into medical faculty's beds -- or into supply closets. Is that ethical?)
And the faculty, the full-fledged specialists, whether ob-gyn, neurosurgeon or cardiothoracic surgeon, also follow patients all the way from the ER to surgery to post-surgical follow-up. Never mind that, in the real world, trauma docs would be handling patients in the ER while the surgeons would be on another floor, studying CT scans or X-rays or whatever images get sent up, plotting the surgery, scrubbing up, and often not even meeting the patient until they're draped, under anesthesia and practically anonymous. But keeping docs in their specialty niches would make for a pretty choppy story line...
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Panaceas
I'm a little behind the curve here. Forgive me. I've been buried in books. But I did want to point out something the Washington Post reported earlier this month. It noted that Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, had been under a court order since December 2005 for involuntary outpatient mental health treatment. No entity ever followed up. He never got the treatment.
The Post story included this line: "'The system doesn’t work well,'” said Tom Diggs, executive director of the Commission on Mental Health Law Reform, which has been studying the state mental health system and will report to the General Assembly next year."
This is something for folks to ponder who have been backing a so-called Kendra's Law in New Mexico for court-ordered outpatient mental health treatment. Passion was aroused for such a law in New Mexico after a man with a mental illness gunned down five people in Albuquerque. Such a law would prevent such killings in the future, supporters argue. Critics warn that the mental health system (and they also might have considered including the court system in this critique) wasn't able to handle demands already facing it, and that the solution was to improve the mental health system, not to hand down court orders.
The events in Virginia certainly give one example of how court-ordered treatment can't prevent tragedies. But a comprehensive mental health system with good coordination with the law enforcement and judicial systems might have. Unfortunately, a law calling for court-ordered treatment is relatively cheap; building a good mental health care system isn't.
The Post story included this line: "'The system doesn’t work well,'” said Tom Diggs, executive director of the Commission on Mental Health Law Reform, which has been studying the state mental health system and will report to the General Assembly next year."
This is something for folks to ponder who have been backing a so-called Kendra's Law in New Mexico for court-ordered outpatient mental health treatment. Passion was aroused for such a law in New Mexico after a man with a mental illness gunned down five people in Albuquerque. Such a law would prevent such killings in the future, supporters argue. Critics warn that the mental health system (and they also might have considered including the court system in this critique) wasn't able to handle demands already facing it, and that the solution was to improve the mental health system, not to hand down court orders.
The events in Virginia certainly give one example of how court-ordered treatment can't prevent tragedies. But a comprehensive mental health system with good coordination with the law enforcement and judicial systems might have. Unfortunately, a law calling for court-ordered treatment is relatively cheap; building a good mental health care system isn't.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Money Talks
Way back in the dim mists of my college years, I wrote a paper for a political science class on national primaries. When I started my research, I was convinced I would find evidence to support my inclination that they were an excellent idea. After all, what better sign of democracy in action? Let the people choose, not those party bosses in smoke-filled rooms.
By the end of my research, though, I wasn't as certain. Those party bosses usually knew the candidates far better than the voters. They knew their personal foibles, their character, their understanding of the issues, their judgment, their willingness to work hard and question the information they get. That doesn't necessarily mean they chose the best candidate, but at least they had some basis on which to make a decision.
And, at one point, the parties actually stood for something, and the voters then could make their decision at least partly on the party platform.
Now, with every state eager to have influence by putting their primaries early in the season, the selection of a candidate is becoming more and more scary. Who gets attention? People who already are known. People who raise a lot of money. And people who tickle the media's fancy. The front-loading of the primaries results in a choice of candidate well before the general election. What if global conditions change such that someone who looked like a good candidate a year before the election suddenly looks inappropriate by the time the general election rolls around? What if new information comes out about their past that makes them unacceptable to the American public? It seems far better if the choice of a candidate truly were set back closer to the general election.
But, the way elections are set up these days, does it even matter? Do we elect someone based on their actual performance or capabilities? Candidates have become a commodity, sold like cars in appeals to image and emotions, with little basis on reality. It's no wonder that Ross Perot and John McCain had briefly engaged the public. Hungry for some sense of genuineness, voters responded happily to the feeling that someone finally was talking common sense, saying what they mean instead of dancing all around a topic, foregoing substance for appearance.
Of course, even "plain talk" can become a carefully-manufactured image. We tread on shaky ground.
Is this what it comes to? We buy a car because the ads assure us we are adventurous, outdoorsy, sexy, environmentally correct or whatever image we're going for. And we buy a candidate because -- well, we're told people voted for Bush because he was the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with. Polls I saw before the elections showed that, on the majority of the issues, the majority of voters agreed with Bush's opponents. Yet they voted for the guy they'd like to have a beer with, and now we're left judicial appointments and policy changes and a war that most Americans disagree with. And a president with an approval rating below 30 percent.
Maybe next time we should ask, not who we'd like to have a beer with, but who would be better at governing the country. If only we could figure out how to make that judgment.
The ads sell the candidate. Money buys the ads. And the people who give the money hold the influence. No wonder so many American people have turned their backs on the political process in disgust.
By the end of my research, though, I wasn't as certain. Those party bosses usually knew the candidates far better than the voters. They knew their personal foibles, their character, their understanding of the issues, their judgment, their willingness to work hard and question the information they get. That doesn't necessarily mean they chose the best candidate, but at least they had some basis on which to make a decision.
And, at one point, the parties actually stood for something, and the voters then could make their decision at least partly on the party platform.
Now, with every state eager to have influence by putting their primaries early in the season, the selection of a candidate is becoming more and more scary. Who gets attention? People who already are known. People who raise a lot of money. And people who tickle the media's fancy. The front-loading of the primaries results in a choice of candidate well before the general election. What if global conditions change such that someone who looked like a good candidate a year before the election suddenly looks inappropriate by the time the general election rolls around? What if new information comes out about their past that makes them unacceptable to the American public? It seems far better if the choice of a candidate truly were set back closer to the general election.
But, the way elections are set up these days, does it even matter? Do we elect someone based on their actual performance or capabilities? Candidates have become a commodity, sold like cars in appeals to image and emotions, with little basis on reality. It's no wonder that Ross Perot and John McCain had briefly engaged the public. Hungry for some sense of genuineness, voters responded happily to the feeling that someone finally was talking common sense, saying what they mean instead of dancing all around a topic, foregoing substance for appearance.
Of course, even "plain talk" can become a carefully-manufactured image. We tread on shaky ground.
Is this what it comes to? We buy a car because the ads assure us we are adventurous, outdoorsy, sexy, environmentally correct or whatever image we're going for. And we buy a candidate because -- well, we're told people voted for Bush because he was the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with. Polls I saw before the elections showed that, on the majority of the issues, the majority of voters agreed with Bush's opponents. Yet they voted for the guy they'd like to have a beer with, and now we're left judicial appointments and policy changes and a war that most Americans disagree with. And a president with an approval rating below 30 percent.
Maybe next time we should ask, not who we'd like to have a beer with, but who would be better at governing the country. If only we could figure out how to make that judgment.
The ads sell the candidate. Money buys the ads. And the people who give the money hold the influence. No wonder so many American people have turned their backs on the political process in disgust.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Sex and the Secretary of State
Maybe I'm more sensitized because I just finished reading Maureen Dowd's book, "Are Men Necessary?", but I was taken aback by a profile of Condoleezza Rice in the current Newsweek. Taken from a coming biography by Marcus Mabry, the excerpt in its fourth paragraph gave a semi-sexual reason for Rice's decision to serve in Bush's administration: She likes bad boys. The evidence given was that, of two football player boyfriends she had as a grad student, she seemed to prefer the one who was less deferential to her.
All righty! But further on, it portrayed Rice as incredibly confident and self-assured. If you were going to go for the "bad boy" explanation at all, maybe it would have made more sense to say that she was more attracted to men who were closer to her equal in strength and self-confidence, who were able to resist bending to her steely will. One could argue it's just as logical, while making Rice sound less like a batty love-struck teen.
But does the "bad boy" label even make sense? The profile also says that Rice and Bush see eye-to-eye on many things -- and that, when they met, Bush already had become a teetotaler and shared Rice's strong religious faith. That's the "bad boy" that attracted her?
The profile also includes quotes from her hairdresser speculating that Bush fills the role of a boyfriend in her life, and an explanation from friends of why Rice stayed in the administration was "she just can't say no to that man." Again we get the image of a needy woman in sexual thrall to a man.
If she were a man, what are the chances we'd see these kinds of pseudopsychological explanations for her behavior? It seems more likely the profile would talk about common goals and policy philosophies linking the two. We'd hear the secretary of state talking about how he recognized a gap in the President's foreign policy experience, and wanted to help fill that gap. The writer probably would note the person's sense of duty to country and desire to create a new role for the U.S. in the world.
But no. Condi just "can't say no" to that bad boy.
Consider if the tables were turned. Say a woman -- Hillary, for example -- became president. Would a profile of her secretary of state (assume it's a man) say that he took on the role because he always had been attracted to blondes? After all, he liked his blonde girlfriend better than his brunette girlfriend when he was in college.
And would the profile say he always had been a Mama's boy (calling her at least once a week until she died!), so he was attracted to strong, powerful women, looking for one who would give him guidance and whom he could serve. When foreign policy started to look increasingly like a wreck, he wanted to leave the administration but, pussy-whipped all his life, he caved in to her demands that he stay.
Actually, maybe we would see a profile like that. Maybe we can't stop ourselves from thinking of men and women in primarily sexual terms. Maybe the only way to keep sexual tension -- not to mention sexual stereotypes -- out of any analysis of a relationship is to have the relationship between same-gender, heterosexual individuals.
Please remind me -- what century is this?
All righty! But further on, it portrayed Rice as incredibly confident and self-assured. If you were going to go for the "bad boy" explanation at all, maybe it would have made more sense to say that she was more attracted to men who were closer to her equal in strength and self-confidence, who were able to resist bending to her steely will. One could argue it's just as logical, while making Rice sound less like a batty love-struck teen.
But does the "bad boy" label even make sense? The profile also says that Rice and Bush see eye-to-eye on many things -- and that, when they met, Bush already had become a teetotaler and shared Rice's strong religious faith. That's the "bad boy" that attracted her?
The profile also includes quotes from her hairdresser speculating that Bush fills the role of a boyfriend in her life, and an explanation from friends of why Rice stayed in the administration was "she just can't say no to that man." Again we get the image of a needy woman in sexual thrall to a man.
If she were a man, what are the chances we'd see these kinds of pseudopsychological explanations for her behavior? It seems more likely the profile would talk about common goals and policy philosophies linking the two. We'd hear the secretary of state talking about how he recognized a gap in the President's foreign policy experience, and wanted to help fill that gap. The writer probably would note the person's sense of duty to country and desire to create a new role for the U.S. in the world.
But no. Condi just "can't say no" to that bad boy.
Consider if the tables were turned. Say a woman -- Hillary, for example -- became president. Would a profile of her secretary of state (assume it's a man) say that he took on the role because he always had been attracted to blondes? After all, he liked his blonde girlfriend better than his brunette girlfriend when he was in college.
And would the profile say he always had been a Mama's boy (calling her at least once a week until she died!), so he was attracted to strong, powerful women, looking for one who would give him guidance and whom he could serve. When foreign policy started to look increasingly like a wreck, he wanted to leave the administration but, pussy-whipped all his life, he caved in to her demands that he stay.
Actually, maybe we would see a profile like that. Maybe we can't stop ourselves from thinking of men and women in primarily sexual terms. Maybe the only way to keep sexual tension -- not to mention sexual stereotypes -- out of any analysis of a relationship is to have the relationship between same-gender, heterosexual individuals.
Please remind me -- what century is this?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Save the Squares
On the TV news the other day, I saw Laurie David and Sheryl Crow doing their "green" tour, talking about how we all have to consume less. Their featured advice: Use only one square of toilet paper per visit to the toilet. Well, maybe two or three squares for the longer visits.
Now, I consider myself something of a saver in using many items. But I have a hard time accepting that their recommendations are practical. Maybe if they have really big squares and quadruple-ply paper...
I don't know whether to blame TV news for stressing a sound bite that was intended as humor and didn't at all reflect the true substance of their message -- or to blame the women for becoming too extreme in an attempt to make their point. In either case, it's sort of sad that people were given an excuse to laugh at and/or ignore a far larger, more-important message they were trying to convey.
Now, I consider myself something of a saver in using many items. But I have a hard time accepting that their recommendations are practical. Maybe if they have really big squares and quadruple-ply paper...
I don't know whether to blame TV news for stressing a sound bite that was intended as humor and didn't at all reflect the true substance of their message -- or to blame the women for becoming too extreme in an attempt to make their point. In either case, it's sort of sad that people were given an excuse to laugh at and/or ignore a far larger, more-important message they were trying to convey.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
More on Imus
I hate to give the man the ink -- the bytes? -- but I feel compelled to comment further on Don Imus after reading the Newsweek cover stories on his fall from grace. It is both painful and laughable to see people scurrying to excuse or explain their association with the man after he suddenly has drawn national fire.
All because the Rutgers women's basketball team acted as the little boy at the parade pointing out, "The Emperor has no clothes." Journalists, politicians, authors, and other versions of powers-that-be kissed up to Imus over the years because he gave them airtime and an audience. They tried to pretend that their appearance on his show was not the same as condoning crude, racist, sexist, offensive comments that he and his colleagues have made as a matter of course. Wasn't it?
Full disclosure here: I never listened to Don Imus's show. I never wanted to. By reputation, by other news reports, I already knew that he used personal attacks and ridicule. I have no desire to listen to that sort of thing. Don't get me wrong: I like good satire and even confrontational questions to interviewees. But, for my taste, they need to be based on fact and substance, on a person's actions and pronouncements -- not on that individual as a human being. Name-calling and stereotyping do nothing to further our understanding of important issues. They only inflame, and give a false sense of power or righteousness to the person doing the name-calling.
I suppose all human beings -- or at least many of us -- are attracted to power like moths to a flame. Finding ourselves in the "in" group, the elite circle of dealmakers important enough to be invited to a national talk show, makes us feel important. It would be hard to pass up that stamp of "making it," the exposure to a national audience. Maybe it's too hard to say, "No, I won't go, because it would be the same as condoning the offensive remarks Imus and his crew have made against any number of individuals and groups over the years."
And that's too bad, because more of us need to take a stand against such language as being unacceptable to us -- whether it happens on talk radio, television, or gangster rap. Then again, when name-calling is common even from our own President's mouth -- evil-doers and Axis of Evil -- it's hard to set a tone of civility.
My question on this matter of calling Imus to accountability for his words: What took so long?
All because the Rutgers women's basketball team acted as the little boy at the parade pointing out, "The Emperor has no clothes." Journalists, politicians, authors, and other versions of powers-that-be kissed up to Imus over the years because he gave them airtime and an audience. They tried to pretend that their appearance on his show was not the same as condoning crude, racist, sexist, offensive comments that he and his colleagues have made as a matter of course. Wasn't it?
Full disclosure here: I never listened to Don Imus's show. I never wanted to. By reputation, by other news reports, I already knew that he used personal attacks and ridicule. I have no desire to listen to that sort of thing. Don't get me wrong: I like good satire and even confrontational questions to interviewees. But, for my taste, they need to be based on fact and substance, on a person's actions and pronouncements -- not on that individual as a human being. Name-calling and stereotyping do nothing to further our understanding of important issues. They only inflame, and give a false sense of power or righteousness to the person doing the name-calling.
I suppose all human beings -- or at least many of us -- are attracted to power like moths to a flame. Finding ourselves in the "in" group, the elite circle of dealmakers important enough to be invited to a national talk show, makes us feel important. It would be hard to pass up that stamp of "making it," the exposure to a national audience. Maybe it's too hard to say, "No, I won't go, because it would be the same as condoning the offensive remarks Imus and his crew have made against any number of individuals and groups over the years."
And that's too bad, because more of us need to take a stand against such language as being unacceptable to us -- whether it happens on talk radio, television, or gangster rap. Then again, when name-calling is common even from our own President's mouth -- evil-doers and Axis of Evil -- it's hard to set a tone of civility.
My question on this matter of calling Imus to accountability for his words: What took so long?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Chocolate and Sex
Having just savored my two squares of dark, dark chocolate for the day, I was not at all surprised to run across the news "Chocolate is more exciting than kissing:" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/16/nchoc16.xml
What else can you have every day, yet never find it disappointing? It doesn't snore, channel-surf or ignore you. It's always there, waiting, for when you're ready. But I suppose it can leave a mess on the sheets.
What else can you have every day, yet never find it disappointing? It doesn't snore, channel-surf or ignore you. It's always there, waiting, for when you're ready. But I suppose it can leave a mess on the sheets.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Explaining Violence
In the wake of today's shootings on a Virginia college campus, I hear news stories focusing on security, and what can be done to increase it on campuses. But I don't know if that's the most important question. Maybe I say that because I cringe at the thought of college campuses turning into walled-off oases where everyone has to go through a security check to get in. It's bad enough when metal detectors and bag checks already are in place at some schools, courthouses and more. Not to mention having to remove your shoes before going to your airport gate.
The question that isn't asked enough is: Why are we such a violent society? Why are guns so easily available? Why are people so likely to use them?
Finding an answer would require an uncomfortable look at our own history, our current policies (from invading Iraq to shrugging off domestic violence), and the tone of our popular culture, from songs to video games to music that glorify violence. Someone cross you? "Make my day," buddy. In Santa Fe a few months ago, two women were killed when a motorist, whom they allegedly cut in front of on the interstate, shot them.
And maybe we'd even be forced to look at that sacred cow: gun control. That may be a case of closing the barn door after the horse got loose, though. There are so many guns in circulation, I think it would be impossible to call them all back.
I don't want us to work so hard on protecting ourselves and hiding from violence. I want us to work on making it an unacceptable option, so frowned on by society, that only the most crazed or hardened psychopaths would resort to it.
The question that isn't asked enough is: Why are we such a violent society? Why are guns so easily available? Why are people so likely to use them?
Finding an answer would require an uncomfortable look at our own history, our current policies (from invading Iraq to shrugging off domestic violence), and the tone of our popular culture, from songs to video games to music that glorify violence. Someone cross you? "Make my day," buddy. In Santa Fe a few months ago, two women were killed when a motorist, whom they allegedly cut in front of on the interstate, shot them.
And maybe we'd even be forced to look at that sacred cow: gun control. That may be a case of closing the barn door after the horse got loose, though. There are so many guns in circulation, I think it would be impossible to call them all back.
I don't want us to work so hard on protecting ourselves and hiding from violence. I want us to work on making it an unacceptable option, so frowned on by society, that only the most crazed or hardened psychopaths would resort to it.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Democracy is Messy
When I was a work-study student at Northwestern University's Center for Urban Affairs, I frequently came across references to the name of Saul Alinsky, an organizer in Chicago's poor and minority communities. Almost invariably, the name came up in an admiring context, with Alinsky held up as a role model for a way to make a positive difference in the world.
I was surprised, then, when I came across a Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html) that portrayed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as avoiding discussion of their past links with Alinsky or his organizing tactics. I would see such a link as evidence of their commitment to relate to common people. But then I saw the story quoted a Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, as comparing admiration of Alinsky to admiring "some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s."
I'll assume he wasn't referring to Germans opposed to Nazism during that period. So he's comparing Alinsky -- who probably would have been organizing Jews and others to oppose Nazism if he were there at that time -- to a political structure that repressed and annihilated the minorities of its society, and often imprisoned or killed anyone who expressed dissent. How about comparing him to communism, where a government forces everyone to march in lockstep to the tune of the party in power?
No, Alinsky brought together people, who didn't have the money or power to be heard on their own, to make their needs and desires known to an indifferent political elite and government bureaucrats. He held the radical idea that people know what is needed in their own neighborhoods, and that, together, they can work to improve conditions. He believed in letting their voices be heard.
Sounds like democracy to me.
I was surprised, then, when I came across a Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html) that portrayed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as avoiding discussion of their past links with Alinsky or his organizing tactics. I would see such a link as evidence of their commitment to relate to common people. But then I saw the story quoted a Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, as comparing admiration of Alinsky to admiring "some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s."
I'll assume he wasn't referring to Germans opposed to Nazism during that period. So he's comparing Alinsky -- who probably would have been organizing Jews and others to oppose Nazism if he were there at that time -- to a political structure that repressed and annihilated the minorities of its society, and often imprisoned or killed anyone who expressed dissent. How about comparing him to communism, where a government forces everyone to march in lockstep to the tune of the party in power?
No, Alinsky brought together people, who didn't have the money or power to be heard on their own, to make their needs and desires known to an indifferent political elite and government bureaucrats. He held the radical idea that people know what is needed in their own neighborhoods, and that, together, they can work to improve conditions. He believed in letting their voices be heard.
Sounds like democracy to me.
Fuzzy-Headed Ho
Regarding Don Imus and his comment about the Rutgers basketball team: If anyone in this tacky tale is a "ho," I would submit it would be Mr. Imus, who prostitutes his sensitivity, good sense and taste -- if, indeed, he ever had any -- to create an on-air persona he thinks he can "sell" to his listeners.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Corporate Food
Stories about tainted pet food should get us all thinking about how we all can be affected by the centralization and globalization of food production. Many people are commenting about how surprised they were to learn that one pet food company manufactured food for many different brands. And they all could have been affected by what people think was tainted wheat gluten imported from China.
It's not a whole lot different with human processed food. It made me think about how easy it would be for a well-placed terrorist to poison human food products.
But it doesn't even take a terrorist. It used to be that, when people got sick from food, it was an isolated event, like a family reunion or a company picnic. Food was bought and prepared from local or regional sources.
Now, spinach at a farm in California can be exposed to E. coli from a neighboring cattle farm, mixed together with bunches of other leaves, and sent to grocery stores all around America. One cow with E. coli can be mixed together with meat from hundreds of other cows, ground together, and show up in hamburger in dozens of states. It gives new urgency to the advice to "eat local." It doesn't mean you won't get sick, but it does lessen the number of sources from which your food comes. And the more different sources of your food, the increasing risk that at least one of them would have the potential of contamination.
It's not a whole lot different with human processed food. It made me think about how easy it would be for a well-placed terrorist to poison human food products.
But it doesn't even take a terrorist. It used to be that, when people got sick from food, it was an isolated event, like a family reunion or a company picnic. Food was bought and prepared from local or regional sources.
Now, spinach at a farm in California can be exposed to E. coli from a neighboring cattle farm, mixed together with bunches of other leaves, and sent to grocery stores all around America. One cow with E. coli can be mixed together with meat from hundreds of other cows, ground together, and show up in hamburger in dozens of states. It gives new urgency to the advice to "eat local." It doesn't mean you won't get sick, but it does lessen the number of sources from which your food comes. And the more different sources of your food, the increasing risk that at least one of them would have the potential of contamination.
Just Say No
A story in today's New Mexican notes that six states are refusing to participate in the federally-funded program for abstinence-only education. They point out that some programs offer inaccurate information to young people and that abstinence education does not play a big role in preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
Some experts within New Mexico's Department of Health have been arguing for years that the state should reject that money, saying the programs hamper the public health goals of preventing STDs and teen pregnancies. It will be interesting to see if there's any change of heart on this issue with the Gov's run for president. Will it help him to take the money and whatever appeal it could give him to conservatives? Or to hop on the bandwagon with other states and look like he's rejecting the current administration's policies, thereby offering a "change." After all, don't all candidates for public office promise change? And how often do we get it?
Some experts within New Mexico's Department of Health have been arguing for years that the state should reject that money, saying the programs hamper the public health goals of preventing STDs and teen pregnancies. It will be interesting to see if there's any change of heart on this issue with the Gov's run for president. Will it help him to take the money and whatever appeal it could give him to conservatives? Or to hop on the bandwagon with other states and look like he's rejecting the current administration's policies, thereby offering a "change." After all, don't all candidates for public office promise change? And how often do we get it?
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Apologies
I noticed that North Carolina is the most recent state to apologize for slavery. It seems there's a trend of apologizing for past wrongs -- even though the actual people making the apologies weren't even around at the time of the horror and had no hand in it.
There's nothing wrong with reminding people of past tragedies and giving notice that such things are not acceptable. But doesn't it seem that the true recognition of regret would be to avoid repeating those horrors in the present? Instead of apologizing for genocide, intervene to prevent it in Africa. Instead of apologizing for turning away Jews fleeing the Nazis, take in refugees fleeing persecution today. (What happened to that boatload of Haitians that landed in Florida a while back?) Instead of apologizing for slavery, hunt down and prosecute people who are holding foreign nationals in sweatshops, households and prostitution rings as virtual slaves today.
It's easy to wring your hands over past misdeeds. It's harder to act to prevent or eliminate them today. So much easier to turn our heads and let future generations make new apologies.
There's nothing wrong with reminding people of past tragedies and giving notice that such things are not acceptable. But doesn't it seem that the true recognition of regret would be to avoid repeating those horrors in the present? Instead of apologizing for genocide, intervene to prevent it in Africa. Instead of apologizing for turning away Jews fleeing the Nazis, take in refugees fleeing persecution today. (What happened to that boatload of Haitians that landed in Florida a while back?) Instead of apologizing for slavery, hunt down and prosecute people who are holding foreign nationals in sweatshops, households and prostitution rings as virtual slaves today.
It's easy to wring your hands over past misdeeds. It's harder to act to prevent or eliminate them today. So much easier to turn our heads and let future generations make new apologies.
Caught!
Down in Albuquerque, drivers have been complaining that cameras posted at intersections have been catching them running red lights. For some reason, they think this is massively unfair. Apparently they think if there's not an actual law enforcement officer on site -- visible enough to give them warning to obey the law -- to catch them, they should be able to get away with breaking the law.
In response to those complaints, warnings are going to be posted before those intersections letting motorists know that cameras are watching them. I suppose the message is that people need to be informed when they can get away with violating traffic laws, and when they might be caught.
There's a simple solution, you know: Just stop at red lights. All the time. Everywhere.
In response to those complaints, warnings are going to be posted before those intersections letting motorists know that cameras are watching them. I suppose the message is that people need to be informed when they can get away with violating traffic laws, and when they might be caught.
There's a simple solution, you know: Just stop at red lights. All the time. Everywhere.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Making Assumptions
Pundits have been putting their spin (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040101142.html) on the decision of John Edwards to stay in the presidential race after his wife was diagnosed with an incurable recurrence of cancer. I remember my reaction when I first read the announcement. I felt some dismay that ambition was overriding very deep family, life-and-death concerns. Then I heard people talking about their courage in not letting cancer interfere with their lives, and thought, well, I guess that is admirable, when you look at it that way.
Then I noticed that this is another one of those instances when the same set of facts can be layered with a host of different interpretations, judgments, and "spin," giving completely different meanings to those facts. But all those "meanings" are just opinions.
One of those lessons I've learned by this point in my life is that I can't see inside another person's heart. I learned that simply through experiencing instances in which people have said things to me that included assumptions about what I was thinking or feeling -- assumptions that weren't at all in line with my actual thoughts and feelings. Surprised and dismayed, I then would scramble to deny the assumptions, and earnestly explain what I really was thinking, all the while resenting the sense that s/he had mistaken notions about where I was coming from. And wondering, even as I tried to explain, if s/he didn't believe me and hung on to the original assumption.
No, not one of us can know why a person does something. The best we can do is ask, and listen to the answer. We can choose to believe or not believe what they tell us. But, ultimately, we can only decide what we will believe. We can't know.
Then I noticed that this is another one of those instances when the same set of facts can be layered with a host of different interpretations, judgments, and "spin," giving completely different meanings to those facts. But all those "meanings" are just opinions.
One of those lessons I've learned by this point in my life is that I can't see inside another person's heart. I learned that simply through experiencing instances in which people have said things to me that included assumptions about what I was thinking or feeling -- assumptions that weren't at all in line with my actual thoughts and feelings. Surprised and dismayed, I then would scramble to deny the assumptions, and earnestly explain what I really was thinking, all the while resenting the sense that s/he had mistaken notions about where I was coming from. And wondering, even as I tried to explain, if s/he didn't believe me and hung on to the original assumption.
No, not one of us can know why a person does something. The best we can do is ask, and listen to the answer. We can choose to believe or not believe what they tell us. But, ultimately, we can only decide what we will believe. We can't know.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Mental Health
Another comment on a previous topic: Bill Richardson's presidential health care plan. I came across a report that said he also supported the idea of giving parity to mental health coverage in his universal health care plan. This is a bipartisan concept that long has been pushed by New Mexico's Republican Sen. Pete Domenici.
Meanwhile, back at home, the ACLU has a court case that has delayed implementation of some program cuts by ValueOptions, the state's contractor for government-supported mental health services. The company rightly points out that its contract doesn't require provision of those services and it no longer can afford to support them. And Richardson did ask for more money in the next state budget to pay for them, but he didn't push for the funding again in the special session after lawmakers didn't approve the money in the regular session.
New Mexico has gotten lots of national attention for its effort to centralize state-provided mental health services through one contract. It is an innovative attempt to streamline and standardize services, getting more bang for the buck.
But that's the point. Critics have noted that Richardson wants to get credit for making improvements without having to put more money into mental health services. Some additional has been provided, in dribs and drabs, most notedly for autism in the most recent session. I don't know if that's enough to bring New Mexico up from dead last in its ranking among states for spending on mental health.
During his tenure, there has been enough money, apparently, for spaceports and trains and tax cuts.
Meanwhile, back at home, the ACLU has a court case that has delayed implementation of some program cuts by ValueOptions, the state's contractor for government-supported mental health services. The company rightly points out that its contract doesn't require provision of those services and it no longer can afford to support them. And Richardson did ask for more money in the next state budget to pay for them, but he didn't push for the funding again in the special session after lawmakers didn't approve the money in the regular session.
New Mexico has gotten lots of national attention for its effort to centralize state-provided mental health services through one contract. It is an innovative attempt to streamline and standardize services, getting more bang for the buck.
But that's the point. Critics have noted that Richardson wants to get credit for making improvements without having to put more money into mental health services. Some additional has been provided, in dribs and drabs, most notedly for autism in the most recent session. I don't know if that's enough to bring New Mexico up from dead last in its ranking among states for spending on mental health.
During his tenure, there has been enough money, apparently, for spaceports and trains and tax cuts.
Chemicals Blamed for Fat
The bottom line on obesity, people tell us, is that we get fat because we take in more calories than we burn. Pretty basic. Hard to argue with it. But yesterday I came across a story in the Washington Post Weekly (March 19-25) that says chemicals in our environment might have something to do with the nation's obesity epidemic.
This struck my attention since I read it not long after my previous post on questions about chemicals. The story, by Elizabeth Grossman, looks at various chemicals, often called "endocrine disprupters," that can have hormone-like effects. The chemicals, present in products such as plastics and fungicides, supposedly increase the number of fat cells, which in turn send out signals of hunger, which cause people to eat more.
The effects supposedly can be launched in utero, so a baby is born with the predilection for greater fat cell activity. Studies have been done only in animals such as mice so far. Interesting, but not proven.
This struck my attention since I read it not long after my previous post on questions about chemicals. The story, by Elizabeth Grossman, looks at various chemicals, often called "endocrine disprupters," that can have hormone-like effects. The chemicals, present in products such as plastics and fungicides, supposedly increase the number of fat cells, which in turn send out signals of hunger, which cause people to eat more.
The effects supposedly can be launched in utero, so a baby is born with the predilection for greater fat cell activity. Studies have been done only in animals such as mice so far. Interesting, but not proven.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A Beef With Hormones
News (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=9FB640EA6ABE0E849C8C1FD6EEA97C22) linking mothers' consumption of beef with low sperm count in their sons caught my attention. Like all studies, it isn't conclusive -- but it raises interesting questions. The theory is that women in the U.S., when they eat beef, ingest a number of hormones used in that beef to spur growth and health. Among them are sex hormones, such as estrogen. Those hormones then can interact with the growth of a fetus in their womb, somehow disrupting its own development. In this case, low sperm counts.
Similar questions have been raised about hormones we all end up eating in our food or drinking in our water -- some plastics have estrogen-like chemicals that may affect our bodies.
And all of this has me wondering about what subtle effects may occur from any number of chemicals piling up in our environment, whether we breathe, eat or drink them. Pesticides, heavy metals, hormone-like substances, nanoparticles -- you name it. I used to think of people who obsessed about such things as being alarmists, but now I'm not so sure.
The problem is that it's very hard to trace subtle effects that occur over a long period of time. Science is relatively good at measuring acute effects: we give the mouse a certain amount of a chemical and it dies. OK, that's bad. Our safe level of exposures to many contaminants are often based on those types of studies. Granted, in the interests of safety, the accepted levels of those contaminants are set at proportionate numbers many times lower than the fatal toxic level.
But how about those subtle effects? Where low-level exposures may grow over time? Or, even trickier, where (1) a low-level exposure to a pregnant woman may (2) affect the expression of certain genes or development of the fetus in a way that, (3) partly because of the genes it inherited in the first place, (4) may cause the person that fetus becomes to suffer harm when then exposed to yet another, or more of the same, substance or germ in its environment as a child and adult.
That becomes waaaaay harder to trace in a study. And makes me think that an organic, natural lifestyle may be more important than we think -- both to us and to our planet.
Of course, the good news may be that really subtle effects may take such a long time to develop that we'll die of something else first anyway. Things we deliberately do to ourselves, like sucking on cigarettes or parking our butts in front of the TV.
Similar questions have been raised about hormones we all end up eating in our food or drinking in our water -- some plastics have estrogen-like chemicals that may affect our bodies.
And all of this has me wondering about what subtle effects may occur from any number of chemicals piling up in our environment, whether we breathe, eat or drink them. Pesticides, heavy metals, hormone-like substances, nanoparticles -- you name it. I used to think of people who obsessed about such things as being alarmists, but now I'm not so sure.
The problem is that it's very hard to trace subtle effects that occur over a long period of time. Science is relatively good at measuring acute effects: we give the mouse a certain amount of a chemical and it dies. OK, that's bad. Our safe level of exposures to many contaminants are often based on those types of studies. Granted, in the interests of safety, the accepted levels of those contaminants are set at proportionate numbers many times lower than the fatal toxic level.
But how about those subtle effects? Where low-level exposures may grow over time? Or, even trickier, where (1) a low-level exposure to a pregnant woman may (2) affect the expression of certain genes or development of the fetus in a way that, (3) partly because of the genes it inherited in the first place, (4) may cause the person that fetus becomes to suffer harm when then exposed to yet another, or more of the same, substance or germ in its environment as a child and adult.
That becomes waaaaay harder to trace in a study. And makes me think that an organic, natural lifestyle may be more important than we think -- both to us and to our planet.
Of course, the good news may be that really subtle effects may take such a long time to develop that we'll die of something else first anyway. Things we deliberately do to ourselves, like sucking on cigarettes or parking our butts in front of the TV.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Universal Health Care
Reading the news yesterday, I came across an item that said presidential candidate and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he could create universal health care in this country -- during his first year in office! Since he's in his sixth year as chief executive of New Mexico, with a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, and hasn't created universal health care here yet for some two million people, I was fascinated to learn the details.
The most authoritative and complete (I use that word advisedly) explanation I could find was on the Richardson for President web site: http://richardsonforpresident.com/blog/seiu2.
The guts of it appears to be to allow people 55 and older to buy into Medicare and to allow "working families" (how about working singles?) to buy into "the same plan members of Congress enjoy." Well, I've read lots of references to candidates vowing Americans will get the same kind of health care available to members of Congress. But it occurred to me that I didn't know what that congressional health plan was. So I did a little Googling and found that members of Congress can buy into the federal employees health plan -- which gives several choices of insurers and plans, which vary from state to state. So I'm afraid I can't give you any set guaranteed benefits and premium costs.
Of course, it occurs to me that, in order to enjoy exactly the same kind of health care members of Congress get, we'd all have to be given six-figure incomes and the clout that comes from voting on matters dear to the hearts of the people providing that health care.
But never mind that. It's true, the opportunity to buy into a large health plan would make health insurance more affordable to many people. There are questions, though. If you're self-employed, do you pay only the employee portion of the premium or the entire portion? And some people already have health coverage available at work, but choose not to get it because they don't feel they can afford even the portion of the premium that comes out of their pay now. And how about unemployed people? Or people who lose their jobs because of ill health, no longer have income coming in, and are faced with mounting medical costs that aren't covered by their insurance? Which do they pay first: their co-pays or the premiums to ensure they get continued coverage?
Well, there's a simple answer in Richardson's health plan to make sure everyone gets covered: Pass a law requiring everyone to get health insurance. Just like auto insurance is required by law. And we know there are no uninsured drivers on our roads. Right?
This proposal -- not all that different, by the way, from those I've seen proposed by other candidates -- seems to stem from efforts in Massachusetts to provide universal coverage. That state requires everyone to have health insurance. I tried to find out how well that is working, only to discover that requirement won't take effect until July 1. The penalty for not having health insurance is $200 in tax penalties next year, and an amount equal to half of a year's premium cost of the most affordable plan. (http://amednews.com, 4/2/07)
But how do you enforce it? With auto insurance, at least there's some pretense of checking to see if you have insurance when you renew your license or auto registration. How do you do it with health insurance? Check for coverage when you go to get health care and then refuse it if a person doesn't have insurance? Wait a minute... that's how the current system works.
OK. Suppose you build in help to make this affordable for everyone. What will that cost and where will the money to fund it come from? Candidate John Edwards has estimated providing coverage for folks without health insurance now would cost about $120 billion/year. That would be paid for through revoking tax cuts that people making more than $200,000 have gotten in recent years, Edwards said. (Bloomberg News, 3/26)
I haven't found any price tag provided by Richardson.
But I've seen news reports in which he claimed universal coverage could be funded by money now spent on the war in Iraq. That assumes, of course, he'd substantially reduce money spent on troops in Iraq, or pull them out completely. It also implies something else. Federal budget deficits have been growing under the current administration, at least partly due to spending on the military and tax cuts given under the Bush administration. So if Richardson plans to use money now spent on Iraq for health care, that suggests he would continue the same level of deficit spending.
The only alternatives to continuing deficits, it seems, would be to (a) increase taxes, or (b) cut spending elsewhere.
I also read a vague reference that Richardson would cut administrative costs to help pay for the additional coverage. Hard to imagine how he could do that with the current system. Even if the federal health plan had contract requirements that only a certain percentage of the money could be used on administrative costs, that doesn't touch the administrative costs suffered by health providers who have to keep hiring more people to manage all the paperwork generated by a plethora of health plans.
Of course, using the current system is politically attractive because it would generate less opposition from insurance companies and others who make a profit from the current system.
So, explain to me again how he hasn't managed to put such a system into place in New Mexico, substituting the state employee health coverage for the federal plan that people could buy into?
Yet he could do it on the federal level within a year?
The most authoritative and complete (I use that word advisedly) explanation I could find was on the Richardson for President web site: http://richardsonforpresident.com/blog/seiu2.
The guts of it appears to be to allow people 55 and older to buy into Medicare and to allow "working families" (how about working singles?) to buy into "the same plan members of Congress enjoy." Well, I've read lots of references to candidates vowing Americans will get the same kind of health care available to members of Congress. But it occurred to me that I didn't know what that congressional health plan was. So I did a little Googling and found that members of Congress can buy into the federal employees health plan -- which gives several choices of insurers and plans, which vary from state to state. So I'm afraid I can't give you any set guaranteed benefits and premium costs.
Of course, it occurs to me that, in order to enjoy exactly the same kind of health care members of Congress get, we'd all have to be given six-figure incomes and the clout that comes from voting on matters dear to the hearts of the people providing that health care.
But never mind that. It's true, the opportunity to buy into a large health plan would make health insurance more affordable to many people. There are questions, though. If you're self-employed, do you pay only the employee portion of the premium or the entire portion? And some people already have health coverage available at work, but choose not to get it because they don't feel they can afford even the portion of the premium that comes out of their pay now. And how about unemployed people? Or people who lose their jobs because of ill health, no longer have income coming in, and are faced with mounting medical costs that aren't covered by their insurance? Which do they pay first: their co-pays or the premiums to ensure they get continued coverage?
Well, there's a simple answer in Richardson's health plan to make sure everyone gets covered: Pass a law requiring everyone to get health insurance. Just like auto insurance is required by law. And we know there are no uninsured drivers on our roads. Right?
This proposal -- not all that different, by the way, from those I've seen proposed by other candidates -- seems to stem from efforts in Massachusetts to provide universal coverage. That state requires everyone to have health insurance. I tried to find out how well that is working, only to discover that requirement won't take effect until July 1. The penalty for not having health insurance is $200 in tax penalties next year, and an amount equal to half of a year's premium cost of the most affordable plan. (http://amednews.com, 4/2/07)
But how do you enforce it? With auto insurance, at least there's some pretense of checking to see if you have insurance when you renew your license or auto registration. How do you do it with health insurance? Check for coverage when you go to get health care and then refuse it if a person doesn't have insurance? Wait a minute... that's how the current system works.
OK. Suppose you build in help to make this affordable for everyone. What will that cost and where will the money to fund it come from? Candidate John Edwards has estimated providing coverage for folks without health insurance now would cost about $120 billion/year. That would be paid for through revoking tax cuts that people making more than $200,000 have gotten in recent years, Edwards said. (Bloomberg News, 3/26)
I haven't found any price tag provided by Richardson.
But I've seen news reports in which he claimed universal coverage could be funded by money now spent on the war in Iraq. That assumes, of course, he'd substantially reduce money spent on troops in Iraq, or pull them out completely. It also implies something else. Federal budget deficits have been growing under the current administration, at least partly due to spending on the military and tax cuts given under the Bush administration. So if Richardson plans to use money now spent on Iraq for health care, that suggests he would continue the same level of deficit spending.
The only alternatives to continuing deficits, it seems, would be to (a) increase taxes, or (b) cut spending elsewhere.
I also read a vague reference that Richardson would cut administrative costs to help pay for the additional coverage. Hard to imagine how he could do that with the current system. Even if the federal health plan had contract requirements that only a certain percentage of the money could be used on administrative costs, that doesn't touch the administrative costs suffered by health providers who have to keep hiring more people to manage all the paperwork generated by a plethora of health plans.
Of course, using the current system is politically attractive because it would generate less opposition from insurance companies and others who make a profit from the current system.
So, explain to me again how he hasn't managed to put such a system into place in New Mexico, substituting the state employee health coverage for the federal plan that people could buy into?
Yet he could do it on the federal level within a year?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)