Iraqis in Flight

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.