Flying While Hyper: The Joys of ADHD Parenting During the Holiday

Tomorrow is the day we all have been waiting for: the day the entire clan goes on a cross-country airplane trip to grandma's house for the holidays. The kids have been counting down the days for weeks, absolutely jumping out of their skins in anticipation. They can't wait to see grandma(s) and cousins and aunts and uncles, and so on. As for me, I have been dreading the day. It will be awful. I can see no other way.

The last time we did this, 2 years ago, it was not a moment to remember. Everyone was so hyped up that they couldn't see or hear straight, which is every mother's nightmare. And my stepdaughter decided it was time to try out the baggage carousel's surfing ability. I turned away for a split second to look for screaming boys, and poof - she disappeared. I instantly saw her butt-surfing the carousel and grabbed her, but not before we got some very strange looks. This might have been cute if she was 4 years old, but she was 11 at the time, and believe me, it was not at all cute. My husband told some good tales about it afterward, but at the time, definitely not funny.

I can try to plan for the expected and unexpected, but the best I can do is to try to induce a catatonic state. How can I keep their interest in their portable DVD player or PSP for as long as possible?

Which brings us to the problem of paraphernalia. Its absolute necessity. How can their attention be diverted from noise and troublemaking without things to keep their attention? Husband/dad wants to minimize the checked bag fees by carrying on a lot of our bags. Wonderful. I can only think of all the extra rolling, carrying, crying, complaining, whining, and so on, from everyone who doesn't want to carry bags of clothes. And then when they want toys to amuse them, where will they be? Hmm, we will have underwear, socks, and t-shirts. What can we do with that on a 5 hour flight? Create "Captian Underwear" for our in-flight enjoyment? That will last about 1 minute. How about the other 350 minutes? That will be dad's problem, I think. Brilliant.

If I survive tomorrow (and I'm not talking about the possibility of plane crashes) I will thank the high heavens for good luck. Then a week later I will turn around and do it again. Yay.

To the Arab World, Obama's Nobel Leaves something to be desired

To the Arab world, Obama's Nobel leaves something to be desired

The president appears to be following a well-worn and feckless American diplomatic path that discounts the Palestinian point of view.

By Scott MacLeod

4:43 PM PST, December 9, 2009

Writing From Cairo

The Nobel Peace Prize that President Obama receives in Oslo on Thursday seems to many in the Middle East like a cruel hoax.

In June, Egyptians cheered him for pledging an intense personal effort to resolve the region's problems through negotiations rather than force, and his outreach to the Muslim world was surely on the mind of the Nobel committee when it made the award. In the last three months, however, the Obama administration has steadily undone the president's initial positive moves by seriously mishandling one of the Middle East's central issues: the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Simply put, the administration has severely and perhaps fatally undermined Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. By all accounts, the Palestinian Authority -- and its moderate leader, an architect of the 1993 Oslo accord -- is essential to a negotiated outcome of the long conflict. It is true that Abbas works in the shadow of his late predecessor, Yasser Arafat, and he has been unable to reverse the gains made by the rival Palestinian group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. But the administration hasn't helped: Obama's aides dragged Abbas like a stooge to a hollow summit with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then leaned on him to downplay a U.N. report that cited possible Israeli war crimes during the Gaza war. Worst of all, Obama backed away from supporting a key Palestinian Authority position: an insistence on a total freeze of Jewish settlements. Soon, the humiliated Abbas announced that he would not seek another term in office. Ploy or not, the threat reflects the further decline of Abbas' domestic credibility.

The episode also illustrates the pervasive lack of empathy that blinds U.S. policymakers to the history, culture and politics that drive Arab attitudes and decisions. Obama's mishandling of Abbas fits a familiar pattern in which Palestinian leaders and Palestinian rights are reflexively downplayed or disregarded in American calculations.

Looking back, President George H. W. Bush commendably convened the Madrid peace conference in 1991. But he excluded Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization, then a 27-year-old organization and a central party to the conflict. Predictably, the Madrid talks faltered. The irony was that before long, the Clinton administration would embrace Arafat once Israeli leaders determined he was, in fact, a worthy peace partner.

In signing the Oslo accord, Arafat made a significant concession that infuriated many Palestinians. He surrendered Palestinian claims to 78% of the territory that had become the state of Israel in 1948. President Clinton then further undercut Arafat's political standing among his people, as well as his faith in negotiations, by failing to hold Israel accountable for violations of the Oslo accord. Indeed, the Clinton administration failed to adequately hold either side accountable.

Reduced to crisis management, Clinton disastrously misjudged Arafat when he convened the Camp David summit in 2000, hoping to broker a historic end-of-conflict agreement. Arafat told Clinton that that ambition was premature because negotiators had still scarcely begun to grapple with the hardest issues of the dispute. Clinton sided with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who had proposed the summit largely as a dramatic gambit to keep his fraying coalition government together. Finally, Clinton blamed Arafat rather than himself or Barak for the summit's failure. Palestinians responded by launching a bloody intifada.

Palestinians are hardly blameless. Barbarous acts of terrorism have shaped and reinforced America's largely negative understanding of the Palestinian cause. Yet there is scant effort in the United States to examine the traumatic history that makes Palestinian peacemakers wary of Israeli intentions, frustrated by America's blanket support for Israel and vulnerable to Arab cries of treason.

The empathy deficit has contributed to a flawed policy framework in which Palestinian interests and demands are automatically questioned or marginalized. The U.S. failed to publicly support the Palestinian demand for statehood until 2002 -- 54 years after Israel's independence. U.S. officials still resist Palestinian demands for a full end to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. U.S. officials have been equally dismissive of Palestinian positions on other profound issues, such as the right of return for refugees to former homes in Israel. Compromises must and can be found on such issues, but U.S. officials have utterly failed to develop or engineer them.

A devastating critique of U.S. Mideast policy by the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2008 cited "an alarming pattern of mismanaged diplomacy." Coauthored by Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel and now a Princeton professor, the report criticized the lack of "cross-cultural expertise"-- a good understanding of the Arabs, in other words. "In truth," recalled former State Department official Aaron David Miller, in his book, "The Much Too Promised Land," "not a single senior-level official involved with the negotiations was willing or able to present, let alone fight for, the Arab or Palestinian perspective."

It ought to be a scandal that 18 years after the Madrid peace conference, the U.S. has nothing to show for its diplomacy. The festering dispute continues to take human life, radicalize the Muslim world, undermine regional development and threaten a wider and potentially apocalyptic conflict. When Arafat died in 2004, the George W. Bush administration hailed his successor, Abbas, as a more peaceful and compliant Palestinian leader. Yet, displaying half-heartedness toward peace negotiations while tolerating Israel's separation "wall" and the spread of its illegal settlements, it didn't get any further with him than it (or the Clinton administration) had with Arafat.

To effectively encourage the parties to reach a fair and just agreement acceptable to a majority of Israelis and Palestinians, Obama needs to show leadership and become an honest broker. That must include an effort to finally understand the world as Palestinians experience it. Dismissing Palestinian rights -- and taking Palestinian peace partners such as Abbas for granted -- is a certain path to further failure. The Middle East is expecting more from the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Scott MacLeod has covered the Mideast for Time magazine since 1995.

Obama's Peace Gamble

Kudos to President Obama for a well-spoken Nobel acceptance speech in Norway today. It was thoughtful, even cerebral, showing his past as a professor, community organizer, and multi-dimensional thinker. It was interesting to see him wrestle out loud with serious issues such as the morality of war and the possibility of peace. He seemed to struggle with the contradiction between war's necessity, in certain situations, and its inevitable tragic outcomes. That war brings out the best, most brave and selfless moments in a person does not mean that it is a tool to be grasped easily. It also destroys sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. He spoke of his awareness that he accepts a peace prize as he orders 30,000 more troops to kill and be killed. One can only hope this awareness can lead to a speedy order for our troops to return home.

He also spoke of his prohibition of torture and America's reaffirmed commitment to "remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war." This, he argues, is what makes us different from those we fight, and we lose our identity as freedom-bearers when we compromise the ideals we say we defend. I completely agree, which is why our detention and justice policies must come completely in line with international justice standards and his own idealistic words. The Red Cross is still barred from meeting with detainees at some detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan where high-value detainees are kept, as I outlined in a previous post. This is not consistent with America's role as a "standard bearer in the conduct of war." Neither is the use of illegal military tribunals to try terrorism detainees. Although Obama should be commended for his decision to transfer Khaled Sheikh Mohammed to the (regular) criminal justice system in New York and for taking a lot of heat for that decision, there remains many more detainees who are slated to be tried through the military system. The morality and legality of this decision has been debated elsewhere (see Andrew Napolitano's thought-provoking op-ed on the issue here), but suffice it to say that it is also hardly in line with an image as a beacon of democracy and freedom.

So while the words were eloquent and engaging, Obama must commit to live up to the words that he spoke.

(image: NYTimes)

US-Run "Black Jails" in Afghanistan Continue to Violate Human Rights

The New York Times has revealed today that US-run jails in Afghanistan continue to violate international humanitarian conventions by refusing to allow the International Red Cross access to detainees. The jail - and another like it in Iraq - are run by US Special Forces to detain and interrogate high-value detainees. US officials say they have no plans to close the facilities. Detainees can be held for weeks without external contact or without their families knowing if they are alive or dead. The US says it now hands over names of all detainees to the International Red Cross within two weeks of capture, but it does not allow direct contact.

Obviously, such a policy runs in direct contradiction to President Obama's stated policy of improving US detention and interrogation procedures to be in line with international human rights norms. Holding prisoners incommunicado was a highly criticized policy of the Bush Administration, one that many hoped would be overturned. Obama's decision to give his commanders high flexibility on the battlefield is one factor leading to the continuation of the "black jails."

One can only hope that President Obama will see the light and reverse the continuation of Bush Administration abominations. Preventing Red Cross access has no use as an interrogation tool and can only serve to heighten suspicion of American intentions. If the Obama Administration is serious about improving relations with the rest of the world, improving America's image, and making real changes for the better regarding the human rights of those in our detention facilities, then he must allow detainees access to the Red Cross. Absolutely no ifs, ands, or buts, as my grandma used to say. Just do it.

Brain Damage?

Just a note... Is there something wrong with my kids?

Here is a classic example of daily life with my kids: I was driving home from an out-of-town Thanksgiving gathering yesterday, snoozing in the passenger seat, when I hear my 10-year-old son pipe up, "Mom?"

I don't answer. I try to go back to sleep. My eyes are closed, head resting on the window. I should look asleep.

He says again, "Mom?"  

I guess he didn't get the message. Body language is not his forte.

My husband says to my son, "mom is sleeping." Pretty self-explanatory, right? No dice.

"Mom?"  Grrr. I'm not giving in. I AM SLEEPING, DAMMIT. Or at least I was.

My husband comes to the rescue. "She is SLEEPING! That means BE QUIET!"

Ah, finally, silence.  But I'm awake now. I'll never show it, though.


I am told this is a sign of "impulsivity" inherent in ADHD, but to me it is just simply idiotic. I'll never say that to my kids, of course. I remember all too well my dad's frustrated outbursts of "What's wrong with you? Are you retarded?" I must have made just as much (or little) sense to him as my kids do to me.  I'll just continue to pray for patience, something I don't have in great abundance.

(illustration: Family on a car trip by Sharon Watts)

US Debt A 'Phantom Menace,' Krugman Argues

In the debate over stimulus vs. deficit, both Paul Krugman and the Times are right. The major short-term threat to our economy is contraction caused by unemployment, shrinking credit, and reduced spending and production. This is what stimulus is supposed to fix, and in the short run, deficit spending is necessary. Undermining this effort by budget-balancing moves will only make it harder for the economy to recover. The deficit hawks are right, however, to keep an eye on the growing red ink, especially in light of our government's tendency towards deficit spending even in good economic times. If deficit hawks get too concerned too early, their loud voices could undermine confidence in the economy. What is needed is adequate spending now, but with an "exit strategy" meant to get us back in the black when the economy is back on track, but not before. That way investors and others will understand that the huge deficits are not a long-term trend, which would likely be unsustainable. This would allow short-term and long-term confidence to be maintained. Given that this would involve some austerity, a bipartisan commission might be the way to go, with its recommendations given the "fast track" in Congress - simple thumbs up or down, no amendments. (Kudos to the Economist magazine for suggesting much of this - it's a great idea!)
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

On Veteran's Day

Thinking about all the veterans who have served our country... veterans of all colors, religions, shapes and sizes. The work they do is the hardest work there is - putting their life on the line for the rest of us. They are simply amazing. I hope we always think hard before we send them into harm's way. They are soldiers, but also someone's son, daughter, sister, mother, or father.

Here's hoping for a safe and happy Veteran's Day for everyone!

More on the Global Cooling Myth

Now I know where the myth of global cooling is coming from. When I saw Laura Ingraham on Fox News simply dismissing reputable experts asserting that global temperatures are rising, I figured she was simply nuts. But the currently popular book Freakanomics and just plain and simple fun with statistics seems to be feeding this notion that global temperatures are declining. Luckily, we have Al Gore. He has pointed out the work done by statisticians showing how easy it is to creatively show a global cooling trend, if you simply pick and choose your data carefully. Yes, 1998 was a particularly hot year, and since then, temperatures have been cooling, relatively speaking. That is, until 2005, another very hot year. And, of course, if you take a broader look, you'll see that this decline from 1998 to 2005 is really just a blip in a long-term overall rise in temperatures that has been occurring for the last 30 years, if not the last century. Just to be sure, the AP gave raw temperature data to various scientists and asked them to look for "trends," without telling them what kind of trends to look for. None of the scientists found cooling trends.

So, if you are looking for cooling trends, you can find them, though it appears it requires a little bit of creativity. Most scientists would apparently not see a cooling trend without massaging the data.

In this super-charged atmosphere of partisan polarization, what used to be reasonable is now a battering ram against Obama. I thought Republicans were actually coming around to the idea of doing something about climate change? Apparently that was simply a blip in the Republican trend to drive us into corporate-controlled oblivion and tear down President Obama as much as possible.

I guess I can always that someday we will have "change we can believe in." Just not yet.

LASTING LEGACIES: Chapel bell rings of history - News

LASTING LEGACIES: Chapel bell rings of history - News (UGA Red and Black Newspaper)

Ah, the bane of my existence. UGA's historic chapel bell. Many legends surround this symbol of tradition. But my office sits right across Herty field from the bell, which is rung not just on special occasions, but when people are taking tours of the campus or when they get drunk downtown and want to make some noise. So even though I have great respect for this great symbol of UGA's tradition, my patience for its loud, resounding peals grows short when reveling drunkards our eager tourists loudly express their zeal outside my office window.

Yes, there it is again! (Ding, ding) The sound of distraction once again.

"Friending" Binyam Mohamed

According to Naomi Wolf in the Huffington Post, past detainees at Guantanamo Bay and CIA "black sites" are prohibited from sharing their experiences with the public for fear of releasing classified information. Since most of these detainees have been tortured, we are therefore prevented from hearing the deeds committed in our name by our government.

There is something essentially against our identity as Americans and freedom-loving people in what is going on here. A person's own experiences, even though experienced against his will (or particularly because of this) should be part of individual free expression. He has the right to tell it, and we have the right to hear it - it is his experience of torture. We should be able to hear what is being done in our name. It is shameful that a democracy suppresses evidence of its own misconduct. I don't believe this is what America stands for.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Israel Supreme Court: Open 'apartheid' road to Palestinians

Update from an earlier post, where I commented on the "separate but unequal" regime emerging between Palestinians and Israeli settlers on the West Bank. Now, the Christian Science Monitor reports:

Israeli Supreme Court: Open 'apartheid' road to Palestinians: "Israel's Supreme Court ordered a segregated West Bank highway to be opened for Palestinian use. But rights groups say 10 more 'apartheid' roads should be opened too.

In the first ruling of its kind, Israel's Supreme Court ordered the Israeli army on Thursday to allow Palestinians to travel on a West Bank road they had been banned from using.

"The Supreme Court never made a decision before relating to a particular place where Palestinians are banned from driving on a road just for being Palestinians," said Nirit Moskovich of the Association for Human Rights Israel (ACRI), the group filing the case on behalf of 22 Palestinian villages south of Hebron. ACRI is disappointed, however, that the Supreme Court did not seize the opportunity to make a ruling on segregated roads in general, she added.

"Too Big To Fail" Bill Unveiled By Treasury Department, House Dems

It seems that something may finally be done about the systemic risk posed by huge financial institutions. If a corporation is too big to fail, it either shouldn't exist or should pay the price for its failure. Incentives should be in line with the desired outcomes! I'm skeptical that this particular legislation will be successful in fully fixing the problem, however. It is better than doing nothing, but our political system is so highly penetrated by financial and business interests that even moderate legislation will keep from getting watered down later when the spotlight is off. There is no doubt in my mind that in a few years, when attention is diverted elsewhere, quiet lobbying efforts will result in eventual watering down of any remaining teeth in the measure that it will be worthless. After all, this is how we got into this mess in the first place. Look at the history of financial deregulation and other relatively unnoticed moves in Congress starting in the mid-1990s. (Yes, both parties can take the blame here.) Around $5 billion spent on lobbying by financial firms paid off handsomely, with the ability to engage in predatory lending free from enforcement, massive consolidation, lowered capital reserve requirements, and near unfettered freedom to create and sell complicated new financial products that no one understood - just to name a few. (see report at www.wallstreetwatch.org/soldoutreport.htm)

My pessimistic warning: unless we watch Washington like hawks, it will happen again!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What Do Muslim Women Want?

Naomi Wolf makes an important point in her post: Western women (and men) tend to automatically associate Muslim women's head covering with oppression. In fact, the issue is much more complicated than simply defending or attacking the "hijab" - as it is called in the Arab world. What women wear is often much less important than obtaining real, concrete rights and achievements: freedom from "honor killings" and arbitrary divorce, the right to child custody and support, the ability to choose husbands and complete their educations. While her point is important, she is still only giving us one small part of the story. The struggle for women's rights does not take place only in the palaces of the Arab world and among the super-educated former CNN journalists. It also takes place daily among the washerwomen and secretaries and non-employed mothers struggling to make choices within the constraints of deteriorating economies, growing Islamist influence, and (occasionally) less-than-­supportive male relatives. As one who has lived for extended time in the Arab world and spent much of my time in middle class and lower-middle class neighborhoods, I support Wolf's position but urge her to look beyond the tiny slice of upper crust intellectual life she encountered.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Truly Shocking Guantanamo Story: Judge Confirms That an Innocent Man Was Tortured to Make False Confessions

While this is shocking, it doesn't surprise me given the scandalous behavior of the last 9 years. False confessions are simply part and parcel of torture. That is one practical reason why torture should not be done. Aside, of course, from the moral reasons. Even after all this news has come out, part of me simply cannot believe that the United States of America *tortures* - it is against everything we stand for. But one look at Bush and (especially) Cheney, and I remember the identity change that has taken place in the last 20-30 years. No longer is the US at the forefront of human rights law and practice. No longer does the United States stand up for what is right in the world. More often, we are seen standing up for the interests of the powerful (usually us), not the people and the underdog. We have lost our heritage. And it is a shame.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

More Fox News Idiocy on Global Warmin...

More Fox News Idiocy on Global Warming: Why the Rest of the World Thinks We are Out of Touch

Just happened to be flipping through the channels last night and catch a couple of minutes of Laura Ingraham on Fox News last night - apparently filling in for Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor. I couldn't actually believe they were interviewing a scientist on Fox News about climate change! She started to say that global temperatures were rising when she was interrupted by Ingraham, who "corrected" the scientist, saying that in fact global temperatures were declining! The scientist tried to repeat and back up what every reputable scientist in the world knows, that global temperatures are rising, but she was cut off by Ingraham to go to commercial.

Of course, every journalist knows that scientists are wrong! There is no such thing as global warming!

If we just say it loud and often enough, it just might become true!

More "Bush Lite" Under Obama

According to today's NY Times, the Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terror suspects abroad for interrogation but will monitor to insure they are not tortured, officials said. The article, Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama, stresses the modifications intended to protect detainees:

"Unlike the Bush administration, they would give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.

'The emphasis will be on insuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent over overseas,' said one administration official, adding that no detainees will be sent to countries that are known to conduct abusive interrogations."

Thus continues Obama's practice of continuing the distasteful and counterproductive security policies from the Bush era, repackaged for a "kinder and gentler" appearance. Other examples: continuing indefinite detention of detainees, military tribunals, and warrantless domestic wiretapping.

We all understood Obama had a pragmatic streak, but I have yet to see the benefit from these policies. There is a definite difference between pragmatism and recklessness. The Obama Letdown has begun in earnest!

IRAN: Activist issues preemptive retraction of future confession

Only in Iran...

From the LA Times:

IRAN: Activist issues preemptive retraction of future confession:

"What do you do when your imprisoned friends and political allies admit to plotting against the Islamic Republic of Iran in an elaborate and suspiciously scripted series of televised confessions?

What if you're worried you're next?

You could skip town or keep quiet. Or, if you are prominent opposition activist Mohsen Armin, you can try and beat the authorities at their own game by issuing a retraction of any future televised confession in anticipation of your own arrest and possible torture.

Armin, a member of Islamic Revolution Combatants Organization, or the IRCO, posted the renunciation on his website under the glib headline “I look forward to being detained.”

“If the providence of God requires that I will be in jailed as my brethren have been so far and if, in jail and under pressure, I say something against what I have said, be sure that it is not my true belief and that I recanted under pressure," he wrote."

[-- Meris Lutz and Ramin Mostaghim, Los Angeles Times
Photo: Opposition activist Mohsen Armin. Credit: Roozonline.com ]

Next, will it be Osama bin Laden? Ayman al Zawahiri? Might al Qaeda activists want to preemptively retract any confessions they might make under American interrogation, particularly of "enhanced" nature? Lest we forget, waterboarding is out, but still sanctioned are extreme heat/cold, sleep deprivation, and isolation...

Saturday Mornings

Why was I blessed with children that are social misfits? Don't normal people know that when someone is laying down on the bed, eyes closed, not responding to sound, that they should be left alone? When it is early Saturday morning and barely light, my kids actually know to go play somewhere else if they wake up. But as soon as their little brains think of something funny or interesting, they MUST share it with me, regardless of my state of mind (usually comatose). They can't simply wait until I wake up, or tell each other instead of me. No, they must awaken the sleeping beast, at their own risk, so they can feel the joy of telling me what is on their mind at 6am.


My kids must also be very slow learners, because this experience cannot possibly be very joyful for very long. Once the sleeping beast awakens to hear some trivial bit of information, usually at GREAT LENGTH
(Mom wouldn't it be funny if we went on a trip to South America and saw all the dinosaurs living there and one of them flew up to the sky and fire came out of his mouth and all the clouds melted and the butterflies turned into raindrops so that the plants could drink water?) my maternal instincts momentarily shut down and something deep inside me says DESTROY THE GREMLIN THAT HAS RUINED MY SLUMBER, and honestly, I don't think I can be held responsible for what happens when I am not entirely in control of my senses.

You would think they would learn someday, but so far, no dice. There simply must be something evolutionarily backward about this.

It isn't much better when my autistic stepdaughter, who has problems keeping her clothes on ("they're itchy," she says) - but who is really getting to that age where she needs to keep her clothes on - decides early Saturday morning NOT to wake me up, instead opting to go naked trampoline jumping and peanut-butter eating (yes, try that one!) in our back yard. Thank god it was the much less-visible BACK yard. I kid you not, this is no exaggeration. I hate to think what the neighbors may be thinking: Wow, our very own version of The Man Show - Girls on Trampolines! (God Forbid!)

So it looks like I simply can't win. Saturday mornings, those blissful, quiet, cartoon-filled hours I remember from my childhood, are now tortuous, bleary-eyed, monster-filled (choose your monster) chase-fest. It almost makes me long for an empty nest.

Great links about health care

Given all the misinformation circulating about health care, it seems relevant to post a few of my favorite health care links - the ones I have found the most informative.

How American Health Care Killed My Father
The Atlantic September 2009

After the needless death of his father, the author, a
business executive, began a personal exploration of a health-care
industry that for years has delivered poor service and irregular
quality at astonishingly high cost. It is a system, he argues, that is
not worth preserving in anything like its current form. And the
health-care reform now being contemplated will not fix it. Here’s a
radical solution to an agonizing problem.


Why We Must Ration Health Care
New York Times Magazine July 15, 2009

A bioethicist takes on the hard questions: how much is a life worth? How to determine the cost-effectiveness of new treatments and cut medical costs? Is rationing health care evil? These and other questions must be addressed to effectively solve many of the stickiest problems facing health care reform, says Peter Singer.


Ezra Klein: A Rational Look at Rationing
Washington Post June17, 2009

Ezra Klein makes the argument that rationing already goes on: we ration health care by ability to pay. Since health care isn't unlimited, we will have to "ration" it somehow. Should we ration it well or badly?


The Treatment (The New Republic's health care blog)
Blog about health care issues. Informative, generally free of polemics, cuts through a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the issue.


Health Co-Op Offers Model for Overhaul
NY Times July 6, 2009

Describes health insurance cooperatives, using the example of Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. These cooperatives may end up as an alternative to the "public option" in health care reform, though the jury is out as to how effective they are in cutting costs and improving health outcomes.


Health Reform for Beginners: The Difference Between Socialized Medicine, Single-Payer Health Care, and What We'll Be Getting
Washington Post June 9, 2009

Discusses the definition, similarities, differences between "single payer" and "socialized medicine."

New Gitmo Decision Offers Unusual Insight Into Weakness of Government Evidence

Why does the Obama administration continue to detain foreign nationals for years on end with only the flimsiest of evidence to justify their ongoing detention? Of 31 cases completed since the Supreme Court allowed detainees to challenge their detention in court, 28 were found to be held unlawfully. Of those 28, 19 are still in detention. WTF????

ProPublica reports:

New Gitmo Decision Offers Unusual Insight Into Weakness of Government Evidence:

by Chisun Lee, ProPublica -

A recent federal court decision that yet another Guantanamo captive’s detention is illegal offers the most detailed picture to date of how the government is struggling, often unsuccessfully, to justify indefinite imprisonments with sometimes thin and unverifiable evidence. The government’s difficulties in proving these cases are likely to persist even if the detainees are moved to U.S. soil or if a new detention review system is created.

The judge evaluating Al Mutairi’s imprisonment issued a lengthy written opinion detailing and eviscerating the government’s evidence.

Al Mutairi’s case was the first to be completed by Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a judge with considerable national security experience, in the slew of lawsuits brought by some 200 Guantanamo inmates. In these lawsuits, known as habeas corpus petitions, the detainees claim the government wrongly imprisoned them as enemies in the conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban. The cases have been randomly assigned among the 15 judges of the federal trial court in Washington, D.C.

ProPublica recently examined 31 cases completed since a June 2008 Supreme Court decision empowered federal trial courts to scrutinize and, if called for, overturn presidential detention decisions. Case by case, the judges have been answering core questions that policy experts have addressed in theory: When can the president place someone in preventive detention, and how solid does the evidence need to be? (Our analysis of the cases was co-published as an op-ed by the New York Times.)

Judges have found 28 detainees to be unlawfully held. Nineteen of these men remain jailed at Guantanamo. More lawsuits continue to move ahead...

After reviewing the government’s classified evidence, the judge last week concluded that "there is nothing in the record beyond speculation" that Al Mutairi had "become a part of al Qaida or an associated force of al Qaida," as the government alleged. She ordered the Obama administration to "take all necessary and appropriate steps to facilitate Al Mutairi’s release forthwith."

The government’s evidence failed to sway her, because it was sparse and unreliable.

She said some of it was "unfinished" or "raw" intelligence that, by the government’s own admission, had never been "fully analyzed for its ‘reliability, validity, and relevance.’"

A "typographical error in an intelligence report" led the government incorrectly to claim for more than three years that Al Mutairi had manned an anti-aircraft weapon in Afghanistan, the judge wrote. The report had confused Al Mutairi’s internment serial number – a unique identifier assigned each detainee – with that of the person actually suspected of manning the weapon.

The government gave the judge no reason to think the appearance of Al Mutairi’s name on certain prison lists – parts of the opinion suggest the prison was in Pakistan – meant he was affiliated with al Qaeda, the judge said. "Multiple independent sources" had testified that such lists were collected by guards merely to inform family members of the whereabouts of the incarcerated, and administration lawyers supplied no proof to the contrary.

Among the pieces of evidence the judge rejected in the Al Mutairi case was a passage from an account of the detainee’s own interrogation...

Kollar-Kotelly discussed Al Mutairi’s "agitated" state of mind at the time he gave the statement and says "he appears to have been goaded into making these statements by the linguist in the interrogation room."

During another interrogation, the judge said, an agitated Al Mutairi claimed that 'he was Osama bin Laden." She quoted a passage from that interrogation report, which is striking because it reveals the detainee’s seeming frustration and despair over his treatment in U.S. custody:

ISN [Internment Serial No.] 213 was uncooperative. He stated that he wished to be called Osama bin Laden . . . ISN 213 stated he was an enemy of America because Americans had told him so. Americans cursed his parents. Prior to the war, he’d had no problem with Americans. But due to the situation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and legal process being so useless, he might as well be Osama bin Laden, since he was never going to be freed from U.S. custody.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

My question is: why does the Obama administration insist on retaining these prisoners? What happened to Obama the candidate who insisted on closing GITMO detention center ASAP?

Glenn Beck's Near Death Experience: "The Best Health Care in the World"

This is one of the things that makes me so angry about the health care debate today - the utter dishonesty among some of those claiming the US has "the best health care in the world." Our health care system is a mess: we spend thousands more per capita ($2500/cap) but we have worse health - lower life expectancy, and the WHO ranks our health care system near the bottom of industrialized countries. Is this the "best health care in the world"? Shouldn't Glenn Beck have a more reserved opinion of US health care after his near-death experience?

“The Sorrowful Decline of the Arabs”

“The Sorrowful Decline of the Arabs”: "

"In the Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami writes today that the vibrant display of political activism in Iran since its elections highlights the relative “stagnation” of politics in the Arab world. He writes that the recent UN Arab Human Development Report dissects the condition of the Arab state and sadly recognizes that despite oil wealth, the region has an autocratic political culture, high unemployment, floundering economies and widespread poverty. States have failed their people, contends Ajami, but leaders have nevertheless become masters of personal political survival, which is reinforced by shortcomings in strong opposition movements, the middle class, and power of property the private sector.

Ajami is critical of the UN Arab Human Development Report’s authors, but narrows his argument to criticize a new American policy in the Middle East under President Obama. This policy values the status quo over the “risks of liberty,” he writes, and misses opportunities at supporting democracy." (Project on Middle East Democracy)

One of the most notable things about the Iranian Uprising is the relative quiet in the Arab world. Even the Egyptian Kefeya movement cannot mobilize more than a few dozen protesters, while Iranian dissenters were able to fill the streets with thousands. One could speculate as to the reasons for the difference. Ajami seems to imply it is cultural, as if the Arabs were somehow incompetent or growing more impotent without Washington's prodding. In fact, if one were to draw any conclusions about American influence, it might be the opposite: where American influence is the weakest (Iran) democratic impulses are the strongest. Only where American influence props up dictators and stifles civil society do popular movements fail.

Why I am a Slacker Mom

There's nothing like having ADD to make you realize your limitations.

There are so many useless but trendy ways for parents to waste time and money these days. It seems like they are de rigueur for the responsible parent. Particularly if they want their kid to go to Harvard. Or simply stay out of jail.

But I would argue that not only are Spanish classes for 18 month olds and a TV-free household unnecessary, they are unrealistic. In my mind, they are the luxury of moms who have compliant kids, reasonable (or no) ex-husbands, and a clear mind, meaning they can actually remember more than 1 thing at a time.

Maybe it would be nice to have a completely organic diet, but try
telling that to your autistic step-daughter whose hypersensitive sense
of taste and stubborn demeanor makes it hard to get her to eat anything
but chicken nuggets and french fries.

When my hyper-mom friends or colleagues start ranting about how terrible TV is for the juvenile brain, I might - just might, mind you - resolve to limit my kids TV watching to a couple of hours on the weekends. But I might not. I'll tell you why. That TV can sometimes bring me much-needed peace.

My kids are not normal kids. Really. I know everyone says that, but my kids seem like they were born to harass me into oblivion. Call it bad social skills. It comes with ADD. Theirs and mine. But they really seem to not get it sometimes that they are seriously driving me crazy. Mostly it is their endless talking, craving attention, and constant need of supervision. Of course, they don't seem to need supervision when they want to "make a chocolate banana cream pie" in the kitchen. Involving bananas, eggs, milk, whipped cream, at least a gallon of chocolate syrup, no recipe of course, and a huge mess. But when MOM WANTS THEM TO CLEAN UP THAT MESS RIGHT NOW, somehow they can't figure out how to do it. No idea what to use? Towel. Where are the towels? In the drawer. How do I clean it up? WIPE IT WITH THE TOWEL.

Why does this happen to me?

I may want my kids to play imaginative games or cooperative sports outside all day instead of TV or video games, but if it requires me to spend all my day organizing and leading activities, and mediating sibling disputes, then it is way too much trouble. It tires my brain out. Let them veg in front of the TV for a while so I can do something exciting like clean the toilets in peace.

My brain is constanly worn out because I have to supervise kids all day long. Other parents can tell their kids to "get ready for bed" and they will brush their teeth, floss, put on their PJs, and (probably) get into bed. Not my kids. Get ready for bed means think about turning off the TV or cleaning up the strewn action figures, eventually do it after another reminder, going to the bedroom and getting distracted with the toys there, getting reminded again to go brush your teeth. Going to the bathroom means going near the parents' TV, which means another distraction - and other reminder to get up off your f&^!ng a$$ and brush your teeth! All this while I'm trying to remember whatever I was doing at the time.

So I'll tell you. I was slacker before slacker was cool. Because I have to.

Where is our Leader?

Just like I thought... small rumbles of discontent among Obama supporters and progressives in general about what appears to be a glaring lack of leadership. (See for example Paul Krugman's recent article and Clive Crook's Financial Times Op-Ed.) Didn't we have high hopes for this guy, a new sort of politician, wildly popular? Wasn't he going to save the country from economic ruin at our time of peril? Although I was not among the euphoric throngs last November, I did hold up hopes that Obama would be able to really change something for the better, after eight years of disastrous policies. The economic and housing crisis showed us that reform was desperately needed, particularly once huge financial institutions began going bankrupt and disappearing from the scene, taking our 401Ks with them. Although things were (and still are) in a huge mess, I wondered if Obama could take this opportunity presented to him to not only bring us out of the crisis but also making much-needed reforms to the system, to strengthen it against future crises.

At the same time, I was only too aware that he is a savvy politician, like all the others, and a newbie to boot. That's why I didn't rush out and immediately proclaim Obama our Savior. He may be The One, at least to many, but it isn't too hard for a jaded, grizzled, political scientist like me to see the signs of carefully constructed image-making in progress.

The history of the Obama Administration has been admittedly short, but so far, it has been a history of wasted opportunities. Obama seems to have a very ambitious agenda - stimulus, financial regulatory reform, health care reform, climate change - all of which are important, but important to do well. But what we are getting are truly half-assed attempts to do a lot, and not getting any of it right. What good is a stimulus plan that doesn't spend enough to put a dent in unemployment, but spends enough to pile on to the national debt and create international worries about the strength of the dollar and the worth of US treasury bonds? Does it help us to pass a bill "reforming" health care that leaves unsolved most of the problems that currently plague our health care system? (see yesterday's NY Times for an excellent article about widespread bankruptcies among the insured!)

Of course, compromises are necessary in politics, and no policy emerges from the policy process perfect. But it seems that a leader as talented and popular as Obama, coming at a time when people look to him for answers, could use the enormous political capital he inherited to stand up for a select few crucial reform packages. He has the bully pulpit, and he has phenomenal communication skills at his disposal. He should use them to explain to the American public, and to Congress, what needs to be done, and why. He can stand up for a few principles, not just the idea of getting a bill passed. Sub-contracting the bill-writing process to Congress may be a great way to get Congress on board, but it's a terrible way to construct a coherent policy. A bad bill doesn't solve problems.

In fact, some of the solutions may not be cheap - or at least they could require an eventual tax increase, depending on the particular path chosen. Obama may need to defend some unpopular solutions - a good idea if they will work - so that he can bang enough heads together to get a bill passed that will actually solve some tough problems we are facing. We need to stop medically-induced bankruptcies, the shrinking of our retirement funds, and the unsustainable and unbalanced consumption of resources leading to dangerous climate change.

So, I am asking Obama to do a tough job, but so far it looks like he is not up to the task.

(image: Financial Times)

My Trip to a Gender-Specific Lakefront Resort

I have a confession to make. I am on a trip this weekend where no men are allowed. No kids, either. It is blatantly discriminatory, I understand. My husband has been quite vocal in pointing this out. Naturally. He is stuck at home with the kids. And he is a Republican...

In the same way, Congressional Republicans have criticized President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court for her involvement in a group that promotes women in the judiciary. Law prohibits involvement in racial or gender exclusive groups, they say, so Sotomayor must be disqualified from the nomination.

So? Should we be concerned? Should I resign as self-appointed nominee for Next Dictator of the World because of a single weekend of indiscretion?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Tehran Tienanmen?

Unfortunately, it looks like Time's option #2 is the most likely outcome in Iran now. Although it is not clear how violent the crackdown on the protests has been, it appears that the clerical regime is in no mood to negotiate or compromise with the opposition. The distressing video of Neda, who was killed before cell phone video cameras, shows that the authorities have at least some of the time used excessive force. Since the top and middle layers of organizers appear to have been arrested, the protests seem to be losing momentum. Twitter alone cannot organize a revolution.

Sad as it sounds, I fear that the wind is out of the sails. Even if that is so, I believe that many of us will not look at the people of Iran in the same light.

Khamenei Throws Down the Gauntlet

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei today warned protesters to stay off the streets and denied accusations that last Friday's elections were rigged. In a Friday prayer session attended by overflowing crowds at Tehran University, he said he would never give in to "illegal pressures" and warned of bloodshed if protests continued. According to the New York Times website, the government has already begun denying permits for opposition rallies.

It appears that this move is meant to break what looked like a growing deadlock and raise the stakes in the emerging political game. He has effectively dared the opposition to move. It doesn't seem likely that such a large and mobilized movement will be easily intimidated. However, the prospect of violence is very real if demonstrations continue. After that it is anyone's guess how the rest of the game plays out.

Endgame?

Speculation about how the crisis in Iran will turn out is rampant. As one analyst remarks on the Foreign Policy website, "Predictions about Iran are a dime a dozen these days. And that's exactly they are worth."

Time Magazine outlines four possible endgame scenarios:
1. Revolution 2.0 - A repeat of the 1979 Revolution that brought down the Shah.

2. A Tehran Tiananmen? - A bloody crackdown that (roughly) restores the status quo.

3. Khamenei's Divine Retreat - The Ayatollah convinces the Guardian Council to order a new vote or to "adjust" the vote so that a runoff is necessary. A weakened Supreme Leader would result.

4. A Zimbabwe Option - A negotiated power-sharing arrangement or "buying-off" of select oppositionists with less important positions.

Interesting and thoughtful speculation. I would argue that option #3 is the most likely, followed by 2 and 4. However, as Charles Kurzman argues, nothing is predictable and if one makes enough predictions, something will almost certainly end up being correct. Ignore the expert predictions, in other words. He probably has made the most thoughtful predictions yet - anything could happen.

Is the Iranian Regime in Trouble?

Even though there are many parallels between the massive demonstrations occurring in Iran today and the revolution that threw out the Shah thirty years ago, it is unlikely that the current Islamic regime is in danger of imminent collapse or overthrow. As much as many of us - me included - would like to see the current regime replaced by something more democratic, it doesn't seem like that is the main aim of the protesters, or even if it was, that it would be successful. The coercive apparatus of the regime is still quite robust, and as long as it remains strong and the regime's leaders are willing to wield it against protesters, the regime structure seems relatively safe for the time being.

What appears to be behind much of the turmoil is a leadership struggle between different camps. Depending on the source, the camps can be characterized as conservative vs. reformist; conservative vs. conservative; or first vs. second generation. (See a terrific article here on the internal power struggle.) No matter how it is characterized, the various camps are all generally in favor of the Islamic Republican form of government and its broad outlines, so the winner of the struggle is not likely to initiate major changes in government structure.

However, depending on who wins, there may be changes in political substance. If Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei wins the power struggle, the many who supported Mousavi and hoped for greater freedom of expression will likely be disillusioned. Their belief in the rule of law may be dashed, since the impression is widespread that their votes were never even counted. Much like after the student riots of 1999, widespread apathy may result. This is what many in the leadership hope for - those who are trying to forestall change.

But if the students are able to extract some concessions, the toppling of the regime is unlikely, but some degree of freedoms may result. More freedom of expression, freedom for women to express themselves in dress, for example. And the expectation that the voting process will proceed in a free manner will be upheld. Keep in mind that the Iranian parliament (Majles) and presidency - elected offices - are not the most powerful in the government. The appointed and indirectly elected clerical bodies are the most powerful positions in the country, and they "supervise" the elected bodies. So even if the elected bodies were freely chosen, Iranian government would be closer to a democracy, but still not quite there.

I wish I could be more optimistic about the likelihood of widespread and radical change in Iran. And, I actually hope I am wrong. There is something inspiring about watching the struggle for freedom unfold before our eyes. We are probably projecting more into that struggle than really exists. However, if that struggle is successful, it could perhaps plant the seeds for something larger in the long run. I believe that is why the Mullahs fight.


"Mullahs - you can't kill a hashtag." - Twitter post reported anonymously on CNN 6/18/09

Obama's Dilemma

The Iranian election imbroglio has been posing a political and moral dilemma to President Obama since the results were released on Friday. There is mounting pressure on him to support the Iranian opposition, despite the fact that it would be wildly reckless and run contrary to a half century of Iranian political history.

On the issue of the veracity of the elections, it is often overlooked that President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad does have a significant base of support among Iran's poor, the religious, and in rural areas. Just because we don't like him doesn't mean Iranians don't like him. Challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi has strong support in many middle- and upper-class neighborhoods of Tehran, where many foreign press organizations operated, but it is not clear if his support was as strong elsewhere. Nevertheless, a number of now widely-reported irregularities in the elections have given many Iranians the impression that the outcome was predetermined - their votes were never counted. This impression is not to be discounted. While elected bodies in Iran may not be the most powerful, elections are nonetheless meaningful, particularly when candidates from various political stripes are allowed to contest. Many Iranians are therefore insulted at the possibility that their votes were simply cast aside. And this possibility appears to be very real, though not a proven fact.

So far, Obama has been cautious in his approach to the elections, saying only that he was "concerned" and urging Iran to respect the standards of democracy. Iran, for its part, accused the United States of "intolerable meddling" in its internal affairs. Since 1979 and before, Iran has been highly suspicious and hyper-sensitive about American interference in domestic affairs. Not that it isn't justified; in 1953, CIA covert operations were responsible for overthrowing an elected, nationalist government and (re)installing the soon-to-be-detested Shah who would later be known as one of the world's most repressive dictators. He would be overthrown in 1979 and replaced by the current form of government.

The pressure for Obama to support the protesters is understandable. The United States believes itself to be a beacon of democracy, whatever its shortcomings. We like to stand up for the values that we believe in, and it seems wrong - in a way - to allow thousands of others to put their lives on the line for the right to choose their leaders without the (self-proclaimed) global leader of democracy voicing its support, at the very least. But it is also clear that American support for the opposition can be the kiss of death. Literally. The leadership has announced that it will begin executing foreign agents and agitators, and those receiving support from abroad. It would be a very, very bad idea to give them an excuse to bring out the firing squads. Obama himself has argued against giving the Iranian regime the impression that the protests are American-led. Although the United States is concerned about the violence, he has said, it is an internal issue for the Iranians to work out. At the risk of sounding cold-hearted, the Iranians don't want our "support." It will simply be counterproductive. In this case, the best help is no help at all.

Update: Settlements Illegal?

Update: today's Washington Post features an article discussing the ambiguity over America's official policy toward Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Although a 1979 State Department legal opinion states that the settlements are "inconsistent" with international law, citing Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, US presidents have not referred to settlements as "illegal'" preferring instead terms such as "illegitimate" or "unhelpful." The last administration went even further, coming close to officially recognizing some settlements close to the green line as demographic "realities on the ground" that would be annexed to Israel as part of a final peace agreement.


I find it interesting that US officials will not comment on this 1979 legal opinion to say whether or not it is still official US policy. Today, Palestinians are in a weak position, politically, diplomatically, and militarily. Their main strength is international law - it is strongly on their side. Is the United States going to stand on the side of international law? Or, will it sacrifice international law for the interests of its ally, Israel?

Anything New Under the Sun?

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's much anticipated foreign policy speech Sunday left much to be desired. While Obama hailed it as an "important step forward," it represents little in the direction of forward movement. Since UN resolution 242 in 1967 Israel has ostensibly supported the two state solution, while it took the PLO until the end of 1988 to indirectly accept the two state solution and Resolution 242.

Now, however, the tables are turned. The once intransigent PLO is now begging for table scraps, while Israel has moved further away from the two state solution. The right is ascendant in Israeli politics, and many on the right argue that the West Bank and Gaza should remain under Israeli control indefinitely, despite prohibiting international law and global approbrium. The land captured in 1967, some argue, is not only strategically important, but the heart of historical Israel. Never mind the Palestinians who inhabit the land, it is argued. Our land is our land! We should keep it all!

Really, it is not much different from the arguments Palestinians presented after 1948...

Like many realists have argued, greater power yields greater ambition. A larger definition of vital interests has emerged from Israel's success in the battlefield and political arena. Now Israel's ability to dominate the region has turned into a necessity to dominate the region.

America has not opposed growing Israeli intransigence. In fact, American policy has tended to mirror Israeli policy. No longer do American presidents refer to Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territories as "illegal" but "unhelpful" or at most "illegitimate" (Obama). The Palestinian territories are not "occupied" but "disputed" territories.

After Netanyahu's speech, President Obama focused on the positive aspects, most notable of which was that Netanyahu apparently reversed his long-standing opposition to a Palestinian state, though his "acceptance" was so wrought with caviats as to make it nearly worthless. Obama, diplomatically, remarked that these caviats were to be negotiated in the future. His optimistic assessment was that the speech represented a basis upon which to start peace talks.

It's hard to know if he is simply leaving the door open to talks, and therefore reacting positively and diplomatically, or if he is mired in the same mindset that leaves the Palestinians out in the cold. Let's hope he doesn't start calling Netanyahu a "man of peace"!

 

Four Problems any Health Care Plan MU...

I'm not sure why, but Obama seems to have the wrong approach to health care reform. This is an important issue but he seems to be allowing others to dictate the course reform will take. He is allowing Congress to write the bill, and taking a back seat in the drafting. He is trying to avoid the problems Hillary Clinton encountered in 1996 when she plopped a complete, complicated bill on the lap of Congress, seemingly with a "take it or leave it" attitude. Of course, Congress doesn't appreciate this, which was one of the many reasons why Clinton's health care reform failed.

Obama, on the other hand, has a very Congress-centered outlook and staff. He knows the importance of Congress in legislative victories and the influences Congress works under. But here, in health care reform, is he taking too much of a hands-off approach?

As of yet, I have not heard Obama articulate the goal(s) he is hoping to achieve with health care reform, other than achieving reform itself. This will leave him dangerously open to buffeting by the political winds as he attempts to get a bill passed. What could emerge may not end up helping solve the many health care problems facing Americans today but instead could be a patchwork of compromises and special interest payoffs that do little to improve the situation.

What he needs to do is to outline the goals he wants to accomplish, specifically, what problems health care reform needs to solve in order to get his final signature. That will keep the process goal oriented and problem-solving, regardless of the specific methods used to solve the problem. Thus, rather than arguing over single-payer or private insurance, mandates or no mandates, a government option or not, just ask if it solves the problems that need to be solved.

Four very important health care problems facing Americans include:


1. Bankruptcies Between 50 - 60 percent of personal bankruptcies in America occur - in part or entirely - as a result of medical emergencies. Many of these bankruptcies occur despite the fact that the patient had health insurance. High deductibles, maximum payout limits, and refusal to cover certain conditions, procedures, or tests leads to catastrophic levels of medical bills accumulating in a short time in many life-threatening situations. Medicaid will not pay until all assets are depleted, including the family home. Many believe they are covered and well-prepared for medical emergencies, only to find that their insurance fails them when they need it the most.

2. Preexisting Conditions Having a pre-existing condition can make it extremely difficult to find medical coverage. Asthma or ADD may be problematic, to say nothing of diabetes or HIV/AIDS. If coverage is not offered through one's work and particularly if there has been a gap in coverage of a few months or more, it can be nearly impossible to find affordable coverage.

3. Portability Related to the above is the problem of portability. Having to relocate means finding new medical insurance, forcing a confrontation over pre-existing conditions or other issues that make medical coverage hard to find.

4. Market Failures Of course, there are many issues related to market failures. The many actors in the field of medicine are trying to make a profit, not heal the world. So medicines are made that are expected to turn a profit for the pharmaceutical company that develops it (Viagra, Claritin) rather than affordable, life-saving AIDS or malaria drugs for developing countries. Private hospitals specialize in expensive, (often elective) procedures, relegating the less profitable procedures to the public hospitals. When private hospitals are held up as a model of efficiency and profitability, we must keep in mind that they are not always serving the needs of everyone.

If private insurance, hospitals and other programs can fix these problems, that's great. But I am not wedded to the so-called "efficiency" of private enterprise, when it comes to medical and health issues. These companies are good at maximizing the bottom line, yes, but not at maximizing the health of their patrons. That is not what they are meant to do. And while government options are notoriously bureaucratic, our private insurance is already overrun with paperwork and hurdles that must be jumped in order to receive benefits. Could public health options be much worse? However, no matter what solution the politicians arrive at - public or private - if it fixes the problems currently plaguing our system and costing lives and income we will be better off.

Obama's Mideast Move

President Obama's speech to the Muslim world given from Cairo last Thursday struck all the right notes. By sympathizing with the Palestinians and calling for a settlement freeze, he suggests a more balanced approach than recent American administrations. But he also denounced anti-Semitism in the Mideast and sympathized with the plight of the Jews after the Holocaust. He underscored America's strong friendship with Israel and its permanence. So Obama plans to keep Israel but with some much needed "tough love" and truth telling.
The extremes on all sides were not satisfied with the speech, of course. And all are waiting to see if the nice words will be translated into action. All sides want peace, but on their own terms. With a right-wing Israeli government in power and the Palestinians severely divided, achieving any progress on the peace front will be extremely difficult.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Internet Addicts of the World, Unite!

I have been without internet access for more than a week now. I need my fix. Now please.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Why am I not Surprised?

Word is that the swine flu "epidemic" was overrated. This does not surprise me at all. I have no problem with our public health authorities acting cautiously, even over-cautiously, when it comes to our health. But the media's hype of the "killer pandemic" was seriously making me sick to my stomach. I'm glad I can now turn to other unappetizing things on the daily news, like the economy.

Porkademic

Writing from my Blackberry... As I watch my son at soccer practice, I have a nagging feeling I should be in a panic about the latest disaster about to strike the earth: swine flu. Nearly every story on CNN or in the national papers is about the mysterious H1N1 virus. Is the sky falling? A giant asteroid about to strike the earth? What about global warming? The Somali pirate scourge? I've never seen so much fear of a largely non-lethal, statistically insignificant (in the US, anyway) flu virus.

Not that we shouldn't be cautious, of course. I think I'll go wash my hands.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Planned Irrelevance

I am irrelevant.

At least that’s what Joseph Nye says, who happens to be an influential Harvard University professor and Dean, and a former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration. According to Nye, political scientists are increasingly becoming more and more irrelevant to the policy-making world. In an opinion essay published in last week's Washington Post Nye opines that political science academics are too interested in jargon-filled mathematical models, new methodologies and theories that are unintelligible to most policy makers. To write articles on policy issues is not only unrewarded in most political science departments, but can also be the kiss of death to aspirations for career advancement. Few academics serve in policy making positions. Academics have only themselves to blame if their ideas have little impact on the policy world, Nye says.

Well, yes and no.

First, I’d like to suggest that there are in fact some ways that political scientists contribute to policy debates in ways other than publishing research on policy issues. First of all, we teach students policy relevant topics. We don’t just teach theory, we also teach policy, current events, and most importantly, critical thinking and writing skills that (we hope) transfer to the job market and citizenship at large. Political scientists are also frequently called upon to comment to the media, give talks to audiences large and small, host and participate in debates, usually on policy-related issues. We prognosticate, debate and try to guess the motivations of leaders’ moves on the chessboard. Much of what we do other than research is quite relevant to Washington.

Also, it is important to note, that not all research needs to be (or should be) directly policy relevant. The value of research should not be measured by purely instrumental means. That was the entire purpose of academia – to provide a place where academics can pursue the study of some things deemed without value by the free market economy – like the study of philosophy or literature – but that a civilized society believes should be pursued for its own intrinsic value.

In my opinion, comparative politics theory is just plain interesting, but the study of labor relations is not. Is one more important than the other? The “soaking and poking” involved in getting to know a foreign country intimately is enormously fun! It can also provide a lot of the background knowledge necessary to form some of the “expert” opinions about a country or region. Policy analysts actually need that sort of information.

However, on the whole, Nye is correct in his assessment. It is an uncomfortable position to be in to be told you and your line of work is “irrelevant.” Even worse, to largely agree. Even though most jargon-filled articles have some degree of relevance to the real world, that relevance is often tangential. The greatest measure of the worth of research, in most academics’ eyes, is its contribution to “theory building.” Admirable, yes, but overblown in importance by far.

And to fight against that tide is a losing battle. Particularly as junior faculty. One must follow the “dominant culture” for the most part, if one is to get tenure. Play the game, play well, and play nice. This means many things, but in research it means careful attention to theory more than policy relevance.

This problem has been discussed before (see Larry Diamond’s article here, and Robert Putnam’s APSA address here), but it seems that changing the dominant culture is like turning a gigantic oil tanker on a dime. Change must be initiated by a critical mass of the “powerful” in academia, a trend not likely to appear any time soon.

I’m not one of the powerful. The revolution will not start with me.