Paul Krugman's Article re American Legislative Exchange Council

Why haven’t we heard before of this extremism, and why hasn’t something been done about it?  The USA based American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) promotes a hard right agenda which is described by  Paul Krugman as “union-busting; undermining environmental protection; tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy; turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations; privatizing government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars; encouraging vigilante (in)justice; promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote; and promoting draconian immigration law“.  This sort of organization is so damaging to the roots of our society!  It is truly disconcerting to see the extent that ALEC is supported by large multinational corporations. You can read Paul Krugman's full editorial here.

Amazing Grace - a great movie!

Last evening I watched a great movie, Amazing Grace (2007) – available in DVD from Movie Village.  It is based on the true story of William Wilberforce, the British Member of Parliament, who led the battle to enact a statute to end the British slave trade, circa 1800.  The saga is one of perseverance set against a backdrop of a challenging personal health situation, and extreme political opposition. It took many years to get the job done but his tenacity is very inspiring.  Wonderful to see the triumph of human rights over economic interests!  I highly recommend watching this.  An intriguing side note is that part of Wilberforce’s inspiration came from his preacher, John Newton, a reformed slave ship captain, who wrote the hymn, Amazing Grace.  Interesting to consider too how this fits into the timeline of history of such events as the American Revolution, French Revolution and American Civil War.

Agora - a movie worth watching

I missed Agora when it passed through the theatres in Winnipeg this past year. I had wanted to see it because of a review I had seen at the time it was released (http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/movies/28agora.html). I did find it on Shaw Pay-Per-View. I would recommend your viewing it.



It is a story set in Alexandria in 400 A.D. of many struggles: between science and religion, slaves and owners, and men and subjected women. Come to think of it there was also an explanation where the struggle between men and subjugated women was the same as the struggle between slaves and owners. How sad. The story revolves around Hypatia (played well by Rachel Weisz) who embodies the emergence of strong women, a scientist (philosopher, mathematician and astronomer), a teacher, a forward thinker and also a pagan. But there is a great more to this plot which portrays the conflict between pagans, science, Christians, Jews, and the Roman Empire. Mixed into it will be the love for Hypatia by one of her slaves, and also by one of her students, who becomes the Roman Empire’s prefect in Alexandria.



The cinematography is wonderful. The characters, particularly Hypatia, are strong and well developed. The movie is full of mind catching analogies. Listen for a leader of the Christians inciting his followers to violence and shouting to them that “God is with you”. An analogy to extremist Muslim fundamentalism? There is an interesting shot of ants atop the wall surrounding the Library of Alexandria, and then shortly after an aerial view of the Christians, who have taken the Library, ransacking it. The destruction of the statues brought to mind the pulling down of statues in Iraq during the American invasion. At one point the violence between the Christians and the Jews leads to the Christians stoning a large number of Jews to death, and then the Christians cart them away and pile the bodies to be burned. One reviewer has pointed out that these mangled corpses vividly call to mind the bodies of the dead in photographs of Auschwitz.



All in all a good movie, with a strong analogy to our modern situation of extremists, whether religious, political, etc., who attempt to indoctrinate and control others, either with a view or a consequence of inciting violence. Times haven’t changed very much!

Luncheon Speaker - Doris Kearns Goodwin on "Team of Rivals"

Very interesting luncheon speaker at the conference today. She is Doris Kearns Goodwin, a historian and Pulitzer Prize winning author. I haven’t read any of her books, but she was speaking today on her book, Team of Rivals – the story of Abraham Lincoln.

She had spent 5 years I think it was pouring through letters and diaries to come up with a fascinating work, about an extraordinary man. She bemoaned the fact that in our age of electronic communications, such sources as she used will not be available. Is anyone keeping the electronic media of great people?

She told fascinating stories of Lincoln’s leadership, how he got the Republican (I guess that was before that party got a bad name!) nomination for president (he beat the clear favourite, who was so confident he spent the 9 months before the nomination travelling Europe, on the third ballot; how he brought his fiercest opponents into his cabinet, even listened to them, but once he decided they had to fall into line (e.g. when he decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation there would be no more debate on whether it would be issued, but he would hear them on timing and implementation matters); how notwithstanding being treated rudely by some of these opponents he took the high road (e.g. forgiving them or not stooping to the same level of politics) [wouldn’t that be refreshing in 21st century politics!]; if someone was not doing their job how he would create an imaginary line (of time) by which if they did not do it they would be fired (he did this with a general during the Civil War); and his great ability for story telling (which I think is a great way to mentor and instil values).

But alas the book is way too long (900 pages) to keep my attention – my jaws would get way too sore from sounding out all those words! So once again I passed up buying a book at this convention (the last one was by the physicist who spoke on string theory) and having the author sign it. But come to think of that length, my current read is Crytonomicon, which is about 1000 pages – but it’s math, not history. More on that though when I finish it.

Prodding Families into Divorce & Taking a Life Every 30 Minutes

Another great article in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof. It is a sobering story supporting why there should be health care reform in the U.S.A. Here are some points from it. Kristof points out that the critics of health care reform argue that it would undermine American family values, not least by convening the Palinist expressed death panels. I wish the negative argument would stick to logic rather than emotional fear mongering. Kristof tells the story of a married woman whose husband is diagnosed with dementia. Upon considering the financial toll of what is to come she is advised to divorce her husband. Unless she does so the expenses will whittle away their combined assets, and then her husband can go on Medicaid – but by then their children’s inheritance would be gone, as would her retirement savings. She would be left with a bleak retirement with neither her husband nor her savings. Also for 5 years after any divorce, under U.S.A. law her assets could be seized – precisely because the government knows that people sometimes divorce spouses to escape their medical bills. Then he sets out the statistics – 62% of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. This has increased nearly 50% in just 6 years. But get this – 78% of these people actually had health insurance, but the gaps and inadequacies left them unprotected. The lack of health insurance causes 18,000 unnecessary deaths a year. That’s one person slipping through the cracks and dying every half an hour. This article is very much worth your reading. It can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=kristof%20until%20medical%20bills%20do%20us%20part&st=cse

To recover from U.S.A. health reform malaise, take a dose of Canada Health Act

I am absolutely amazed that the American health care reform is bogged down in partisan politics. It doesn’t hurt for us Canadians to be reminded of the underpinnings of our system as we watch this inertia south of us. With respect to the U.S.A., it seems to me that in the 21st century it should be recognized by all that health care is a basic human value, just as we have come to recognize freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. It sounds like there is a lengthy and detailed bill before the legislators. Why not just agree on the principles – which should be fairly straight forward, pass that as law and then implement it, working out the details at that time.

I think that is what happened with health care in Canada. And contrary to what some Republicans and other related interest groups are saying and advertising, the Canadian health care system does work. Why does it work? Because it is based on five principles which sustain its operation, have stood the test of time, are not enshrined as values of the health care system, and mirror the values of Canadians:

First, the provincial and territorial health care plans must be publicly administered – on a non-profit basis by a public authority, which is accountable to the provincial or territorial government. Its records and accounts are publicly audited.

Second, the provincial and territorial health care plans must be comprehensive – i.e. they must cover all insured health services provided by hospitals and physicians.

Third, the provincial and territorial health care plans must be universal – i.e. all residents of a province or territory must be entitled to the insured health services provided by the provincial or territorial health care plan on uniform terms and conditions.

Fourth, the provincial and territorial health care plans must be portable – i.e. residents moving from one province or territory to another within Canada must continue to be covered for insured health services by the area they left during any waiting period (not to exceed three months) imposed by the new area of residence. After the waiting period the new area of residence assumes responsibility for health care coverage.

Fifth, the provincial and territorial health care plans must be accessible – i.e. all persons shall have reasonable access to insured hospital and medical services on uniform terms and conditions, without having to pay user charges or extra-billing and unimpeded by other means (e.g. discrimination on the basis of age, pre-existing conditions or financial circumstances). The provincial and territorial health care plans must provide reasonable compensation to physicians for all the insured health services they provide and provide payment to hospitals to cover the cost of insured health services. Reasonable access in terms of physical availability of medically necessary services means access to insured health services at the setting where the services are provided and as the services are available in that setting.

The Canadian health care system allows for reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services, on the basis of funding by government. It is a national program composed of thirteen provincial and territorial health plans, all of which share certain common features and basic standards of coverage. Based on the provinces and territories fulfilling the basic principles, they receive federal cash contributions to fund their health plans. The provinces and territories are responsible for the management and delivery of the health services.

It just seems so straight forward. People should be able to receive health care without having to worry about mortgaging their homes, or losing coverage when they change jobs or they develop certain medical conditions. I would hope that reason will prevail and the U.S.A. will be able to provide health care similar to what we enjoy in Canada.

More Illogic in USA Health Care Debate

Paul Krugman is a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. In 2008 he won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on global trade patterns. He wrote an op-ed column in the August 24, 2009 New York Times entitled "All the President's Zombies". You can read the full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The article is very interesting from a number of viewpoints. He soundly debunks the value of Reaganomics (the efficient market theory). I had referred to this in my blog "Greed, Lack of Regulation and Innovation Gone Amok". I think it is fairly well accepted given the financial times we have gone through that such approach by Reagan and Thatcher amongst others was ill conceived. Dr. Krugman goes on to compare this to fallacies in the negative side of the debate over the "public option" in USA health care. He argues that we should not consider the public option as it would be a horrible government intervention.

We've just gone through a financial time which has proved that some government intervention is not only useful, but required to curb the misdeeds of some. Would one consider that some health care providers in the USA could use a tune up through some reasonable government regulation? I think not. And it's a small step from there to the government offering a parallel system. For the free marketers - let the consumer decide which one they want to use. Dr. Krugman sets out many cogent arguments and then tries to tackle explaining why these zombie ideas of Reaganomics won't die. An article well worth the read.

OMG: Rice quoting Bush quoting Nixon

On July 19/09 I had written about Condoleezza Rice explaining what she had done with respect to waterboarding. It was reported that she said “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Maureen Dowd in writing the article said that this was almost quoting Nixon's logic. Well, I just watched that part of the Frost interview of Nixon dealing with Watergate, and there was no "almost" about it. Nixon said flat out " I'm saying that when the President does it, that means it's not illegal." The blatantness of this absurdity just astounds me! Nixon was bad enough, but haven't they learned anything over the last decades?

2012 Presidential Debate: Hilary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin

Another one of Maureen Dowd’s articles which I’ve cherished is the one last fall in which she scripted what a 2012 Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin would sound like. Dowd had some beautiful turns of phrase, such as declaring that “in ideological terms, the gun-toting hockey mom and the shot-swilling warrior Queen of the Sisterhood of the travelling Pantsuits are opposites.” If McCain had become President and Palin his VP, Dowd surmises that the effect on McCain would be such that he’d “confide in his pal Joe [Biden, I presume] that being a P.O.W. was nothing compared with being trapped in the White House with “that woman”.” The last teaser I’ll leave you with is Dowd’s statement that “It’s delicious imagining the Debate of the Century between Big Mama, as Bill’s male aides called Hillary, and “Hottie Granny”, as People magazine will doubtless dub Sarah.” It really is worth the read. The full article is entitled “Clash of the Titans”, was published in the September 7, 2008 issue of the NY Times, and can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/opinion/07dowd.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=dowd%20clinton%20palin%202012%20presidential%20debate&st=cse

Rice: When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.

Maureen Dowd is a columnist I like to read. In a column entitled "How Character Corrodes" published in the New York Times she reported that Condoleezza Rice plans to go back to being a professor of poli sci at Stanford. A student at a reception there recently told her that he had read that: (as published in the column)

Ms. Rice authorized waterboarding, and he asked her, “Is waterboarding torture?” She replied: “The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture. So that’s — and by the way, I didn’t authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency.” This was precisely Condi’s problem. She simply relayed. She never stood up against Cheney and Rummy for either what was morally right or what was smart in terms of our national security. The student pressed again about whether waterboarding was torture.“ By definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture,” Ms. Rice said, almost quoting Nixon’s logic: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

Wow! First of all I thought the issue of just being the messenger without applying any independent thought was conclusively settled in the Nuremburg trials. Secondly wasn’t the whole point of the Magna Carta to get away from the attitude that leaders can be imperial and omnipotent. I realize that the Magna Carta is part of British constitutional development but the basic principles still apply universally and have found their way into the U.S.A. Constitution. I guess Ms Rice missed the part about the President not being above the law. Maybe she’d say that’s not being above the law, but that the President is the law. Frightening! In another article in the paper there was an op ed piece on legalese. I can tell you I’ve never seen any legalese that could hold a candle to Ms Rice’s, and other politician’s, polispeak.

The full article can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/opinion/03dowd.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=How%20Character%20Corrodes%20dowd%20rice&st=cse