As you know (if you know me), I am a high school teacher. This morning, I was standing next to a colleague's desk toward the end of one of her classes; students were milling about, getting ready to go to lunch. One student was standing next to her desk and I overheard him telling her how scared he was of the swine flu. "I'm going to buy one of those masks," I heard him saying.
Even though it was not my conversation, I couldn't help but interject that those masks do not block the swine flu virus and therefore do not prevent contamination or apparently serve any useful purpose, other than making people feel better (i.e., a placebo effect). The student sniffed, "Well, it'll make me feel better." I just raised my eyebrows, thinking, What an idiot. Placebos are only supposed to work if you don't know it's a placebo! Meanwhile, another student is adding, "I heard a baby in Texas died!" I had to point out that babies can also die of human flu virus, too. A baby somewhere is dying of something every hour. None of this is enough to make me panic and run around in a little blue surgical mask in a state where as of today, no cases have even been reported.
But this is the typical hysteria, and it really irritates me. It's the usual fearmongering. The media has some subject they want everyone to be scared of all the time. Crime, terrorism, epidemics; products from China, tainted dog food, salmonella outbreaks. Don't get me wrong. Obviously any disease that the CDC claims could have pandemic potential is a cause for concern and something to keep an eye on. But with 68 cases so far in the entire U.S., most of them concentrated in New York, and to date no deaths in the U.S. (until the baby died, assuming that is a confirmed swine flu casualty--I have not confirmed this myself yet), I personally feel no great sense of urgency here, and certainly no cause for panic.
The fearmongering would be almost laughable, if only it weren't so dangerous. It's the same old thing they use all the time, usually to achieve somebody's political ends. After all, the fear of terrorism propagated by the Bush administration, with the full cooperation of the media, led to wide public support for an unnecessary and unwarranted war and the usurpation of many civil liberties that came along with it. We're still paying the price for those terrible decisions years later. Mention al Qaeda and Iraq often enough in the same sentence, and eventually the sheep will flock to the idea of bombing that country. Shoot first, ask questions later.
As Michael Moore so astutely ascertains in his film Bowling for Columbine, it is the same fearmongering and "culture of fear" cultivated by the evening news that inspires middle-class Americans in low-crime suburbs to stock up on guns and ammo that are (I believe the statistic is) ten times more likely to kill or injure a friend or family member than to be used in self-defense. People see nothing but murders, drive-bys, robberies and kidnappings on the news, and thus get an exaggerated idea of how dangerous the community they live in is, and arm themselves to the teeth. Not only do their children find their guns and either accidentally hurt themselves or others with them, but in a few tragic circumstances they also take those guns to school and intentionally cause enormous harm. Even more frequently, burglars steal those guns and ammunition and sell them on the streets...and not to fine, upstanding, tax-paying citizens.
And now the fearmongering has begun once again. Everyone is running scared. Swine flu, swine flu, swine flu. Unsurprisingly, the fact that it seems to have originated in Mexico is serving as fodder for the xenophobic right-wing anti-immigrant movement, with talking heads decrying the illegal immigrants carrying the disease across our borders. They ignore the fact that the first U.S. case appears to have been a Catholic school student in New York returning from a vacation in Cancun. They ignore the fact that the epidemic seems to have originated at a pig farm in Mexico run by an American corporation. Why bring any of that up, when the fact that the disease sprang up in Mexico is the perfect vehicle for revving up the xenophobe machine? Close the borders! Send all those wetbacks back! We told you they'd be the death of us! First they take our jobs, now they give us diseases!
I, for one, refuse to give in to the fearmongering. I refuse to be scared of something until there is adequate reason to be. I'm not stupid; I'm not going to travel to that pig farm in Mexico and dance around in front of the sneezing swine. As it is, I try to wash my hands several times a day, especially when I'm at my school, to avoid catching common colds, stomach bugs and the like. And I try to remember to lock my car doors when I'm driving through neighborhoods known for frequent carjackings, robberies and other such crimes. But I'm not going to carry a gun. I don't need one, and if I ever had one in my face, I'm sure that criminal would know how to use it much better than I would. I refuse to fear terrorists. And I'm sure not about to start wearing a blue surgical mask today.
29 April 2009
28 April 2009
For whom the bell tolls...?
I want to keep it short and sweet tonight. The big news of the hour is that Arlen Specter has "crossed the line"--officially. He shed his Republican affiliation once and for all and is now a Democrat.
His reasons are political, of course, as they usually are. He was sure he was going to get beaten in the Pennsylvania Republican primary by conservative Pat Toomey, and independents apparently do not win general elections in Pennsylvania. And, despite the support of the President, he might still have a run for his money in the Democratic primary. Labor will not look kindly upon his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.
The implications, regardless of whether it is Specter or another player who wins the Democratic primary, are much broader than these individuals. The G.O.P. has just lost one of its only remaining moderates, at a time when the country is leaning further left than it has in decades. It does not even matter that his switch is largely for political reasons...those political reasons are very telling about the state of the Republican Party. The hardcore conservative base will flock to Toomey in the primary, but he would almost certainly lose the general election. Republicans continue to pander ever more to that extremist base--especially the religious right--and lose more and more moderates. In the latest poll only 21% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans. The more centrist Republicans that disappear from the ballots, the fewer Americans will identify themselves as such. It is the Incredible Shrinking Party.
The Democratic Party cannot and will not stay on top indefinitely. There will be a shift in public opinion, as there always is. But whether or not the Republicans as they are presenting themselves now can make themselves a viable competitor is a whole different ballgame. Prior to the 2008 election, I was getting increasingly fearful of the power of the religious right in politics--I don't plan on having an abortion any time soon, but I will certainly defend a woman's right to choose; I am not gay, but I absolutely support gay rights, including the right of any person to marry any other consenting adult they so wish; as a teacher in a public school and an atheist, I have no desire to impose my own beliefs (or lack thereof) on my students, but I also could not stomach the idea that any religious group should be able to. I was really starting to fear the direction of the country. The 2008 election shook all of that up, and finally gave me some hope and confidence that Americans were not really that crazy, ignorant and backward after all. Now, what becomes ever more apparent is that there is this minority, this fringe, that really and truly is crazier and more ignorant and backward than even I would believe possible--but, thankfully, they really are a minority, and they are basically out of power...at least for the time being.
The crumbling of the Republican Party is good news for those of us out here who want to see actual progress. I'm sure it will come back eventually--or a replacement--but let's hope that this experience in losing power teaches them, sooner or later, that when the country moves left, moving as far right as they possibly can is not the best policy.
For now, they don't seem to have gotten the memo.
His reasons are political, of course, as they usually are. He was sure he was going to get beaten in the Pennsylvania Republican primary by conservative Pat Toomey, and independents apparently do not win general elections in Pennsylvania. And, despite the support of the President, he might still have a run for his money in the Democratic primary. Labor will not look kindly upon his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.
The implications, regardless of whether it is Specter or another player who wins the Democratic primary, are much broader than these individuals. The G.O.P. has just lost one of its only remaining moderates, at a time when the country is leaning further left than it has in decades. It does not even matter that his switch is largely for political reasons...those political reasons are very telling about the state of the Republican Party. The hardcore conservative base will flock to Toomey in the primary, but he would almost certainly lose the general election. Republicans continue to pander ever more to that extremist base--especially the religious right--and lose more and more moderates. In the latest poll only 21% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans. The more centrist Republicans that disappear from the ballots, the fewer Americans will identify themselves as such. It is the Incredible Shrinking Party.
The Democratic Party cannot and will not stay on top indefinitely. There will be a shift in public opinion, as there always is. But whether or not the Republicans as they are presenting themselves now can make themselves a viable competitor is a whole different ballgame. Prior to the 2008 election, I was getting increasingly fearful of the power of the religious right in politics--I don't plan on having an abortion any time soon, but I will certainly defend a woman's right to choose; I am not gay, but I absolutely support gay rights, including the right of any person to marry any other consenting adult they so wish; as a teacher in a public school and an atheist, I have no desire to impose my own beliefs (or lack thereof) on my students, but I also could not stomach the idea that any religious group should be able to. I was really starting to fear the direction of the country. The 2008 election shook all of that up, and finally gave me some hope and confidence that Americans were not really that crazy, ignorant and backward after all. Now, what becomes ever more apparent is that there is this minority, this fringe, that really and truly is crazier and more ignorant and backward than even I would believe possible--but, thankfully, they really are a minority, and they are basically out of power...at least for the time being.
The crumbling of the Republican Party is good news for those of us out here who want to see actual progress. I'm sure it will come back eventually--or a replacement--but let's hope that this experience in losing power teaches them, sooner or later, that when the country moves left, moving as far right as they possibly can is not the best policy.
For now, they don't seem to have gotten the memo.
27 April 2009
Shame on all of us...but don't blame the unions.
Union-bashing has long been a national pastime, and the fervor and frenzy of the bashing has only accelerated with the current crisis in the American automobile industry. "It's all the union's fault," they scream from the right, the center and even from some on the left. "With all their demands for health care benefits, pensions and salary, they have bankrupted the auto industry." So, though we have to honor the insane bonuses promised to AIG executives in their sacred contracts, the auto industry should not have to honor the contracts with their workers...in fact, no industry, business or department need really honor union contracts. Those greedy, greedy union contracts, always seeking to bleed the executives dry for their greedy, lazy workers.
Yes. Damn the unions! What good do they do us? All they do is make us less competitive in the world, when we're talking about industry and business. Due to their crazy, unreasonable demands, industries are left with no choice but to outsource labor to third-world countries in order to keep a comfy profit margin that will allow the executives to keep their fleet of Lamborghinis and private jets.
At first glance, they might seem to have a point. It appears to be true that health care and pension costs are such a heavy burden on industries that, in order to stay profitable, they fare better by moving labor overseas. And let's be fair; not all of the countries they move labor to are third-world, either. Lots of American cars are made in Canada, for example.
But to concede at that point that the unions are to blame is to fall utterly short of following the argument through to its logical end. So let's follow it through. Let's just assume that the unions are effectively busted. The American people have had it with their greedy demands. Bye-bye unions. OK. Now, with no organization behind them to fight for their salaries, wages inevitably fall. Health care benefits, far too expensive for the industry to maintain, are scrapped. Vacation time? Pensions? Forget about it! Who needs it? None of that is guaranteed by any law; nobody's forcing businesses to provide those luxuries. So, out of their already decreased wages, workers now have to either foot their family's health insurance costs all by themselves, or else risk going bankrupt the first time any sort of emergency, accident or illness strikes. That certainly doesn't leave much left over to put in a retirement fund, so when they're too old to work, all they're left with is social security, which all of us acknowledge does not realistically cover the costs of living independently throughout one's retirement. That creates either an indigent elderly population (of people who worked hard their entire adult lives, mind you) or else a huge financial burden on their families, who have to make up the difference.
Is that type of life consistent with the idea of the "American dream"? The idea that if one works hard, one can achieve a comfortable life for one's family? That is exactly what would happen without the union. If you want a concrete example, just take a look at Wal-Mart. (I highly recommend the documentary film Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price: http://www.walmartmovie.com/.) Wal-Mart aggressively prevents the unionization of its workers. The result? As they drive smaller corporate stores and especially small local businesses under, they offer the lowest wages in the field with almost non-existent benefits for their workers, and even go so far as to encourage their employees to go on welfare. According to Wal-Mart's own reports, 46% of their associates' children are either on Medicaid or are uninsured. This costs taxpayers $456 million nationally each year. Communities also must foot the bill to construct roads and clear land for Wal-Mart centers--often conveniently placed in areas where they do not have to pay local taxes. Reports show that Wal-Mart has actually driven the take-home pay of retail workers down by $4.7 billion dollars annually! Why? Because they are not allowed to unionize. Employees suspected of trying to organize are routinely sniffed out, harassed and fired. Stores can show employees anti-union movies and make them attend anti-union meetings on the clock, but union supporters cannot distribute union materials during work hours. This is what happens when unions are not allowed to exist. Is anyone really so naive as to believe that businesses, particularly large corporations, would voluntarily pay comfortable living wages and offer benefits if there were no pressure on them to do so? Wal-Mart is a dramatic example, and it amply illustrates what would almost certainly happen in the auto industry were the auto workers' union to back down or disappear. Our workers deserve better than that. This country deserves better than that. The largest economic power in the world can afford to offer its workers a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. We have seen in recent years how executives' pay has skyrocketed even as lower-level workers' pay and benefits have steadily diminished. Reagan's "trickle-down economics" don't work. Or rather, correction: they work only for the rich. They work beautifully for those on top. For those closer to the bottom, waiting mouths open wide for the drops to trickle down...they just keep on waiting.
So the union is doing its job. It's fighting hard, against very tough odds, to protect American workers. Who is going to look a worker who has been working long hours every day in a factory for years and tell him he doesn't deserve the wages he takes home, that he doesn't deserve health care, that he doesn't deserve to retire without worrying about being able to eat?
Yet acknowledging that the union is just doing what the workers need it to do does not solve the problem that it has become, from business's perspective, too expensive to keep labor in the U.S. It doesn't solve the problem. In the corporate world, all must bow down to the almighty profit, and let's face it, it is obvious that health care costs in the U.S. are a huge drag on industry's profit. Why should they keep their manufacture here, when they can move it elsewhere and increase their profit margin? Corporations are not altruistic entities, after all, and while I do believe that we should create legal restrictions on businesses outsourcing to countries that do not respect human rights and workers' rights (e.g., China), I cannot say that businesses should not be allowed to manufacture in, say, Canada. So what gives?
Why would they want to outsource to Canada? I cannot imagine that Canadians work for significantly lower wages than Americans. Canada is not a starving third-world country where citizens will take any job they can get under any conditions for any pittance of a wage just to fill their children's bellies. Yet labor is cheaper to corporations in Canada than it is in the U.S. And Japan can offer high-quality cars at lower prices than American car corporations can--but not because the Japanese work at starvation rates (for the uninformed, Japan, unlike China, is a developed nation). A huge part of it comes back to health care, every time. Paying health care benefits to employees and their families is too expensive in the U.S. In Canada, Japan, and every other developed country out there (as in most developing countries as well, to the extent their resources permit), health care coverage is universal. The industry doesn't have to foot the bill, and therefore, even if wages are the same or maybe even higher, the overall cost to the industry is far lower, and therefore, outsourcing to those countries is more profitable.
The solution does not lie in smashing unions and turning our workers into their third-world counterparts (though, to be fair, with less health coverage). The solution does not lie anywhere within the union, or even within the auto industry. The solution is a political one, and the responsibility for it lies within each and every one of us. Public pressure amounts to political will. We as Americans have to quit listening to the garbage anti-socialized-medicine propaganda fed to us on a regular basis by conservative politicians and the insurance industry. As Michael Moore points out in his enlightening documentary film Sicko, we are plenty "socialized" in many fields--education, law enforcement, emergency management, to name a few that we see every day and which no reasonable citizen would claim we should do without, or have privatized. So why this obstinance to institute a system that would provide the same level playing field to all Americans that our education system, for example, is meant to provide? It's all thanks to the right-wing politicians and talking heads, who, naturally, are sticking up for the health care industry, which is making quite a meaty profit on our health. They want us to be scared, and it appears to work. I recently heard a person say, very seriously, "I don't have health insurance right now, but I'll tell you one thing--I sure don't want the government taking it over." Are people really that brainwashed, that they would rather risk bankruptcy because of an accident or illness or even pregnancy, than have universal coverage through the government? A high school student once told me about a minor accident he had while visiting Italy, and commented, "Socialized medicine at 4:00 AM is not much fun." I had to point out that an American emergency room at any time is not much fun either--but at least in Italy, he didn't end up with a bill for thousands upon thousands of dollars for his hours of waiting. Where does this idea come from, that "socialized medicine" (ooooh, scary!!) is the enemy, and a system where corporations make a profit off denying claims and where many people even with health insurance avoid going to a doctor when they should because their deductibles and co-pays are too costly? America has bought into the propaganda for too long, and people have died because of it; many more have gone bankrupt because of it. And for all the right-wing talking heads' warnings of us "turning into France," France happens to have the #1 health care system in the world. I happened to live in France for two years, and never once spoke to a French person who envied the American system. Quite the contrary: I was routinely asked how on earth a rich, developed country like the U.S. could deny basic medical coverage to its citizens? It was beyond their realm of comprehension. Even in more conservative nations like Great Britain, it is considered radical to wish to dismantle the national health system. It's an idea that only the very rich even entertain, and among them, pretty few. It is really not controversial at all in Europe; nor is it in any country that already has it, which is, like I said, every developed country, and many developing ones as well.
So now that people are finally starting to come around to the idea (having been pushed to it by the ever-skyrocketing cost of health care) that it might be nice not to have to worry about losing one's insurance if one loses one's job, they want to scare you with the cost. Too expensive, too expensive, they're going to raise your taxes, they're going to raise your taxes, OH MY GOD WE'RE GOING TO TURN INTO EUROPE!!!!! I could only dream we should be so lucky! With universal health care, the pool is enormous; risk is balanced out because there are so many young, healthy people insured who cost very little to insure. The industry is not seeking to make a profit, so costs are significantly decreased. The amount spent on the totally unnecessary Iraq war would have more than paid to start the system--yet nobody seemed to balk at that. Is securing oil fields really more vital than securing the health of our citizens? A lot of people would have you believe that. Taxes are higher in Europe, but not as much as they would have you believe, and the residents--all the residents--reap the benefits on a daily basis. They don't have to pay premiums or co-pays to go to the doctor. They don't have to worry about getting hit with thousands in hospital bills after getting sick, getting in an accident, or having a baby. Education is free--preschool to college. No selling one's future to student loans, graduating from college owing more than one can reasonably expect to make in the next two years of working. Public transporation is fast, easy, cheap and reliable. Salaried workers are guaranteed five weeks of paid vacation a year--they actually get to enjoy their lives a little bit. Their retirement is secure. America should be so lucky, to turn into Europe!
And in the immediate, it would help stop the constant migration of jobs to countries that do provide their residents with health care, as well as keeping American workers from having to sacrifice those essential benefits--or a living wage--in exchange for keeping their jobs.
I personally have health insurance, and pretty good health insurance at that. But I really do not like the idea that if I were to get laid off tomorrow, I would lose that coverage. I am young, healthy, not pregnant, not expecting anything major to happen anytime soon. But you never know. And my debts are already enormous; I do not need to add that to them. And I can't stand talking to my uninsured friends who refuse to go to the doctor when they are sick because they can't afford it. These are people who work, by the way, not people sitting at home on their asses. They work all day, pay their bills, but cannot afford health care on top of those bills.
Don't blame the unions for jobs disappearing or moving overseas. We don't need starvation-wage jobs, or jobs that offer no health insurance in a country where one hospital stay can throw a family into debt they cannot get out of. If you have to blame someone, blame American voters. Blame the health care industry and the politicians who try to scare you into voting against your own best interest in order to increase corporate profits, at your expense. This is not a union problem. This is a political problem. This is an American problem. And if we want our labor to be competitive among developed nations, if we want to keep well-paid jobs here, we really don't have a choice. We need universal health care, and we need it now. With unemployment growing exponentially by the day, the insured becoming instantly uninsured, small businesses crumbling under the burden of providing their employees with insurance, and corporations moving their operations abroad, we can't wait. We can't dilly-dally and pussyfoot around it anymore. The scare tactics have gone far enough. They want you to be afraid of a system that will do nothing but benefit you. They are against it because it will benefit you--and not corporate profits. Could Americans please, just once, stand up for what is not only fair, but for their own good??!! Why are we so afraid of becoming one of these countries where people
can actually afford to get sick, instead of being afraid of the country we already are??? What the hell are we so afraid of???!!!!!!!
I'm not sure...but it sure as hell shouldn't be the unions.
Yes. Damn the unions! What good do they do us? All they do is make us less competitive in the world, when we're talking about industry and business. Due to their crazy, unreasonable demands, industries are left with no choice but to outsource labor to third-world countries in order to keep a comfy profit margin that will allow the executives to keep their fleet of Lamborghinis and private jets.
At first glance, they might seem to have a point. It appears to be true that health care and pension costs are such a heavy burden on industries that, in order to stay profitable, they fare better by moving labor overseas. And let's be fair; not all of the countries they move labor to are third-world, either. Lots of American cars are made in Canada, for example.
But to concede at that point that the unions are to blame is to fall utterly short of following the argument through to its logical end. So let's follow it through. Let's just assume that the unions are effectively busted. The American people have had it with their greedy demands. Bye-bye unions. OK. Now, with no organization behind them to fight for their salaries, wages inevitably fall. Health care benefits, far too expensive for the industry to maintain, are scrapped. Vacation time? Pensions? Forget about it! Who needs it? None of that is guaranteed by any law; nobody's forcing businesses to provide those luxuries. So, out of their already decreased wages, workers now have to either foot their family's health insurance costs all by themselves, or else risk going bankrupt the first time any sort of emergency, accident or illness strikes. That certainly doesn't leave much left over to put in a retirement fund, so when they're too old to work, all they're left with is social security, which all of us acknowledge does not realistically cover the costs of living independently throughout one's retirement. That creates either an indigent elderly population (of people who worked hard their entire adult lives, mind you) or else a huge financial burden on their families, who have to make up the difference.
Is that type of life consistent with the idea of the "American dream"? The idea that if one works hard, one can achieve a comfortable life for one's family? That is exactly what would happen without the union. If you want a concrete example, just take a look at Wal-Mart. (I highly recommend the documentary film Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price: http://www.walmartmovie.com/.) Wal-Mart aggressively prevents the unionization of its workers. The result? As they drive smaller corporate stores and especially small local businesses under, they offer the lowest wages in the field with almost non-existent benefits for their workers, and even go so far as to encourage their employees to go on welfare. According to Wal-Mart's own reports, 46% of their associates' children are either on Medicaid or are uninsured. This costs taxpayers $456 million nationally each year. Communities also must foot the bill to construct roads and clear land for Wal-Mart centers--often conveniently placed in areas where they do not have to pay local taxes. Reports show that Wal-Mart has actually driven the take-home pay of retail workers down by $4.7 billion dollars annually! Why? Because they are not allowed to unionize. Employees suspected of trying to organize are routinely sniffed out, harassed and fired. Stores can show employees anti-union movies and make them attend anti-union meetings on the clock, but union supporters cannot distribute union materials during work hours. This is what happens when unions are not allowed to exist. Is anyone really so naive as to believe that businesses, particularly large corporations, would voluntarily pay comfortable living wages and offer benefits if there were no pressure on them to do so? Wal-Mart is a dramatic example, and it amply illustrates what would almost certainly happen in the auto industry were the auto workers' union to back down or disappear. Our workers deserve better than that. This country deserves better than that. The largest economic power in the world can afford to offer its workers a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. We have seen in recent years how executives' pay has skyrocketed even as lower-level workers' pay and benefits have steadily diminished. Reagan's "trickle-down economics" don't work. Or rather, correction: they work only for the rich. They work beautifully for those on top. For those closer to the bottom, waiting mouths open wide for the drops to trickle down...they just keep on waiting.
So the union is doing its job. It's fighting hard, against very tough odds, to protect American workers. Who is going to look a worker who has been working long hours every day in a factory for years and tell him he doesn't deserve the wages he takes home, that he doesn't deserve health care, that he doesn't deserve to retire without worrying about being able to eat?
Yet acknowledging that the union is just doing what the workers need it to do does not solve the problem that it has become, from business's perspective, too expensive to keep labor in the U.S. It doesn't solve the problem. In the corporate world, all must bow down to the almighty profit, and let's face it, it is obvious that health care costs in the U.S. are a huge drag on industry's profit. Why should they keep their manufacture here, when they can move it elsewhere and increase their profit margin? Corporations are not altruistic entities, after all, and while I do believe that we should create legal restrictions on businesses outsourcing to countries that do not respect human rights and workers' rights (e.g., China), I cannot say that businesses should not be allowed to manufacture in, say, Canada. So what gives?
Why would they want to outsource to Canada? I cannot imagine that Canadians work for significantly lower wages than Americans. Canada is not a starving third-world country where citizens will take any job they can get under any conditions for any pittance of a wage just to fill their children's bellies. Yet labor is cheaper to corporations in Canada than it is in the U.S. And Japan can offer high-quality cars at lower prices than American car corporations can--but not because the Japanese work at starvation rates (for the uninformed, Japan, unlike China, is a developed nation). A huge part of it comes back to health care, every time. Paying health care benefits to employees and their families is too expensive in the U.S. In Canada, Japan, and every other developed country out there (as in most developing countries as well, to the extent their resources permit), health care coverage is universal. The industry doesn't have to foot the bill, and therefore, even if wages are the same or maybe even higher, the overall cost to the industry is far lower, and therefore, outsourcing to those countries is more profitable.
The solution does not lie in smashing unions and turning our workers into their third-world counterparts (though, to be fair, with less health coverage). The solution does not lie anywhere within the union, or even within the auto industry. The solution is a political one, and the responsibility for it lies within each and every one of us. Public pressure amounts to political will. We as Americans have to quit listening to the garbage anti-socialized-medicine propaganda fed to us on a regular basis by conservative politicians and the insurance industry. As Michael Moore points out in his enlightening documentary film Sicko, we are plenty "socialized" in many fields--education, law enforcement, emergency management, to name a few that we see every day and which no reasonable citizen would claim we should do without, or have privatized. So why this obstinance to institute a system that would provide the same level playing field to all Americans that our education system, for example, is meant to provide? It's all thanks to the right-wing politicians and talking heads, who, naturally, are sticking up for the health care industry, which is making quite a meaty profit on our health. They want us to be scared, and it appears to work. I recently heard a person say, very seriously, "I don't have health insurance right now, but I'll tell you one thing--I sure don't want the government taking it over." Are people really that brainwashed, that they would rather risk bankruptcy because of an accident or illness or even pregnancy, than have universal coverage through the government? A high school student once told me about a minor accident he had while visiting Italy, and commented, "Socialized medicine at 4:00 AM is not much fun." I had to point out that an American emergency room at any time is not much fun either--but at least in Italy, he didn't end up with a bill for thousands upon thousands of dollars for his hours of waiting. Where does this idea come from, that "socialized medicine" (ooooh, scary!!) is the enemy, and a system where corporations make a profit off denying claims and where many people even with health insurance avoid going to a doctor when they should because their deductibles and co-pays are too costly? America has bought into the propaganda for too long, and people have died because of it; many more have gone bankrupt because of it. And for all the right-wing talking heads' warnings of us "turning into France," France happens to have the #1 health care system in the world. I happened to live in France for two years, and never once spoke to a French person who envied the American system. Quite the contrary: I was routinely asked how on earth a rich, developed country like the U.S. could deny basic medical coverage to its citizens? It was beyond their realm of comprehension. Even in more conservative nations like Great Britain, it is considered radical to wish to dismantle the national health system. It's an idea that only the very rich even entertain, and among them, pretty few. It is really not controversial at all in Europe; nor is it in any country that already has it, which is, like I said, every developed country, and many developing ones as well.
So now that people are finally starting to come around to the idea (having been pushed to it by the ever-skyrocketing cost of health care) that it might be nice not to have to worry about losing one's insurance if one loses one's job, they want to scare you with the cost. Too expensive, too expensive, they're going to raise your taxes, they're going to raise your taxes, OH MY GOD WE'RE GOING TO TURN INTO EUROPE!!!!! I could only dream we should be so lucky! With universal health care, the pool is enormous; risk is balanced out because there are so many young, healthy people insured who cost very little to insure. The industry is not seeking to make a profit, so costs are significantly decreased. The amount spent on the totally unnecessary Iraq war would have more than paid to start the system--yet nobody seemed to balk at that. Is securing oil fields really more vital than securing the health of our citizens? A lot of people would have you believe that. Taxes are higher in Europe, but not as much as they would have you believe, and the residents--all the residents--reap the benefits on a daily basis. They don't have to pay premiums or co-pays to go to the doctor. They don't have to worry about getting hit with thousands in hospital bills after getting sick, getting in an accident, or having a baby. Education is free--preschool to college. No selling one's future to student loans, graduating from college owing more than one can reasonably expect to make in the next two years of working. Public transporation is fast, easy, cheap and reliable. Salaried workers are guaranteed five weeks of paid vacation a year--they actually get to enjoy their lives a little bit. Their retirement is secure. America should be so lucky, to turn into Europe!
And in the immediate, it would help stop the constant migration of jobs to countries that do provide their residents with health care, as well as keeping American workers from having to sacrifice those essential benefits--or a living wage--in exchange for keeping their jobs.
I personally have health insurance, and pretty good health insurance at that. But I really do not like the idea that if I were to get laid off tomorrow, I would lose that coverage. I am young, healthy, not pregnant, not expecting anything major to happen anytime soon. But you never know. And my debts are already enormous; I do not need to add that to them. And I can't stand talking to my uninsured friends who refuse to go to the doctor when they are sick because they can't afford it. These are people who work, by the way, not people sitting at home on their asses. They work all day, pay their bills, but cannot afford health care on top of those bills.
Don't blame the unions for jobs disappearing or moving overseas. We don't need starvation-wage jobs, or jobs that offer no health insurance in a country where one hospital stay can throw a family into debt they cannot get out of. If you have to blame someone, blame American voters. Blame the health care industry and the politicians who try to scare you into voting against your own best interest in order to increase corporate profits, at your expense. This is not a union problem. This is a political problem. This is an American problem. And if we want our labor to be competitive among developed nations, if we want to keep well-paid jobs here, we really don't have a choice. We need universal health care, and we need it now. With unemployment growing exponentially by the day, the insured becoming instantly uninsured, small businesses crumbling under the burden of providing their employees with insurance, and corporations moving their operations abroad, we can't wait. We can't dilly-dally and pussyfoot around it anymore. The scare tactics have gone far enough. They want you to be afraid of a system that will do nothing but benefit you. They are against it because it will benefit you--and not corporate profits. Could Americans please, just once, stand up for what is not only fair, but for their own good??!! Why are we so afraid of becoming one of these countries where people
can actually afford to get sick, instead of being afraid of the country we already are??? What the hell are we so afraid of???!!!!!!!
I'm not sure...but it sure as hell shouldn't be the unions.
26 April 2009
Liberty and justice for all...well, with a few exceptions.
So...I have made the decision that I will try to write at least (approximately) one post a day, and will try to focus (unless otherwise inspired) on some issue or current event that is "big in the news" that day or week. (Seems rational enough, right?) This week's news and political shows have been heavy with talk of torture, what defines or constitutes torture, whether or not what our military and CIA were doing for several years there was torture, whether or not those "enhanced interrogation techniques" were actually legal or not, whether or not torture produces the desired results, who should or should not be held accountable for those practices (the people at the bottom of the food chain actually carrying out the orders, the higher-ups ordering them, or the people at the very top of the food chain requesting and creating bizarre legal opinions to justify them), etc., etc., etc. It seems only fitting that my first "opinion post" sh0uld pertain to that touchy (no pun intended) subject.
I have to admit that I was a little disturbed this morning, as I read the Miami Herald over my coffee and English muffin, to learn that a recent poll found that "about half of all Americans, and 52% of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against terrorism suspects." I probably should not be surprised, much less shocked and appalled. After all, this is a country where the death penalty not only still exists but is still used regularly and still enjoys the support of a popular majority; where a vast majority of those who proclaim so vociferously that they are "pro-life" are also pro-death penalty and pro-preemptive wars that kill and maim countless civilians, including women and children; where one's "right to life" (including access to health care, even emergency health care) is largely dependent upon one's ability to pay for it. Oh yes, Americans value life, all right, but only certain lives, and certain people simply are not deserving (we say) of human rights.
Have we really not yet moved past the medieval mindset of the angry, vengeful mob arriving at the town square with fistfuls of stones, ready to throw them at the convict as he is being drawn and quartered? Either you are for torture or you are against it. Either you are for human rights or you are against them. There can be no in-between, there can be no middle ground, no "well yes I am but in certain cases..."
Naturally there are many people standing far to my right who would read this (well, they probably won't read it, but let's just pretend for the sake of argument that they would) and cry out triumphantly, "Aha! You see? Another lefty terrorist apologist! They all think we should just turn our country over to terrorists and become an Islamic nation like Iran! They think we should bow down to the terrorists, surrender!" This is the typical rallying cry for those who are more interested in imperialism than in the concepts of liberty and justice this country was founded upon; who are more interested in making sure that America stays at the top of the global food chain than making sure it remains a role model to developing countries who have not yet fully adopted, or indeed adopted at all, human rights.
The Eighth Amendment was put into the Constitution for a reason. The reason is, precisely, cases like the one we see today. It is not, and must not be, a question of whether the people being tortured are guilty or innocent, nor of what. That is a separate matter, and should be dealt with in a court of law, following the American laws and judicial procedures. This is not me (or anyone else) saying that what they may or may not have done is "OK". We are supposed to be a country of principles. If we do not follow our own principles, how on earth can we expect other countries to follow them? This idea that, as the United States and as the leading world economic power, we are above international laws, treaties and conventions is absolutely preposterous...and extremely dangerous. In the short term, we are setting a very ugly and risky precedent, and providing easy and quite logical justification for countries that might capture and torture our citizens. "It's not torture when you do it; why is it torture if we do it?" What shall we argue to that? "No, no, because you are not Americans, and those people were terrorists!"? "Terrorist" is one of those loose terms we like to stick on any person or government we do not agree with or support; it has also been stuck on us, for our intrusive actions in other countries, especially the Middle East. We could argue all day on who is or is not a terrorist; at the end of the day, it still would not matter. Our founding fathers upheld, rightly, the idea that we would not torture under any circumstances. The Eighth Amendment does not say, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, except in the case of terrorists." When we grant certain political entities the discretion to decide who is or is not worthy of human rights, we do ourselves, our country, our principles and the entire world a grave disservice.
This is the only issue here. The issue is not whether or not torture works (it appears that most evidence shows that it does not work, often eliciting inaccurate confessions and destroying any chance of building the sort of rapport that could lead to useful intelligence). Even if it worked like a charm, it would still be morally wrong and ILLEGAL. There is a reason why confessions obtained by police from suspects under harsh conditions are thrown out. Should we hold our leaders and our judiciaries to a lesser standard?
This "ticking bomb" scenario keeps coming up--shouldn't we be able to do it if we know this prisoner knows something, he won't talk, and a huge attack is about to take place? It's ridiculous. First of all, these people are trained to be, and are psychologically prepared to be, suicide bombers. They are ready to die for this cause they believe in, regardless of what we personally think about their cause. If they are willing to crash an airplane into a building, or strap a bomb to their chest and walk into a public place, why would we believe that torturing them might get them to crack? When dealing with individuals who already have such a low opinion of what we represent that they are willing to blow up hundreds or thousands of civilians to prove their point, all torture would do is reinforce those ideas and strengthen their resolve. Furthermore, assuming that for some reason the torture could succeed in obtaining some kind of information, and that that information was not a blatant lie in an attempt to stop the torture, the intelligence would already be dated by the time it was obtained. Only current, up-to-the-minute intelligence from the field would really help stop an imminent terrorist attack. And still, even if we put all of this aside and made the gross leap of faith that it COULD get accurate intelligence that COULD help stop a terrorist attack, it is morally wrong, ILLEGAL, and sets a precedent for our country and an example for the rest of the world that we WILL live to regret.
Our leaders should know this. That the American public is divided on it attests more than anything else to the same vengeful nature that demands "an eye for an eye" (forgetting that in the New Testament Jesus tells them to "turn the other cheek," in other words, follow your principles of non-violence and serve as an example). Americans, more than any other country in the Western world with which I have experience or insight, like and want revenge. But the leaders of our country--the President, his cabinet, the Vice-President, the Attorney General, our Supreme Court justices, any other member of Congress involved--they are all legally trained. They know what the law is. They know that calling something by another name does not change its substance. They must be held accountable.
I commend Obama for releasing the torture memos. However, I will be bitterly disappointed--and worried for the future of our country and our world--if his administration does not pursue an effort to determine the whole truth about this affair and hold the perpetrators accountable. I keep hearing people fretting about what image of the U.S. this will present to the rest of the world. The truth of the matter is--and everyone should know this already--the rest of the world already knows what we have done. They knew it long before the exact details were released in the torture memos. None of this is brand new information. What they are waiting and watching for is to see what we are going to do about it. Are we going to sweep it under the rug and say, "Well, we don't do it anymore, so let's just forget about that whole ugly chapter of American history and move on"? Or are they going to say, "This was a travesty of justice, it goes contrary to American principles and the United States Constitution, and to prove that we refuse to condone torture we will hold accountable those responsible for it"?
And screw public opinion. Whether polls say Americans are for or against getting to the bottom of this and prosecuting where necessary--who cares? Do we use information gathered from polls to decide criminal court cases? No. We have a judge and a jury and they decide, based on the evidence presented, not whether or not they like the individual on trial, not whether or not a conviction will "blemish" their town, but whether or not a law has been broken, which one, and what the consequences should be. We love to say in this country that no one is above the law. It is now time for Obama, Attorney General Holder, the rest of the administration, the judicial system, and this country as a whole to prove it. If no one has broken any laws, then no one will be prosecuted. But if laws have been broken--and all evidence suggests they have--then in the interest of justice and upholding our example as a country that respects human rights and honors international laws, treaties and conventions, we have a duty to investigate and prosecute...regardless of what Americans say about it in ABC polls.
I have to admit that I was a little disturbed this morning, as I read the Miami Herald over my coffee and English muffin, to learn that a recent poll found that "about half of all Americans, and 52% of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against terrorism suspects." I probably should not be surprised, much less shocked and appalled. After all, this is a country where the death penalty not only still exists but is still used regularly and still enjoys the support of a popular majority; where a vast majority of those who proclaim so vociferously that they are "pro-life" are also pro-death penalty and pro-preemptive wars that kill and maim countless civilians, including women and children; where one's "right to life" (including access to health care, even emergency health care) is largely dependent upon one's ability to pay for it. Oh yes, Americans value life, all right, but only certain lives, and certain people simply are not deserving (we say) of human rights.
Have we really not yet moved past the medieval mindset of the angry, vengeful mob arriving at the town square with fistfuls of stones, ready to throw them at the convict as he is being drawn and quartered? Either you are for torture or you are against it. Either you are for human rights or you are against them. There can be no in-between, there can be no middle ground, no "well yes I am but in certain cases..."
Naturally there are many people standing far to my right who would read this (well, they probably won't read it, but let's just pretend for the sake of argument that they would) and cry out triumphantly, "Aha! You see? Another lefty terrorist apologist! They all think we should just turn our country over to terrorists and become an Islamic nation like Iran! They think we should bow down to the terrorists, surrender!" This is the typical rallying cry for those who are more interested in imperialism than in the concepts of liberty and justice this country was founded upon; who are more interested in making sure that America stays at the top of the global food chain than making sure it remains a role model to developing countries who have not yet fully adopted, or indeed adopted at all, human rights.
The Eighth Amendment was put into the Constitution for a reason. The reason is, precisely, cases like the one we see today. It is not, and must not be, a question of whether the people being tortured are guilty or innocent, nor of what. That is a separate matter, and should be dealt with in a court of law, following the American laws and judicial procedures. This is not me (or anyone else) saying that what they may or may not have done is "OK". We are supposed to be a country of principles. If we do not follow our own principles, how on earth can we expect other countries to follow them? This idea that, as the United States and as the leading world economic power, we are above international laws, treaties and conventions is absolutely preposterous...and extremely dangerous. In the short term, we are setting a very ugly and risky precedent, and providing easy and quite logical justification for countries that might capture and torture our citizens. "It's not torture when you do it; why is it torture if we do it?" What shall we argue to that? "No, no, because you are not Americans, and those people were terrorists!"? "Terrorist" is one of those loose terms we like to stick on any person or government we do not agree with or support; it has also been stuck on us, for our intrusive actions in other countries, especially the Middle East. We could argue all day on who is or is not a terrorist; at the end of the day, it still would not matter. Our founding fathers upheld, rightly, the idea that we would not torture under any circumstances. The Eighth Amendment does not say, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, except in the case of terrorists." When we grant certain political entities the discretion to decide who is or is not worthy of human rights, we do ourselves, our country, our principles and the entire world a grave disservice.
This is the only issue here. The issue is not whether or not torture works (it appears that most evidence shows that it does not work, often eliciting inaccurate confessions and destroying any chance of building the sort of rapport that could lead to useful intelligence). Even if it worked like a charm, it would still be morally wrong and ILLEGAL. There is a reason why confessions obtained by police from suspects under harsh conditions are thrown out. Should we hold our leaders and our judiciaries to a lesser standard?
This "ticking bomb" scenario keeps coming up--shouldn't we be able to do it if we know this prisoner knows something, he won't talk, and a huge attack is about to take place? It's ridiculous. First of all, these people are trained to be, and are psychologically prepared to be, suicide bombers. They are ready to die for this cause they believe in, regardless of what we personally think about their cause. If they are willing to crash an airplane into a building, or strap a bomb to their chest and walk into a public place, why would we believe that torturing them might get them to crack? When dealing with individuals who already have such a low opinion of what we represent that they are willing to blow up hundreds or thousands of civilians to prove their point, all torture would do is reinforce those ideas and strengthen their resolve. Furthermore, assuming that for some reason the torture could succeed in obtaining some kind of information, and that that information was not a blatant lie in an attempt to stop the torture, the intelligence would already be dated by the time it was obtained. Only current, up-to-the-minute intelligence from the field would really help stop an imminent terrorist attack. And still, even if we put all of this aside and made the gross leap of faith that it COULD get accurate intelligence that COULD help stop a terrorist attack, it is morally wrong, ILLEGAL, and sets a precedent for our country and an example for the rest of the world that we WILL live to regret.
Our leaders should know this. That the American public is divided on it attests more than anything else to the same vengeful nature that demands "an eye for an eye" (forgetting that in the New Testament Jesus tells them to "turn the other cheek," in other words, follow your principles of non-violence and serve as an example). Americans, more than any other country in the Western world with which I have experience or insight, like and want revenge. But the leaders of our country--the President, his cabinet, the Vice-President, the Attorney General, our Supreme Court justices, any other member of Congress involved--they are all legally trained. They know what the law is. They know that calling something by another name does not change its substance. They must be held accountable.
I commend Obama for releasing the torture memos. However, I will be bitterly disappointed--and worried for the future of our country and our world--if his administration does not pursue an effort to determine the whole truth about this affair and hold the perpetrators accountable. I keep hearing people fretting about what image of the U.S. this will present to the rest of the world. The truth of the matter is--and everyone should know this already--the rest of the world already knows what we have done. They knew it long before the exact details were released in the torture memos. None of this is brand new information. What they are waiting and watching for is to see what we are going to do about it. Are we going to sweep it under the rug and say, "Well, we don't do it anymore, so let's just forget about that whole ugly chapter of American history and move on"? Or are they going to say, "This was a travesty of justice, it goes contrary to American principles and the United States Constitution, and to prove that we refuse to condone torture we will hold accountable those responsible for it"?
And screw public opinion. Whether polls say Americans are for or against getting to the bottom of this and prosecuting where necessary--who cares? Do we use information gathered from polls to decide criminal court cases? No. We have a judge and a jury and they decide, based on the evidence presented, not whether or not they like the individual on trial, not whether or not a conviction will "blemish" their town, but whether or not a law has been broken, which one, and what the consequences should be. We love to say in this country that no one is above the law. It is now time for Obama, Attorney General Holder, the rest of the administration, the judicial system, and this country as a whole to prove it. If no one has broken any laws, then no one will be prosecuted. But if laws have been broken--and all evidence suggests they have--then in the interest of justice and upholding our example as a country that respects human rights and honors international laws, treaties and conventions, we have a duty to investigate and prosecute...regardless of what Americans say about it in ABC polls.
25 April 2009
Who why when where how...what??!
This is my first entrance into the "Blogosphere." I don't really know anything about how to do it, and I don't really know whether I will manage to maintain it sufficiently. I certainly don't know if anyone will read it--and if so, why. It's just a crazy idea I had last night, that I actually started last night, got distracted by a phone call, forgot about, went to bed, woke up this morning, saw the page still up on the computer where I'd started, and lo and behold, here I go. Before breakfast, even. And I'm hungry. And badly want my coffee. This is amazing for me.
So...the who? Call me Jennie. Why? I don't know. Ask me again later. When? Now, I guess. Where? Miami, or thereabouts. How? Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I don't know anything about blogging. What? I think I'll probably share a lot of political opinions (something I have no shortage of) and opinions of current events and issues, as well as personal and private observations, and maybe the occasional tidbit out of my own life. We'll see. We'll see if anyone even reads it! All remains to be seen...
So...the who? Call me Jennie. Why? I don't know. Ask me again later. When? Now, I guess. Where? Miami, or thereabouts. How? Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I don't know anything about blogging. What? I think I'll probably share a lot of political opinions (something I have no shortage of) and opinions of current events and issues, as well as personal and private observations, and maybe the occasional tidbit out of my own life. We'll see. We'll see if anyone even reads it! All remains to be seen...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
