Category: Politics

  • Open letter to the American people

    My Fellow Americans,

    In a very short time, you will be given the chance to exercise one of the greatest and gravest responsibilities for citizens of the world’s most successful democracy. On that day, you will be choosing between two candidates, both tireless public servants whose personal stories show our nation’s ability to nurture the success of people who have had diverse and remarkable personal journeys.

    As often happens during a heated campaign, there has been some divisive rhetoric and appeals to some of our baser natures. I wish to make it perfectly clear that at a time when our nation engages in its 44th peaceful transition of executive power, in a time of economic uncertainty and international instability, our nation cannot afford to appeal to our lowest common denominator. In a few months, one of us will sit in the Oval Office and be the chief executive of all Americans. If my journey to this seat of power requires me to appeal to our deepest fears, to mine our deepest prejudices, I do not want your vote.

    If you vote for me to show your hate of someone else, I do not want your vote.

    If you vote for me to show your hate of another group, another religion, another race, I do not want your vote.

    I want your vote because you think that my ideas are better. I want your vote because you agree with my vision for our nation. I want your vote because of your confidence in me to lead us through these difficult times.

    I want your vote if you are a Christian. I want your vote if you are a Jew. I want your vote if you are a Muslim. I want your vote if you are not religious. But I don’t want your vote if you are voting against a particular religion or culture.

    As the personal histories of both of us show, there are many ways to serve. You can organize your neighborhoods to reduce violence and poverty and home. You can defend your country as a member of the military. You can even, from humble beginnings, become a Senator and help make the laws that keep our country great.

    My fellow Americans, in a very few days you will engage in a very simple, yet vital act. You will elevate one of us to a position of great power and great responsibility. I encourage you all to look at our words, our deeds, and those of our surrogates. If you believe in what I stand for, vote for me. If you do not, vote for my opponent. But vote you must, as it is your sacred duty as an American. Do not vote for the man you fear least, but the one who can lead you best. I hope and believe that that man is me, but I respect your choice, as an American, to disagree.

    Sincerely,

    Your candidate

  • End Elitism Now!

    This isn’t just about politics—really. This has something to do with science.

    You see, one of the memes of this campaign is “elitism” (whatever that means). The appeal of Sarah Palin, we are told, is her “everyday-ness”—she’s just a regular gal, not like those elitist politicians in Washington (which presumably includes her running-mate).

    Sarah Palin is not a “regular gal”. She come from an earthy rural background, but she is clearly intelligent, politically astute, and competent, having ascended to the governorship of one of our states while at the same time raising a large family. This woman isn’t ordinary—she is extraordinary.

    Barak Obama also rose from small circumstances, a peripatetic mixed-race child who used his intelligence to become a scholar, and evenually senator.

    John McCain was just a pilot—not a political “insider”.

    You get the idea.

    But back up for a second. John McCain was a pilot…a fighter pilot…member of an elite force of strong, brave, intelligent (at the time) men. The best of the best. And that’s a good thing. When I think about the folks we have flying missions all over the world, I’m hoping they are the elite, the best of the best. Not just anyone can fly an F-18. And not just anyone can be president.

    If you’re planning on being one of the two or three most powerful people in the world, it’s not good enough that you’re “a regular gal”, even an extraordinary regular gal. You better be the best of the best, intelligent, competent, tireless.

    Professions require an elitism of sorts. You may want a doctor who understands you, but you don’t want one who is ordinary. You don’t want a jet pilot who is merely competent. And you don’t want a president who is just like everyone else. I want a president who was an elite pilot, an elite constitutional scholar, a long-standing senator. I don’t want an everyman or everywoman.

    Our president should be elite—not removed, not distant, but the best of the best. Three of the four candidates for president/vice president are elite enough. One is merely extraordinary.

  • A Vote for Science

    The ScienceBlogs Command Center has decided to fire up a group blog for election season. It’s called A Vote for Science, and several Sb’ers and others will be writing about the candidates and science policy (including yours truly).

    If your a political junkie and a science geek, cruise on over and check it out.

  • Another anniversary

    I fear for this anniversary. Like everyone else, my memories of 9/11 are vivid. It is a shared experience for Americans, but as time goes on, it is losing its shared meaning. Some of this meaning will, I’m sure, continue to be shunted into political ends, even more so with the election coming up.

    I have no interest in 9/11 “Troofers”, the conspiracy theorists who have all kinds of outlandish ideas about the attacks. I don’t need them—the real truth is more frightening.

    9/11 wasn’t Pearl Harbor. We didn’t wake up on the 12th to find ourselves at war, despite what the president may have said. When we entered a real war in ’41, we sacrificed. We gave up material goods, we stopped driving, we grew vegetables. I have a box full of ration coupons that my grandfather refused to use as he thought is would be even more patriotic to increase his sacrifice beyond what was asked. After the 11th, we weren’t asked to sacrifice—quite the opposite—we were told the best way to fight was to keep our way of life unchanged, to show the terrorists we cannot be cowed out of our cars by a few thousand murders.

    What we weren’t told was that even though we would not be asked to sacrifice, we would anyway. By becoming entangled in unwise military engagements, diplomatic fuck ups, and petrocracy, we’ve played right into the hands of those who attacked us.

    You see, with this so-called “asymmetry”, Islamic extremists can do very little to harm us physically. One mass murder can’t destroy our economy, our values, or our way of life.

    Unless we let it.

    And we did let it. What we sacrificed was our Constitution, our privacy rights, our economy, and our souls. We imprisoned people without due process, we tortured, we extraordinarily rendered, we wire-tapped. We didn’t fight terrorism by showing the example of our constitutional democracy, we gave in to terrorism by diminishing it. We fucked up.

    As the GOP runs a campaign on the need for strength, I hope both parties remember an important lesson from American history. Our peace hasn’t only come through our strength; our strength has come through peace—a peace that has allowed us to prosper, build, innovate. The prosperity engendered by peace has allowed us to retool for war when necessary, and to fight these wars with little damage to our home soil.

    Wars of choice don’t show the world our willingness to win, they show the world our willingness to be duped into playing by someone else’s rules. The rhetoric spouted by both candidates is ultimately meaningless. Either one will be faced with a world where American power and wealth has been diminished by reactionary decisions. Whomever takes the helm will have to find the strength to face the world based on our core values as a nation, and based on deliberate thought, and by action rather than re-action. We still have a chance to learn from 9/11. Let’s use this anniversary to start doing it right.

  • Mike Leavitt to patients: "F*** you"

    A number of us in the blogosphere have been outraged by Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services’ desire to put the arbitrary wants of doctors before the needs of patients. At first it was just a draft proposal, but now Mike Leavitt is pushing to implement the changes. Soon, it may be legally acceptable to deny you a needed health service because the health care provider thinks your decisions are immoral.

    I’ve already written several times about why there can be no “conscientious objectors” in health care. This law would essentially allow doctors to ignore the standard of care set by their professional organizations. Let’s hear a bit from Leavitt himself:
    (more…)

  • Privacy Cagematch—DHS vs. HHS

    OK, this post gets a big IANAL stamped across it. I don’t know the legal ins and outs here (and I’m not sure if anyone does), but the new announcement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding laptop computers puts physicians and other health care providers in a bit of a spot.

    HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) is the law that governs the privacy of your medical information. It is very, very detailed, and requires quite a bit from your doctor. You’ve signed a form at the office of every provider you’ve visited that notifies you of your privacy rights. I cannot discuss your care in a hospital elevator. I can’t send you an email regarding your health without making it very clear that any information in the email cannot be considered secure. I cannot disclose your health information to anyone else except under very specific and limited circumstances. HIPAA has radically changed the way we do things with health information (sometimes for the better, sometimes not).

    Moving on to Homeland Security—DHS agents may, for any reason or none at all, seize my laptop and demand any security or encryption codes. My laptop not infrequently contains information covered by HIPAA (known as PHI, or Protected Health Information). Because of that, my laptop is secured via HIPAA-compliant security measures. Under the new DHS guidelines, I can be required to hand over my laptop and help officers access the information without any suspicion of wrong-doing. We have a little problem here…
    (more…)

  • The Arrogance of Power—The Corrupt Mayor of Motown

    I usually don’t stray into strictly political issues, but today’s action by the Mayor of Detroit has me fuming. I’ve been avoiding blogging on this topic, but Kwame Kilpatrick always has a new criminal exploit fueled by his overwhelming arrogance. His latest idiocy will land him in jail for the night. Here’s the basic story.

    Kilpatrick is a bright and imposing young man (elected at 31) who had an unlimited political future. Detroit has a long history of producing brilliant African American political leaders, and Kilpatrick comes out of this tradition. His mother is Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick is chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and his father was also deeply involved in local politics. He is a law school graduate, a former college athlete, and a former state representative. His youth and charisma have allowed him to communicate to both young and old citizens of Detroit and his constituents have been reluctant to turn against him. The mayor is deeply involved in a scandal that has resulted in felony charges and left the already struggling city effectively leaderless. By all accounts Kilpatrick is a very smart guy; how did he get himself into this mess?
    (more…)

  • Theocracy in action—HHS proposes to limit birth control

    I’m so angry I can barely type coherently. I have very strong feelings about abortion, but I believe it is possible to respectfully disagree about the ethical issues involved. I have an obstetrics colleague who does not perform abortions, but refers patients needing this service to others. That’s the ethical way for a doctor to oppose abortion—don’t do it, don’t prosteletize, refer out. My personal feeling is a woman has the right to control her body and all that dwells within, but I can see why others would disagree.

    All that being said, if you chose a profession that will, by its very nature create an insoluble ethical conundrum, you need to get a new job. Pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control when given a lawfully written prescription should be fired immediately and consider a change in careers.

    The Religious Right is trying to protect these types of “acts of conscience.” Traditional passive resistance in the model of Thoreau and King emphasized the breaking of unjust laws and the acceptance of any punishment that goes with it. The religious right in this country is not content with this model—they would prefer to allow for acts of conscience without consequences. In this vein, the Church Amendment was passed. This amendment protects professionals who are trying to impose their values on others by mandating that health care providers who receive federal funds not require providers to provide services that to which they morally object. This has not been widely enforced apparently, because a draft is circulating at the Department of Health and Human Services that would step up enforcement, and broaden the services to which people could object, even protecting them if they refuse to refer to an alternate provider. This document terribly flawed for a number of reasons.
    (more…)

  • New OTA site

    The archived reports of the OTA are on a new site hosted by the Federation of American Scientists.

    You may remember that we’re big fans of the OTA as we feel that scientific assessment of government policy and guidance of legislation is key to having an efficacious, informed congress. In our initial post on the OTA we said:

    It used to be, for about 20 years (from 1974 to 1995), there was an office on the Hill, named the Office of Technology Assessment, which worked for the legislative branch and provided non-partisan scientific reports relevant to policy discussions. It was a critical office, one that through thorough and complete analysis of the scientific literature gave politicians common facts from which to decide policy debates. In 1994, with the new Republican congress, the office was eliminated for the sake of budget cuts, but the cost in terms of damage to the quality of scientific debate on policy has been incalculable. Chris Mooney described it as Congress engaging in “a stunning act of self-lobotomy” in his book the Republican War on Science (RWOS at Amazon).

    The fact of the matter is that our government is currently operating without any real scientific analysis of policy. Any member can introduce whatever set of facts they want, by employing some crank think tank to cherry-pick the scientific literature to suit any ideological agenda. This is truly should be a non-partisan issue. Everybody should want the government to be operating from one set of facts, ideally facts investigated by an independent body within the congress that is fiercely non-partisan, to set the bounds of legitimate debate. Everybody should want policy and policy debates to be based upon sound scientific ground. Everybody should want evidence-based government.

    One of the leading advocates of restoring the OTA, Rush Holt, has a video up explaining why he thinks the OTA is important:

    I’m glad to see that within the government there are those who still think this is an important issue, and the possibility of bringing science back within the halls of government is still a very real possibility.