Not entitled to your own facts

Tip O’Neill, former representative from Massachusetts and Speaker of the House from 1977 to 1987, was a passionate liberal.  Yet he was famous for working across the aisle when possible.  He held that everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.  The examples of various politicians and pundits wanting their own facts are legion.

Several deniers of climate change have used the blizzards (a weather event) to validate their denials when the blizzards may actually be examples of a changing climate.  First, let’s distinguish between short term weather events and the longer term trends that define climate.  The past decade is the warmest on record.  That is fact.  And warmer air holds more moisture.  Also fact.  So it is plausible to argue, as many climate scientists do, that a warming planet will lead to more severe weather of many kinds — hurricanes, tornadoes, and yes, blizzards — as all of these result from more moisture in the air.

We can disagree on the extent to which the increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are natural or human caused or influenced.  We can disagree on whether we can make enough changes in the ways we use energy to moderate a natural cycle.  We can also disagree on the extent or rapidity of the anticipated negative effects of a warming planet — higher mean temperatures, melting glaciers, rising ocean levels, changes in atmospheric or oceanic chemistry.

But to assume that a single blizzard — or even several blizzards in a single season — proves that climate change doesn’t exist is folly.  It is demanding one’s own set of facts.

And over the weekend, former Veep Dick Cheney demanded his own set of facts about both the ways that we handle terrorism suspects and the Iraq War.  The arrest of the Christmas Day bomber and his successful interrogation must stick in the craw of those who support military commissions and “enhanced interrogation” techniques.  That we have gained actionable intelligence from the suspect is a different outcome than that gained by waterboarding.  And it’s instructive to note that the several hundred conviction and incarceration of terror suspects achieved by the Bush Administration in the civilian criminal court system outpace both the number of trials and convictions in military court.  And among the few convictions in military commission proceedings, several of those individuals are no longer incarcerated.  To hear it told by the GOP, the Obama Administration’s use of the very same practices towards terror suspects arrested in the US is somehow unAmerican.

I am so very tired of people who are willfully ignorant — and of those who take advantage of the willfully ignorant.

Read Full Post »

More uneasy thoughts about Afghanistan

A friend emailed me over the weekend asking, “Shouldn’t we just trust the president? We elected him.  Certainly he got the information from his military advisers to inform his Afghanistan policy.”  Of course.  But I wonder if he is relying too heavily on the advice of the military.  Hearing over the weekend that only 5% of the funding is focused on humanitarian efforts only added to my concern.  I don’t know if that’s a reliable number.  And I don’t know how it would be spent.  So I reserve judgment other than to say it concerns me.

The President, tacitly acknowledging the extent of corruption in the Karzai government, said that we will work with the village and provincial leadership.  Yet, I was struck by a comment by Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea and Stones into Schools) where he observed that while the real power in Afghanistan resides with the village elders, their input into the US decision-making process was filtered through our military leadership.  And that assumes that the elders’ input actually made it into the Situation Room discussions.

Further adding to my discomfort, we watched Thirteen Days in October, a gripping dramatic account of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962.  Whether through a deliberate intent or a series of coincidences, one couldn’t help but wonder the extent to which the Joint Chiefs and other senior military staff sought to increase the drum-beat towards war with the Soviet Union.  And, knowing that there were a series of leaks that identified opposing views during the Afghan surge discussions, I wondered if the military was once again pushing a military solution above all other possibilities.

The job of the military is to fight.  It’s what they’re trained to do, and those in the officer corps who do it well are rewarded through promotions.  That reality just may push them to favor war as a means of personal advancement.  This may not be a conscious bias, but it would be understandable.  We all want to do things that advance us in our chosen efforts. I realize that there are distinct advantages to having an all volunteer military.  And I understand that the senior officers have a broader set of experiences and education than in many past generations.   But not all the personnel in Afghanistan will be officers.  And I’ve seen the video clips and news reports and documentaries and read books in which the grunts haven’t demonstrated much in the way of cultural understanding and sensitivity, to say the least.

I truly wish that I didn’t have these reservations.  It would be ever so much easier simply to believe that President Obama is receiving the best and the widest range of information to inform his decision.  I trust that he is making sound decisions based on the information he has.  What I worry about is whether he has all the relevant available information.  And I worry about the enlisted personnel who will be interacting with the local Afghanis.

And then there was Tom Friedman, writing an op-ed piece and appearing on Fareed Zakaria’s Global Public Square.  Friedman makes the argument that we need nation building here at home as his reason for opposing the Afghan surge.  I was very critical of President Bush funding wars on the national credit card.  So I would have preferred an approach that recognized the importance of a nation sharing in the sacrifice needed to wage war.  Instead, for the past 9 years, the only ones asked to sacrifice have been our nation’s military families as they endure repeated deployments in addition to high rates of PTSD, traumatic brain injury and suicide.  But we Americans too often want something for nothing.  It is that thinking that is at the root of the anti-tax sentiment while our roads and bridges, our public schools, and our other public services deteriorate at an alarming rate.  Can we really have it all?

Read Full Post »

Is another surge the best answer?

I listened to President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan last night, and I remain unconvinced.  Yes, there were definitely some things that represent a positive change in policy — more Congressional oversight, no more “no-bid” contracts come to mind immediately, as does the reality of whether we can afford the financial drain an open-ended commitment implies.  But I remain unconvinced that sending in another 30,000 troops will contribute to any long-term solution, regardless of the length of the surge.

The President spoke of the situation in Afghanistan as vital to our national security interest.  To be sure, Al Qaeda still wants to harm us, and the Taliban once gave them safe haven.  Yet, Al Qaeda has moved from Afghanistan to Pakistan.  So, given that Pakistan possesses something like 65 nuclear weapons, isn’t that the logical focus of our efforts?  And given that Pakistan is officially an ally, how do we best work with them to ensure both the safety of their arsenal and their active commitment to root out Al Qaeda, Taliban and other extremist elements while preventing their relocation back across the border into Afghanistan?  That seems to be the military objective.

What confounds me is why we still seem to put so much emphasis on the military option, despite frequently asserting that the situation doesn’t have a military solution.   We are told that one of the two primary military goals is to train up the local security forces.  But when the desertion rate for the Afghan national police force approaches 1 in 4, one must wonder if training Afghans to take over their own security is a viable solution, despite the assertion that several thousand Afghans, plus another 5,000 or so NATO troops will be added to reach the 40,000 that were requested.

In the lead up to the speech, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted that our mission in Afghanistan is not nation-building.  For heaven’s sake, in my mind that is exactly our mission there!  That unfortunate country needs schools over and above almost everything else.  Every time we bomb a wedding party or rack up another set of civilian casualties, we create more reasons for people to turn to the Taliban.

A national literacy rate of only 10% is very telling.  Teaching Afghans to read and offering them an alternative to poppy cultivation would be powerful tools against the Taliban.  We need many more Greg Mortensons working in Afghanistan.  If you’re unfamiliar with Mr. Mortenson, I urge you to read “Three Cups of Tea.”  Then, in the spirit of the holidays, make as big a contribution as you can afford to his Central Asia Institute.  The money goes to build schools in rural villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Schools that are required to be open to girls as well as to boys.

Then, lobby Congress to use our aid money in the form of micro-loans.  The model there is Mohammad Yunus.  Mr. Yunus has discovered that small loans, often only a few hundred dollars each, allow people to begin small, local, culturally and technologically realistic businesses that will improve their standard of living.  In most cases, the repayment rate would be a US banker’s delight.

Literacy and self-empowered economic development are powerful tools against extremism.  Unfortunately, the history of USAID tends to be reflected too often in warehouses filled with American goods that benefit mostly the American expatriate community there.

I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt.  He’s truly stuck between a rock and a hard place.  I was hoping to hear an explanation of a wider strategy.  What I heard was a speech by a very reluctant warrior that focused on the military option.

Read Full Post »

Wow, that was a surprise…

Although I’m still taking pain meds, I feel like I’m reasonably lucid and beginning to heal.  My jaw dropped when I learned this morning of President Obama’s selection for a Nobel Peace Prize.   I agree with those who say that it wasn’t based on accomplishments, at least not yet, but I’m most curious to learn more about the rationale of the selection committee.  I’ve since learned that the committee is selected by the Norwegian Parliament and as such would be expected to represent a Norwegian view of foreign affairs — internationalist in outlook and generally predisposed to Obama’s stated goals in restoring the role of diplomacy.

Interestingly, it isn’t the first time that the award went to encourage a process that needs to proceed.  One example of that would be the award to Desmond Tutu in 1984 as Tutu engaged in the struggle to overturn apartheid in South Africa.  Similarly, Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho shared the award as the process to end the Viet Nam war wore on.

Some may say that the award is more of an expression of relief that George W. Bush is no longer the US president.  Others complain that Ronald Reagan should have won the prize during his lifetime.  There have been many deserving people who haven’t been so honored.  What is clear is that it puts even more pressure on the president to work toward his goals in furthering a more peaceful and nuclear-free world.  It’s also very apparent that the world wants the United States to step up and reclaim a true leadership position.  But their vision is that we would lead, not impose our views and vision on everyone else.  That, in turn, puts pressure on each and every one of us regular Americans to work together to achieve a measure of civility at home in order to further the efforts to achieve peace in some of the world’s hot spots.

America stands to gain should the president’s efforts bear fruit.  That means that we all benefit — the whole world benefits.

Read Full Post »

Pot, meet kettle

It seems that Chris Wallace’s nose is out of join because President Obama has chosen not to appear on his Sunday show.  He’s calling the White House the biggest bunch of crybabies he’s ever seen in 30 years.  Hmmmm, do I detect a hint of projection here?  Seems it’s Wallace and Fox News who are doing the whining.

After spending months stirring up hate and discontent with all manner of lies and distortions about health care reform, Obama’s place of birth, and every other policy initiative or appointment coming from his administration, the president should grant them any favors?  Given that Roger Ailes, former RNC Chair, is the head of Fox news, I wouldn’t expect them to be a gung-ho administration supporter.  But there is a difference between honest discussion and analysis of issues and propaganda bordering on incitement.  Would there be anything to be gained for the president to appear on  Wallace’s program?  I don’t know how many voters who consider themselves independent watch Wallace’s Sunday show compared to the Sunday news programs on the broadcast networks.  Since independents are the group that seems to be wavering, that is the group the President needs to reach.  Additionally, the disaffected conservative voters have already made their determination to oppose the president on each and every issue.  So why waste his time trying to appeal to them.  He uses reason, a faculty that seems to be nearly completely lacking amongst the most vocal of the critics.

Read Full Post »

NEWS FLASH: An openly gay justice?

Wow!  Is Sen. Jeff Sessions going way out on a limb with his fellow Republicans when he says that he wouldn’t necessarily oppose a gay, pro-choice Supreme Court justice.  Wonder how soon Rushbo will take him to task and force him to recant.  After all, Eric Cantor is now denying that the Republican rebranding effort is a listening tour, even though he, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and others stressed the need for listening to the American people at their pizza party over the weekend.

Someone commented on this blog that Sen. Specter missed the point when saying that the Supreme Court needed to be more representative.  This person stressed that the court, by definition, represents all Americans, regardless of what subset of the population they might be part of.

I got to thinking about that statement.  Yes, in theory it’s true.  But we humans, including Supreme Court justices frequently don’t act dispassionately.  We are conditioned by our experiences to view things in certain ways, even though we try hard to be impartial.  That is, at its core, what President Obama means when he says that beyond judicial temperament and wisdom, empathy is a valued quality on the court.

Would Brown v. Board of Education have been decided differently had members of the court not been willing to look beyond a literal definition of “equal” when it came to education?  We hear a lot about the so-called dangers of activist judges.  Yet, what is activism to some usually means that they are unhappy with a decision.  Conservatives talk about the importance of strict constructionists, but one must wonder how many of them actually own property  — one of the original requirements for voting, and the justification for denying suffrage to women so long as they could not own property.

And, if the Court is fully impartial, unaffected by personal experience or political ideology, one must wonder how conservative white males (the bulwark of the Republican Party) would react to a Court composed of nine gay, female, minority, non-Christian members, despite their impecable judicial qualifications…  Would they still subscribe to the notion that they are truly represented?

I’m far more concerned about Sen. Sessions’ past overtly racist statements — the ones that prevented his confirmation as a Federal Judge.   If he still harbors those thoughts and ideas, I’m not sure I want him on a committee that passes judgment on Supreme Court nominees even before they go to the full Senate.  But, given that the GOP is becoming increasingly white, increasingly male, increasingly southern, I suppose his views are fairly mainstream among at least some of his constituents.  So, back to my question about whether people, especially Republican males, would feel represented if the SCOTUS were composed of nine gay, minority, non-Christian women…

Read Full Post »

The Torture Memos — UPDATED

UPDATE: Remember Gen. Taguba?  His report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib (and that they resulted from more than just a few bad apples) led to him being forced out of the Army, much like happened to Gen. Shinseki.  Well, here’s an interesting article linking the common values of human rights advocates and the US military.  President Obama, are you listening?

Over the last few years, I’ve had repeated conversations with a family member on the subject of torture.  This person has even gone so far as to claim that “enhanced interrogation” techniques are a corollary to disciplining a child.

Repeatedly, I’ve countered with all the rational arguments, among them:

• that torture doesn’t provide useful information, certainly not more useful than traditional, i.e., legal, interrogation methods;
• that the United States has prosecuted and even executed people for torturing American military personnel;
• that using torture against detainees who had not had benefit of any judicial process most certainly assumes that innocents were among those tortured;
• that torturing detainees at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib, and at CIA black sites serves as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda; and
• that it puts our troops at increased risk of being tortured should they be captured.

But new information in the recently released memos and in interviews with interrogators who participated in these activities raises another argument — the emotional and psychological cost to the interrogators.  We know that the emotional trauma of combat situations causes post traumatic stress challenges for a significant number of our troops as well as military contractors.  Now we know that witnessing torture also causes emotional trauma.

Perhaps the most horrifying aspect of the entire torture program was the presence of  physicians and psychologists.  The core precept of the medical oath is to do no harm.  These medical personnel justify their actions by claiming that they were determining whether the detainee can medically undergo further brutalization without permanent damage.  We are learning from the Bradley memo that the CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed  over 180 times in a single month — that is 6 times a day!  And that they waterboarded Abu Zubaydah over 80 times in a single month.  And yet there were medical personnel who could claim that this treatment — this near-drowning — at these frequencies did no long-term physical or psychological harm?  These individuals should be stripped of their licenses and never permitted to practice again.

A particularly disturbing aspect of the support for so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by a segment of Americans is the percentage of those same people who espouse fundamentalist Christianity.  These are the same people who willingly paid money to watch what was in essence a snuff film, except that it was titled The Passion of the Christ.  In it, viewers watched the torture and execution of a young man — not for terrorist acts, but for preaching a gospel of love, forgiveness and peace.  I’m not a fundamentalist Christian, but when friends asked if I had seen the film, I told them that I saw no reason to voluntarily watch someone tortured.

Many of these same people are the fans of the Fox TV show “24.” When justifying torture, the “ticking bomb” scenario is often cited. Indeed, it is a key element in justifying harsh treatment of the suspected terrorists on that show. On the highly unlikely possibility that might be the case for any of the detainees, we have sacrificed our values and violated both US and international law.  Torture is a war crime, and dodging the definition doesn’t make it go away.

Whether this new argument will change any minds among those conservatives who have unswervingly supported the tactics is questionable.  These are the same people who were so quick to call for the impeachment of President Clinton for lying under oath about a personal lapse.  Yet when a president of their own party lied — about weapons of mass destruction, about torture — they cannot bring themselves to apply similar consequences.  They must be suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance.

I am beginning to suspect that they are finding it as difficult to accept that their President lied to them as my mother did during the Watergate era.   Those of us who came of age during Vietnam, during Watergate, who experienced the assassination of a president are perhaps more inclined to understand that the government does not always tell the truth.  Sometimes that lack of transparency is for national security purposes, but at other times it is to cover up their misdeeds.  And as a result, we are not shocked when it lies.

After World War II the Allied forces, led by the United States, held war crimes trials for German military and judicial personnel who had authorized or participated in war crimes.  We conducted similar trials for Japanese military personnel who had used “Chinese water torture” against American POWs.  In both instances, people were convicted and executed, and “I was just following orders” was not deemed to be a legitimate defense.

In the case of our own actions, we seem to be resisting even holding an investigation in order to identify not just the people involved, but to understand the thinking that led to recommending and using torture methods.  Why are we drawn to hold ourselves to a lower standard?  What good can possibly come from that?  Are we afraid of what we might learn about some of the people we entrusted to lead us?  Are we afraid of what we might learn about ourselves?

Read Full Post »

Another GOP canard

The other day we were treated to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) going all ballistic about how SecDef Robert Gates, and by extension President Obama, were “gutting” the military.  That piece of hyperbole is to be expected from the far right, who rarely let facts get in the way of their sound bytes.

Just in case you’ve been seduced by the GOP canard that Democrats “always” cut defense, let me share a few facts about Gates’ proposal.  First, and perhaps most important, it represents a $12 billion INCREASE in the defense budget.  Yes, some programs were cut — most noteably the F-22 and Airborne Laser (ABL), along with the grossly over budget presidential chopper fleet.  But even there the far right is mis-stating the facts.  The Gates proposal simply continues the Bush Administration’s decision not to purchase additional F-22.  And the ABL decision reflects the fact that the program represents new, unproven technology — and that the R&D effort needs to be completed before a fleet is purchased.

And the Gates proposal includes more money for the troops — for the kind of equipment they really need to fight our current wars, and for their care after they return from combat.  And it includes funding for additional troops, so that perhaps third, fourth and even fifth combat tours won’t be needed.  That’s the kind of support our troops need, and the kind that was lacking, particularly under Rumsfeld’s leadership of the Dept. of Defense.

If you’ll remember, during the campaign, Obama promised to look at each and every defense system individually and to make funding decisions based on reason not politics.  If you haven’t watched the documentary “Why We Fight,” I strongly recommend that you rent it.  The take-away point is that the defense contractors have made sure that for each program, they spread the work done by suppliers to as many states as possible to ensure continued political support.  The political howling with regard to Gates’ proposal has begun.  Sen. Lieberman made an impassioned plea for the ABL program, despite the fact that he’s recommending procuring a fleet of planes (and their expensive lasers) for a technology that hasn’t yet been proven effective.  Similarly, Rep. Buck McKeon praised the ability of the F-22 to survive missions that would only be flown against a foe with advanced fighter jets — i.e., a system that was designed to serve a Cold War purpose.  What McKeon fails to mention is that the ongoing F-22 test and modification program occurs in his district.  He also fails to mention that the Gates proposal includes additional F-35 joint-strike planes and represents a net gain to his district.

Sen. McCain was partially correct when he tried to put the President on the spot about the new presidential chopper fleet.  The program is vastly over-budget.  But that is only part of the story.  The program suffered from what in the industry is called “requirements creep.”   After the contract was awarded, the customer decided that additional equipment was needed on the craft.  The additional weight of the equipment meant design changes.  The revised design was a significantly larger vehicle.  The time and effort in revising the design, the additional size, and the additional testing all contributed to increased costs.

It will be both interesting and vitally important for We the People to educate ourselves on the state of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (as that was Eisenhower’s inital prefered term).

My conservative readers may choose to dismiss this as just more liberal thinking, but let me share a few additional facts about my own history.  I come from a family with extensive connections to the defense industry —  as civilians working directly for the military, as career military personnel, as veterans, and as civilians working to design and test military aerospace systems.  Thus, I have and continue to benefit directly from the defense industry.  My spouse has a long career in aerospace, in programs that were at one time or are still classified.  Yet, Gates’ proposal has wide support among that community.  One recently-retired colleague sent an email yesterday commenting that actually reading Gates’ proposal led to a far more positive opinion than simply listening to the talking heads.

Read Full Post »

When do we get the regulations?

Perhaps I’m just impatient.  Perhaps Treasury needs to staff up first.   But rather than trying to figure out “legal” ways to restrict salaries and bonuses for the folks in companies getting public bailout funds, I’d much rather see Congress work on re-regulating the system.  Sure, it doesn’t fuel populist anger like taxing bonuses does, but it would be far more important in the long run.

Start with repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley.  That was the charming piece of legislation that removed the “wall” between various kinds of financial institutions.  It allowed these entities to become to large to fail because they had tentacles into commercial banking, investment banking, hedge funds, and insurance.  And it allowed legal space for companies to push the risk of loans far and wide while raking in the (temporary) profits.  Thus the rise of credit default swaps, securitized mortgage loans, and all those instruments that are now so toxic.

President Obama is pushing to allow the government to seize not just banks but insurance companies (think AIG, or whatever they’re calling themselves these days), and investment banks (like Merrill Lynch, Lehman, Morgan Stanley and the others who’ve gone belly up in the melt-down).

I just caught a bit of Sec. Geithner’s testimony before Barney Franks’ committee, and he made a statement that bears repeating again and again.  The topic was the monies AIG paid to its counterparties — the investment and foreign banks that had purchased the credit default swaps AIG was selling.  The take away comment was that Treasury lacked the authority, even as the majority owner of AIG, to demand that the counterparties be made less than whole. The counterparties purchased CDSs as a hedge against mortgage backed securities — insurance in case these sliced-and-diced mortgages turned out to be worth far less than anticipated.

There is a direct line between Geithner’s statement, the need to repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the President’s proposal.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley dismantled the regulatory wall that stood between commercial banks (the entities who traditionally have written mortgages), the investment banks (the entities who created the mortgage backed securities), and the insurance companies who created the credit default swaps.  That wall had been erected as part of the regulatory framework created after the Great Depression to prevent another one.

A new or revised regulatory framework could mean that these hybrid companies would have to decide what they really want to be.  They would have to create separate companies for each part rather than simply combining them into one uber-institution, now deemed to big to fail because failure would create systemic risk.  There is danger in being too big to fail, and perhaps the best solution is to make sure that no business can get to that point.

As another part of the Depression Era regulatory framework, the FDIC was created to allow the government to seize a failing bank, pay depositors out of an insurance pool, and sell off the bank’s assets (its loans).  A similar framework that would facilitate the orderly resolution of a failed investment bank or insurance company does not exist.  That’s the direction the Obama Administration is heading — to create some sort of entity or entities that would serve the same function as the FDIC but for investment banks, hedge funds and insurance companies. FDIC has proven to be a successful model for making sure that depositors are protected and that assets can be sold off.  Clearly part of the current difficulty lies in the question of how to unwind the legacy assets so they can be sold off and removed from the institutions’ balance sheets.  In the process of a bank take-over, contracts with creditors and employees are subject to revision, thus preventing bonuses that serve to reward bad behavior.

AIG has rightfully been the target of a great deal of public anger in recent days.  But it’s important to understand just how AIG got itself into its financial mess, because its story is a powerful argument for repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley and establishing the kind of regulatory framework that will allow the financial system to return to long-term health.  The LA Times has an article today that is worth reading.  Unfortunately, its online edition doesn’t include some of the most interesting information — what went wrong.  So, here it is:

In 2007, AIG was one of the world’s largest companies with $1 trillion in assets, $110 billion in reserves, 74 million customers, and 116,000 employees.  Here are highlights of what happened.

• In 2001 it began selling credit default swaps — insurance protection against default on mostly mortgage-based securities.
• Those securities initially were given AAA ratings, which allowed AIG to expand this activity without putting up huge collateral or creating giant reserves.
• As homeowners began to default on mortgages in 2007, AIG began to incur heavy losses.
• Those losses led to reduction of AIG’s credit rating in September 2008, forcing it to post billions in collateral.
• With the credit crisis and the economy unraveling, AIG could not find financing or sell assets to cover its collateral.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the smaller community-based banks have generally fared well during the melt-down.  They chose not to participate in sub-prime lending practices, did their own underwriting, and kept the loans in house.  By assuming the risk themselves, rather than spreading it out among investors and then purchasing credit default swaps to hedge their bets, they were careful to lend only to credit-worthy borrowers.  In hind sight, it’s fairly easy to see how the house of cards was built — and why it collapsed.

Instead of responding to and fueling popular anger, it’s time for Congress to lower the temperature, do their homework, and work with the Administration to determine the best way to prevent another feeding frenzy wherein greed and the promise of a quick buck reign supreme.  Have we learned our lesson yet?  That remains to be seen.  Unfortunately, so long as the financial sector contributes so heavily to Congressional campaigns, we can expect that their influence in determining policy will remain strong.  We — the voters and taxpayers — must remain vigilant.

Read Full Post »

Science is cool again

Yesterday, President Obama announced that science is once again COOL!  He signed a memo declaring that science would guide decisions by his administration, not ideology.

And no sooner did he announce that than Eric Cantor came out blustering that taxpayer money would be wasted on unproven research.  One wonders whether Rep. Cantor is that ignorant, of if he is so cynical that he thinks the rest of us are.  Of course it’s unproven.  Research is, by definition unproven.  That’s why scientists do research — to discover new information and to prove their hypotheses.

By stating that science, not ideology, will guide decisions, President Obama has repudiated the previous administration’s penchant for using only those facts that support a pre-determined outcome.  Rather, as he expressed in the book Audacity of Hope, President Obama believes in assembling ALL the relevant facts, then overlaying one’s values atop the facts to determine the best policy application.  The key difference is in the relationship between facts, values, and policy outcome.

Nowhere is that difference more immediately apparent than in the new guidance on stem cell research.  Oh, the Republicans will trot out a few so-called “snowflake babies” — most probably impossibly adorable little blond-haired, blue-eyed girls — to garner our sympathy.  But, once again, let’s look at the facts behind the whole embryonic stem cell controversy.

The administration is not denying the potential for other sources of stem cells ultimately to carry the day.  It may well be that adult stem cells will prove the most effective source.  They have shown promise and are the source of such treatments as bone marrow transplants.  But we cannot know that for certain unless we investigate.  The previous administration pre-determined the outcome, choosing to ignore the importance of leaving open multiple paths to the desired end — that of finding treatment and cure for devastating injuries and diseases.  One can only wonder where we would be in that process had one avenue of research not been starved for dollars over the last eight years.

President Bush was clearly out of step with many in his own party, along with a majority in Congress and in the general public on this issue.  Congress tried to overturn the ban, only to have it vetoed.  But stem cell research was not the only area in which ideology trumped facts during the previous administration.  We know that government scientists, particularly those working in the areas of environmental protection and climate change were routinely required to report their conclusions in ways that supported policy rather than evidence.  Many of these scientists quit their jobs in disgust, but imagine the pressures on those who were trying to put kids through college at the time.  And the same twisting of truth occurred in the FDA.  How many food borne illnesses or drug safety issues might have been prevented if scientists were allowed to report their conclusions rather than shading them to conform to the ideology of political appointees?

Yes, science is cool again, and not a moment too soon.

Read Full Post »