09 November 2013
Playing Your Advantage
If Megan McCardle means that the Democrats were foolish to take advantage of their victory in 2008 by adopting ObamaCare (“Obamacare Shouldn’t Have Been Managed Like a Campaign,” Bloomberg.com, November 5, 2013), my question is, What are Campaigns for? Universal healthcare has long been a goal of liberals, and their victory under the banner of Barack Obama was taken by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the golden opportunity finally to push it through.
What the Democrats failed to protect against, however, was the vulnerability of such an accomplishment to potential gaping holes, like over-dependence on a weak Internet website. The opposition was able take advantage of that when they came into sufficient power in a subsequent election. A possibly fatal error in judgment—hubris. Now President Obama is forced to apologize (not necessarily a bad thing) and hope that his administration can prove that universal healthcare is a good program even if it does not demonstrate mastery of the wonders of information technology.
Medical science has struggled with the use of information technology in matters as basic as record-keeping, diagnosis-sharing, and even drug-prescriptions. Tradition makes change difficult. What we can be sure of is that our society is wealthy enough to attend to the widespread health of our population. Arranging smooth access to it through the Internet will have to come later.
If Megan McCardle means that the Democrats were foolish to take advantage of their victory in 2008 by adopting ObamaCare (“Obamacare Shouldn’t Have Been Managed Like a Campaign,” Bloomberg.com, November 5, 2013), my question is, What are Campaigns for? Universal healthcare has long been a goal of liberals, and their victory under the banner of Barack Obama was taken by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the golden opportunity finally to push it through.
What the Democrats failed to protect against, however, was the vulnerability of such an accomplishment to potential gaping holes, like over-dependence on a weak Internet website. The opposition was able take advantage of that when they came into sufficient power in a subsequent election. A possibly fatal error in judgment—hubris. Now President Obama is forced to apologize (not necessarily a bad thing) and hope that his administration can prove that universal healthcare is a good program even if it does not demonstrate mastery of the wonders of information technology.
Medical science has struggled with the use of information technology in matters as basic as record-keeping, diagnosis-sharing, and even drug-prescriptions. Tradition makes change difficult. What we can be sure of is that our society is wealthy enough to attend to the widespread health of our population. Arranging smooth access to it through the Internet will have to come later.
25 October 2013
Obama Deals With Complicated Partners
Perhaps it’s foolhardy, but President Obama has leapt at chances to resolve long-standing problems when they have occurred in the course of doing business. Although the regime of Syria’s Bashar Al Assad used chemical weapons on civilians in the face of his “red line,” Obama jumped to accept collaboration with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin and invite the Syrians to destroy their chemicals arsenal as the price for avoiding a retaliatory American bombing.
Contrary to Daniel Henninger’s Opinion essay, “Obama’s Credibility is Melting,” in the October 24, 2013 WSJ, where he characterized Obama as joining with cynical and untrustworthy partners in Moscow and Damascus, the President views his number one job to be addressing long-term goals, even over humanitarian obligations like punishing murder with chemical weapons. Collaboration with the Russians and stability in the Middle East drive his strategy in Syria, not pleasing the Saudis.
Likewise, sanctions seem to have helped modulate the attitude of the Iranian government and bring that regime to the nuclear arms negotiating table. Keeping the pressure on at this point could only risk hardening the “tribal” behavior of the ruling mullahs, mirroring the desires of neighboring Arab monarchies identified by Karen Elliott House in the October 25, 2013 WSJ, “Behind the Saudi-U.S. Breakup.”
When it comes to the badly named Affordable Care Act, Obama’s advisers unfortunately were seduced into believing that a technical device like a website was all that was needed to escape decades of resistance to the imperative of universal health care. The designers of www.healthcare.gov were certainly not cynics; they made a mistake that only makes Obamacare harder to execute in the end.
Perhaps it’s foolhardy, but President Obama has leapt at chances to resolve long-standing problems when they have occurred in the course of doing business. Although the regime of Syria’s Bashar Al Assad used chemical weapons on civilians in the face of his “red line,” Obama jumped to accept collaboration with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin and invite the Syrians to destroy their chemicals arsenal as the price for avoiding a retaliatory American bombing.
Contrary to Daniel Henninger’s Opinion essay, “Obama’s Credibility is Melting,” in the October 24, 2013 WSJ, where he characterized Obama as joining with cynical and untrustworthy partners in Moscow and Damascus, the President views his number one job to be addressing long-term goals, even over humanitarian obligations like punishing murder with chemical weapons. Collaboration with the Russians and stability in the Middle East drive his strategy in Syria, not pleasing the Saudis.
Likewise, sanctions seem to have helped modulate the attitude of the Iranian government and bring that regime to the nuclear arms negotiating table. Keeping the pressure on at this point could only risk hardening the “tribal” behavior of the ruling mullahs, mirroring the desires of neighboring Arab monarchies identified by Karen Elliott House in the October 25, 2013 WSJ, “Behind the Saudi-U.S. Breakup.”
When it comes to the badly named Affordable Care Act, Obama’s advisers unfortunately were seduced into believing that a technical device like a website was all that was needed to escape decades of resistance to the imperative of universal health care. The designers of www.healthcare.gov were certainly not cynics; they made a mistake that only makes Obamacare harder to execute in the end.
17 October 2013
Climate Change and Sun Spots
Let’s not get confused about what the issue is with global warming. No one looks at the evidence, not economists, not scientists (aren’t economists scientists?), not “deniers,” no one refuses to acknowledge that average world temperatures have risen over the last few hundred years, if not tens of thousands of years. The issue is what we should be doing about it, not what the cause has been.
Whatever the cause--CO2, sun spots, unexplained cycles--the trend is longer term than our perspective for the future of our children or civilization. If we know that the production of carbon dioxide emissions at least contributes to global warming, then reducing its exacerbation of a trend that may inevitably change the world for the worse should be a goal of modern science, politics, personal and corporate behavior.
It may be just hubris, but we can’t have a more estimable aspiration than to leave to our descendants an improved, not deteriorated world. It’s not enough to make it possible for them to contend with future problems through education and wealth; we must also do our best to prevent those problems from arising to begin with. Now that we’ve detected that climate change is happening and that the consequences will be dire, we should not be looking for whom to blame. Our generation will deserve blame if we do not use the resources that our forbearers provided us with to improve the quality of life on our planet.
Let’s not get confused about what the issue is with global warming. No one looks at the evidence, not economists, not scientists (aren’t economists scientists?), not “deniers,” no one refuses to acknowledge that average world temperatures have risen over the last few hundred years, if not tens of thousands of years. The issue is what we should be doing about it, not what the cause has been.
Whatever the cause--CO2, sun spots, unexplained cycles--the trend is longer term than our perspective for the future of our children or civilization. If we know that the production of carbon dioxide emissions at least contributes to global warming, then reducing its exacerbation of a trend that may inevitably change the world for the worse should be a goal of modern science, politics, personal and corporate behavior.
It may be just hubris, but we can’t have a more estimable aspiration than to leave to our descendants an improved, not deteriorated world. It’s not enough to make it possible for them to contend with future problems through education and wealth; we must also do our best to prevent those problems from arising to begin with. Now that we’ve detected that climate change is happening and that the consequences will be dire, we should not be looking for whom to blame. Our generation will deserve blame if we do not use the resources that our forbearers provided us with to improve the quality of life on our planet.
06 October 2013
Is “Waffling” Always a Bad Thing?
When President Obama accepted the quick take-up by Russia and Syria of Secretary of State Kerry’s proffer that Syria’s relinquishing its chemical weapons stockpile would obviate America’s insistence on militarily punishing the Assad regime for using them in its civil war, it was indeed a change in policy. This might be characterized as “waffling,” as Vali Nasr did in his Opinion piece in the October 3, 2013 NYT, “America Mustn’t Be Naïve About Iran;” but the U.S. has bigger fish to fry than conforming with the Middle Eastern respect for intransigence as a sign of strength.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s pouncing on this opportunity suddenly to play an unusually collaborative role in resolving a humanitarian atrocity, presumably with the approval of Vladimir Putin, gave Obama an opportunity to recognize an end to years of Russian obstruction of international cooperation. Moreover, Bashar Assad showed admirable flexibility by readily going along with the Russians instead of continuing his vain covering charge that Syrian rebels had themselves dropped the poisonous gas bombs on their own supporters. He probably was thankful for a way to extricate himself from blame for the awful consequences of overreaching by his uncontrollable military.
There appears to have been waffling on all three sides of this potential diplomatic triumph. Sadly, it comes at the expense of 1400 lives lost in the tragedy.
When President Obama accepted the quick take-up by Russia and Syria of Secretary of State Kerry’s proffer that Syria’s relinquishing its chemical weapons stockpile would obviate America’s insistence on militarily punishing the Assad regime for using them in its civil war, it was indeed a change in policy. This might be characterized as “waffling,” as Vali Nasr did in his Opinion piece in the October 3, 2013 NYT, “America Mustn’t Be Naïve About Iran;” but the U.S. has bigger fish to fry than conforming with the Middle Eastern respect for intransigence as a sign of strength.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s pouncing on this opportunity suddenly to play an unusually collaborative role in resolving a humanitarian atrocity, presumably with the approval of Vladimir Putin, gave Obama an opportunity to recognize an end to years of Russian obstruction of international cooperation. Moreover, Bashar Assad showed admirable flexibility by readily going along with the Russians instead of continuing his vain covering charge that Syrian rebels had themselves dropped the poisonous gas bombs on their own supporters. He probably was thankful for a way to extricate himself from blame for the awful consequences of overreaching by his uncontrollable military.
There appears to have been waffling on all three sides of this potential diplomatic triumph. Sadly, it comes at the expense of 1400 lives lost in the tragedy.
08 September 2013
Article 5 Threat
Can the members of the UN define any action by another member state as a threat to themselves that justifies its being expelled from the organization and/or deprived of its rights under the Charter under its Article 5? That is what the U.S. and France seem to be claiming in the matter of Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons to kill supporters of its civil war opponents.
Syria is one of five states that have not signed the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention and apparently its government believes it is not obligated to observe the Convention’s prohibitions. Although the overwhelming majority of countries have ratified the Convention, can any of them claim that, therefore, there is an international legal “norm” that authorizes them to enforce the Convention’s provisions even within states that are not members?
Perhaps an international coalition of states, whether acting organizationally as the UN, NATO or otherwise, could argue that it has the standing to do so. But if any of them draws a red line limiting the permitted actions of a nonconforming state and so set themselves up as the world’s policemen, they have misdirected the focus of their energies. They should instead seek to bring about a consensus of the largest organization of conforming states that enforcement action is needed and authorized by a coalition of the willing, even if by a few states acting on their behalf.
No state wisely draws unilateral red lines without conceding the charge that it has accepted the distrust of other countries when their own policies can be deemed a violation of the “policeman’s” self-regard. Israel has made that choice with regard to its Arab neighbors. It is not certain that Americans wish their government to make a similar choice when it comes to near criminal misbehavior by a miscreant regime that does not directly threaten harm to the security of the vast majority of them.
Can the members of the UN define any action by another member state as a threat to themselves that justifies its being expelled from the organization and/or deprived of its rights under the Charter under its Article 5? That is what the U.S. and France seem to be claiming in the matter of Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons to kill supporters of its civil war opponents.
Syria is one of five states that have not signed the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention and apparently its government believes it is not obligated to observe the Convention’s prohibitions. Although the overwhelming majority of countries have ratified the Convention, can any of them claim that, therefore, there is an international legal “norm” that authorizes them to enforce the Convention’s provisions even within states that are not members?
Perhaps an international coalition of states, whether acting organizationally as the UN, NATO or otherwise, could argue that it has the standing to do so. But if any of them draws a red line limiting the permitted actions of a nonconforming state and so set themselves up as the world’s policemen, they have misdirected the focus of their energies. They should instead seek to bring about a consensus of the largest organization of conforming states that enforcement action is needed and authorized by a coalition of the willing, even if by a few states acting on their behalf.
No state wisely draws unilateral red lines without conceding the charge that it has accepted the distrust of other countries when their own policies can be deemed a violation of the “policeman’s” self-regard. Israel has made that choice with regard to its Arab neighbors. It is not certain that Americans wish their government to make a similar choice when it comes to near criminal misbehavior by a miscreant regime that does not directly threaten harm to the security of the vast majority of them.
21 August 2013
Autoimmune Disease Should Not Be a Trap
What makes us think that autoimmunity is something new? Like “inattentional blindness’ contradicted by Dr. Michael T. Peterson to in the August 20, 2013 Wall Street Journal, just because we have recognized a condition and given it a name doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist before. In fact, the first autoimmune disease was identified in 1904, and the possibility that human genetic disorders made certain illnesses more likely to occur in persons who suffered from them was proposed over 200 years before that (cf. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:694-695, March 1, 2001).
Owing to the ever accelerating rate of medical progress, we Americans have come to believe that sickness and debility are not natural states of existence. The opposite is true. The body’s immune system is just one of its features that sooner or later go haywire. Meghan O’Rourke’s article in the August 26, 2013, New Yorker, “What’s Wrong With Me?,” comes to the reasonable conclusion that it’s best not to turn one’s life over to a chronic illness, like an autoimmune disease. The better path is to live with it, take whatever amelioration that modern medicine makes available, and be thankful that we have a life to live at all.
What makes us think that autoimmunity is something new? Like “inattentional blindness’ contradicted by Dr. Michael T. Peterson to in the August 20, 2013 Wall Street Journal, just because we have recognized a condition and given it a name doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist before. In fact, the first autoimmune disease was identified in 1904, and the possibility that human genetic disorders made certain illnesses more likely to occur in persons who suffered from them was proposed over 200 years before that (cf. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:694-695, March 1, 2001).
Owing to the ever accelerating rate of medical progress, we Americans have come to believe that sickness and debility are not natural states of existence. The opposite is true. The body’s immune system is just one of its features that sooner or later go haywire. Meghan O’Rourke’s article in the August 26, 2013, New Yorker, “What’s Wrong With Me?,” comes to the reasonable conclusion that it’s best not to turn one’s life over to a chronic illness, like an autoimmune disease. The better path is to live with it, take whatever amelioration that modern medicine makes available, and be thankful that we have a life to live at all.
17 August 2013
Democracy Can Be a Foil
Charles Krupchank’s Op –Ed in the 17 August 2013 NYT presents good reasons why many Middle East societies do not have the background for our version of democracy. However, democracy has often been little more than a disguise for a certain political order that is favored by the most powerful segments of society. Corporate funding is necessary to finance the careers of America’s elected officials just as the support of Islamic mullahs is needed to permit the majority of Iran’s voters to cast their ballots for their government’s leaders.
As long as the military remains the most powerful element of Egyptian society, and the U.S. is dependent on a stable friend in the Arab world, we must acquiesce in its crackdown on the insurgent Islamic movement there. The U.S. has more important goals in the region than spreading an incidental feature of democracy like free elections. These include access to its hydrocarbon resources and protection of Israel’s future.
Charles Krupchank’s Op –Ed in the 17 August 2013 NYT presents good reasons why many Middle East societies do not have the background for our version of democracy. However, democracy has often been little more than a disguise for a certain political order that is favored by the most powerful segments of society. Corporate funding is necessary to finance the careers of America’s elected officials just as the support of Islamic mullahs is needed to permit the majority of Iran’s voters to cast their ballots for their government’s leaders.
As long as the military remains the most powerful element of Egyptian society, and the U.S. is dependent on a stable friend in the Arab world, we must acquiesce in its crackdown on the insurgent Islamic movement there. The U.S. has more important goals in the region than spreading an incidental feature of democracy like free elections. These include access to its hydrocarbon resources and protection of Israel’s future.
