Category Archives: Ranting

Another Health Care Post

Posted on by
Reply

The current Health Care Debate answers one of the critical needs in this country: how to provide protection to everyone (or nearly everyone). But there is another need: how to contain costs and make health care more efficient. We’re hearing more about how to provide health care to some of the 47 million people in this country without health insurance, but very little about how to make the system more efficient. Let me tackle these two separate issues one at a time.

The figure of 47 million without insurance comes from the census department and is from 2008. That translates to 20% of the US population under 65. There is nearly universal coverage for the population over 65 because of Medicare. Most Americans get health insurance from their work, or the work of someone in their household. Unfortunately that excludes people who are under 65 and not working, people who own their own business, and people who are not eligible to receive health insurance from their employers. These people daily live with the awareness that an accident or serious illness can have catastrophic effects. It’s true that if you are uninsured and are injured, the emergency room of any hospital is required to treat you regardless of ability to pay, but that’s a long way away from being cured. According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) the hospital is required to treat a life threatening emergency until you are stable or can be transported somewhere else you can be treated. They are not required to treat a serious, but not life threatening, emergency and can “release” you once you are stable even if you life was in danger when you came in.

Now, whenever we liberals talk about expanding health coverage conservatives scream that government run health care would be a disaster. But the funny thing is that since 1966 we’ve had virtually universal, government run health care for those 65 or older. It’s called Medicare. I work with the elderly and to a person they like how Medicare is run. When you turn 65 you are eligible to enroll in Medicare, but not required. You are free to not enroll and find health insurance on your own. Funny that I don’t know anybody who has done that. It’s also funny that we have universal health care for the elderly (who vote in high numbers) but not children (who can’t vote).

But this misses my main point. We are not dealing with is the outrageous cost of health care and how poorly we ration it. Do not be fooled: we currently ration health care but we do it by coverage. If two 40 year old men are diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes (formally called “Adult Onset Diabetes”) and only one of them has health insurance, their lives will become dramatically different. The one with health insurance almost certainly has access to medication (either oral or injectable), counseling to change your lifestyle, and methods to monitor your blood sugar level. The one without has none of this. The one without health insurance is looking at a dramatically shorter lifespan with the added benefits of possible blindness and gangrene in your feet.

The hard, cold reality is this: no matter what we do, we won’t ever be able to have everything we want as we want it as soon as we want it. We as a nation have to decide who will not receive all they want. Currently we ration by ability to pay (either privately or through insurance). I don’t believe this is the best way.

The further hard, cold reality is that no matter what we do, the death rate is still the same: one per person. We are all going to die one day and all the health care in the world isn’t going to stop that. The purpose of health care is not to allow us to live forever, but to allow us to live a good quality of life for as long as is practical. That said, there really does come a point where additional health care dollars are not doing that. For example, if a 95 year old man with terminal prostate cancer wishes to have aggressive chemotherapy treatment it probably doesn’t make sense. The chemo is likely to be unsuccessful, and even if it does stop the cancer, he is likely to be much sicker from the chemo. Even if the chemo is successful and doesn’t lead to additional bad side effects, he is still a 95 year old man who will likely die of something else within the next few years.

Under the current system, if he (or his family) demands aggressive treatment he will likely get it. His primary doctor can refuse to allow the chemotherapy but most doctors will go along with the patient or family if they are insistent enough. Also, if his heart stops beating (for any reason) the local paramedics will try through CPR to get it going again. Essentially there is little in the current system that will tell him it’s time to go. These are resources that are not being used to help people who will. The chemotherapy the 95 year old man receives takes away from the ability to provide preventative medicine for children and the poor. Unfortunately at this time there is nobody who is able to say no to the 95 year old man.

This isn’t about death panels. It is about recognizing that limited health care resources need to be allocated where they will do the most good for the most people. My father in law is 90 years old and is in good health. Recently I overhead a conversation he was having with a few friends. He was explaining that if there was a procedure that he needed and a 30 year old man needed the same procedure, the younger man should get it even if the younger man cannot pay for it. His friends were astonished and basically said that the 90 year old is entitled to whatever he can afford, and if the younger man can’t afford it, well that’s life. Frankly, I hope when I’m 90 I’ll have the same insight as my father in law.

At some point this discussion has to be part of our health care debate.

The Health Care Debate is Making Me Sick

Posted on by
Reply

This is no surprise but when Barack Obama was elected President I was one of the people who was heartened. I believed (and still believe) that our country can once again be one that cares about all of its people, not just the ones with oil wells. His decision to tackle health care makes me feel that this may be the time we have real reform.

It’s cliché but true to say that our current health care system is broken. Most of us have health insurance and if we’re under 65 years old we get it from our employer (or the employer of the head of our household). Employer provided health insurance started as just another perk to attract good employees, but it’s become a huge problem. It’s a problem for a couple of reasons:

  • This is the easiest problem to understand, but if you lose your job, you lose your health insurance. At the time when you’re awash in worries about how to pay your bills, you now have to worry about getting sick or injured. It’s true that many people can take advantage of COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) but that means you need to pay the entire cost of the policy (where before your employer paid most of it) and it expires 1 1/2 years (18 months) after it starts.
  • If you work for someone who doesn’t offer health insurance, it can be difficult to get it. Your employer is not required to offer it, though most large employers do for full time employees. But if you’re part time, if you work for a small company, or if your boss is a cheap bastard, you’re out of luck. You need to find insurance on your own.

I’ll admit to this, but I don’t have much sympathy for the insurance companies. They have to negotiate with large companies for big volume, but if you’re looking for individual coverage you have no way to negotiate. Not only do you pay big bucks for limited coverage, they can drop you for just about anything. And they can do it retroactively (this is called “recision”). Don’t believe me? Ask Robin Beaton. She is a retired nurse who was diagnosed with breast cancer in June 2008 and needed a double mastectomy. Her insurer, Blue Cross approved the surgery, but days before the surgery they informed her that they weren’t going to pay for the surgery because she had a preexisting condition that she hadn’t disclosed. Turns out she had seen a dermatologist for acne and Blue Cross interpreted this as precancerous (teens all over the world may panic now). Since she “already had cancer” they weren’t going to pay for the mastectomy. Through the intervention of her congressman she was able to have the surgery 4 months later when the size of the tumor increased 2 to 3 centimeters. You can read more about this at Salon.com and CNN.

I knew when President Obama started talking about health care there would be some pushback from the Republicans but I can’t believe what I’m hearing. To quote Lily Tomlin, “No matter how cynical you get, it’s impossible to keep up.” Here are some highlights:

  • Sarah Palin: Seniors and the disabled “will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.”
  • The Club for Growth: The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the “socialized” system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000.
  • Rush Limbaugh (7 August 2009): It’s right out of Adolph Hitler’s playbook.

There’s more but this gives you a flavor. The reality is that President Obama, and many of us, simply wish to provide adequate health care to all Americans. We don’t wish to devalue or decrease the health care of people who already benefit, but expand it to those who don’t. In the 1960s these same forces opposed Medicare calling it “socialized medicine,” but today it would be hard to find someone on Medicare who thinks he’d be better off without it.

Stop believing the lies of those who want to nothing else but to scare you.

Caperton v. Massey: How Could Four Justices Side with Massey?

Posted on by
2

OK, I’ll confess a bias: When I was in high school I dreamed of being a lawyer. I liked the idea of argumentation and found that I think like a lawyer. I was cured of this desire when I joined the debate team at George Mason University. I learned that very little time is actually spent in argumentation: most time is spent in libraries going through endless articles and most argumentation is not finding the best argument but rather in burying your opponent in tons of words (with little regard to efficacy).

In any case I still enjoy following how courts rule on different issues and I confess to a dream of someday meeting NPR’s Nina Totenberg. A few days ago I was listening to NPR about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Caperton v. Massey. Here are the facts of the case:

  • In 1998 Hugh Caperton (President of Harman Coal Company) sued the Massey Energy in West Virginia, claiming they were using fraudulent business practices to run him out of business. In 2002 a jury in Boone County, West Virginia agreed and awarded Caperton the sum of $50 million.
  • Not surprisingly, Massey Energy appealed and the case began to wend its way up through the courts. During this time (in 2004) West Virginia Judge Warren McGraw was running for reelection as a judge in the West Virginia State Court of Appeals. Massey’s CEO was Don Blankenship and he began to campaign against Judge McGraw. I’ve been reading articles on this case and I can’t find any previous relationship between Don Blankenship and Judge Warren McGraw.
  • In any case, Don Blankenship began to back another candidate, Brent Benjamin, for the office. In fairness, Blankenship had given money to political campaigns before, but the sums were small. With Benjamin running for office, however, he donated $3 million
  • The campaign against McGraw turned ugly: a web page called …and for the sake of the kids accused McGraw of voting “to let a child-rapist out of prison, and court records show the plan called for the rapist to work at a local school.” Not surprisingly, Brent Benjamin wins the election and gains a seat on the West Virginia Court of Apppeals.
  • Drum roll everyone: the case of Caperton v. Massey came before the court. The lawyers for Hugh Caperton asked Judge Benjamin to recuse himself as his position was due in large part to the generosity of the defendant, Don Blankenship. He refuses.
  • Another drum roll: The court reversed the decision by a 3-2 vote with Judge Benjamin voting for the majority.
  • Final drum roll: Hugh Caperton continues to appeal, arguing that Judge Benjamin is biased and should have recused himself. Eventually it reaches the Supreme Court who agrees to accept the case.

Now it becomes news. The Supreme Court finds that there is always going to be a fuzzy line with elected judges, but wherever the line falls, this is way beyond it. In the 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled that Justice Benjamin should have recused himself: “Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when — without the consent of the other parties — a man chooses the judge in his own cause.” The opinion recognized that there may some fuzziness and there may need to be other rulings but this case was too far over the line.

The minority opinion used what I call the “Pandora’s Box” rational. Chief Justice John Roberts based his opinion on the fear of where this might go. Would Justice Benjamin have to recuse himself if the contributions were smaller? etc.

This clearly will begin an increase in litigation over judicial bias but I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. The election of judges opens the door to all sorts of questions and the fact that it can’t be settled in one case doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing.

Manny Ramirez: How I'll Spend My Summer Vacation

Posted on by
Reply

As many of you know, I am part of a mixed marriage: I root for the San Diego Padres while my wife Nancy is a lifelong fanatic for the Los Angeles Dodgers. The news this week for the Dodgers has not been good: their star player Manny Ramirez has been suspended for 50 games for using a banned substance. Manny released this announcement when the results were known:

Recently I saw a physician for a personal health issue. He gave me a medication, not a steroid, which he thought was OK to give me. Unfortunately, the medication was banned under our drug policy. Under the policy that mistake is now my responsibility. I have been advised not to say anything more for now. I do want to say one other thing; I’ve taken and passed about 15 drug tests over the past five seasons. I want to apologize to Mr. McCourt, Mrs. McCourt, Mr. Torre, my teammates, the Dodger organization, and to the Dodger fans. LA is a special place to me and I know everybody is disappointed. So am I. I’m sorry about this whole situation.

OK, now for some facts.

First, I’m not impressed with the fact that he passed about 15 drug tests; we expect the players to pass all their drug tests, not 15 out of 16. Many people in this country who don’t play baseball (myself included) work for companies that do drug testing and none of us could imagine defending ourselves by claiming that we’re usually clean.

Second, he tries to distance himself from this by claiming that he went to a physician for a “personal health issue.” I’m not sure what this issue is, but the team physicians on all teams tell players not to take anything they haven’t approved. They are the MD’s who know what is allowed and not allowed and even if Manny felt the need to seek medical treatment outside the team, he could at least have shown the medication to the team MD and asked if it was allowed.

Finally, this medication is not something you’d expect a healthy 36 year old man to take. It’s called human chorionic gonadotropin, or hCG. This is normally taken by women who are trying to conceive and it’s also used as an early pregnancy test. Manny is probably not trying to get pregnant but it’s also used to mask the use of artificial testosterone which was also found. You can read an excellent article on ESPN; it states that a test during spring training showed an elevated level of testosterone. Further tests showed the testosterone came from an artificial source, and there was other evidence of hCG use. This gave MLB the justification for the suspension.

The worst of this is that the Dodgers were doing so well. They are currently 21-9 and until just recently were undefeated at home. They are still a good team and I expect they will win the NL West this year but there’s no way around the fact that Manny has let down his teammates, his team, and the fans in Los Angeles. His bat will be silent for the next 50 games and this was because he made a poor choice.

I hope he spends the next 50 games looking for ways to pay back the fans of Los Angeles.

Baltimore: It's No Hawaii

Posted on by
1

It’s the beginning of May and that means it’s time for Nancy’s annual PAS meeting. Last year was in Hawaii and we knew it would be hard to beat. While Nancy goes to meetings, I get to explore the city and do some genealogy research. Or at least I could if it weren’t raining the whole time. We’re planning to leave today and it’s been raining nonstop since we arrived.

Baltimore may appear to be a strange place to do family tree research, but there is a connection. Some of my ancestors were Acadians who inhabited present day Nova Scotia (I was called “Acadia” then). In 1763 the British deported them. My ancestors went to New Brunswick, many went to New Orleans (where they became Cajuns) and a few went to Baltimore. One of these was my 2nd cousin, 6 times removed, Daniel LeBlanc (1729-1810) who died in Baltimore. The chance of finding his tombstone is essentially nil (the original cemetery was abandoned and the bodies moved with the stone. Stones at that point were marble and would not have survived 200 years and a move) but perhaps there were some descendants I could trace. Alas, the idea of taking a bus halfway across town and tramping around a cemetery in the pouring rain didn’t sound very appealing and I’ll have to wait until my next trip to Baltimore for this.

The good news department is that we leave today for Virginia. My nephew Nathan is graduating from Old Dominion University on May 9th and I’ll be able to be there for that. I just hope the weather breaks.

Want to Join Me in Starting the "Galileo Award?"

Posted on by
1

For a long time I’ve toyed with the idea of starting a web page that annually awards the dumbest teaching or ruling from the Catholic Church that year. The obvious reason for the name is the way the 17th Century Catholic Church treated Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).

Galileo (and Nicolas Copernicus before him) challenged the theory that the sun revolved around the earth. As a reward for his scientific work the Church denounced him, ordered him to recant, and held him under house arrest. The Church argued that he must be wrong because Psalm 93:1 states: “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.” Also, Psalm 104:5 says: “[God] didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken.” Finally, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states: “The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.” [Quotations are from the Revised Standard Version Bible]

Now, in fairness, there has been some progress since 1633. In 1943 Pope Pius XII wrote the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu which essentially stated that the Catholic Church is not fundamentalist in reading Scripture. And in 1992 Pope John Paul II announced that Galileo was correct; this is particularly inspiring as it came only 23 years after the moon landing.

And while the Church now acknowledges Galileo was right, and while I still find great joy and love in being Catholic, she continues to make occasional stupid and senseless rulings. Catholics of my generation remember well the 1968 encyclical On Human Life, better known as Humanae Vitae that created great pain for young married couples. Other notables are the 1992 document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (aka the Office of the Inquisition) that allows for discrimination against our gay brothers and sisters and Vatican’s support of those who demanded that Terry Shiavo be kept alive long after it was clear that it was time to say goodbye to her.

The event that finally moved to me throw this suggestion to the cyberworld is the latest publication from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on Reiki. For the unaware, Reiki is a spiritual practice that has been adopted for healing. Reiki practitioners use energy practices on people who are experiencing illness or pain, and we use this at San Diego Hospice where I work. I have to confess that I don’t fully understand how it works, but I also don’t understand acupuncture, aroma therapy, or a host of other alternative therapies. In any case, our bishops have decided that reiki is really about attacking faith and they have condemned it as being unscientific. Hard to imagine what Galileo is thinking about that. You can download the PDF on their ruling here.

In any case, this is my first nominee for 2009. I suggest the award be given on January 8th, the anniversary of Galileo’s death. This conforms to Catholic tradition where a saint’s day is determined by the date of his death, or in other words, his birth into Heaven.

Let me know what you think.

Shock and Outrage Reaches a New High

Posted on by
Reply

This is a story I read in my local paper, the San Diego Union Tribune, and still can’t believe it’s true. In Luzerne County, Pennsylvania two federal judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, have plead guilty to accepting money to send juveniles to a privately owned (for profit) juvenile detention center.

You can read the timeline here and you should. Basically they were paid by the operators of the facility to sentence juvenile offenders to long sentences, disproportionate to their offenses.

Perhaps the best synopsis is an editorial from the local newspaper, the Citizen’s Voice:

Luzerne County’s top judges have hurt, betrayed and shamed all of Luzerne County.
For the last six years, Michael T. Conahan and then Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. served as president judges, at the very top of the Luzerne County judiciary.
Instead of assuring the justice we expect when we appear in county court, the two men, through a variety of complex schemes, severely violated the public trust as they secretly raked in $2.6 million for themselves, according to federal prosecutors.
Federal officials say the two defrauded taxpayers, in part by arranging for county money to build a juvenile center from which they would secretly profit. They assured the center would have plenty of paying customers by tearing juveniles from their families and sending them to the facility, at times against the advice of probation officers.
The judges covered up their schemes, filing false documents and lying about their income to the state and to the Internal Revenue Service, federal officials say.
Conahan and Ciavarella entered a plea agreement Friday to two counts each of fraud and agreed to 87-month federal prison terms, disbarment and restitution.
County residents, although angered and disgusted with the news, were not all that surprised. The indictments Monday confirmed the very worst of their fears.
Rumors and speculation about corruption within the county courthouse have been circulating for more than a year, and many area residents say these charges of fraud, even against judges, are not so surprising for Luzerne County.
Still, Judge Chester Muroski, in comments Monday morning, offered hope for an immediate new beginning to the county’s judicial system.
The remaining county judges will “do everything we need to restore pubic confidence in the court,” said Muroski. Fairness and justice without outside influences would be top priorities, he promised.
The courthouse probe will continue and federal officials ask the public for help with information that may aid their investigation.
We urge the remaining county judges and all who will take the bench in the future to remember Conahan’s and Ciavarella’s shameful examples.
Remember, too, they must earn the trust we so badly need from our judges.

The next question, of course, is how we do restitution to those children who were improperly incarcerated. I pray for their healing.

Happy Birthday Eve, Mr. Darwin

Posted on by
Reply

Tomorrow is the 200th birthdays of Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) and Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Tomorrow I’ll be writing about President Lincoln but today I want to remember Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin is best known for his book, The Origin of Species. He has become the flashpoint in a debate between evolution and creationism. Before the 19th century most people believed that the creation of the world happened as it was described in the Bible. Charles Darwin and others began to observe through scientific experimentation that there was another story.

Therein lies the rub. People who use the Bible as the only source for the world’s creation trace our orign to October 23, 4004 BC. You can read more about it here. Darwin and others began to posit the theory that the world is much older and that species evolved. In other words, the first people were not Adam and Eve. We, instead, evolved from other creatures and other primates are (in a sense) our distant cousins.

Almost immediately after the publication of his book there were those who believed that Darwin wrote his book only to destroy Christianity. They felt that anything that talked about evolution would cause well meaning believers to renounce belief in God and that the world would become atheists (and would therefore be condemned to hell.)

On the other hand, many of us believed that there is not problem in believing in both evolution and God. We were heartened by Pope John Paul II who claimed that Genesis answers the “why” of creation and not the “how.” As a lifelong Catholic it never occurred to me as a child that evolution was wrong. I never saw the connection between science class and church. I always believed in both evolution and God.

It wasn’t until I became an adult that I discovered that there were people who though the world was only 6000 years old. When I first learned about creationism (or its first cousin “intelligent design”) I couldn’t believe intelligent people could believe in such a thing. I quickly recognized that, despite their claims, this wasn’t science.

The scientific method, developed in the 1700s, follows a strict course: you begin with observation, which leads to a hypothesis, followed by experimentation. If the experimentation confirms the hypothesis, it becomes (over a series of experiments) a theory. If it doesn’t, the hypothesis is discarded in favor of another hypothesis. Over time the theory becomes more and more significant and more and more accepted (like gravity).

Creationism isn’t science because it doesn’t follow this course. It begins with the conclusion that must be found. It then develops a hypothesis that picks and chooses observations that lead to the conclusion that must be found. Any experimentation that leads in another direction is discarded, and any experimentation (no matter how suspect) that leads in the right direction must be true.

In the final word, I think the Christian Churches picked a fight with Darwin that didn’t need to be fought. Faith doesn’t mean you have to disbelieve what science finds to be true and it doesn’t mean you have to stop using your brain. My belief in God includes the possibility that God created the world and watches over its evolution. I pray for the day when all Christians believe this.

Electric Cars: Is This a Lateral Shift to Another Fossil Fuel?

Posted on by
2

As everyone who reads this knows, I drive a Toyota Prius and my gas milage is in the low 40s MPG. I enjoy it (and especially enjoy the sticker that allows me to drive in the carpool lane even if I’m alone). But the drawback is that my gas mileage isn’t all that much better than the 35MPG I used to get in my 1997 Honda Civic. My Prius uses a battery that is recharged by use of the gas engine and isn’t running all that much.

In the last few weeks I’ve been hearing news out of Detroit that American car manufacturers are increasingly looking at cars that run on 100% electricity and plug in overnight. This would save us from lots of the oil we now convert to gas and burn and it would lower our dependence on OPEC. But it raises an obvious question for me: If, over time, we switch from gas powered cars to electric powered cars, where does the electricity come from? And if it’s coal, does switching from one finite fossil fuel to another really help?

I did some looking on the internet and found a page from the Department of Energy. It broke down all the energy consumption in the United States in 2006 and from my calculation, we used 1,990,926 thousand Megawatt hours in coal compated to 4,064,702 thousand Megawatt hours total. If my 3rd grade math is corrrect (Mrs. Moore, are you checking this?) we get about 49% of our electricty from coal. The numbers in California are dramatically different; I found a group called One Block Off the Grid that shows in 2007 California got only 16.6% of its power from coal, but 45.2% from natural gas, another fossil fuel.

I find this a little disturbing for three reasons: First, I’m not sure that in the long run we gain much from switching to another fossil fuel. Granted we have more coal and natural gas under our own soil and this would free us up from OPEC. But the bottom line is that we’re still burning a finite fuel and it, too, will run out some day. Second, coal and natural gas are also greenhouse gases. According to naturalgas.org all three release CO2 with coal being the highest, oil in the middle, and natural gas being the least. You can find the numbers there. Finally, it’s clear that the American car industry needs to change things and change things fast to stay competitive and in business. When they start making the switch to electricity, will the current grid be able to accept all the increase in demand? We here in Southern California know well that there are times during the summer where increased use of air conditioners has led to rolling blackouts because the grid just couldn’t keep up with demand. Granted if we do start switching over to electric cars it will be a gradual thing, and the industry is saying simply “The grid will have to grow” but can it? Can we mine enough coal and natural gas to keep up with demand?

We hear all the time about areas around the world that have electricity for only a few hours a day, if at all. Most of us have never experienced that. We expect, and have come to expect, that whatever we plug in, no matter how power hungry and no matter what time of the day, will work. Those days may be changing.

T Minus 15 Days and Counting

Posted on by
Reply

Fifteen days from tonight I will be up most of the night watching the election results. It’s going to be a long few weeks.

I received my sample ballot in the mail last week. You can see I have 37 candidates for President listed. Of those picks, only 6 are listed in my ballot (5 actually because I did not list Alan Keyes who is running on the American Independent Party ticket). My ballot lists only Alan Keyes, Ralph Nader, Barack Obama, Bob Barr, John McCain, and Cynthia McKinney.

I’ve made no secret that I support Senator Obama and I hope he wins. Yesterday on Meet The Press General Colin Powell endorsed Senator Obama. The interview is worth a watch and the transcript is here. General Powell was as gracious as ever and respectful of both candidates but in the final word he articulated good reasons to vote for Senator Obama. Allow me to highlight some of these reasons:

  • The economy. Senator McCain doesn’t seem to have a grasp of the economic troubles we have been facing, famously saying that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. In fairness he is caught between what clearly needs to be done (use government resources to stimulate the economy) and what the Republican Party is demanding (do nothing: look how successful it was for Herbert Hoover).
  • The choice of Sarah Palin. Senator McCain announces again and again that he is a maverick and owes his vote to no one. Yet when he clearly wanted to choose Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate, he buckled under and chose someone he had only met a few times and is clearly unqualified (meaning no disrespect to the Alaska PTA but that does not qualify someone for national office). The fact that she passes the Republican litmus test on abortion and gay marriage only shows that Senator McCain is not his own man.
  • The negative tone. Everyone knows that politics is hardball and it’s not bad to see how someone responds to being roughed up. But John McCain (whose 2000 campaign was destroyed by Karl Rove’s tactics; there is an excellent explanation in this Boston Globe article) has allowed this to get out of hand. He is an honorable man but he has allowed his campaign to smear Senator Obama with issues that are just plain wrong (he will raise everyone’s taxes) to issues that are simply offensive (he is secretly a Muslim and has an agenda he is hiding from the American people).

My only complaint with General Powell is that he didn’t do this in 2004. He was instrumental in selling the Iraq War in 2003 and it is now clear that he was using intelligence that the Bush administration knew to be wrong. He was the one person who could have blown the whistle and turned the voters against President Bush. I’m sorry he didn’t

Of all the issues, I’m most troubled by the ongoing negative campaigning. I had hoped that Senator McCain would repudiate these tactics but he clearly hasn’t. I’m proud to support Senator Obama who criticizes Senator McCain’s positions but never questions his patriotism or loyalty. The Republican Party, however, continues to hint darkly that Senator Obama is “not one of us” and Senator McCain is unwilling or unable to stop it. If you google “Obama” and “Muslim” it shows 12,100,000 hits, and the sponsored link above the results is McCain for President. The offensiveness here is deep and amazing. It hints that 1) Senator Obama isn’t running to President to serve the country but to destroy it, and 2) The mere fact (sic) that he is Muslim is proof because “they” can’t possibly love the United States.

I call this the Nat Turner strategy. Nat Turner was a slave on a plantation in Virginia; in 1831 he led an insurrection of slaves who rose up and murdered 55 people, beginning with the family that owned him. This led to harsh laws meant to prevent slaves from ever being able to do this again. The name Nat Turner now stands for anyone who appears to be loyal but is really looking for an opportunity to destroy you. In the context of the Presidential campaign the racial undertones are unmistakeable. Only a Obama win will quiet these voices.