So where do I start? The title of this piece might imply that this is a slam against religion or conservatism. But it is not.  Quite the opposite, really.

There is a lot to be proud of in America.  This country’s growth and prosperity are owed to 400 years of immigration.  That immigration is owed to a national value system – unique for its time – which advocates equality and religious freedom for all.  Not to mention the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This country did not implement those values overnight.  Actually, one might say that these values were fought and died for – by civilians of the society – just like national interests were fought and died for by our military.  The American Indian population was nearly exterminated.  Slavery was commonplace – and overcome only at great cost.  Our civil war killed one million brothers and sisters – of all races and religions.  Lynchings, witch trials, racism, organized crime and lawlessness are legacies of an era not yet over.

Only through a system of common law and a staunch idealistic attention to the constitution of our founders did this country make the progress that it has.  It was called progressivism and it played as big a role in our ascension as a culture as capitalism played in our ascension as an economic power.

Today…

The top news of the day – and the American public’s response to it – is troubling.   We are truly going backward and progress is being undone by special interests using media, fear and ignorance as tools to promote power at the expense of innocent men, women and children.   It has been done before – and very successfully I might add – throughout history, to take focus away from the real dangers to society.

I speak of course of such attacks on innocents as a mosque’s location, a newborn baby labeled illegal because of its parent’s ethnicity, or a person’s right to spend the rest of their life with whom they please – in equality with others.  It is the age-old tactic of focusing the fear and uncertainty of the masses on a symptom rather than the problem. Symptoms are much easier to address than root causes.  This is instinctive in those that lead through adversity and fear.  If your fear can be turned into action… they have the power to lead you in any direction they choose.

A small town in the northeastern U.S. announced they were having a ‘party’.  They are having a Quran [a.k.a. Koran] burning.  Roast some dogs, bring the kids.  Wholesome stuff.

Roots of Fear

Islam: The root of the problems in the Muslim world has little to do with faith, belief or the U.S.. Muslims have been killing each other through ignorance and cultural differences for 1000 years.  We were attacked only because we supported what some felt were the wrong Muslim factions, not because they wanted to conquer the U.S.. They haven’t a clue what the U.S. is about; or what our way of life means. There are only those with power and those without; with underling causes too complex for the average American to comprehend; so we simply hate everything Islam.

In many Muslim countries people still live in feudal tribes. Impoverished and ignorant, they are ripe for the picking – and the martyring.  The root cause of the extremist’s capability – as it always is – is the ability to control large populations with fears and distrust of other cultures.  Thus, modifying the root cause will be a long and arduous road.  Our hate will not win the day, only our resolve will prevail.

Immigration: Many parts of Mexico are little more than slums. Drug cartels are making their predecessors in Columbia look like school children.  Half the government employees, from cops to administrators are on the take.  Much of their economy relies on the U.S. for its sustainability.  Its laws and social protections are widely unenforced.  Areas of complete lawlessness are common.

Our attention to the social and political problems in Mexico – the root cause of immigration and migrant worker movement across the border – has been pitifully ineffective.  Walls, laws, jails and deportations will not fix the problem – only hand it off to our children – and theirs.

The Mexican people are, in a very true sense, more ‘American’ that the average white, black or Asian in this country.  Mexican Indians had settled in the American southwest hundreds of years before the first Europeans stepped off their ships.  Mexicans were there waiting for us when we ‘discovered’ Texas, California, Arizona,… et al

The only way to solve this immigration issue with Mexico – is in Mexico. Until that country has a rule of law, a system of social integrity and an economic makeover, we will be punishing the innocents that flee to America for all the right reasons.

And America has a huge part to play in the root cause of boarder insecurity as well. The demand for illicit drugs continues to rise as billions in the ‘war on drugs’ has proven ineffective. Until we decriminalize drug use in this country, the U.S. will continue to fuel the engine of worldwide drug related violence and crime.

Marriage:  There was a study done once (have not been able to find it in print) that polled what a first-time married couple knew about the laws and responsibilities around marriage.  They were asked about such things as survivorship laws, community property laws, social security law, tax law, and so on.  The first-timers scored a dismal 5% when it came to understanding the responsibilities and entitlements in a common marriage.  I found that very interesting.  The two parties to a marriage have only emotion and faith by which they are bound.  No state or federal entity requires that either party understand the legal or social effects of marriage.

This fact lies at the root cause of both a need for same-sex unions and the objections to it.

The same-sex culture knows only too well the discrimination in everything – from insurance to taxes, from property rights to survivor benefits – between heterosexual and homosexual unions.  On the other hand, the ignorance of the heterosexual culture to the social benefits and obligations of marriage causes them to miss the point entirely.  The heterosexual camp’s objections are based on, once again, fear and ignorance of the causes inherent in the movement.  Their fears that homosexual choice will influence their children or destroy our culture have been proven over the years to be the stuff of myth.  Yet they persist in seeing homosexual marriage a matter of morality rather than the matter of equality that it truly is.

There’s more…

As I write this I hear more about oil spills, energy policy, tax policy, gun control, financial reform, tea parties, political parties, hate parties… yada, yada.  Bloggers certainly have a target rich environment these days.  And like all the other sources on the internet, we are free to cloud cause and effect; symptom and problem.

Today’s ‘media’ is stretching the first amendment to its limits. They ‘report’ unfounded and unsearched opinion as fact; fabricate video, photo and empirical evidence; while using the worldwide internet as a dumping ground for all this disinformation.  Engrossed in popularity ratings rather than facts and astute research, we are in danger of losing that which we once were so proud – a free and reliable press. Trust once lost…

If you told me two years ago that I would find some of the most factual and unbiased news available on an Arabic website (Al Jazeera), I’d have laughed at such an incredulous idea. But no more.

It may be that one day the only place to find truth and fact will be on foreign news sites and the blogs.  That’s sad.

JB

References:

Carlstrom, G. (2010). Prayer hall or provocation?, Al Jazeera, retrieved August 14, 2010 from:  http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/08/201081461949162665.html

Dolan, M. (2010). Prop. 8 backers ask for permanent hold on same-sex marriage ruling, Los Angeles Times, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-appeal-20100814,0,7326322.story

Noonan, P. (2010). America Is at Risk of Boiling Over, Wall Street Journal, retrieved August 14, 2010 from:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411713335505250.html

Powell, S. (2010). Border security plan adds 1,000 agents, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7153147.html

Robinson, E. (2010). In the short term, immigration ruling is a gift for the GOP, The Washington Post, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072904903.html

Unknown (2010). First Amendment – Freedom of Speech, Freedom of The Press, Freedom of Religion, Further Readings, Jrank.org, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://law.jrank.org/pages/6909/First-Amendment.html

Unknown (n.d.). US Marriage laws, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/

Werner, E. (2010). Obama makes clear support for ground zero mosque, Associated Press, retrieved August 14, 2010 from: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYi7bqWuZd_crahzrd7UPoDxvyIAD9HJAU880

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/23/religious-leaders-speak-out-against-international-burn-a-quran-day-2/

When infidelity saves a marriage… When legalizing drugs drastically reduces drug use & violence… When same sex partnerships strengthen the social fabric… When free trade and open dialog turn a communist country into a partner in peace… When sanctions and embargos strengthen your enemy… When manufactured hate of a culture creates enemies that were once friends…

When time and time again conservative and short sighted solutions fail, why does a society continue to favor them? This is a question that I cannot answer. I am a logical thinker (or so I fancy myself) and I see what is obviously a failed policy or errant attitude in others, but they do not see it. Now, I think I have a clue. It took some soul searching as once I too was illogical and impulsive. I was in the Marine Corps.

Now, don’t get me wrong here. If ever there was a more honored tradition of service and fidelity to a country than the United States Marine Corps, I have never found it. And the saying “Once a Marine, always a Marine” is as applicable to me as any who have served. I am a proud USMC veteran and member of the Patriot Guard Riders (PGR) – a group of motorcyclists that honor the fallen heroes of America’s wars. No, I am not slamming the Marine Corps here, I am drawing an analogy.

One of the first things you are taught as a Marine is that each man or woman in the Corps is an integral part of the whole. No one is privileged when the fighting starts. And more to the point, each Marine is an essential part of the whole. The incompatible action of just one Marine can get a whole platoon killed. To instill these values into you, the Marines break down that ‘independent streak’ everyone comes to boot camp with. They shave your head, give you exactly the same clothing as everyone else. You sleep, eat and work exactly as everyone else. You are not an individual any more – you are a Marine. This may sound draconian to many, but it is necessary. By the time a well trained Marine enters their first battle, each will do exactly what they are told, exactly when they are told to do it. The unit is cohesive and reliable. This keeps many Marines alive when the’ shit hits the fan’.

Of course, coming back to the ‘world’ – being discharged back into polite society – requires a certain ‘adjustment’ that is not trivial, as you might imagine. Back in the real world you cannot rely on others. There is little in the way of fidelity to Corps and cause. The “Group Think” you have learned to be instinctive is no longer valid.

“Group Think” is instilled by immersion in a social clique. Marine boot camp is an extreme example of immersion into a culture. After boot camp and extended training, no Marine will ever leave another behind or fail to give his life for that of another Marine. That’s just the way is is. It’s instinct to think and act as one.

Another form of immersion is religious indoctrination. Another is political indoctrination.

Unlike the Marines, these immersion techniques take a lifetime to take hold. They almost always start with parents or parent figures (grandparents or teachers, for instance), then a natural instinct to stay within the religious or political domain matures as you age. If you do not break out of this cycle as an adolescent you will probably remain in or near it for the rest of your life.

Just as running up a hill advancing into the machine gun fire coming from an ambush seems counter intuitive to one without the training, it is an instinctive reaction to a Marine in battle. This counter-intuitive action will neutralize the threat with the least casualties in the fastest time.

Social Intuition

Intelligently balancing a free and open market with social programs that support our constitutional rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems logical to an independent thinker. It is, however, counter intuitive to those with an indoctrination against whoever proposes such solutions.

Indoctrination to a culture or ideal is a powerful thing. A Marine would never dream of abandoning another Marine. Cops never rat on other cops. Republicans never vote with the democrats. Christians never talk to Muslims… Staying together is an instinctive animal behavior meant to insure survival of genes and cultures.

Some Marines never adjust to civilized society after discharge. A few do, however, and their insights into “Group Think” serve them well. They often make the best business and social leaders.

Alas, there is no ‘discharge’ from religion or politics.

The only ‘can’t win’ scenarios we are taught as youngsters is that you should never argue religion or politics with friends – if you want them to remain friends. This simple warning should tell us something.

JB

More to read:
CATO. (2009). Drug Decriminalization in Portugal, POLICY FORUM, Friday, April 3, 2009; CATO Institute; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887

Cook, S. (2010). ‘Sugarbabe’ favors negotiated infidelity; CNN, August 3, 2010, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/03/negotiated.infidelity/index.html

Foreman, T. (23010). Letters to the President #564: ‘The big chill on immigration reform’, ABC News – AC360, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/06/letters-to-the-president-564-the-big-chill-on-immigration-reform/

Mexico. (2010). President considers legalizing drugs, TheStar Online, August 4, 2010, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/8/4/apworld/20100804071030&sec=apworld

Mosque. (2010). A Ground Zero mosque, Boston Herald, Bostonherald.com, August 7, 2010, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1272814&srvc=rss

Bennett, J. (2007).  Another side of the immigration debate, Aberant News, retrieved August 7, 2010, from: http://www.aberantnews.org/?m=200703

Not a comment to AN, but to an article in the New York Daily News…. [click to enlarge]

First of all, it’s important to understand that this Act, as written today, is as much a framework as it is a specific set of laws and edicts.

Four yet-to-be-assembled organizations will control the administration, coverage, limits, costs and applicability to individual plans – both public and private.  They will have two years to get established, become operational, and provide specific details on administration and operation before the “Act” kicks in.  These four organizations are:

1. The Health Choices Administration headed by the Health Choices Commissioner (Commissioner).  An independent organization (operating much like the Social Security Administration) the Commissioner is appointed by the President and ratified by the Senate.  The Commissioner establishes the rules governing access to, and the provisions of, personal medical insurance coverage in the U.S..  Overall, the Commissioners power to control insurance providers (including Medicare & Medicaid) is exceptional.
2. The Health Insurance Exchange (Exchange) – it is essentially the government’s public insurance portal. The competition to private single carrier insurance, if you will. State based exchanges are encouraged – but not mandated.  The Exchange is established by, and reports through, the Health Choices Administration.
3. The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange.  At this juncture, there is no way to insure that the Act will deliver on the promises to lower costs and improve coverage. Thus, an independent oversight office was established to annually audit the Exchange and report findings to the Commissioner and Congress.  I thought it was interesting that the Special Inspector General office was established for only the first five years of the Act.
4. The Health Benefits Advisory Committee (HBAC). Chaired by the Surgeon General, the HBAC has up to 26 members. It is an independent panel that is appointed by the president (up to 17) and the Comptroller General (9).  Three year terms for each member.

The HBAC can only advise The Dept of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Commissioner on the definition of benefit standards and the level of cost sharing for premium and enhanced plans.  But I expect that advice will carry the power of an edict.  Low is the political career of any HHS Secretary or Commissioner that does not heed the advice of the HBAC

The Commissioner is a Kingpin of sorts and appoints several others; such as the Qualified Health Benefits Plan (QHBP) Ombudsman – a central complaints department for any individual or business that has a problem with a QHBP provider.

Before I get too far along here, we need to understand the QHPB.  It appears that all insurance plans (covering more than one person or one business) in the U.S. will need to be “QHPB” certified – but they do not need to be part of the Insurance Exchange.  “QHPB” certified means only that the plan meets the minimum coverage outlined in the Act.

The QHPB “Minimum Standard Plan” (Sec 122 (b)) includes hospitalization, emergency treatment, outpatient and preventive care, as well as a basic prescription plan.  This minimum coverage includes wellness care, vision & dental for those under the age of 21. So the “Minimum Plan” is pretty comprehensive from a content point of view. However, actual coverage, costs, co-pays, etc. – will be determined by the Commissioner (see what I mean about a framework? – A lot of detail TBD).

An insurance plan must be a “QHBP Offering” to be offered by the Exchange as a public plan.  By default, it appears, Medicare and Medicaid will be QHBP Offerings.  Any insurance company that wants to participate in the insurance Exchange program must submit their proposed “QHBP Offering” to the Exchange for approval – much like a Request for Proposal (RFP) is submitted for contract consideration.

It is obviously the hope of the authors of the Act that all national health insurers, and most state and local insurers, will place QHBP offerings with the Exchange – thus diluting their risk and improving their premium base – throughout the U.S..

The exchange will set up a ‘Trust Fund” that gets filled by tax credits, premium payments and tax collections. The Exchange pays the QHPB providers from this fund for policyholders that qualify for premium assistance.

There are provisions for State or regional Exchanges that will preempt the national exchange program. It is not clear how the Commissioner with administer and regulate these exchanges.

The Secretary of HHS also has a lot of preparation. This includes working with the Commissioner and the Labor Department on a major study on how to keep small and medium business from self-insuring to avoid taxes or payments to the exchange.  This could be a big deal. A topic for another day.

Here’s an eye catcher: Insurance Company profit from QHPB premiums are to be controlled! (Section 116).  A substantial portion (“substantial” to be defined by the Commissioner) of the premiums paid must go to patient care. If an insurer exceeds the profit margin on any plan in a given year, they will have to return the difference to policy holders.  This section is trying to address the issue of insurance companies routinely denying claims and limiting payments to improve profits.

However, the minimum actuarial value for standard minimum QHPB with no cost-sharing is 70% (Section 122).  This might be seen by insurers as a baseline for a 30% ROR (rate of return) on premiums applicable to Sec 116.  That’s higher than the industry reports today!  Enhanced and Premium plans will have cost-sharing limited to 85% and 95% respectively.  So it’s really all over the board as to what the profit margin should be.  The problem is that the actual margin will be dictated by the Exchange Commissioner – sometime over the next 18 months. The reason for the Special Inspector General becomes clearer.

From an industry point of view, I could find no provisions for the establishment of arbitration or appeal processes to Commissioner “rulings’ on profit restriction.  That is sure to get attention by the Republicans in the Senate.

CONCLUSIONS

Well, there’s the “quick and dirty” on the “Healthcare Reform” Act.  It has 243 subtitles spanning three sections. So there’s a lot of detail I did not think was critical – yet. It’s pretty compact by government standards. It won’t stay that way.  The Senate is sure to pump it up by an unnecessary 50%.  If they didn’t they would not be necessary.

My take is that it is an expensive gamble.  We will not know for three years if it is likely to pan out.  More like a NASA project than Health Reform in that regard.

However, I am hopeful, because we need to be hopeful.  The Act is banking on one thing: Greed.  And as long as the Senate does not dilute that, it may just work.  The Act is betting that insurance companies would rather have volume than margin.  It’s the McDonald’s economic approach wherein you would rather make .50cents each on a million hamburgers than $10 each on 1000 hamburgers. ($500,000 vs. $10,000).

You see, that’s the real solution in a capitalist society.  More is less and less is more. The over-quoted “win-win” scenario.  In this scenario a greater portion of individual premiums go to care providers; nearly everyone gets insurance; individuals get more coverage for their money; insurance company stockholders get more return for theirs; the government gets a net-zero trust fund and American business is no longer holding the bag.

Looks good on paper.

But if insurance companies would rather have the status quo – or individuals don’t want government insurance – the whole cost will go to the taxpayer and the deficit. Disaster and success share a common bed.  It also assumes that individuals and businesses will comply by joining the Exchange. You know what they say about assumptions.

A lot of ‘ifs’.  If you have a better idea… let me know.

JB

References and Sources

HR3200. (2009). The Library of Congress, Thomas Bills & Resolutions, Retrieved August 1, 2009, from: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3200:

With an obvious left slant to the political landscape in the U.S., 2009 has seen more discussion about decriminalizing drug use, specifically cannabis, that at anytime in recent memory.

The U.S. “War on Drugs” is all about morality, and has little to do with reality. After billions of dollars spent, and tens of thousands incarcerated, the U.S. has the highest drug related per capita arrest, conviction and incarceration rate in the world. And of course, drug use in the U.S. continues to be three to four times that of the next closest country.

A recent study by Glenn Greenwald, attorney and best-selling author, under consignment to the CATO Institute (listed as a “Right Wing” think tank), shows that the complete decriminalization of drugs in Portugal, has been a resounding success. Much to the amazement of the conventional wisdom of the right, drug use did not increase, it decreased. After a couple years, violent crime and criminal activity surrounding drug trafficking has fallen drastically.

This will not be the only such decriminalization. Many other countries are eyeing Portugal’s achievements. Portugal did not have an easy road either. There had to be adjustments made to policy and approach as time went on. But it is the consensus that they will never again return to criminalizing drugs in Portugal. In countries that decriminalized only cannabis, the results are good, but not as stark as the complete decriminalization of all drugs, as in Portugal.

I, for one, am a right-of-center Independent. My politics generally follow the most achievable and sensible policy. But, I have been one of those misguided hypocrites that used drugs in my youth, but supported heavy legal penalties later in life after my house was robbed by people trying to get valuables to sell for drug money. As I grew older; as my own children went through young adulthood, I grew more fearful for their safety from “the drug dealers” lurking in every school cafeteria.

But then, slowly, I saw the disparities in the law around drugs vs. other offenses. Mandatory sentencing laws affected several friends and their families. Then a friend’s son faced a life ruining arrest, but his attorney prevailed. If convicted, the ¼ ounce of cocaine found in his apartment could have made him a life-long felon at the age of 19.

Today we face overcrowding of prisons and jails where over 25% are incarcerated on mandatory sentences for trivial offenses. Our tax dollars provide billions in training, arms and materials to dozens of foreign countries that export drugs. We fight an endless war along our boarders with dozens now dying daily in Mexico… all on account of illegal drugs. Thousands die. Millions are spent on law enforcement and interdiction. And the drug use, drug killings and drug crime continue unabated.

I also look at the moral impact of drugs on our society. Young women are especially vulnerable to drug related abuse and crime. From prostitution to neglect and physical abuse, women, especially those with children, fear to avail themselves of help or social programs for fear of loosing their children or going to jail… so they simply endure the addictions, abuse and heartache.

I remember when I was young; one of the lures of drug experimentation was simply the fact that it was illegal. It had little real ‘value’ outside of claiming my independence from the status quo. Now, older and wiser, I see more clearly the fallacy of the “War on Drugs”.

“There is clearly a growing recognition around the world and even in the U.S. that, strictly on empirical grounds, criminalization approaches to drug usage and, especially, the “War on Drugs,” are abject failures, because they worsen the exact problems they are ostensibly intended to address. “Strictly on empirical grounds” means excluding from the assessment: (a) ideological questions regarding the legitimacy of imprisoning adults for consuming drugs they choose to consume; (b) the evisceration of Constitutional and civil liberties wrought by drug criminalization; and (c) the extraordinary sums of money devoted to the War on Drugs both domestically and internationally.” - Glenn Greenwald

It is time for a non-ideological, scientific, realistic debate on the causes and effects of drug use, and the complete cessation of the war on symptoms. A war on the problem has been missing in this debate. We need to now address the “Law on Drugs” and remove the fulcrum on which organized crime and personal addiction balance.

JB

Sources and References:

CATO. (2009). Drug Decriminalization in Portugal, POLICY FORUM, Friday, April 3, 2009; CATO Institute; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887

Chin, B. (2008). Mass. voters OK decriminalization of marijuana, The Boston Globe, retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/question_2_setu.html

Degenhardt, L. et al (2008). Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys, PLoS Medicine Vol. 5, No. 7, e141 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141, Summary retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141

Economist (2009). How to stop the drug wars, from The Economist print edition; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13237193&source=hptextfeature

Greenwald, G. (2009). The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, Salon.com; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/14/portugal/index.html

Grudgings, S. (2009). Latin America ex-leaders urge reform of US drug war; Thomson Reuters; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11358345

Olszewski, D., et al. (2009), Women’s Voices – Experiences and perceptions of women who face drug-related problems in Europe; EMCDDA; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/thematic-papers/womens-voices

Peters, J. (2009). Albany Takes Step to Repeal ’70s-Era Drug Laws; The New York Times, retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/nyregion/05rockefeller.html?_r=1

Reuter, R. (2009). Professional Bio Brief, Professor, School of Public Policy and Department of Criminology, University of Maryland, retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/facstaff/faculty/Reuter.html

RightWingWatch.org. (2009). Right Wing Organization Profiles: Index; People For the American Way; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/right-wing-organization-profiles-index

Wickham, D. (2009). Bill Clinton admits ‘regret’ on crack cocaine sentencing, USA today, retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/bill-clinton-ad.html

Recently president-elect Obama’s transition team sent email to the party faithful asking that they go to their www.change.gov website and postulate on their “Vision” of what American can be. Now, I don’t know if this is just good political theater, or if each and every response will actually be given due consideration. Probably somewhere in between. Nevertheless, I am always up for a challenge so I thought I’d give this a try.

Definition of a “Vision”

So what is a “Vision” anyway? Among the definitions of “Vision” put forth by Princeton University’s web dictionary are:

• A vivid mental image; “he had a vision of his own death“;
• sight: the ability to see; the visual faculty, “His vision is 20/20”;
• the perceptual experience of seeing; “the runners emerged from the trees into his clear vision“; “he had a visual sensation of intense light“;
• imagination: the formation of a mental image of something that is not perceived as real and is not present to the senses; “popular imagination created a world of demons“; “imagination reveals what the world could be“;
• a religious or mystical experience of a supernatural appearance; “he had a vision of the Virgin Mary“.

So a vision can range from fantasy to science to observation and back. Give a writer that much ground and you could end up with almost anything. However, I will try to keep my “visions” in the context of the political – categorized using the Obama team “Agenda”.

• Revitalizing the Economy
• Ending the War in Iraq
• Providing Health Care for All
• Protecting America
• Renewing American Global Leadership

The Economy

It seems as though every major economic FUBAR in the last 200 years was perpetuated by government. Not by government regulation – but government deregulation and meddling in business operations. Recessionary influence comes from debt/deflation reactions. When government influences poor business decisions (push sub-prime ARM mortgages – then follow with higher prime rates) and encourage over speculation (remove regulations on credit default swaps, etc.) they establish the environment of crisis.

It does not stop with Wall Street or financial institutions. Such poor political decisions as allowing corn ethanol subsidies and disallowing zero emission electric vehicle subsidies (Calif – 2000)– shows that government is still engaged in the practice of trying to generate wealth rather than competition. A very bad idea in a free market economy. Government is the biggest factor in ‘un-leveling’ the free economy playing field and it must stop soon. A global free market economy will not stand for long if governments get in the way of the process. Just as with a professional baseball game, the umpires and referees are there to see that the game is played by the rules – but they should not influence the outcome of the contest. Government is here to establish and enforce the rules – from there on out the players of the game need to stand or fall on their own merit. Bailouts only perpetuate the bad play of the contestants.

Economic recovery is embodied in many of the initiatives about which the president elect has opined. Energy solutions, infrastructure repair and improvement, ecology requirements and re-creating jobs are paramount. But when the government becomes the key de facto job producer and employer, there comes a threat to – once again – create an imbalance in the free market opportunities of business.

And lastly, let’s stop the political B.S. about energy. We are not stupid. Corn ethanol is a BAD idea; there is no such thing as Clean Coal; Hydrogen is not a panacea for energy solutions; and even if we had an abundance of energy creation – our national delivery grid is ancient and technically obsolete.  Petroleum will run out in 30 years (or at least it will be too expensive to ‘burn’ as fuel).  Scientists say CO2 will be at dangerous levels within 80 years. Do the math. Spend our national resources where it makes sense.

Actions: Suggested actions to restore a free market vision for America: Repeal the Commodity Futures Modernization Act; phase out Freddie & Fannie completely; flatten out the tax code; allow free enterprise to determine the best next energy solution; get “shovel ready” infrastructure projects underway immediately; stop funding ‘operations’ like corn ethanol production and start funding ‘research and development’ – like better battery technology, lower cost nuclear energy solutions and natural gas storage methods; to name only a few.

War in Iraq – and Elsewhere

While the war in Iraq is thankfully winding down – as it should not have been started in the first place – Afghanistan looms as our next great FUBAR. More troops may not be the answer. More economic and educational aid may prove – pound for pound – more influential than ammunition.

Pushing Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters into Iran and Pakistan has its own set of potentials that may be worse than the disease. It appears that Islamic fundamentalists throughout the region out number democratic moderates. At least they are more prone to action, so it seems that they number more. If only we could mobilize the moderates….

Back in Iraq, our draw-down there is seen as inevitable. But the pressures on the fledgling democracy of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki are such that – without the powerful military of the U.S. to quell unrest – a power struggle will ensue and Obama may be forced to redeploy combat troops if he is not careful. I’m not sure that a coup or civil war in Iraq can be ignored by the U.S. due to the destabilizing influence of Iran in the region.

This bed was made by Bush – but Obama will have to sleep in it.

Actions: Suggested actions to restore a ‘world peace’ vision for America: Engage in dialog and technology exchange with fundamentalist political groups. Education and knowledge will trump cultural dogma every time – given enough time. Infrastructure, schools and free trade improvements will bolster democratic governance. Use force only where life and liberty are in eminent danger. This goes hand in hand with the Global Leadership role the U.S. needs to reassert. When in Vietnam we Marines often complained about the “do not fire until fired upon” rule of engagement. However, in our own way we were somewhat proud that we where held to a different standard than our foe. It is not a weakness to hold humanity in high regard, even while others do not. Especially when others do not.

National Health Care Reform

I have been on the front “side line” of this for some time. I wanted to be on the front line, but my proposals never gained much momentum. My proposal was to establish a non-profit organization that was funded by government grants as a start-up, and then self funding over time. Investors are not all that excited about non-profit funding and the government seemed disinterested since I did not have any academic sponsorship.

First a little background. My wife is a nurse; her father a retired surgeon; her mother an RN. I have heard all the stories. On the other hand, I am an information technology (IT) professional by trade  (www.jwbennett.info). I’m one of those misguided individuals that think IT can help address any problem.

After hearing all the family war stories of how medical practitioners are forced in ever increasing numbers to abandon insurance networks and controls in favor of cash-services – and looking at the staggering number of people without health insurance, the long lines at emergency rooms, and so on – I had a thought. Let’s do a typical IT “Business Analyst” review of the average heath provider. Where do they spend their money; where do they spend their time; where do they make their money, and lastly, how do we measure success of the product or service offering?

My analysis led me to several conclusions. First, by far the most time and money is spent on record keeping. Patient records, insurance records and regulatory record keeping took 60% of the effort of a heath provider. None of which are particularly beneficial to the financial success of the enterprise. In typical IT Analyst fashion, I deduced that automating – or removing – much of this record keeping burden was essential to lowering cost and improving productivity of health providers.

The problem, of course is HIPPA. Not the Act, per se, but the processing and management of patient records by a 3^rd party is problematic. Answer – do HIPPA one better. Put the patient in charge of the record keeping (with considerable help from a secure internet based application that does the heavy lifting).

Next problem – who owns, controls and administers the internet application and database? An insurance company? The government? Hummm.. Any for-profit enterprise or government entity could have conflicts of interest that would strain the intent of HIPPA. So, the only answer I saw was a Non-Profit corporation that had considerable oversight by the government, the healthcare industry and the insurance companies. The internet program application must have considerable benefit for all – including, and foremost, for the patient. Tall order.

Beyond just electronic record keeping, this “Medical Registry Organization” (MRO) would provide ANSI-type standards for record interchange and security. The patient or his/her designate would determine which records were public, which were private, which were available in emergency, which providers has access to what, and so on.

Actions: Suggested actions to provide a ‘universal healthcare’ vision for America: The answer lies in offloading the recordkeeping burden to the record owner. Until the records burden is addressed costs will not moderate – for the taxpayer or the government. Just as banks used ATM’s to offload teller workloads to the account owners (decreasing cost and increasing productivity & profit dramatically, I might add); health care record management can be also offloaded to the patient. Every insurance or for-profit industry “electronic records” initiative will fail in the end due to competitive and regulatory pressures. An independent non-profit organization or “institute” is the only reasonable answer. Health care reform should also look at the many agencies and departments of government that are charged with health and welfare oversight (some 20 agencies in HHS plus EPA, OSHA, USDA,…) and try to rationalize and/or consolidate data, technology, personnel and facilities into a more robust and functional public health organization.

Protecting America

Homeland security has most of its resources focused on the prevention of terrorism. But the fact is most of the death and destruction the average citizen will face comes not from terrorists, but from nature and human error. Considering the money spent to date on homeland security, we have little to show for it. Katrina showed us what real homeland security should be – but was not. Beyond prevention, security means good threat assessment and effective first response.

As most intelligent travelers will tell you, the security show TSA puts on at the nation’s airports is nothing short of pageantry. It is there to instill a sense of security in the public – nothing else. Actually, the single reason 9/11 could not be repeated today is that airlines are now required to secure the cockpit door. It has little, if anything, to do with the TSA’s elaborate security threat detection methods. I could make a belt out of C4 explosive and walk on any plane in all but 4 or 5 airports in the U.S.. No problem. Any nonmetallic weapon can be taken on board almost any aircraft by almost anyone. And if you think this is news to any would-be terrorist, forget it. They already know. But since they cannot use the aircraft as a weapon any longer (and since the average American passenger is more attentive now days), they will move to softer targets.

By far the most effective anti-terrorism activities have been those we hear only rumors about. Communications monitoring & analysis, elaborate pattern matching, decryption methods and other technologies used by the NSA have done more to spoil would-be threats than all the long TSA lines put together. Add to that the efforts to remove the terrorist network money supply, and I think we could have decommissioned every metal detector in the US and been just fine. Ok, maybe that is a little irrational, but not by much.

Actions: Suggested actions for a “secure” vision for America: The DHS is a great idea, but its focus is upside-down. The TSA is at the top of the heap with regard to funding and influence, when it should be FEMA. Keep up the good work at NSA and CIA. Keep the DOD out of DHS programs. I’ve heard rumors of bills floating around congress to deploy federal troops to “assist” local law enforcement in the event of ”emergency”. Hummm. If the National Guard or state and local police are not properly trained or equipped, then fix it. Leave federal troops out of homeland security contingencies.

Renewing American Global Leadership

Without a doubt we have already made progress in this area. Just by electing president-elect Obama, Americans have reached across the cultural and economic gulf of world opinion. But we cannot rest on that laurel.

When we think of global leadership we think of the Middle East, Russia, Africa, Asia… but we also need to consider Mexico, Latin America and Canada. Of all our international dealings, our dealings with American states and border states should be improved first.

Under the Bush doctrine we have seen a major shift to the left in Latin America and an increase in organized drug crime in Mexico. While I too fear a nuclear Iran, I fear more a destabilized government in Mexico. If push came to shove, the Israelis are more than capable of handling a threat from Iran. Mexico however has many infrastructure, education and economic issues – exacerbated by U.S. immigration policy – that have a greater potential to affect the U.S.. You want to restore the U.S. leadership? Start by addressing the Mexican immigration issue.

Outside the Americas, a global economy – enriched by a global information technology network – is moving at breakneck pace. The welfare of everyone is starting to be influenced by everyone else. This will require – in time – a new look at not only national policy – but global policy and global governance. The U.N. is a political football and pretty much as effective as any organization run my committee. But, it is all we really have right now, so let’s see what we can do over the next four years to give it some balls (excuse the vernacular). Darfur, Guinea, Burma, Zimbabwe, et al – little action to deter genocide and massive rights violations. I think there is a place for an “international police force” but they must have the mandate, the training and the equipment to do the job.

Actions: Suggested actions to restore a “global leadership” vision for America: Start with immigration reforms and boarder state relations. Want to stop the march of leftist ideology in Latin America? Lift the Cuban embargo. Engage in open and frequent dialog with other states. Encourage political dissent and policy arguments. Often, if you get the other party talking enough, they reveal the REAL reason for their conduct. And it is usually power related. Give them ‘perceived power’ and they will be your friend for life. And sanctions rarely work either. Not in Cuba, not in Iran, not in Palestine. They only tend to push our adversaries closer together. Let’s try something different. How about open trade, domestic technology transfer, cultural influence, free and open dialog,… What a novel idea!

Lastly, I believe the U.N. is a fine place to voice opinion and do some political wrestling, but no where near a venue for pursuing global peace or justice. At least give it the mandate to do good independent international intelligence gathering so the true cause and affects of actions can be understood by all.  In my fantasy vision of a new world order I have a list of “what ifs”: What if Interpol became an agency of the U.N.? What if the G10 shared threat assessments with them? What if we established a full volunteer U.N. Police & Peacekeeping force?  What if we sponsored a movement to establish an international language?  A language not spoken by any permanent member of the Security Counsel; like Spanish?  What if, indeed. Too far out maybe?  Mark my words, the day may come when the U.N, yes the U.N., is our last best hope.  Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations vision was far ahead of its time.  But – with the advent of the internet, international free trade and economic symbiosis among nations – it’s time may have come.  Indeed,  the time to make it work may be moving right past us….

For what it’s worth.

JB

Sources:

Bennett, J. (2008a). BLOG: Replacing rhetoric with truth, Aberant News, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from http://aberantnews.org/?p=51

Bennett, J. (2008b). BLOG: One Doctor’s Painful Decision, Aberant News, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from http://aberantnews.org/?p=49

Bernanke, B. (1983). “Non-Monetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in the Propagation of the Great Depression”. THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW (The American Economic Association) 73 (3): 257-276.

CDS. (2008). Definition: Credit Default Swap. Wikipidia, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

Corn, D. (2008) Article: Foreclosure Phil, Mother Jones Magazine, August 2008, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

Flat Tax. (2008). Countries that have flat tax systems; Wikipedia, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

Kroft, S. (2008). The bet that blew up wall street, CBS – 60 Minutes, retrieved October 27th, 2008 from:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml

Miron, J. (2008). Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer; CNN, retrieved September 29, 2008 from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/

Mishkin, F. (1978). “The Household Balance and the Great Depression”. Journal of Economic History 38: 918-37.

Mufson, S. (2007). Article: Oil price rise causes global shift in wealth; The Washington Post, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902573_pf.html

NOW. (2006). Transcript: Who killed the electric car?; Public Broadcasting Service (PBS); retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/223.html

Paul. R. (2008). Article: monetary system is fraudulent; retrieved October 24th, CNN, 2008 from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/ron.paul.economy/

Pickins, T. (2008). America is addicted to foreign oil; T. Boone Pickins; retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

U.N. (2008). The United Nations, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia Online, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564986/United_Nations.html

Vance, L. (2008); The Flat Tax Is Not Flat, NewAmerican, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/442

WordNet (2008). Definition: Vision, Princeton University WordNet, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vision

I hold a somewhat controversial view of this whole same-sex marriage debate.  Recently, President-Elect Obama’s choice of right-wing evangelist Rick Warren as his inauguration invocation presenter has sparked further rhetoric on the “Marriage” debate. So, I thought it was time to lay my views out there – for what they are worth. First – “the Facts”.

1. Let’s look at what “marriage” is.  It is a religious rite.  Performed by a clergyman or other empowered individual (such as a justice of the peace), marriage is a purely religious tradition.  Marriage has not always been a vow of monogamy.  To the contrary, the bible and other religious scriptures (Torah, Koran,…) state that men could have multiple wives and sexual partners.  Abraham was said to have several hundred wives and concubines in his lifetime; the Prophet Muhammad is said to have had at least nine, and so on. 
2. Let’s look now at the U.S. Constitution and the doctrine of separation of church & state.  Churches are not taxed – in return for their exclusion from politics. Common Law is derived from social laws not religious “laws”.  With obvious Christian influence (…One nation under God; …endowed by his creator…; etc.) the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights acknowledges the moral compass of Christianity as a basis of traditional Common Law – but insists that tradition be a guide rather than an absolute.  There is no “State Church” so all religious beliefs and traditions are said to be equal in the eyes of the law.
3. The Bill of Rights states that, as U.S. citizens, we ALL have a right to “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” .  It is the purpose of government to empower these rights by allowing free expression and free enterprise.

So, if we use just these 3 facts as a basis for marriage law and rights in this country, we have to draw some very interesting conclusions. 

I recently asked several newly married couples (1^st time marriages, all) if they understood the legal covenants of marriage (e.g. equal responsibility for debts, community property, child care obligations, survivorship, entitlements, power of attorney, etc.).  None of them understood, fully, the legal ramifications of being “married”.  When I asked same sex couples about ‘social contracts’ however, I was amazed to find that they had very detailed knowledge of the terms and conditions of such a contract – right down to trust funds for survivorships and the lack of federal entitlements, such as spousal social security payments. So I found a notable disconnect between the tenets of a ‘social contract’ and those of a ‘marriage’. 

Next, we look at the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  This issue alone has considerable weight on this argument.  The individual’s right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a direct and specific indication that same-sex marriage cannot be made illegal on its face.  Denial of happiness to any couple or group because you do not agree with that group’s culture is not what liberty is all about.  It is a direct contradiction of the Bill of Rights and I cannot see how the U.S. Supreme Court could, under any reasonable interpretation of the Bill of Rights, find that same-sex marriage could be held illegal in ANY state in the union.

Ironically, it might be argued that ALL marriages are illegal – because no written covenant [contract] is in evidence.  And the parties to a purely religious marriage should not be given spousal rights without some type of written agreement on the specific issues of such rights – and the entitlements and responsibilities afforded by local, state and federal agencies.

So my conclusion is this:  We heterosexuals have no right to deny homosexuals their liberties or their happiness. It says so in the Bill of Rights.  Furthermore, the religious rite of marriage has no standing, legally, to dictate the legal covenants for spousal rites and responsibilities – unless those rights and responsibilities are acknowledged and agreed to in a social contract.  In other words, our Constitution, taken at face value, does not provide for ‘marriage’ as practiced in common law because neither party agrees to its many covenants in writing. 

So the next time the self righteous among you want to tilt against the same-sex windmill, take a minute to consider what would happen if your marriage were considered illegal and the many rights and resources available to you as a couple were suddenly removed.  Looks different that way; does it not?

JB 

Yesterday the U.S. Senate declined to accept a $17Billion bailout deal of the US Auto Industry. After slipping $350Billion under the table to the nation’s most powerful banks and brokerages, many wonder why this is happening. The truth has many faces.

First of all, the labor unions and the political right (republicans) have been at loggerheads for centuries. Whereas the banking and investment sectors have been in bed with the political Right forever, unions are notorious for their socialistic “spread the wealth” philosophy and rarely endorse anyone but a democrat for office. Big money Capitalists and Unions were bound to one day meet for a reckoning – and this was it.

Next, republicans are very ‘lame’ right now with 30% of Senate seats reverting to democrats in January 2009, and this was their last chance to get even with the people who voted them out of office. Many will take exception to this assertion, but I don’t care, it’s the truth. The people that will loose their jobs did not vote republican. Tuff.

The auto makers and the government (that’s all government, democrats, republicans, congress, administration, all of them) were directly responsible for the mortgage/financial crisis (see http://aberantnews.org/?p=51). Thus, to prevent a backlash of indictment from Wall Street they moved quickly to prop up the companies they damn near ruined (Bailout I).

However, congress had little to do with the collapse of the auto industry. Well, that’s not entirely true. The lack of a well defined energy policy and the dismantling of the California emissions standards in the 90’s did not help the industry much. But let’s face it, if the auto industry thought they could make money with eco-friendly, low consumption vehicles, they would have pursued them. We, the people, have had as much to do with the poor choices made by US Auto makers as congress has.

No, the republicans wanted to break the unions and the only way to do that – legally – is through bankruptcy. Bankruptcy would effectively suspend any union contract and force renegotiation before the current 2011 contract term.

Now, let’s get this straight. I am not a union bigot. Nor am I a “do no wrong” union supporter. I understand that unions have been at the forefront of workers rights, a mainstay of benefits reform for all workers and an equal pay for equal work advocate. Unions have also hamstringed businesses in difficult times and made them less competitive than their non-unionized competition. However, as of late the unions and auto industry management have seen eye to eye on many issues including competitive wages and the off-loading of excessive retirement, pension and entitlement programs from the company to the union. In 2007 sweeping labor reform was undertaken by the unions that was slated to bring equity to the competitive posture of US auto makers.

Much is made of Asian auto makers (Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Kia,…) wages and benefits vs. the U.S. But little is said about European auto makers (BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen,,,) which have wage burdens equal to or greater than the U.S.. However, I must admit, the ‘benefits’ burden placed on the U.S. auto industry by the unions is without global equal.

Let’s get this straight right now. The issue with US auto makers was not the unions, per se, or the Asian auto makers, it was the policies of the U.S. Government (or the lack thereof) and the actions of the U.S. auto maker’s management – and the U.S. citizenry – that stifled intelligent prescience.

For the U.S. Senate – of all people – to decry unions as the sole impediment to an auto industry recovery package (a.k.a. bailout) is hypocrisy at its political best.

I cannot believe that American technology, ingenuity and productivity cannot compete in the world economy. It is obvious, to me, that the political will of the lame duck Senate is malicious to the point of disabling the U.S. economy, endangering thousands of workers and business, and further reducing our economic stature in the world – for the sake of political vengeance.

I don’t like the term “bail out”. Never have. “Recovery package” or “Industrial stimulus” sounds much better. In any event, I would want very smart people – that understand the demands of energy, environment and economics – to formulate a recovery scenario that all three auto makers can adopt and American knowhow can make successful. The last people we need in this mess right now are a bunch of vindictive right wing senators.

Can we PLEASE think of someone besides ourselves just ONCE in this economic mess and think of the thousands of workers, small business suppliers and symbiotic businesses that will fail is we cannot compete in the world auto industry?

Mr. Obama, can you please see that this type of politics is lost forever in history? Mr. Bush, is your legacy to be this type of trite and partisan government?

A very smart mentor once said that “There is no such thing as a useless action. At the very least it can be used as a bad example”. Today’s Republican Right has at least this one use left.

JB

Since early in the 2008 campaign President Elect Obama has recommended a program for America to “rebuild America’s roads and bridges and repair our schools” (change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/, 2008). Once upon a time he opined that this initiative would provide “over one million new jobs” that can’t be outsourced. The mantra changed as of late to a more palatable “save one million jobs” – but the essence is the same. Many say past “jobs programs” did little for the economy. I beg to differ. Many of what we consider today’s greatest economic assets – such as the interstate highway system – was once considered government folly. From the Panama Canal to the Hoover Dam there have been expensive government projects that have paid dividends to many generations of Americans and businesses alike.

However, road, school and bridge repair may seem more like maintenance than innovation. How can we take a ‘maintenance and repair’ program and make it a true innovative improvement in infrastructure? The answer is the application of new technology.

Roadways & Bridges:

Today’s interstate highway system and the system of state & U.S. roadways that connect them are sorely in need of repair. To that, there is no doubt. But we can today employ better materials in the repairs. Materials that last longer and lower future costs of maintenance (ARTBA, n.d.) are needed throughout the system. We should also install Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I – Ashley, 2008) communications devices that tell cars of the near future what road conditions are, where hazards exist and the operational aspects of traffic controls.

Three things need to happen first. First, governments (state & federal) must require overall roadway construction standards that improve longevity. I’m not sure what they are today, if any, but it’s my belief that roadways should last at least 25years. Surface repair must last 10 years – or more. I often see repair crews on the same roads year-in and year-out. This is especially true in northern climates where winter freezing, salt and sand damage are frequent.

Second, the government must establish standards for V2I communication. Only a couple dozen are needed to get things started. Like solar powered road signs that can broadcast information like RR Crossings, speed changes and road restrictions. Or stop signs, yield signs and stop lights that broadcast “Stop, Yield or Go” data.

Lastly, the government must work with both commercial and personal vehicle manufactures to require certain types of V2I and V2V (Vehicle to Vehicle) safety systems to be rolled out over time.

We need Bridges that have sensors that can tell inspectors when components are stressed or parts are reaching the end of their peak safe period. We need bridges, that like roadways, have longevity and ease of maintenance built in.

Schools

I believe the days of the huge campus are going to come to a close. Large middle schools and high schools are not providing the education we will need in the high tech communication era of the 21^st century. We need to create localized “School Offices” that use technology to separate classes, curriculums and grades. The teachers move from class to class and subject to subject in a set of virtual classrooms. The student is situated in an environment designed to enhance learning rather than an environment meant to control and concentrate student populations. This type of virtual classroom also helps students from disadvantaged areas get the same educational opportunities as the more affluent counterparts.

Colleges will also, to a lesser extent, decentralize as well. With teaching methods promoted by schools such as The University of Phoenix and Colorado Technical University taking an ever greater share of higher education – especially in business administration and business management curriculums where “laboratory” studies are minimal.

Federally subsidized virtual classrooms could also provide a sort of “Universal Education” foundation for anyone with an internet connection. Subsidizing internet connectivity for urban families and virtual schools is another possible aspect of the “new education” system that could come out this “jobs” agenda.

Conclusion

There are many opportunities for the new administration to improve the nation’s infrastructure while improving safety and empowering a technological renaissance in transportation.

It is also possible to engage the educational system in a new mind-set when it comes to the basics of education (reading, writing, mathematics and history) while actually reducing the burden on cities and states to provide large campuses and administrative staff.

JB

Resources:

ARTBA. (n.d.). Smart Construction: Using Cutting-Edge Technology to Maximize Public Investment in America’s Transportation Network; The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA); retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://www.ntweek.org/publications/ARTBA_Technology.pdf

Ashley, S. (2008). Driving Toward Crashless Cars; Scientific American Magazine; December 2008, Volume 299 No 6. ISSN 0036-8733

Change.gov. (2008). Agenda: The Obama-Biden Plan, retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/

CitySense. (2007). Collaborative Research: CRI: Large-Scale Open Sensor Network Testbed Urban Monitoring, Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI), retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://www.geni.net/docs/dev_citysense_proposal.pdf

TRB. (2006). Presentation Circular: Integrating Roadway, Traffic, and Crash Data, A Peer Exchange, November 1–2, 2006, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; retrieved November 29, 2008 from: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec111.pdf

The original anti-establishment, peace sign carrying, “make love not war” generation – and their children – have replaced the Bush Doctrine with the Woodstock Doctrine. A USA Today poll shows that Boomers and their X-gen offspring (ages 30-65) made up 66% of the total vote. Regardless of race, the ideology and progressiveness of the Boomer generation has had considerable impact on the 2008 election.

While Blacks voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, their total contribution was only 13% of total votes cast. Non-Hispanic/non-Asian whites made up nearly 75% of the total electorate. In any analysis of this election one must conclude that Mr. Obama was overwhelmingly supported by the Woodstock generation. His many campaign rallies were reminiscent of another day; His ideology reminiscent of other aspirations; His message of hope reminiscent of a youth we all thought was lost. Yes we can.

Just as we endured repercussions in the 1960s and 1970s for our anti-establishment rhetoric, so will there be repercussions in 2008 and beyond. Only now the stakes are much higher and the opponents to our ideology much more powerful.

The military industrial complex that President Eisenhower foretold has come to pass. Members of today’s congressional and administration staffs have an umbilical connection to some of the most powerful and well funded special interests ever to lobby in Washington. Government polices have steeped abuse upon both power and the rights of the people. We must clean house and sweep away this corruption.

From the energy lobby to military contractors, not one inch of progress will be easy. Threats to the president’s policies and the changes that they engender may come in the form of political subterfuge, character attacks and even physical threats. Many very wealthy people and corporations have a stake in the status quo – not only in the U.S. but around the world.

Obama can not do this alone. We – the people – must follow up his breathtaking vision with our unwavering support. We must watch our Congressional representatives closely. Get involved. Monitor their voting habits, their published opinions and the actions of their staff. Watch their affiliations. Demand frequent feedback on what they are doing and why. No more “elect ‘em and forget ‘em” America. It’s time we take responsibility for managing our representatives.

The President Elect has a lot to do over the next couple months. But so do we. Each of us who rallied around Senator Obama must now come to the aid of President Obama. Without our power and our influence his task may be impossible.

JB

“that this nation,… shall have a new birth of freedom… and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln