We do not think much about the cost of war. A few years after the end of the latest military engagement, we erect war monuments—plaques with names, statues of soldiers, civic buildings. We call our soldiers heroes, especially if they did not come home and that's about it.
But a spate of recent news stories about the Iraq war cannot be ignored. They force us to face up to the horrendous cost of this war. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, 4328 soldiers are officially listed as killed, 31,431 officially listed as injured. Unofficial numbers for injuries are much higher. Many of the injured have brain damage. We need to pause a minute with these numbers to consider that for every soldier killed, there is a grieving family—parents, brothers and sisters, often grandparents, uncles and aunts. Friends and neighbors are affected as well. Many soldiers killed are fathers and mothers who leave their spouse behind and often also their children. More than 900 children in the US lost one parent in Iraq. The war memorials we erect so diligently do not mention the wide swath of grief left by each death or the lives seriously affected by the loss of a son, a life companion, or a parent.
Nor do they remember the soldiers who attempt suicide after their return—estimated currently at 1000 a month. They may have returned with their bodies intact, but their spirit is suffering profoundly; they do not want to continue living. Others cannot find their way back into civilian lives with jobs and families. They end up homeless, asking for money at the stoplight or offering to work for food, shunned even by the citizens who like to speak of veterans as heroes.
Recent stories report that children of soldiers are seeking psychiatric help in increasing numbers. The total number of outpatient mental health visits for children increased from 1 million in 2003 to 2 million in 2008. The marriages of returning veterans are more likely to founder; family violence is more common in the families of servicemen and women, as is alcoholism, drug abuse and child neglect. Each of these has long run effects that last throughout the lives of military children and may well leave its mark on the grandchildren of men and women in the military today.
The human cost of war is inestimable. The cost in dollars is more easily counted up. It now stands at $687 billion for the Iraq war. The cost of the war in Afghanistan is approaching $200 million. In the seven years of the war thousands upon thousands of American children went hungry; many Americans died a premature death because they could not afford to see a doctor or, if they did, could not buy the medicines to control blood pressure or keep diabetes under control. Many led wretched lives because there are not enough places in clinics to help sufferers overcome drug and alcohol addiction. Many young people could not get the education to develop their intelligence and other aptitudes because there was no money for scholarships or cheap public education. If we had been able to use those $687 billion dollars to improve medical care, education, rehabilitation and nutrition programs many Americans would have better lives today. Remember also that drug addicts also have families who suffer with their addict members; hungry children develop more slowly and thus their lives are impaired as long as they live. Early deaths spread sorrow in families of the victims. Few remain untouched by the cost of war.
Now comes the latest story from Colorado. In the area around Fort Carson, 14 murders have been committed by returning soldiers. Members of combat units that suffered particularly high casualties in Iraq were more likely to murder innocent civilians here—including a couple about to put up a sign for a garage sale.
So far we are thinking about American losses. The devastation of lives in Iraq is much worse. Here the numbers are much less precise. But the count is definitely above 110,000. Some estimates of war orphans in Iraq are as high as 5 million. Five million young people whose entire lives will be burdened by their early loss and the hard lives awaiting orphans.
An avalanche of terrifying facts forces us to consider the cost of war more carefully and to face up to the multiple destructive repercussions of war. The war in Iraq spreads its evil influences throughout Iraq and throughout our own country and those of our allies not just today and tomorrow but for generations to come. Is anything worth such enormous sacrifices?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
When America falls short
Somalia, a country in East Africa has suffered from civil war for many years. 200,000 Somalis fled to the US; 70,000 of them live in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area in the largest settlement of Somali refugees in the US. Many of these refugees came as children, often without parents. They graduated from high school here. Many are now in college. They have become American citizens.
The FBI has conducted a major investigation of the Somali community in recent years after 40 young men “disappeared”--supposedly they returned to Somalia and joined a radical Islamist organization that is trying to take power in the country. One of the young Somali-American men died on a suicide mission in Somalia last October.
The FBI is asking who persuaded these young men to return to a country they barely knew since they, after all, had been children when they left. Many of them are said not to speak Somali any more. It is clearly important to find out who is persuading these young men to leave Minnesota to return to fight for a cause they are unlikely to understand fully.
But there is another important question: what moved these 40 young men to allow themselves to be persuaded? Most of the Somali-American young people were not moved to leave their friends and their education in the US to return to their distant home land. But these forty were sufficiently unhappy here to be willing to go an fight for a cause that is remote from the life they have lived in the US. At least one of these young men was sufficiently unhappy in the US to be willing to sacrifice his young life in a terrorist bombing.
Not knowing these men personally, we cannot really answer the question about their unhappiness with any confidence. We could reject the question altogether by saying that these forty men were “misfits”, permanent malcontents, or perhaps so damaged by their war torn childhood and emigration without their families that they could never be happy anywhere. But, of course, we do not know whether that is true.
Others claim that the Somalis had more problems “integrating” themselves than other Muslim immigrant groups. But here we must remember that integration is a two-way process. I may, as an immigrant, try as hard as I can to become a regular American but if the other Americans keeping seeing me and treating me as a foreigner, all my efforts to integrate myself will fail. We must therefore ask ourselves whether these Somali young men were touched by pervasive American racism and xenophobia.
A friend of the Somali-American, Shirwa Ahmed, who returned to Somalia and died a suicide bomber, reports that when they would meet, Shirwa “ just used to encourage me to pray, and do good, and think about life." These are not the concerns of many young people in the US. Before turning to Islam and Islamic politics, Shirwa, like his friends had a job the offered little satisfaction—other than money. He worked at the airport. In their time off, they would hang out at the Mall of the Americas. Life consisted of earning money and spending it, not of doing good and thinking about life. It was a life lived by many young, and older, Americans: a lot of work—often quite boring—and some fun on the weekends. But such a life has not much meaning, it is not really a good life.
This life of work and some fun is, in the end, very isolated. You work to earn money for yourself and, at best, for your family and you spend it on yourself and on them. You are not part of a larger effort. After 9/11 people placed bumper stickers on their cars saying “United we Stand” but there were no common efforts, not citizens organizing themselves for defense or to support the families of victims. “Go shop” the President told us. Although we have been at war for 7 years now in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no war effort at home. Communities do not come together to help returning veterans or the families of soldiers. We leave that to the government while we go to work and shop. We lack a common effort, a community.
A good life does not just consist of work that is bearable only because one gets paid for it. Good work is challenging. It requires skill. We learn new things when we do good work and at the end of the day we can be proud of what we have accomplished. Valuable work benefits someone else or the community. In the course of working you establish some important ties to people whom your work benefits, or perhaps to the employer you work for. But most employees are dispensable. The company will talk a lot about the “team spirit” but you get fired with minimal notice if the company decides to move overseas. The employer tries to make your work as routine as possible so that anyone can do it, allowing your wages to be kept as long as possible.
A good life includes plans, not just for oneself but plans for improving the community shared with one's neighbors. ( I am not referring to communities unified by narrow, hate filled ideas—I big topic I cannot explore here). It is guided by shared ideals. A good life includes moral principles and perhaps religious commitments. But most Americans believe that “everyone chooses his or her own values.” Moral values are not shared, they do not connect us with others; they are all our own—and we are all alone. Yes, some people are “activists” they work to improve their community, to make change somewhere. But they are often quite marginal. Most people react to the life of work-and-spend by being cynical--”you can't fight city hall”-- or simply disinterested--”It is no concern of mine.”
Many people lead lives, as Thoreau said, “of quiet desperation.” In response to that empty and isolated life some young men may well seek meaning and community in fighting for Islam in Somalia. For them, America did not offer the good life promised.
The FBI has conducted a major investigation of the Somali community in recent years after 40 young men “disappeared”--supposedly they returned to Somalia and joined a radical Islamist organization that is trying to take power in the country. One of the young Somali-American men died on a suicide mission in Somalia last October.
The FBI is asking who persuaded these young men to return to a country they barely knew since they, after all, had been children when they left. Many of them are said not to speak Somali any more. It is clearly important to find out who is persuading these young men to leave Minnesota to return to fight for a cause they are unlikely to understand fully.
But there is another important question: what moved these 40 young men to allow themselves to be persuaded? Most of the Somali-American young people were not moved to leave their friends and their education in the US to return to their distant home land. But these forty were sufficiently unhappy here to be willing to go an fight for a cause that is remote from the life they have lived in the US. At least one of these young men was sufficiently unhappy in the US to be willing to sacrifice his young life in a terrorist bombing.
Not knowing these men personally, we cannot really answer the question about their unhappiness with any confidence. We could reject the question altogether by saying that these forty men were “misfits”, permanent malcontents, or perhaps so damaged by their war torn childhood and emigration without their families that they could never be happy anywhere. But, of course, we do not know whether that is true.
Others claim that the Somalis had more problems “integrating” themselves than other Muslim immigrant groups. But here we must remember that integration is a two-way process. I may, as an immigrant, try as hard as I can to become a regular American but if the other Americans keeping seeing me and treating me as a foreigner, all my efforts to integrate myself will fail. We must therefore ask ourselves whether these Somali young men were touched by pervasive American racism and xenophobia.
A friend of the Somali-American, Shirwa Ahmed, who returned to Somalia and died a suicide bomber, reports that when they would meet, Shirwa “ just used to encourage me to pray, and do good, and think about life." These are not the concerns of many young people in the US. Before turning to Islam and Islamic politics, Shirwa, like his friends had a job the offered little satisfaction—other than money. He worked at the airport. In their time off, they would hang out at the Mall of the Americas. Life consisted of earning money and spending it, not of doing good and thinking about life. It was a life lived by many young, and older, Americans: a lot of work—often quite boring—and some fun on the weekends. But such a life has not much meaning, it is not really a good life.
This life of work and some fun is, in the end, very isolated. You work to earn money for yourself and, at best, for your family and you spend it on yourself and on them. You are not part of a larger effort. After 9/11 people placed bumper stickers on their cars saying “United we Stand” but there were no common efforts, not citizens organizing themselves for defense or to support the families of victims. “Go shop” the President told us. Although we have been at war for 7 years now in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no war effort at home. Communities do not come together to help returning veterans or the families of soldiers. We leave that to the government while we go to work and shop. We lack a common effort, a community.
A good life does not just consist of work that is bearable only because one gets paid for it. Good work is challenging. It requires skill. We learn new things when we do good work and at the end of the day we can be proud of what we have accomplished. Valuable work benefits someone else or the community. In the course of working you establish some important ties to people whom your work benefits, or perhaps to the employer you work for. But most employees are dispensable. The company will talk a lot about the “team spirit” but you get fired with minimal notice if the company decides to move overseas. The employer tries to make your work as routine as possible so that anyone can do it, allowing your wages to be kept as long as possible.
A good life includes plans, not just for oneself but plans for improving the community shared with one's neighbors. ( I am not referring to communities unified by narrow, hate filled ideas—I big topic I cannot explore here). It is guided by shared ideals. A good life includes moral principles and perhaps religious commitments. But most Americans believe that “everyone chooses his or her own values.” Moral values are not shared, they do not connect us with others; they are all our own—and we are all alone. Yes, some people are “activists” they work to improve their community, to make change somewhere. But they are often quite marginal. Most people react to the life of work-and-spend by being cynical--”you can't fight city hall”-- or simply disinterested--”It is no concern of mine.”
Many people lead lives, as Thoreau said, “of quiet desperation.” In response to that empty and isolated life some young men may well seek meaning and community in fighting for Islam in Somalia. For them, America did not offer the good life promised.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Is Government the enemy?
Many Americans think that. On April 15, tax day, a national organization held a series of “tea parties”all over the country to commemorate the colonists' resistance to government and specifically to taxation. They are planning more events for the 4th of July. At present, the Republicans in Congress are are resisting the proposal to have government provide health insurance for some Americans. Anything done by the government, they believe, is worse than anything done by private business.
This is an old belief among Americans. The authors of the Constitution wrote that document after having successfully freed themselves from the British government and established their own. The political system they created is very concerned to preserve individual liberties against government attempts to limit freedom. It is, we think, a good system. Citizens have elaborate rights to a protest, to tell the government what they think. The leaders of the government are elected; they hold their jobs by the will of the citizens and can be removed from office if they ignore the citizens' wishes.
These are important institutions, but our country has changed fundamentally since the end of the 18th century. Then a citizen's freedoms were threatened by the government and by lawless fellow citizens. We face a third and much more formidable threat today: big business.
In 2005, WalMart had annual sales of $312 billion. In the current fiscal year the budget of the state of New York – one of the larger states in the US-- amounts to $120 billion. Wal-Mart is almost 3 times as large an enterprise as the state of New York.
The governor, the legislators, the attorney generals, the mayors, the city councils, and other officials are elected. They are therefore subject to a certain amount of control by the citizens. What happens if you don't like a policy at Wal-Mart? Who do you write to? The people who run Wal-Mart are not elected. They sell $312 billion worth of goods every year. So they don't really care a lot what you think.
Things get much worse if you actually work for Wal-Mart. Wages are notoriously low. Employees who try to organize unions get fired – even though that's illegal. The employee has nothing to say, nowhere to complain. The Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to assemble peacefully, that means that we have the right to organize; citizens have the right to petition the government, that means, to say what bothers them. Employees of Wal-Mart do not have those rights. If you complain or try to organize you are out the door. Its like living under a dictatorship. The greatest threat to individual freedom are big employers.
Private business, the enemies of government say, is much more efficient. To be sure, government bureaucracy is horrible. But have you ever tried to get your insurance company to pay for a medication, prescribed by your doctor, which was not on the insurance company's approved list? Everyone has horror stories about the inefficiencies of private insurers.
Everyone knows that. Why do people nevertheless keep coming around to say: don't trust the government, trust private enterprise? Look again at the Republican objection to government insurance. Republicans regularly speak for the interest of large business. The large insurance companies do not want to have to compete against the government. That might be bad for the almighty bottom line. Big business has always been opposed to what they call “big government” because government has had the job of enforcing antitrust legislation passed by Congress at the request of ordinary citizens. If it were not for the government enforcing wage and hour legislation, if it were not for OSHA enforcing (sometimes) health and safety standards, if the government did not limit the hours that children are allowed to work, if the government did not protect workers as imperfectly as it does, you can imagine how much more oppressive ordinary employment would be.
Big business does not like the government protecting workers. Big business does not like the government trying to clean up the environment polluted by business. Big business does not like the government supervising, however imperfectly, the formation of huge companies that have too much power. And so they keep harping on the evils of “big government.” But if you think about what your citizen's freedoms are in relation to the government and what your freedoms are in relation to your employers, may be government doesn't look quite so bad. You have to admit that the greatest threat to individual freedom comes from the folks you work for.
This is an old belief among Americans. The authors of the Constitution wrote that document after having successfully freed themselves from the British government and established their own. The political system they created is very concerned to preserve individual liberties against government attempts to limit freedom. It is, we think, a good system. Citizens have elaborate rights to a protest, to tell the government what they think. The leaders of the government are elected; they hold their jobs by the will of the citizens and can be removed from office if they ignore the citizens' wishes.
These are important institutions, but our country has changed fundamentally since the end of the 18th century. Then a citizen's freedoms were threatened by the government and by lawless fellow citizens. We face a third and much more formidable threat today: big business.
In 2005, WalMart had annual sales of $312 billion. In the current fiscal year the budget of the state of New York – one of the larger states in the US-- amounts to $120 billion. Wal-Mart is almost 3 times as large an enterprise as the state of New York.
The governor, the legislators, the attorney generals, the mayors, the city councils, and other officials are elected. They are therefore subject to a certain amount of control by the citizens. What happens if you don't like a policy at Wal-Mart? Who do you write to? The people who run Wal-Mart are not elected. They sell $312 billion worth of goods every year. So they don't really care a lot what you think.
Things get much worse if you actually work for Wal-Mart. Wages are notoriously low. Employees who try to organize unions get fired – even though that's illegal. The employee has nothing to say, nowhere to complain. The Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to assemble peacefully, that means that we have the right to organize; citizens have the right to petition the government, that means, to say what bothers them. Employees of Wal-Mart do not have those rights. If you complain or try to organize you are out the door. Its like living under a dictatorship. The greatest threat to individual freedom are big employers.
Private business, the enemies of government say, is much more efficient. To be sure, government bureaucracy is horrible. But have you ever tried to get your insurance company to pay for a medication, prescribed by your doctor, which was not on the insurance company's approved list? Everyone has horror stories about the inefficiencies of private insurers.
Everyone knows that. Why do people nevertheless keep coming around to say: don't trust the government, trust private enterprise? Look again at the Republican objection to government insurance. Republicans regularly speak for the interest of large business. The large insurance companies do not want to have to compete against the government. That might be bad for the almighty bottom line. Big business has always been opposed to what they call “big government” because government has had the job of enforcing antitrust legislation passed by Congress at the request of ordinary citizens. If it were not for the government enforcing wage and hour legislation, if it were not for OSHA enforcing (sometimes) health and safety standards, if the government did not limit the hours that children are allowed to work, if the government did not protect workers as imperfectly as it does, you can imagine how much more oppressive ordinary employment would be.
Big business does not like the government protecting workers. Big business does not like the government trying to clean up the environment polluted by business. Big business does not like the government supervising, however imperfectly, the formation of huge companies that have too much power. And so they keep harping on the evils of “big government.” But if you think about what your citizen's freedoms are in relation to the government and what your freedoms are in relation to your employers, may be government doesn't look quite so bad. You have to admit that the greatest threat to individual freedom comes from the folks you work for.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
General Motors goes bankrupt
Congratulations, Ms. and Mr. America. Overnight you have become industrialists. You are now owners of what used to be called General Motors, and perhaps should now be called US Motors. GM went bankrupt and now the US gov't—your and my government—owns about 60% of the company.
But then something really odd happened. The man who looks after our interests in Washington—at least that's what he is supposed to do—Barack Obama said that he is not interested in running GM. I presume that means that the previous management will continue to be in charge.
Imagine this: suppose you can't pay your mortgage and the bank repossesses the house. But the bank says “We are not interested in doing anything with that house.” So you stay there, you keep mowing the lawn and tending the flowers. You clean the house and make repairs where needed. The bank is not exercising its ownership rights. It is not taking real possession of the house. In fact, it looks as if it just gave you a chunk of money by allowing you to live in the house even though you are not paying the mortgage.
But of course we are dreaming. Banks don't act that way. If you don't pay what you owe, the banks takes back the house and you have to leave and move back in with the in-laws. There is no such thing as free rent.
Except if you are General Motors and you are in hock for billions of dollars to Uncle Sam.
That strikes me as fishy. The American tax payer—not Barack Obama—has given GM billions of dollars. GM now belongs to the American Taxpayer. But the folks who are elected to mind our affairs refuse to do so. We don't want to run GM, they say. All they want to do is to give GM billions of dollars of our money.
Maybe we should send letters to the White House saying “Barack are you minding the store? First you buy GM with our money and then you don't want to take possession what you just bought for us. This looks a lot like giving our money to General Motors without any return.”
It looks like one more example of different rules applying to big corporations from the rules that apply to you and me. If you or I go bankrupt, we loose the house. If GM goes bankrupt they get to help themselves from the public till—to our money. You figure it.
Who is the President working for anyway: ordinary voters or global corporations?
But then something really odd happened. The man who looks after our interests in Washington—at least that's what he is supposed to do—Barack Obama said that he is not interested in running GM. I presume that means that the previous management will continue to be in charge.
Imagine this: suppose you can't pay your mortgage and the bank repossesses the house. But the bank says “We are not interested in doing anything with that house.” So you stay there, you keep mowing the lawn and tending the flowers. You clean the house and make repairs where needed. The bank is not exercising its ownership rights. It is not taking real possession of the house. In fact, it looks as if it just gave you a chunk of money by allowing you to live in the house even though you are not paying the mortgage.
But of course we are dreaming. Banks don't act that way. If you don't pay what you owe, the banks takes back the house and you have to leave and move back in with the in-laws. There is no such thing as free rent.
Except if you are General Motors and you are in hock for billions of dollars to Uncle Sam.
That strikes me as fishy. The American tax payer—not Barack Obama—has given GM billions of dollars. GM now belongs to the American Taxpayer. But the folks who are elected to mind our affairs refuse to do so. We don't want to run GM, they say. All they want to do is to give GM billions of dollars of our money.
Maybe we should send letters to the White House saying “Barack are you minding the store? First you buy GM with our money and then you don't want to take possession what you just bought for us. This looks a lot like giving our money to General Motors without any return.”
It looks like one more example of different rules applying to big corporations from the rules that apply to you and me. If you or I go bankrupt, we loose the house. If GM goes bankrupt they get to help themselves from the public till—to our money. You figure it.
Who is the President working for anyway: ordinary voters or global corporations?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Business cooperating with government
The Boston Globe reports that big business has recently begun to cooperate with Pres. Obama and his team. The CEO of Dow Chemical praises the president's efforts to control carbon emissions. The healthcare industry is joining Sen. Kennedy to write a healthcare reform bill. The financial services industry is cooperating with representative Barney Frank in regulating banks and other financial institutions.
What a change! In the early 90s Pres. Bill Clinton and First Lady, now secretary of state, Hillary Clinton developed a grand scheme to reform health care for all Americans. The goal was to make sure that everyone had health insurance and that the cost of healthcare would be under control. A coalition of physicians, hospitals, health insurance companies and drug companies mounted a major campaign and shot down that project. With evidence of global warming growing steadily, the government has been trying to regulate carbon emissions and has met with unbending opposition from chemical companies as well as car manufacturers. Banks, mortgage companies, hedge funds have used their access to the then Republican dominated Congress to loosen restraints on the industry. We now experience the effect of this deregulation in the current economic crisis. For a while they made money hand over fist. Now ordinary Americans have to pay the price.
But now Republicans are in the wilderness. The people have spoken against their unquestioning support for big business. The Democrats have a comfortable majority in both houses and businesses are coming around to cooperate with the government.
Hallelujah!
But hold on there. Let's take a closer look. Businesses supported the recent credit card bill that was intended to extend new protections to holders of credit cards against the banks. If the banks support the so-called “Cardholders Bill of Rights” can you now trust the bank to be on your side? The same bank that has in recent months raised all its fees?
The same issue of the Boston Globe tells the other side of the story. The new “Cardholders Bill Of Rights”will not go into effect for another nine months. That gives the banks and credit card companies ample time to raise all their fees before their ability to raise interest rates will be restricted. What were the banks doing when they cooperated with writing this new consumer protection law for credit card holders? They were looking out for number one and made sure that the new bill would not damage their bottom line.
So maybe we need to take a second look at this new era of harmony between government and big business. Perhaps it is the government, once again, cooperating with large enterprises to put the squeeze on customers and ordinary citizens.
Consider just one example. One of the groups consulting with Sen. Kennedy about the new health-care legislation is the lobbying group for the drug companies. Most countries in the world regulate prices for drugs. Not so in the US where they can charge whatever they please. As a consequence, the costs of medications are significantly higher here than anywhere else. The companies say they need to charge high prices in order to do research for developing new medicines for, so far, incurable diseases. But the truth is that the drug companies spend more money on marketing than they do on research. Drug marketing persuades physicians to prescribe the drugs produced by one pharmaceutical company rather than another, or tries to persuade people to take pills they don't need. The cost of that marketing comes out of your and my pocket. The drug company has its eyes firmly on their bottom line not on whether you are sick or well, alive or dead.
Do you think that the drug companies have turned over a new leaf, that they have seen the error of their ways, repented, and are now determined to give us necessary medications at the lowest possible cost? Or are they perhaps at the table with Sen. Kennedy to make sure that medications will remain more expensive in the United States than anywhere else in the world?
The CEO of Dow Chemical explained the new cooperative attitude of business in this way: “You're either at the table or on the menu.” With large companies like Dow, the big banks, the pharmaceutical companies at the table, it may well be you and I who are you on the menu.
What a change! In the early 90s Pres. Bill Clinton and First Lady, now secretary of state, Hillary Clinton developed a grand scheme to reform health care for all Americans. The goal was to make sure that everyone had health insurance and that the cost of healthcare would be under control. A coalition of physicians, hospitals, health insurance companies and drug companies mounted a major campaign and shot down that project. With evidence of global warming growing steadily, the government has been trying to regulate carbon emissions and has met with unbending opposition from chemical companies as well as car manufacturers. Banks, mortgage companies, hedge funds have used their access to the then Republican dominated Congress to loosen restraints on the industry. We now experience the effect of this deregulation in the current economic crisis. For a while they made money hand over fist. Now ordinary Americans have to pay the price.
But now Republicans are in the wilderness. The people have spoken against their unquestioning support for big business. The Democrats have a comfortable majority in both houses and businesses are coming around to cooperate with the government.
Hallelujah!
But hold on there. Let's take a closer look. Businesses supported the recent credit card bill that was intended to extend new protections to holders of credit cards against the banks. If the banks support the so-called “Cardholders Bill of Rights” can you now trust the bank to be on your side? The same bank that has in recent months raised all its fees?
The same issue of the Boston Globe tells the other side of the story. The new “Cardholders Bill Of Rights”will not go into effect for another nine months. That gives the banks and credit card companies ample time to raise all their fees before their ability to raise interest rates will be restricted. What were the banks doing when they cooperated with writing this new consumer protection law for credit card holders? They were looking out for number one and made sure that the new bill would not damage their bottom line.
So maybe we need to take a second look at this new era of harmony between government and big business. Perhaps it is the government, once again, cooperating with large enterprises to put the squeeze on customers and ordinary citizens.
Consider just one example. One of the groups consulting with Sen. Kennedy about the new health-care legislation is the lobbying group for the drug companies. Most countries in the world regulate prices for drugs. Not so in the US where they can charge whatever they please. As a consequence, the costs of medications are significantly higher here than anywhere else. The companies say they need to charge high prices in order to do research for developing new medicines for, so far, incurable diseases. But the truth is that the drug companies spend more money on marketing than they do on research. Drug marketing persuades physicians to prescribe the drugs produced by one pharmaceutical company rather than another, or tries to persuade people to take pills they don't need. The cost of that marketing comes out of your and my pocket. The drug company has its eyes firmly on their bottom line not on whether you are sick or well, alive or dead.
Do you think that the drug companies have turned over a new leaf, that they have seen the error of their ways, repented, and are now determined to give us necessary medications at the lowest possible cost? Or are they perhaps at the table with Sen. Kennedy to make sure that medications will remain more expensive in the United States than anywhere else in the world?
The CEO of Dow Chemical explained the new cooperative attitude of business in this way: “You're either at the table or on the menu.” With large companies like Dow, the big banks, the pharmaceutical companies at the table, it may well be you and I who are you on the menu.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Crisis in Education
Teachers, school administrators, education experts meet almost any day of the year in one place or another to discuss education. Conferences about education occur almost daily throughout the year. Someone at any of these conferences is bound to talk about “the crisis in education.” For many years now, education in the United States has been deteriorating. Everyone knows it. But all the experts and all the education conferences have not managed to reverse the downward trend. There are unending discussions of schools, buildings and equipment, teachers and teacher training, class size, and many other topics. All of those are important. Many different factors have to come together before children and young persons can receive a good education.
In the United States, however, there is one more problem which does not receive a lot of attention: the vast majority of Americans do not believe that education is important.
How can I say such a thing when we spend huge sums of money on education, on beautiful new school buildings, equipped with computers and the latest audiovisual technology? Yes, it's true that we are willing to spend considerable sums of money on schools and teachers and equipment. But when it comes to education, most Americans think that it has no value except if it prepares you for a better job and for making more money. Most people do not think that education is good in itself. You go to school to enhance your financial prospects, not to learn anything.
Look on the Internet and google "the value of education," "the benefits" or "the importance of education," and you will find article after article explaining how college graduates will earn more money than people who only finished high school and that people who dropout of high school before finishing will earn even less and have more problems finding work. Education makes money; that's what it is good for.
As a consequence, many students at all levels go to school to earn a diploma, not especially to learn anything. In order to earn a diploma you have to pass courses and, preferably, earn a good grade. Learning anything is not the object. Three months after the course is over, most of the content is forgotten. Most importantly, the students did not acquire a thirst for knowledge. Few emerge from school asking questions, looking for answers, trying to understand the world in which they find themselves.
A good education develops the curiosity of children. They discover that learning things about the world is exciting. They learn to ask questions; they learn to wonder about events they do not understand. When they learn to read and write, they learn to formulate questions and articulate their thoughts about the world. When they learn how our government works, they learn one of the important prerequisites for being good citizens. They learn that they live in a society where they can influence their lives together with others. When they learn history, they learn to see themselves as belonging to a human race that has over centuries tried out different ways of living out human lives.
We hear often these days that parents should read books to their children. And so they should. But equally or more important is that parents read books for their own enjoyment and growth. Many American homes have no books except perhaps some college texts that have never been put in the trash. Children in those houses learn that grown ups do not read, that books are only for small kids. Once you have learned how to read, all you need to read is what you have to read in school or at your job.
Children do not learn to be curious if their parents' conversation includes only gossip or last nights' game. Children are encouraged to follow up their own questions when they see their parents talk at dinner about interesting things they found out in the course of the day, or topics they encountered they would like to know more about. Children do not learn to value education if their parents do not ask them what they learned in school, but only ask about their grades. What good are good grades if in earning them your child did not learn anything that will make a difference to the person she is growing up to be? Maybe your child is learning things in school you do not know and you might be glad to find out about. Learning from your children enriches your life and shows them that learning is good in itself.
Education should open everyone's eyes to the immense variety of the world, of persons and places and societies to know, to experience, savor and try to understand. You miss all of that if making and spending money is in the center of your life. You miss what education might provide in your life, if you only go to school to earn more money in the future.
In the United States, however, there is one more problem which does not receive a lot of attention: the vast majority of Americans do not believe that education is important.
How can I say such a thing when we spend huge sums of money on education, on beautiful new school buildings, equipped with computers and the latest audiovisual technology? Yes, it's true that we are willing to spend considerable sums of money on schools and teachers and equipment. But when it comes to education, most Americans think that it has no value except if it prepares you for a better job and for making more money. Most people do not think that education is good in itself. You go to school to enhance your financial prospects, not to learn anything.
Look on the Internet and google "the value of education," "the benefits" or "the importance of education," and you will find article after article explaining how college graduates will earn more money than people who only finished high school and that people who dropout of high school before finishing will earn even less and have more problems finding work. Education makes money; that's what it is good for.
As a consequence, many students at all levels go to school to earn a diploma, not especially to learn anything. In order to earn a diploma you have to pass courses and, preferably, earn a good grade. Learning anything is not the object. Three months after the course is over, most of the content is forgotten. Most importantly, the students did not acquire a thirst for knowledge. Few emerge from school asking questions, looking for answers, trying to understand the world in which they find themselves.
A good education develops the curiosity of children. They discover that learning things about the world is exciting. They learn to ask questions; they learn to wonder about events they do not understand. When they learn to read and write, they learn to formulate questions and articulate their thoughts about the world. When they learn how our government works, they learn one of the important prerequisites for being good citizens. They learn that they live in a society where they can influence their lives together with others. When they learn history, they learn to see themselves as belonging to a human race that has over centuries tried out different ways of living out human lives.
We hear often these days that parents should read books to their children. And so they should. But equally or more important is that parents read books for their own enjoyment and growth. Many American homes have no books except perhaps some college texts that have never been put in the trash. Children in those houses learn that grown ups do not read, that books are only for small kids. Once you have learned how to read, all you need to read is what you have to read in school or at your job.
Children do not learn to be curious if their parents' conversation includes only gossip or last nights' game. Children are encouraged to follow up their own questions when they see their parents talk at dinner about interesting things they found out in the course of the day, or topics they encountered they would like to know more about. Children do not learn to value education if their parents do not ask them what they learned in school, but only ask about their grades. What good are good grades if in earning them your child did not learn anything that will make a difference to the person she is growing up to be? Maybe your child is learning things in school you do not know and you might be glad to find out about. Learning from your children enriches your life and shows them that learning is good in itself.
Education should open everyone's eyes to the immense variety of the world, of persons and places and societies to know, to experience, savor and try to understand. You miss all of that if making and spending money is in the center of your life. You miss what education might provide in your life, if you only go to school to earn more money in the future.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Undocumented workers
May 1 has come to be one of the days when the advocates of undocumented workers demonstrate their support for immigrants. It is also a day for their opponents -- mostly persons who feel threatened by the job competition of the immigrants -- to emphasize that the immigrants are here illegally.
Alan Greenspan, for many years the head of the Federal Reserve and now, in his retirement, the grand old man of the business elite of this country, used the occasion to declare that "illegal immigration has made a significant attribution to US economic growth by providing a flexible workforce."
Translate that into English: businesses can pay undocumented workers very low wages. That saves them money. It also allows them to pay less to American workers because there is always a threat of being replaced by the undocumented low-wage workers. Undocumented workers have no protection from laws or from unions. You can hire and fire them at will.
Greenspan represents the point of view of employers. Many of them like undocumented workers. They also like that the undocumented and their supporters fight with American workers worried about their jobs. The presence of undocumented immigrants provides them with one more way of keeping all wages low and thus making more money.
Both American and undocumented immigrant workers make it easier for their employers to depress their wages when they fight with each other. They would be better off trying to support each other. In work places where there are unions, workers should insist that the undocumented be paid the same wages as they themselves. They should talk to their elected representatives about a reasonable immigration policy that would, for instance, allow long-term undocumented workers to get green cards and, eventually, become citizens and that would allow every workers to come here from abroad for a limited number of years.
The real fight is between employers and their employees. Since real 1970 wages for most Americans have hardly gone up. When workers wanted higher wages, business moved the jobs off-shore. Now they can also use the presence of undocumented workers to keep wages low. As a consequence many people today have less buying power than their parents had.
We can no more stop illegal immigration than we can stop off-shoring jobs. It is important to respond to these facts in ways that do not allow employers to use the undocumented to depress all wages.
Alan Greenspan, for many years the head of the Federal Reserve and now, in his retirement, the grand old man of the business elite of this country, used the occasion to declare that "illegal immigration has made a significant attribution to US economic growth by providing a flexible workforce."
Translate that into English: businesses can pay undocumented workers very low wages. That saves them money. It also allows them to pay less to American workers because there is always a threat of being replaced by the undocumented low-wage workers. Undocumented workers have no protection from laws or from unions. You can hire and fire them at will.
Greenspan represents the point of view of employers. Many of them like undocumented workers. They also like that the undocumented and their supporters fight with American workers worried about their jobs. The presence of undocumented immigrants provides them with one more way of keeping all wages low and thus making more money.
Both American and undocumented immigrant workers make it easier for their employers to depress their wages when they fight with each other. They would be better off trying to support each other. In work places where there are unions, workers should insist that the undocumented be paid the same wages as they themselves. They should talk to their elected representatives about a reasonable immigration policy that would, for instance, allow long-term undocumented workers to get green cards and, eventually, become citizens and that would allow every workers to come here from abroad for a limited number of years.
The real fight is between employers and their employees. Since real 1970 wages for most Americans have hardly gone up. When workers wanted higher wages, business moved the jobs off-shore. Now they can also use the presence of undocumented workers to keep wages low. As a consequence many people today have less buying power than their parents had.
We can no more stop illegal immigration than we can stop off-shoring jobs. It is important to respond to these facts in ways that do not allow employers to use the undocumented to depress all wages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)