Well... it worked once

Cam Cardow, The Ottawa Citizen

Beer, Prejudice, and Politics

Eric, over at Barataria, writes about beer. I’m certain Eric didn’t know that beer is one of my favorite subjects… but it is, and Eric’s use of analogy created a “teachable moment” for ole Mule Breath. His message is about more than just beer... he uses the godly elixir as a means to make a point about diplomacy.

Eric posits that the ancient Sumerians were the first to discover the benefits of beer. He further suggests that some of that tribe, perhaps preferring the nomadic lifestyle to the sedentary required for farming, argued against putting in the grain crops that would be required as a base for the brew. Putting in crops meant staying in one spot until the crops could mature and be harvested. So perhaps there were differences of opinions resulting in arguments... until there was beer.

The more astute of you are probably seeing the direction Eric was travelling with this line of thought. It brings up a topic that I have not yet discussed on this blog, and reading Eric’s message made me understand why. To this point the foofarah in Cambridge between distinguished Professor Henry Lewis “Skip” Gates, and decorated police Sergeant James Crowley has been something about which I really would rather not speak, but Eric’s brief, simple discussion of beer brought it out.

My aversion to this discussion is rooted in the suspicion that the guy I wanted to be right… wasn’t. Dr. Gates likely mishandled the situation and carried it to ridiculous length, causing what should have been an inconsequential local dispute to escalate to a world media event. I can excuse him to some small degree, because the city in which this dust up happened, Cambridge, has a long, checkered history of racial tension, and the police department has had several high profile cases in which it was shown officers overreacted and overreached. A follower of the Harvard Crimson would know I speak the truth.

So, when the story first broke, my reaction was Reaganesque; There they go again.

It didn’t take long for me to realize that I had jumped to conclusions unsupported by fact. Even the photo of Dr. Gates being taken from the house in handcuffs showed him with a highly agitated expression, his mouth open wide as if shouting. It disappointed me to learn that Gates was likely the bad guy here. But I'm a big boy. I can overcome disapointment.

Mistakes were made. It looks like Professor Gates made the first by assuming a racial aspect to Sgt. Crowley’s investigation of a citizen call. Perhaps Sgt. Crowley isn’t racially 100% balanced, who knows, and who amongst us is, but his actions that day did not indicate any great degree of racism. Gates was wrong to make that assumption. I was wrong to make that assumption.

The next mistake was, however, Sgt. Crowley’s. The arrest should not have happened. Sgt. Crowley allowed the cop in him to override the reasonable man he is reputed to be. If Prof. Gates was being unruly, placing him in restraints was a good option, but carrying through with the arrest was a mistake. (At least he didn't Taze him)

Then it was my time to make a mistake. Almost immediately upon hearing of the event I assumed the worst of the police. This is my bias and I do not apologize for it. I have my reasons, and those are fact… not conjecture. From personal experience I expect cops to behave badly when confronting certain populations, and blacks fall into that assumption. My mistake in this case will likely not change my overall point of view. I have always admitted that the cops I dislike are part of a small element, and I've seen great stride toward improvement over recent years. Still, when something like this happens I expect to to worst. My mistake in this instance.

Now comes President Obama, giving every right wingnut all the reason in the world to point and shout, “See! We told you so.” And now Mr. Obama is the racist that idiots like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James Inhofe have long predicted. Good job Mr. President. But good recovery as well.

So, back to the beer… and to the “teachable moment” that has been discussed by both Dr. Gates and President Obama. Far from inflaming racial tensions, Sgt. Crowley’s mistake may serve as the path to a bridge, if one can ever be found, Mr. Obama is wise enough to follow that path. Inviting the boys over to the White House for a beer was a means to make amends for bad choices and perhaps get things rolling in the direction of improved understanding. This could be a first step, and Sgt. Crowley may end up being the hero. I hope so.

“When this whole thing got way overblown in the media, the only sensible and civilized thing to do was to sit down and have a beer about it. Amazing things can happen when people give themselves up to the idea that no matter what your dispute is, downing a pint of your fave foam with someone is an act of contrition, brotherhood, or at the very least tolerance. We’re all just people, and we might agree to disagree on many things – but we can all enjoy a cold one.

In the end, the event was just another White House photo-op in many ways. But what it said to everyone is that there are ways of getting past all the terrible ghosts that have been haunting us since this nation first declared its independence.

We may not all agree on everything, but that’s not important. We’re all people. We know enough to be civil and decent to each other. If it takes some time over a few beers to make that clear, then it’s time well spent. In fact, there’s no better use of time than to spend it getting to know someone you have a serious disagreement with because they might just change your mind on a thing or two. I’ll bet a lot of Sumerians were convinced of that after all that grain produced something as cool as beer.

Indeed I think they probably were, Eric. Thanks for a good message.
~~

RECOMMENDED READING: Prof. Gates, Cambridge and Racial Politics, CBSNews.com
~~

Coffee Cup Politics

44 years ago today the Federal government received the first application for enrollment in the Social Security Supplementary Medical Insurance Program, known as Medicare Part B. The applicant was former President Harry S. Truman, and his application was approved by President Lyndon Johnson at the signing ceremony for the bill that created the program.

Harry Truman was at that ceremony for good reason. 20 years earlier it was Truman who sent a message to Congress asking for legislation that would establish a national health insurance plan. Then as now, it was Republicans raising the specter of "socialized medicine" that doomed the idea in its entirety, but by the end of Truman's administration a new plan had been formed and was gaining ground. Truman backed off from the idea of universal coverage, instead focusing on the idea of a program aimed at insuring Social Security beneficiaries, which would include the elderly and the disabled. 20 years of debate ensued with some astonishingly familiar tactics employed by the usual list of suspects.

Operation Coffeecup

The intractable opposition of the AMA and other pressure groups made universal health care an unrealistic goal, so Truman’s Federal Security Administrator, Oscar Ewing, in 1952 began advocating medical care for the aged. Truman hoped that scaling back the ambitious idea of universal health care would mollify the conservative opposition.

It didn’t work. In 1952 the first bill was introduced in Congress to create a Medicare program. The AMA immediately announced its opposition and worked tirelessly and successfully to prevent any such program from advancing in the Congress. The bill withered on the vine. Another bill was introduced in 1958, and the AMA mobilized a massive campaign against it, quintupling its anti-Medicare lobbying budget. Republicans, responding to AMA pressure, bottled the bill up in committee.

The battle waged on, with labor siding with the Democrats and raising the ante for the AMA funded Republicans. In 1960 Senator Robert Kerr (D-OK) and Representative Wilbur Mills (D-AR) proposed a compromise. The Kerr-Mills bill created a state-based welfare program covering only the medically indigent and the elderly on state welfare rolls. This scaled-back scheme was enacted into law in September 1960. The plan would be entirely optional for the states. If a state so chose, they were free to ignore the law. Even this pitiful compromise was bitterly resisted by the AMA, but there was enough popular support that even the AMA’s money couldn’t buy enough votes to defeat it.

In the subsequent political battles over Medicare, the AMA would deploy an alternative strategy; developing an alternative they labeled “Eldercare.” This scheme was essentially Kerr-Mills on steroids, promising more generous benefits than Medicare, but still limiting the benefits to the welfare population rather than to all elderly Social Security beneficiaries. However, the non-indigent elderly were still in need of health care coverage and still unlikely to be able to purchase it in the marketplace. Studies at the time reported that the elderly used medical services at a rate twice that of those younger; that three-fifths of the elderly had less than $1,000 in liquid assets; and that nearly 54% lacked any form of health insurance. It was clear to virtually everyone that the elderly had medical-care problems that far exceeded those of the average American.

The election of John F. Kennedy added new pressure to the push for Medicare and advocates were optimistic that the 1961-62 session of Congress would see some improvement, but Medicare was by no means a shoe in, and the AMA remained a significant force of opposition.

Starting in 1961, the 82,000 strong AMA Woman’s Auxiliary (physician’s wives) began a variety of public relations tasks on behalf of their husbands. In the spring of 1961 they launched Women Help American Medicine (WHAM). In promotional material still found in the AMA archives, WHAM bluntly stated their goal as: “This campaign is aimed at the defeat of the King-Anderson bill of the 87th Congress, a bill which would provide a system of socialized medicine for our senior citizens and seriously curtail the quality of medical care in the United States.”

So the first specter of socialism was raised in 1961 by the AMA. This was the public face of their efforts, but there was another component to the AMA campaign. This side depended on hiding AMA involvement from congress. It was called Operation Coffeecup, and it also involved the Woman’s Auxiliary. It is also where former President Ronald Reagan got his toe in the political door.

The AMA had commissioned Reagan to make a recording of a speech demonizing Medicare. Reagan did such a good job that the term “Socialized Medicine” has entered the American lexicon as a virtual synonym for any government assisted healthcare.

“[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

The AMA Women’s Auxiliary was to arrange a series of coffee-klatches with key members of Congress. The wives were instructed to downplay the purpose of the meetings, playing them as if some sort of spontaneous neighborhood events. Materials found in the AMA archives state: “Drop a note—just say ‘Come for coffee at 10 a.m. on Wednesday. I want to play the Ronald Reagan record for you.”

The die was cast, and the right has forever hitched their wagon to the notion that government sponsored healthcare is somehow linked to socialism, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The rogue’s gallery is a virtual casting call for wingnuts and hysterical idealism.

In 1964, George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare as “socialized medicine.”

That same year, Barry Goldwater said, “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.”

Reagan, of course, went on to become President, giving the AMA and other right wing ideologues an ear to bend.

In 1996, Presidential candidate Bob Dole bragged of being one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.”

In the almost four and a half decades since Medicare was signed into law, the right wing opposition to Medicare has continued unabated. Were it not for overwhelming popular support, those aligned forces would, I’m sure, drive a stake into the program’s heart. As Igor Volsky notes on the Wonk Room blog, conservatives have attempted in the decades since Medicare’s creation to kill it and force it to “wither on the vine.”

Medicare isn’t perfect by any stretch, but it has improved access to health care for the elderly, helped them to live longer, healthier lives, reduced poverty, and has become one of the most popular government programs.

Today we have another ambitious proposal from another President who finds himself the target of right wing fear-mongering and hysteria, much like Truman. The universal healthcare plan proposed by Obama and championed by the Democrats in Congress is flawed just as Medicare is flawed, of that we can be certain. But the fear-inducing hysteria promoted by the same old list of suspects is stirring up the same unjust anxiety it did 50 years ago.

The AMA today is a different organization, but now we have the insurance giants and their lobbyists to worry about. The Republican Congress sounds about the same today as they did in 1945, and today they have FOX, Limbaugh, et al echoing the call. I would hope that students of history would be wary of the sock puppets and make decisions based on reason and fact. One can hope.
~~

I didn't know there was free beer

From The Sun, London

POLITICIANS are clamping down on brothels offering recession busting discount rates.

Bargain rates seem to be bringing in more clients, but perhaps its for the free beer.

~~

Tasers and a propensity for abuse

There has been much in the news over the past few years regarding Taser use and misuse by law enforcement. Several have died after being “tazed” when officers, supposedly following policy, utilized the device as a deterrent to violence. Taking a serious look at this situation, two questions come to mind… with each of those raising ancillary questions.

Regarding the deaths, I have to wonder if this is a dissonant correlation/causation phenomenon, or if receiving a huge electrical shock actually precipitated the death of a person. And then we would need to know why the shock killed one and not another.

After regular reading of news stories and seeing the seemingly large number of situations in which a individual is subjected to Taser shock, I would like to know if perhaps the weapon is being correctly utilized by law enforcement, or are cops “tazing” subjects unnecessarily, and if so, why?

There is some research data available (albeit not much), and some ongoing research into the potential for lethal outcome with Taser shock. Some critics argue that the device had not been studied sufficiently prior to being placed into general use, a claim which the Arizona based manufacturer disputes. The manufacturer, unsurprisingly, defends the device’s effectiveness and actually states that it saves lives. I’ll leave it to you, my gentle readers, to Google for that little ditty. Discussion from the manufacture point of view and others may be found HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Taser’s website has a page on research, with a slant of course, upon which you will find a photo of a smiling dude wearing scrubs and lab coat, and with stethoscope slung over his neck. He certainly looks like a doctor… but he isn’t at all identified. The photo lends some illusionary credibility to the research aspect from the company point of view, I guess.

Now the overuse/misuse question

You be the judge. A cursory review of the web brought several quick results using keywords “Taser” and “misuse.” I've heard of others but didn't take the time to dig more than this.

November of 2008 - - A Pinellas County, Florida jailer used a Taser to awaken a prisoner. The jailer received a 15 day suspension.

Earlier this year - - North Wales police tazed an 89 year old man who was threatening suicide. This same article references use of the Taser on a 14 year old child, and the same department has tazed dogs, sheep and cattle.

June of this year - - A Travis County Constable used a Taser to subdue an angry 72 year old woman because she wouldn’t sign the speeding citation he had written.

Just a couple days ago - - Boise, Idaho, police officers were disciplined by their department for shoving a Taser into a suspect’s butt crack, and firing. This entire episode is recorded on video and audio tape.

The jury is still out

There is no verifiable, statistical data indicating how many times Tasers have been used by law enforcement to subdue citizens, so there is no means of knowing just what percentage of uses are done according manufacturer recommendation and/or departmental policy. Neither is there any way of knowing how many Taser incidents are vindictive and/or coercive and/or just for the convenience of the officer. How many times has the device been used in anger or frustration, or simply for expediency?

If Tasers were not available, would the Texas constable have used some other form of force to subdue the little old lady, or would he have done what the law requires, handcuff and arrest her, and simply take her to jail?

Would the North Wales police have restrained the old geezer in some less painful and dangerous way, and would Sparky the sheep have been wrangled in a more reasonable fashion?

We have seen and heard reports of police abuse of authority and brutality over the years. Much of this is documented, and we fret about every new report. We know it happens, but has the availability of the Taser made it simpler for cops already inclined to be abusive to misuse that authority?

One thing is certain. There is insufficient data to make any valid assessment of these questions, so we need serious research efforts. If the device is determined to be effective and safe, then we must insist on better training and greater oversight of officers entrusted with that kind of potential.

We can’t continue to tolerate law enforcement shoving 50,000 volts up some dude’s chute just because the cop loses his cool

~~

UPDATE:

A reader has provided this link to an article on the Amnesty International website, detailing the number of U.S. deaths folowing Taser shock. The report, of course cannot determine causation, but the anecdotal evidence lends strong suspicion. From the article:

Amnesty International has said that industry claims that Taser stun guns are safe and non-lethal do not stand up to scrutiny. The organization called on governments to limit their deployment to life-threatening situations or to suspend their use.

The call came as the organization released one of the most detailed reports to date on the safety of the stun gun. The report "USA: Less than lethal?" is being published as the number of people who died after being struck by Tasers in the USA reached 334 between 2001 and August 2008.

So, in my mind at least, since we failed to study the device prior to its deployment, the Taser should be shelved until such time as we can collect the data, and such data indicates it is safe for use. The research should not be entrusted to the manufacturer of the device.

Then we should spend time offering training to those who will be entrusted with the device. They need to understand mor than just how to use it. They should understand that there are time when it should not be used, and be aware of the potential consequenses.
~~

Montag is right

Even for an atheist, this ain't a bad way to start a Sunday.



If you ever get a chance to see Ry Cooder in concert, it is worth the price of admission.
~~

AP takes a shot - - Shoots own foot

Associated Press announced a new policy Wednesday. CEO Tom Curley thinks he understands this Internet thing, and he is determined that his organization will get richer by exploiting the medium. But I think… probably not.

From the New York Times, July 24, 2009:

Tom Curley, The A.P.’s president and chief executive, said the company’s position was that even minimal use of a news article online required a licensing agreement with the news organization that produced it. In an interview, he specifically cited references that include a headline and a link to an article, a standard practice of search engines like Google, Bing and Yahoo, news aggregators and blogs.

Asked if that stance went further than The A.P. had gone before, he said, “That’s right.” The company envisions a campaign that goes far beyond The A.P., a nonprofit corporation. It wants the 1,400 American newspapers that own the company to join the effort and use its software.

“If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley said. The goal, he said, was not to have less use of the news articles, but to be paid for any use.

That’s right folks; the AP (which, by the way, is a non-profit corporation) wants you to pay each and every time you quote an article in your blog, or even link back to one on the AP website.

The cluelessness is blinding.

Curley’s argument is that AP should be paid for any use of their product, no matter if only a link to the AP website, so they are taking the hard line that news articles should not turn up on blogs, search engines and Web sites without permission… and payment, The plan is to add some sort of software to each article published, which would display the AP’s version of applicable limits for use, inform the user of the required licensing agreement, and then phone home, telling the AP that the article has been used. Theoretically this would allow AP’s legal folks to file copyright infringement on scofflaws.

What they will actually be doing is consigning themselves to the dustbin of journalistic history. There is little doubt that this policy will produce a ripple effect on blogging, and the news aggregators like Hot Air and the Huffington Post will feel some effect, but what this action will not do is result in any additional revenue for AP. Instead the sphere will simply switch from AP to other reputable news organizations (Reuters, BBC), and the online newspapers.

"We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," says AP Chairman Dean Singleton. "We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore."

The legal theory in question is far from misguided, and neither is it up to the AP to determine the meaning of “fair use.” This is a question that will be answered by the courts, and I can assure Mr. Singleton that the decisions will not go well for his organization. The practice of cutting bits and pieces from wire service articles for the purpose of reporting the news or linking to an article when offering commentary dates back practically forever, and has been blessed by the courts numerous times. This is perfectly legal under current interpretation of copyright law, and just because the AP doesn’t agree will not change a thing. The threat of legal action will, however, be effective and bloggers will simply avoid the content rather than risk the expense of a court battle.

And then there is the relevance issue. The Associate Press board is apparently not much of a history student. If they were, they might have remembered that attempts to charge casual readers for web content has been tried… and has failed. When the New York Times, in 2005, attempted to place portions of its content behind a firewall and charge a $49.95 subscription price for access, unique hits dropped from 17 million monthly to a few hundred thousand. The Times dropped the idea in 2007. The AP, by following a similar path, is fasttracking the oldest remaining U.S. wire service to the realm of irrelevance.

“This is not about defining fair use,” said Sue A. Cross, a senior vice president of the group, who added several times during an interview that news organizations want to work with the aggregators, not against them. “There’s a bigger economic issue at stake here that we’re trying to tackle.”

This is about more than just the aggregators, and the AP is not working with anyone by attempting to deny use of content to bloggers, search engines and news aggregators. The AP is opening a can of worms that I’m sure they can’t imagine. Loss of readership and losses in courtrooms surely loom on the horizon, paralelled closely by loses in revenue.

The AP is shooting themselves in the foot.

See the AP press release HERE (Wonder if they'll charge me for this link?). The New York Times article is HERE, and an earlier article HERE. Joe Windish has a good evaluation on The Moderate Voice.
~~