Hope is not a plan

The military of South Ossetia nearly bagged a big catch -- the Georgian Defense Minister. His helicopter was successfully struck by ground fire and forced to make an emergency landing in Georgian-controlled territory after what the South Ossetians claim was a violation of their airspace.

The BBC story

A background on the territory

As it happens, certain parts of world ecology continue to trend in bad directions.

In an article in the August 18 issue of Science magazine, Westerling et al report that wildfires appear to have increased dramatically starting in the mid-80s due to warmer weather and an earlier spring snowmelt. As discussed in this perspective, this isn't simply a matter of "another problem caused by global warming." Forest fires currently contribute atmospheric carbon equivalent to 40% of fossil fuel emissions. This is what's known as a feed-forward cycle -- warmer weather yields more fires, which yield more carbon, which yields warmer weather, which leads to more fires, and so on.

On the disease side, tuberculosis is rapidly developing into an unkillable bug. For many years now, multi-drug resistant (MDR) tuberculosis has been a big problem, forcing doctors to rely on second-line drugs that are expensive, more toxic and less effective than the now ineffective first-line drugs. Since 2004, however, surveys of patients with MDR tuberculosis have found that from 5-15% of them have extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis, which is immune to both first-line drugs and at least half of the six classes of second-line drugs. As the MMWR says: XDR TB has emerged worldwide as a threat to public health and TB control, raising concerns of a future epidemic of virtually untreatable TB. New anti-TB drug regimens, better diagnostic tests, and international standards for SLD-susceptibility testing are needed for effective detection and treatment of drug-resistant TB.

The culprit in this case is poor implementation of proper drug treatment, bolstered in many areas by HIV clearing out the patient's immune system ahead of time.

It's likely that TB won't be effectively treated short of a completely novel approach. In the mean time, traditional public health measures will have to be taken to try and limit the spread of this deadly and untreatable TB variant.

The BBC article

Mr. President –

I am troubled.

I am troubled by your words, and troubled by your actions.

I am troubled that you can both declare that our mission is accomplished, and then stress that our young men and women absolutely must remain at war.

I am troubled that you say that we must be strong, then do your best to make our people weak and fearful with your rhetoric.

I am troubled that you claim to be fighting for democracy and against totalitarian rule, yet condone torture.

I am troubled that, because of your failings, our nation is being crippled.

Consider Iraq. When you claimed an imminent threat, I believed you. When that threat dissolved after the invasion, I could have forgiven you for being wrong. When you lied to America and told us that you'd succeeded in deposing a dictator just as you'd meant to all along, I lost all respect for you. Was that your real reason? Was that a cover? We can't know, because your story keeps changing to avoid admitting failure, without realizing that this indecisive stall and switch is the true failure.

Consider America. Are we strong, or are we weak? Must we be courageous, or should we listen to your hammering message of fear, pounded out in cynical rhythm with your chief advisor's desperate need to keep your party in power? How is it that you can say we face the Hitler of our times, yet eschew Roosevelt's famous depression-era admonition that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?" The President who led us to victory against Hitler certainly did not agree with your approach. Allow me to include the entire first paragraph of this great President's inaugural address:

"I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

Have you read and truly considered these words? Have you considered the strength it would represent to have actual convictions, stand by them, and trust that the value of those convictions and of your actions would be enough to earn the people's faith?

I do not appreciate what you are doing to our country. I do not appreciate that you exhibit such a crude failure of good citizenship that you believe that sidestepping the Constitution can save our nation. I am troubled that you do not understand that the spirit and ideals of our nation are the United States. It is not just a matter of protecting our physical borders, or making sure we have enough fuel. You are failing in these tasks, too, but fundamentally, you fail because you sell our ideals, and you sell them cheaply.

This is not simply a matter of disagreement. I have disagreed with every President before you, in one way or another. I disagreed with your father on many issues, but at the end of the day, I still respect him.

I cannot respect you. You send our troops to die, tell our people to cower, and throw away the spirit of our nation, and I do not understand why.

(Mailed and emailed today.)

Saddam Hussein is now on trial for genocide in the killing of over 180,000 kurds during the Anfal campaign of the late 80s. Following testimony against him in court, he said this (to the court): "You are agents of Iran and Zionism. We will crush your heads."

Have to watch out for those damned Zionist-Iranian conspiracies. They're just so common.

The BBC story

A report on Anfal from Human Rights Watch that opens with a heartbreaking letter from a soldier who returned from the Iran-Iraq war only to discover his family had been killed in his absence.

I just read a BBC article about Nasir Abbas, former member of Jemaah Islamiya and trainer of jihadis in the southern Philippines. The article discusses his role in Jemaah Islamiya, and how the killing of over two hundred civilians in Bali in 2002 pushed him away from the organization. He is now an informant for police in Indonesia.

The key step in his path away from contemporary jihadi, from the article:

"I train people for war, for battle," he said. "We are killing for defence. We are fighting for our right. And we are not attacking civilians but soldiers."

"I feel sorry, I feel sin," he said, "because they used the knowledge to kill civilians, to kill innocent people."

Notably, when he was taken into custody, the Indonesian police surprised him by treating him with respect, whereas he'd been expecting torture.

From The BBC:

Colombian gangsters face sex ban

A city official said the idea came from a meeting of wives and girlfriends over the progress of a disarmament scheme.

Naturally, the Wikipedia entry for Aristophanes' classic play Lysistrata, in which Greek women withhold sex from their husbands to force a halt to war between Greek city-states, has already been updated to mention the situation in Pereira.

This really deserves a follow-up analysis in several months to see if it worked.

This is a clipping from this CNN report on the President's press conference today. Note the advertisement on the right. There's nothing wrong with life insurance, nor insurance ads, but it's quite the commentary that instead of the usual "is your family's future secure?" kind of pitch that life insurance uses, it has the very fear-based image of the child actually asking, "Dad, what would happen to me and mommy...if you died?"

Which words is this ad keyed to? Terror? Enemy?

The president's rhetoric of fear and uncertainty is being reflected in our national mood, and in how companies try to sell their products. He has instilled in this country the message that nowhere is safe, and that the future is ever in doubt.

The next election is sneaking up on us -- just over a month and change away, we'll all get to vote on a number of exciting new proposed laws, and possibly some new local officials as well. As before, I'll be reviewing this year's crop of propositions and giving each an up or down recommendation. This year, we have (now with links to my reviews added as the reviews are completed):

1A: Transportation Funding Protection Recommend "No"
1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security Recommend "No"
1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Recommend "No"
1D: Kindergarten - University Public Education Facilities Recommend "No" with caveat
1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Recommend "No"
83: Sex Offenders, Punishment, Residence Restrictions, Monitoring Recommend "No" (change of position)
84: Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Park Improvements and more. Recommend "No"
85: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Recommend "No"
86: Tax on Cigarettes. Recommend "Yes"
87: Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives, Oil Tax. Recommend "Yes"
88: Education Funding. Property Tax. Recommend "Yes"
89: Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Spending Limits. Recommend "Yes"
90: Government Acquisition of Private Property. Recommend "No"

Whew. That's quite a bit. I'll try to review each in a timely manner.

If you just can't wait for your sample ballot and voter information guide, you can read the full text of all the propositions at the Secretary of State's web site.

Proposition 86: Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

If you've heard of any of this year's propositions, you've probably heard of this one. It's been on the receiving end of a blitz of negative campaigning, calling it another tax and decrying how only a minimal portion of its revenues will actually go to smoking prevention. Let's take a look at what it actually does and see how those ads might, just possibly, be shilling for big tobacco.

Prop 86 would add a 13 cent tax on each cigarette, and by extension (due to current California law) comparable tax increases on chewing tobacco and all other tobacco products. This would take the form of an excise tax, meaning that sales tax would be built on top of it. Funds pulled in by this new excise tax would go toward a number of health-related areas. First, money would go to backfill funds lost by Prop 10, which also taxes cigarettes. This would ensure that Prop 10's mandated early childhood development programs would not lose out just because people cut back on taxable smoking after the price increase. Of the money remaining after this backfill, 5% would go into the Health and Disease Research Account, funding studies on tobacco control and various cancers (breast, lung, other cancers). 42.25% would go into the Health Maintenance and Disease Prevention Account, providing health coverage for poor children, prevention and care programs for heart disease, stroke, obesity, diabetes, cancer, asthma and putting money into a number of tobacco control and prevention programs. Finally, 52.75% would go into the Health Treatment and Services Account, which would put money into nursing education, nonprofit clinics, tobacco cessation, rural health services and, above all, paying money to hospitals for emergency and trauma care given to people who can't pay.

On the face of it, it might seem hard to argue with taxing cigarettes (a health care cost for the state) to support state public health. Hey, some people might even quit smoking in response. The major complaints levied against this, other than the tired call of "it's another tax" (this is hardly an income tax...) are that most of it doesn't go to tobacco prevention, that it pushes money into "greedy hospitals," and that it exempts hospitals from antitrust laws.

To the first argument, I say "So what?" It's a straw man. Taxes from cigarettes don't have to go to fighting smoking. Heck, you could tax cigarettes (a luxury) and put the money into roads or public transit (necessities) and it would make perfect sense. Taxing tobacco and putting the money into health care is a good fit, but not a necessary one.

To the second argument, I might simply point out that Doctor's Medical Center in West Contra Costa County is closing after estimated losses of $1.5 million per month. If you want to fight medical costs, fight pharma. Don't think that avoiding a tax on a known cancer-causing luxury good that could help keep hospital emergency departments open is a good way to send some kind of message.

To the third argument, I direct you to the fact that the exemption is solely for the purpose of letting hospitals work together to arrange disaster emergency services that are mandated by this proposition. It's a cheap trick to suggest that trying to keep hospitals from getting into trouble for cooperating on disaster drills is some ploy by those hospitals to "pull one over" on us. As a solid counterpunch, the law limits hospitals in the amount they can charge low-income patients and in their ability to sic debt collectors on patients. I admit that when I heard of an antitrust exemption I was suspicious, but having read the text of the law, it's nothing. Certainly nothing like what the counter-ads suggest.

You can get a read for the purpose behind a campaign by the quality of its arguments. The anti-86 ads push hard on a straw man argument, distrust of medical costs and a lie by omission (they mention antitrust, but completely without its incredibly restrictive context). If someone has to mislead you to get your vote, you know even they don't believe their own position. Prop 86 is a positive, in more ways than one.

You can read the text of Prop 86 here.

Tobacco companies have spent more than $69.9 million ($69,900,000) opposing Prop 86. You can read more about that by clicking here.

You can read my other reviews and recommendations on the propositions by clicking here.

In March, the Basque separatist (and terrorist) group Eta announced a ceasefire, with the professed aim of promoting a democratic resolution to the question of Basque independence.

Last Saturday, Eta spokespeople announced that the group has no plans to disarm, and that it "confirms its commitment to continue to fight... until independence and socialism for the Basque country is won."

Eta has not yet carried out any attacks, so this may simply have been a rhetorical push to try and gain a little more leverage in any potential future negotiations, or to avoid losing credibility.

As an aside, it's apparent from their speeches that Eta wants not only a free Basque homeland, but expects to be in charge of that homeland once it becomes independent. I imagine many Basque people would like their own country; I'm not as certain that they'd want it to be a socialist country.

The Al Jazeera story

Proposition 85: Waiting Period And Parental Notification Before Termination Of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. - recommend No

Two elections ago, opponents of abortion introduced Prop 73, which they subtitled "Parent's Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative". This time around, they've resurrected the exact same measure with a more honest name. That said, it's still the same idea, with the same fundamental problems. Briefly:

This proposition would introduce a parental notification requirement prior to an abortion, with a 48-hour reflection period. This completely ignores the risks posed to young women coming from abusive or unhealthy home environments.

The young woman does have the option of going to a juvenile court to try and petition for the ability to go ahead without parental notification. The court is then obligated to make a judgment by 5pm the following day. As before, try to imagine a young woman somewhere in the Central Valley, with no access to a car or public transit, trying to make it to the juvenile court that's sixty miles away, twice in two days without her abusive father or mother noticing.

Once again, this proposition would allow parents to levy civil charges against a doctor who failed to notify them prior to performing an abortion. At any time prior to judgment, the parents could simply take $10,000 from the doctor in question. Again, I fear the clinic-chasing industry this could generate, with lawyers hunting for the free $10K.

As before, the notification must be sent certified mail, with delivery restriction and signature required, as well as a parallel mailing via first class mail. This part adds a touch of work for a doctor's office, but is the most reasonable part of the prop.

In reviewing Prop 86, I mentioned that you can gain vital understanding about a cause by the way it is argued. The arguments for Prop 86 focus on the unsupported idea that lack of parental notification laws lets young girls be pressured into sex (and then abortions) by sexual predators, and that abortion clinics callously profit from performing abortions on minors. Scanning through the capitalized words in the argument for this proposition, I see that the key concepts are PARENTS, SCHOOL-AGE GIRLS, ADULT MEN, SEXUAL ABUSE, and RAPE. The take-home message of the argument is that your daughters are being raped and forced to have abortions. In contrast, the arguments against this measure point out that it is impossible to legislate family communication, and that many young women come from dangerous homes where they are already being sexually abused, or face violence rather than caring should they find themselves pregnant.

This is my assertion: This kind of proposition is the lazy and callous way out. If you are a genuine opponent of abortion, I recommend that you lobby for greater funding for health and safety education for kids, especially at-risk kids. I recommend combined programs that are oriented toward helping kids lead healthy lifestyles, supporting abstinence and understanding safer sex measures, such that we can prevent dangerous behaviors, unwanted pregnancies and, at the end of the day, abortions. You could even support counseling for parents to help them not respond with violence, or to identify abusers more effectively. If a young woman feels she can talk with her parents or a counselor safely, she will. Forcing her to face parents she can't talk to will not make things better.

It is not worth the lives and health of our young women to promote your political goals.

You can read the text of Prop 85 here.

You can read my reviews and recommendations on the other propositions by clicking here.

Proposition 84: Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute. - recommend No

Up front, I must say that it kills me to recommend against a proposition with such laudable goals. Proposition 84 is a bond measure that would put up $5.4 billion in bonds to fund water quality management (divided among the major water regions of the state, such as the Sacramento Delta and the Los Angeles area), protection of lakes, rivers and streams, flood control measures (oriented toward mapping, bolstering management efforts and giving state matching funds to local governments for similar efforts), substainable communities (urban greening and competitive grants to regional and local parks), protection of coastal waters, enhancement and repair of parks and recreation facilities, forest and wildlife conservation and statewide water planning.

As I said, laudable. There is nothing sneaky or underhanded in there, and all the goals are excellent. I support them. However, a $5.4 billion bond measure requires a payoff, over thirty years, of $10.5 billion. I would much prefer to see money paid out directly, now, by our legislature.

In what will become, I think, a regular feature of these reviews, let me touch briefly on the disingenuous claims made in the arguments for and against this proposition.

For: "Yes on 84 will not raise taxes..."

That's their emphasis, not mine. This is frankly dishonest. It does not literally raise taxes, of course. It just shovels a $10.5 billion debt onto Californians for the next thirty years.

Against: "This proposal eliminates protections against corruption and favoritism in current law and it bypasses our competitive bidding system."

Also false. The proposition eliminates competitive bidding for one allotment of $10 million tasked for emergency flood care - out of a bond measure that's worth $5.4 billion. It also does exempt the measure from some controls that require that regulations be vetted by the Office of Administrative Law, but per my reading of the appropriate text from the Government Code, this does not affect how the money is spent, but how any potential resulting rules are written (that is, they won't be vetted for clarity).

I'm disappointed that the authors put forward the misdirection tactic of claiming "no new taxes," but as we'll see in Prop 1E, our legislature does this as well. I'm similarly disappointed that the argument against pushes so hard on an allocation method that applies to less than 0.2% of the money involved.

You can read the text of Prop 84 here.

You can reach my reviews and recommendations on other propositions by clicking here.

Proposition 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006. - recommend No

Proposition 1E is part of a raft of five legislative measures designed to help rebuild California infrastructure. Prop 1E is focused on flood control and emergency preparedness measures, proposing putting up bonds worth $4.1 billion to pay for them. As I noted with Prop 84, even bond measures with entirely laudable goals face the fundamental problem that they load dramatic debt onto the state for the next thirty years -- in this case, $4.1 billion now requires a payoff of $8 billion later. For that reason alone, I must again recommend against this measure, and suggest that we all pressure our legislature to pay that money up front, now, out of our state budget.

The core expenditure in Prop 1E is a bolus of $3 billion directed to flood control and disaster preparedness measures in the Central Valley and the Sacramento Delta region. If you're a Southern California resident and these names aren't jumping out at you, the former is where the bulk of California's agriculture lives and the latter is the most consistent source of state flooding news as the rivers overflow every so often. $3 billion would be a substantial amount to direct to flood prevention in these areas; however, the current estimated price tag for the required refurbishing in the Cental Valley and the Delta comes to $7-12 billion. That is, anywhere from twice to four times the amount of the bond. I'm not convinced that making it a quarter of our way to the goal is worth $8 billion in debt. The scope of the problem suggests that incremental, up-front expenditures are really what is required.

Sadly, the argument for Prop 1E hauls out the same "no taxes" argument, saying "YES ON 1E: STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND NO NEW TAXES". Although it is not a literal tax, an $8 billion debt is effectively a tax on our future, and is not sound policy.

For the record, our state legislative bodies voted overwhelmingly for this bond measure. I recommend going back to them and telling them to start paying for these repairs directly, rather than mortgaging the future to avoid any hint of taxes now.

You can read the text of Prop 1E here.

You can reach my reviews of and recommendations on the other propositions by clicking here.