The Susan G. Komen Race for Irrelevance

When I lost my father to bladder cancer at the age of 14, it seemed cruel and ironic that he managed to survive the Holocaust, only to be done in by some virulent disease that cost him his life and, while he was still living, his dignity. Even worse, in his mind, than having to choose between mind-boggling pain and the mind-numbing drugs that would alleviate his suffering, he had to suffer the iniquity of pissing through a hole in his side, something my proud father could never adjust to.

What we know now, however, is that bladder cancer isn't just some rider on the storm, a vagrant disease striking strangers in the night—my father unwittingly brought the disease upon himself by smoking two or three packs of Old Gold cigarettes every day. We all suspected, the denials of tobacco companies notwithstanding, that cigarettes caused lung cancer; we didn't know enough to understand that it also caused cancers to digestive and other crucial organs.

Which brings me to the 20^th annual Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, which this year attracted over 25,000 well-meaning people to Central Park, all of them determined and gulled into believing that their appearance will knock cancer senseless, pound it to oblivion, tear it limb from limb I tell ya'.

Okay, at least the Susan G. Komen Foundation has retreated from its Temper Tantrum for the Cure. But it's still perpetrating a massive fraud upon determined (if credulous) multitudes, which, like most frauds, is criminal not just for what it manages to accomplish—to part people from their millions—but for what it wastes, which is the opportunity to bring all those financial and human resources to bear on the real cause of cancer.

By the way, my point here isn't to prove what most sane and objective observers have come to realize—which is that cancer is mostly caused by environmental factors ranging from the crap we eat to the poison we allow corporations to pour into landfills and directly into the air and the rivers and streams that we and our livestock ingest.

No – if you don't already know that, this diatribe isn’t for you. But here's the issue: the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its ilk would have us believe that finding cures for cancer is a smart strategy, which is kind of like arguing that liposuction is a good cure for obesity.

Most people understand this, if only on an intuitive level. Cancer is inexorably on the rise, and attempting to cure cancer is akin to humanity racing itself on a galactic hamster wheel, only much more expensively. That’s good for universities and drug companies, but otherwise entirely besides the point.

You can see where I'm going, right? All this energy and all those resources should be directed against the Monsantos and Con Agras of the world, the Liggets and the Dows and the Tysons. My god, I could go on and on.

And that's the point. To confront the root causes of cancer is to politicize the debate, to point fingers at our employers and our neighbors, and to pick a side on the political debate between free markets and regulations.

(It doesn't have to be that way, of course. Free-market champions could still get on board by boycotting companies that create cancer-causing products or byproducts. But there would have to be clear-eyed and honest leadership on the right side of the political spectrum for that to happen, and that seems to be nonexistent.)

Instead of attacking the root cause of cancer, the Susan G. Komen Foundation solicits sponsorships, allowing corporations to give away tee-shirts to their employees as a show of solidarity, of support for women, as a team-building exercise (and for brand marketing – hey, there's nothing wrong with that!).

And Central Park is filled with pink-wearing, self-anointed heroes of the fight against breast cancer, choked-up women giving speeches about courage, fortitude and survival, the event every year more populous, more ritualized, more lucrative. And just as irrelevant to the real fight as the year before.

Puerile No-Government Fantasies

Here's the main problem with people who believe in allowing markets to run everything and limited government: they're just in it for themselves, and they already have a head start.

Their argument almost without exception boils down to a resentment of paying taxes so your kid can go to school.

The underlying idea is that the whole social contract thing is a crock; that government and its myriad rules and agencies have been foisted upon us unwittingly; that laws have created market dislocations that benefit the powerful industrial cabals that created government to begin with; and that if left to their own devices, people would take care of themselves quite nicely without it, thank you very much.

What separates Libertarians from Anarchists is that the former would keep a police force to enforce the peace and an army to protect the borders. Everything else would be strictly based on choice and the private sector.

Roads? Not a problem, private companies would compete for your dollars. Schools? All manner and price would emerge to serve various constituencies. Health care? Ditto. In other words, there isn't anything government does that private businesses couldn't and wouldn't do more cheaply and more effectively.

Best of all -- and this is where you see the childishness of the philosophy -- you don't have to pay for anyone else. Pay as you go, pay as you need. Save for future needs and if you don't, maybe a private charity will exist to help you out.

Or not. In which case, tough noogies.

Put aside the inanity of the argument -- the idea that we'd be better off this way, or that private companies are actually more efficient than government in every case. The real question is, how far do you roll this back? Do you actually rescind all laws? Delegitimize all levels of government, from federal statutes all the way to town ordinances? Do you sell off all government assets and redistribute the loot to the people? Do you pay off government debt first, or do you claim that those obligations were made without the consent of the people?

Or let me put it another way. Imagine we've achieved this Libertarian paradise where no laws obtain, other than the laws of the market.

Information flows easily, allowing individuals to choose goods and services in an informed manner. Consumers can take their business away from companies that pollute the rivers, maltreat animals, sell contraceptives -- you get the idea. Instead of laws regulating behavior, everyone does what they want (other than commit acts of violence) and the market punishes and rewards.

Now what happens if there's a place that needs, I don't know, a hospital, and the people in that place get together and decide to raise money to build one together and hire some people to run it for them? Would that be legal? Because that would be the beginnings of -- wait for it -- government.

So the question no Libertarian can answer is this one: if a government emerged from a Libertarian state, would it be illegal? If people of their own free will created government, would they be considered traitors? Would their community be ostracized?

Because you know that this is exactly what would happen, and it would be more successful than the puerile alternative offered by the likes of Ron Paul and his acolytes. Government wasn't actually foisted on us -- we organized it. It didn't come easily; Chicago had to burn to the ground before we realized that private sector fire departments were a really bad idea.

Yeah, government is really big and messy and complicated -- which is as it should be, since our country is really big and messy and complicated. Libertarian philosophy is at best nothing more than an infantile yearning for a simpler, more bucolic, prelapserian epoch, a wish to evade the complexity and trade-offs that grown-ups have to make every day. (At worst, it's a craven attempt to avoid paying taxes.)

I "wish" I didn't have to pay taxes too, but I also "wish" I could live forever. You don't have to share the vision of the author Claude Meunier, who once told me, "I enjoy paying taxes because it reminds me that I live in a civilized country," to understand that we really are inseparable and united by common needs.

Separateness is a fantasy in which we indulge ourselves. But just as we can't quarantine ourselves against diseases that are a plane ride away, we can't segregate our needs from those of our compatriots and refuse the very notion of a common weal.

Obama Should Steamroll the GOP on Health Reform

There's a lot of hand-wringing about whether the Democrats and Barack Obama should use reconciliation as a way of passing health care reform (HCR) in the face of the GOP filibuster.

Newt Gingrich actually had the chutzpah to call it "majoritarianism," as if a two-thirds majority had actually been written into the U.S. Constitution.

But most of the hand-wringing is actually coming from the left, which worries that Obama and the Democrats will suffer political consequences -- tea party madness, populist revolt, etc. -- in November.

That's madness. They will suffer consequences for not doing everything in their power to pass the HCR we elected them to enact.

This Princeton Survey Research poll conducted for Newsweek proves a couple of important points:

• Obama has way more political capital than the GOP
• Obama has let the GOP frame HCR in a way that makes it less popular
• People are overwhelmingly in favor of most aspects of the plan and -- this is the key --
• Rate Obama's plan favorably when they're told what those proposals really are, even though there are aspects of the reform that they don't like.

Here are some of the poll questions and results:

First of all, Obama is popular. His health care favorables are bad, but still better than the GOP:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

48 Approve
40 Disapprove
12 Don’t know

Now thinking about the issue of HEALTH CARE REFORM… Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the way each of the following is handling this issue. (First,) do you approve or disapprove of the way
Approve Disapprove DK
a. Barack Obama 39 52 9
b. GOP in Congress 21 63 16
c. Dems in Congress 27 61 12

On an up-and-down, blind test, Obama's HCR is unpopular

As you may know, Barack Obama has proposed a plan to change this country’s health care system. From what you have seen or heard about what he has proposed, what is your OVERALL opinion of Obama’s health care reform
plan – do you favor it or oppose it?
Favor Oppose DK
40 49 11

But when the proposals are spelled out, people love pretty much all of them:

Do you favor or oppose this proposal (to change the health care system)?

a. Requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help to those who can’t afford it

Favor Oppose DK
59 36 5

b. Requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with tax incentives for small business owners to do so
Favor Oppose DK
75 20 5

c. If health coverage is required for everyone, imposing fines on individuals who don’t obtain
coverage and on larger businesses that don’t offer it
Favor Oppose DK
28 62 10

d. Requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing medical condition
Favor Oppose DK
76 19 5

e. Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans

Favor Oppose DK
50 42 8

f. Creating a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without health
insurance to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive rates

Favor Oppose DK
81 13 6

g. Preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick

Favor Oppose DK
59 38 3

h. Imposing a tax on insurers who offer the most expensive health plans, the so-called Cadillac plans, to help pay for health care reform

Favor Oppose DK
34 55 11

The fascinating thing is, when people are told this is part of Obama's HCR plan, they change their tune about it:

Now please think about the proposals I just described to you. ALL of these proposals are included in Barack Obama’s health care reform plan. Having heard these details, what is your OVERALL opinion of Obama’s plan – do you favor it or oppose it?
Favor Oppose DK
48 43 9

Now tell me people are going to hold his use of a parliamentary procedure against him if that's what it takes to get a bill passed. On the contrary, they'll love him for doing it, as long as he and the Democrats spend enough time touting its benefits.

The Hudson Manifesto

In an age of Manifestos, it is only appropriate to name this Manifesto after the river first used by Europeans to penetrate into the American Continent more deeply than ever before, and around the banks of which two men who created the American conception of government as a means of seeding innovation, sustaining business, protecting individual liberty and advancing the cause of economic and social freedom, Alexander Hamilton and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, first forged their philosophies and their reputations.

For those of us who pledge our names to this Manifesto, government is the extension of the political will of the people who elect it; it is a means of creating the conditions for economic growth while protecting the liberties of men and women who would be crushed by the onslaught of an economic engine unfettered by any moral compass; it is the means by which men and women in a free society arbitrate their grievances, agree to rules of conduct in the marketplace and the public square, and alternately allocate and protect the resources we find on our land.

Because our nation has grown to more than 300 million inhabitants, from hundreds of cultures, for more than 200 years, it is natural and necessary that the government we have created be big and complex.

Our federal government in particular has had a role in fostering western expansion, the creation of a national transportation grid (first rails, then roads), a national electrical grid, and a national banking system.

Our federal government protects individuals from large corporations who would otherwise collude together to maintain high prices, pay low wages, pollute water and air, and produce unclean and unsafe goods and food with impunity.

Our federal government protects individuals from the tyranny of the majority, from discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation, color and gender.

Our federal government provides for, and should do more, to ensure that its citizens have access to minimum food and shelter, education and health care.

Our federal government cannot be scaled down to a size that ignores the consequences of more than 200 years of accumulation and distribution of wealth, most of it unequal. It cannot ignore the needs of children born into conditions from which they cannot reasonably be expected to rise without some help, nor the needs of those afflicted with natural disasters, nor fail to continue to act as a bulwark for individuals who, alone, cannot compete against the power and interests of corporations.

Our government must remain big and complex, and it must continue to grow, so that it can continue in the tradition of the agencies that supported the emancipation of African Americans and women, the harnessing of scientific research and the creation of common infrastructure necessary to the creation of individual wealth.

Obama's Driving Issue

President Barack Obama's biggest issue isn't untangling government from private businesses like Citigroup or, more pertinently, General Motors. No, his biggest problem, and the country's as a whole, is his having to use both arms to swat aside gadflies bent on scoring political points at the expense of the greater good.

The governors of four states that depend heavily on Toyota for jobs are accusing the Administration of having a "conflict of interest" in its efforts to protect U.S. consumers from callous treatment at the hands of the Japanese auto maker.

Never mind that the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to compel Toyota to halt the sale of 8 models on Jan. 26 as the automaker sought a fix for reports of sticky pedals. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said last week that "every step of the way" NHTSA had to prod Toyota into acting.

But hey, maybe LaHood is a liar too. It seems everyone is fair game. The trouble is the facile response that if government owns share in a company, it will clearly act to defend that company's interests and do anything to thwart its competitors. It's a logical fallacy that ignores a very important principle: government, not being a private enterprise, doesn't need to maximize profits or shareholder value. (In fact, that's the usual criticism of government-owned enterprises.)

In fact, not only is government not obligated to earn profits at any cost, the whole point of government ownership of any agency or enterprise is to maximize the public good.

But what about the heart of the fake issue: does the U.S. government have even the mechanism in place to have a conflict of interest here? Can anyone even point to a person or structure by which the federal government can manage GM? Given GM's stated objective of getting out from under the government's protective umbrella by the end of this year, is there even a long-term reason for the Administration to busy itself running a company it isn't even going to own for very long?

No one seems to want to take Obama at his word when he said that

GM will be run by a private board of directors and management team with a track record in American manufacturing that reflects a commitment to innovation and quality. They -- and not the government -- will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around.

But no one can find a shred of proof of the contrary -- not even noted crank opponents, like Stephen Bainbridge, whose 'cases in point' are nothing more than warning that Obama might be unable to "resist political pressures from key allies" like House Democrats and unions.

Truth is, unions and Congress don't want to cripple an employer like Toyota -- and neither does a President who seems intent on retaining his Congressional majorities come November.

Bottom line, Toyota and Toyota alone is to blame for its current predicament, and the Department of Transportation and federal regulatory agencies would have been remiss in laying off the company (even if it means taking political hits).

It's a shame we all have to waste energy discussing a blatantly political issue when there are much bigger problems to address.

Very Well, Thanks, Sarah Palin

Will you ever go away? Will you never leave us alone for even a little while? When will you understand that we really meant it when we said, "no, not you?"

Even racists voted for Barack Obama, because even they could see that you are a walking disaster. Republicans walked away from you because you scared them so badly. You're ignorant and, what's worse, you're proud of it.

Thing is, no one wants to see the country run by a woman who got herself elected high school Homecoming Queen by virtue of being mean-spirited and vindictive. It's just that simple.

As a recap, Sarah, you lost in November 2008 by the largest margin ever posted by a non-incumbent, and, in case you hadn't noticed, you haven't become much more likable or electable since. More than 70% of Americans don't even want you to run for President. Media companies may pay you to appear on their shows and magazine covers, but apparently not that many people will pay to hear you speak.

And with good reason. Most of us are pretty happy with our "hopey, changy stuff." It's a lot better than "you're doing a heck of a job," "stay the course,"and "privatize social security," even among those who don't live on the coasts, consider themselves liberals, drink lattes, or pal around with terrorists.

Speaking of which, we're quite happy, thank you very much, that we're no longer international pariahs, that our President speaks coherently, and in complete sentences, and is actually trying to change things. It's a hopeful sign for our country, if you get my drift.

And yes, it's been frustratingly slow going, due in large part (but not exclusively so) to the Party of No, which has now gone so far as to block all the President's appointees, including someone to head the TSA, for reasons ranging from petty to purely obstructionist.

America First, by all means.

So here's a heads up, Sarah: you guys lost. You don't speak for the American people. The people we, you know, elected, speak for the American people. So if you won't go away, at least shut up and listen for a change.

Obama Unleashing Liberal Muscle

The image of the American Liberal as a "bleeding heart liberal" is a pure invention of the reactionary Republicans (and was initially used as a strategy to replace the likes of Liberal Republican Jacob Javitz with ideologically pure Alphonse D'Amato).

Far more pernicious than the 'tax and spend' label placed on Democrats, this description paints liberalism as idealistic and sadly out of touch with reality; Liberals are suckers who would appeal to the better angels of criminals rather than punish them; appease our enemies rather than defend our interests; reward lazy workers rather than their employers; and worst of all, enmesh hard-working and effective business people in a maze of well-intentioned but dangerously counter-productive restraints.

President Obama may not be the most obvious champion of Liberalism, but his embrace of pragmatism is a signal that liberals aren't bleeding hearts, and that progressive political philosophy since the days of Robert LaFollette is actually characterized by a rational and long-term view of our national interest.

It assumes, among other things, that large private organizations can't be trusted to police themselves (any more than large nations can be trusted to abide by treaties without verification mechanisms) and that a cadre of professional and objective bureaucrats can help maintain an even playing field.

As John Judis notes in The New Republic, Obama has reinvigorated various regulatory agencies left to molder in budget marshlands and organizational limbo by a succession of hostile Administrations.

Obama has staffed agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the FDA, FEMA and other agencies with effective and competent leaders rather than partisan hacks, allowing those bodies to do what Progressives created them to do:

smooth out the rough edges (the “externalities,” in economic jargon) of modern capitalism--from dirty air to dangerous workplaces to defective merchandise to financial corruption... [and] that the agencies, staffed by experts schooled in social and natural science and employing the scientific method in their decision-making, could rise above partisanship and interest-group pressure.

Indeed, one reason Obama can compromise much of what he wanted in terms of emissions controls from a bill on renewable energy is that those goals can be achieved by the EPA.

Meanwhile, his Administration is deftly repositioning the Liberal position as a commonsensical approach that promotes America's interests more effectively than the tub-thumping Reactionary way.

Obama noted in his State of the Union that other countries are investing in their economic futures, much in the way a Republican might argue for an arms build-up. But rather than arguing for massive defense spending (much of which goes into the pockets of a handful of companies), Obama argues for spending that will be felt across a wider spectrum of American economic life (health care, education, and science).

Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations aren't standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs."

Now, Joe Biden has taken to the stump, and while the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne thinks Biden accidentally went off-message, the reality is that Biden was slyly reinforcing the Administration's new message of strong Liberal realism.

We will continue to be the most significant and dominant influence in the world as long as our economy is strong, growing and responsive to 21st-century needs. And they relate to education, they relate to energy, and they relate to health care.

This more muscular approach is a welcome to change for liberals who have been on the defensive for too long.

Obama 'Doesn't Think?'

I've had enough of white Americans disparaging President Barack Obama and feeling like they can get away with it because he's African-American.

In the latest episode of "let's see what we can call him now," the President has got Nevadans' panties in a bunch for daring insinuate that Las Vegas is a stupid place to spend your money (never mind that even Southwest Airlines attendants refer to it during their pre-flight patter as "Lost Wages," or that every movie about down-and-out losers convinced that life isn't worth living is set in Las Vegas). Or that Las Vegas truly represents everything that is despicable about American culture; there isn't a single activity in Las Vegas that isn't designed to part you from your money, that doesn't appeal to your lust for either cash or poontang, and isn't designed to replicate rather than enhance life (I'm thinking here of the the fake canals at the Venetian hotel).

I don't know anyone who's gone to Las Vegas on business who hasn't come back morbidly depressed. The reason they say "what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas" is they don't want anyone to know how stupid and miserable to feel for having gone there.

But no, the President isn't allowed to disparage Las Vegas, no more so than hick politicians can pick on Sin City (aka New York) with impunity. Whoops.

Even members of his own party, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are piling on the President, kowtowing not simply to their constituents, but the know-nothing, ignoramus, xenophobic portion of their electorate.

"The President needs to lay off Las Vegas and stop making it the poster child for where people shouldn't be spending their money," Reid said. "I would much rather tourists and business travelers spend their money in Las Vegas than spend it overseas."

Yeah, damn foreigners!

But at least foreigners have the courtesy of showing our President proper respect, even if he is Black. Unlike the Mayor of Las Vegas, who had the temerity to suggest that "this president is a real slow learner" and that sometimes, "he doesn't think."

Oh really. Informed persons would label the President anything but slow. But it seems no one needs to really be informed when spouting off insults about the President.

It's true that we live in a democracy, and that it's our right to criticize (and even insult) all of our elected officials -- and that we often do, often in unflattering ways. We jumped on Gerald Ford's uncharacteristic clumsiness with both feet, and on George W. Bush's malapropisms with alacrity. But there was a basic respect for the office underlying even the harshest criticism, and a sense that there were limits.

It's not just hate-mongering Rush Limbaugh who accuses the President of lying either; I watched Neil Cavuto do it during the closing moments of his show last Monday night.

It's easy to understand why so many people are angry at the President; he wants to change so many things and challenge their assumptions. From farm subsidies to gays in the military, the President is acting on as many fronts as he sees -- and doesn't seem to agree that he should take things one step at a time. He seems to see things as inter-related and complex, which is why he has addressed issues like:

- banking reform;
- reforming No Child Left Behind;
- college student loans;
- food safety;
- greenhouse gas emissions;
- federal lobbying regulations;
- unemployment and economic growth;
- corporate tax rates;
- torture;
- the Taliban;
- network neutrality;

and this is just the first year -- during which he accomplished quite a bit more than people would like to give him credit.

His ambition has opened him up to a lot of criticism, rightly or not. But the tone of that criticism is unlike any I've ever seen, and there's only one explanation for it. Whether it's a congressman from South Carolina, or a sitting Supreme Court Justice, or a congressman from Ohio holding up a sign in the Capitol building while the President is speaking, the fact is that white men are comfortable treating the President with a lack of respect because he's Black.

It makes me sick and, yes, ashamed of my country.