Month: October 2013

Confession Obsession

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Confession Obsession

Last week, This American Life ran a riveting episode about confessions. The story exemplifies how cops and jurors are obsessed (to the point of irrationality) with confessions.

In the introduction, Ira interviews  Father Thomas Santa about scrupulosity—a psychological disorder similar to OCD where people obsessively confess, even things that are not immoral or sinful.

Act I (“Kim Possible”) is described as follows:

Former DC police detective Jim Trainum tells reporter Saul Elbein about how his first murder investigation went horribly wrong. He and his colleagues pinned the crime on the wrong woman, and it took 10 years and a revisit to her videotaped confession to realize how much, unbeknownst to Jim at the time, he was one of the main orchestrators of the botched confession. (28 minutes)

Here is a description of Act II (“You Don’t Say”):

A person is accused of a murder he didn’t commit. But in this story there is no false confession. Jeffrey Womack spent most of his adult life as a suspect in one of Nashville’s most notorious crimes. And for all that time — until another man was convicted of the crime — Jeffrey refused to be questioned about it. Producer Lisa Pollak tells the story. (14 minutes)

Demetria Kalodimos’ documentary Indelible: The Case Against Jeffrey Womack can be seen here.

Jeffrey Womack and his attorney John Hollins Sr. have told their story in a book called The Suspect: A Memoir. It was ghostwritten by Nashville journalist E. Thomas Wood.

Hostages and Health Care

/ Peter Bell / Leave a comment

Today’s (Friday, Oct. 18) N.Y. Times reported in a front-page article on the “despair, anger and disillusionment” felt by ‘conservatives’ over Congress’ bipartisan vote this past Wednesday to reopen the federal government without defunding the three-year-old health care reform law, popularly termed “Obamacare.’

The talk radio and blogosphere homes frequented by the Tea Party faithful were apparently filled with condemnation for those ‘spineless’ Republicans who abjectly surrendered, rather than proceed with the drastic measures needed to prevent the reforms of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 from taking root in American society much the way pernicious health reforms like Medicare and Medicaid have.

Essentially, what we have seen from the most conservative members of the Republican Party, most of them in the House of Representatives, is the sort of principled “no matter what the consequences” cause-based stands long asssociated with the political left: the to-the-barricades French youth celebrated in “Les Miserables;” the Freedom Riders of the Civil Rights movement, recently celebrated in the film “The Butler;” the environmentalists of the ’70s and ’80s who would chain themselves to redwoods to or lie down in front of bulldozers to block loggers or developers from despoiling what they thought was a vital environment; or the protestors who try to block access to military bases or pound on missiles, in order to stop drone use or prevent funding for nefarious military training provided to right-wing para-militaries in Central America.

The difference this time was that none of the Tea Party conservatives lay down in front of bulldozers, braved Klan members, or risked imprisonment for their cause.   Instead, they decided to take hostages to advance their ‘noble’ cause.  And the hostages were the American people.

Not all the American people, of course.  Just those who wanted to visit a national park or memorial, or those families seeking a military burial for a life sacrificed in service, or anyone who depends on the government for some key piece of his or her daily life.  Or, to boot, those who might benefit from the healthier economy that might exist in the absence of uncretainty and jitters about America’s default on its debts.

But, it was just a temporary hostage-taking — one which would end as soon as the President of the United States capitulated to their demands that he and other Democrats agree not to implement the key pieces of the health reform legislation that was enacted by Congress and the President three years ago.  Legislation which is THE signature reform of the Obama Administration.

“Defund Obamacare, and we will let the government function again,” said the conservatives — the same people who on more than 35 occasions in the past two years have attempted legislatively to repeal the law, without a bit of success.  That is why they had to take us all as hostages.

All in a good cause, right.  As the late, great Sen. Barry Goldwater — the darling of the conservative wing of the Republican party in the 1960s said: “Extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice.”

Well, not exactly.  The great cause for which we were all — to greater or lesser degree — held hostage in order to force concessions from the government was the termination of a law (the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ‘Obamacare’) that aims to do the following:

1. Reduce the number of Americans who do not have health insurance by about 30 million persons.

2. Provide much more affordable health insurance to millions more, through the establishment of free markets in health insurance, markets in which consumers will have a real chance of being able to compare the costs of insurance plans that provide adequate coverage.  This massive reduction in health insurance costs will be driven by competition — a distinctly Republican concept.

3. Provide incentives for innovation in both the ways health care is provided in America and the establishment of criteria to help health care providers determine what is effective care and what is ineffective care.

4. Provide incentives for both hospitals and healthcare providers to take steps which lead both themselves and their patients towards greater health at a lower cost, i.e., provide and take preventive measures which reduce sickness before it arrives.

5. Create an expert body which will step in to reform Medicare when Congress cannot itself come up with reform legislation that would slow significantly the rapid growth of health care costs that threatens the future stability of the program which assures health care to all Americans over the age of 65.  The reforms adopted or suggested by that expert body will percolate down to help control the costs of ALL healthcare provided in this country.

All these “aims” are to be achieved by a package of measures in the Affordable Care Act which were created and legislated by both Democrats and Republicans working together in 2010 in the House and Senate.  The Democrats and the President gave up a lot of what they most wanted in order to get Republican — and national — support for the legislation.  That legislation aimed to fix what Presidents and Congresses since the time of Harry Truman and Richard Nixon had recognized was a terribly flawed system for the provision of and payment for health care — a system which left 17 per cent of the population without health insurance and an even larger percentage without adequate health insurance in the event of a medical emergency.

Now, the Affordable Care Act may not end up achieving all its aims.  In many states, governors have refused to expand insurance to cover more poor people, even though the Affordable Care Act assures that the federal government will pay for all the costs associated with that expansion for the near future.  Many states have refused to set up the marketplaces in which their citizens could make better informed decisions that should lead to more affordable, adequate health insurance.

In short, the Affordable Care Act may not be implemented as successfully as the Republicans and Democrats who created and enacted the Act had intended.  Nevertheless, its aims for an America in which citizens did not have to live in fear that illness or injury would crush them financially, as well as physically, are noble.  Its aims to make the cost of health care in this country — which spends more per person BY FAR on such care than any country in the world — more affordable are sound management — efficient.

Neither description can be applied to those Republicans who this October so willingly put the American-People hostages in harm’s way to stop a bulldozer that seeks only to build a safer, fairer, more efficient health care system in America.

Tom Hanks, when you finish with those pirates in the film “Captain Phillips,” there are some others whom you should take on.

 

The Economics of Debt Ceiling, Affordable Care Act, Welfare

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

The Economics of Debt Ceiling, Affordable Care Act, Welfare

The most recent Planet Money podcast discussed the three most significant political issues of this past week—(1) the debt ceiling, (2) Affordable Care Act and (3) welfare system debates. Although discussion of the debt ceiling is somewhat dated (since we did not hit it), the story explains what is at stake in debt ceiling debates include the outcome of a possible default.

Here is a description of the podcast:

On today’s show: Three ripped-from-the-headlines stories from Planet Money.

What A U.S. Default Would Mean For Pensions, China, And Social Security

If the government defaults on its debt, people all over the world who have loaned the government money won’t get paid on time.

One Key Thing No One Knows About Obamacare

Obamacare won’t work unless healthy people buy insurance. No one knows whether they will.

Is Welfare A Rational Alternative To Work?

A new paper argues that the value of various welfare benefits add up to well over $30,000 a year. People on welfare disagree.

Looking Across the Pond to Prevent Political Gridlock

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Looking Across the Pond to Prevent Political Gridlock

After sixteen days of government shutdown and being on the brink of federal default, Congress passed, and the President signed, a bill that will re-open the government and raise the debt ceiling, preventing high stakes budgetary brinkmanship at least until 2014.  In keeping with what has become a theme this past week this story from NPR’s Story of the Day podcast and Weekend Day Edition Saturday discusses possible solution to gridlock in Washington.  The story interview’s comparative political scientists about how the American political system compares to European democracies, which generally do not find themselves deadlocked by political paralysis.  While is it unlikely that the U.S. will soon amend the Constitution to adopt a parliament, the story discusses some important differences between how elections are financed and political negotiations are conducted in Europe and the U.S.

Here is how the segment begins: 

No Child Left Behind: For Better or for Worse, It Is (Probably) Here to Stay

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

I just finished reading a book about the radical change in American public education policy: No Child Left Behind and the Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965-2005, by Patrick J. McGuinn.

Here is a brief summary of his findings, so you don’t have to read the entire book if you don’t have the time.

Beginning in the 1960’s, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was created during the Johnson Administration as part of the Great Society. This marked a significant increase in federal involvement in public education. Whereas public education was traditionally the jurisdiction of the states, the federal government now became a player. The policy regime resulting from the ESEA, the equity regime, was centered on the idea that the federal government had the responsibility to provide financial assistance to underprivileged students. The focus was on policy inputs. After the Nation at Risk report in the early 1980’s, a focusing event, public education began to increase in salience as an issue needing to be addressed by government. National-level politicians, wanting to capitalize on this increase in salience, broadened the scope of conflict to the federal level. This marked the beginning of the end of the equity regime. The preferred policy from ideological centrists and the broader public was standards-based reform. However, because this reform did not appeal to some strong groups from within both Republican and Democrat constituencies, it fell prey to institutional difficulties inherent in creating policy change. Once pressure to solve the perceived public education crisis peaked in 2000, a bipartisan effort overcame these obstacles and No Child Left Behind was passed in 2002. The new policy regime focused on government responsibility to educate all students, and to monitor educational outputs through standards-based accountability measures.

The findings indicate, and the author argues, that education policy is very difficult to change. It took twenty years (from start to finish) to dismantle one paradigm and install another. For those who are unhappy with the status quo being No Child Left Behind (NCLB), this is not good news.

I am not afraid to speak up and criticize NCLB. Some parts are worse than others, in my humble opinion, but it really is a package deal. The use of standardized testing, and using results to justify punitive “accountability” measures, is something I’m sure will pop up frequently in my future posts, and not in a positive tone. But if I take seriously McGuinn’s findings, the future is likely to be filled with standardized testing. Moreover, changing the status quo will require not just the realization that standardized testing does not accomplish what NCLB hoped it would; it will also require large public concern about the state of public education. NCLB came about only after public education became the most important issues in America (measured by opinion polls). I do not think we will see another paradigm shift for a long time, especially given the salience of economic issues which does not show much sign of decline.