Taking the Pledge?

I received a fairly clever email recently in which the unknown author (if you know who wrote it, I'll be happy to attribute it) deflates the Right-wing rhetoric which disparagingly refers to the recent health care reform as "socialized medicine."  The email is in the form of a pledge to avoid a lengthy list of other "socialist" services (the email is at the end of this post).

In the US, the term "socialized medicine" came into common use in the late 1940s as part of the American Medical Association's opposition to President Harry Truman's health-care initiative. The original use of the term referred to health care systems in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care providers, such as the British National Health Service.  More recently, the term has been expanded to refer to virtually any publicly funded health care system.  It's clearly used as a derogatory term, playing on the irrational fear of "socialism" in the US.  And it was part of the successful defeat of efforts to expand health care to a broader segment of the US population for decades.

I found the email humorous because it pokes holes in the socialist "boogie man" -  as pointed out by Wikipedia:  "Most industrialized countries, and many developing countries, operate some form of publicly-funded health care with universal coverage as the goal. According to the Institute of Medicine and others, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care."   The term "socialized medicine" has become a ridiculous pejorative because it considers that shared responsibility and shared support is somehow bad.   That is, public funding of health care is bad because it is based on some sort of "socialist" model in which citizens pool resources (taxes) to provide health care to all citizens, rather than the capitalist approach of "every man for himself."

The fact is, shared resources and shared benefits are part of daily life of most Americans, but we don't think of them that way and we don't call them socialist. It seems clear that most Americans wouldn't consider such shared benefits as indoor plumbing attached to working public water and sewer systems a bad thing.   And Medicare.   And products of National Public Television like Sesame Street.  And highway rest areas.  And police, fire, and emergency services.

At any rate, here's the text of the email; see how many of these shared activities and benefits you're willing to forego.

I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:
I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:

Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
US Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
The US Railway System
Public Subways and Metro Systems
Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
Rest Areas on Highways
Sidewalks
All Government-Funded Local/State Projects. This means every single road that is not a toll road is off limits to my use.
Public Drinking Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
Public and State Universities and Colleges
Public Primary and Secondary Schools
Sesame Street
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Public Museums
Libraries
Public Parks and Beaches
State and National Parks
Public Zoos
Unemployment Insurance
Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, State or Federal Government (pretty much all of them)
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government grant or research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape, heart monitors/defibrillators and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)
Use of the Internet, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking
Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops that were grown with, fed with, raised with or that contain inputs from crops grown with government subsidies.
If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forgo my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care.
I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of free-admission/taxpayer subsidized socialist locations, including but not limited to:
Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History
The socialist Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Jefferson Monuments
The government-operated Statue of Liberty
The Grand Canyon and all national/state/regional/local parks, forests and monuments
The socialist World War II, Korean and Vietnam Veterans Memorials in every town
The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery
All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC. This also includes Post Offices, fire departments, police departments, public schools, libraries and zoos.

SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____________ IN THE YEAR 2010

SIGNATURE:

Why Care About The Weirdness In Texas?

The weirdness in question is the behavior of the Texas School Board, which has been in the news lately regarding it's curriculum adoptions.   The Board has been controlled by a group of what many refer to as extremist evangelicals who have determined that all school textbooks in Texas must follow their agenda, which apparently is not primarily based on facts, but on their beliefs.   Case in point: Texas textbooks must teach that the US was founded as a "Christian nation."   The historical evidence is quite the contrary, as this article in the Chicago Tribune points out in some detail.  The list of historical distortion and rewriting is long; read the NY Times article for the gory details.

Why care about what some goofballs in Texas are doing?   Because Texas is so large, and because it purchases so many school textbooks, what it says must be in those textbooks is closely followed by publishers.  The result is that those same books are used in most schools around the country, regardless of whether those other schools subscribe to the one-sided and less-than-factual "curriculum."   

What can you do about it?   Hope that most schools ditch large purchases of textbooks in favor of electronic media sooner rather than later.

Watching Our Schools Crumbling

The State of Illinois is currently imploding financially and the politicians of both major parties seem unwilling to actually deal with the problems.   They persist in pointing fingers at the "other" party and sticking their heads in the sand.   For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have trumpeted "no tax increase" and convinced the public that State government (including all that it supports such as public schools) is bad and fat.   The result is that Illinois has one of the lowest and most regressive income taxes in the nation (3%) and a $14 Billion dollar deficit.   Schools throughout the state are now laying off teachers for next school year (some estimates say the layoffs may reach 17,000 teachers or more), and social services organizations are closing their doors because the State hasn't made payments due this fiscal year.  To put the deficit into perspective, if the State fired every State employee right now, that would amount to $4 Billion, leaving us with a $10 Billion hole.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Herald and Chicago Tribune a couple weeks ago, but neither has printed it.   I am publishing it here in the hope that a few people will find it of interest and use.  It's a little long, but IMO it addresses the core issues.

Put Pressure Where It Belongs-Springfield

In recent weeks, many people have become aware of the financial difficulties being faced by school districts around the State.   In many cases, the Districts are confronted by huge revenue shortfalls and are considering draconian cuts to staff in order to meet these changes.  As a Board Member of a District directly impacted by the State of Illinois' deadbeat status, I'd like to offer several observations.

1. The budget shortfalls currently facing most Districts is directly related to the unwillingness of Illinois legislators to meet the State's financial obligations.

2. The underlying weakness causing the immediate financial problems in public education is an over-reliance on property taxes.  As the basis for public education, property taxes cause huge inequities between Districts which have lots of commercial property and those that do not.   Those that are forced to rely on homeowners as the major source of property taxes tend to have higher tax rates and tax burdens on individual homeowners.  Commercial properties bring revenue into school districts without adding students.

3. The State legislature has repeatedly refused to change the funding of public education from property taxes to the income tax over the past couple of decades.

4. When legislators wring their hands over the potential bankruptcy of public education, and say "we understand the problem, but we just don't have the money" they are being disingenuous, at best.   If the State of Illinois doesn't "have the money" it's because the legislators have refused to deal with reality and alter the State's ridiculously low and regressive income tax in order to fully meet the State's responsibility for funding education.

5. The public is rightfully concerned about the potential long-term damage to our schools, and the resultant long-term damage to our children's education caused by the current financial melt-down.

6. State legislators of both major parties should be held accountable by the public for their refusal to work for the "greater good" and ensure that all our public schools are fully funded. 

7. Local school board members have remarkably little control over how to respond to the current financial constraints.   If their Districts do not have enough revenue coming in, they have no choice but to cut staff.

8. If the public wants to effect meaningful change, it must put unrelenting pressure on its elected State representatives to deal with reality and stop finger-pointing and political posturing.   The public needs to tell our State legislators that it is well past time for Illinois to actively support public education and fund it accordingly.

Until State legislators of both major parties in both the House and Senate feel like there is a political consequence to ignoring the State's financial plight, nothing will change.   Your child's classes will inevitably get larger, and the elements of a well-rounded education, such as exposure to the arts, will become rarer.  If you truly care about your children, and equally importantly, the children of your neighbors, you need to express your outrage to your State representatives.

Public education is about the education of everyone, including your child and the children of your neighbors.  Just as we all benefit from good roads and bridges, we all benefit from good public schools.  And, one way or the other, we will all pay for the destruction of public education in Illinois.

Free Speech & The Internet

I'm a long time member and supporter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), but I have to say I  disagree with the organization's position in a lawsuit involving anonymous speech at a newspaper web site in Illinois.   The case and EFF's position are covered here.  Essentially, the son of a local candidate engaged in a heated "discussion" with an anonymous poster, and the candidate felt that the poster had gone too far in his/her comments.  The candidate has sought the identify of the anonymous poster through a court case, which is now at the Appellate level in Illinois.

While I think I understand EFF's First Amendment arguments, I think that there are other factors that should be heavily weighed.   The biggest issue to me, is that there are thousands of people who post mindless, unintelligible, drivel via electronic postings that never would have seen the light of day before the Internet.   In the past, when people wrote letters to the editor of a newspaper, they may or may not have gotten their views printed.  If they were printed, they had to attach their name to their thoughts and others could write challenges in response. There was some accountability involved in making public comments.

In today's electronic world, anyone can say anything about anything, on newspaper web sites, as well as other online media outlets, many of which allow anonymous comments.  The ability to make anonymous postings adds nothing whatsoever to the quality or benefit.   Perhaps a pure reading of the First Amendment doesn't distinguish between useful speech and heated nonsense, but in past years, the ability to spew nonsense was limited to standing on a street-corner.   Whether the speaker could attract listeners depended on their speech.   And it's not generally feasible to stand on a street corner and speak anonymously.  

I've commented previously on the proliferation of ignorant commentary on the Web and this case seems to cut to the core of the matter.   Do we as a society benefit from enabling anonymous comment in public forums on the Internet?   Should we hold people accountable for their opinions?  What does society gain from unaccountable and anonymous public comment?

I just can't buy EFF's argument that anonymous online comments deserve Constitutional protection.