are children a priority?

Compare Vermont's standings in the 2003 Kids Count Data Book compiled by the Annie E. Casey Foundation of Baltimore, with those of Texas. These are the legacy of their respective former governors.



UPDATE: It's astounding that people think Texas' larger population and size somehow make it less outrageous, not more, that the state can't make children a priority. Invoking population is a bogus knee-jerk partisan defense. If it were even remotely applicable, then why do states with larger populations than Texas rank higher? Why don't the smallest states appear at the top?



The simple fact is that children's health is CHEAP. Children (even up to age 25) are very economical to insure. The fact that Texas ranks so poorly - despite being a much larger state with correspondingly greater financial, natural, and economic resources - is a simple reflection of the low priority that children's health issues rank with the state government.



Investing in healthy children has tremendous downstream positive impact on your economy and your society. Texas fails this standard - and its size shoudl mean it does better, not worse.

Hug a Jew

as a follow-up to the footnote in my last post about the roots of anti-semitism in Arab cultures, I have to point out the Hug a Jew! column over at Muslim WakeUp! They also have a link to an important article by Tariq Ramadan, grandson of teh founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who addresses the incompatibility of anti-Semitism with Islamic teaching:

�To my regret, anti-Semitic utterances have been heard not only from frustrated and confused young Muslims, but also from certain Muslim intellectuals and imams,� he says, �who in every crisis or political backsliding see the hand of the �Jewish lobby.� There is nothing in Islam that gives legitimization to Judeophobia, xenophobia and the rejection of any human being because of his religion or the group to which he belongs. Anti-Semitism has no justification in Islam, the message of which demands respect for the Jewish religion and spirit, which are considered a noble expression of the People of the Book.�



Even when he identifies urges that have their source in economic distress and social frustration, or the desire to protest against Israel�s oppressive policy, among people who express themselves in an anti-Semitic way and are involved in anti-Semitic acts, Ramadan refuses to demonstrate understanding or forgiveness toward them. He says: �The social and political forces in the Muslim communities must act to educate toward the delegitimization of elements of anti- Semitism. Leaders and imams have the responsibility to disseminate an unequivocal message about the profound connections between Islam and Judaism and Islam�s recognition of Moses and the Torah.�



�Despite what is happening today in Israel and Palestine, despite [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon�s policy, despite the feelings of anger and frustration - those responsible for all the Muslim political and social organizations must open a clear dialogue that distinguishes between criticism of Israel�s policy, and anti-Semitic and Judeophobic statements and actions. This is lacking today and this is a great responsibility.�

This is a critical aspect of akhlaq (character) for a muslim - adherence to the Truth and rejecting falsehood for short-term political gain. The abuse of religion to justify anti-Semitism is a great atrocity on both the material and spiritual levels.



Ramadan is careful to identify the shared responsibility of both Muslims and Jews with regard to invoking anti-semitism as a barrier to dialouge^[1] :

Ramadan warned, in his interview with Ha�aretz that two dangerous phenomena exist side by side: one is criticism of and protest against the Israeli government�s policy toward the Palestinians that are accompanied by declarations that deny that the Holocaust took place and the other defines any criticism of Israel as anti-Jewish propaganda and as ignoring the memory of the Holocaust.



�Recently, in a public debate that was held in Brussels on the war in the Middle East,� related the Muslim philosopher, �a woman in the audience challenged: �Why do you always bring up the Holocaust?�



�I replied immediately, �It is possible to be against Israel�s policy in Palestine, but we must take into account the real memory of the Jews� suffering in the 20th century and evince special sensitivity to the Holocaust. This is an obligation of conscience and ethics. We must remember what happened so that it will never happen again.�



�From a different perspective, it is our obligation to tell every Jew or Zionist who supports Israel�s official policy that it is impossible to make systematic use of the Holocaust and the memory of the victims to give legitimization to Israel�s oppressive policy in Palestine. This is forbidden. The fact that there are people who use the memory of the Holocaust to justify Israel�s actions, which many define as state terror against the Palestinian people, does not justify others not taking into account the memory of the Holocaust. Both approaches must be condemned.�

Overall, it's a great article and well-worth reading. And I hug my fair share of Jews all the time :)





^[1] A theme that I've been pounding hard myself ever since being unfairly accused of blood libel by people who should know better.

prayer won't save them

Tacitus (whose blog has been removed from the firewall blockage, so I can finally renew my addiction to) had an interesting post on the nascent guerilla warfare emerging during the woefully-undermanned American occupation of Iraq. However, the comment thread was shanghied by response to Tacitus' (admittedly tangential) assertion that Arabs are uniquely irrational in a way that other societies aren't. This started with yet another invocation of Hitler, whose name will someday be synonymous with "thing I disagree with" in all human languages and cultures^[1]. My own modest disagreement with Tac and his response is in the comments. Tacitus followed this with a somewhat defensive post that recognized that other societies can also be irrational at times. But he's still a bit in the dumps over the latest news from everywhere (which I've had the wisdom to avoid completely. ah, blissful ignorance) :

So it's not like I'm singling out the Arabs as uniquely irrational.



No, just kidding, I am. I mean, cripes, people.

I'm not one to argue with characterizing any ethnic group as irrational - it's the uniqueness of that irrationality that I take issue with. I mean, cripes, people.



UPDATE: Tacitus did take it back, for real, in the comments thread of his post - if I wasn't illiterate in the ways of MT, I'd be able to actually link directly to that retraction. But I never for a moment actually thought Tac believed his own accusation of a unique irrationality - in fact I empathise with the perception of a unique irrationality that always arises in my head when i read about the inane activities of group X. Its a common response and I'm equally susceptible to it. The net effect on me is to make me less willing to read the news.





^[1] For a very good discussion on the roots of anti-semitism within Arab culture, I highly recommend this article in Slate by David Greenberg. It's quite exhaustive on the topic. The basic thesis is that anti-semitism is a Christian invention, which was adopted (COUNTER to the teachings of the Prophet SAW and the Qur'an) as a political response to Colonialism and Zionism - the combination of which occurred exclusively in the Arab world. The Persians, for example, did not fall under the sway of these two forces nearly to the same extent, and as such you don't see ingrained anti-semitic attitudes so prevalent in modern day Iran (except when it suits the theocracy's political purposes). It's utterly absent at the street level. Of course, whether the chanting of "Hitler" at some German journalists in Iraq amounts to an expression of this Arab anti-semitism is a completely separate topic, though those who are used to seeing anti-semitism everywhere will surely find it a black and white example.

China rising II

re-reading my previous post, I realized that my actual support for SDB's modest proposal was not clearly evident :) Steven's commentary on my response raised a few issues that I want to clarify.



I'm definitely impressed by the idea of letting China occupy NK and I find it both original and agreeable. I just think the possibility of it happening is zero, given the current Administration. I agree that NK is no prize, but given Bush's own rhetoric about the importance of defending SK from the north, withdrawing our forces from the DMZ would indeed amount to a backtracking. And letting China in would infuriate the conservative ideolouges in the administration beyond words. It would amount to a political loss - and given how Bush still sticks to the WMD script rather than any attempt at explaining the neocon-domino motives behind Iraq, I don't see him as willing or able to make the far more subtle case about why letting China be a neighbor to SK would be a Good Thing (Bush doesn't have the luxury of thousand word essays like you or I do).



I guess I characterize it as "letting China win" precisely because it is also the least bad of a group of bad scenarios. China's rise to superpower eminence is a gradual and steady one and will be marked by piecemeal and incremental victories such as occupying NK would be. A strong China is, in the near future (50+ years) a positive development for American interests because of the opened and heathy market, assistance on a regional scale in dealing with terrorists and rogue nations, joint interests on medical issues like SARS, etc. etc.



And while exposure to Western economic development is of course a good thing for the average Chinese, it's also a mistake to think that it will loosen the communist hold on power. The Chinese variant of Communism is much more adaptable, pragmatic, and innovative than the Soviet kind. As China grows stronger, so does the Party. After 50 years of rule they are stronger than ever - compare their hold on power to the tenous one of the Iranian clerics and you quickly realize that the oligarchy is in no danger from the proles whatsoever.



China is rising. We cant really stop it and we dont really want to. But in the next century, we will have a true clashj of civilizations - not between brothers (as is the case with all Judeo-Christian-Islamic conflict), but true Others. I've always maintained that China is the Ultimate Other.



And the turning point will be when China enters space.

China rising

Steven has a detailed and thorough post about a radical solution to the NK problem - letting China win. It's a subtle argument and is not well served by excerpting, so I won't try. But it certainly is the kind of foreign policy that would be more achievable under Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton (in that order). Under the neocon domino warriors/reluctant imperialists camps that currently compete for the reins of the current Bush's foreign policy, the idea is ultimately impossible, because realpolitik requires the Administration to willingly suffer a loss in prestige for the greater good. Allowing China to take over NK would amount to a loss of face for Bush - and as we know, neocons are a very face-oriented culture.



China is indeed rising though. By all measures - economic, military, population - China is building a foundation for primacy. As long as China remains Communist, though, her gains are a zero-sum with our interests.

the tyranny of the rich

I'm all for capitalism, after all it's why my parents immigrated here and part of why I think this is the greatest country in the world. Not because of capitalism per se, but because of the specifics of the way capitalism is implemented. The American Dream is not to get rich - it is to live free. But there is an inherent conflict which drives almost the entirety of American politics. Michael Kinsley argues in a brilliant essay in Slate about that sensitive balance between capitalism and democracy:

The fall of communism 14 years ago was not the end of history, despite Francis Fukuyama's famous prediction. It was, though, pretty much the end of the argument, in most of the world, about the best way to organize society. The answer (despite quibbles over the details and a surprisingly resilient minority preference for theocracy) is democratic capitalism.



But this intellectual victory for the dynamic duo didn't resolve the tension between them. Democracy presumes and enshrines equality. Capitalism not only presumes but requires and produces inequality. How can you have a society based on equality and inequality at the same time? The classic answer is that democracy and capitalism should reign in their own separate "spheres" (philosopher Michael Walzer's term). As citizens, we are all equal. As players in the economy, we enjoy differing rewards depending on our efforts, talents, or luck.



But how do you prevent power in one from leeching into the other? In various ways, we try to police the border. Capitalism is protected from democracy, to some extent, by provisions of the Constitution that guard individuals against tyranny of the majority�for example, by forbidding the government to take your property without due process of law. Protecting democracy from capitalism is the noble intention, at least, of campaign finance laws that get enacted every couple of decades.



Separation of the spheres also depends on an unspoken deal, a nonaggression pact, between democracy's political majority and capitalism's affluent minority. The majority acknowledge that capitalism benefits all of us, even if some benefit a lot more than others. The majority also take comfort in the belief that everyone has at least a shot at scoring big. The affluent minority, meanwhile, acknowledge that their good fortune is at least in part the luck of the draw. They recognize that domestic tranquility, protection from foreign enemies, and other government functions are worth more to people with more at stake. And they retain a tiny yet prudent fear of what beast might be awakened if the fortunate folks get too greedy about protecting and enlarging their good fortune.

Kinsley points out that the Bush Administration has discarded that nonaggression pact, as part of an overall GOP playbook that has as its ultimate goal the complete destruction of limitations upon the economic sphere.



UPDATE: Lone Star points out this quote:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."



-Samuel Adams, 1776

the role of business in adding value to society

I've been doing a lot of linking rather than thinking recently, but that will change. But my friend Kim has a long post up whose main point deserves wider airing.

I suggest that a retreat from the values of true conservatism is a fundamental reason that the U.S. economy is in dire straits. Instead of doing business honestly for the purpose of mutual gain, businessmen have become unethical and dishonest swindlers, out to steal from customers and investors alike. Leveraging workforce, debt, sales and production in dishonest ways in order to drive up stock prices is disgusting behavior reflective neither of a true conservative nor a socialist view. Traditional conservatives see no shame in giving value for value, but rather see that the long term financial growth of a company, and therefore value to investors, is served by giving good value to customers, making wise workforce decisions not harmful to workers, and by acting in the best interests of the communities supporting the business. Those practices reflect the kind of enlightened self-interest that the party of Lincoln once represented. Current conservatives prefer to roll the dice in the hope that they personally will be able to cash in, at the expense of workers, partners, investors, customers, and community. Misrepresenting company value is one of the less damaging practices that so-called businessmen engage in these days. Fundamentally, I believe that the problem comes down to the lack of a true meritocracy. Warring for pride of place is the abandonment of a work ethic by the privileged children of wealth. Along with them, the not-so-privileged dreamers turn away from work, seeing that hard work did not serve to make their parents wealthy, and believing the message of greed-is-good, they aspire only to entitlements, not to useful lives. Current liberal thinking, and current "conservative" thinking exacerbate the problem. Neither throwing money at the undeserving, nor supporting the useless inheritance of wealth by parasites brings us the conservative values we need. Incenting business to do more than create artificial stock "value" would go far toward bringing back real businesspeople. People are only as good as their goals, and if their goals are to artificially inflate a stock price...well they can do so better by not working than by working!

When it comes to societal problems, Kim and I have many, many differences about solutions but we often agree on cause...