Finding a Niche

Senator Ted Cruz, the firebrand Republican Senator from Texas, has staked out a position on U.S. foreign policy. Cruz has stated that U.S. policy should be guided by "three simple principles". Those principals are A) a narrow focus on protecting U.S. interests, B) a clear statement of "moral clarity", and C), when the U.S. does commit its military, it should be to win. It is indeed a clear and bold statement on what U.S. policy should be. Beyond a succinct sound bite however, the principles put forward out by Cruz are not simple, far from it. They are the messy guts in the sausage factory that is U.S. foreign policy.

In order to  narrowly focus on U.S. interests, those interests must be clear and devoid of complicating details. Let us glance at Egypt. Recently, the democratically elected government was overthrown by the military. Was the the coup in U.S. interests? That remains to be seen. In the short term, a stable and orderly government that can be relied upon to maintain the status quo in Egypt is in our interests. But if the coup serves to radicalize the opposition and reinforce undemocratic elements in the region by demonstrating the impotency, and ultimate futility of elections, our efforts to spread democracy in the region will be severely undermined. Is there a clear statement of U.S. policy to be made in regards to Egypt? Is there moral clarity? Is the will of the Egyptian people more or less in line with U.S. sensibilities than public order? Where do our interests lie? Do we seek to nurture a nascent, if disorderly, democracy or do we throw our support behind a heavy handed and more predictable military autocracy? A narrow focus might simplify things in the short run but unforeseen consequences await us in the future.

Similarly, "moral clarity" is an elusive idea rarely found in the real world. It is rarely found because it rarely exists. Morals are a fundamentally subjective concept. They vary from person to person, culture to culture, nation to nation and age to age. A person might possess "moral clarity" but a nation cannot. At best a nation might possess a consensus regarding what morality consists of, but clarity is always in jeopardy as sensibilities and populations change. What is morally clear today was not morally clear a generation ago. There was no moral conundrum in WWI when chemical weapons were used. The U.S. did not stay awake at night wrestling with the moral implications of carpet bombing cities or whether to drop atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII. The U.S. showed little reluctance in dropping napalm and using chemical defoliants, white phosphorous or sending B-52s over Hanoi in Vietnam. The U.S. has also retained the option of a nuclear first strike if it is felt the situation demands it.  The use of any particular weapon by the U.S. will be determined by leaders in Washington, not international treaties or conventions. Exactly what that situation might be we alone will decide, even in the absence of "moral clarity". You cannot expect nations to eschew using weapons they deem necessary if their survival is at stake. International "moral clarity" is a modern concept that represents little more than the consensus of any number of nations in regard to the way things happen to be at the moment.

The simple principles put forward by Cruz are not clear. U.S. interests vary from situation to situation. Moral clarity does not exist outside the human mind. Commitment to winning a conflict depends entirely on the the object hoped to be achieved. If by bombing Syria we hope to degrade government capabilities it is likely we will succeed. If it is to achieve a more stable and democratic Middle East it is likely we will fail. By supporting the military in Egypt, the door we worked so hard to open in the region will be closed as the ballot box will no longer be viewed as a reliable method for achieving political aspirations. Another lesson that can be drawn from recent events is the need for governments to be more vigilant in stifling dissent lest a mob rise up and clamor for democracy and thereby create opportunity for international intervention.

Cruz hopes to find a political niche. He seeks to erase moral ambiguity by boldly asserting a clear and forceful U.S. policy on when to involve itself in a conflict. In doing so he would create a reflexive and unthinking approach to foreign policy guaranteed to harm U.S. interests and send us lurching from crisis to crisis. The world is a messy and complicated place. It requires understanding, nuance and subtlety: principles Cruz would eschew in his pursuit of clarity.

We have done an admirable job in this country in keeping kids from smoking. Now, if we can just get them to pay attention in school and stop eating like pigs, we might be OK

Setting a Good Example

It is reported some time back that hospitals and medical businesses have begun to adopt strict rules intended to weed out smokers in their midst. Increasingly, they are refusing to hire people who smoke or use tobacco. Some employers are reaching beyond the workplace and administering urine tests to screen out tobacco users. Two reasons are given for the adoption of strict policies against tobacco use. First is the concern over appearances. It is felt by some in the medical profession that smoking by health care workers sets a bad example. Secondly, there are economic concerns. People who use tobacco tend to have more health problems than those who don't. Because of that, they increase health care costs and diminish productivity when they fall ill. In this reasoning, the medical profession is simply falling into line with the economic casuists in evaluating human behavior in terms of costs and benefits.

While the move can be considered part of the growing impatience with tobacco users in this country, there is a more troubling component to this thinking that even those who do not use tobacco should be concerned about. If health and economic productivity are to be prime measures of human behavior, the door which is being pushed against will be kicked wide open. Many habits and behaviors work against health and undermine economic productivity. Chief among those are eating poorly and not exercising. The health and economic costs of obesity in the U.S. exceed the costs of tobacco. Over 30% of Americans are currently obese. Obesity is defined as being 30 or more pounds overweight. While the number of smokers goes down every year, the number of obese goes up. People who are overweight are more prone to injury and illness and more likely to miss time at work than those who are not overweight. From diabetes and heart disease, to bad knees and fatigue, overweight people cost time and money.

If the health care industry is going to ban tobacco use by employees in order to set a good example, they should do something about overweight doctors and nurses as well. They should consider penalizing health care workers who are over weight. They should also prohibit them from eating hot dogs, french fries, and other unhealthy foods, at least in public. If a doctor smoking a cigarette sends a bad message, what message does an overweight doctor eating a cheeseburger send?

Welcome to the Future

Welcome to the United States of America, where everyone is a suspect. It has been revealed that the federal government is engaged in the largest data collection program in the history of mankind. Emails, phone calls, toll tags, the Internet, credit cards, traffic cameras, drone surveillance, spy satellites, DNA, facial recognition, and more, are all being consolidated into one huge data base that will span the globe and allow the government to monitor and identify every single person in the U.S. and beyond.  The jigsaw puzzle lives of Americans is being put together by the NSA.

The FBI has claimed the authority to secretly sweep up voluminous amounts of private information from data aggregates for data mining purposes. In 2007 the FBI said it amassed databases containing 1.5 billion records, which were predicted to grow to 6 billion records by 2012, or equal to "20 separate ‘records' for each man, woman and child in the United States." When Congress sought information about one of these programs, the FBI refused to give the Government Accountability Office access. That program was temporarily defunded, but its successor, the FBI Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, currently has 360 staff members running 40 separate projects. Records show analysts are allowed to use data mining tools to establish (not investigate) "risk scores" for U.S. persons. A 2013 IG audit questioned the task force's effectiveness, concluding it "did not always provide FBI field offices with timely and relevant information."

More than a few seek to minimize the reach and scope of the government's data collection efforts. They argue that rapidly evolving technology provides "obligations and opportunities that never existed before".  They are correct, the opportunity open to the government has proven irresistible. The ability of the government and others to collect and analyze data is near impossible for the layperson to comprehend. Indeed, most Americans likely have no clue to the extent to which they are open to observation. Cell phones, traffic cameras, credit cards, and Internet tracking all provide windows into the personal lives of Americans. Rapidly evolving computer technology makes possible the ability to vacuum up the trail of bread crumbs Americans leave behind as they go about their lives and organize those crumbs into the loafs that are their lives.

The U.S. government is engaged in the largest data collection program in the history of mankind. It makes Big Brother look like an amateur. Emails, phone calls, toll tags, the Internet, credit cards, traffic cameras, drone surveillance, spy satellites, DNA, facial recognition, and more, are all being consolidated into one huge data base that will span the globe and allow the government to monitor and identify every single person in the U.S. and beyond. It was revealed that nearly every phone call made in the U.S. has been logged. Sure, they may not have been listened to, but they can be. They are on file should the government have occasion to take interest in someone. The issue however is not what is done or not done with the data collected, it is that the data was collected in the first place. Suppose the government had compiled a complete profile on you. Would you sleep easier believing no one had looked at it yet? Or would it trouble you that there was a profile on you to begin with?

Some are attempting to minimize the threat that government surveillance poses to our liberty by asserting that there is no evidence that PRISM, the government surveillance program at the heart of the issue, is being misused. We are assured that the program is operating to our benefit. But how can that be determined if the program is secret? The vast majority of Americans did not even know the program existed until Snowden blew the whistle on it. Others may have been aware that the government was collecting data and monitoring the Internet, but very few had any clue as to how wide a net the government was casting and that the government was collecting the phone records of every American. The effort put in to protect the program from the public eye was exceeded only, but the effort to create the program.

The reason given by the government for collecting the records is that it will provide authorities not only the information needed to ferret out plots before they come to fruition, but also to provide a comprehensive data base. What is neglected in this argument is that the data being collected is the lives of the American people. The government is not tapping the phones of suspected mobsters or tracking down Internet pedophiles. It is not pursuing a drug cartel through the brush. It is collecting data on everyone, everywhere. School teachers, mechanics, truck drivers are all being caught up in the dragnet without the slightest hint that they are being monitored.

What is truly remarkable about the revelations of the size and scope of the government's data collection efforts is the muted response on the part of the general public. By and large the public has met the news with a shrug. Perhaps people feel that the ordinariness of their lives will keep the government from taking an interest in them. Even if the government did turn its eye towards them, what would it learn?  That they like to watch Gilligan's Island and eat ice cream? That they belong to the local gym and have a kid on the school soccer team?  These are the people who will carry on a phone conversation in public oblivious to the fact that everyone can hear. Maybe it is due to life in the age of facebook. In the age of facebook people have become comfortable in making public every aspect of their lives. The more people who know what they do, where they go, and what they like, the better. Facebook is their own, personal paparazzi. In that light, what difference does it make if the government is watching and listening? Maybe the government will sign up and follow their posts. Who doesn't want as many people as possible tuning in to their antics and exploits?

It has repeatedly been asserted that only people with something to hide fear scrutiny. For those who hold this belief, privacy is no longer a right unto itself that needs no justification, it is only important as a means to an end. Where privacy does not serve a specific end, such as the case with priests and doctors, it is frequently viewed as little more than a convenience.  Privacy has become only of situational importance. People who would protest their neighbor listening to their phone calls and reading their mail easily brush off government surveillance. The fact that their neighbor is no threat to their liberty carries no weight with such people.

Where are the agitators and protesters? Most of this is being done in secret. Where is the public outrage? Just because Obama is a democrat should be no reason to ignore what he is doing. Once the police state is set up, it will not go away. The way technology is developing, the U.S. government will soon make Big Brother look like an amateur. Neither should we harbor any illusion that the steps taken to "protect" the nation are temporary measures to be abandoned once the war on terror is won. Like the wars on poverty and drugs, the war on terror will be endless. The security apparatus being erected in Washington is here to stay.   Even, or rather especially, if it succeeds it will never be dismantled. Tranquility and peace will be directly attributed to it. Any attempt to trim it will be met with protest that the nation will be put at risk if the bulwark that keeps terrorists at bay is weakened. Like the wars on poverty and drugs, the war on terror will be endless. Unlike the wars on poverty and drugs, the war on terror threatens to sweep every American in because every American is a potential suspect. We cannot know who the suspects are so we suspect everyone to be safe.

If we are not careful, we might soon find that we are only one spectacular terrorist attack away from a police state. The machine is being assembled. It will only take a word to turn it on.

Good News, I Guess

It was reported today that, for the first time in the 5 years Barrak Obama has been president, the budget deficit will be under $1 trillion. It was announced that the projected deficit for the current fiscal year will be $759 billion. Of course the report does not take into account variables such as a war, or an economic downturn. How can it? Such variables would throw a wrench into any economic forecast. With every dollar stretched, there is no cushion to absorb any shock. Naturally, the news was greeted with enthusiasm by the administration. They finally have something concrete to point to in their assertions that they have turned things around.

Good news, I suppose, but in a very qualified way.  It is akin to reporting an air crash in which no one was killed and calling it "good news".

The Search for a Cure

In the news today it was reported that the AMA has officially recognized obesity as a disease. It is anticipated that classifying fatness as a disease will spur health insurance providers to pick up the costs of treating it. The news was greeted with enthusiasm by those laboring to shrink the belt size in the U.S. It was stated that the AMA's declaration "could help increase funding for future obesity research. It could also lead to payment for doctors who want to simply talk to patients about nutrition or exercise -- time that's not currently reimbursed by insurance plans." At least that is what is hoped for by those who make it their business to mind the nation's belt size. There is an unmentioned secondary benefit resulting from the AMA's decision that is sure to be welcomed by many plus sized Americans. Treating obesity as a disease will serve to relieve them of responsibility for their condition. They will no longer be open to accusations of being lazy and gluttonous. They have a disease.While there may be instances where there is a physiological condition or a genetic abnormality is present and may contribute to a predilection for obesity, such causes are rare. Bad dietary habits and sedentary life styles cannot be blamed for the epidemic of obesity currently plaguing this nation. Overweight Americans are now officially suffering from a of a medical condition.

The benefits from the AMA's decision are many. One benefit is removing the psychological burden of responsibility for being obese. "Identifying obesity as a disease may also help in reducing the stigma often associated with being overweight," said Joe Nadglowski, president and CEO of the Obesity Action Coalition. "Obesity has been considered for a long time to be a failure of personal responsibility -- a simple problem of eating too much and exercising too little," he said. "But it's a complex disease... we're hoping attitudes will change." Indeed. Changing attitudes is what the AMA's decision is really about.

Obesity is a significant problem in the U.S. There are more than than 93 million obese AmericansThe number is increasing. The problems caused by obesity are substantial. According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Tobacco is the first. An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are linked to obesity. According to the CDC, sugary drinks alone are linked to 180,000 deaths every year in the U.S. Obesity-related health care expenses cost Americans between $147 billion to $210 billion per year. Preventing and treating obesity before it leads to more serious diseases could help reduce those costs

Another goal the OAC hopes to achieve through its decision is to change how obesity is perceived in the nation. The Obesity Action Coalition seeks to " ensure access to safe and effective treatment options and eradicate the negative bias and stigma associated with it" The most effective way to meet this goal Nadglowski believes is by liberating the obese from responsibility for their condition. Those 93 million obese Americans should be not be scolded for their poor dietary habits and lack of exercise. They should be treated compassionately as people suffering from a disease for which they are not responsible; as if the reason they super size their meals and go back for a second helping of pie is because they are somehow ill.

Like so many issues, obesity is first and foremost a personal one. One does not catch obesity any more than one catches alcoholism. Obesity is acquired. While in some cases there are physiological factors that can contribute to it, they are not the primary cause. The primary causes of obesity in the U.S. are diet and habit. The obese people you see regularly in the frozen food and snack aisles at Walmart are not suffering from a disease. They did not catch obesity.  They were not afflicted with it. The became obese after years of eating too much and exercising too little.

Treating obesity as a social issue is little more than a way expand government involvement in the personal lives of the public. It is individual  people who are obese, not society. It is those same individual people who are responsible for their obesity. The obesity "problem" is the result of putting all the obese people into one group. It is akin to stacking turtles in an effort to create an elephant. This has to be done if policy is to be formulated. Policy cannot be drafted for millions of separate individuals. It can only be drafted for groups. Social groups, however are merely collections made from people perceived to have common interest. What that interest might be is dependent the person making the group. Americans can be grouped ay number of ways. They can be sorted by income, gender, age, religion, occupation, social interests, sexual orientation, etc. Most of those groups intersect at many points. A person can fall into many groups. Recognizing the obese as a distinct social group is just an attempt to carve out a place for them at the table.

Despite the AMA's decision, obesity is not a disease. It's only analogy with disease is that it is a debilitating condition. With rare exception, obesity is an entirely avoidable condition that can be successfully overcome without medical intervention through diet and exercise, both of which I might point out are free. A more appropriate analogy would be to treat obesity as an injury to be treated by rehabilitation. Just as a person with an injury needs to learn how to avoid future injury by retraining himself and learning new habits, obese people need to retrain themselves and develop new dietary habits to avoid gaining weight.

Why we are spending so much money on studying and treating obesity is beyond me. We know what causes obesity, eating too much. We know how to treat it, diet and exercise. We don't need scientific studies to tell people what any high school gym coach can tell you: if you want to lose weight put down the doughnuts and Twinkies, get off your plump buttocks, and get moving. Over the years we have learned a great deal about the causes and effects of obesity. The one thing no study has so far been able to tell us is why so many people are indifferent to their weight. That is the real issue. The only thing all those studies have provided are excuses, explanations and an open door for government involvement.

We continue to waste time and resources trying to understand what should be common sense: if you consume more calories than you burn you will gain weight. If you continue to gain weight, you will become fat. If you become fat, your health will suffer. But then again, the AMA's action wasn't about treating obesity at all. It was about changing how obese people are viewed and lessening the psychological burden obese people often carry along with their weight.

Enquiring Minds Want to Know

As I am sure most people are aware by now, a fertilizer plant exploded in West, Texas a few days ago killing at least 35 people and injuring more than 150. Most people are also no doubt aware of the massive devastation caused by the blast. Authorities and investigators are working diligently to discover what caused the explosion. But that is only part of the story being reported in the media. Judging from what I have been reading, that is not the most important part, at least as far as attracting and keeping the attention of readers and viewers is concerned. What is dominating coverage of the explosion are the personal details.

In following the story I have learned that Maggie Grmela, a dressmaker in West, sat dejectedly over a sewing table in her home with a yellow measuring tape draped across her shoulders unable to work on a dress she was making for someone. I know her reaction to the explosion. She thought an electrical transformer blew up. I know that her daughter  called her soon after the explosion and pleaded for her and her husband to get over to her house. I know that Maggie's daughter has children. I also now know that Maggies' husband is a member of the local Knights of Columbus. I know about the tense and emotional night the Grmela family spent together praying and watching TV for news. I also know about Mimi Montgomery Irwin. She owns a restaurant in West called The Village Bakery. The Village Bakery was founded in 1952. The going price for fruit kolaches at the Village Bakery is $1.50 The explosion knocked out the windows in her restaurant. I know about Corey and Dena Mayo. They own the local steakhouse and have two teenage children. Their 13 year old son Dalton told the reporter that his friend's dad died in the explosion. Then there is Ray Snokhous. He was born and raised in West. He went to law school and spent many years living in Houston where he worked as a tax lawyer before he retired and moved back to West 10 years ago. "I wanted to get back to my roots" he replied when asked why he returned. I could go on with many more examples but I do not want to weary readers recounting stories and facts they can easily find elsewhere.

None of those personal details shed any light on what caused the explosion in Texas or its aftermath. Neither do the details concerning the Boston bomber's mother, such as her taste in clothing and the hair styles she wore when she was young add anything meaningful to the story of the bombing in Boston. So why are they reported? They are reported for the same reason that personal details are reported in every significant tragedy. Whether it is news that the daughter of a woman gunned down during a crime had a scholarship to Dartmouth and wanted to be a architect when she grew up or that the father of boy killed had recently quit drinking and gotten his job back, the purpose of including such details in a story is the same. That purpose is not to inform the reader of any relevant facts. It is to stir the emotions of the reader. We are informed that West's director of emergency services had blood spattered on his face from injuries he sustained as he spoke with a reporter for no good reason. It was done simply to increase pathos in the story. Similarly, what light does reporting that Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's mother styled her hair like a "1980's rock star" and wore low cut blouses when she was younger shed on the bombing? Does knowing that she went to beauty school and did facials at a spa give us insight into her son's motives?

Most of the details emerging from the explosion in West are relevant. The hard work, the confusion, the frustration, the despair, the hope, the relief that loved ones escaped harm are all important parts of the story. But in themselves, they are not enough to keep the reader coming back. The facts must be embellished. Accounts of church services for the fallen are not complete without mention of the "grieving, hand holding, and crying" of the parishioners. Officials do not move from meeting to meeting. They scurry. Witness accounts of events are not enough. We must be introduced to the feelings of the witnesses. The loss of a home must be accompanied by the grief and shock of the owner as he beholds the ruins.

Stirring the emotions of readers has become a major preoccupation of the press. There are stories are written to evoke compassion. There are stories written  to evoke anger. A story about illegal immigration can be written in a manner to strike sympathy in the heart of a reader. A story about illegal immigration can also be written in a manner to strike indignation. It depends on which facts are presented, in what order, what light, and what context. A reporter dispatched to write a story on illegal immigration can interview hard working immigrants living a precarious existence while being abused by unscrupulous employers. That same reporter could instead focus on the crime, lost jobs, and financial burdens that often follow in the wake of illegal immigration. The choice is made on the basis of what response is sought in the reader. This goes a long way in explaining the difference between the liberal and the conservative press.

Is it important for readers in Oregon or television viewers in in Florida to know that the daughter of  a dead parent had just picked out her prom dress? Did the press really need to go to Dagestan to get a picture of the suspects' mother raising her hands in grief over the news of what her son did? Is it important for us to know that one of the dead was planning to retire in a few months or that another had a son serving in Iraq?  No, it isn't.  Such things add nothing to the story but pathos. Nevertheless, those are the things enquiring minds want to know.