US Political Issues for the 2008 Election

I was perusing youtube a great deal in the past few weeks and have been amazed by the amount of support that certain Republican candidates have on the web (Ron Paul). For some reason Ron Paul has a large following consisting of many different people. Most are good, hard working Americans, but at times it seems he attracts many bigots, that might be too harsh a word but the sentiment is generally true. Some of what Ron Paul says is true, his stance on non-intervention seems to me to be somewhat on the right course, although it smacks of Isolationism and we've seen how well that worked. However, most of his views I disagree with, see his stance on taxes. This post will actually be about the state of politics in the US and what I think should be the major issues. I will also attempt to give answers or ways to deal with these issues, as I see them.

The first issue that I have seen in the debates and what I have read is that people are supporting certain candidates because they want a departure from politics as usual. This is not a bad sentiment, however, this sentiment is naïve. To think that certain politicians are more righteous than others is just plain naïve. All these politicians will lie, will misrepresent themselves in order to get elected. Politics has always been a mud-slinging industry, and it always will be. No politician is above exploiting his/her opponents weaknesses or flaws.

Issue two is the issue of immigration. Many people want stricter immigration standards, not a big problem there for me at least. My problem comes in the rationale for these stricter immigration standards. Many people rationalize this stance by saying illegals are taking our jobs or coming here and taking welfare or are abusing our healthcare system. This is false. Illegals are taking jobs that not many people are signing up to do. When was the last time you applied for a job picking avocados or corn? Chances are you never have and never will. Americans aren't losing jobs to illegals, they are losing jobs to their own companies. These companies find it more cost effective to ship American jobs out to places like India. Another issue that I have with this argument is that at its heart is bigotry. Why is it that Americans are more worried about illegals who come up from Mexico then say who come from Canada or even Europe? Like it or not illegal immigration does very little to the American economy. I know, but they are sending money to their family back home. Well, that might be true but they are sending home less than what they are spending here. Think about it, these immigrants have bills to pay, cell phones, credit cards, rent, groceries, clothes, cars, etc. The fact of the matter is that they are spending more money in America than they are sending home. This helps the economy, but I digress. During the summer between High School and College (the summer of 2001) I worked at a sleep away camp – Camp Towanda – in Honesdale, PA. The kitchen staff of this camp was made up of mostly Eastern Europeans, at the start of the summer there were maybe 10-15 of them by the end there were roughly 5 or so. Nobody got really bent out of shape about this; it was the price of doing business. If these people were of a brown skin color people would have been all over this. Other people like to invoke National Security in their stance. If immigration is so important to them then why do they not realize that the 9/11 conspirators/attackers came in not from Mexico but from Canada? Surely the porous border with Canada is of greater concern for National Security then the one with Mexico. The fact of the matter is that neither Jobs nor National Security are greatly impacted by immigration, this is just a scare tactic.

A possible way to keep American Jobs in America would be to give incentives to companies who keep plants in the US. US companies don't pay the taxes that they should so why not give them tax breaks for keeping jobs here. I mean if they aren't paying their proper taxes why should the rest of the country suffer while they make more money? Part of the problem is the very system of economy that we have. A Free Market Economy (FME) only aids in the departure of jobs. In a FME the main objective is to maximize profit, this is the main objective of every business. When businesses look at the cost of doing business; labor, sales, advertising, etc., in the US it is only too apparent that the way to maximize profit is to ship the jobs to other places where labor is cheaper. That's the nature of the beast. What has to happen is the development of new industry. New Industries are always being developed; these industries sometimes aren't even new but rather just an evolution of an existing industry. Take for example the energy industry; the US has plenty of natural resources that can be tapped for industry. We grow so much corn in this country that right now we are paying people not to grow corn, I kid you not. Why not develop an industry that uses corn for power or develop vast windmill farms to generate power? These are just things that have already been started but I am sure that there are many untapped ideas for industry. Maintenance of such industries would surely create jobs.

The third issue that I think is major is the perception abroad of US Imperialism. We need to wean ourselves off our reliance on oil, this would – I think – cut down on part of this perception. This must be done for a number of reasons the most significant of which is that our oil interests foster ideas of American Imperialism abroad. This perception (held by the international community) is more detrimental to US security than immigration. The attacks of 9/11 did not occur because of immigration but because of perceived US Imperialism. Not to mention that a movement away from foreign oil would strengthen our economy. We would be able to develop alternate forms of energy that would benefit the environment and all Americans. The US must stop acting as the world police; we should not be interfering in matters of national self-determination of foreign nations. A prime example is the aftermath of the Benazir Bhutto assassination in Pakistan. So far the only thing the US has done is issue a statement from our eloquent President saying "Assassination, bad." THIS IS ALL WE SHOULD DO! I have put this all in caps for a reason. We have no right to tell another country what to do as long as they are not committing mass genocide or something else of that nature. Propping up leaders in nations does nothing but foster the sentiments that allowed for the ascendancy of Osama Bin Laden. I fear, however, that the US will interfere in some way in the aftermath of the Bhutto assassination. This is something we should not do. Just because you the ability to interfere doesn't mean you should, Mr. President.

There are a number of issues that I think have no place being discussed in politics. The two most important ones are global warming and gay marriage. The one that unfortunately with carry the most weight is gay marriage. The government has no standing to legislate marriage, for it is a religious institution. The government has no jurisdiction to legislate religious institutions, at least in my mind. This is a moral judgment for the parties involved and nobody else. This issue will be a moot point anyway in twenty years so just let it be. The fact of the matter is this is an issue for the states not the federal government. I'm not even going to talk about global warming because the Earth has been warming and cooling for millennia, are we, humans, advancing things more rapidly, probably. Either way it's not a major political issue facing this nation, it is an issue of personal consumption.

Steroids and Baseball Stuff

With the release of the Mitchell Report many people are jumping to conclusions about the players named in this report. Some of these players have in the past week admitted to using Steroids and HGH (Human Growth Hormone), see Andy Pettitte. I personally have a hard time believing some of these accusations, especially the ones made by Brian McNamee. For those of you who don't know Brian McNamee was a former trainer for the Blue Jays and Yankees and a personal trainer formerly in the employ of Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte. McNamee claims to have injected Roger Clemens with steroids numerous time between 1997 and 2001. In this span Clemens won three Cy Young Awards (1997, 1998, and 2001). The Mitchell Report, I think, did not do a good job documenting payments and use of steroids and HGH. The report includes as one of its appendices photo-copies of checks made out to McNamee and another "dealer." However, on all these checks there is no mention of steroids or HGH, they could easily be for some other service rendered i.e.: Personal Training. Another factor into my doubting the claims of McNamee regarding Clemens is that since the issuing of the Mitchell Report affidavits from the Jason Grimsly case have since been unsealed. According to reports by certain newspapers Roger Clemens is, in these affidavits, said to have received and used Steroids. These reports have since been proven false since his name appears nowhere in these documents. If Clemens was telling the truth then why do people feel that he is lying now? Another thing to consider is that this witness testimony is uncorroborated and coming from somebody who made a deal with the prosecutors of his own drug case.

Some like Curt Schilling (boo, hiss) have said that if these allegations are true then Clemens should give up the Cy Young Awards he won after 1996. I clearly don't agree. The fact of the matter is that Clemens has never tested positive for Steroids and furthermore when Clemens is said to have used the substance in question it was not a banned substance (at least in Baseball). Although Clemens might have broken the law he did not consume of substance that was banned by MLB. As you can see I don't think that Clemens used any performance enhancing substances.

Other Baseball stuff:

Personally I am glad that the Yankees have not made any deal for Johan Santana. Although he is the best pitcher in Baseball right now, the move would not be good in the long run. Giving up Phil Hughes, Melky, and Ian Kennedy is way too much. Giving up Hughes, Melky, and a middle tier prospect is also too steep a price to pay for a pitcher like Santana. This is a move that the old Yankees would make. The Yanks will be better off in the long run by keeping and developing players like Melky, Hughes, Kennedy, and other prospects on the farm. I don't think the Yankees will win the WS next year but I do think they will make the playoffs and in two to three years I do think they will win the WS.

Issues with "Sicko"

As many of you know Michael Moore has a new "documentary" coming out. Clips and trailers have been popping up on myspace and other well travelled sites, attempting to persuade you to give Mr. Moore your money and your time. While watching one such clip on myspace I was compelled to do some research into what Michael said in the opening of the clip in question. Before I embark on the discussion that is to be the basis of this post I wish to say that i do not dislike Michael Moore nor am I terribly fond of him. I respect the message that he is trying to convey and for the most part I agree with the message. My issue with Mr. Moore is simply this, he likes to portray his opinion as fact. This is dangerous; by creative editing he juxtaposes images and situations that have little if anything to do with each other. A prime example of this would be in the film "Bowling for Columbine" when he claimed that Charlton Heston gave a speech roughly two months after the Columbine massacre that said something along the lines of "you'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands,” it being here a gun. In actuality this speech was given before the Columbine massacre. (A note for all posts that include anything to be represented as fact by me. I will provide sources for any information I represent as fact either at the end of the post or in a parenthetical aside directly after that which I am representing as fact. If no cite is provided and you want one feel free to request one and I will probably - if I have time oblige and provide one).

Now we get to the crux of the matter. This post is going to discuss the opening sentence of the clip that is being played on myspace. The opening sentence of this clip reads as follows: "We've got the worst infant mortality rate (IMR) in the Western World. A baby born in El Salvador has a better chance of surviving than a baby born in Detroit." (if you would like to see the clip here it is. See I do like Michael, I just gave him a plug). If we investigate this statement further we find that in fact he is actually quite mistaken.

Upon hearing this statement I said to myself "surely this can't be true. The worst infant mortality rate in the Western World? He's making this up." So, since I have too much time and no life, I decided to do some digging and investigate this statement with all material available to me. I started my investigation by googleing "Infant Mortality Rates." When the search results came up one of the first sites was the wikipedia entry (go ahead and google it I'll wait...). Normally I would be hesitant to use an entry on wiki but I used it as a starting point so I got no information from it just links. I also clicked on the very first site from "geography IQ." This site provided me with information from the CIA - World Fact Book. I know some of you are saying: "the CIA, are you serious? They are not exactly the most accurate "intelligence" agency in the world." Well that may be true but for this the information has been verified from other places. When we examine the question at hand with the numbers from the CIA - Fact Book we see that a child born in the US has a better chance of surviving in the US than that same child born in El Salvador. According to the CIA numbers the infant mortality rate for the United States is 6.37/1000. That is for every 1000 live births in the United States 6.37 babies die. The number as reported for El Salvador happens to be 22.88/1000. I know, wow, that's not even close. These numbers even say we have a lower IMR than most countries like Russia, Poland, Israel, Mexico, and Croatia. When you compare us to other members of the G8 we do have the lowest IMR of any country other than Russia. However for the most part the differences here are minimal, within 2-3 deaths less/1000. However if we are going to stick to what Mr. Moore said than we should discuss how we compare to the Western World. Well in response to that we have as good if not a better IMR than many "Western" countries (see Russia, Poland, Israel, Mexico, and Croatia).

Shall we look further? Shall we examine the mortality rate of children under 5? Let's examine that question, since Mr. Moore alludes to it in his clip. The U5MR (Under 5 Mortality Rate) for the United States according to UNICEF is 7 whereas for El Salvador it is 27. I'm going to say that again because it bears repeating. The U5MR for the United States according to UNICEF is 7 whereas for El Salvador it is 27. Again these numbers are deaths per 1000 live births. The UNICEF table is put together differently than the CIA one. The UNICEF table lists countries from highest to lowest mortality rate whereas the CIA table goes from lowest to highest. If you wish to compare us to other "western" countries we have a better U5MR than Russia, Mexico, and El Salvador; the same U5MR as Poland and Croatia; and a lower U5MR by one than Canada (6), the United Kingdom (6), and Israel (6).

When dealing with the second part of this claim, "A baby born in El Salvador has a better chance of surviving than a baby born in Detroit," we must examine the IMR for the entire country of El Salvador and for the city of Detroit, Michigan. Finding the information for Detroit is a little more difficult than finding the same info for El Salvador. I suggest googleing "Detroit Infant Mortality Rate." When we do this we see that the IMR for Detroit, home of the Tigers and Lions, is still lower than that of El Salvador, 15.4/1000 for the period 2000-2004 and 22.88/1000 respectively. That's about 7 deaths less for Detroit, this is not a small number granted it's not as bad as it could have been. Does the fact that the IMR of Detroit and other cities is significantly higher than the nation average say something about the state of the nation? I would say unequivicably, yes it does. It says a lot. I think it points to a racial and ethnic divide in the country but that's my opinion and probably is wrong, I don't know.

With all this having been said I believe that what Mr. Moore is trying to do with this film is illustrate how wrong it is that our healthcare industry is so bad compared to other G8 nations. This is something that needs to change. Hopefully this will change after the '08 elections, but I seriously doubt that. Mr. Moore is right when he implies that the government and businesses want an uneducated, ill informed, and blissfully ignorant consumer public. However, he fails to mention that he is banking on these same characteristics so that people buy his argument. If his public were cynical enough or just curious they could find contradicting information. Is this opening statement true? NO! But, I do not think it was intended to be entirely true. I believe it to be a hyperbole.

Will I go see this movie? Not at all. Do I agree with the overall point that I believe he is trying to make? Yes, I do. That point is that Health Care in this country needs to get better and quickly. Is this a new idea? Not at all. The sad thing is that he could be just as entertaining and say just as much to the general public if he kept his shtick to a minimum and instead of pointing out the problem pointed to some sort of solution. Or if he has no solution then he could try and further the debate over nationalizing Health Care. I think it's safe to say that the only thing that he is going to do with this film is piss a bunch of people off. That is after he acts like a fat, rude, pompous a-hole.

You should all go see his movie or go back and watch his other movies and see if what he represents as fact is actually fact.


sources for all IMR and U5MR information:
CIA - The World Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
U5MR from Childinfo.org
http://www.childinfo.org/areas/childmortality/u5data.php.
U5MR from Unicef.org
http://www.unicef.org/sowc07/docs/sowc07_u5mr.pdf.