 |
| The following are some samples of "CONSIDER THIS"-- my mother's every-other-week column for the Rossmoor News in California. You can contact her by e-mail at "singann(at)aol.com" ...substituting a @ symbol for the "(at)". I have arranged the columns in chronological order starting with the most recent. (6/25/08), by Ann Singer) WORLD POPULATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT The number of people on Earth continues to increase and with greater population the world’s environmental challenges become harder to address. Today two countries have over a billion people: China at 1.3 billion and India at 1.2 billion. The United States is the third largest with 306 million. In 1927 world population was 2 billion, by 1960 it had grown to 3 billion, and now it is 6.7 billion. United Nations’ projections estimate that by the year 2050 the human population on the planet will increase to 9.2 billion. These figures assume further fertility rate declines, which may or may not happen. Over the past 40 years the average number of children born to each woman has fallen from 4.47 for the period 1970-75 to 2.55 for the period 2005-10. The replacement rate, with no growth, is usually considered to be 2.1 births per woman. Rates in the developed world have dropped to nearly that level. Even in Sub-Saharan Africa fertility rates have gone down. China has a mandatory one-child policy. Through government-sponsored but voluntary measures India has reduced its fertility rate from 5.26 births per woman to 2.81, but its population is expected to exceed China by 2050. Birth rates have fallen, but overall world population will continue to grow as large numbers of young people enter their reproductive years. Reductions in family size are largely due to contraceptive use, according to the 2008 New York Times Almanac. Research studies show that couples around the world want fewer children. Where women are educated and have gender equality, birth rates go down. India is putting its family-planning emphasis on increasing education and work opportunities for women while continuing to promote the use of contraceptives. Nevertheless, despite such efforts in many countries, there are at least 350 million couples in the world who want to limit pregnancies but continue to lack information about contraception and have no access to birth control services. The relationship of large populations and degraded environment may seem obvious and yet this issue has only recently come to the fore and been openly discussed as shortages of food, water and energy become severe. The Bush presidency has hindered rather than encouraged family planning programs here and abroad. Citizens must encourage the next U.S. administration to initiate birth control programs and support cooperative efforts through the United Nations. In examining the impact of too many people on the environment, the growth of urbanization must be considered. The United Nations estimates that 49 percent of the world population now live in cities and that by 2030 over 60 percent will live in urban areas. People crowded into large cities, especially in developing countries, already are suffering the effects of unclean water, poor sanitation and air pollution. This situation has huge implications for urban planners and city management. As we are learning quickly, population is growing faster than food supplies and the shortage of fresh water is acute. Distribution of healthy food and clean water to people in cities, and the necessary infrastructure in crowded areas, implies complex building and management problems that few cities are equipped to handle. Other impacts of too many people include cutting more forests, over-fishing the oceans, polluting coastal ecosystems, and human activity which pushes many thousands of plant and animal species into extinction every year. Global warming, as we now well know, results largely from our burning of fossil fuels. What needs to be reckoned with as well is that we are not just adding more human beings to the world, but as developing countries join the community of nations they have an urgent need to improve living standards. Their people, as with all those before them, want a better diet for their children, a healthier place to live, good transportation, education and modern work facilities. Wars have already been fought over oil, land and other natural resources. Some analysts think the next conflict in the Middle East will be over water. By controlling population we may be able to prevent wars and encourage cooperative efforts to save the planet. Unless we stabilize and, in the not-too-distant future, reduce population, the world’s natural resources will be exploited and degraded beyond recovery. Reducing Earth’s population is our most urgent environmental problem and the United States must lead in facing up to this challenge. (5/14/08, by Ann Singer) REGISTER AND VOTE 2008 In 2005, Indiana passed one of the nation’s toughest voter identification laws in the country. It requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls in order to vote. Private college IDs, employee cards and utility bills are unacceptable. Despite a challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the Indiana law. A New York Times Editorial (4/30/08) opposing this decision, stated, “This should not have been a hard case. The court has long recognized that the right to vote is so fundamental that a state cannot restrict it unless it can show that the harm it is seeking to prevent outweighs the harm it imposes on voters.” There is no evidence that Indiana has or ever had a problem with people impersonating others, trying to vote twice or committing other voter fraud. Now there may be confusion at the polls and people will be discouraged from voting. Other states are likely to follow suit and pass tougher identification laws. Just when the United States is gearing up for an extremely important presidential election, we took a step backward and made it more difficult for some to cast their votes. There is no use, however, in bemoaning this setback. We must concentrate now on voter registration and see that people get to the polls with whatever identification they need to vote. In 2000, a critical national election if there ever was one (Gore vs Bush), only 60 percent of the voting age population voted. Of that population, 70 percent were registered. By the 2004 presidential election the figures had increased. Of the voting age population, 64 percent voted and 72 percent of that population was registered. If people are registered they are much more likely to vote. In 2004, 89 percent of those who were registered voted. No matter how one analyzes the data, however, this is still a shameful showing for a democratic people who advertise our freedoms and participatory government to the rest of the world. Millions of people in this country do not register and vote and we need to get these people on board by the November election. In California in 2004, there were 21,843,202 eligible voters, but of those only 14,945,031 (or 68.42 percent) were registered. Voter registration has increased in the state, but the percentage of people registered to the total number eligible, has actually declined. The California Voter Foundation (CVF) made a statewide survey on the attitudes of infrequent voters and citizens eligible to vote but not registered. They found that 6.4 million Californians are eligible but not registered to vote. It was surprising that 93 percent of infrequent voters and 81 percent of non-voters agreed that voting is important and everyone should do it. So why didn’t they? Over a quarter of infrequent voters and 23 percent of those unregistered said they are too busy to register and vote. Many Californians will benefit from more information about the time-saving advantages of early voting and voting by absentee ballot. Two-thirds of the CVF respondents said politics are controlled by special interests and that candidates don’t speak to their concerns. Many non-voters are disproportionately young, single, less educated and often from an ethnic minority. Forty percent of non-voters are under 30 years of age. How do we get to these infrequent and non-voters? According to CVF, we must use our influence with family and friends and urge them to register and vote. The survey found that family and friends influence people to vote more than do newspapers and television. Californians who care can do a lot to promote democracy in our own state by getting people registered. There are many organized voter registration campaigns aiming toward the upcoming presidential election. Democrats of Rossmoor have begun their non-partisan voter registration and outreach efforts. If you would like to get involved, you may call Emily Ehm, Voter Registration Chair, at 943-7610 or e-mail her at rogerehm@sbcglobal.net. She can tell you how to volunteer and can answer your questions about registration. Registration forms can be picked up at public libraries, post offices and the Department of Motor Vehicles. And we should remind people that they must re-register if they move or if they missed voting in an election. Let’s all work for the candidates we favor and encourage neighbors, family, and friends (especially young people) to get registered and vote. (4/30/08, by Ann Singer) WOMEN IN PUBLIC OFFICE When Nancy Pelosi ascended to Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senator Hillary Clinton became a serious contender for the presidency, many women (and men) thought the battle for women’s political rights was over. We’ve come a long way, Baby, but we’ve still got a long way to go. Pelosi became Speaker because of her particular astuteness, negotiating skills and hard work through 11 terms in Congress. It can be said she is a special case because there are still only 71 women in the House of Representatives out of 435 and 16 Senators out of 100. Women got the vote in this country through the 19th Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1920. Between 1922 and 2006 a total of just 33 women served in the Senate and only two percent of the House have been female. There have been notable trail blazers before in Congress, including Shirley Chisholm (the first black woman), Geraldine Ferraro, and Bella Abzug. Pat Schroeder was the first woman elected to Congress from Colorado and served from 1973–1997. She was outspoken and influential, and wrote a humorous, revealing book after she left office, “24 Years of House Work . . . and the Place is Still a Mess.” One sign of those times is Schroeder’s story of being the first woman on the House Armed Services Committee. The chair was Louisiana Congressman F. Edward Hebert. He was furious that both a woman and a black, Ron Dellums, were put on his committee. Out of spite he added only one chair in the committee room. Schroeder and Dellums literally had to share one seat which gave rise to many jokes and highlighted the lack of status of women and legislators of color in Congress during that period. In Rossmoor we are by now accustomed to women legislators. Our representative from the 10th District, in her 6th term, is Ellen O. Tauscher, and Barbara Lee in the adjacent 9th District, which includes Oakland, has been in Congress since 1998. The global average of women in parliaments is 17 percent. In the 110th U.S. Congress, we have 16 percent. By the end of 2002, Argentina, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa and Sweden had reached a goal of 30 percent of their parliamentary seats held by women. A number of governments in the world have or have had female heads of state. Three notable ones currently serving are Angela Merkel of Germany; Michelle Bachelet of Chile; and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia. In 1995, Sweden became the first country to have an equal number of women and men in ministerial posts. Democrats are more likely to elect women than Republicans. In the U.S. Senate 11 of the 16 women are Democrats. Three states, Washington, California and Maine, are represented by all women senators. California’s Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Washington’s Maria Cantwell and Patti Murray are Democrats, while Maine’s Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are Republicans. Of the 71 women in the House, 50 are Democrats. In addition, the three Delegates to the House from Guam, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C. are Democratic women. Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi and Vermont are the only states never to have a woman representative in either house of Congress. (See: Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University, www.cawp.rutgers.edu.) Beyond the usual gender bias one might expect, a problem has been that the pool of women in state and local offices from which Congressional candidates are often drawn has been small. That is changing rapidly. Eight states now have female governors, and a total of 74 women hold statewide elective office including lieutenant governors and attorneys general. In state legislatures 1746 of 7382 legislators (23.7 percent) are women. In local and county government, women mayors, council members and county executives are now commonplace. A sign of progress is that women no longer need to act tough and play down their maternal and humanitarian qualities. While this so-called female side of candidate may not exactly win votes, it is seen as an asset and not the liability it was in the past. “I’m going to be asking people to vote for me based on my entire life and experience,” said Pelosi when she became speaker. “The fact that I’m a woman, the fact that I’m a mom, is part of who I am.”(New York Times, 1/29/07). (4/16/08 by Ann Singer) PLANNING FOR THE END OF LIFE A new book by Dennis McCullough, M.D. called “My Mother, Your Mother” has the subtitle “Embracing “Slow Medicine,” The Compassionate Approach to Caring for Your Aging Loved Ones.” It will surely be of interest to Rossmoorians who are contemplating a time when they will need help in daily living and are concerned about what to do if they become ill. McCullough, a geriatrician, reviews the stages at the end of life and tells readers what to expect. The book is addressed to the families, siblings and friends of elders and explains how they can be helpful to a loved one and ease the inevitable irreversible decline of old age. There are many who die quickly before late old age, but, given advances in medical science and healthier life styles, most Americans now lead a long life and experience a slow decline. McCullough suggests we plan ahead and face the end of life in a forthright manner with the goal of being as happy and comfortable as possible. McCullough’s approach is “slow medicine” and he explains that it is up to friends and relatives to rescue the elderly from standard medical care. What he means is that we need to slow down medical intervention and be more measured about health care for older persons. For example, he suggests that elders always start with the lowest possible dosage of medicine and increase it if necessary (rather than the other way around), avoid invasive diagnostic tests which may be exhausting and useless, re-evaluate older persons’ drugs and state of health more frequently through consultation, and avoid unnecessary surgeries. McCullough has put down in one easy-to-read book what many of us know intuitively and from experience. The suggested approach in the book is easier said than done. I wondered at times if McCullough is in a dreamland when it comes to medical care for the elderly. He is at Dartmouth Medical School and in a setting of thoughtful care which is very different from the 15-minute appointment and frenetic atmosphere with which most of us are familiar. Moreover, I wonder how many adult children or other family members of an old person would be willing to read “My Mother, Your Mother” and then pitch in, as a team, to be helpful and guide medical care for an old relative. I hope to find another book addressed directly to the old person which will empower and help them take charge of their own later years. Almost all of us are able to think about our futures and write down what we want to happen. Still, the book gives a lot of good advice. McCullough emphasizes, for example, how important it is to have a steady person –- whether child, grandchild, sibling or friend -- go with you to the doctor or the emergency room. What occurs often is that you quickly deliver your story to the doctor; she examines you and gives a diagnosis and sends you for tests; then you pick up a prescription at the pharmacy and go home. Unless you get worse the consultation is never followed up. However, if you have a caring friend with you, that person has only to watch, listen and perhaps ask a couple of questions, and the time with the doctor is made considerably more helpful. If it’s an emergency, an advocate-helper is crucial. Readers may say they don’t have such an advocate, but there are neighbors and friends who, while they won’t take over your care for the long haul, are quite willing to respond to a call and go with you to the doctor or hospital. Some of us feel it’s an imposition and don’t want to ask, but we must reach out. Good news is that we have the Rossmoor Counseling Services which can help residents with plans for medical care and end-of-life matters. The Service is located at Gateway, phone 988-7750. It is staffed by licensed clinical social workers and provides residents and their families with private consultations and help in making alternate living plans and with resource and referral information. The best time to take advantage of the service is, of course, when you’re well and able to think clearly about your future. “My Mother, Your Mother” shows us the direction we should go -- away from the medical establishment and toward slower, more personal care tailored to our own specific requirements. It’s up to each of us to summon the courage to face the end of life and make plans which fit our individual needs and resources. (4/2/08 by Ann Singer) NO MORE NUKES The Iraq war has been a national disaster. There is the loss of Iraqi and American lives, mental and physical injuries to soldiers and civilians, environmental damage, and the negative impact on our image and reputation around the world. Instead of working to build a lasting peace and establishing a Department of Peace, citizens who care have had to expend enormous amounts of energy and funds pushing this administration to get out of Iraq. Because of the war, the urgent issue of nuclear disarmament has fallen from our view. Recently a public hearing was held at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory on the draft plan for updating and streamlining our stockpile of warheads and bombs. The country has not built new nuclear weapons in 20 years so these hearings denote a turning point. The U.S. can either go now toward more nuclear arms or we can take steps toward disarmament. Once again representatives of many groups including Western States Legal Foundation, Tri-Valley CARES, and Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center, which was represented by Rossmoor’s Bob Hanson, made the trip to Livermore to protest nuclear weapons. In 1968 the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for signatories and to date 189 countries have signed this international document. Five of the signers have nuclear weapons: United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. Four nations have not signed on: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has nuclear weapons but is secretive about it. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it and later withdrew. In 1995 the parties met and decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely. The U.S. is ignoring the treaty and has often bypassed international agreements giving the message that it is above international law. As Hanson said at the Livermore hearing, “We believe it is time to re-think our country’s nuclear posture. Instead of spending billions of dollars on improving our nuclear arsenal, we should be planning for and working toward a nuclear free world.” The Livermore hearings were not in fact about nuclear weapons policy. They were about the Department of Energy’s (DOE) draft proposal to transform the country’s weapons complex to meet future needs, with the mission “to provide safe, secure and reliable nuclear warheads in support of the nation’s deterrent.” DOE has no power to disarm, only the mandate to “transform the complex.” The President and Congress are in charge of defense policy and funding for bombs and guns. The hearings, however, gave anti-nuclear activists a platform to speak out about disarmament and peace. Nuclear weapons were thought to be essential during the Cold War as a means of deterrence. Deterrence is still a relevant consideration, but not with nuclear weapons which are very dangerous and useless in preventing war. On the web site CommonDreams.org, Glenn Carroll states, “Our national security lies down the path of nuclear waste management, environmental restoration and securing the bomb materials from dismantled weapons.” Lest we forget, denuclearization is not a way-left fringe issue. President Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of “all nuclear weapons,” which he considered to be “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” In 2007, four high-ranking U.S. officials who held public office during the Cold War years urged in the Wall Street Journal that the process of denuclearization start with “¬current nuclear states destroying their arsenal and signing the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty” (emphasis added). Leaders who came forward are: George P. Shultz, Secretary of State, 1982-89; William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense, 1994-97; Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State, 1973-77; and former Senator Sam Nunn who was chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. These men can hardly be called peaceniks, but they are in a position to know the horrific danger of nuclear weapons and felt compelled to speak out. The United States has an historic opportunity and momentum to take the lead toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. The world needs this leadership to bring together a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons and ending their threat to the world. Citizens need to bring this issue to the forefront in the election campaign. We must stop nuclear proliferation and prevent nuclear materials from falling into potentially dangerous hands. The United States must now lead the way to peace on earth and not to more war. (3/5/08 by Ann Singer) THE BRIEF WONDROUS LIFE OF OSCAR WAO by Junot Diaz To describe Diaz’s novel as the tale of a family from the Dominican Republic who migrate to New Jersey hardly glimpses the depth and breadth of this amazing book. Diaz achieves where others often fail in telling the story of a whole people through the detailed and loving examination of one family’s history. Diaz writes about the Trujillo era (1930-61) of the Dominican Republic not just by describing the lethal excesses of this monstrous dictator, but by telling how particular people lived and reacted under the dictator’s oppression and cruelty. Many became spies and thugs in the Secret Police while many others squeaked by and said nothing. The novel, for example, tells in detail about the imprisonment, torture and death of Abelard, the family’s grandfather, a kindly doctor and scholar during the regime. His is a heartbreaking story of how far human degradation and hurt went in the Trujillo era. Oscar Wao is the central figure in this complex saga. He is a nerdy, fat, sci-fi-addicted, self-loathing young man, who was born in the Dominican Republic and migrated with his mother, Beli, and his sister, Lola, to New Jersey. He is a geek and not your typical Dominican macho male. He is the exception and by drawing contrasts between Oscar and more usual Dominicans Diaz teaches us a great deal about the culture. The book goes back and forth from Oscar’s experience at Don Bosco Tech in New Jersey, to beautiful Lola’s adventures with her boyfriends, back to Beli’s remarkable story, and then way back to the grandfather’s sad history. Other richly drawn characters play important parts, including Yunior, who is one of a number of people who try without success to help Oscar lose weight, find a girlfriend, and generally become “normal.” The Dominican gangster with whom Beli falls in love is fascinating, and La Inca, the aunt who rescues the girl Beli from a terrible fate, is a complex and well-drawn character. Diaz tells his layered tale in street talk, Spanish and Spangliesh, explanatory footnotes, and in English. Despite the language hodgepodge the book rushes along and the different ways of speech simply add to one’s reading enjoyment instead of slowing it down. It is such a human, compassionate novel that I actually laughed out loud a few times and in other parts had tears well up in my eyes. How often do readers have that experience? Junot Diaz was born in the Dominican Republic and came to the United States as a small boy. This is his first novel, but in 1996 he published a book of short stories called “Drown” which was critically acclaimed and became a national bestseller. He teaches writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In these global-spanning times, even though Americans are ambivalent about immigration and are no longer so beloved around the world, many of us want to learn about “foreigners” and understand other cultures. Think how immensely popular Khaled Hosseini’s “The Kite Runner” is about Afghanis who move from the Middle East to Fremont. Edwidge Danticat’s “Brother, I’m Dying” about Haiti, “The Namesake” by Jhumpa Lahiri, Anita Desai’s books, and many other recent notable novels reveal much about other countries and the immigrant experience. Two excellent non-fiction books which I reviewed in this column previously are Anne Fadiman’s “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down” about Hmong refugee immigrants from Laos, and the much discussed “Reading Lolita in Teheran” by Azar Nafisi. A friend recently said to me, “I like to learn about other societies by reading true-to-life stories about individuals and families. It is so much more interesting than reading straight history.” I agree. “Oscar Wao” teaches us a lot about Dominicans, dictatorship and oppression, life and poverty in the Caribbean islands, immigrant problems, and the multitude of ways families and individuals survive disaster and pain and deal with one another. Michiko Kakutani, in her New York Times review says, “It is Mr. Diaz’s achievement in this galvanic novel that he’s fashioned both a big picture window that opens out on the sorrows of Dominican history, and a small, intimate window that reveals one family’s life and loves.” The book is by Junot Diaz, “The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Diaz.” (2/6/08, by Ann Singer) STAGGERING FINANCIAL COST OF THE IRAQ WAR “Most of the time we pretend it’s not there: The staggering financial cost of the war in Iraq, which continues to soar, unchecked, like a rocket headed toward the moon and beyond.” These words by Bob Herbert opened his column in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times (12/4/07). Now that the stock market has taken a dive and we are in a recession, the economy and the cost of war will surely be back in the news and the presidential campaign. There are lots of reasons we’re in the economic doldrums, but the Iraq war is certainly an important factor. Even by conservative estimates the war has cost $611 billion by the end of 2007. It is costing the American people $2 billion per week! The money will continue to be squandered for years to come and will bring the long-term war costs up to $3.5 trillion. Direct war appropriations are already roughly 10 times the amount the administration estimated would be needed. Herbert writes that we must consider now the long term cost of interest associated with borrowing to finance the war, funds to treat the wounded and disabled, military pensions, money needed to repair or replace military equipment, and the increased costs of military recruitment and retention. Readers may say, well, war is cruel, but it’s good business and provides jobs, taxes, and so forth. In the case of Iraq it is simply not the case that taxes from fees paid to private contractors, from salaries to military personnel, or funds from Iraqi oil revenue makes it back to the U.S. and into the federal treasury. The funds are lost, used up, and often stolen or unaccounted for. The money for the Iraq war is going up in smoke. The money matters, especially as the recession deepens. It means that there are less or no funds to invest in health care, education, job creation programs, public infrastructure projects such as mass transit, parks, bridges, government computer updates, or even, for that matter, more sophisticated surveillance systems to apprehend terrorists. One of the biggest consequences of the ongoing wars is that we are not developing a serious strategy and the technology for achieving energy independence and curbing emissions and global warming. Now with the economic downturn, legislators get nervous, taxes are reduced (even for the rich) and all officials can think of to relieve the deficit is to give people money to spend on consumer goods. The huge war expenditures mean too that there is less money for federal grants to states to spend on needed programs such as schools and health coverage. California has urgent matters which need immediate attention such as water supply and redistribution programs, disaster preparedness, and inner-city failing schools (we are in 32nd place in the states in terms of expenditures per student). Our state is already looking at a possible $8.6 billion deficit in 2008-09. No one can know what the wasted war money would have been spent on, but it is instructive to consider what the funds could have been used for at the state level. In California, for example, taxpayers have contributed $57.8 billion to the war. That amount could have provided 21,550,749 children with health care, or we could have hired 871,622 elementary school teachers. (See www.nationalpriorities.org.) The only “positive” result this writer can think of from the Iraq war is that we may learn the hard way the limits of American power. Perhaps we will finally get it that the loci of power have shifted east to China, India, Japan, and Russia. It’s really out of our hands, and the best we can do is to lead the world in diplomacy and cooperative efforts toward peace. We have so much talent and can-do spirit in the U.S., and, for the most part, our citizens have good will toward other peoples and a desire to help. We can lead the way in technological advances, cleaning up environmental degradation, giving aid and comfort to people in need, and strengthening the United Nations. The other way, leading to more war, is that we leave a crushing load of useless debt for our children, grandchildren, and children yet unborn. Do we want to leave that legacy? (1/23/08, by Ann Singer) CALIFORNIA’S WATER CRISIS The recent heavy rains and flooding make it easy to forget that California has an acute water shortage. We have failed for far too long to deal with this and experts now say we will likely face a genuine water crisis in 2008. In this column two years ago, I cited the 2006 New York Times World Almanac which noted that despite the state’s showy attractions, talented scientists, technology businesses, and natural wonders, we have terrific problems. The two big ones in 2008 are the same as two years ago: earthquakes and the shortage of water. The state had eight major earthquakes in the 20th century and scientists predict that we have not yet had “the big one.” There is nothing we can do to control earthquakes. We can only prepare ourselves for disaster, build structures to withstand quakes, and provide full emergency plans for the citizenry. We are making progress. The water problem is another story. From the Almanac, “The state’s position as a leader in agriculture masks an alarming lack of water.” We need to remind ourselves that we live in a very arid place and stop thinking of our situation as periodic drought. Joan Didion, in her excellent book on California, “Where I Was From,” quotes early visitors to the state. In the 1860s, William Henry Brewer described the southwestern San Joaquin Valley as a “plain of absolute desolation.” Later, the novelist Frank Norris pictured the valley as “bone dry, parched, and baked and crisped.” After spending billions of dollars, mostly government money, the state has 1,200 dams, hundreds of reservoirs, levees, bridges, pumps and weirs, and irrigates an area the size of Missouri. Water is drawn off the Colorado River at the alarming rate of 4.4 million acre-feet per year mainly for irrigating the Imperial Valley. Almost all the water flowing from the San Joaquin River is pulled off to irrigate the Central Valley. The desert blooms and the Imperial and Central Valleys have become the nation’s vegetable garden and orchard, but non-renewable ground water is being used up rapidly. Continued irrigation to the extent we have done it in the past is simply not sustainable. The discussion has changed somewhat in recent years in that it has become clearer how global warming contributes to California’s water problem. We depend on the Sierra Nevada snowpack to provide farms and cities with a year-round water supply. Now, with generally less snow and higher temperatures, the snow melts quickly and pours down the mountains so that we get more water than we need in winter and then dry out completely during the summer months. It’s easy to blame the big agricultural growers for taking all the water. It’s true that irrigation in the state is extremely inefficient and much of the moisture evaporates into the atmosphere. And the present method of water distribution cannot continue nor can we keep on growing water-intensive crops such as rice and cotton. We must, however, get serious about what our 36 million residents can do to change their ways and save water. In a Sunday New York Times Magazine article (10/21/07), Jon Gertner notes that Americans are the most voracious users of natural resources, including water, in the world. For example, the average person in Los Angeles uses 125 gallons of water per day! If Californians have to pay more for water they will use less. Raising the price, however, is only one tool. If water costs go up, the poor are affected disproportionately and the rich will go on squandering it because they can afford to do so. Landscaping for homes, offices, malls, etc. uses millions of gallons of water. Californians must realize they live in a desert and stop trying to make their gardens and parks green like the East. We need statewide water awareness campaigns to get input from all sectors of society. We have to learn to use low-flow showers, efficient clothes and dish washers, and toilets which take less water. We must embrace a water-saving consciousness as we are doing with energy and recycling. Many poor countries have a serious lack of clean drinking water, and desertification is a global environmental problem. Californians may not be able to alleviate directly the water scarcity in other countries, but we can develop technology, institute water-saving systems, and set a good example. We can demonstrate how this most precious and basic resource can be saved. (11/28/07, by Ann Singer) (9/13/07, Ann Singer) Consider This by Ann Singer. . . . (9/5/07) GOING BACKWARDS ON HEALTHCARE Readers of this column will know that a prime concern of mine is the lack of health care in this country. A new census report shows that 47 million people have no health insurance at all. Employer-based insurance is less available and many of those who do have coverage can’t get the treatment, procedures and medicines they need. Despite earlier optimism about increased coverage for children, I’m sorry to report that at both the federal level and in California we have actually taken steps backward in recent weeks. Congress has bills pending to renew and expand the States Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This Program grants federal money to states to cover children who have no health insurance. It appears that enough Republicans are on board to pass this legislation when Congress re-convenes after the summer recess and the votes are there to override a likely Presidential veto. That’s the good news, but the bad news is that, as the New York Times (8/26/07) editorialized, “Late on a recent Friday while Congress was in recess, a time fit for hiding dark deeds, the administration sent a letter to state health officials spelling out new hurdles they would have to clear before they could insure children from middle-income families unable to find affordable health coverage.” The White House, seeing that Congress was poised to expand health coverage for children, took action on its own to thwart this effort. SCHIP originally focused on children in families whose income was below twice the federal poverty level of $20,650 for a family of four, but many states got permission to increase the amount of income a family can have to buy SCHIP coverage. It was found that families, even if they have an income of $50,000 or $60,000, could not afford private health insurance premiums plus deductibles and co-payments. Now the administration’s new rules drastically reduce this coverage for middle-income children. Further, these new rules say that states must enroll 95 percent of children who are below the 200 percent of poverty level before they can go on to the group whose families have 250 percent of poverty level income. No state has been able to enroll 95 percent of poor children because people in poverty are an extremely hard-to-reach segment of the population. There are other new rules which tighten coverage and eliminate coverage for thousands of children. State officials, including California, have already checked in stating that the new administration hurdles are impossible to overcome. As if this is not bad enough, in California Governor Schwarzenegger has used his power of line item veto to eliminate $66.7 million from the final state budget that would have enabled enrollment of more than 100,000 California uninsured children into Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs. Senate Bill 437 was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor, but this same Governor has vetoed the $32.1 million needed to implement it. Now tens of thousands eligible children will continue to face great difficulty enrolling in needed health coverage. An additional $34.6 million in county outreach grants was also cut by the Governor. This money would have funded local efforts to reach poor children currently eligible for, but not enrolled in, Medi-Cal and Healthy Families. The decision to eliminate this funding directly contradicts the Governor’s and Legislature’s stated goal of insuring all California children. And with the new federal SCHIP restrictions, there will be even less federal money than before to pay for health care for California’s children. The administration’s draconian SCHIP rules come at a time when the majority of Americans, including Congress and the business community, say they are in favor of insuring all children and want some kind of a nationwide health plan. Governors of both parties are in favor of expanded coverage, but will have to curtail plans under the new rules. The problem is not one of money but of philosophy, the unfounded fear of so-called “socialized medicine.” President Bush said recently, “They’re going to increase the number of folks eligible through SCHIP; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then all of a sudden you begin to see a -– I wouldn’t call it a plot, just a strategy –- to get more people to be a part of a federalization of health care.” Because of this cruel ideology, our children will go without treatment for illnesses and accidents, medical examinations and immunizations. Consider This by Ann Singer. . . . (7/25/07) MICHAEL MOORE’S FILM “SICKO” The failed United States health care system is the subject of Michael Moore’s latest film. “Sicko” is provocative and even entertaining, but it makes serious and valid points which must be considered in any discussion of our health care system. Critics say the film gives us a slanted view of this country’s medical care, but it is surely no secret that Moore is a propagandist and often uses outrageous examples in order to stir up interest and get our attention. We need to keep in mind too that Americans have not gotten objective, straightforward reports about the state of medical care from health maintenance organizations (HMOs), drug companies or the government. Representatives of these entities refused to appear in the film. “Sicko” is not so much about people with no coverage, although the fact that 43 million Americans have no medical care insurance is part of the message. It is more about ordinary citizens who have coverage but are not getting the operation or treatment they need because it is denied by their insurers. The most shocking stories tell of private insurance carriers denying patient care for the flimsiest reasons. The stories anger us and yet almost everyone can tell similar tales of friends or relatives denied treatment or insurance because of a pre-existing condition or because the particular treatment was considered experimental or too expensive.Former employees of health insurance companies tell in “Sicko” how it was their job to comb records and find reasons to deny coverage or treatment in order to save the company money. Health maintenance organizations are among the most profitable businesses in the country. It is unconscionable that they are making big money by denying needed patient care. One important matter not discussed in the film is how our checkered system of private medical insurance inhibits movement in our mobile society. A young friend of this columnist dislikes her job and is doing work for which she is not suited, but she stays at it because she has had cancer (though she is well now) and knows she will not be able to get health insurance if she changes her work. Another friend wants to return to the Bay Area where he grew up, but getting medical insurance here for a free lance artist may not be possible and this is a deterrent. An important topic explored in “Sicko” is the unfounded fear Americans have of “socialized medicine.” The insurance companies and drug companies have thoroughly scared us into thinking that a universal government-run plan will not permit us to choose our own doctors and that care will be sub-standard and rationed. It is interesting this fear persists because by now we have long and positive experience with Medicare and Medicaid. Many criticize Moore’s flamboyant approach, but Americans are often victims of wild manipulative lies when it comes to medical care. For example, because some people involved in recent bombings in Scotland and England were foreign doctors in the British health service, Fox News’ Neil Cavuto called universal health care a “breeding ground for terrorism.” Let us hope the American people will reject these gross distortions and vote for candidates who favor single-payer, tax-supported medical coverage for everyone. President Harry Truman first proposed a national health insurance plan to Congress in 1945. There was fear then of “socialized medicine” and a universal plan was rejected, but Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. It was planned and hoped by many that health coverage would expand rapidly from the elderly, disabled and poor to cover all other age groups, but this hasn’t happened. Progress toward universal coverage can be made now by pressing for expanded coverage for children both at the national and state level. At the federal level, Democrats in Congress have proposed a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program which would cover more youngsters with an increase in federal spending. President Bush and Republicans oppose it, but Governor Schwarzenegger and other governors from both parties are in favor. In the California State Legislature companion bills SB 32 and AB 1, which give expanded coverage to children in the state, has gotten through the Legislature and will soon be on the Governor’s desk. We should back this legislation and do whatever we can to give our children a boost into a happy and productive adulthood. (The Rossmoor
News 8/23 2006)-- California voters might have concluded, after the defeat of all initiatives on the ballot in 2005, that proposition mania in the state would cool. No such luck! There are 13 propositions so far on the November 7, 2006 ballot, including a total of $37 billion in new bonds for infrastructure, housing, schools, highways, transit, and water and conservation projects. Many of these initiatives are on issues which should be hashed out in the California Legislature and enacted (or not) into law by our elected representatives. However, lawmakers tend to duck their responsibilities and force these propositions onto the general election ballot. At a time when our state and country want to increase the percentage of those who vote, all these propositions will have exactly the opposite effect as people throw up their hands in frustration. The ballot in November will be long, controversial and confusing. Certain initiatives which deserve the attention of voters will get short shrift and may be lost in the mass of speeches and campaign ads. For example, the extremely important Proposition 89 on Clean Money, if passed, will change for the better the way elections are financed. This initiative, first introduced as legislation, takes on the matter of removing special interest money and influence from political campaigns. It replaces private interest contributions with public funds for those candidates who participate. It frees candidates from the enormous effort and time they must now spend on fundraising. More people will be able to run for office. Further, it limits the amount of donations and expenditures in campaigns. This is a proposition which should be on the ballot because going directly to the voters is the only way California will get true campaign reform, but it may not get the attention it deserves because it is one of so many initiatives. A further difficult and confusing element of the ballot is that voters are being asked to approve $37 billion in new bonds. Some bond measures are valid and needed, but without taking a college-level study course, how is the average voter to know which bond measures are necessary and which are ill conceived? One wonders if voters will simply vote against all bonds because they find it too difficult to discern which should be passed and which rejected. Bond financing is a kind of long-term borrowing the state (and country) uses to raise money for major capitol outlay projects such as roads, educational facilities, prisons, parks and office buildings. These are usually projects to be used and amortized over a long period of time, and which cannot be paid for out of the general fund. The bonds are sold to investors at interest rates attractive enough to encourage investment. Typically, bond financing costs $2 for every $1 borrowed if it is paid with level payments over the usual 30-year loan. According to the Legislative Analystís Office, which calls itself California's Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor, as of July 1, 2006, California has outstanding debt of $45 billion on which it is making principal and interest payments. Now, taking on $37 billion more debt is proposed. Many readers will already be informed about the debt-service ratio. For those of us just learning about government borrowing, the debt-service ratio represents the portion of the state's annual revenues that must be set aside for interest and principal payments on bonds and therefore not available for actual projects. The California debt-service ratio is currently 4.2% for infrastucture bonds and is expected to rise to $4.8% as currently authorized bonds are sold. If all the bonds on the November ballot are approved and sold, the debt-service ratio will rise to 5.9% in 2010-11. If the bonds are approved in November, debt service would cost an average of $2 billion annually. The U.S. government debt has now reached $8.45 trillion. Personal consumer debt on Americansí mortgages, auto loans and credit card is $2.17 trillion as of August, 2006. This amount of indebtedness by the country and in the U.S. is worrisome and boggles the mind especially when one considers the change of view on the matter of credit and borrowing money that has taken place in the past 40 years. Most of us grew up in an era when people waited until they saved enough money before they bought a car or went on vacation. State and city governments back then were slow and cautious about replacing an old school or buying parkland. In future columns leading up to the election, the bond propositions will be examined and we will try to be helpful to Rossmoor voters in deciding how to vote on these important matters. AL GORE'S "AN
INCONVENIENT TRUTH" The film "An Inconvenient Truth" is already ranked as
one of the ten
best documentaries ever made. It is widely available and everyone
should see it. It is basically Al Gore's lecture, with help from
talented people in the movie business, on the crisis of global
warming.
The movie is a call to action on the most important environmental issue
facing Earth. A companion paperback book is Using slides, charts and amazing photographs, Gore simplifies complex science and shows us the increase and threat of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere brought on by industrialization, automobile and truck emissions, and the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels. Glaciers are melting, heat waves are more frequent and hotter, and there are more and stronger hurricanes. There is already more flooding, and, conversely, warmer temperatures are drying up ground moisture and this causes drought and desertification. Plant and animal species are disappearing because of loss of habitat. The shocking thing is how quickly all this damage is happening and how much worse it is going to be if we don't act right away. Gore and others reckon we have about ten years to take action to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before the problem is completely out of control. What Gore tells us is proven fact and is accepted as scientific truth although industry spokesmen would have us believe otherwise. The United States, according to our own Department of Energy, is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than South America, Africa, the Middle East, Australia, Japan and Asia put together. And our history of cooperation on global environmental issues is poor indeed. Gore is a long-time environmentalist, and in 1992 wrote "Earth in the Balance: Healing the Global Environment." He is 58 years old, the son of Albert Gore Sr. who was first a Representative and then a Senator from Tennessee. Al Jr. grew up in Washington, D. C. and spent summers on the family farm in Tennessee. He attended Harvard and Vanderbilt Law School and, despite his opposition to the war in Vietnam, served when drafted as an army newspaper reporter. He has been married to Mary Elizabeth "Tipper" Gore since 1969 and they have four grown children. Al Gore served four terms in the House of Representatives, 1976-84, and won a Senate seat in 1984. He ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 1988, and did well, but eventually lost to Michael Dukakis. He was a Senator when he was chosen in 1992 by Bill Clinton to be his running mate. Gore served as vice president in both Clinton terms, and ran for president in 2000. As is well known, had it not been for the contested Florida vote which the Supreme Court resolved in favor of George W. Bush (by a 5-4 vote), Gore would have become president. Will Al Gore succeed in calling the world's attention to the crisis of global warming? Fortunately, he is not the only person sounding the call to action. Many scientists are speaking out and the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Environmental Defense and many other groups are working on the issue. What Gore brings is a high visibility and celebrity to the matter and makes it understandable to average people. He tells us that now that he has made millions aware of the issue, through this film and hundreds of lectures in many countries, he will turn to solutions and tell people what they can do to help. Recently, partly because of the film, there have been newspaper and internet articles every day on various aspects of the global warming threat. Maybe, just maybe, we are waking up. As has been pointed out in this column before, legislation at the state level may precede Congressional action, particularly during this Administration. Right now, California has a bill pending in the State Legislature addressing global warming. It is AB 32 which will cut emissions in the State through mandatory, enforceable limits, and address problems already threatening California's coastline, air quality, and the agricultural and ski industries. Sponsors hope that passage of the bill will jump-start clean energy technologies and lead other states and the nation to take action. California is the 12th worst polluter in the world so it behooves us to get going. This column will report the progress of AB 32 and readers are urged to support this bill. And, meantime, please see "An Inconvenient Truth." (November 2005
Rossmoor News) Here is an update on Congressman Dennis Kucinich's renewed legislation calling for the establishment of a cabinet-level U.S. Department of Peace. The bill was re-introduced in the House of Representatives on September 14 with the number HR 3760. The legislation now has 60 co-sponsors and more are being added all the time. In September, there were many peace actions around the country and a large conference in Washington, D.C. to celebrate the proposal and raise public awareness. The organization which coordinates the national campaign for a Department of Peace is The Peace Alliance Foundation which can be reached at www.ThePeaceAlliance.org or telephone 586-754-8105. The exciting news is that U.S. Senator Mark Dayton, Democrat of Minnesota, introduced on September 22 a Department of Peace bill into the U.S. Senate (S. 1756). In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Dayton said, "If we are to remain the world's leader, and if we are to lead the world into a more secure and more prosperous future, we must become better known and more respected for our peacemaking successes than for our military forces. Peace, to have any last value, must be advanced, expanded and strengthened continuously. Doing so requires skill, dedication, persistence, resources, and, most importantly, people." The United Nations has for some time urged nations to set up a Ministry/Department of Peace, and the U.S. Department of Peace proposal is in cooperation with the world body. The proposed Department of Peace focuses on nonmilitary peaceful conflict resolution and prevention of violence. It promotes reconciliation and expansion of human rights. It is both domestic and international in scope. Its work and research in the international arena would be to study and support disarmament efforts, treaties and coalitions. On domestic issues, the Department of Peace would address the causes and cures of violence in the home, of gangs on the streets, and the abuse of children and women. We already have a great deal of knowledge about peaceful conflict resolution, but the information is scattered. It is an excellent idea to have a national clearinghouse where all who are interested in peace can go to find information and answers. With a Department in place, the history of coalition-building, treaties, and peace efforts that worked in the past would not be lost but could be used to plan a nonviolent future. The legislation creates a Peace Academy, similar to the five military service academies, whose graduates would be dispatched to trouble areas all over the world to promote nonviolent dispute resolution. A Peace Academy provides the opportunity to set up a curriculum that puts together what we know from Gandhi, Martin Luther King and other peacemakers. Experts like Michael N. Nagler could be called on to help set up a Department of Peace. Nagler's book, "The Search for a Nonviolent Future" is an authoritative text on this topic. His book could easily provide the basis and bibliography for Peace Academy courses. The Kucinich legislation proposes financing the Department of Peace based on a formula indexed at one percent of the total annual budget of the Department of Defense. The defense budget is now over $400 billion (and this does not include the extra billions allocated separately for Iraq). The study of peace is surely important enough to allocate to it one percent of what we spend on armies and bombs. A daily-reading book called, "The Promise of a New Day" by Karen Casey and Martha Vanceburg (Hazelden), notes, "The question of violence and danger in society occupies a lot of time, breath, and printer's ink. The possibilities of peace and safety take up very little." Doesn't it make sense to have a group of people studying peace at the same time as so many study war and weapons? What have we got to lose? How can we figure out how to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and form coalitions for peace if our money and talent are fully taken up with the business of war? It could only be helpful to the world to set up a Department of Peace. No sane person wants war, and yet we sometimes seem locked in an endless pattern of meeting fire with fire, insult with insult, aggression with aggression. However, there does seem to be hope on the horizon to break out of this way of the world. We hear people saying enough and believing with the Dalai Lama that, "War is outmoded." In 1959, Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it." (October, 2005) Californians participated in a special election on November 8 in which there were no candidates, only the dubious opportunity to vote up or down on eight propositions. At least $250 million was spent to lobby for and against these initiatives. To pay for the election process alone, setting up the human and technological apparatus, cost $50 million. Propositions have been around since the end of the 1800s. At that time reformers were frustrated by the railroads, which literally bought off State officeholders with huge sums of money. To try and remedy this situation, the initiative, referendum and recall process was added to the California Constitution in 1911. For many years this method of so-called direct democracy was considered an emergency solution, seldom used and only when there seemed to be no other remedy. However, governing this huge State got more complex, citizens got lazy and didn't vote and participate, and the "quick fix" of the proposition became ever more popular. Between 1912 and 1978, 66 years, California voters passed 46 initiatives, about two every three years. Then in the 1990s alone, Californians passed 24 initiatives, many of which severely restricted State legislators' flexibility and their ability to write good laws and negotiate budget compromises. The madness really began in 1978 with State-shaking Proposition 13. Prop 13 is the famous initiative written to lower drastically the rise in property taxes which had come about because of California's booming housing market. This initiative was passed more than 25 years ago and we continue to deal with the fallout today. Homeowners at that time, especially those whose property values had greatly increased in the boom years, balked at higher real estate taxes based on increased home values. Many now lived in paid-off homes on a limited income and could not afford tax increases. These inequities in the tax structure could have been corrected by the Legislature and leaders could have defused the revolt, but they didn't. They had gotten used to the luxurious flow of income into government coffers and failed to take action. But along came the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Proposition 13 was passed. As a result of Prop 13, our schools and colleges, which had thrived off property taxes to become one of the finest public school systems in the country, now declined rapidly. We got fast tax relief, but suffered disastrous results in education. Unfortunately, a large majority of Californians continue to be in favor of the proposition process and believe that initiatives bring up important, unaddressed policy issues. Citizens agree there are too many propositions and that the wording is too complicated, but they have the idea, perhaps illusion, that the process gives them a special voice. Californians should reaffirm that this is a republic and as Webster's Dictionary tells us, a republic is a "government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." Many Californians don't realize that the Legislature cannot amend an initiative passed by voters as it can, say, a law passed in a prior legislative session. Unless a court declares it unconstitutional or another ballot measure is passed, the initiative stands as written. Many initiatives are hastily conceived and poorly written. With respect to the recent special election, The New York Times, in a November 5 editorial, noted that, "Most of the questions involve matters that should be handled by the State Legislature." This has been true in all recent proposition-loaded elections. Many thoughtful observers say the California initiative process is out of control and the result is chaos. There are now paid proposition signature collectors and expert lobbying firms hired at great cost by special interests to lobby for or against initiatives. Experts who study government note that because of the initiative process, State Legislature term limits and the amount of money needed to campaign for election, it is extremely difficult to persuade good, independent people to run for State office. California, as a result, has become encumbered and almost ungovernable. Jules Tygiel, who is professor of history at San Francisco State University and who has studied this issue, said in a Los Angeles Times article, "If we want to reclaim the republican model established by our founding fathers, we must have one final ballot measure: one that terminates the initiative. That would truly be a special election." Contact Ann Singer at singann(at)aol.com ...substitute the "@" symbol for (at). |
|
|