. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
There are three pieces in this morning's Des Moines Register, and reference to a fourth, that prompt me to belatedly speak out on the controversial issue of the "i word" -- impeachment.
Let me make clear that I think it's a perversion of the Constitution to encourage the impeachment of a president because you don't like him or her, or just because you want to hurt the opposing party. And I understand Speaker Nancy Pelosi's desire to avoid appearing petulant, and merely seeking revenge for the Republicans' effort to impeach President Bill Clinton, in her declaration that impeachment is "off the table." (I suspect it may also reflect a bit of vote counting on her part.)
Nor do I think a formal impeachment proceeding is absolutely necessary as the only way for American citizens and their representatives to "preserve, protect and defend" their Constitution (a part of the president's (and other officials') oath upon being sworn in). U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1.
Although it may be relevant in this connection to note that the American Research Group's July 5 poll reports roughly 50% of Americans want Bush and Cheney impeached (45% Bush; 54% Cheney. Even registered Republicans support impeachment by 13% Bush, 17% Cheney.)
What I do think is that, at a minimum, the equivalent of articles of impeachment need to be drawn up with regard to what President George Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney have done, detailing each of the extensions of executive power and restrictions on citizens' constitutional protections. Our representatives owe us at least that much: a resolution detailing, opposing, rejecting and expressing their combined view that much of what the President and Vice President have been doing is, in the judgment of Congress, a violation of the civil rights of citizens and the separation of powers of the three branches of government.
Obviously, regardless of what Congress does it is too late to reverse much of what this Administration has already done. Therefore, the purpose of this bill of particulars is not so much to restrain a Republican president as to make sure the next president -- which has a good likelihood of being a Democrat -- and his or her successor presidents are not permitted to simply continue the practices that are now in place.
These concerns, and this analysis, is not original with me. It is gaining momentum throughout the country -- as is borne out by the fact that one newspaper, in one state, on one day contains three opinion pieces, with a reference to a fourth, on the theme:
William Stosine, "America's Biggest Threat Comes from Within,"Des Moines Register, August 19, 2007, p. OP2 -- with reference to similar theme in writings of Republican Paul Craig Roberts. (Roberts formerly served as President Reagan's undersecretary of treasury and associate editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal.) Roberts contends "The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown."
Although Bruce Fein is not represented in this morning's Register, he can also be added to the list of conservatives calling for impeachment. He was at the top of President Reagan's Department of Justice, has been affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and writes for the Washington Times. He recently laid out his own "articles of impeachment" on "Bill Moyers Journal," July 13, 2007 (includes links to background material, video, and transcript).
Lance Dickie, "Civil Liberties Assaulted," Des Moines Register, August 19, 2007, p. OP6; not available on the Register's Web site, but available as Lance Dickie, "A Scary Assault on Civil Liberties,"Seattle Times, August 10, 2007. (Dickie is a Seattle Times editorial columnist. )
The Register Also Editorially Endorses Universal, Single Payer
As the health care debate rages on, it becomes ever clearer that the kind of universal, single-payer system advocated in Michael Moore's "Sicko" and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's proposed legislation, is the only real, long term solution to our capitalist, profit-maximizing, benefit-minimizing, world's number 1 (in costs) and 42nd (in life expectancy and infant mortality) "health insurance" (not "health care") system. This morning's editorial faults the candidates for their weak-kneed, fuzzy, insurance/pharma-capitulating proposals, and seems to advocate the universal, single-payer approach. Editorial, "In search of vision on health care; Presidential candidates talk about it, but their plans fall short,"Des Moines Register, August 19, 2007, p. OP1.
"We're glad to hear Gov. Chet Culver say emphatically, 'Iowa will go first, that is the bottom line,' but . . . at the rate the process is speeding up, the parties might as well hold their caucuses for the 2012 election at the same time."
"Man Bites Dog" is often used as an example of what makes news: the unusual, the unexpected. By that standard why does the Press-Citizen headline: "Romney Tops Straw Poll" (hardcopy only; not online; reference to Register) and the Register"Romney's Drive Pays Off"?
Where's the "news"? Romney blanketed the state with straw-poll-focused TV commercials prior to the event, spent something like $1,000,000 by the time he'd brought in 100 bus loads of voters -- old Chicago style -- and then fed and entertained them, and paid the Republican $35 poll tax for each of them to vote at an "election" in which the leading contenders weren't even participating! (Fred Thompson, who has not even entered the race and didn't show up, got 1.4% of the vote; Rudy Giuliani 1.3%; and John McCain 0.7%. Thus, two of these non-contenders got more than two "straw poll candidates": Duncan Hunter, 1.2%; John Cox, 0.3%.)
What's the significance of "tops straw poll" in an election in which three of the leading contenders aren't even running?
At that, Romney only got 4516 votes from the 33,000 Republicans in attendance -- 13.7% (although 31.6% of those actually voting).
The real news (as I see it) is Mike Huckabee's second place finish (18.1%). At least The Gazette, alone among this morning's papers, bothered to note in a sub-head, "Huckabee Takes Second Place." (It also had the most useful front-page information: a layout of the 11 candidates pictures, votes and percentages.) Huckabee had no pre-poll TV commercials and a fraction of Romney's money. He's essentially splitting the Christian conservative vote with Sam Brownbeck (who came in third at 15.3%) -- all of which makes Huckabee's victory even more remarkable (and newsworthy). (Together Huckabee and Brownback had 33.4% of the vote -- more than Romney -- and when one or the other drops out much of their support will probably go to the one who remains.) Rod Boshart and James Lynch, "GOP Straw Poll Voters Pick Romney; Huckabee Takes Second Place; Brownback Third,"The Gazette, August 12, 2007, p. A1.
"Huckabee's a Winner! Stuns Iowa's Republicans and Journalists." That would have been my headline. Then maybe a sub-head, "Romney Buys Most Votes." Something like that.
Anyone my age will remember the story of the "Three Little Pigs." The moral -- at least encouraged, if not actually underwritten, by the brick manufacturers' trade association -- is that brick is a more substantial building material than straw for those needing protection from wolves with above-average lung capacity.
An infrastructure built on straw and rust makes no more sense than a housing program relying on straw. And not incidentally, pouring steel-eroding salt on icy bridges made of steel doesn't make a lot more sense these days than the old advice to "pour oil on troubled waters."
Children's stories and analogies aside, the Des Moines Register takes a serious look at infrastructure this morning with its lead editorial and two very well-written columns from Dick Doak and Ismael Hossein-Zadeh (along with David Yepsen's conclusion that at least in Iowa, when it comes to infrastructure "politics will trump policy").
Editorial, "Bill is Due to Shore Up Infrastructure,"Des Moines Register, August 12, 2007, p. OP 1 ("the American Society of Civil Engineers . . . puts the grand total of America's infrastructure needs at $1.6 trillion).
Richard Doak, "Quit Tax Breaks; Rebuild America Instead,"Des Moines Register, August 12, 2007, p. OP 3 ("Might there be a connection between the deplorable state of the nation's infrastructure and the penchant for giving away public money to private enterprises?")
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, "What Drives Neglect? Tax Cuts, Military Spending,"Des Moines Register, August 12, 2007, p. OP 3. ("[F]or the same amount of money [as the cost of the Iraq War in 2007, $140 billion, we could have had]: 13,842 new elementary schools, or 39 million people with health care, or 19 million Head Start places for children.")
Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko" -- his best work to date, and a film that should be seen by every American who believes they may someday require medical care -- makes the persuasive point that even those Americans who do have health insurance (not to mention the 45 million who don't) aren't getting what they're paying for (so long as insurance companies, and their executives and employees, are economically enriched by denying rather than paying claims).
For those who stubbornly cling to the ideological fantasy that our profit-maximizing, claim-denying, capitalist, insurance-company dictated, disease-treating system for the rich gives us the world's best health care system, now comes more solid statistical evidence that it doesn't.
Twenty years ago Americans ranked 11th in the world in life expectancy -- a measure clearly relevant in comparing countries' health care systems. Today we've dropped to 42nd. It doesn't help that one-third of us are obese and two-thirds are overweight -- as but one bit of evidence of our unhealthy lifestyles -- but clearly our mean-spirited and broken health care delivery system bears a major responsibility.
For those who ridicule Moore for using Cuba as an example of a good health care system, consider this. A baby born in Cuba has a better chance of surviving its first year than a baby born in the U.S. That's right; Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than we do. It turns out that we're also 42nd in the world in infant mortality -- 41 countries do a better job than we do -- another common and relevant comparative measure. Infant mortality in Beijing is 4.6 per thousand births; in New York City it's 6.5.
And, hey, you "right-to-life" folks, isn't the death of a new-born at least as much of a loss of life as aborting a fetus before it's born by means of an abortion? Why aren't you lobbying for a universal, single-payer health care (not "health insurance") system? Do you realize if we did as well as Singapore we'd have more than 18,900 additional surviving babies each year?
Press-Citizen wants public back in "public health" Four speak out on "Sicko" Pomerantz to get honorary degree from UI UI buildings on Regents' agenda "Big Ten Network" in big tough negotiations
The Des Moines Register continues its four-day series on so-called "health insurance" and the companies that provide the non-coverage. This morning it has seven more pieces on the subject. (I may or may not identify, and add links to, each of them later. Meanwhile, just check the online Register site. You'll find them -- and yesterday's.)
Meanwhile, the anonymous blog commentator "John Barleykorn" has just kindly emailed me a link to a story in Washington's conservative paper, The Washington Times, regarding the Canadian system. Gregory Lopes, "In Reversal, Canada Dabbles with Health Care Privatization," July 22, 2007. While it must necessarily point out the disadvantages of the Canadian system, and the advantages of the "marketplace" for all purposes, given the source it is a remarkably balanced piece.
Bottom line: No one can question the advantages of the universal, single-payer systems available to all the citizens of the world living in civilized, industrialized nations. It's irrefutably in the numbers. (1) Canadians, for example, enjoy better health than we do, measured by such things as infant mortality and life expectancy. The U.S. ranks well down the list. (2) Every single person is provided this free service; health care is considered a citizen's right (like K-12 education is here) not just one more profit-maximizing corporate corner of the economy. Some 45 million American's don't have the necessary ticket for access to health care: health insurance; and of those who do, for many it only covers them a part of the year, or they discover the condition for which they need health care is the condition their insurance company won't pay for. (3) The total cost of these systems -- even though they cover everyone and our system only covers some lucky few -- are dramatically below the cost of ours.
There are undoubtedly horrible stories of delays and malpractice that can be told by individuals in any nation's health care system -- ours included. (As a kid, with regular U.S. medical care, I often had to wait entire days beyond my scheduled appointment to see a doctor.) There are some problems in our system that don't exist in other countries; some in other countries that don't exist here. There are ways other countries' systems try to hold costs to reasonable levels (the Times story points out that dental is not covered in Canada), and ways our insurance companies do here.
But individuals' anecdotal stories aside, the bottom line remains: other countries provide health care to all as a right, as a result of which their people are healthier and live longer, and it costs them less than what our system costs for providing care to fewer individuals.
And see, below, the anonymous comment from "North Liberty" regarding the possible benefits of a properly structured multiple system (which is, in fact, a variation of what many of the "universal, single payer" systems have in reality).
"Sicko"
The Daily Iowan has a balanced movie review of "Sicko" this morning (Paul Sorenson, "The U.S. Sick System") that tends to focus on the film (as a "movie review" should, of course) more than the public policy questions.
Wellmark Naming
The Gazette awards a Gomer to Marvin Pomerantz for his "childish" my-way-or-the-highway, I'm-taking-my-marbles fit ("Bratish Behavior," p. A4), and the Press-Citizen has another letter to the editor this morning opposing corporate naming of University colleges and buildings (Charles Laudie, "Wrong to Sell Public Education Names") -- in addition to those yesterday.
And don't miss, from "Anonymous'" comment, below, the possibilities of selling off naming righs to athletic teams: "I want Frank Perdue to have naming rights to the football team. We could be the Perdue-Iowa Chicken-Hawkeyes." That one might seriously go for a lot of money, especially with a tie-in monopoly right to sell fried chicken pieces in the stands. Only problem: When the "Perdue-Iowa Chicken-Hawkeyes" play the "Purdue Broiler-makers." You know, "which comes first, the chicken or the broiler?"
Gambling's Gomer
The Gazette awards another of its "prestigious" Gomers this morning to the gambling industry ("Side Effect," p. A4) that, along with increasing its gross revenues in Iowa is increasing the number of gambling addicts and problem gamblers seeking help -- with all the social and economic costs gambling imposes on any people who believe they can gamble their way to a state's economic development.
Wellmark Naming, Insurance Abuses, Sicko, Grassley on Athletics Tax Abuses, Media
Wellmark Naming (As always, the Press-Citizen's skilled graphic artist and editorial cartoonist, Bob Patton, is able to tell the story with a few strokes of his pen. This from the July 21 Press Citizen.)
Letters to the editor of Iowa's papers are now rolling in on the Wellmark naming controversy -- virtually all of them ridiculing the proposal and praising those who are resisting selling off the University's integrity.
Even the Register has turned around; having formerly given the College of Public Health faculty a "thistle" for turning down the money this morning it took some tweezers and removed that thistle and stuck it in Pomerantz instead.
Here are the Register's letters to the editor this morning, July 22:
The Register is doing a four-day series of stories and opinion pieces about the inadequacies, and outright abuses, from the "health-claim-denying," profit-maximizing insurance industry. Here are some editorial pieces from today (July 22, 2007):
Looked in for awhile on a theater-full of folks watching "Sicko" last night. Based on their reactions, I'd say they clearly "got it." The political question, of course, is whether the sadness and laughter Michael Moore evokes in his audiences will get translated into citizen demand for the health care accorded those who live in civilized countries -- and, if so, whether it can ever be enough to overcome the millions of dollars from big pharma and the insurance industry that is currently dictating our candidates' "health care" proposals.
"Tax exempt donations have helped increase the University of Iowa's athletics department budget by 42 percent" from $43.5 to $61.5 million
It is now self-sustaining, and during the last two years generated a $21 million surplus; Iowa State's athletic budget jumped 31%, from $28 to $36.8 million, including $3 million in state support, hopes are it can add $5.6 million in contributions (since it had to drop swimming and baseball to help pay for a $19.5 million refurbishing of Jack Trice Stadium)
Tax exempt donations help "pay football coach Kirk Ferentz nearly $3 million annually"
Ohio State's athletic budget will exceed $100 million this year
80% of what's paid for a skybox at Kinnick is considered a charitable, tax exempt contribution
NCAA teams brought in and spent $7.8 billion in 2005 -- of which $275 million is corporate sponsorships, and $845 million is "donations and contributions"
T. Boone Pickens gave $165 million to the University of Oklahoma athletic program
Iowa spent $90 million refurbishing the Kinnick Stadium -- and for what? Six games will be played there this year. Most games run about 3-1/2 hours (and include, I'm told, a total of about 7 to 12 minutes of actual action, with multiples of that time devoted to commercials). At 24 hours a day, and 365 days a year, counting 3-1/2 hours a game, that's 21 hours of use out of 8760 hours a year -- 99.76% of the time sitting empty; 24/100ths of 1% of the time being used. (Even with a 40-hour-a-week, 50-week-a-year (with two weeks vacation) 2000-hour year it's but 1%.)
Grassley's just asking -- not declaring, just asking -- what does this multi-billion-dollar industry have to do with charitable, tax deductible contributions for "educational purposes"? Good question.
How the Media Failed Us
The media -- at least the responsible sectors thereof -- has been going through a mea culpa recently over how it failed the American people by serving as cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Here are a couple more in this morning's Register.
Yesterday I wrote ("And the beating goes on") regarding the impropriety, and self-defeating quality, of Pomerantz' call for Dean Merchant's resignation. Today Brian Morelli reports the comparable response of the Regents to Pomerantz' behavior:
President Pro Tem David Miles: "I really think it is an improper attempt to dictate internal personal [personnel?] decisions at the regents institutions. He is attempting to bully our incoming president by threatening the loss of significant financial support if his demands are not met quickly. I trust the board will reject this interference. President Mason has my full support in the independent exercise of her authority as a Board of Regents appointee to manage the university and lead it forward. I think it is perfectly appropriate for Pomerantz to disagree vigorously. I think it is inappropriate to step across the line and demand the president fire the dean. Indeed, by its letter, the current policy would allow naming of a college after a commercial product. However, at least from what I have been able to find, it appears that naming a college after a corporate donor would be a first in higher education."
Regent Bonnie Campbell: "Terminating someone's employment is a very serious matter, and I would approach that skeptically. [Pomerantz] can say whatever he wants; we have a First Amendment. Obviously, it's a strong sentiment, but I don't know on what basis [Merchant] would be terminated."
Regent Bob Downer: "I am not aware of any basis at this point for calling for Dean Merchant's resignation. [Pomerantz] has earned the right to make whatever comment he chooses to make. Marvin Pomerantz is a great Iowan. No one I know has done more for education at all levels than Marvin Pomerantz."
I've written at length in prior blog entries about my view of the naming issue, and won't repeat that here -- except to note that the primary problem lies in taking the money, whatever name is or is not adopted for the college or put on the building, when there are inherent conflicts between the source and the recipient. (Given the ongoing -- and largely adversarial -- business relationships between the University and Wellmark that raises some question as to the propriety of the University accepting substantial grants from Wellmark for any purpose.)
Now that the movie "Sicko" is dramatizing the question of the propriety of insurance company profiteering from the delivery -- or, rather, the withholding -- of health care there is a special irony, as well as an offensive conflict of interest, in a College of Public Health accepting money (let alone naming itself after) a health insurance company at the height of the national debate over the future of Americans' health care and the negative impact of so-called "health" insurance companies.
"Sicko" -- Today's the Day! Today's the Day!
And speaking of "Sicko," yes, today's the day it -- at long last -- finally opens in Iowa City at the Sycamore Mall theater. Rachel Gallegos, "Group to Greet 'Sicko' With Pledge,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 20, 2007, p. A1. If you go today, or this weekend, you'll have a lottery player's chance to win a visit -- at Michael Moore's expense -- to a country that provides free health care to all its citizens. The film also ties in with the SEIU's targeting of Iowa, and its presidential candidate visitors, for health care public policy. Representatives will be present at today's showings. Do see it if you haven't yet -- and then re-think the Wellmark naming issues.
Campus Police: "Believed to be Armed and Dangerous!"
No one wants to touch this one. The Governor says its for the Regents. The Regents say they'll respond to the universities presidents' recommendations.
Here are some preliminary thoughts:
(1) My memory is that the statistics indicate that those who keep a handgun in the house for "protection" are 16 times more likely to have it used in killing or wounding a member of the family or close friend than against a criminal. A similar phenomenon exists with armed campus police. They are much less likely to make tragic mistakes, much less likely to have their guns taken by criminals and then turned on them or other innocents, if they don't have weapons.
(2) Do we want University SWAT teams as well? Units of the National Guard housed on campus -- "just in case?" Hazmat crews? A university fire department? It's bad enough we have our own university bus system in a small community with some six or seven public transportation systems. My point? The Iowa City police headquarters is a couple blocks from the main campus along with one of the City's fire departments. The Johnson County Sheriff's headquarters a couple blocks in another direction. There are lots of resources to be coordinated and drawn upon -- including trained, armed police -- under a variety of foreseeable, and unforeseen, circumstances. We don't need to duplicate them all.
(3) A University loses something the more its campus communicates -- with metal detectors, video surveillance cameras, and armed police -- that everyone is so much at risk of physical harm that these 1984 measures are necessary. Are there risks in fact? Darn right. Although individuals' common sense (such as not wandering around dark streets, dead drunk, at 2:00 a.m.) can do a lot to minimize them. But it's hard to predict, let alone prevent, what those risks will be. Handguns are of little use in providing protection from tornadoes. To the maximum extent prudently possible, the more freedom of movement -- and absence of focus on "security," "terrorist threat levels," and military/police/weapons solutions to society's problems -- the better it is for a community of learning and research.
Regents Miles and Downer are absolutely right to suggest -- as I proposed in a blog entry some time ago -- that the College of Public Health naming controversy needs to become part of an overall policy rather than treated as a single case to be resolved.
Ditto for guns on camps.
The point is, it all goes back to the Regents' lack of a meaningful, integrated, rational theory of governance. Without that they are going to continue to, at best, continue to only address policy issues after the fact as individual cases blow up like IED's along an Iraq road, and at worst not even see them as policy issues, micromanaging that which makes its way into the media and failing to micromanage that which does not.
As John Carver says, most advice for boards only tells them how to do the wrong things better. But they're still doing the wrong things. Figuring out what the right things are is this new Board of Regents' priority number one, in my humble opinion.
If Sally Mason were not a skilled street fighter she never would have become Provost, and a finalist for President, at Purdue -- or selected as the next president for the University of Iowa. So I have no doubt she's going to be able to handle herself just fine once she gets here.
But she is walking into some real challenges at a time when, whatever may be said about the eyes of Texas, the eyes of Iowans are going to be on her every move.
So far as I know, Fethke has yet to express himself on the UI athletic program's ties to the gambling industry (in the form of various partnerships with the Riverside Gambling Casino) over the protests of the NCAA and many on campus. So she'll find that one on her otherwise cleaned out desk when she arrives.
The Governor and Regents are handing her the hot potato -- or gun barrel -- regarding arming the campus police.
The organizational structure of the UIHC and College of Medicine was radically altered ten days before her arrival -- a near billion-dollar-a-year component of the University for which she's ultimately responsible.
Then there's the Wellmark naming controversy -- which Pomerantz wants resolved before she arrives, and for which the Regents and faculty want more time. She's going to have to reassure Jim Merchant that he's not going to have to retire before his previously scheduled retirement next year (or not), and see if it is possible to start the UI relationship with Pomerantz all over again.
But the substance of those issues (and many, many more) is the least of her problem.
The great dilemma will be how best to control and present herself in the first few weeks. There are lots of ways of avoiding taking a stand on issues. She can say she looks to Robillard to run the hospital and College of Medicine and Barta to make decisions about gambling industry partnerships. She can set up committees or task forces to study guns on campus or other issues, and then wait for the issue to go away -- or, when necessary, say she's simply adopting the proposals of those groups. She can say she needs more time to study an issue.
But there's a hazard in over-using those techniques. Ultimately they can leave her open to a perception that she is being weak and not in charge. On the other hand, if she immediately starts proposing new policies, changing directions and making decisions that are clearly hers, for which she takes responsibility, there's a risk that she may get some of them wrong (for want of sufficient networking and input), or be criticized for being too authoritarian and going it alone.
She's undoubtedly already figured this out -- and more. And there's every reason to believe she has the experience, skill and charm to pull it off. But it is going to be interesting to watch.
Marcy and Ed Rolene, "Thank You to Dean, Faculty,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 16, 2007, p. A9 ("We drove to Cedar Rapids to see 'Sicko.' It confirmed what many Americans already believe. Health insurance companies look out for their bottom line, not for the health of the public.")
"The health of the public?" "Public health?" Hmmm. Could there be a connection here? Has Wellmark been moved to generosity by a Michael Moore movie? Was "The Wellmark College of Public Health" a preemptive strike, designed to associate "health insurance company" with "public health" in a positive way in the public's mind at the same time "Sicko" is being watched by millions of Americans?
"Sicko" very powerfully documents the role of insurance companies in denying Americans health care under our system -- not to mention their lobbying and campaign contributions designed to deny Americans the kind of health care system enjoyed by citizens of countries who are provided the benefits of universal, single-payer systems. Those countries provide their citizens health care for all, free to the recipient, at a lower cost to the society to cover all than we pay to cover some, with better results in terms of public health generally, including longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates than we have.
Anyhow, although the Rolenes had to drive to Cedar Rapids to see the film, Iowa City residents -- living as we do in what the Marcus Theaters considers a little, backwater, rural Iowa town -- will actually be able to give the theater chain our money to see "Sicko" locally this Friday, I'm told.
No health care delivery system is perfect -- not ours, not those of other countries. But I challenge anyone to watch that film with an open mind, from start to finish, and then explain to me why they still think the system we have is on balance better than the systems offered the citizens of the rest of the industerialized world. Elected public officials should be forced to watch "Sicko" -- and then report to the world how much money they've taken from the insurance and big pharma industries.
The Wellmark College of Public Health: "Gift" or Shrewd "Advertising Buy"?
Talk about being defensive! The following sounded more like the wild and crazy ranting of a deranged blogger from inside an insurance company board room than something that would come from an editorial board room: "pointless academic principles," "sudden attack of the ethical heebie-jeebies," "drum roll please," "interesting that the college was OK accepting the corporation's lavish gift, but apparently only as long as the outside world was unaware of the source." (Of course, no one ever said "the outside world" should be "unaware of the source" of the gift. Such gifts are always acknowledged with public announcements -- unless the donor wishes for them to be anonymous. That had nothing to do with the issue, which was the possible adverse consequences of an unprecedented naming of a University of Iowa college for a corporation.) I think the "thistle" should have been awarded to the Register, not the University. "Roses & Thistles: Iowa School of Public Hypocrisy,"Des Moines Register, July 15, 2007, p. OP 1.
Jim Lewers, "How Much is $15 Million? A Lot, But That Doesn't Matter" [So far as I've been able to discover this column is nowhere available on the Press-Citizen's Web site.]
I have no idea what this is all about -- except that I imagine, as the captain of the Titanic discovered with regard to icebergs, that there is probably a good deal more below the surface than above.
There are some really tough governance and organizational issues here. So I'm left with general observations based on my administrative and managerial experience.
* When everybody is in charge, nobody's in charge. There's a value to having clean lines of responsibility with as few levels of reporting as possible -- up to and including the near-flat organization.
* There's no magic organizational alternative to good rapport among humans who like and respect each other and "play well with others." As much as one would sometimes like to "get the humans out of the loop," as it was phrased in the 1983 movie, War Games, as that film demonstrated we can't do it all with computers -- or with organization charts.
* The devil is in the details -- not in the organization charts. As Maritime Administrator I made a point of interviewing as many of the thousands of employees as possible about the details of their work days. That's the level at which meaningful "re-organization" -- not to mention improvements in morale -- needs to be done. It's a sub-set of MBWA -- management by walking around. When MARAD later became part of a "reorganization" effort the boxes were moved from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Transportation -- by individuals who had never set foot in the agency. The organizational issues I had earlier spotted and resolved -- or not -- were simply moved from one cabinet department to another without ever being addressed in the process. I have no way of knowing, but I would not be stunned to discover that the UIHC and College of Medicine could benefit from the kind of reorganization effort I put in at MARAD -- before addressing the design of the boxes on their organization charts.
Yesterday [July 9] I said I was going to swear off blogging and get some work done -- primarily for want of any news worthy of commentary. One day later, as if to take up my challenge and prove to me that they can find news related to the subjects tracked by this blog, the papers are full of it again today [July 10]. No lengthy essays from me. But you'll at least want the links to the updates.
Wellmark: "Well then, if you're not going to accept our money we're just not going to give you the money. So there!"
[July 12] Marvin Pomerantz, an exceedingly generous benefactor of the UI and other Iowa institutions and projects, a former Wellmark board member, chair and prime mover of the College of Public Health Capital Campaign Committee, says he is "embarrassed" by the rejection of the Wellmark offer to purchase the name of the College in perpetuity for $15 million.
With respect, I think to the extent there is any embarrassment felt by Pomerantz, lead Wellmark director John Colloton and Wellmark CEO John Forsyth -- all involved in this proposal -- it is an embarrassment of their own making. When Forsyth says, as he has, that Wellmark did not envision that its effort to buy the name of the College "would spawn the negative reaction" that it has it indicates either (1) a lack of prior research and consultation or (2) an arrogant sense of entitlement that Wellmark's money should enable it to buy anything, along with a willingness to steamroller over opposition he knew would be there. It's an embarrassment that they thought of the idea; that they went ahead with it; and that they've reacted with such a petulant "I'm taking my marbles and going home" display. Those are the things that make this fiasco embarrassing. What the College did in rejecting the proposal is in no way embarrassing.
On the other hand, there's something the University does need to address. That's Pomerantz' comment that "we think they [the UI administration and faculty] were making rules up as they went along." I have no way of knowing what happened. I wasn't there. But I wouldn't be surprised if Pomerantz is dead on about that assertion.
Our so-called "public universities" (increasingly "private" in terms of operating budgets and escalating tuition and other student expenses) are in a period of transition -- although to what is not altogether clear. I wrote about these alternative futures in a Press-Citizen op ed. Nicholas Johnson, "Where Are We Going? Who's Going With Us?"Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 19, 2007.
The issue here is not whether corporations and business are "bad." We are surrounded daily with evidence to the contrary provided by everything from the start-ups of our youngest entrepreneurs to our oldest and largest corporations.
The issue is whether we wish to maintain a sanctuary anywhere in our society from the values and pressures of profit maximization -- churches, national parks, what was created to be a "non-commercial" radio service and is now larded with commercials? The academy does seem to be well into a similar transition from a cloistered sanctuary for the free education of students to a corporate-sponsored and administered jobs training program (from which the banks prosper with the interest on the student loans necessary to pay the ever-rising tuition). Because it is a transition we may well be, as Pomerantz suggests, "making rules up" as we go along.
As I discuss in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," linked above, the issues go well beyond the naming of universities, colleges, buildings -- indeed, anything large enough to hold a plaque. I won't repeat here that list of potential issues confronting our new UI President, Sally Mason. But if we are, in fact, making up the rules as we go along I would humbly suggest that we pause a moment to think through with deliberation the issues and the policies that we wish to pursue rather than continue to wander down a road littered with the kind of improvised explosive devices that we've just seen triggered.
(And while we're doing it, the Press-Citizen's thoughtful editorial this morning [July 12] to the contrary notwithstanding, consider the possibility that it does not necessarily follow that a red hot solution to the Wellmark naming controversy would have been to take the money but not name the building -- even if that option had been available, which it never was. It is the taking of the money (in some circumstances, including this one) that creates the conflict of interest. The naming of the building for the corporate donor only advertises one's willingness to engage in such conflicts, one's having finally swapped one's ethics for money after, as Shaw put it, "haggling over price." Editorial, "Wellmark Should Give a True Gift to Health College,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 12, 2007.
[July 11] Rekha Basu, "U of I Shows Healthy Respect for Its Good Name,"Des Moines Register, July 11, 2007 ("The University of Iowa's school of public health deserves a great big bouquet of roses for proving that not everything is for sale, especially not its name. . . . The fact is, insurance industry goals can be at odds with public-health ones. (Go see "Sicko" if you have any doubt about that). Promoting public health doesn't always line up well with the profit motive in health care. . . . It's too bad Wellmark can't respect the integrity behind the college's decision and has chosen, instead, to take its marbles and go home. . . . [because] withholding the money says it was essentially looking for an ad buy rather than wanting to make a gift. No one needs reminding of the extent to which corporations already run most facets of American life, from the chain newspaper to the chain restaurant to the sports stadiums and arenas that already trumpet the big names in corporate America.")
Alan Jensen, "Lower insurance premiums better than naming rights, The Gazette, July 11, 2007, p. A4 ("If Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield has $15 million to give the University of Iowa for naming rights, they can most certainly cut our health insurance premiums.")
Wellmark executives, still looking for a college where everyone will know their name, have been singing the old "Cheers" theme lyrics: "Sometimes you want to go/Where everybody knows your name,/and they're always glad you came./You wanna be where you can see,/our troubles are all the same/You wanna be where everybody knows/Your name."
"What we've got here is failure to communicate." Two quotes in The Gazette's version of this story tell a lot about the growing gap between the perspective of the academy and that of the corporate world -- a gap that President Sally Mason will confront the moment she sets foot on the Pentacrest.
"traditional and outdated precepts" John Forsyth, CEO, Wellmark, in email to Jim Merchant, Dean, UI College of Public Health: "I would submit that the real challenge for academic leaders like you is to create a mind-set of leading and embracing change . . . over traditional and outdated precepts such as the need to separate academic from commercial interests."
Interim President Gary Fethke: "I regret that the discussion of this generous donation failed to focus on the substantial benefits of corporate partnerships for our students, faculty and staff."
The other presents one of the usual industry attacks on Michael Moore and his film, Brett Skinner, "Canada's 'Sicko' Care,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 11, 2007. Skinner says, for example, "Michael Moore is not interested in . . . facts. He makes fictional films."
For a sample of the kind of point by point by documented point response Moore and his supporters can make to such libelous charges, see "'Sicko Truth Squad Sets CNN Straight," July 10, 2007.
And don't miss James Clay Fuller, "Sicko: Commenting on the Commentaries,"Twin Cities Daily Planet, July 10th, 2007 5:26 am ("Apparently there is a rule in corporate journalism that every mention of [Michael] Moore and his films . . . must contain at least two snide observations about his . . . attacks on rich and powerful but somehow –- in the eyes of the corporate journalists -- defenseless people such as the chairman of General Motors, and, if you can slide it in, Moore's physical appearance" -- all from a journalist who says he's never met or communicated with Moore).
If you'd like to watch CNN's slashing, false attack on "Sicko," and Moore's on-camera response (the piece to which the "truth squad's" textual analysis relates), here it is:
Kathryn Fiegen, "Residents Must Wait to See Sicko,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 10, 2007 (theater monopolist executive says, "Marcus Theatres' primary business is to show films with broad commercial appeal." Why does this sound so reminiscent of the instructions a major advertiser once gave the radio networks regarding the programs it sponsored: "There will be no material that may give offense, either directly or by inference, to any commercial organization of any sort"?)
Iowans' Gambling Losses Increase Someone's "Economic Growth" -- Just Not Ours
Reason Rules on Tax Shift Onto Poor: 85% Vote "No" on "Yes to Destiny"
A little-noticed story in last Saturday's Gazette caught my eye. It was a report of a town-meeting-type exchange between Senator Chuck Grassley and some of his West Branch constituents. One asked him, "Would you rescind your authorization of the war?" Another "deplored the inequity of the 15 percent capital gains tax" (reduced from 20%) compared with ordinary income tax rates. A third commented regarding import protections for fertilizer companies -- driving up prices. "It's unfair that farmers are expected to sell their crops on a global market but cannot buy their fertilizer on a global market." Grassley's answers. (1) No. (2) "He defended the lowered tax, saying it expanded the nation's economy . . .." (3) "Grassley took notes." Marlene Lucas, "East Iowans Question War, Taxes; Grassley Defends Policies, Takes Notes,"The Gazette, July 7, 2007, p. B2.
Yesterday (see Morelli's story, linked above within this blog entry) we read Wellmark CEO Forsyth's comment regarding his efforts to put the company's name on the College of Public Health, ""Neither Wellmark BlueCross and BlueShield nor Wellmark Foundation envisioned that their [gift and naming proposal] would spawn the negative reaction that has been reported in news media,' John Forsyth wrote to James Merchant, dean of the College of Public Health on Friday."
UI's athletic program and other administrators were seemingly also taken by surprise earlier at the adverse reaction to the use of the Iowa Fights song and the University's name and setting for an Iowa Lottery television commercial encouraging increased gambling by Iowans.
And so were the board members of the University of Iowa Community Credit Union who were so confident the members would just go along with the new name they enthusiastically accepted from a high-paid corporate consultant, "Optiva," that they didn't think it necessary to check with the members first.
There are two observations I'd make about these stories. (1) The gap between the lives, interests, understandings, concerns and opinions of the wealthy, corporate ruling elites in this country, and those of the 90% of all Americans who suffer at their hands, is growing even faster than the gap in their campaign-contribution-provided incomes and those of the rest of us. (2) There seems to be an upswing in the willingness of the 90% to do something about the uninformed and unfeeling overreaching by those elites. That can only be healthy for America in the long run.
Resources from Resources for Life Conference Now Online
I earlier mentioned "Resources for Life." Presentations at the Resources for Life Conference, held in Iowa City July 7 and 8, are now in streaming audio available here (scroll down to "200707" and then "Resources for Life Conference 07-07-07" and then click on a presenter's name).
As it happened, there was no news this morning crying out with an urgent need for my commentary.
So I took a couple of early morning hours to watch -- for the first time -- my copy of Michael Moore's new feature film "Sicko."
Make sure you see it. Trust me.
If it doesn't make you as angry as you've ever been, if it doesn't cause you to shed a tear for what we're doing to America's neediest, and for what America could be, you probably are in need of a full range of health care services yourself -- and deserve what you're paying for what you're getting.
Then, make it clear to every elected official you encounter -- especially the candidates for president, and the U.S. Senate and house -- that you expect them to watch it, and then to tell you how much money they've taken from the health care industry lobbyists and corporations, and to provide you the reasons they are still opposing the universal, single-payer health care systems available around the world. These are countries that spend less on health care than we do, and yet provide a level of service that results in better life expectancy, infant mortality and other statistics than in this country.
There are many things the capitalist system can do better than any other alternative imaginable. Handing over to profit-maximizing corporations the delivery of anything as basic as health care to all of a nation's citizens just turns out not to be among them.
As a friend of mine, a candidate in a previous presidential campaign, was fond of saying, "I don't want every American to have health insurance. I want every American to have health care." It's an important distinction. And so far, once again, most of the candidates are still talking about health insurance.
Curious as to why? I won't say more. Just watch it. "Sicko."
Now I'm off for the day on an investigative trip I'll be reporting to you here, hopefully tomorrow.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
