jelyon (dot) com

I believe these to be accurate enough for you to find your closest early voting location – any omissions are my fault. If the location is wrong…I blame Google Earth!

US Military spending, 2009: More than China, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, India, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Spain, Turkey, Israel, Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, Greece, Iran, Myanmar, Singapore, Poland, Sweden, Colombia, Norway, Chile, Belgium, Egypt, Pakistan, Denmark, Indonesia, Switzerland, Kuwait, South Africa, Oman, Malaysia, Mexico, Portugal, Algeria, Finland, Austria, Venezuela, Czech Republic, Romania, Qatar, Thailand, Morocco, Argentina, Ukraine, Cuba, Angola, New Zealand, Hungary, Ireland, Jordan, Peru, and more – combined.

I’d say, offhand, our spending priorities are waaaaaay out of whack.

Source: armscontrolcenter.org

From the Wealth of Nations, Of the Causes of Improvement in the Productive Powers of Labour, And of the Order according to which its Produce is Naturally Distributed among the Different Ranks of the People. Conclusion of the Chapter

But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.

The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from [business owners], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1964

…Why should there be hunger and privation in any land, in any city, at any table when man has the resources and the scientific know-how to provide all mankind with the basic necessities of life? Even deserts can be irrigated and top soil can be replaced. We cannot complain of a lack of land, for there are twenty-five million square miles of tillable land, of which we are using less than seven million. We have amazing knowledge of vitamins, nutrition, the chemistry of food, and the versatility of atoms. There is no deficit in human resources; the deficit is in human will. The well-off and the secure have too often become indifferent and oblivious to the poverty and deprivation in their midst. The poor in our countries have been shut out of our minds, and driven from the mainstream of our societies, because we have allowed them to become invisible. Just as nonviolence exposed the ugliness of racial injustice, so must the infection and sickness of poverty be exposed and healed – not only its symptoms but its basic causes. This, too, will be a fierce struggle, but we must not be afraid to pursue the remedy no matter how formidable the task.

The time has come for an all-out world war against poverty. The rich nations must use their vast resources of wealth to develop the underdeveloped, school the unschooled, and feed the unfed. Ultimately a great nation is a compassionate nation. No individual or nation can be great if it does not have a concern for “the least of these”. Deeply etched in the fiber of our religious tradition is the conviction that men are made in the image of God and that they are souls of infinite metaphysical value, the heirs of a legacy of dignity and worth. If we feel this as a profound moral fact, we cannot be content to see men hungry, to see men victimized with starvation and ill health when we have the means to help them. The wealthy nations must go all out to bridge the gulf between the rich minority and the poor majority.

In the final analysis, the rich must not ignore the poor because both rich and poor are tied in a single garment of destiny. All life is interrelated, and all men are interdependent. The agony of the poor diminishes the rich, and the salvation of the poor enlarges the rich. We are inevitably our brothers’ keeper because of the interrelated structure of reality. John Donne interpreted this truth in graphic terms when he affirmed:

No man is an Iland, intire of its selfe: every
man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the
maine: if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea,
Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie
were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends
or of thine owne were: any mans death
diminishes me, because I am involved in
Mankinde: and therefore never send to know
for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for thee.

The Atlantic has an interesting article on what Teach for America has found out about great teachers.

Interesting grafs (emphasis mine):

As Teach for America began to identify exceptional teachers using this data, Farr began to watch them. He observed their classes, read their lesson plans, and talked to them about their teaching methods and beliefs. He and his colleagues surveyed Teach for America teachers at least four times a year to find out what they were doing and what kinds of training had helped them the most.

Right away, certain patterns emerged. First, great teachers tended to set big goals for their students. They were also perpetually looking for ways to improve their effectiveness. For example, when Farr called up teachers who were making remarkable gains and asked to visit their classrooms, he noticed he’d get a similar response from all of them: “They’d say, ‘You’re welcome to come, but I have to warn you—I am in the middle of just blowing up my classroom structure and changing my reading workshop because I think it’s not working as well as it could.’ When you hear that over and over, and you don’t hear that from other teachers, you start to form a hypothesis.” Great teachers, he concluded, constantly reevaluate what they are doing.

Superstar teachers had four other tendencies in common: they avidly recruited students and their families into the process; they maintained focus, ensuring that everything they did contributed to student learning; they planned exhaustively and purposefully—for the next day or the year ahead—by working backward from the desired outcome; and they worked relentlessly, refusing to surrender to the combined menaces of poverty, bureaucracy, and budgetary shortfalls.

I particularly like the idea of “working backward from the desired outcome.” Might come in handy in my current position.

From his recent post, “Leaving the Right:”

I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.

I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.

I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government’s minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008.

I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value.

I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.

I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.

I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.

I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.

I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.

I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.

I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.

I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.

I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.

I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.

I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations.

Yeah.

I don’t support that stuff either.

1. Are you concerned about the widening income gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else? Why or why not?
2. Do you believe there should be redistribution of wealth? Why or why not? If you do, how would it best be accomplished?
3. Which do you think most accurately reflects how life developed on Earth: Darwin’s theory of evolution, or Intelligent Design?
4. Do you believe in capital punishment? Why or why not?
5. When does life begin, and when should it be subject to constitutional protection?
6. Do you believe access to adequate health care is a right or a privilege? Do you believe healthcare is best provided as a public good, or through private markets, and why?
7. What do you believe the government’s role in education should be, and why?
8. Should government have a role in ensuring people have access to healthy, nutritious food? Why or why not?
9. Do you believe global climate change is a real phenomenon? Why or why not? If so, do you see a role for government action, and how?
10. Is there a role for government in ensuring food, toys and other consumer goods are safe? Why or why not? What changes would you like to see made?

In early October, I sent a message in support of health care reform and a public option to my U.S. Representative, Michael McCaul (TX-10). As I know the representative is ideologically disinclined to support Democratic initiatives or a public option, I was surprised to receive a reply:

October 6, 2009

Dear Mr. Lyon:

Thank you for contacting me with your views on HR 3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.  I appreciate your opinions that help guide and inform me in Congress.

As you may know, H.R. 3200 was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 14th, 2009 by Congressman John Dingell.  This bill is over 1,000 pages long and will cost at least one trillion dollars.  It is promised to lower health care costs, give more choice to Americans regarding their care, and offer a higher quality of care.  Unfortunately, this bill will do just the opposite of what is being promised.

At a time of record unemployment and mounting debts and deficits, this proposal sets the stage for more job losses by requiring small businesses and entrepreneurs to foot the entire bill for this health care expansion.  A basic economic principle says that if you increase employers’ costs up to 8 percent, as this bill would do, employers will cut costs by cutting jobs and salaries.

There are tax increases on small, medium and large employers.  There are new mandates on individuals.  There is an attempt to centralize control over health care benefits, but then jurisdiction is divided between about 10 different authorities.  This will ensure endless delays and red-tape to getting individuals the care they need.  There are also provisions that will result in less medical technology and innovation.  Ultimately, we will spend between one and four trillion dollars and still will not achieve universal coverage.  In short, I agree with the doctors from the Texas Medical Center who told me, “If Congress passes this bill, it will ruin the best healthcare system in the world.”

You may like to know that I support the following principles when it comes health care. Health care reform must ensure quality coverage that is affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing conditions; it must not force Americans into a new government-run health care plan that would eliminate coverage they receive from their employer; every American must have the right to choose the health plan that best fits their needs; lastly, medical decision must be made by patients and doctors, not government bureaucrats. I will continue to push these principles and work with colleagues to fight for Americans to get the coverage they deserve.

Again, I thank you for contacting me with your opinions and look forward to serving you.  Please do not hesitate to contact my office in the future.  If you would be interested in receiving my e-newsletter, or for other information, please visit sign up by visiting my website at http://mccaul.house.gov.

Once I got over my surprised at receiving a reply, I read through it. My head almost ’sploded when he shared that he agreed with the doctors from the Texas Medical Center who feel we have “the best healthcare system in the world.” I couldn’t let that statement go unchallenged, so I wrote back:

Mr. McCaul:

Thank you and your staff so very much for answering my recent communication with your office.

I think we support similar principles when it comes health care reform:

- Reform must ensure quality, affordable, accessible coverage for every American, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

- Reform must not force Americans into a government-run health care plan that would eliminate coverage they receive from their employer and which they find satisfactory.

- Every American must have the right to choose the health plan that best fits their needs.

- Medical decision must be made by patients and doctors… But we do differ here, as I do not support, as a one publication noted, health care decisions being made “by an entire team of insurance-company bureaucrats, whose bonuses and promotions depend on denying your claims and limiting your care.”

And when your e-mail states: “In short, I agree with the doctors from the Texas Medical Center who told me, ‘If Congress passes this bill, it will ruin the best healthcare system in the world,’ I must admit sir that I’m at a complete loss.

That statement is not true factually. By many many measures, healthcare outcomes in the US are worse than in most other OECD nations – and at much much higher cost. Some sources for this data include the Congressional Research Service [1], and the OECD itself [2].

And this statement is not true morally. A recent study notes that 44,000 adults die in our country each year because they lack adequate health care coverage [3]. That’s the equivalent of 14 9/11s every year, and a system that allows that is anything but “moral,” let alone the “best.”

If your office has data or ethical arguments showing how our system is the very best in the world, I would very much appreciate seeing that information.

Very Sincerely,

John Lyon

[1] http://opencrs.com/document/RL34175/2007-09-17/
[2] OECD Health Data 2006, from October 2006
[3] http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17

As before, I was somewhat surprised to received a reply, but even more surprised by the text:

October 13, 2009

Dear Mr. Lyon:

Thank you for contacting me with your views on HR 3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.  I appreciate your opinions that help guide and inform me in Congress.

As you may know, H.R. 3200 was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 14th, 2009 by Congressman John Dingell.  This bill contains over 1,000 pages and will cost at least one trillion dollars.  It is promised to lower health care costs, give more choice to Americans regarding their care, and offer a higher quality of care.

Unfortunately, this bill will do just the opposite of what is being promised.

At a time of record unemployment and mounting debts and deficits, this proposal sets the stage for more job losses by requiring small businesses and entrepreneurs to foot the entire bill for this health care expansion.  A basic economic principle says that if you increase employers’ costs up to 8 percent, as this bill would do, employers will cut costs by cutting jobs and salaries.

There are tax increases on small, medium and large employers.  There are new mandates on individuals.  There is an attempt to centralize control over health care benefits, but then jurisdiction is divided up between about 10 different authorities.  This will ensure endless delays and red-tape to getting individuals the care they need.  There are also provisions that will result in less medical technology and innovation.  Ultimately, we will spend between one and four trillion dollars and still will not achieve universal coverage.

You may like to know that I support the following principles when it comes health care. Health care reform must ensure quality coverage that is affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing conditions; it must not force Americans into a new government-run health care plan that would eliminate coverage they receive from their employer; every American must have the right to choose the health plan that best fits their needs; lastly, medical decision must be made by patients and doctors, not government bureaucrats. I will continue to push these principles and work with colleagues to fight for Americans to get the coverage they deserve.

Again, I thank you for contacting me with your opinions and look forward to serving you. Please do not hesitate to contact my office in the future.  If you would be interested in receiving my e-newsletter, or for other information, please visit sign up by visiting my website at http://mccaul.house.gov.

I’ll save you the search. The only substantive difference between the two messages is that in message from the 13th,  the sentence that made my head explode, “In short, I agree with the doctors from the Texas Medical Center who told me, ‘If Congress passes this bill, it will ruin the best healthcare system in the world,’” has been dropped. Even though I expressly called that statement out.

I don’t know about you, but even setting aside political differences, I’d be happier with a congressional representative who, when asked to defend his views, doesn’t respond by simply dropping what’s been questioned and ignoring one’s question.

P.S. – I’d still like Representative McCaul to explain how exactly our health care system is the best in the world.