f/k/a . . .

After revealing last week that our Central Library would close in a few weeks for up to 18 months as part of its expansion project (see our prior post), Schenectady County officials apparently saw the signs of public outrage on the wall and trembled. They announced yesterday that they will be seeking bids on two alternative renovation plans that they believe “can limit closings to a matter of weeks, which could be staggered or broken up to minimize patron disruption.” See “Library construction plans change: Facility will not close July 1; county seeking new bids” (Schenectady Daily Gazette, by Tatiana Zarnowski, May 10, 2008); and “Plan reduces library closure: Schenectady County officials adjust plan to limit service disruption” (Albany Times Union, May 11, 2008)

The TU reported this morning that: “Susan E. Savage, Schenectady County Legislature chairwoman, said in a prepared statement contractors are being asked to respond to both the original bid specifications and two alternate bids meant to lower costs and shorten the period when the main branch will be closed.” The article explained that:

“One alternate plan focuses on replacing major systems in the building including removing asbestos, installing a new heating and air-conditioning system and improvements to the first floor.

“The second alternative focuses on using the upstairs of the facility to house library programs, eliminating the need to change the basic footprint of the building. The second-floor space is now used for administrative space and book storage.”

Of course, such minimal disruptions would have been incorporated into any reasonable construction plan from the start — to respect the needs and desires of the public and in line with the usual practices of contractors. So, I’m not about to fall all over myself praising the County for their quick, survival-0riented responsiveness to the will of the people. (Nor fall for Legislator Gary Hughes’ attempt to let us know the was “concerned” — but impotent? — from the start.) Bernard Allanson, who has to work with Library and County officials as the president of Friends of Schenectady County Public Library, was a bit more diplomatic than I feel like being today. The Gazette reported that:

“Allanson said then he thought the Legislature pushed the original project through without public discussion. On Saturday, he was encouraged to hear officials were backing off.

“ ‘I would say that the public has had a significant impact on the Legislature. I applaud the Legislature for listening,’ he said.”

I wish Chair Savage had put her prepared statement on the County website, so we could read it directly. The Gazette tells us that “construction won’t happen until the end of summer at the earliest, since officials have postponed the deadline to seek the additional bids. They had planned to review bids May 22.” Naturally, I am quite pleased that the Central Library will probably be able to stay open with only the normal occasional closings and reduced hours that are expected during a major construction.

Clearly, we need to continue to be wary, as the new bids are solicited and reviewed — to remember just how cavalierly (savagely?) officials were willing to damage our community in order to save a few dollars, while being totally oblivious about the need for and impact of such a lengthy closing. Our County leaders need to understand that the public is willing to pay a premium, if necessary, to assure minimal disruptions in the vital services and role that our Central Library plays in the life of this community.

Despite our relief, I hope many concerned citizens will attend the County Legislature’s May Meeting Tuesday at 7 PM, to let them know that their first approach was totally unacceptable — both the lack of public input and the lack of respect for the Library and its users — and that our leaders are, at best, on probation and will be monitored closely by the Library’s friends.

Many thanks to all the members of the public, including the Friends of Schenectady Public Library, who quickly and effectively put pressure on County officials to reverse their disastrous plan.

p.s. It is not all sturm-und-drang in Schenectady County this weekend. I want to express my love and gratitude to Mama G. on Mother’s Day.

spring sun
warm on my back
mother’s day

Sunday morning –
humming a tune
my mother taught me

…………… [Schenectady’s] Yu Chang from Upstate Dim Sum

And, to show you this lovely view from my backyard last night (May 10, 2008), looking across the Mohawk River from the Schenectady Stockade across to Scotia (click for a larger version).

update (May 11, 2008): See our post “outcry earns a reprieve for Schenectady’s Library” (May 11, 2008), which explains new plans by County officials to ask for alternative renovation bids that hopefully would reduce disruptions in service at the Central Library.

Despite our relief, I hope many concerned citizens will attend the County Legislature’s May Meeting Tuesday at 7 PM, to let them know that their first approach was totally unacceptable — both the lack of public input and the lack of respect for the Library and its users — and that our leaders are, at best, on probation and will be monitored closely by the Library’s friends.

Many thanks to all the members of the public, including the Friends of Schenectady Public Library, who quickly and effectively put pressure on County officials to reverse their disastrous plan.

Update & Notice (May 10, 2008): County Legislature May Meeting: Members of the public will have the opportunity to speak their minds about closing the Library during its renovation on Tuesday, May 13, at 7 PM, at the County Legislature’s monthly meeting (held at the County Office Building, 620 State St., 6th Floor). However the May Meeting Agenda does not contain any resolution concerning the Library expansion project, and no formal action can be taken on that topic. The agenda is quite lengthy, so there will be a long wait before the floor is opened to the public for general comments.

Compromise Plan: It appears that County leaders (e.g., Kathy Rooney the County Manager, Susan Savage, Legislative Chair, and Gary Hughes, chair of the Legislature’s Library Committee) have heard the public outcry and are working on a compromise plan that would improve the way the Library’s current building is used (e.g., putting public space on the 2nd floor), and replace the operating systems, without changing the current shell of the building, and in a manner that will greatly reduce the period(s) in which the building will need to be closed. I have no idea how the Legislature could be accepting bids — or contractors crafting their bids — on the project before the revised plan is adopted.

Rally Against Closing the Library: (May 12, 2008, Monday, 8 AM): The Rally has been canceled, due to the news about alternative plans that would avoid a long closing. I’m betting it is merely postponed, as we will very likely need to nudge along our “leaders” on this project long before the construction is over.

Original Posting:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” . . . Upton Sinclair, US novelist, investigative journalist & socialist politician (1878 - 1968)

There are times when the inane actions of our local “leaders” or our justice system here in Schenectady County [NY] leave me merely amused or bemused — affectionately shaking my head, as I often do over the foibles or feeble-mindedness of relatives and friends. But, there are other times — as with my sustained objection to sex offender residency restrictions — when I am truly outraged by the combination of duplicity, incompetence and high-handed arrogance that leads to inexplicably dreadful decisions by our so-called civil servants and political leaders.

The totally-unexpected announcement last week (after years of “planning”) that our Central library would shortly have to close for 18 months, due to the expansion and reconstruction of the building, clearly calls for outrage rather than bemusement.

See “Library to shut during project: Trustees: Closure will make expansion quicker, cheaper” (Schenectady Daily Gazette, by Kathleen Moore, May 1, 2008).

As I have already left rather tart Comments online about the closing in response to this, and this, and that Gazette article, I shall attempt to be more dispassionate in this posting, despite my frustration.

At the bottom of this posting (under the fold, if you are reading this from our homepage), I’ve listed the major articles, editorials and Letters to the Editor about the library closing that have appeared in the Daily Gazette since the “plan” was announced publicly five days ago. I’ve included particularly illuminating quotes from each piece. In addition you can find continuing coverage and comments about the library closing at Schenectady’s Virtual Internet Community, and the Rotterdam NY Internet Community website. The f/k/a Gang will attempt to keep that list up to date as this story unfolds.

Want to express an opinion to our elected or appointed officials? Click here for the Schenectady County Government website, and here for contact information on our County Legislators. Library contact information is here.

Members of Friends of the Schenectady Public Library have responded quickly and forcefully to this crisis. See, e.g., “Library closure plan draws fire” (Daily Gazette, by Michael Lamendola, May 6, 2008); and “Speak out against plan to close Sch’dy library” (Letter to the Editor, Daily Gazette, by John Karl, May 6, 2008). The Library has attempted to diminish the importance of the closing by noting that while 1400 people use the Central Library every day, a mere 10% of that “traffic” comes from the downtown 12305 zip code, where the Library is located. (Their implication, I guess, is that since the others are driving to the Central Library, they can just drive to a nearby branch. For the record, I live a mile from the Central Library and go there almost every day. It will cost me about $2 in gas to go instead to the nearest non-tiny branch.)

In an Op/Ed piece on Sunday, Phil Sheehan did a good job showing how bogus those numbers are. See “18-month library shutdown a major disservice” (Daily Gazette, May 4, 2008) However, even if the 1400 average daily traffic number is accurate (measuring all those who come to the Library, and not just those who use their card), it is an impressive number. Fourteen hundred people is 1% of Schenectady County’s population, which was 144,000 as of 2005. One percent of our population goes to the Central Library every day.

How important is the Central Library to the Schenectady County Public Library system? SCPL has ten branches/locations. Nevertheless, according to the Library’s 2007 Annual Report, last year (using my math and their numbers) the Central Library accounted for:

• 44% of total circulation to Patrons
• and 42% of total circulation to other libraries
• 55% of all Adult library volumes; and 32% of the more widely spread juvenile volumes

• 71% of all Reference services provided
• 83% of all Adult Programs offered, and almost 92% of all attendees at adult programs

• In addition, there were 152,606 visits to the Central Library’s Technology Center in 2007 (averaging over 430 persons per day).

Clearly, as should be obvious even without culling the statistics, the Central Library plays a key role in achieving SCPL’s Mission, which is:

“. . . to satisfy our community’s educational informational, cultural and recreational needs by providing free and open access to a comprehensive range of materials, services and programs.”

As “citizen” Library Trustee John Karl aptly noted in voicing his opposition to the closing: The operation of the Central Library “is the most cost-effective and efficient service in the whole county.” Deciding to close the vital heart (and lungs and brain) of the County’s library system is such a bad idea that even a cynic has a hard time imagining what was going on in the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats responsible for the idea. I’m willing to believe that Library Director Andy Kulmatiski was told “endorse, fight for, and implement the 18-month closing or lose your job.” (Thus, as Upton Sinclair predicted, making it hard for Andy to “understand” the uproar of his staff and the community.) But, for the life of me, I can’t even guess what motives could possibly be behind such lousy policy coming from our County Government.

Despite the failure to reverse similar lame-brained and force-fed schemes concocted by our “leaders” (particularly Susan Savage, the Chair of the County Legislature), I’m hopeful that a combination of political courage (there’s gotta be one Democratic on the Legislature with a little backbone) and public outcry will somehow bring about a far more palatable solution.

In closing, some schadenfreude: This book might make you feel a little better about our plight in Schenectady County: It’s Nancy Alonso’s Closed for Repairs, with 11 short stories about conditions in Castro’s Cuba.

my children
don’t want to stop
historical market

… by Tom Clausen - Upstate Dim Sum (Vol. 2008/1)

Some Upstate Dim Sum might be your best bet for local (haiku) culture, if the Central Library does close (and even if it stays open). UDS is a “biannual anthology of haiku and senryu,” published by the Route 9 Haiku Group, which is comprised of four well-known haiku poets who live in Upstate New York. Two of the members, Hilary Tann and Yu Chang are professors at Union College.

The newest issue of Upstate Dim Sum (Vol. 2008/1) came in the mail this afternoon. Here are three poems each from Yu and from Hilary:

old farmer
his gift to his widow
a blueberry field

mid-October
choosing a warm spot
to wait for your call

late night ice cream
our cat licks
around the spoon

….. by Hilary Tann - from Upstate Dim Sum (Vol. 2008/1)

end of the storm
sunlight returns
to the kitchen

Indian summer
chocolate kisses
on my cheek

white chopping board
beet greens
in a pool of red

………. by Yu Chang - from Upstate Dim Sum (Vol. 2008/1)

- - Below [click “more” if you are on the f/k/a homepage] you will find links to articles and opinion from the Schenectady Daily and Sunday Gazette, and other source, concerning the closing of the Central Library, along with excerpts from the pieces. –

(more…)

Don Hutcheson, the Editor/Publisher of the online magazine The Complete Lawyer, is a valued friend of mine. Nonetheless, I have to say this:

TCL is too big — too complete. Every edition has far too many interesting, useful, often challenging, articles and features for me to read and digest. It simply doesn’t leave me with enough time to get my weblog written, friends and family attended to, haiku crafted, and naps taken, so that I’ll feel like a well-rounded (retired) member of the legal profession. And, the topics covered by TCL are almost always too important to ignore.

Case in point: The newly-posted current edition of The Complete Lawyer (Vol. 4 No. 3, May-June 2008), which focuses on A Sound Mind in a Sound Body. It reminds us that “Nearly 75% of TCL readers are at risk for burnout and 45% suffer from high levels of acute stress.”

The burnout is “the result of high levels of stress over time, [and] is associated with fatigue, overwork, and not enough time to get things done.” And, as you lawyer already know, the “Acute stress shows up in anxiety, difficulty concentrating, poor memory, and indecisiveness.”

To help lawyers avoid burnout and anxiety, and achieve a “sound mind in a sound body,” the new issue “focuses on proven antidotes to stress: some are traditional, such as regular exercise and improved sleep; others, like meditation, yoga, and taking cognitive rest breaks during the day, are less mainstream but have proven to be equally effective.” Among the 40+ articles and columns in the current issue, you will find:

• Are You As Stressed As Other Attorneys? by Ellen Moran, et al.

• When You Lose Sleep, Your Work And Health Suffer Dramatically by Thomas M. Heffron (who tells about judges falling asleep on bench, and lots more)
• How To Master Stress by psychologist and career coach Maynard Brusman; and
• Vacations Aren’t Luxuries by Robert Hockett

. . . . and much, much more (including mind-hygiene exercise tips from Idealawg’s Stephanie West Allen). That’s the problem. Frankly, I got tired (and synapses started misfiring) just selecting and listing 10% of the TCL pieces for you. I challenge you to read the entire new edition of TCL and still have energy left to hide your unfinished weekend to-do list, much less to achieve a sound mind and body.

What are we supposed to do tonight? Finish reading the newest TCL, or start preparing our Menudo Soup for Cinco de Mayo? [See our prior post “may 5th menudo” for Cinco de Mayo lore.]

After glancing at the table of contents for the May-June 2008 issue of The Complete Lawyer, our cranky Prof. Yabut was heard mumbling: “What ever happened to the good old days, when a guy could peruse all the good stuff at an online website for lawyers while his first cup of coffee was brewing?”

new issue
of TCL
the sun sets without me

… by dagosan

Some of New York’s black-robed judges are engaging in their version of the Blue Flu, in order to pressure the Legislature to give them (long-overdue) pay raises: They are “recusing” themselves — taking themselves off a case due to bias or a conflict of interest — if a party is represented by a law firm that employs a state legislator (especially Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver’s firm of Weitz and Luxenberg). See Eric Turkewitz’s posting “New York Judges Slowing Cases From Legislators’ Law Firms Over Pay Raise Issue” (NYPILaw Blog, May 2, 2008, with hat tip to Overlawyered.com); and “JUSTICE OF THE CEASE: REVOLT OF ROBES AS STATE JUDGES STALL ‘POL CASES’” (New York Post, April 27, 2008).

Also, see the Advisory Judicial Ethical Opinion (No. 08-76, April 24, 2008), which concluded that the judges’ pay raise lawsuit does not require recusal, but also stated that an individual judge must step aside if he or she has “genuine doubts” regarding the ability to be fair

This time last year, I was chastising Chief Judge Judith Kaye for her tacky use of Law Day Ceremonies to threated a lawsuit to get their pay raise. This year, she is — at least publicly — doing her best to prevent the judicial work slowdown, and deny its existence. See “Chief Judge Writes N.Y. Governor to Deny Work ‘Slowdown’ by State’s Judges” (New York Law Journal/Law.com, April 30, 2008); and “Chief judge cautions against recusals as protest” (AP/Syracuse Post-Standard, May 2, 2008). The AP story says:

Kaye, who after turning 70 will retire at the end of the year, in an e-mail Thursday cautioned them not to refuse to hear lawmakers’ cases as a form of protest. She wrote that “using recusal as a strategy rather than as a matter of individual conscience” would be perceived as retaliatory and weaken their cause.

sua sponte –
her honor
catches me staring

. . . by dagosan

Our rabble-rouser weblog friend Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice disagrees with Judge Kaye, and instead is egging on the judges to “stand up for themselves” and ignore calls to maintain their judicial dignity, because “there’s nothing dignified about poverty.” As I told Scott in a Comment at his website,

It is not a matter of dignity (and you know how often I deride our profession’s Dignity Police at my weblog); it is a matter of duty. No judge has the right to fabricate reasons to recuse himself or herself as they are doing here in order to pressure legislators.

I believe that judicial salaries should be higher, but that does not justify using a judicial variant of the Blue Flu. If pay is intolerably low, then an individual judge should resign. There are dozens of competent lawyers (some making far less now and some much more) who would gladly fill each of their slots on the bench at current salary levels. [Indeed, in many locales across the State — including Schenectady County — fulltime judges are among the highest-paid members of the legal profession (starting at $108,800), and they get plenty of other perks.]

This work action will indeed cause the judiciary (and unfortunately the entire justice system) to lose the respect of the average New Yorker.

My position here is similar to my opposition to the illegal boycott tactics used in Massachusetts by their “bar advocates,” in their fight for higher assigned counsel fees. It may be old fashioned, but I really do hold lawyers and judges to a higher standard than I hold your run-of-the-mill politician or bureaucrat — especially when the dispute really comes down to a matter of money.

My bottom line:

• judges should know better than anyone else that good ends do not justify unethical or coercive means — especially when the “end” (no matter how dressed up in cries of constitutional crisis) comes down to personal financial gain
• if any particular judge “doubts his/her ability to remain impartial” merely because a lawyer works for a firm that includes a NYS legislator, he or she does not have sufficient judicial temperament to stay on the bench and should leave

Hey, it’s Saturday afternoon, and thoughts of haiku (not court hi-jinx) should be on my mind. Before Mainichi News posts its May haiku offerings, here are a pair of poems from its April edition, by two of f/k/a’s Honored Guests. I had planned to post these poems before I decided to write about the judicial slowdown. So, any resemblance to a judge dead or living is purely coincidental.

spring thunder
dust from a slap
on the horse’s rump

…… by w. f. owen - Mainichi Daily News Haiku (April 2008, No. 706)

offshore breeze –
a girl with wild gestures
where the wave breaks

…….. by Jim Kacian - Mainichi Daily News Haiku (April 2008, No. 706)

Pump-Pandering Politicians: It’s great to see that so many news sources and websites are putting a penetrating spotlight on the proposals by the presidential candidates, as well as other federal and state politicians (like Messrs. Bruno and Tedisco in New York), to remove the gas tax over the summer. A Newsday editorial summed it up: “A proposal for such tiny, temporary, iffy savings is a political gimmick, not meaningful relief.” (”No such thing as a free tank: No gas tax for the summer is a bad idea“, April 30, 2008). For more analysis, see:

• “Tax cut could push gas prices higher” (CNNMoney.com, April 29, 2008) “Despite claims from McCain and Clinton, temporary cut in gas taxes could lead to more demand and push prices higher - leaving taxpayers to cover shortfall.”
• “Candidates’ Plans Could Indirectly Raise Gas Prices: Senators Back Steps That Portend Higher Pump Costs,” Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2008
• “Dumb as We Wanna Be” by Thomas L. Friedman (New York Times, April 30, 2008), which opines, “It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. . . This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.”

See the video clip — “Who Can Lower Gas Prices? The Candidates’ Plans: The Gas Squeeze: Will lifting the gas tax provide some relief?” — from Good Morning America/ABCNews (April 30, 2008)

And, listen to analysis on the Gas Tax Holiday from the PBS NewsHour — (April 30, 2008), or read the transcript.

• “Democrats Divided Over Gas Tax Break” by John Broder, The New York Times (29 Apr 2008), which has a description of the presidential candidates’ current and prior positions on gas taxes, and points out (emphasis added):

“The highway trust fund that the gas tax finances provides money to states and local governments to pay for road and bridge construction, repair and maintenance. Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton propose to suspend the tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the peak driving season, which would lower tax receipts by roughly $9 billion and potentially cost 300,000 highway construction jobs, according to state highway officials.”

update (May 1, 2008): Today’s NYT editorial “The Gas-Guzzler Gambit” also uses the word pander and explains why “it is an expensive and environmentally unsound policy that would do nothing to help American drivers.”

The federal tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, about 5% of the average price today. Savvy f/k/a readers probably didn’t have to read an article to wonder why we would expect the oil companies to automatically pass on the savings from a gas tax hiatus. In addition, if you’ve been reading about the plight of many independent gas stations, you might also expect the stations to try to pocket some of the tax savings for themselves. See, e.g., “Stations hope you fill up with more than gas: Fuel is loss leader for many; they make money in convenience stores,” (msnbc.com, April 1, 2008)

If you want to feel even worse about all this, and the related subject of reducing our nation’s gasoline consumption, read a little about the Price Elasticity of Demand for Gasoline; and see “Soaring Gas Prices Will Not Reduce Demand.”

Where do the Presidential Candidates Stand? We’re not naming names (due to our political-punditry hiatus), but see “Clinton Criticizes Obama Over Gas Tax Plan: Knocks Obama’s Opposition To Summer ‘Gas Tax Holiday,’ Which She And McCain Support” (CBSNews.com, April 28, 2008); “Obama Dismisses Gas Tax Holiday: Senator Says Gimmick Won’t Help Consumers, Designed To Get Rivals Through Election” (AP/CBSNews.com, April 29, 2008); and “McCain wants a gas tax ‘holiday.’ It’s a no-brainer, right?,” (The Oil Drum: Europe, April 15, 2008)

update (May 2, 2008): Yesterday, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew, a superdelegate, switched his presidential endorsement to Barack Obama. See “Longtime Clinton ally Joe Andrew defects to Barack Obama” (Los Angeles Times, May 2, 2008) At a news conference Thursday, Andrew said:

“Clinton’s support for a federal gas-tax holiday over the summer was symbolic of a poll-driven candidacy proposing something ‘politically expedient to give a quick pander to Hoosier voters,’ in contrast to what he called the ‘principled’ campaign Obama has run.”

We think the gas-tax-holiday issue can tell us a lot about our so-called leaders. Who is willing to tell us the truth? Who treats voters like adults? Who is worried about the long-run and not just the next election? It also tells us a lot about the voting public: Who will demand a simplistic “solution” even if it might in fact be counter-productive, just to get a few extra bucks in their pocket now.

- for other posts on issues related to gasoline consumption see: post-Earth Day spread: speed limits and efficient driving; Open Letter to Gas Whiners and Another Silly One-Day Gas Boycott

follow-up (May 8, 2008):  There’s an excellent editorial in today’s NYT, “The Tax Trickery Spreads” (New York Times, May 8, 2008)  Among points made:

• “Unfortunately, their [Senators Clinton and McCain] demagoguery is growing into a real problem, setting off a chain reaction of “me too” proposals across the country to suspend state gasoline taxes, which tend to be much larger than the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal levy. If the pandering spreads, it would go a long way in setting the nation’s energy strategy in precisely the wrong direction.”

• “These ideas share a common purpose: appearing to be doing something to ease hard-pressed voters’ pain at the pump. Not only are they costly, but they will not do that. Suspending the federal tax would cost $9 billion. In New York, the suspension would blow a $500 million hole in state finances. Consumers in some states could benefit from lower state gas taxes because wholesalers could import gas from other states. Still, with refineries producing almost at full capacity, the tax break would prompt a jump in demand that would push up prices.”

If you’ve read and considered all of the above, you surely deserve a treat. Here are more poems from the newest issue of Acorn (No. 20, Spring 2008) — which, among its 100+ poems, contains contemporary haiku by a number of our f/k/a Honored Guest Poets:

nearby clouds
nearby mountains
the rescue helicopter hovers

… by Gary Hotham

a cat at a threshold I can’t see sniffs something I can’t smell

icy night
a saw-whet etches
the silence

………. by jim kacian

spring at last
letting the stallion out
into the pasture

….. by Randy M. Brooks

quick-running brook . . .
a stone from the bottom
lighter than imagined

……………… by paul m.

fumbling
with coat buttons
autumn rain

……………. by Yu Chang

Lightning-cracked rain –
his palm rests against
the bottle’s black label

Dead-end road –
shadows of skinny cows
through old barbed wire

……… by Rebecca Lilly

All Souls
a third day
of candy

………….. by John Stevenson

Prof. Yabut says: While our Editor is taking his first morning nap, I thought I’d sneak in a quick posting that might violate his Christmas 2007 “no politics” pledge. I’d argue that I’m merely doing a public service by following up on one of the most-visited posts in our five-year history: “Inquiry to Obama on Tort Reform” (Aug. 4, 2004), from which we hoped to find out the position of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama on tort reform and related issues. [Note: Our Editor is a lifelong Democrat and has recently noted his support for Sen. Obama.]

Reminder: The f/k/a Gang [the Editor and his alter egos] are not “tort reformers” — we do not advocate arbitrary or blanket limits on the size of personal injury awards. We have, however, written extensively on the topic of the standard contingency fee (charging virtually every personal injury client the same percentage fee regardless of how risky or easy the case might be), which we believe consistently extracts excessive fees from clients. See, e.g., our four-part essay on the ethics and economics of contingency fees.

This position has drawn the ire of the so-called “trial lawyers,” “consumer protection lawyers” and “justice lawyers,” who seem to have much power over traditional Democratic politicians (especially those seeking campaign contributions). For example, the supposedly pro-consumer Clinton Administration opposed a bill that would have merely told consumers that they have the right to negotiate the level of a contingency fee. [aside (May 1, 2008): See my Comment #5 below about a reaction to the above mention of standard contingency fees.] Now, finally, let’s go to the point of this posting:

As you probably know, Barack Obama appeared on Fox News Sunday on April 27, 2008 (to the apparent dismay of many liberal bloggers who support negotiating with our nation’s enemies, but are boycotting Fox in order to “delegitimize” it. Please, kids, grow up with all your litmus tests.). Click for a Transcript of Obama on FNS.

For the purpose of this post, what interested us was this exchange between moderator Chris Wallace and Sen. Obama:

WALLACE: Some of your detractors say that you are a paint by the numbers liberal and I’d like to explore this with you. . . . As a president, can you name a hot button issue where you would be willing to cross (ph) Democratic party line and say you know what, Republicans have a better idea here. . . .

OBAMA: . . . I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left.

At Point of Law.com, guest-blogger Carter Wood responded to this brief remark with the posting “Obama Cites His Tort Reform Credentials” (April 27, 2008). Wood notes:

“He’s no doubt referring to his February 2005 vote for S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act, which passed 76-26. Ted Frank analyzed Obama’s CAFA vote and tort reform record in this December 2006 post, concluding, ‘As a reform supporter, I’m far from convinced that this makes him someone willing to cross the plaintiffs’ bar.’ Senator Clinton voted no.”

In his earlier Point of Law piece, “Obama and liability reform” (Dec. 27, 2006), Ted Frank weighed in on whether Sen. Obama had any tort-reform creds, discussing his vote for what Frank calls “the eminently sensible Class Action Fairness Act.” After noting that “Obama may have annoyed the lunatic left with his vote for CAFA,” Ted says, among other things:

“Obama didn’t participate in the negotiations to get Democratic support, and he voted for every Democratic attempt to eviscerate the bill with amendments. . . Obama didn’t break with the Democrats on any seriously contested tort reform measures: he filibustered medical malpractice reform, and was one of the votes to kill the asbestos reform bill (which effectively failed by one vote) . . . Obama claimed to support medical malpractice reform in his Senate campaign (or, at least, made pro-reform swing voters think that he did), but, then, so did Kerry and Edwards in their 2004 presidential campaign.

“Obama co-sponsored the MEDiC bill with Hillary Clinton; it was a federally-funded variation of the so-called “Sorry Works” proposal . . . But it’s hardly the move of someone daring to flout the trial lawyers who dominate the Democratic Party these days.”

I don’t believe that Barack Obama has ever tried to portray himself as a full-blooded, knee-jerk Tort Reformer. As far as I’m concerned, neither being totally for nor totally against every tort-reform proposal makes good sense or good public policy. The issues raised are complicated and need to be looked at with regard to the legitimate rights of both injured plaintiffs and accused defendants — assuring that all litigants get justice and our justice system is efficient and fair. There is no simple fix that can assure that those truly injured by bad-actors are fully compensated and that defendants are treated fairly both when blame is assigned and when damages are measured.

From my perspective as a consumer advocate and citizen looking for an effective and fair justice system, it seems that: Rabid proponents of tort reform mostly want to pay injured plaintiffs as little as possible, while rabid opponents of tort reform — mainly the “trial” or personally injury bar — want to be able to extract as much money as possible from defendants while assuring the biggest fees possible for plaintiffs’ lawyers.

In this context, I’m pleased that Barack Obama has not totally embraced “tort reform,” and — as a Democrat who worries about interest groups strangling the party and skewing its positions and priorities — am even more pleased that the Senator is unwilling to simply rubber stamp the position of trial lawyers by serving as their mouthpiece, puppet or platitude-peddling political paladin, rather than looking at each issue or piece of legislation on its merits.

I continue to hope that Sen. Obama will produce a comprehensive statement about our litigation system and necessary reforms and restructuring (including the need for full access to the courts). By choosing not to embrace either Tort Reformers or Trial Lawyers, Barack Obama increases his creds as a refreshingly different kind of politician.

Nakations? The New York Times tells us today that there’s a big trend of Americans heading to nudist resorts for their vacations — dubbed “nakations”. See “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Worries” (by Michelle Higgins, April 27, 2008). The article came just a couple days after I wrote to a friend that, “American obesity has taken a lot of the fun out of watching the change from winter to spring wardrobes.” So, I’ve got to confess that the general notion of Americans wearing no clothes is not a big draw (much less a turn-on) for me.

nude beach
a man and a woman
collect shells

nude beach
the jet ski instructress
tells me to “concentrate”
………….. . . . by ed markowski [”shells” from The Heron’s Nest.]

On the other hand, our cranky contrarian Prof. Yabut pointed to the NYT statement that:

“the real boom in nude vacations is coming at the high end of the business, as upscale hotels and resorts, and even some luxury cruise lines, have begun to see the economic potential in the no-clothes crowd — particularly those who want to shed their clothes but not their pampered lifestyles.”

keep your shirt on, buddy … …

As a lifelong (and long-lived) practitioner of lookism, Yabut added, “at least they’re upscale nudists.” That got me thinking about the widespread assumption that the rich are not as fat as the poor in America. I turned to Mr. Google for help, and went first to the Wikipedia entry on obesity, where a relevant section states:

Social determinants

“. . . In particular, a class co-factor consistently appears across many studies. Comparing net worth with BMI scores, a 2004 study found obese American subjects approximately half as wealthy as thin ones. When income differentials were factored out, the inequity persisted—thin subjects were inheriting more wealth than fat ones.

A higher rate of a lower level of education and tendencies to rely on cheaper fast foods is seen as a reason why these results are so dissimilar. Another study finds women who married into higher status are predictably thinner than women who married into lower status. [Ed. note: my empirical evidence definitely jibes with that last statement.]

“A 2007 study of more than 32,500 children . . . indicated that BMI change in friends, siblings or spouse predicted BMI change in subjects irrespective of geographical distance. The authors concluded from the results that acceptance of body mass plays an important role in changes in body size .”

family picnic
the new wife’s rump
bigger than mine

… by Roberta Beary - The Unworn Necklace (Snapshot Press 2007)

That sounded about right. See also: “Lower-income Neighborhoods Associated With Higher Obesity Rates” (Science Daily, Feb. 10, 2008) (”A new study appearing in the journal Nutrition Reviews reveals that characteristics of neighborhoods, including the area’s income level, the built environment [e.g., “barriers to physical activity”], and access to healthy food, contribute to the continuing obesity epidemic.”); “DIETING LINKED TO INCREASED WEALTH, STUDY FINDS” (Research News, July 2005) (”Overweight Americans who lose a lot of weight also tend to build more wealth as they drop the pounds, according to new research.”); and “Obesity Often Linked to Income” (npr, Aug. 18, 2004) (”Americans spend a good deal of money eating out, a habit tied to the nation’s obesity epidemic. Researchers say the less people can pay for food, the more calories they consume.”)

dia de los muertos —
the anorexic looks
envious

……. dagosan

Nonetheless, the f/k/a Gang doesn’t [usually] just stop its research as soon as we find materials confirming our own assumptions. And, when we looked at a few additional Google results for the search “obesity [income OR wealth]”, we quickly saw that — like just about everything we talk about at this site — things are not as simple or clearcut as we first thought.

For example:

• “Obesity surges among affluent” (by Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY, May 2, 2005) According to this article, “Obesity a condition that for decades has been more prevalent in the poor, is skyrocketing among affluent Americans, a new study finds. Defined as 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight, obesity has increased nearly threefold over a 30-year period among Americans who earn more than $60,000 per year, according to researchers at the University of Iowa College of Public Health.” Since the 1970’s, obesity rates “went from 9.7% to 26.8% . Among those making less than $25,000, the increase was much smaller, from 22.5% to 32.5%.”

These are scary numbers, but they do no necessarily contradict the Rich Is Thinner notion, since — for most Americans — “rich” and “affluent” refer to people making a lot more then $60,000 per year. I’d like to see how the numbers break down for the “truly rich” who can afford to go upscale. But, what about:

• “Children’s Risk of obesity soars with family income” (Sept. 17, 2008) According to the Daily Mail, “Children with wealthy middle class parents are more likely to be overweight or obese than those from poor households, a study has revealed.” The article goes on to say that:

 

 

“The findings go against conventional wisdom that Britain’s poorest families have the worst diets - showing the risk of obesity actually soars with family income. . . . Researchers linked the problem to the rise of highly-paid working mothers - who are often forced to leave a nanny or nursery in charge of their child’s diet and physical exercise.

“High consumption of snack foods and sweetened drinks, long hours spent watching television and low rates of breastfeeding - shown to prevent obesity - were also said to be factors”.

 

As the article notes, this seems to be a warning to middle-class parents, “who often ‘assumed’ their children were living healthy lives.”

the naked child crawls–
the blooming
poppies

.. by Kobayashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue

It’s sad that the children of the well-off are also caught up in the Western world’s obesity epidemic. Thankfully, as today’s Times article points out: “No matter how popular and upscale nude resorts become, one social convention is unlikely to change: Nudity and family vacations don’t always mix.” Thus, nakationers can probably avoid having to look at the fat, naked kids of wealthy Americans and Brits. That’s definitely a relief.

Buddha’s birthday–
fat little sparrows
and their parents

a chubby girl
offered pickles…
soot sweeping

my child
in the barley field wind…
nicely plump

.. by Kobayashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue

- no thanks: nudist camp weight-loss center cartoon

roly-poly pigeons
growing fatter…
a long day

being so fat
he’s not a good jumper…
frog

giving these skinny legs
new life…
a pheasant

.. by Kobayashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue

… … Does Richer Mean Thinner? We don’t get paid enough to have a definitive answer to the Are Rich Nudists Thinner question. Nevertheless, we note the section of today’s NYT article devoted to the notions of U. Berkeley psychology professor Dacher Keltner:

“Today, America’s increasing obsession with health and wellness may be contributing to the rise of clothing-optional vacations. “Americans have moralized healthy bodies,” said Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, who has studied moral emotion and judgment. He added that “a case could be made that people are traveling to these places to be pure for moral reasons — to achieve harmony in nature.” It’s really a form of self-expression, he added, that dates back to Walt Whitman and John Muir, as well as Thoreau, all of whom advocated being as true to yourself as possible. “The truest you can be is taking off those clothes,” he said.”

It seems to the f/k/a Gang that most of the folk who would agree with and abide by Prof. Keltner’s explanation are likely to be the educated American elite, who tend to be rich rather than poor (and from California rather than Indiana). Therefore, if we had to be dropped into the middle of a nudist resort — and not ones like the Times says “turn away single men” — we hope it’s one of the upscale nakation spots, perhaps the kind that caters to a lot of those “women who married into higher status” mentioned at Wikipedia.

cloudburst–
a naked rider
on a naked horse

.. by Kobayashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue

the old couple’s legs -
skinny and white as
mine

empty cookie tin –
letting out last year’s
santa suit

……….. by dagosan

It’s Earth Day Plus One: Now it’s time to see whether we really want to make a difference — by changing our habits in a meaningful way, despite the inconvenience.

Earth Day –
recycled bottles
in a three-car garage

… by dagosan [April 24, 2005]

If politicians and the public were serious about achieving fuel economy — in order to save money and save Earth from greenhouse gases — they would start enforcing our speed limit laws and rollback the highway speed limit to 55 mph. Fuel economy decreases rapidly above 60 mph, according to the FTC. And, as we reported on May 2, 2005, “driving at 10 miles an hour above the 65 miles-per-hour increases fuel consumption by 15 percent.” (See NYT, “Unmentioned Energy Fix: A 55 M.P.H. Speed Limit,” May 1, 2005)

supplemental update (April 24, 2008): Eartheasy.com’s Fuel-Efficient Driving page tells us that “The keys to climate control are in your hands.” It states:

You can boost the overall fuel-efficiency of your car as much as 30% by simple vehicle maintenance and attention to your style of driving. Here are some tips on fuel-efficient driving that will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, but could save you hundreds of dollars a year in fuel costs.

The Eartheasy piece succinctly summarizes this EPA fuel efficiency graph:

Drive steadily at posted speed limits. Increasing your highway cruising speed from 55mph (90km/h) to 75mph (120km/h) can raise fuel consumption as much as 20%. You can improve your gas mileage 10 - 15% by driving at 55mph rather than 65mph (104km/h). Note how quickly efficiency drops after 60 mph.

You can find more detailed and technical information at How Stuff Works.com. Its article “What speed should I drive to get maximum fuel efficiency?” states, for example, that:

• “[F]or most cars, the ’sweet spot’ on the speedometer is in the range of 40-60 mph. Cars with a higher road load will reach the sweet spot at a lower speed.”
• “In general, smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars will get their best mileage at higher speeds. Bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic vehicles will get their best mileage at lower speeds.”
• “If you drive your car in the ’sweet spot’ you will get the best possible mileage for that car. If you go faster or slower, the mileage will get worse, but the closer you drive to the sweet spot the better mileage you will get.”

 

So, we have an easy but significant fuel economy solution — with one big problem: human nature. Politicians don’t have the guts to call for any real sacrifices and we plain folk — myself included — like driving fast and getting to our destinations quicker. Of course, I’ve learned that no matter how much the f/k/a Gang nags, we don’t change many minds or habits.

Me. The only person I can control is myself, and I pledge today to follow the speed limit on all highways and (as explained below) adopt habits that will enhance my driving efficiency. In addition, I’m going to actively campaign for both the enforcement of our speed limit laws and the return to 55 mph as the speed limit on our highways. Of course, you are welcome to join the pledge.

A 2005 survey by the Governors Highway Safety Association confirmed what we already knew: almost every state allows drivers to regularly and significantly exceed the speed limit before they are stopped — and “Nearly all respondents reported a public perception that there exists a cushion above a posted speed limit in which officers will not cite offenders. The range most often reported was 5-10 miles per hour above the posted limit. “(NewsMax.com, AP, “Survey: Most States Allow Speed Cushion,” June 13, 2005; Survey Executive Summary). One news report noted:

“Authorities patrolling U.S. highways tend to give motorists a cushion of up to 10 miles per hour above the speed limit before pulling them over, says a survey by a group of state traffic safety officials. The group found that 42 states allow drivers to regularly exceed the speed limit before they are stopped. [Editor’s Note: only 47 states responded to this survey; at least one of the non-responders — New York — clearly also has the speed cushion.]

“This cushion truly exists across the country and in some cases is more than 10 miles above posted limits,” said Jim Champagne, the GHSA’s chairman.

“Law enforcement needs to be given the political will to enforce speed limits and the public must get the message that speeding will not be tolerated,” said Champagne . . .

. . . “Since 1994, 38 states have increased their speed limit, the report said. Congress in 1995 allowed states to raise limits above 55 mph in urban areas and 65 mph on rural roads.

“[And, yes, speed both costs and kills:] A study released in 1999 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimated an increase in deaths on interstates and freeways of about 15 percent in the 24 states that had raised their speed limit in late 1995 and 1996.”

 

In 2005, I opined: “I hate to be cynical, but I don’t think there’s any chance that the American public — or their courageous leaders — will go along with lowering speed limits to 55 mph in order to save billions of gallons of oil a year.” This is another time when I would love to see one of my predictions proven wrong.

An AP article in yesterday’s Schenectady Gazette, like similar ones over the past few years, told of consumer angst over high gasoline prices but failed to mention anything about non-commercial drivers reducing speed to reduce gas consumption. See AP/Gazette online, “Drivers, eyeing gas prices now averaging $3.50 a gallon nationwide, say they feel squeezed” (April 22, 2008)

The only exception are trucking companies: “The American Trucking Associations on Monday said it will host a ‘fuel strategies workshop’ in June to help fleet operators cope with soaring prices. ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said fuel has now surpassed labor as the trucking industry’s biggest cost, prompting some companies to install devices that prevent drivers from speeding.” [And see, “Truckers Back a National 65-mph Speed Limit,” US News & World Report, March 26, 2008]

Since far too few drivers are likely to regulate themselves and slow down without an incentive, the first step is obvious (and easy): Our Governors and law enforcement officials need to bite the bullet and declare that – oh-my-god! — we’re going to enforce the speed limit; and then they need to do it. Filling depleted state coffers with the speeding fines will just be an added bonus — and should cover the extra cost of diligent, deterrent, habit-shaping enforcement.

Sadly, despite the use of alternative fuels and the purported switch to cars with better mileage, the Federal Trade Commission’s Oil-Gas webpage recently noted, “the Energy Information Administration forecasts that gasoline consumption will continue to increase through 2030.” (FTC Gasoline Column, March 7, 2008) However. there are things you and I can do individually today (and, hopefully, tomorrow) to reduce fuel consumption without buying a new car.

As the FTC consumer alert “Saving Money at the Gas Pump: A Bumper-to-Bumper Guide” (FTC Consumer Alert 2006) reminds us: “When it comes to stretching your gas budget, how you drive can be almost as important as how far you drive.“

So, please join me in my pledge to drive smart and increase my fuel efficiency. Here are some useful tips from the 2005 FTC Consumer Alert “Good, Better, Best: How to Improve Gas Mileage“:

On the Road: Drive More Efficiently

* Stay within posted speed limits. Gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 miles per hour.
* Stop aggressive driving. You can improve your gas mileage up to five percent around town if you avoid “jackrabbit” starts and stops by anticipating traffic conditions and driving gently.
* Avoid unnecessary idling. It wastes fuel, costs you money, and pollutes the air. Turn off the engine if you anticipate a wait.
* Combine errands. Several short trips taken from a cold start can use twice as much fuel as one trip covering the same distance when the engine is warm.
* Use overdrive gears and cruise control when appropriate. They improve the fuel economy of your car when you’re driving on a highway.
* Remove excess weight from the trunk. An extra 100 pounds in the trunk can reduce a typical car’s fuel economy by up to two percent.
* Avoid packing items on top of your car. A loaded roof rack or carrier creates wind resistance and can decrease fuel economy by five percent.

And, At the Garage: Maintain Your Car

* Keep your engine tuned. Tuning your engine according to your owner’s manual can increase gas mileage by an average of four percent. Increases vary depending on a car’s condition.
* Keep your tires properly inflated and aligned. It can increase gas mileage up to three percent.
* Change your oil. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), you can improve your gas mileage by using the manufacturer’s recommended grade of motor oil. Motor oil that says “Energy Conserving” on the performance symbol of the American Petroleum Institute contains friction-reducing additives that can improve fuel economy.
* Check and replace air filters regularly. Replacing clogged filters can increase gas mileage up to ten percent.

To help keep myself on track, I plan to report back regularly with frank assessments of my compliance with this very doable but also somewhat daunting checklist of good driver practices in the fuel-reduction game. My first big test may come on Mother’s Day, when I drive the 220 miles to see Mama G. I’m going have to get out the door a bit earlier to stay on schedule while abiding by the speed limit. I’m looking forward to seeing my gas-savings at the pump driving the New York Thruway at 65. Watching all those cell-phoning, tail-gating fools pass me along the way might just inspire a senryu or two.

- for further related reading see our Open Letter to Gas Whiners and Another Silly One-Day Gas Boycott -

update: See the op-ed column “Government at all levels can — should — take steps to help with gas crunch,” (by Joe Slomka, Schenectady Sunday Gazette, April 27, 2008). Among other good points, Joe says:

“I’m as mad about high gas prices as the next guy, but what I’m really mad about is the fact that this is a problem we created for ourselves and are doing virtually nothing to solve. And solving it would involve so little sacrifice. . . . What I’m talking about, mostly, is motorists — especially the ones who drive those guzzlers — slowing down.”

good news (but no excuse to speed): “As Gas Costs Soar, Buyers Flock to Small Cars” (New York Times, May 2, 2008) “[T]here are some indications that the trend toward smaller vehicles will reduce the nation’s fuel use. In California, motorists bought 4 percent less gasoline in January than they did the year before, a drop of more than 58 million gallons, according to the Oil Price Information Service.”

more resources (May 3, 2008): For a lot of information and inspiration (and some great bumper stickers) zoom over to iDrive55.org - the Drive 55 Conservation Project.

And “carpool for a better tomorrow” with RideSearch.com.

Good news (May 8, 2008): Our local News Channel 13 in Albany, NY, had a segment yesterday called “Some drivers reduce speed to save gas” (wnyt.com, May 7, 2008), which points out that “Researchers say today’s cars are most fuel efficient at speeds between around 30 and 60 miles per hour. Mileage drops sharply at speeds above 65 as engines work harder.” The piece includes a poll asking whether you are slowing down due to high gas prices.

more good news (May 10, 2008): “Gas prices sends surge of riders to mass transit” (New York Times, May 10, 2008). “Some cities with long-established public transit systems, like New York and Boston, have seen increases in ridership of 5 percent or more so far this year. But the biggest surges — of 10 to 15 percent or more over last year — are occurring in many metropolitan areas in the South and West where the driving culture is strongest and bus and rail lines are more limited.”

p.s. What’s Your Carbon Footprint? A Carbon Footprint is a measure of the impact our activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases we produce. It is measured in units of carbon dioxide. Earth Day (or any day) is a good time to calculate your carbon footprint. At Carbon Footprint.com you can also calculate the (incredibly large amount of ) CO2 you’ll use by flying to a destination.

The pbs FRONTLINE show “Sick Around the World” contains facts, analysis, and a message that every thinking and responsible American needs to hear, see, consider, and act upon. In it, correspondent T.R. Reid examines the healthcare systems of five other advanced capitalist democracies — United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland — to see what ideas might help the U.S. reform its broken healthcare non-system. The show premiered last night but is available on demand to watch online (or, you can order a dvd for $24.95).

As Mike Hale said yesterday in his tv preview for the New York Times:

“… This fast-moving and entertaining hour starts from the premise that the American health care system … is a failure. And Mr. Reid makes the case (in about 10 minutes per country) that other capitalist democracies have not just cheaper more equally available health care, but also better care over all, with longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates. …”

Seeing nations comparable economically to our own, where the people and government take for granted that universal coverage and access to quality health care is a basic human right, where no one need ever fear going bankrupt because of a health care crisis, and where doctors do not demand to be rich in order to practice their profession, was enough to put real tears in my eyes (tears of hope and of shame for our nation). Of course, the show demonstrates ably that Universal Coverage does not have to mean Socialized Medicine: “Reid finds out it’s not all ’socialized medicine’ in the rich capitalist democracies he visited. But he also finds out they don’t trust health care entirely to the free market — they all impose limits.”

Here are links to some of the materials available at the Frontline website for Sick Around the World:

home + introduction + watch online + five countries + interviews + analysis + join the discussion + q & a with t.r. reid + teacher’s guide + readings & links + dvd + transcript + press reaction

Check out the analysis of several health care experts, who tell us what lessons we can learn from the other nations. And, in 7 o 10 days, you’ll be able to print out a transcript of the show.

If you like Pope Benedict’s open-hearted, brother’s-keeper approach to social justice (see our prior post), or if you liked the message of Michael Moore’s film Sicko, but have been looking for a presentation that is sarcasm-and smirk-free to share with family and friends, Sick Around the World is the answer.

waiting undressed
for the new doctor -
cold feet

thin walls
the doctor gives someone else
bad news

… by dagosan

One final point: several of the experts interviewed were quite skeptical that our politicians will actually find a true solution to the American health care crisis. They noted that neither Obama nor Clinton is offering true reform and that universal coverage is unlikely to solve our nation’s health care crisis without greatly reducing the excessive cost of American medicine. We all need to make sure that the debate and movement toward universal health care is informed with the lessons that are there for us to learn from other economically-advanced democracies.

Two years ago this week, I wrote a piece about Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical “God Is Love,” noting that Conservative Catholics seemed to be ignoring his message of social justice and charity, while they claim to be the only true Catholics and take positions on immigration, minimum wage, universal health care, and many other social issues that are inconsistent with the teachings and spirit of the Church and Jesus Christ.  With Benedict’s arrival today in the USA for a get-acquainted visit, I’m going to reprint the entire posting here, and hope that Benedict continues his message of caritas and the need to live your faith when acting in the political realm.

Catholic Conservatives Ignore Benedict on Political “Caritas”

(originally published April 19, 2006)

Pope Benedict XVI has apparently disappointed America’s “conservative” Catholics by not coming out swinging on their favorite issues. (Washington Post, “Pope’s 1st Year Lacks An Ideological Edge,” by Alan Cooperman; npr, “New Pope Surprises American Catholics,” by Greg Allen; April 19, 2006). Well, I’ve finally read Benedict’s first encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est“(”God Is Love”), dated Dec. 25, 2005, and I’m pretty sure America’s Catholic conservatives are disappointing their Pope.

Pope Benedict XVI cover of America (March 13, 2006)

Ever since learning late last year that the Papal Letter, Deus Caritas Est [”DCE”], discusses “caritas” or “charity,” and the relationship between justice and charity, I’ve been waiting for conservative Catholic webloggers to analyze DCE — hoping to see how Catholic teachings affect their stance on important public policy issues. I’m especially interested, because prominent law professors — including Steve Bainbridge, MoJ’s Rick Garnett, and Deans Thomas Menger (St. Thomas Law School) and Mark Sargent (Villanove Law) — have insisted that we need a revival of serious that is “unapologetically and actively committed to discerning and expressing distinctively Catholic approaches to law and lawyering.” (our prior post)

Call it an apostate’s natural suspicion, but the lack of discussion by conservative Catholics (and Catholic conservatives) — of DCE made me suspect that the Encyclical might have called for a bit too much caritas in the public sphere, or too high a level of commitment to charitable politcal activism by laypeople, for their liking.

What pushed me into actually finding and reading the DCE text, in fact, was Prof. Bainbridge’s discussion last week about the minimum wage, in response to was an article by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, dated April 11, 2006.) (our prior post) Steve’s thoughts were endorsed by Volokh Conspiracy’s Jim Lindgren. At Prof. B’s, VC, and WM, there were dozen of Comments, and the basic tone was so uncharitable and unloving — so miserly and spiteful — regarding the poor in America, that I decided it was time to see if Benedict XVI could help me figure out the issues. What the Pope had to say made my suspicions about a Catholic conservative cover-up appear quite justified.

Is Deus Caritas Est relevant to debates on issues such as minimum wage laws? I believe it absolutely is — for the Catholic faithful and for those who see in the core teachings of Jesus a universal ethics of human connection, interdependence, and responsibility. In summarizing Catholic teaching on caritas and justice, on the roles of both the Church hierarchy and the faithful, the Encyclical calls for an active,

engaged commitment among the laity to improve the plight of the poor — not merely through Church institutions and personal acts of charity, but also by using political processes in the public forum. (Such a “distinctively Catholic approach to law and lawyering” is one that Your Editor would welcome at American law schools.)

Here’s what I discovered in Benedict XVI’s first encyclical letter, Deus Caritas Est:

 

The Letter first addresses at length the subject of God as love. Benedict eventually turns to the topic of “Jesus Christ – the incarnate love of God,” and explains that Jesus has “truly united” love of God and love of neighbor. Benedict explains [para. 16], for example, that through the parable of the Good Samaritan:

“The concept of “neighbour” is now universalized, yet it remains concrete. Despite being extended to all mankind, it is not reduced to a generic, abstract and undemanding expression of love, but calls for my own practical commitment here and now. The Church has the duty to interpret ever anew this relationship between near and far with regard to the actual daily life of her members.”

Benedict