Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Shot Down NYC Lawsuit Against Gun Industry
Read the court's opinion here.
Department of the Interior Proposed New Gun Regulations
The Department of the Interior has proposed new regulations for guns on lands under its control. You may read the proposed regulations here.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Biofuels Driving Up Food Prices?
Food Crisis Starts Eclipsing Climate Change Worries
Gore Ducks, as a Backlash Builds Against Biofuels
By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | April 25, 2008
The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels.
With prices for rice, wheat, and corn soaring, food-related unrest has broken out in places such as Haiti, Indonesia, and Afghanistan. Several countries have blocked the export of grain. There is even talk that governments could fall if they cannot bring food costs down.
One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.
“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.
Last year, Mr. Runge and a colleague, Benjamin Senauer, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor.”
“We were criticized for being alarmist at the time,” Mr. Runge said. “I think our views, looking back a year, were probably too conservative.”
Ethanol was initially promoted as a vehicle for America to cut back on foreign oil. In recent years, biofuels have also been touted as a way to fight climate change, but the food crisis does not augur well for ethanol’s prospects.
“It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”
Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.”
Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article.
However, the scientist who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore, Rajendra Pachauri of the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, has warned that climate campaigners are unwise to promote biofuels in a way that risks food supplies. “We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security,” Mr. Pachauri told reporters last month, according to Reuters. “Questions do arise about what is being done in North America, for instance, to convert corn into sugar then into biofuels, into ethanol.”
In an interview last year, Mr. Gore expressed his support for corn-based ethanol, but endorsed moving to what he called a “third generation” of so-called cellulosic ethanol production, which is still in laboratory research. “It doesn’t compete with food crops, so it doesn’t put pressure on food prices,” the former vice president told Popular Mechanics magazine.
A Harvard professor of environmental studies who has advised Mr. Gore, Michael McElroy, warned in a November-December 2006 article in Harvard Magazine that “the production of ethanol from either corn or sugar cane presents a new dilemma: whether the feedstock should be devoted to food or fuel. With increasing use of corn and sugar cane for fuel, a rise in related food prices would seem inevitable.” The article, “The Ethanol Illusion” went so far as to praise Senator McCain for summing up the corn-ethanol energy initiative launched in the United States in 2003 as “highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress.”
In Britain, some hunger-relief and environmental groups have turned sharply against biofuels. “Setting mandatory targets for biofuels before we are aware of their full impact is madness,” Philip Bloomer of Oxfam told the BBC.
Biofuel advocates say they are being made a bogeyman for a food crisis that has much more to do with record oil prices, surging demand in the developing world, and unusual weather patterns. “The people who seek to solely blame ethanol for the food crisis and the rising price of food that we see across the globe are taking a terribly simplistic look at this very complex issue,” Matthew Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association said.
Mr. Hartwig said oil companies and food manufacturers are behind the attempt to undercut ethanol. “There is a concerted misinformation campaign being put out there by those people who are threatened by ethanol’s growing prominence in the marketplace,” he said.
The most obvious impact the food crisis has had in America, aside from higher prices, is the imposition of rationing at some warehouse stores to deal with a spike in demand for large quantities of rice, oil, and flour. The CEO of Costco Wholesale Corp., James Sinegal, is blaming press hype for the buying limits, which were first reported Monday in The New York Sun.
“If it hadn’t been picked up and become so prominent in the news, I doubt that we would have had the problems that we’re having in trying to limit it at this point,” Mr. Sinegal told Fox News Thursday. “I mean, I can’t believe the amount of attention that is being paid to this.”
The Sun’s article, which came as food riots were reported abroad, circulated quickly on the Internet, was republished in newspapers as far away as India, and prompted local and network television stories.
Speaking in Kansas City, Mo., yesterday, the federal agriculture secretary, Edward Schafer, blamed emotion for the spurt of rice buying at warehouse stores. “We don’t see any evidence of the lack of availability of rice. There are no supply issues,” he told reporters, according to Reuters.
Gore Ducks, as a Backlash Builds Against Biofuels
By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | April 25, 2008
The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels.
With prices for rice, wheat, and corn soaring, food-related unrest has broken out in places such as Haiti, Indonesia, and Afghanistan. Several countries have blocked the export of grain. There is even talk that governments could fall if they cannot bring food costs down.
One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.
“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.
Last year, Mr. Runge and a colleague, Benjamin Senauer, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor.”
“We were criticized for being alarmist at the time,” Mr. Runge said. “I think our views, looking back a year, were probably too conservative.”
Ethanol was initially promoted as a vehicle for America to cut back on foreign oil. In recent years, biofuels have also been touted as a way to fight climate change, but the food crisis does not augur well for ethanol’s prospects.
“It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”
Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.”
Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article.
However, the scientist who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore, Rajendra Pachauri of the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, has warned that climate campaigners are unwise to promote biofuels in a way that risks food supplies. “We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security,” Mr. Pachauri told reporters last month, according to Reuters. “Questions do arise about what is being done in North America, for instance, to convert corn into sugar then into biofuels, into ethanol.”
In an interview last year, Mr. Gore expressed his support for corn-based ethanol, but endorsed moving to what he called a “third generation” of so-called cellulosic ethanol production, which is still in laboratory research. “It doesn’t compete with food crops, so it doesn’t put pressure on food prices,” the former vice president told Popular Mechanics magazine.
A Harvard professor of environmental studies who has advised Mr. Gore, Michael McElroy, warned in a November-December 2006 article in Harvard Magazine that “the production of ethanol from either corn or sugar cane presents a new dilemma: whether the feedstock should be devoted to food or fuel. With increasing use of corn and sugar cane for fuel, a rise in related food prices would seem inevitable.” The article, “The Ethanol Illusion” went so far as to praise Senator McCain for summing up the corn-ethanol energy initiative launched in the United States in 2003 as “highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress.”
In Britain, some hunger-relief and environmental groups have turned sharply against biofuels. “Setting mandatory targets for biofuels before we are aware of their full impact is madness,” Philip Bloomer of Oxfam told the BBC.
Biofuel advocates say they are being made a bogeyman for a food crisis that has much more to do with record oil prices, surging demand in the developing world, and unusual weather patterns. “The people who seek to solely blame ethanol for the food crisis and the rising price of food that we see across the globe are taking a terribly simplistic look at this very complex issue,” Matthew Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association said.
Mr. Hartwig said oil companies and food manufacturers are behind the attempt to undercut ethanol. “There is a concerted misinformation campaign being put out there by those people who are threatened by ethanol’s growing prominence in the marketplace,” he said.
The most obvious impact the food crisis has had in America, aside from higher prices, is the imposition of rationing at some warehouse stores to deal with a spike in demand for large quantities of rice, oil, and flour. The CEO of Costco Wholesale Corp., James Sinegal, is blaming press hype for the buying limits, which were first reported Monday in The New York Sun.
“If it hadn’t been picked up and become so prominent in the news, I doubt that we would have had the problems that we’re having in trying to limit it at this point,” Mr. Sinegal told Fox News Thursday. “I mean, I can’t believe the amount of attention that is being paid to this.”
The Sun’s article, which came as food riots were reported abroad, circulated quickly on the Internet, was republished in newspapers as far away as India, and prompted local and network television stories.
Speaking in Kansas City, Mo., yesterday, the federal agriculture secretary, Edward Schafer, blamed emotion for the spurt of rice buying at warehouse stores. “We don’t see any evidence of the lack of availability of rice. There are no supply issues,” he told reporters, according to Reuters.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Charlton Heston Reading the Prologue to Jurassic Park
Listen to Mr. Heston here.The text of the prologue is below. The prologue was read on Rush Limbaugh's show on February 3, 1995. On April 7, 2008, Mr. Limbaugh rebroadcast the reading.
"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."
"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."
Monday, April 21, 2008
Clinging to Guns and Religion: Did Senator Obama Have a Point?
Washington Post
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, April 21, 2008; A02
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant/Success in Circuit lies/Too bright for our infirm Delight/The Truth's superb surprise . . .
-- Emily Dickinson
In 1880, a journalist called Horace Redfield published a book about homicide rates in America. He found that states belonging to the former Confederacy had a murder rate four to 15 times higher than that of Northern states.
"In Kentucky that year there were more homicides than in the eight States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota," Redfield wrote in "Homicide: North and South," referring to the year 1878. "In South Carolina that year there were more homicides than in the eight States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Michigan, and Minnesota."
Redfield's access to good data was limited, but his findings have been replicated many times in the last century. Whites living in rural areas in Southern states still have a homicide rate 1 1/2 times higher than that of their Northern counterparts, said Matthew Lee, a Louisiana State University sociologist. Poverty exacerbates the risk of gun violence: The homicide rate among rural whites with an annual income of $20,000 is nearly three times the rate among rural whites with an income of $50,000.
Redfield was not running for president, but he showed more caution in his book than presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who suggested at a recent California fundraiser that economic deprivation in small-town America caused people to turn to guns, religion and xenophobia.
The controversy around Obama's comments highlights a problem that social scientists have recognized since 1880: There is a delicate tension between telling people the truth -- that social, economic and cultural structures play powerful roles in shaping human behavior -- and giving the impression that you are blaming people whose lives are difficult to begin with.
Redfield stressed that he was not disparaging Southerners: "There is more good than evil in the South; more that is lovable than there is that is reprehensible; more cause for hope than for despondency."
Lee, whose new analysis of homicide rates in the country was published in the Social Science Journal, said he has conducted surveys in white, small-town America -- the places Obama was talking about -- on whether people would call the police or reach for a gun if a burglar entered their home. People in Southern states overwhelmingly told Lee that they would shoot first and pick up the phone afterward.
"When you ask, 'Is it okay to shoot a burglar in your house?' [rural Southerners] look at you as if you have two heads on your shoulder," Lee said. "Their culture dictates that of course you shoot someone who is burglarizing your house."
Lee's data show that poverty, like the Southern code of honor and self-reliance, increases the risk that people will turn to guns to solve personal problems. His analysis, conducted jointly with LSU colleague Shaun A. Thomas and Timothy C. Hayes at the University of North Carolina, was based on 934 rural counties across the United States, FBI statistics on homicides in those counties and U.S. Census data on educational levels, family structures and economic opportunities.
While Obama's contention that poverty breeds resentment and increases the odds that people cling to guns is partly supported by Lee's analysis of the factors linked to homicide in rural, white America, it is also supported by research in an urban environment by criminologist Richard Wright at the University of Minnesota. Wright and colleague Scott Decker managed to track down around 80 armed robbers in St. Louis -- criminals who were on the streets, not in jail.
Under the terms of a federal grant that offered the robbers confidentiality in exchange for participation in a study -- and an agreement from the local police department not to get involved -- Wright and Decker asked the robbers why they chose particular victims and particular locales for their crimes.
While the stickups invariably involved people who were desperate for money to feed drug habits and high-roller lifestyles, Wright found that the armed robbers picked targets based less on how much money they thought they could extract, and more on feelings of animosity. Robbers told Wright and Decker that they went after people who made them feel inferior.
"If you listen to what robbers say to people, it is not a rational process" of merely extracting money, Wright said. "There is a strong element of putting people down."
According to a transcript, one robber, called Ne-Ne, told Wright, "I do the people that drive the fancy cars, and they be on they phones, they be high countin' you know -- they think they got all this. Them the ones I get."
Obama was certainly generalizing, but Wright said the idea that poverty and straitened circumstances make people resentful, and that this increases the risk they will turn to guns and violence, is a little like saying that fish swim in water.
That still doesn't mean you can say this aloud if you are running for president. Wright laughed ruefully and said: "I have been an academic long enough to know what the general public thinks about us."
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, April 21, 2008; A02
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant/Success in Circuit lies/Too bright for our infirm Delight/The Truth's superb surprise . . .
-- Emily Dickinson
In 1880, a journalist called Horace Redfield published a book about homicide rates in America. He found that states belonging to the former Confederacy had a murder rate four to 15 times higher than that of Northern states.
"In Kentucky that year there were more homicides than in the eight States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota," Redfield wrote in "Homicide: North and South," referring to the year 1878. "In South Carolina that year there were more homicides than in the eight States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Michigan, and Minnesota."
Redfield's access to good data was limited, but his findings have been replicated many times in the last century. Whites living in rural areas in Southern states still have a homicide rate 1 1/2 times higher than that of their Northern counterparts, said Matthew Lee, a Louisiana State University sociologist. Poverty exacerbates the risk of gun violence: The homicide rate among rural whites with an annual income of $20,000 is nearly three times the rate among rural whites with an income of $50,000.
Redfield was not running for president, but he showed more caution in his book than presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who suggested at a recent California fundraiser that economic deprivation in small-town America caused people to turn to guns, religion and xenophobia.
The controversy around Obama's comments highlights a problem that social scientists have recognized since 1880: There is a delicate tension between telling people the truth -- that social, economic and cultural structures play powerful roles in shaping human behavior -- and giving the impression that you are blaming people whose lives are difficult to begin with.
Redfield stressed that he was not disparaging Southerners: "There is more good than evil in the South; more that is lovable than there is that is reprehensible; more cause for hope than for despondency."
Lee, whose new analysis of homicide rates in the country was published in the Social Science Journal, said he has conducted surveys in white, small-town America -- the places Obama was talking about -- on whether people would call the police or reach for a gun if a burglar entered their home. People in Southern states overwhelmingly told Lee that they would shoot first and pick up the phone afterward.
"When you ask, 'Is it okay to shoot a burglar in your house?' [rural Southerners] look at you as if you have two heads on your shoulder," Lee said. "Their culture dictates that of course you shoot someone who is burglarizing your house."
Lee's data show that poverty, like the Southern code of honor and self-reliance, increases the risk that people will turn to guns to solve personal problems. His analysis, conducted jointly with LSU colleague Shaun A. Thomas and Timothy C. Hayes at the University of North Carolina, was based on 934 rural counties across the United States, FBI statistics on homicides in those counties and U.S. Census data on educational levels, family structures and economic opportunities.
While Obama's contention that poverty breeds resentment and increases the odds that people cling to guns is partly supported by Lee's analysis of the factors linked to homicide in rural, white America, it is also supported by research in an urban environment by criminologist Richard Wright at the University of Minnesota. Wright and colleague Scott Decker managed to track down around 80 armed robbers in St. Louis -- criminals who were on the streets, not in jail.
Under the terms of a federal grant that offered the robbers confidentiality in exchange for participation in a study -- and an agreement from the local police department not to get involved -- Wright and Decker asked the robbers why they chose particular victims and particular locales for their crimes.
While the stickups invariably involved people who were desperate for money to feed drug habits and high-roller lifestyles, Wright found that the armed robbers picked targets based less on how much money they thought they could extract, and more on feelings of animosity. Robbers told Wright and Decker that they went after people who made them feel inferior.
"If you listen to what robbers say to people, it is not a rational process" of merely extracting money, Wright said. "There is a strong element of putting people down."
According to a transcript, one robber, called Ne-Ne, told Wright, "I do the people that drive the fancy cars, and they be on they phones, they be high countin' you know -- they think they got all this. Them the ones I get."
Obama was certainly generalizing, but Wright said the idea that poverty and straitened circumstances make people resentful, and that this increases the risk they will turn to guns and violence, is a little like saying that fish swim in water.
That still doesn't mean you can say this aloud if you are running for president. Wright laughed ruefully and said: "I have been an academic long enough to know what the general public thinks about us."
Bitter Gun Owners?
Wall Street Journal
April 19, 2008; Page A10
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
In words that he has come to regret, Barack Obama opined as to why he was having a hard time winning over many blue-collar voters: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
It was a throwaway line to a private audience at a San Francisco fund-raiser. And it was made public on a liberal Internet blog, not by right-wing commentators. But Mr. Obama's opponents seized on the quote. It was evidence, they claimed, that he is "elitist," caricaturing middle Americans as gun-toting, immigrant-despising, religious rednecks – who are also deeply unhappy people. And as a contrite Mr. Obama admitted, "I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly."
The comment may or may not be an indication of Mr. Obama's real views about those ordinary Americans who've not enjoyed the full fruits of economic growth over the past decades. Yet his casual portrayal no doubt had heads nodding vigorously in assent among his supporters, and probably among many others.
That anybody would find this portrayal realistic illustrates how little some Americans know about their neighbors. And nothing reveals the truth better than the data on guns.
According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.
The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.
Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner.
Many studies over the years have shown that a belief in one's control over the environment dramatically adds to happiness. Example: a famous study of elderly nursing home patients in the 1970s. It showed dramatic improvements in life satisfaction from elements of control as seemingly insignificant as being able to care for one's plants.
A bit of evidence that self-reliance is at work among gun owners comes from the General Social Survey. It asked whether one agrees with the statement, "Those in need have to take care of themselves." In 2004, gun owners were 10 percentage points more likely than nonowners to agree (60% to 50%).
That response is not evidence that gun owners only care about themselves, however. In 2002, they were more likely to give money to charity than people without guns (83% to 75%). This charity gap doesn't reflect their somewhat higher incomes. Gun owners were also more likely to give in other ways, such as donating blood. Are gun owners unsentimental? In 2004, they were more likely than those without guns to strongly agree that they would "endure all things" for the one they loved (45% to 37%).
None of this is to dictate what gun policy should be in our nation and its communities, let alone whether gun owners deserve to be happier than those of us without firearms. Guns are an important area of debate about freedom and security, not to mention constitutionality. What we do know, however, is that contrary to the implication of Mr. Obama's comments, for many Americans, happiness often does indeed involve a warm gun.
Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of the just-published "Gross National Happiness" (Basic Books).
April 19, 2008; Page A10
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
In words that he has come to regret, Barack Obama opined as to why he was having a hard time winning over many blue-collar voters: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
It was a throwaway line to a private audience at a San Francisco fund-raiser. And it was made public on a liberal Internet blog, not by right-wing commentators. But Mr. Obama's opponents seized on the quote. It was evidence, they claimed, that he is "elitist," caricaturing middle Americans as gun-toting, immigrant-despising, religious rednecks – who are also deeply unhappy people. And as a contrite Mr. Obama admitted, "I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly."
The comment may or may not be an indication of Mr. Obama's real views about those ordinary Americans who've not enjoyed the full fruits of economic growth over the past decades. Yet his casual portrayal no doubt had heads nodding vigorously in assent among his supporters, and probably among many others.
That anybody would find this portrayal realistic illustrates how little some Americans know about their neighbors. And nothing reveals the truth better than the data on guns.
According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.
The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.
Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner.
Many studies over the years have shown that a belief in one's control over the environment dramatically adds to happiness. Example: a famous study of elderly nursing home patients in the 1970s. It showed dramatic improvements in life satisfaction from elements of control as seemingly insignificant as being able to care for one's plants.
A bit of evidence that self-reliance is at work among gun owners comes from the General Social Survey. It asked whether one agrees with the statement, "Those in need have to take care of themselves." In 2004, gun owners were 10 percentage points more likely than nonowners to agree (60% to 50%).
That response is not evidence that gun owners only care about themselves, however. In 2002, they were more likely to give money to charity than people without guns (83% to 75%). This charity gap doesn't reflect their somewhat higher incomes. Gun owners were also more likely to give in other ways, such as donating blood. Are gun owners unsentimental? In 2004, they were more likely than those without guns to strongly agree that they would "endure all things" for the one they loved (45% to 37%).
None of this is to dictate what gun policy should be in our nation and its communities, let alone whether gun owners deserve to be happier than those of us without firearms. Guns are an important area of debate about freedom and security, not to mention constitutionality. What we do know, however, is that contrary to the implication of Mr. Obama's comments, for many Americans, happiness often does indeed involve a warm gun.
Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of the just-published "Gross National Happiness" (Basic Books).
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin, Timid Supporters of Gun Rights?
It seems that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are timid supporters of gun rights. While I do not hear their entire show each day, I am a frequently listener to all three. I have heard them multiple times defending the standard conservative principles- low tax, strong military, individual responsibility- but rarely have I ever heard more than a few sentences in defense of gun rights.
Leading up to the March 18 Supreme Court hearing in the DC gun case, I do not recall any of the three talking about it. After the hearing, I also do not recall any of the three talking substantially about the case either.
If any readers think differently, let me hear from you through your comments.
Leading up to the March 18 Supreme Court hearing in the DC gun case, I do not recall any of the three talking about it. After the hearing, I also do not recall any of the three talking substantially about the case either.
If any readers think differently, let me hear from you through your comments.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
VP Cheney After The White House
If Mr. Cheney's performance at the Radio and Correspondents Dinner on April 17, 2008 is any indication, Mr. Cheney will have a job as a stand-up comedian after he leaves the White House. Listen to Mr. Cheney here.
More Bad News For Massachusetts Healthcare
New York Times
April 17, 2008
Universal Health Care to Cost Massachusetts More Than Was Budgeted
By KEVIN SACK
In its first full year, universal health coverage in Massachusetts will cost the state $153.1 million more than was budgeted, according to a supplemental budget request released Monday by Gov. Deval Patrick. The state had appropriated $472 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, but enrollment in the state’s subsidized insurance programs for low- and middle-income workers exceeded expectations. About 340,000 of the state’s estimated 600,000 uninsured have gained coverage since Massachusetts began requiring health insurance. The state had projected that 136,000 people would sign up for its Commonwealth Care policies, but 174,000 are now enrolled. Cyndi Roy, a spokeswoman for Mr. Patrick, a Democrat, said this year’s shortfall would be offset by surplus revenues in the state’s general fund. For the coming fiscal year, Mr. Patrick has requested $869 million for Commonwealth Care, but his aides have already conceded that will not be enough as enrollment continues to grow.
April 17, 2008
Universal Health Care to Cost Massachusetts More Than Was Budgeted
By KEVIN SACK
In its first full year, universal health coverage in Massachusetts will cost the state $153.1 million more than was budgeted, according to a supplemental budget request released Monday by Gov. Deval Patrick. The state had appropriated $472 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, but enrollment in the state’s subsidized insurance programs for low- and middle-income workers exceeded expectations. About 340,000 of the state’s estimated 600,000 uninsured have gained coverage since Massachusetts began requiring health insurance. The state had projected that 136,000 people would sign up for its Commonwealth Care policies, but 174,000 are now enrolled. Cyndi Roy, a spokeswoman for Mr. Patrick, a Democrat, said this year’s shortfall would be offset by surplus revenues in the state’s general fund. For the coming fiscal year, Mr. Patrick has requested $869 million for Commonwealth Care, but his aides have already conceded that will not be enough as enrollment continues to grow.
How Corrupt Are Countries?
See corruption indices here. The least corrupt nations are Denmark, Finland and New Zealand and the most corrupt are Mayanmar and Somalia. The United States came in at number 20.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, April 11, 2008
FCC , Epitome Of Nanny Statism
Every American who at least occasional looks at TV, should know by now that in February of 2009, TV will go digital, and televisions that rely on over-the-air broadcast will have to get converter boxes.
The FCC and various politicians are concerned that there will be massive disruption if the word is not spread. But I suppose the real concern is that people will flood the political system with calls asking why their televisions are no longer working. This concern is nonsense because every TV viewer would have known, and those who do not watch TV, and therefore may not have known, would not be calling about televisions not working.
The statement below by FCC Chairman Martin is astonishing for it "nannyism". Read and weep!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 8, 2008
Written Statement
Of The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
Before the United States Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to update you on the status of the digital transition.
On February 17, 2009, all full power television stations in this country will stop broadcasting in analog, and broadcast exclusively in digital, as mandated by Congress in the Digital Television and Public Safety Act of 2005. A successful digital transition will depend upon minimizing the burdens placed on consumers and maximizing their ability to benefit from it.
The DTV transition will be a historic moment in the evolution of TV. Television viewers will be able to enjoy movie quality picture and sound and potentially new programming choices. It also will allow us to significantly improve public safety communications and will usher in a new era of advanced wireless services such as the widespread deployment of wireless broadband.
According to recent data from the Consumer Electronics Association and the National Association of Broadcasters, consumer awareness of the transition has grown. It is up 80% from 41% consumer awareness in August 2006 to 74% consumer awareness in January 2008, according to CEA, and NAB reports it has more than doubled since 2007. And recent surveys published by NAB and Consumers Union found 79% and 64% of consumers were aware of the transition respectively. More recently (in March), the Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) issued the findings to a survey it conducted in February indicating that consumer awareness of the transition increased from 51% to 76% in just three months (November 2007 to February 2008). In addition APTS finds that: “Roughly 62 percent of ... over-the-air consuming households who are aware of the transition indicated that they would buy a converter box or digital TV set between now and when the transition takes effect...” which is up dramatically since November 2006, when only “28 percent of over-the-air households said they would take those options.”
That more and more viewers are aware of the transition is a step in the right direction. However, we still have more work to do. Specifically, the Consumers Union also found that 74% of consumers have “major misconceptions” about the impact of the transition on them. In other words, too many Americans remain confused about what they need to do to prepare for it. And APTS finds that “17.5 percent of over-the-air consumers who are aware of the transition ‘don’t know’ what they will do and roughly 10 percent said they would ‘do nothing.’” Taken together, these surveys are valuable research tools to better guide our education and outreach efforts over the next ten months.
This recently released data also demonstrates that facilitating a successful DTV transition is an enormous undertaking. And it is one which no single entity, public or private, can achieve alone. Rather it requires the commitment and cooperation of government, industry and consumer groups. We have made that commitment and are actively working with these important stakeholders.
In February, I participated in an event marking one year before the transition at a local Best Buy store which sells digital televisions and is currently selling digital to analog converter boxes. Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, Meredith Baker and I were joined there by top representatives of the nation’s broadcasters, cable operators, and the consumer electronics industry. We are working together, along with others inside and outside of government, in an unprecedented public-private partnership to educate consumers throughout the country. Today’s hearing is a welcome opportunity to discuss our work with all of our DTV partners both in terms of outreach and education and necessary regulatory steps to ensure all Americans can share the benefits of this historic digital transition.
UPDATE ON BROADCASTERS TRANSITION TO DIGITAL
Last August, the Commission adopted the final DTV table of allotments based on the channel elections made by the full power broadcast stations. This order provided virtually all (over 99%) of the television stations across the country with their final channel assignments for broadcasting in digital following the DTV transition. By finalizing broadcasters’ channel allotments, the Commission helped ensure that broadcasters could begin making final preparations for their own conversion.
Nearly two-thirds of full power stations (1180) will remain on the same channel they are currently using for digital service. Most of these stations, over 1030, have completed construction and are already providing full service to their viewers. The remainder, roughly 150, are working on completing construction of their full service facilities. One-third of full power stations, (roughly 635), are changing channels for their operation after the transition and are currently filing construction permit applications, ordering equipment, and scheduling tower crews.
In December of 2007, we also concluded the Third DTV Periodic Review. This Order adopted the procedures and rules to guide broadcasters through the end of the transition. Among other important decisions, this order adopted the interference standard for post-transition applications and forecast the date, later this year, when the Commission will consider requests from broadcasters to expand their service area.
In the Third DTV Periodic Review, the Commission recognized that stations will need flexibility to complete the transition. Consequently we adopted procedures that will allow broadcasters to adjust their buildout according to their needs and the needs of their viewers. For example, we will consider requests from broadcasters that find it necessary to reduce analog service before the transition date, but they will be required to inform their viewers well in advance of any reductions.
In addition to getting the proper rules in place, it is important that broadcasters’ progress be carefully monitored. Accordingly, to enable the Commission to closely track broadcasters’ progress toward completing their transition, we required each station to file a report on the status of the construction of its post transition facility. All stations have submitted the first such report, and over 1,000 indicated that they were completely finished with their DTV transition. Broadcasters are required to update the Commission with any changes to their status as events warrant. In the Third Periodic, the Commission committed to send Congress a full report on broadcasters’ DTV build-out in August. Broadcasters that have not completed their transition must report again by October 20, 2008.
CARRIAGE OF DIGITAL SIGNALS
Much of the focus of our consumer education efforts has been on the approximately 15% of the homes who rely on over-the-air broadcast signals. These efforts have presumed that subscribers to cable and satellite will continue to be able to receive digital broadcast signals just as they do analog broadcast signals today. It is critical to note, however, that our rules needed to be modified to clarify that cable and satellite companies were required to carry digital broadcast signals to their customers just as they do the analog broadcast signals today. Our goal with both of these Orders was not to expand carriage but rather to ensure that the broadcasters’ switch from analog to digital was not used as an excuse to stop carrying the broadcasters’ signal in a format that could be viewed by all subscribers, including analog cable subscribers.
Last fall, the Commission adopted an order that guarantees that analog cable subscribers will not be left in the cold once broadcasters ceased broadcasting in analog. Specifically, the Commission took action to ensure that after the transition, cable operators will continue to make every broadcast station’s signal viewable, as the statute requires. As a result, we significantly reduced the number of Americans potentially needing a converter box to watch broadcast stations post-transition. Making sure the almost 35 million households that subscribe to analog cable will be able to continue to watch broadcast television after the transition as they did before allows us to focus our energies on assisting the nearly 15 million households that rely exclusively on over-the-air signals.
The Commission recently adopted an order that will enable satellite subscribers to receive digital broadcast signals, as well. The law had required that when a satellite operator chooses to carry any local broadcast signals, it must carry all full power local broadcast signals in that market. The item recently adopted clarifies that, in such a “local-into-local” market, where a full power television station is broadcasting only in digital, the satellite operator must carry that digital signal upon request. This clarification is critical to ensuring that satellite customers, like cable customers, will continue to receive the same broadcast stations they saw the day before the transition on the day after the transition.
ENFORCEMENT
The Commission’s DTV-related enforcement efforts have focused on protecting consumers from unknowingly buying televisions that won’t receive broadcast stations following the transition. Specifically, we are enforcing three rules: 1) the requirement to label any remaining televisions with analog-only tuners; 2) the prohibition on the importation and shipment of television receivers without integrated digital tuners; and 3) the requirement that the V-Chip functions with the digital technology.
With respect to the Commission’s labeling requirement, the Commission has, as of April 7, 2008, inspected 2176 retail stores and 36 websites and issued 347 citations notifying retailers of violations for failing to comply with our requirements. Because retailers are not licensees, we must give them a citation prior to issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL). In July 2007, we circulated to the Commissioners’ offices NALs against seven of the largest retailers. In October 2007, we circulated another seven NALs against retailers. All 14 of these NALs, which contain fines totaling nearly $5 million in the aggregate, are currently scheduled to be considered at our April open meeting later this week. In addition to these 14 NALs, the Enforcement Bureau has issued another seven NALs worth an additional $104,000. It is my hope that through our vigorous enforcement actions, retailers will take concrete actions to avoid consumer confusion as the digital transition draws near. In addition to our labeling investigations, we are continuing to ensure that no manufacturers are importing and shipping analog-only television receivers and equipment. We have issued NALs against two companies - Syntax Brillian Corp. (approx. $2.9 million) and Regent USA, Inc. ($63,650) - for apparent violation of our rules in this area. One of these companies has already paid the fine and a forfeiture order with respect to the other company is scheduled to be considered at the Commission's April agenda meeting. In March, we circulated an NAL against an additional manufacturer and this item is also on the agenda for the April meeting.
Finally, we are ensuring that the digital tuners comply with the V-Chip regulations. As you know, the Commission’s rules require digital television manufacturers to include the V-Chip in their equipment and to ensure that their devices can adjust to changes in the content advisory system. We began investigating allegations that some manufacturers were not complying with our rules. As a result of these investigations we released an NAL against Funai Corporation. In October 2007, we circulated NALs against an additional seven manufacturers. Nine NALs, which contain fines totaling over $6.5 million, are scheduled to be considered at the Commission’s April agenda meeting later this week.
In addition, FCC Field agents soon will begin to visit retailer stores to assess their employee training and consumer education efforts regarding the DTV transition.
Swift enforcement of all our DTV-related rules is critical to protecting consumers and reducing potential confusion. Our activities in this area will continue to be a priority during the next 10 months.
CONSUMER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
In order to educate consumers properly, all parties involved in the transition - - the FCC, NTIA, the broadcasters, the cable industry, satellite, manufacturers, retailers, consumer groups - -need to work together to educate consumers.
I commend the industry for the consumer education campaigns that they have initiated. Specifically, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) launched a $700 million campaign that includes, among other things, television spots, 30 minute education programs about DTV and a 100-day countdown to the February 17, 2009 deadline. In addition, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) launched a $200 million campaign that includes, among other things, sending customer communication “tool kits” to all their cable systems nationwide, and distributing brochures about the transition at community and public events.
In February, the Commission adopted an Order that requires commercial and noncommercial full power broadcasters to provide on-air information to their viewers about the DTV transition by compliance with one of three alternative sets of rules. Although the sets of requirements are distinct, all require PSAs and the Commission found that they each entail a similar level of commitment and engagement on the part of broadcasters. For example, where the first option calls for more frequent PSAs, the second calls for longer ones, and the third for the same total amount of education but more flexibility regarding PSA length. All plans require quarterly reporting of both mandatory and voluntary outreach and education efforts. This will allow the Commission not only to monitor compliance, but also to stay informed of the creative approaches being taken by disparate broadcasters all over the country, and continue to coordinate transition education efforts.
The item also requires MVPDs to provide monthly inserts about the DTV transition in their customer billing statements. Phone companies participating in the Low Income Federal Universal Service Program also must provide notice of the transition to their low income customers and potential customers. The item also requires manufacturers of television receivers and related devices to provide notice to consumers of the transition’s impact on that equipment. In addition, we require the partners listed on the Commission’s dtv.gov website such as NAB, NCTA, CEA and CERC, as well as the winners of the 700 MHZ auction, to provide the Commission with quarterly updates on their consumer education efforts. Finally, the item states that we will work with the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) to ensure that the retailers participating in the converter box program are appropriately training their employees and informing consumers.
In addition to our DTV Consumer Education item, the Commission is actively and directly promoting consumer awareness of the upcoming transition through its own education and outreach efforts.
The FCC's consumer outreach effort places an emphasis on consumers who receive their television signals "over-the-air" and on those who are hard to reach and may be unaware of the upcoming transition, including senior citizens; non-English speaking and minority communities; people with disabilities; low-income individuals; and people living in rural and tribal areas.
We have been forging partnerships, participating in media events, and attending conferences, to get the word out.
For example, in the beginning of July, DTV education posters will be displayed in all 34,000 post offices across the nation. The United States Postal Service estimates that an average of 9 million people pass through their post office lobbies each day.
We have also secured commitments from 25 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to display DTV materials in 1100 Department of Motor Vehicle locations. Specifically, we have secured commitments with Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
The FCC also distributed DTV transition awareness information that is being provided to all federal government employees. We estimate that this message will reach over 2.5 million federal employees throughout the country.
In addition, we have identified and contacted 150 mayoral offices in areas of the country with high concentrations of over-the-air households, to help them educate consumers in their communities. These efforts have thus far resulted in 29 cities making specific commitments ranging from posting and distributing DTV information in public locations and at events and conferences, to including information in newsletters and other publications, and establishing links to our dtv.gov website, and other efforts unique to their communities. For example, the Mayor’s Office in Great Falls, Montana has requested 21,000 DTV flyers from us to send to their utility customers along with their utility bills.
We also reached out to the country’s major professional sports leagues and have received offers to help promote the transition. The National Football League (NFL), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Baseball (MLB) and NASCAR all agreed to help raise awareness of the transition among their fans. For example, the NHL has agreed to run ten 30 second PSAs per day until the transition date on their cable channel the NHL Network.
Since the last time I appeared before you, Congress has allocated additional money to the Commission to spend on our consumer education efforts. We intend to put these resources to good use as these additional funds will allow the Commission to expand upon its current consumer outreach and education plan.
In February, a contract was awarded to Ketchum to support a broad range of consumer education services, including media services, publications, and distribution, that will assist and complement the FCC's ongoing work on educating all American consumers about the digital television transition. Ketchum has provided design recommendations to make our DTV messaging, including DTV.gov, more consumer-friendly. Other efforts through Ketchum will include billboards in targeted markets, grocery store outreach, and production of television and radio Public Service Announcements. Ketchum arranged a Satellite Media Tour in February on local television news around the country in states such as Hawaii, Missouri, Texas and Florida to spread the message about the transition. From those seventeen interviews, which were aired between February 22 and March 2, Ketchum reported more than one million audience impressions. Ketchum will be arranging similar interviews throughout the transition to continue our consumer education efforts.
As I mentioned, we also know that some consumers will be disproportionately impacted by the transition or are harder to reach than the population at large. Therefore we have been taking specific steps to reach these groups. I would like to take a few minutes to describe our efforts targeted at each of these five communities.
Senior Citizens: Senior citizens are more likely to have analog television sets and rely exclusively on over- the-air broadcasting. We have partnered with organizations that specifically serve this harder to reach population. Last September, we presented two DTV education sessions at the national AARP convention in Boston, and we have plans to make similar presentations at this year’s convention in Washington, DC. In addition, late last fall, I was interviewed about the transition on AARP radio which is broadcast on 170 outlets nationwide reaching more than 1,000,000 people. I was also interviewed for, and quoted in the January/February issue of AARP’s widely circulated Magazine, which has a circulation of 23.5 million. AARP is also regularly including stories on the DTV Transition in their Monthly Bulletins. Further, AARP will be distributing DTV information at a series of eight “road show” events they will hold around the country from June to September of this year.
In addition to working with AARP, we have also been working with other senior organizations as well. For example, I taped a PSA for Retirement Living TV which reaches nearly 30 million homes nationwide. Also I participated in a story about the transition for the Erickson Tribune, which is distributed to residents in their retirement communities and is read by more than 6 million people. We are also pleased to be partnering with The National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) to cosponsor DTV awareness sessions during the coming year in conjunction with their 655 area offices throughout the nation. This is a useful opportunity to educate caregivers, social workers and others who care for the elderly in their communities.
In addition to working with these organizations, we have and continue to set up partnerships with many State Aging Offices. As a result of our efforts, 26 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have agreed to conduct DTV outreach with the FCC in varying capacities, including distributing DTV information at conferences and events.
Commission staff located in field offices throughout the country are also working on DTV transition education and outreach. Starting last year, FCC field agents have held DTV Awareness Sessions and distributed information to senior centers, libraries and other local venues frequented by older Americans. Through the work of our field agents, we have been able to reach these consumers in a total of 44 states – ranging from Alaska to Florida. We have already distributed information to over 3033 senior centers, and 985 community centers, which frequently include large numbers of seniors, and given nearly 589 presentations with 113 more scheduled in the days ahead.
The FCC also held a DTV Workshop focusing on seniors at FCC Headquarters on November 8, 2007. It consisted of two panels discussing the transition’s effect on seniors plus exhibits hosted by other government and industry organizations. Based on the discussions and the relationships formed at that Workshop, we reached out to faith-based organizations, provided them with consumer education materials on the transition, and continue to follow up with them to answer questions on the transition. And I'm pleased to announce that on May 28, 2008, along with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, we will be hosting a DTV Town Hall Meeting for seniors in DC. We are working in conjunction with AARP, the DC Office of Aging, the NAB, and the National Caucus and Center for the Black Aged. The expected turnout is over 300 seniors from the District’s Aging community.
Non-English Speakers and Minorities: We also know that the Hispanic community disproportionately relies on over-the-air television. Of the approximately 14.3 million broadcast-only homes, about 16.5% are headed by persons of Hispanic origin.
The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has agreed to join the Commission in conducting DTV awareness sessions at member chambers in the 15 U.S cities with the largest number of Hispanic TV homes. In addition, we have partnered with Univision to hold DTV awareness sessions at Town Hall meetings designed to educate members of its Spanish speaking audience. Through these partnerships, we will reach cities that are home to over 80% of Hispanic communities.
Additionally, we have taped several on-air interviews regarding the digital transition for Univision’s news and public affairs programs airing both in local markets and nationally. These interviews were done by Keyla Hernandez-Ulloa the Commission staffer hired to spearhead outreach to the Hispanic community. We have been discussing the switch to digital on other Hispanic media outlets as well. For example, I did an interview with the Hispanic Communications Network, which produces material for radio, television, print and Internet, that will be distributed to its 230 member radio network in the United States and Puerto Rico.
We have also been working with other foreign language media outlets as well. To that end we have partnered with KTSF, a major Asian TV station in San Francisco. They have distributed 5,000 English and Chinese DTV one-page flyers at their booth during the Chinese New Year celebration events in late February. Approximately 100,000 people attended this festival. Also in conjunction with the California Public Utilities Commission, on May 22, 2008, we are participating with KTSF on a DTV educational panel for over 100 community leaders in San Francisco.
The FCC held a DTV Workshop focusing on non-English speakers and minorities on December 4, 2007. As a result of that Workshop, we will be working with the American Libraries Association to conduct a nationally available Internet seminar or “webinar” about the DTV transition today for librarians in the Webjunction Spanish Outreach Program. These librarians provide library services to Spanish speakers. Also, as a result of input received at the workshop, we translated our DTV one-page flyer into Hmong and Arabic (in addition to English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, French and Russian).
In addition, we plan to participate in a number of national conventions representing non-English speaking and minority consumers in 2008. They include the 78th Annual Conference for League of United Latin American Citizens, the Annual National Hispanic Leadership Conference and the National Council of La Raza Conference, the NAACP Convention, the National Urban League Conference and the Organization of Chinese Americans National Conference.
People with Disabilities: The Commission is continuing a multi-faceted approach in informing people with disabilities about the DTV transition. On February 28, 2008, we hosted a DTV Workshop dedicated to issues facing people with disabilities. The program featured panelists from numerous organizations whose missions are to work directly with, and advocate on behalf of, individuals with hearing, vision, speech, physical, and intellectual disabilities. It elicited several concrete suggestions that we have implemented.
For instance, in response to the panelists’ suggestion that we develop “how to” information related to the transition, we have drafted a step-by-step guide on how to install a digital-to-analog converter box, and posted it on the Commission’s DTV Web site, www.DTV.gov. Similarly, in response to general questions at the Workshop concerning the availability of video description (descriptions for people who are blind or have other vision disabilities about the setting and/or action in a program when information about these visual elements is not contained in the audio portion of the program), we are in the process of drafting a consumer advisory specifically addressing that issue.
Another suggestion from panelists was that we utilize national service organizations to inform consumers about the transition. Indeed, we have initiated a partnership with the Corporation for National and Community Service, and with the United States Department of Agriculture’s 4-H office. Finally, we will build upon our workshop by speaking directly to organizations that work with and on behalf of people with disabilities, at their meetings and conferences. For example, we are planning to attend the Summer Quarterly Meeting in Seattle of the National Council on Disabilities, which was represented at the February 28 Workshop.
I am also pleased to report that www.DTV.gov now features a DTV educational video in American Sign Language for the deaf and hard of hearing community. Our most commonly utilized publications are available in Braille and audio format and all of our fact sheets and advisories are available in large print. In addition, we have two specific publications addressing DTV and closed captioning, “Closed Captioning for Digital Television,” and Closed Captioning and Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes for Viewing Free Over-the-Air Programming on Analog Televisions.” The Commission also has a dedicated email box for closed captioning questions at closedcaptioning@fcc.gov.
Commission staff continues to attend conferences to distribute DTV educational materials to people with disabilities. For example, the FCC has attended and provided DTV materials at the National Black Deaf Advocates Conference, the Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities Conference and the Emergency Planning and Response for Special Needs and Disabilities Conference.
In all, we are collaborating broadly with disability advocacy groups and outreach organizations. For instance, the Hearing Loss Association of America (“HLAA”) is already linking to our DTV informational materials on its website, which receives approximately one million hits per month. In addition, HLAA has committed to publish later this spring an article on DTV and closed captioning in Hearing Loss Magazine, which is estimated to reach a readership of 200,000 people. Likewise, later this spring the article will be published in the “Blue Book” Resource Guide of Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (“TDI”), with a readership of up to an estimated 100,000 people, and eventually posted online at TDI’s website, which receives approximately 88,000 hits per month.
Furthermore, HLAA has 200 local and regional chapters around the country, and we plan to conduct DTV Awareness Sessions at their monthly meetings throughout the course of the year. We recently conducted one in Yuma, Arizona on March 11, one in New Orleans on March 15, and we have another 16 scheduled through the fall. We also plan to utilize our Enforcement Bureau's Field Office staff and CGB staff to distribute DTV informational and educational materials at HLAA's "Walk4Hearing" events across the country taking place this spring through the fall.
Low Income Consumers: The Commission is also taking specific steps to inform low-income consumers about the transition to all digital broadcasting. We have forged a partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services to assist the FCC in disseminating DTV material to target populations, including low-income consumers. HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration) has forwarded FCC DTV information to approximately 4,000 grantee organizations, and the message also went out to groups like the state Primary Care Offices and Primary Care Associations and the National Association for Community Health Centers - organizations which represent many more non-Federally funded health centers and clinics nationwide. HRSA asked these organizations to post and distribute our DTV flyer in their clinics and to distribute information to patients. ACF (Administration for Children and Families) is distributing information through their 1,600 Head Start grantees, covering more than 18,000 centers around the country. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is distributing DTV flyers to approximately 50,000 individuals each month who call requesting information. Other HHS agencies are also distributing our flyers, displaying our posters and linking to our dtv.gov Web page.
We have contacted social worker associations in each of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and thus far have received commitments from over 20 of them to assist us in getting the word out about the DTV transition. These include publishing DTV information in their monthly newsletters, distributing DTV materials at events and conferences, and establishing conspicuous links to our website, www.dtv.gov., so that visitors to their web pages can obtain more detailed information about the DTV transition and the steps they may need to take to prepare for it. We have also reached out to representatives of the state health departments in each of the 50 states and U.S. territories, and thus far have received commitments from 8 of them to assist in distributing DTV awareness materials to the consumers they interact with on a regular basis. These include, for example, posting DTV materials in their service and waiting areas, distributing our fact sheets and other publications at events attended by consumers, inserting DTV information in mailings to consumers, and establishing conspicuous links to our website, www.dtv.gov so that visitors to their web pages can obtain more detailed information about the DTV transition and the steps they may need to take to prepare for it.
In late February, we posted a simplified DTV one-page flyer on our Web site, and have offered it for distribution to all our partners. This was developed in response to requests for a more streamlined, non technical, and easy to read DTV informational flyer.
In addition, on April 1, 2008, the FCC sponsored a DTV Consumer Education Workshop focusing on reaching low-income consumers. As a result of our panel discussions, we received several positive suggestions and offers of assistance from our panelists on how best to reach members of their constituencies with information on the DTV transition. We will be providing the organizations represented with DTV informational materials such as our posters, flyers, and fact sheets that can be displayed at their events and facilities throughout the country. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association offered to provide DTV information to low income consumers who sign up for their program. We also received a suggestion to submit translated DTV articles to local foreign language publications in cities that have high concentrations of foreign language speakers. Often, these publications are the primary source of news and public interest information for these consumers. In addition, as noted earlier, all eligible telecommunications carriers (“ETCs”) that receive federal universal service funds are now required to provide DTV transition information in the monthly bills of their Lifeline/Link-Up customers.
Rural and Tribal Consumers: The Commission is also taking specific steps to inform people living in rural areas and on tribal lands about the transition to all digital broadcasting. For example, the Commission recently established a partnership with the United States Department of Agriculture’s 4-H office. On April 1, 2008, the FCC, with NTIA and USDA, participated in the annual 4-H Youth leadership conference and presented two “Train the Trainer” seminars to approximately 100 youth members of 4-H chapters from the various states. FCC staff provided information which these youth representatives and their colleagues back home can use to conduct awareness sessions in their communities. In addition, each participating representative will receive a “DTV Outreach Tool Kit” containing more extensive materials for conducting their outreach sessions. We understand that the DTV outreach that will be performed by these young community leaders will assist them in meeting the community service requirements of their 4-H membership. Another important component of our partnership with USDA is the placement of DTV transition educational materials at state and county fairs throughout the country via sponsoring 4-H chapters and local extension service professionals.
We also have forged a partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This collaboration has resulted in the distribution of DTV materials throughout Indian Country, utilizing all 50 of their nationwide area offices. Commission staff has attended and provided DTV materials at the National Conference of American Indians, and the Rural TeleCon Conference, with many additional events planned for this year such as participation in the National Association of Development Organizations in Alaska Conference and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Annual Conference.
So far this year, we have presented at the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) Annual Impact Week, in Arlington, VA and have distributed DTV materials at NCAI’s Executive Council Meeting, in Washington, DC. We are also planning to sponsor an Indian Telecommunications Initiative (ITI) in Salt Lake City later this year.
Finally, on January 31, 2008, we held a workshop at Commission headquarters focused on reaching rural consumers and consumers living on tribal lands. We received many useful suggestions at this workshop on how to better reach these communities. For instance, our DTV one page informational flyer is being translated into Navajo, one of the most-spoken Native American languages in the United States.
CONCLUSION
The Commission is devoting significant resources to facilitate a smooth transition. Nearly every Bureau and Office at the Commission has been involved in this effort including our field offices throughout the country.
We intend to take whatever actions are necessary to minimize the potential burden the digital transition could impose on consumers and maximize their ability to benefit from it. The next 10 months will undoubtedly be challenging. Nevertheless, it is my hope that through the combined efforts of government, industry and advocacy groups American consumers will reap the rewards that the digital transition has to offer.
The FCC and various politicians are concerned that there will be massive disruption if the word is not spread. But I suppose the real concern is that people will flood the political system with calls asking why their televisions are no longer working. This concern is nonsense because every TV viewer would have known, and those who do not watch TV, and therefore may not have known, would not be calling about televisions not working.
The statement below by FCC Chairman Martin is astonishing for it "nannyism". Read and weep!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 8, 2008
Written Statement
Of The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
Before the United States Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to update you on the status of the digital transition.
On February 17, 2009, all full power television stations in this country will stop broadcasting in analog, and broadcast exclusively in digital, as mandated by Congress in the Digital Television and Public Safety Act of 2005. A successful digital transition will depend upon minimizing the burdens placed on consumers and maximizing their ability to benefit from it.
The DTV transition will be a historic moment in the evolution of TV. Television viewers will be able to enjoy movie quality picture and sound and potentially new programming choices. It also will allow us to significantly improve public safety communications and will usher in a new era of advanced wireless services such as the widespread deployment of wireless broadband.
According to recent data from the Consumer Electronics Association and the National Association of Broadcasters, consumer awareness of the transition has grown. It is up 80% from 41% consumer awareness in August 2006 to 74% consumer awareness in January 2008, according to CEA, and NAB reports it has more than doubled since 2007. And recent surveys published by NAB and Consumers Union found 79% and 64% of consumers were aware of the transition respectively. More recently (in March), the Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) issued the findings to a survey it conducted in February indicating that consumer awareness of the transition increased from 51% to 76% in just three months (November 2007 to February 2008). In addition APTS finds that: “Roughly 62 percent of ... over-the-air consuming households who are aware of the transition indicated that they would buy a converter box or digital TV set between now and when the transition takes effect...” which is up dramatically since November 2006, when only “28 percent of over-the-air households said they would take those options.”
That more and more viewers are aware of the transition is a step in the right direction. However, we still have more work to do. Specifically, the Consumers Union also found that 74% of consumers have “major misconceptions” about the impact of the transition on them. In other words, too many Americans remain confused about what they need to do to prepare for it. And APTS finds that “17.5 percent of over-the-air consumers who are aware of the transition ‘don’t know’ what they will do and roughly 10 percent said they would ‘do nothing.’” Taken together, these surveys are valuable research tools to better guide our education and outreach efforts over the next ten months.
This recently released data also demonstrates that facilitating a successful DTV transition is an enormous undertaking. And it is one which no single entity, public or private, can achieve alone. Rather it requires the commitment and cooperation of government, industry and consumer groups. We have made that commitment and are actively working with these important stakeholders.
In February, I participated in an event marking one year before the transition at a local Best Buy store which sells digital televisions and is currently selling digital to analog converter boxes. Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, Meredith Baker and I were joined there by top representatives of the nation’s broadcasters, cable operators, and the consumer electronics industry. We are working together, along with others inside and outside of government, in an unprecedented public-private partnership to educate consumers throughout the country. Today’s hearing is a welcome opportunity to discuss our work with all of our DTV partners both in terms of outreach and education and necessary regulatory steps to ensure all Americans can share the benefits of this historic digital transition.
UPDATE ON BROADCASTERS TRANSITION TO DIGITAL
Last August, the Commission adopted the final DTV table of allotments based on the channel elections made by the full power broadcast stations. This order provided virtually all (over 99%) of the television stations across the country with their final channel assignments for broadcasting in digital following the DTV transition. By finalizing broadcasters’ channel allotments, the Commission helped ensure that broadcasters could begin making final preparations for their own conversion.
Nearly two-thirds of full power stations (1180) will remain on the same channel they are currently using for digital service. Most of these stations, over 1030, have completed construction and are already providing full service to their viewers. The remainder, roughly 150, are working on completing construction of their full service facilities. One-third of full power stations, (roughly 635), are changing channels for their operation after the transition and are currently filing construction permit applications, ordering equipment, and scheduling tower crews.
In December of 2007, we also concluded the Third DTV Periodic Review. This Order adopted the procedures and rules to guide broadcasters through the end of the transition. Among other important decisions, this order adopted the interference standard for post-transition applications and forecast the date, later this year, when the Commission will consider requests from broadcasters to expand their service area.
In the Third DTV Periodic Review, the Commission recognized that stations will need flexibility to complete the transition. Consequently we adopted procedures that will allow broadcasters to adjust their buildout according to their needs and the needs of their viewers. For example, we will consider requests from broadcasters that find it necessary to reduce analog service before the transition date, but they will be required to inform their viewers well in advance of any reductions.
In addition to getting the proper rules in place, it is important that broadcasters’ progress be carefully monitored. Accordingly, to enable the Commission to closely track broadcasters’ progress toward completing their transition, we required each station to file a report on the status of the construction of its post transition facility. All stations have submitted the first such report, and over 1,000 indicated that they were completely finished with their DTV transition. Broadcasters are required to update the Commission with any changes to their status as events warrant. In the Third Periodic, the Commission committed to send Congress a full report on broadcasters’ DTV build-out in August. Broadcasters that have not completed their transition must report again by October 20, 2008.
CARRIAGE OF DIGITAL SIGNALS
Much of the focus of our consumer education efforts has been on the approximately 15% of the homes who rely on over-the-air broadcast signals. These efforts have presumed that subscribers to cable and satellite will continue to be able to receive digital broadcast signals just as they do analog broadcast signals today. It is critical to note, however, that our rules needed to be modified to clarify that cable and satellite companies were required to carry digital broadcast signals to their customers just as they do the analog broadcast signals today. Our goal with both of these Orders was not to expand carriage but rather to ensure that the broadcasters’ switch from analog to digital was not used as an excuse to stop carrying the broadcasters’ signal in a format that could be viewed by all subscribers, including analog cable subscribers.
Last fall, the Commission adopted an order that guarantees that analog cable subscribers will not be left in the cold once broadcasters ceased broadcasting in analog. Specifically, the Commission took action to ensure that after the transition, cable operators will continue to make every broadcast station’s signal viewable, as the statute requires. As a result, we significantly reduced the number of Americans potentially needing a converter box to watch broadcast stations post-transition. Making sure the almost 35 million households that subscribe to analog cable will be able to continue to watch broadcast television after the transition as they did before allows us to focus our energies on assisting the nearly 15 million households that rely exclusively on over-the-air signals.
The Commission recently adopted an order that will enable satellite subscribers to receive digital broadcast signals, as well. The law had required that when a satellite operator chooses to carry any local broadcast signals, it must carry all full power local broadcast signals in that market. The item recently adopted clarifies that, in such a “local-into-local” market, where a full power television station is broadcasting only in digital, the satellite operator must carry that digital signal upon request. This clarification is critical to ensuring that satellite customers, like cable customers, will continue to receive the same broadcast stations they saw the day before the transition on the day after the transition.
ENFORCEMENT
The Commission’s DTV-related enforcement efforts have focused on protecting consumers from unknowingly buying televisions that won’t receive broadcast stations following the transition. Specifically, we are enforcing three rules: 1) the requirement to label any remaining televisions with analog-only tuners; 2) the prohibition on the importation and shipment of television receivers without integrated digital tuners; and 3) the requirement that the V-Chip functions with the digital technology.
With respect to the Commission’s labeling requirement, the Commission has, as of April 7, 2008, inspected 2176 retail stores and 36 websites and issued 347 citations notifying retailers of violations for failing to comply with our requirements. Because retailers are not licensees, we must give them a citation prior to issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL). In July 2007, we circulated to the Commissioners’ offices NALs against seven of the largest retailers. In October 2007, we circulated another seven NALs against retailers. All 14 of these NALs, which contain fines totaling nearly $5 million in the aggregate, are currently scheduled to be considered at our April open meeting later this week. In addition to these 14 NALs, the Enforcement Bureau has issued another seven NALs worth an additional $104,000. It is my hope that through our vigorous enforcement actions, retailers will take concrete actions to avoid consumer confusion as the digital transition draws near. In addition to our labeling investigations, we are continuing to ensure that no manufacturers are importing and shipping analog-only television receivers and equipment. We have issued NALs against two companies - Syntax Brillian Corp. (approx. $2.9 million) and Regent USA, Inc. ($63,650) - for apparent violation of our rules in this area. One of these companies has already paid the fine and a forfeiture order with respect to the other company is scheduled to be considered at the Commission's April agenda meeting. In March, we circulated an NAL against an additional manufacturer and this item is also on the agenda for the April meeting.
Finally, we are ensuring that the digital tuners comply with the V-Chip regulations. As you know, the Commission’s rules require digital television manufacturers to include the V-Chip in their equipment and to ensure that their devices can adjust to changes in the content advisory system. We began investigating allegations that some manufacturers were not complying with our rules. As a result of these investigations we released an NAL against Funai Corporation. In October 2007, we circulated NALs against an additional seven manufacturers. Nine NALs, which contain fines totaling over $6.5 million, are scheduled to be considered at the Commission’s April agenda meeting later this week.
In addition, FCC Field agents soon will begin to visit retailer stores to assess their employee training and consumer education efforts regarding the DTV transition.
Swift enforcement of all our DTV-related rules is critical to protecting consumers and reducing potential confusion. Our activities in this area will continue to be a priority during the next 10 months.
CONSUMER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
In order to educate consumers properly, all parties involved in the transition - - the FCC, NTIA, the broadcasters, the cable industry, satellite, manufacturers, retailers, consumer groups - -need to work together to educate consumers.
I commend the industry for the consumer education campaigns that they have initiated. Specifically, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) launched a $700 million campaign that includes, among other things, television spots, 30 minute education programs about DTV and a 100-day countdown to the February 17, 2009 deadline. In addition, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) launched a $200 million campaign that includes, among other things, sending customer communication “tool kits” to all their cable systems nationwide, and distributing brochures about the transition at community and public events.
In February, the Commission adopted an Order that requires commercial and noncommercial full power broadcasters to provide on-air information to their viewers about the DTV transition by compliance with one of three alternative sets of rules. Although the sets of requirements are distinct, all require PSAs and the Commission found that they each entail a similar level of commitment and engagement on the part of broadcasters. For example, where the first option calls for more frequent PSAs, the second calls for longer ones, and the third for the same total amount of education but more flexibility regarding PSA length. All plans require quarterly reporting of both mandatory and voluntary outreach and education efforts. This will allow the Commission not only to monitor compliance, but also to stay informed of the creative approaches being taken by disparate broadcasters all over the country, and continue to coordinate transition education efforts.
The item also requires MVPDs to provide monthly inserts about the DTV transition in their customer billing statements. Phone companies participating in the Low Income Federal Universal Service Program also must provide notice of the transition to their low income customers and potential customers. The item also requires manufacturers of television receivers and related devices to provide notice to consumers of the transition’s impact on that equipment. In addition, we require the partners listed on the Commission’s dtv.gov website such as NAB, NCTA, CEA and CERC, as well as the winners of the 700 MHZ auction, to provide the Commission with quarterly updates on their consumer education efforts. Finally, the item states that we will work with the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) to ensure that the retailers participating in the converter box program are appropriately training their employees and informing consumers.
In addition to our DTV Consumer Education item, the Commission is actively and directly promoting consumer awareness of the upcoming transition through its own education and outreach efforts.
The FCC's consumer outreach effort places an emphasis on consumers who receive their television signals "over-the-air" and on those who are hard to reach and may be unaware of the upcoming transition, including senior citizens; non-English speaking and minority communities; people with disabilities; low-income individuals; and people living in rural and tribal areas.
We have been forging partnerships, participating in media events, and attending conferences, to get the word out.
For example, in the beginning of July, DTV education posters will be displayed in all 34,000 post offices across the nation. The United States Postal Service estimates that an average of 9 million people pass through their post office lobbies each day.
We have also secured commitments from 25 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to display DTV materials in 1100 Department of Motor Vehicle locations. Specifically, we have secured commitments with Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
The FCC also distributed DTV transition awareness information that is being provided to all federal government employees. We estimate that this message will reach over 2.5 million federal employees throughout the country.
In addition, we have identified and contacted 150 mayoral offices in areas of the country with high concentrations of over-the-air households, to help them educate consumers in their communities. These efforts have thus far resulted in 29 cities making specific commitments ranging from posting and distributing DTV information in public locations and at events and conferences, to including information in newsletters and other publications, and establishing links to our dtv.gov website, and other efforts unique to their communities. For example, the Mayor’s Office in Great Falls, Montana has requested 21,000 DTV flyers from us to send to their utility customers along with their utility bills.
We also reached out to the country’s major professional sports leagues and have received offers to help promote the transition. The National Football League (NFL), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Baseball (MLB) and NASCAR all agreed to help raise awareness of the transition among their fans. For example, the NHL has agreed to run ten 30 second PSAs per day until the transition date on their cable channel the NHL Network.
Since the last time I appeared before you, Congress has allocated additional money to the Commission to spend on our consumer education efforts. We intend to put these resources to good use as these additional funds will allow the Commission to expand upon its current consumer outreach and education plan.
In February, a contract was awarded to Ketchum to support a broad range of consumer education services, including media services, publications, and distribution, that will assist and complement the FCC's ongoing work on educating all American consumers about the digital television transition. Ketchum has provided design recommendations to make our DTV messaging, including DTV.gov, more consumer-friendly. Other efforts through Ketchum will include billboards in targeted markets, grocery store outreach, and production of television and radio Public Service Announcements. Ketchum arranged a Satellite Media Tour in February on local television news around the country in states such as Hawaii, Missouri, Texas and Florida to spread the message about the transition. From those seventeen interviews, which were aired between February 22 and March 2, Ketchum reported more than one million audience impressions. Ketchum will be arranging similar interviews throughout the transition to continue our consumer education efforts.
As I mentioned, we also know that some consumers will be disproportionately impacted by the transition or are harder to reach than the population at large. Therefore we have been taking specific steps to reach these groups. I would like to take a few minutes to describe our efforts targeted at each of these five communities.
Senior Citizens: Senior citizens are more likely to have analog television sets and rely exclusively on over- the-air broadcasting. We have partnered with organizations that specifically serve this harder to reach population. Last September, we presented two DTV education sessions at the national AARP convention in Boston, and we have plans to make similar presentations at this year’s convention in Washington, DC. In addition, late last fall, I was interviewed about the transition on AARP radio which is broadcast on 170 outlets nationwide reaching more than 1,000,000 people. I was also interviewed for, and quoted in the January/February issue of AARP’s widely circulated Magazine, which has a circulation of 23.5 million. AARP is also regularly including stories on the DTV Transition in their Monthly Bulletins. Further, AARP will be distributing DTV information at a series of eight “road show” events they will hold around the country from June to September of this year.
In addition to working with AARP, we have also been working with other senior organizations as well. For example, I taped a PSA for Retirement Living TV which reaches nearly 30 million homes nationwide. Also I participated in a story about the transition for the Erickson Tribune, which is distributed to residents in their retirement communities and is read by more than 6 million people. We are also pleased to be partnering with The National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) to cosponsor DTV awareness sessions during the coming year in conjunction with their 655 area offices throughout the nation. This is a useful opportunity to educate caregivers, social workers and others who care for the elderly in their communities.
In addition to working with these organizations, we have and continue to set up partnerships with many State Aging Offices. As a result of our efforts, 26 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have agreed to conduct DTV outreach with the FCC in varying capacities, including distributing DTV information at conferences and events.
Commission staff located in field offices throughout the country are also working on DTV transition education and outreach. Starting last year, FCC field agents have held DTV Awareness Sessions and distributed information to senior centers, libraries and other local venues frequented by older Americans. Through the work of our field agents, we have been able to reach these consumers in a total of 44 states – ranging from Alaska to Florida. We have already distributed information to over 3033 senior centers, and 985 community centers, which frequently include large numbers of seniors, and given nearly 589 presentations with 113 more scheduled in the days ahead.
The FCC also held a DTV Workshop focusing on seniors at FCC Headquarters on November 8, 2007. It consisted of two panels discussing the transition’s effect on seniors plus exhibits hosted by other government and industry organizations. Based on the discussions and the relationships formed at that Workshop, we reached out to faith-based organizations, provided them with consumer education materials on the transition, and continue to follow up with them to answer questions on the transition. And I'm pleased to announce that on May 28, 2008, along with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, we will be hosting a DTV Town Hall Meeting for seniors in DC. We are working in conjunction with AARP, the DC Office of Aging, the NAB, and the National Caucus and Center for the Black Aged. The expected turnout is over 300 seniors from the District’s Aging community.
Non-English Speakers and Minorities: We also know that the Hispanic community disproportionately relies on over-the-air television. Of the approximately 14.3 million broadcast-only homes, about 16.5% are headed by persons of Hispanic origin.
The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has agreed to join the Commission in conducting DTV awareness sessions at member chambers in the 15 U.S cities with the largest number of Hispanic TV homes. In addition, we have partnered with Univision to hold DTV awareness sessions at Town Hall meetings designed to educate members of its Spanish speaking audience. Through these partnerships, we will reach cities that are home to over 80% of Hispanic communities.
Additionally, we have taped several on-air interviews regarding the digital transition for Univision’s news and public affairs programs airing both in local markets and nationally. These interviews were done by Keyla Hernandez-Ulloa the Commission staffer hired to spearhead outreach to the Hispanic community. We have been discussing the switch to digital on other Hispanic media outlets as well. For example, I did an interview with the Hispanic Communications Network, which produces material for radio, television, print and Internet, that will be distributed to its 230 member radio network in the United States and Puerto Rico.
We have also been working with other foreign language media outlets as well. To that end we have partnered with KTSF, a major Asian TV station in San Francisco. They have distributed 5,000 English and Chinese DTV one-page flyers at their booth during the Chinese New Year celebration events in late February. Approximately 100,000 people attended this festival. Also in conjunction with the California Public Utilities Commission, on May 22, 2008, we are participating with KTSF on a DTV educational panel for over 100 community leaders in San Francisco.
The FCC held a DTV Workshop focusing on non-English speakers and minorities on December 4, 2007. As a result of that Workshop, we will be working with the American Libraries Association to conduct a nationally available Internet seminar or “webinar” about the DTV transition today for librarians in the Webjunction Spanish Outreach Program. These librarians provide library services to Spanish speakers. Also, as a result of input received at the workshop, we translated our DTV one-page flyer into Hmong and Arabic (in addition to English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, French and Russian).
In addition, we plan to participate in a number of national conventions representing non-English speaking and minority consumers in 2008. They include the 78th Annual Conference for League of United Latin American Citizens, the Annual National Hispanic Leadership Conference and the National Council of La Raza Conference, the NAACP Convention, the National Urban League Conference and the Organization of Chinese Americans National Conference.
People with Disabilities: The Commission is continuing a multi-faceted approach in informing people with disabilities about the DTV transition. On February 28, 2008, we hosted a DTV Workshop dedicated to issues facing people with disabilities. The program featured panelists from numerous organizations whose missions are to work directly with, and advocate on behalf of, individuals with hearing, vision, speech, physical, and intellectual disabilities. It elicited several concrete suggestions that we have implemented.
For instance, in response to the panelists’ suggestion that we develop “how to” information related to the transition, we have drafted a step-by-step guide on how to install a digital-to-analog converter box, and posted it on the Commission’s DTV Web site, www.DTV.gov. Similarly, in response to general questions at the Workshop concerning the availability of video description (descriptions for people who are blind or have other vision disabilities about the setting and/or action in a program when information about these visual elements is not contained in the audio portion of the program), we are in the process of drafting a consumer advisory specifically addressing that issue.
Another suggestion from panelists was that we utilize national service organizations to inform consumers about the transition. Indeed, we have initiated a partnership with the Corporation for National and Community Service, and with the United States Department of Agriculture’s 4-H office. Finally, we will build upon our workshop by speaking directly to organizations that work with and on behalf of people with disabilities, at their meetings and conferences. For example, we are planning to attend the Summer Quarterly Meeting in Seattle of the National Council on Disabilities, which was represented at the February 28 Workshop.
I am also pleased to report that www.DTV.gov now features a DTV educational video in American Sign Language for the deaf and hard of hearing community. Our most commonly utilized publications are available in Braille and audio format and all of our fact sheets and advisories are available in large print. In addition, we have two specific publications addressing DTV and closed captioning, “Closed Captioning for Digital Television,” and Closed Captioning and Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes for Viewing Free Over-the-Air Programming on Analog Televisions.” The Commission also has a dedicated email box for closed captioning questions at closedcaptioning@fcc.gov.
Commission staff continues to attend conferences to distribute DTV educational materials to people with disabilities. For example, the FCC has attended and provided DTV materials at the National Black Deaf Advocates Conference, the Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities Conference and the Emergency Planning and Response for Special Needs and Disabilities Conference.
In all, we are collaborating broadly with disability advocacy groups and outreach organizations. For instance, the Hearing Loss Association of America (“HLAA”) is already linking to our DTV informational materials on its website, which receives approximately one million hits per month. In addition, HLAA has committed to publish later this spring an article on DTV and closed captioning in Hearing Loss Magazine, which is estimated to reach a readership of 200,000 people. Likewise, later this spring the article will be published in the “Blue Book” Resource Guide of Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (“TDI”), with a readership of up to an estimated 100,000 people, and eventually posted online at TDI’s website, which receives approximately 88,000 hits per month.
Furthermore, HLAA has 200 local and regional chapters around the country, and we plan to conduct DTV Awareness Sessions at their monthly meetings throughout the course of the year. We recently conducted one in Yuma, Arizona on March 11, one in New Orleans on March 15, and we have another 16 scheduled through the fall. We also plan to utilize our Enforcement Bureau's Field Office staff and CGB staff to distribute DTV informational and educational materials at HLAA's "Walk4Hearing" events across the country taking place this spring through the fall.
Low Income Consumers: The Commission is also taking specific steps to inform low-income consumers about the transition to all digital broadcasting. We have forged a partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services to assist the FCC in disseminating DTV material to target populations, including low-income consumers. HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration) has forwarded FCC DTV information to approximately 4,000 grantee organizations, and the message also went out to groups like the state Primary Care Offices and Primary Care Associations and the National Association for Community Health Centers - organizations which represent many more non-Federally funded health centers and clinics nationwide. HRSA asked these organizations to post and distribute our DTV flyer in their clinics and to distribute information to patients. ACF (Administration for Children and Families) is distributing information through their 1,600 Head Start grantees, covering more than 18,000 centers around the country. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is distributing DTV flyers to approximately 50,000 individuals each month who call requesting information. Other HHS agencies are also distributing our flyers, displaying our posters and linking to our dtv.gov Web page.
We have contacted social worker associations in each of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and thus far have received commitments from over 20 of them to assist us in getting the word out about the DTV transition. These include publishing DTV information in their monthly newsletters, distributing DTV materials at events and conferences, and establishing conspicuous links to our website, www.dtv.gov., so that visitors to their web pages can obtain more detailed information about the DTV transition and the steps they may need to take to prepare for it. We have also reached out to representatives of the state health departments in each of the 50 states and U.S. territories, and thus far have received commitments from 8 of them to assist in distributing DTV awareness materials to the consumers they interact with on a regular basis. These include, for example, posting DTV materials in their service and waiting areas, distributing our fact sheets and other publications at events attended by consumers, inserting DTV information in mailings to consumers, and establishing conspicuous links to our website, www.dtv.gov so that visitors to their web pages can obtain more detailed information about the DTV transition and the steps they may need to take to prepare for it.
In late February, we posted a simplified DTV one-page flyer on our Web site, and have offered it for distribution to all our partners. This was developed in response to requests for a more streamlined, non technical, and easy to read DTV informational flyer.
In addition, on April 1, 2008, the FCC sponsored a DTV Consumer Education Workshop focusing on reaching low-income consumers. As a result of our panel discussions, we received several positive suggestions and offers of assistance from our panelists on how best to reach members of their constituencies with information on the DTV transition. We will be providing the organizations represented with DTV informational materials such as our posters, flyers, and fact sheets that can be displayed at their events and facilities throughout the country. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association offered to provide DTV information to low income consumers who sign up for their program. We also received a suggestion to submit translated DTV articles to local foreign language publications in cities that have high concentrations of foreign language speakers. Often, these publications are the primary source of news and public interest information for these consumers. In addition, as noted earlier, all eligible telecommunications carriers (“ETCs”) that receive federal universal service funds are now required to provide DTV transition information in the monthly bills of their Lifeline/Link-Up customers.
Rural and Tribal Consumers: The Commission is also taking specific steps to inform people living in rural areas and on tribal lands about the transition to all digital broadcasting. For example, the Commission recently established a partnership with the United States Department of Agriculture’s 4-H office. On April 1, 2008, the FCC, with NTIA and USDA, participated in the annual 4-H Youth leadership conference and presented two “Train the Trainer” seminars to approximately 100 youth members of 4-H chapters from the various states. FCC staff provided information which these youth representatives and their colleagues back home can use to conduct awareness sessions in their communities. In addition, each participating representative will receive a “DTV Outreach Tool Kit” containing more extensive materials for conducting their outreach sessions. We understand that the DTV outreach that will be performed by these young community leaders will assist them in meeting the community service requirements of their 4-H membership. Another important component of our partnership with USDA is the placement of DTV transition educational materials at state and county fairs throughout the country via sponsoring 4-H chapters and local extension service professionals.
We also have forged a partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This collaboration has resulted in the distribution of DTV materials throughout Indian Country, utilizing all 50 of their nationwide area offices. Commission staff has attended and provided DTV materials at the National Conference of American Indians, and the Rural TeleCon Conference, with many additional events planned for this year such as participation in the National Association of Development Organizations in Alaska Conference and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Annual Conference.
So far this year, we have presented at the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) Annual Impact Week, in Arlington, VA and have distributed DTV materials at NCAI’s Executive Council Meeting, in Washington, DC. We are also planning to sponsor an Indian Telecommunications Initiative (ITI) in Salt Lake City later this year.
Finally, on January 31, 2008, we held a workshop at Commission headquarters focused on reaching rural consumers and consumers living on tribal lands. We received many useful suggestions at this workshop on how to better reach these communities. For instance, our DTV one page informational flyer is being translated into Navajo, one of the most-spoken Native American languages in the United States.
CONCLUSION
The Commission is devoting significant resources to facilitate a smooth transition. Nearly every Bureau and Office at the Commission has been involved in this effort including our field offices throughout the country.
We intend to take whatever actions are necessary to minimize the potential burden the digital transition could impose on consumers and maximize their ability to benefit from it. The next 10 months will undoubtedly be challenging. Nevertheless, it is my hope that through the combined efforts of government, industry and advocacy groups American consumers will reap the rewards that the digital transition has to offer.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Who Are Some Global Warming Skeptics?
From the Deniers, a book by Lawrence Solomon
---------------------------------------------
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
---------------------------------------------
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Does Incarceration Reduce Crime Rates?
From the Los Angeles Times
Do the time, lower the crime
Too many people behind bars? The statistics suggest otherwise.
By James Q. Wilson
March 30, 2008
Do we have too many people in prison?
If you read a recent report by the Pew Center on the States, you would think so. As its title proclaimed, more than one in 100 American adults is in jail or prison. For young black males, the number is one in nine.
The report's authors contend that the incarceration rate represents a problem because the number of felons serving time does not have a "clear impact" on crime rates -- and that all those inmates are costing taxpayers too much money to house. But nowhere in the report is there any discussion of the effect of prison on crime, and the argument about costs seems based on the false assumption that we are locking people up at high rates for the wrong reasons.
In the last 10 years, the effect of prison on crime rates has been studied by many scholars. The Pew report doesn't mention any of them. Among them is Steven Levitt, coauthor of "Freakonomics." He and others have shown that states that sent a higher fraction of convicts to prison had lower rates of crime, even after controlling for all of the other ways (poverty, urbanization and the proportion of young men in the population) that the states differed. A high risk of punishment reduces crime. Deterrence works.
But so does putting people in prison. The typical criminal commits from 12 to 16 crimes a year (not counting drug offenses). Locking him up spares society those crimes. Several scholars have separately estimated that the increase in the size of our prison population has driven down crime rates by 25%.
The Pew writers lament the fact that this country imprisons a higher fraction of its population than any other nation in the world, including Russia. But what they ignore is what the United States gets in return for its high rate of incarceration. For instance, in 1976, Britain had a lower robbery rate than did California. But then California got tough on crime as judges began handing out more prison sentences, and Britain became soft as laws were passed encouraging judges to avoid prison sentences. As a result, the size of the state's prison population went up while Britain's went down. By 1996, Britain's robbery rate was one-quarter higher than California's. Compared with those of the U.S. overall, Britain's burglary and assault rates are twice as high, according to a comparative study done by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
These differences in crime rates involve many countries with low imprisonment rates. The robbery rate in the U.S. is not only lower than that in Britain but also that in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Scotlandand Spain, according to the same study. The imprisonment rate in these countries is one-fifth to one-tenth that in the United States.
You cannot make an argument about the cost of prisons without taking into account the benefit of prisons. The Pew report makes no effort to do this. Instead, it argues that spending on prisons may be crowding out spending on education. For instance, tax dollars spent on higher education in the U.S. have increased much more slowly than those spent on corrections. The report does not ask whether the slower growth may be in part because of the sharp increase in private support for public universities, much less whether society gets as much from universities as it does from prisons.
But Pew rightly points to problems in the nation's imprisonment policy and in what it does (or, typically, doesn't do) to prevent crime in the first place. Take California. It has failed to manage well the health -- especially the mental health -- problems of many of its inmates. Federal judges are in the process of imposing tough new rules to rectify the problem. Nor has the state found good ways to integrate former inmates back into society. Instead, parole officers routinely send people back to prison if they misbehave -- and sometimes the return orders are for minor violations.
California does not handle drug offenders wisely either. Just how big this problem is remains uncertain because some inmates involved in serious crimes plead out to drug offenses to avoid tougher prison sentences. For serious drug users who have not committed a major crime, the goal should be to get them into a community treatment program and keep the offenders there.
To do that, we might emulate the HOPE (Hawaii's Opportunity for Probation with Enforcement) project in Honolulu. The program, started by state Judge Steven Alm in 2004, aims to get probationers to stay in a treatment program. Alm makes offenders take a random, mandatory drug test every week. If they fail, he immediately sends them to jail for a short time to discourage them from being on drugs. Within four years, according to a study by professors Mark Kleiman of UCLA and Angela Hawken of Pepperdine University, the violation rate among HOPE probationers fell by 90%. (Oddly, the Pew report, in discussing our "excessive" use of prison, makes no mention of the fact that there are about as many felons on probation as there are in prison.)
There is more that could be done to prevent young people from embarking on a life of crime. The Pew report rightly notes the success of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project in Michigan, which began in the 1960s. The project has reduced delinquency among children of (mostly) poor black women by exposing them to a high-quality preschool program.
What we have learned from High/Scope is especially noteworthy because a random sample of youngsters were enrolled in the preschool program and the results were compared with those of a control group.
The Pew report could have mentioned at least 10 other crime-prevention programs that work. They can be found in "Blueprints for Violence Prevention," published by the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado, and include Big Brothers/Big Sisters, nurse home-visitation programs and various special education programs in high schools. All were rigorously tested by controlled experiments in at least two locations.
But even with prevention programs, there will always be many people in prison. A major challenge for scholars today is to discover better ways of placing ex-inmates back into the community. If such methods can be devised, we can reduce the large number of parolees who are sent back to prison for violating the terms of their release.
But we should not suppose that, except for some minor drug offenders, we imprison too many people. There are still people who ought to be in prison and are not. There are more than 1 million felons on probation, in many cases because prisons are overcrowded, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There are violent gang members who are hard to arrest and convict because their neighbors are afraid to go to the police or testify against them.
It is discouraging to read a report by an important private organization that can do no better than say we incarcerate too many people, get nothing from it and are stealing money from higher education.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Q. Wilson teaches public policy at Pepperdine University and previously taught at UCLA and Harvard University. He is the co-editor of the new book "Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation."
Do the time, lower the crime
Too many people behind bars? The statistics suggest otherwise.
By James Q. Wilson
March 30, 2008
Do we have too many people in prison?
If you read a recent report by the Pew Center on the States, you would think so. As its title proclaimed, more than one in 100 American adults is in jail or prison. For young black males, the number is one in nine.
The report's authors contend that the incarceration rate represents a problem because the number of felons serving time does not have a "clear impact" on crime rates -- and that all those inmates are costing taxpayers too much money to house. But nowhere in the report is there any discussion of the effect of prison on crime, and the argument about costs seems based on the false assumption that we are locking people up at high rates for the wrong reasons.
In the last 10 years, the effect of prison on crime rates has been studied by many scholars. The Pew report doesn't mention any of them. Among them is Steven Levitt, coauthor of "Freakonomics." He and others have shown that states that sent a higher fraction of convicts to prison had lower rates of crime, even after controlling for all of the other ways (poverty, urbanization and the proportion of young men in the population) that the states differed. A high risk of punishment reduces crime. Deterrence works.
But so does putting people in prison. The typical criminal commits from 12 to 16 crimes a year (not counting drug offenses). Locking him up spares society those crimes. Several scholars have separately estimated that the increase in the size of our prison population has driven down crime rates by 25%.
The Pew writers lament the fact that this country imprisons a higher fraction of its population than any other nation in the world, including Russia. But what they ignore is what the United States gets in return for its high rate of incarceration. For instance, in 1976, Britain had a lower robbery rate than did California. But then California got tough on crime as judges began handing out more prison sentences, and Britain became soft as laws were passed encouraging judges to avoid prison sentences. As a result, the size of the state's prison population went up while Britain's went down. By 1996, Britain's robbery rate was one-quarter higher than California's. Compared with those of the U.S. overall, Britain's burglary and assault rates are twice as high, according to a comparative study done by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
These differences in crime rates involve many countries with low imprisonment rates. The robbery rate in the U.S. is not only lower than that in Britain but also that in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Scotlandand Spain, according to the same study. The imprisonment rate in these countries is one-fifth to one-tenth that in the United States.
You cannot make an argument about the cost of prisons without taking into account the benefit of prisons. The Pew report makes no effort to do this. Instead, it argues that spending on prisons may be crowding out spending on education. For instance, tax dollars spent on higher education in the U.S. have increased much more slowly than those spent on corrections. The report does not ask whether the slower growth may be in part because of the sharp increase in private support for public universities, much less whether society gets as much from universities as it does from prisons.
But Pew rightly points to problems in the nation's imprisonment policy and in what it does (or, typically, doesn't do) to prevent crime in the first place. Take California. It has failed to manage well the health -- especially the mental health -- problems of many of its inmates. Federal judges are in the process of imposing tough new rules to rectify the problem. Nor has the state found good ways to integrate former inmates back into society. Instead, parole officers routinely send people back to prison if they misbehave -- and sometimes the return orders are for minor violations.
California does not handle drug offenders wisely either. Just how big this problem is remains uncertain because some inmates involved in serious crimes plead out to drug offenses to avoid tougher prison sentences. For serious drug users who have not committed a major crime, the goal should be to get them into a community treatment program and keep the offenders there.
To do that, we might emulate the HOPE (Hawaii's Opportunity for Probation with Enforcement) project in Honolulu. The program, started by state Judge Steven Alm in 2004, aims to get probationers to stay in a treatment program. Alm makes offenders take a random, mandatory drug test every week. If they fail, he immediately sends them to jail for a short time to discourage them from being on drugs. Within four years, according to a study by professors Mark Kleiman of UCLA and Angela Hawken of Pepperdine University, the violation rate among HOPE probationers fell by 90%. (Oddly, the Pew report, in discussing our "excessive" use of prison, makes no mention of the fact that there are about as many felons on probation as there are in prison.)
There is more that could be done to prevent young people from embarking on a life of crime. The Pew report rightly notes the success of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project in Michigan, which began in the 1960s. The project has reduced delinquency among children of (mostly) poor black women by exposing them to a high-quality preschool program.
What we have learned from High/Scope is especially noteworthy because a random sample of youngsters were enrolled in the preschool program and the results were compared with those of a control group.
The Pew report could have mentioned at least 10 other crime-prevention programs that work. They can be found in "Blueprints for Violence Prevention," published by the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado, and include Big Brothers/Big Sisters, nurse home-visitation programs and various special education programs in high schools. All were rigorously tested by controlled experiments in at least two locations.
But even with prevention programs, there will always be many people in prison. A major challenge for scholars today is to discover better ways of placing ex-inmates back into the community. If such methods can be devised, we can reduce the large number of parolees who are sent back to prison for violating the terms of their release.
But we should not suppose that, except for some minor drug offenders, we imprison too many people. There are still people who ought to be in prison and are not. There are more than 1 million felons on probation, in many cases because prisons are overcrowded, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There are violent gang members who are hard to arrest and convict because their neighbors are afraid to go to the police or testify against them.
It is discouraging to read a report by an important private organization that can do no better than say we incarcerate too many people, get nothing from it and are stealing money from higher education.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Q. Wilson teaches public policy at Pepperdine University and previously taught at UCLA and Harvard University. He is the co-editor of the new book "Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation."
Monday, April 7, 2008
Now That You Have Healtcare, Can You See A Doctor?
April 5, 2008
New York Times
In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
By KEVIN SACK
AMHERST, Mass. — Once they discover that she is Dr. Kate, the supplicants line up to approach at dinner parties and ballet recitals. Surely, they suggest to Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, a family physician here, she might find a way to move them up her lengthy waiting list for new patients.
Those fortunate enough to make it soon learn they face another long wait: Dr. Atkinson’s next opening for a physical is not until early May — of 2009.
In pockets of the United States, rural and urban, a confluence of market and medical forces has been widening the gap between the supply of primary care physicians and the demand for their services. Modest pay, medical school debt, an aging population and the prevalence of chronic disease have each played a role.
Now in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance.
Since last year, when the landmark law took effect, about 340,000 of Massachusetts’ estimated 600,000 uninsured have gained coverage. Many are now searching for doctors and scheduling appointments for long-deferred care.
Here in western Massachusetts, Dr. Atkinson’s bustling 3,000-patient practice, which was closed to new patients for several years, has taken on 50 newcomers since she hired a part-time nurse practitioner in November. About a third were newly insured, Dr. Atkinson said. Just north of here in Athol, the doctors at North Quabbin Family Physicians are now seeing four to six new patients a day, up from one or two a year ago.
Dr. Patricia A. Sereno, state president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said an influx of the newly insured to her practice in Malden, just north of Boston, had stretched her daily caseload to as many as 22 to 25 patients, from 18 to 20 a year ago. To fit them in, Dr. Sereno limits the number of 45-minute physicals she schedules each day, thereby doubling the wait for an exam to three months.
“It’s a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sereno said. “It’s great that people have access to health care, but now we’ve got to find a way to give them access to preventive services. The point of this legislation was not to get people episodic care.”
Whether there is a national shortage of primary care providers is a matter of considerable debate. Some researchers contend the United States has too many doctors, driving overutilization of the system.
But there is little dispute that the general practice of medicine is under strain at a time when there is bipartisan consensus that better prevention and chronic disease management would not only improve health but also help control costs. With its population aging, the country will need 40 percent more primary care doctors by 2020, according to the American College of Physicians, which represents 125,000 internists, and the 94,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians. Community health centers, bolstered by increases in federal financing during the Bush years, are having particular difficulty finding doctors.
“I think it’s pretty serious,” said Dr. David C. Dale, president of the American College of Physicians and former dean of the University of Washington’s medical school. “Maybe we’re at the front of the wave, but there are several factors making it harder for the average American, particularly older Americans, to have a good personal physician.”
Studies show that the number of medical school graduates in the United States entering family medicine training programs, or residencies, has dropped by 50 percent since 1997. A decadelong decline gave way this year to a slight increase in numbers, perhaps because demand is driving up salaries.
There have been slight increases in the number of doctors training in internal medicine, which focuses on the nonsurgical treatment of adults. But the share of those residents who then establish a general practice has plummeted, to 24 percent in 2006 from 54 percent in 1998, according to the American College of Physicians.
The Government Accountability Office reported to Congress in February that the per capita supply of primary care physicians actually grew by 12 percent from 1995 to 2005, at more than double the rate for specialists. But the report also revealed deep shifts in the composition of primary care providers.
While fewer American-trained doctors are pursuing primary care, they are being replaced in droves by foreign medical school graduates and osteopathic doctors. There also has been rapid growth in the ranks of physician assistants and nurse practitioners.
A. Bruce Steinwald, the accountability office’s director of health care, concluded there was not a current nationwide shortage. But Mr. Steinwald urged the overhaul of a fee-for-service reimbursement system that he said undervalued primary care while rewarding expensive procedure-based medicine. His report noted that the Medicare reimbursement for a half-hour primary care visit in Boston is $103.42; for a colonoscopy requiring roughly the same time, a gastroenterologist would receive $449.44.
Numerous studies, in this country and others, have shown that primary care improves health and saves money by encouraging prevention and early diagnosis of chronic conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes. Presidential candidates in both parties stress its importance.
Here in Massachusetts, legislative leaders have proposed bills to forgive medical school debt for those willing to practice primary care in underserved areas; a similar law, worth $15.6 million, passed in New York this week. Massachusetts also recently authorized the opening of clinics in drug stores, hoping to relieve the pressure.
“It is a fundamental truth — which we are learning the hard way in Massachusetts — that comprehensive health care reform cannot work without appropriate access to primary care physicians and providers,” Dr. Bruce Auerbach, the president-elect of the Massachusetts Medical Society, told Congress in February.
Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the agency that oversees the Massachusetts initiative, said he had not heard of major problems, but acknowledged “the prospect of a severe shortage” as newly insured patients seek care in doctors’ offices rather than emergency rooms.
Given the presence of four medical schools and Boston’s dense medical infrastructure, it might seem difficult to argue that Massachusetts has too few doctors. The state ranks well above the national average in the per capita supply of all doctors and of primary care physicians.
But those measures do not necessarily translate into adequate access, particularly in remote areas. Annual work force studies by the medical society have found statewide shortages of primary care doctors in each of the last two years.
The share who accept new patients has dropped, to barely half in the case of internists, and the average wait by a new patient for an appointment with an internist rose to 52 days in 2007 from 33 days in 2006. In westernmost Berkshire County, newly insured patients are being referred 25 miles away, said Charles E. Joffe-Halpern, director of an agency that enrolls the uninsured.
The situation may worsen as large numbers of general practitioners retire over the next decade. The incoming pool of doctors is predominantly female, and many are balancing child-rearing with part-time work. The supply is further stretched by the emergence of hospitalists — primary care physicians who practice solely in hospitals, where they can earn more and work regular hours. President Bush has proposed eliminating $48 million in federal support for primary care training programs.
Clinic administrators in western Massachusetts report extreme difficulty in recruiting primary care doctors. Dr. Timothy Soule-Regine, a co-owner of the North Quabbin practice, said it had taken at least two years and as long as five to recruit new physicians.
At the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, no more than 4 of the 28 internal medicine residents in each class are choosing primary care, down from half a decade ago, said Dr. Richard M. Forster, the program’s director. In Springfield, only one of 16 third-year residents at Baystate Medical Center, which trains physicians from Tufts University, plans to pursue primary care, said Jane Albert, a hospital spokeswoman.
The need to pay off medical school debt, which averages $120,000 at public schools and $160,000 at private schools, is cited as a major reason that graduates gravitate to higher-paying specialties and hospitalist jobs.
Primary care doctors typically fall at the bottom of the medical income scale, with average salaries in the range of $160,000 to $175,000 (compared with $410,000 for orthopedic surgeons and $380,000 for radiologists). In rural Massachusetts, where reimbursement rates are relatively low, some physicians are earning as little as $70,000 after 20 years of practice.
Officials with several large health systems said their primary care practices often lose money, but generate revenue for their companies by referring patients to profit centers like surgery and laboratories.
Dr. Atkinson, 45, said she paid herself a salary of $110,000 last year. Her insurance reimbursements often do not cover her costs, she said.
“I calculated that every time I have a Medicare patient it’s like handing them a $20 bill when they leave,” she said. “I never went into medicine to get rich, but I never expected to feel as disrespected as I feel. Where is the incentive for a practice like ours?”
New York Times
In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
By KEVIN SACK
AMHERST, Mass. — Once they discover that she is Dr. Kate, the supplicants line up to approach at dinner parties and ballet recitals. Surely, they suggest to Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, a family physician here, she might find a way to move them up her lengthy waiting list for new patients.
Those fortunate enough to make it soon learn they face another long wait: Dr. Atkinson’s next opening for a physical is not until early May — of 2009.
In pockets of the United States, rural and urban, a confluence of market and medical forces has been widening the gap between the supply of primary care physicians and the demand for their services. Modest pay, medical school debt, an aging population and the prevalence of chronic disease have each played a role.
Now in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance.
Since last year, when the landmark law took effect, about 340,000 of Massachusetts’ estimated 600,000 uninsured have gained coverage. Many are now searching for doctors and scheduling appointments for long-deferred care.
Here in western Massachusetts, Dr. Atkinson’s bustling 3,000-patient practice, which was closed to new patients for several years, has taken on 50 newcomers since she hired a part-time nurse practitioner in November. About a third were newly insured, Dr. Atkinson said. Just north of here in Athol, the doctors at North Quabbin Family Physicians are now seeing four to six new patients a day, up from one or two a year ago.
Dr. Patricia A. Sereno, state president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said an influx of the newly insured to her practice in Malden, just north of Boston, had stretched her daily caseload to as many as 22 to 25 patients, from 18 to 20 a year ago. To fit them in, Dr. Sereno limits the number of 45-minute physicals she schedules each day, thereby doubling the wait for an exam to three months.
“It’s a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sereno said. “It’s great that people have access to health care, but now we’ve got to find a way to give them access to preventive services. The point of this legislation was not to get people episodic care.”
Whether there is a national shortage of primary care providers is a matter of considerable debate. Some researchers contend the United States has too many doctors, driving overutilization of the system.
But there is little dispute that the general practice of medicine is under strain at a time when there is bipartisan consensus that better prevention and chronic disease management would not only improve health but also help control costs. With its population aging, the country will need 40 percent more primary care doctors by 2020, according to the American College of Physicians, which represents 125,000 internists, and the 94,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians. Community health centers, bolstered by increases in federal financing during the Bush years, are having particular difficulty finding doctors.
“I think it’s pretty serious,” said Dr. David C. Dale, president of the American College of Physicians and former dean of the University of Washington’s medical school. “Maybe we’re at the front of the wave, but there are several factors making it harder for the average American, particularly older Americans, to have a good personal physician.”
Studies show that the number of medical school graduates in the United States entering family medicine training programs, or residencies, has dropped by 50 percent since 1997. A decadelong decline gave way this year to a slight increase in numbers, perhaps because demand is driving up salaries.
There have been slight increases in the number of doctors training in internal medicine, which focuses on the nonsurgical treatment of adults. But the share of those residents who then establish a general practice has plummeted, to 24 percent in 2006 from 54 percent in 1998, according to the American College of Physicians.
The Government Accountability Office reported to Congress in February that the per capita supply of primary care physicians actually grew by 12 percent from 1995 to 2005, at more than double the rate for specialists. But the report also revealed deep shifts in the composition of primary care providers.
While fewer American-trained doctors are pursuing primary care, they are being replaced in droves by foreign medical school graduates and osteopathic doctors. There also has been rapid growth in the ranks of physician assistants and nurse practitioners.
A. Bruce Steinwald, the accountability office’s director of health care, concluded there was not a current nationwide shortage. But Mr. Steinwald urged the overhaul of a fee-for-service reimbursement system that he said undervalued primary care while rewarding expensive procedure-based medicine. His report noted that the Medicare reimbursement for a half-hour primary care visit in Boston is $103.42; for a colonoscopy requiring roughly the same time, a gastroenterologist would receive $449.44.
Numerous studies, in this country and others, have shown that primary care improves health and saves money by encouraging prevention and early diagnosis of chronic conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes. Presidential candidates in both parties stress its importance.
Here in Massachusetts, legislative leaders have proposed bills to forgive medical school debt for those willing to practice primary care in underserved areas; a similar law, worth $15.6 million, passed in New York this week. Massachusetts also recently authorized the opening of clinics in drug stores, hoping to relieve the pressure.
“It is a fundamental truth — which we are learning the hard way in Massachusetts — that comprehensive health care reform cannot work without appropriate access to primary care physicians and providers,” Dr. Bruce Auerbach, the president-elect of the Massachusetts Medical Society, told Congress in February.
Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the agency that oversees the Massachusetts initiative, said he had not heard of major problems, but acknowledged “the prospect of a severe shortage” as newly insured patients seek care in doctors’ offices rather than emergency rooms.
Given the presence of four medical schools and Boston’s dense medical infrastructure, it might seem difficult to argue that Massachusetts has too few doctors. The state ranks well above the national average in the per capita supply of all doctors and of primary care physicians.
But those measures do not necessarily translate into adequate access, particularly in remote areas. Annual work force studies by the medical society have found statewide shortages of primary care doctors in each of the last two years.
The share who accept new patients has dropped, to barely half in the case of internists, and the average wait by a new patient for an appointment with an internist rose to 52 days in 2007 from 33 days in 2006. In westernmost Berkshire County, newly insured patients are being referred 25 miles away, said Charles E. Joffe-Halpern, director of an agency that enrolls the uninsured.
The situation may worsen as large numbers of general practitioners retire over the next decade. The incoming pool of doctors is predominantly female, and many are balancing child-rearing with part-time work. The supply is further stretched by the emergence of hospitalists — primary care physicians who practice solely in hospitals, where they can earn more and work regular hours. President Bush has proposed eliminating $48 million in federal support for primary care training programs.
Clinic administrators in western Massachusetts report extreme difficulty in recruiting primary care doctors. Dr. Timothy Soule-Regine, a co-owner of the North Quabbin practice, said it had taken at least two years and as long as five to recruit new physicians.
At the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, no more than 4 of the 28 internal medicine residents in each class are choosing primary care, down from half a decade ago, said Dr. Richard M. Forster, the program’s director. In Springfield, only one of 16 third-year residents at Baystate Medical Center, which trains physicians from Tufts University, plans to pursue primary care, said Jane Albert, a hospital spokeswoman.
The need to pay off medical school debt, which averages $120,000 at public schools and $160,000 at private schools, is cited as a major reason that graduates gravitate to higher-paying specialties and hospitalist jobs.
Primary care doctors typically fall at the bottom of the medical income scale, with average salaries in the range of $160,000 to $175,000 (compared with $410,000 for orthopedic surgeons and $380,000 for radiologists). In rural Massachusetts, where reimbursement rates are relatively low, some physicians are earning as little as $70,000 after 20 years of practice.
Officials with several large health systems said their primary care practices often lose money, but generate revenue for their companies by referring patients to profit centers like surgery and laboratories.
Dr. Atkinson, 45, said she paid herself a salary of $110,000 last year. Her insurance reimbursements often do not cover her costs, she said.
“I calculated that every time I have a Medicare patient it’s like handing them a $20 bill when they leave,” she said. “I never went into medicine to get rich, but I never expected to feel as disrespected as I feel. Where is the incentive for a practice like ours?”
Sunday, April 6, 2008
5 Myths About NAFTA
By Philippe Legrain
Sunday, April 6, 2008; B03
Washington Post
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton often likes to take credit for her husband's achievements as president. But then there's NAFTA. Clinton may have been present at the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, but she wants everybody to know that it's not her baby. She now proposes to "fix" the agreement to make trade "work for working families." Sen. Barack Obama, meanwhile, makes the fallout from NAFTA sound downright nuclear, lamenting that "entire cities . . . have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that U.S. workers had a fair deal." Despite the heightened rhetoric, he, too, wishes to "fix" the treaty, not nix it. Only the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, would leave NAFTA untouched; his priority is freeing up global trade.
The Democratic rivals have bought into most of the myths that have been peddled about the agreement and have placed their opposition to NAFTA at the center of their campaigns. Here's some information that could help them update their stump speeches.
1 NAFTA has transformed the U.S. economy.
Hardly. Critics rightly point out that NAFTA's economic benefits were oversold, but they're wrong to heap the blame for all America's woes on it. NAFTA, which expanded the existing Canadian-U.S. free-trade area to Mexico, has had only a marginal effect on the U.S. economy. Yes, exports to Mexico have more than tripled since 1993 -- but at $161 billion last year, they still account for only 1.1 percent of the economy. Considering that total U.S. exports have more than doubled over the same period, to more than $1.6 trillion a year, the boost from NAFTA is just a trifle.
Though imports from Mexico have risen nearly five-fold since 1993 -- potentially threatening some U.S. businesses -- they only amounted to $230 billion in 2007, or less than 1.7 percent of the $14 trillion U.S. economy. That's peanuts. And for all the fears of factories being shipped south on the back of an 18-wheeler, the total U.S. investment in Mexican factories and offices adds up to a mere $75 billion. Mexico received just $19 billion in foreign direct investment in 2006, while the United States attracted $175 billion. Thus, the "giant sucking sound" that Texas businessman and independent presidential candidate H. Ross Perot heard back in the 1990s doesn't sound so giant after all. But the benefits of NAFTA don't seem so remarkable, either.
2 NAFTA has put countless Americans out of work.
Not really. Obama claims that NAFTA has destroyed a million American jobs. Suppose he's right. Total employment still rose by 27 million jobs between 1993 and 2007, to 137.6 million, and the unemployment rate has fallen. At worst, then, NAFTA has cost only a tiny minority of American workers their jobs. And even that is a one-sided view. As Mexico opened its economy to U.S. trade and investment, NAFTA created new American jobs, too.
NAFTA critics also decry the trade deficit with Mexico, but at $70 billion a year, it accounts for only 0.5 percent of the U.S. economy. These figures should quiet NAFTA foes, who point to lost jobs and stagnant manufacturing wages, as well as boosters, who trumpet claims of rising output and record-high exports. The fact is, NAFTA has had only a fractional impact on these trends. Mexico's biggest impact on the U.S. labor market is not through trade, but through immigration. And the money that Mexican migrants send home contributes more to the Mexican economy than foreign direct investment does.
3 "Fixing" NAFTA would be easy and cost-free.
Not so. Any changes would require a lengthy and complex renegotiation with Canada and Mexico. As Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, has pointed out, "Of course, if any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening [NAFTA], we would have some things we would want to talk about as well." Just the threat of pulling out of NAFTA would do some damage, too. Far from boosting America's international reputation -- something all presidential candidates agree is important -- it would fan fears that the United States is an unreliable ally and discourage foreign governments from committing to future agreements with Washington. The slim chance of concluding the World Trade Organization's Doha round of global trade talks would vanish. And if the next president wants, for instance, Mexico's help in dealing with immigration reform and Canada's hand in combating terrorism, then blaming America's friendly neighbors for its perceived woes is hardly the way to start.
4 Making NAFTA's labor and environmental regulations stricter would benefit U.S. workers.
Probably not. Clinton wants to make the treaty's labor and environmental provisions "far tougher and absolutely binding" and to require that all future trade agreements include similar language. The stated purpose is to raise labor and environmental standards around the world and to make it harder for companies to ship jobs to countries where workers have fewer protections than in the United States. But America's trading partners would probably see the move as covert protectionism -- since when have the Teamsters cared about Mexican wildlife? -- and may retaliate. Meanwhile, consumers would probably resent the increased cost of their imports.
In any case, tough social clauses could backfire on the United States. Canada's labor and environmental standards are generally higher than the United States', and Canadians could claim that lax American standards amount to unfair competition. Given that Canada and Mexico have joined global efforts to curb climate change, they might wish to restrict American imports if the United States continues to hold back. And Mexican workers arguably have stronger labor rights than Americans: Unlike the United States, Mexico has ratified most of the International Labor Organization's conventions on core labor standards, including those on freedom of association, collective bargaining and employment discrimination. If the United States bashes Mexican labor practices, what's to stop Mexico from objecting to American imports produced in non-unionized factories?
5 Renegotiating NAFTA should be a priority for the new president.
Absolutely not. With the housing market plunging, the financial system seizing up and the economy apparently shrinking, tinkering with a treaty that governs trade with two of Washington's trading partners is a costly distraction -- whatever your view of NAFTA. The next president will have much bigger things to worry about, such as stopping the economy from going into a tailspin; cushioning the blow for vulnerable Americans who lose their homes, their jobs and their health care in the downturn; and helping frame new regulations that protect the economy against future financial excesses without stifling the market. Compared to all that, changing NAFTA looks like small change.
Philippe Legrain is a journalism fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the author of "Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them."
Sunday, April 6, 2008; B03
Washington Post
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton often likes to take credit for her husband's achievements as president. But then there's NAFTA. Clinton may have been present at the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, but she wants everybody to know that it's not her baby. She now proposes to "fix" the agreement to make trade "work for working families." Sen. Barack Obama, meanwhile, makes the fallout from NAFTA sound downright nuclear, lamenting that "entire cities . . . have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that U.S. workers had a fair deal." Despite the heightened rhetoric, he, too, wishes to "fix" the treaty, not nix it. Only the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, would leave NAFTA untouched; his priority is freeing up global trade.
The Democratic rivals have bought into most of the myths that have been peddled about the agreement and have placed their opposition to NAFTA at the center of their campaigns. Here's some information that could help them update their stump speeches.
1 NAFTA has transformed the U.S. economy.
Hardly. Critics rightly point out that NAFTA's economic benefits were oversold, but they're wrong to heap the blame for all America's woes on it. NAFTA, which expanded the existing Canadian-U.S. free-trade area to Mexico, has had only a marginal effect on the U.S. economy. Yes, exports to Mexico have more than tripled since 1993 -- but at $161 billion last year, they still account for only 1.1 percent of the economy. Considering that total U.S. exports have more than doubled over the same period, to more than $1.6 trillion a year, the boost from NAFTA is just a trifle.
Though imports from Mexico have risen nearly five-fold since 1993 -- potentially threatening some U.S. businesses -- they only amounted to $230 billion in 2007, or less than 1.7 percent of the $14 trillion U.S. economy. That's peanuts. And for all the fears of factories being shipped south on the back of an 18-wheeler, the total U.S. investment in Mexican factories and offices adds up to a mere $75 billion. Mexico received just $19 billion in foreign direct investment in 2006, while the United States attracted $175 billion. Thus, the "giant sucking sound" that Texas businessman and independent presidential candidate H. Ross Perot heard back in the 1990s doesn't sound so giant after all. But the benefits of NAFTA don't seem so remarkable, either.
2 NAFTA has put countless Americans out of work.
Not really. Obama claims that NAFTA has destroyed a million American jobs. Suppose he's right. Total employment still rose by 27 million jobs between 1993 and 2007, to 137.6 million, and the unemployment rate has fallen. At worst, then, NAFTA has cost only a tiny minority of American workers their jobs. And even that is a one-sided view. As Mexico opened its economy to U.S. trade and investment, NAFTA created new American jobs, too.
NAFTA critics also decry the trade deficit with Mexico, but at $70 billion a year, it accounts for only 0.5 percent of the U.S. economy. These figures should quiet NAFTA foes, who point to lost jobs and stagnant manufacturing wages, as well as boosters, who trumpet claims of rising output and record-high exports. The fact is, NAFTA has had only a fractional impact on these trends. Mexico's biggest impact on the U.S. labor market is not through trade, but through immigration. And the money that Mexican migrants send home contributes more to the Mexican economy than foreign direct investment does.
3 "Fixing" NAFTA would be easy and cost-free.
Not so. Any changes would require a lengthy and complex renegotiation with Canada and Mexico. As Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, has pointed out, "Of course, if any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening [NAFTA], we would have some things we would want to talk about as well." Just the threat of pulling out of NAFTA would do some damage, too. Far from boosting America's international reputation -- something all presidential candidates agree is important -- it would fan fears that the United States is an unreliable ally and discourage foreign governments from committing to future agreements with Washington. The slim chance of concluding the World Trade Organization's Doha round of global trade talks would vanish. And if the next president wants, for instance, Mexico's help in dealing with immigration reform and Canada's hand in combating terrorism, then blaming America's friendly neighbors for its perceived woes is hardly the way to start.
4 Making NAFTA's labor and environmental regulations stricter would benefit U.S. workers.
Probably not. Clinton wants to make the treaty's labor and environmental provisions "far tougher and absolutely binding" and to require that all future trade agreements include similar language. The stated purpose is to raise labor and environmental standards around the world and to make it harder for companies to ship jobs to countries where workers have fewer protections than in the United States. But America's trading partners would probably see the move as covert protectionism -- since when have the Teamsters cared about Mexican wildlife? -- and may retaliate. Meanwhile, consumers would probably resent the increased cost of their imports.
In any case, tough social clauses could backfire on the United States. Canada's labor and environmental standards are generally higher than the United States', and Canadians could claim that lax American standards amount to unfair competition. Given that Canada and Mexico have joined global efforts to curb climate change, they might wish to restrict American imports if the United States continues to hold back. And Mexican workers arguably have stronger labor rights than Americans: Unlike the United States, Mexico has ratified most of the International Labor Organization's conventions on core labor standards, including those on freedom of association, collective bargaining and employment discrimination. If the United States bashes Mexican labor practices, what's to stop Mexico from objecting to American imports produced in non-unionized factories?
5 Renegotiating NAFTA should be a priority for the new president.
Absolutely not. With the housing market plunging, the financial system seizing up and the economy apparently shrinking, tinkering with a treaty that governs trade with two of Washington's trading partners is a costly distraction -- whatever your view of NAFTA. The next president will have much bigger things to worry about, such as stopping the economy from going into a tailspin; cushioning the blow for vulnerable Americans who lose their homes, their jobs and their health care in the downturn; and helping frame new regulations that protect the economy against future financial excesses without stifling the market. Compared to all that, changing NAFTA looks like small change.
Philippe Legrain is a journalism fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the author of "Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them."
Iraq Is a Mess. But Germany Was, Too.
By David Stafford
Sunday, April 6, 2008; B03
Washington Post
Smash the enemy, deliver victory, topple the dictator, destroy his regime, eliminate his evil ideology, and establish peace and democracy. Oh, and -- almost forgot -- do this several thousand miles away on a distant continent while also fighting another life-or-death struggle elsewhere. Meanwhile, make sure to keep in step with our allies. And one last thing: Bring the troops back home as soon as possible.
Mission impossible? Entering year six of the Iraq war, with 4,000 Americans dead in the conflict, the president's popularity hitting new lows and results of the troop surge still fragile, it may look that way for the administration of George W. Bush. But we may also be rushing to judgment.
More than 60 years ago, during World War II, Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't think that his similar, even more daunting, mission was impossible. By the time he had completed his crusade in Europe and thanked his staff for a job well done at a farewell ceremony in Frankfurt in July 1945, the German army, or Wehrmacht, no longer existed, Hitler was dead, the Nazi Party had been dissolved, war criminals were behind bars awaiting trial and retribution, de-Nazification had begun, and western Germany -- the part not occupied by the Soviet army -- was on its way to becoming one of the most successful liberal democracies of the Western world. The Third Reich was history.
So what did the United States do right 60 years ago that it has -- so far -- failed to accomplish in Iraq since the iconic toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad and Bush's "Mission Accomplished" declaration aboard a U.S. carrier on May 1, 2003?
The question is, of course, superficial. It would be harder to think of two more different societies than Germany in 1945 and contemporary Iraq. The former -- despite Hitler and the Third Reich -- had a long tradition of law, order, constitutional government and civic society to draw on in rebuilding democracy. Nor was it riven by deep-rooted ethnic and sectarian religious tensions that erupted to the surface once the dictator's iron fist was removed. And although Germany certainly had hostile neighbors -- especially to the communist East -- the threat they posed served to create, not crack, political cohesion.
Yet in looking at Iraq over the past five years, it's hard not to find poignant echoes of the post-WWII experience and to wonder whether a better knowledge of that history might have helped prevent some basic errors. Or even -- because there may be some small crumb of comfort for optimists here -- that it's too soon to declare that the mission has failed. Sen. John McCain's 100-year horizon for a U.S. presence in Iraq may be stretching things. But let's not forget that the postwar occupation of Germany lasted for a full decade.
In 1945, the Allies had a carefully thought-out plan for what would follow victory. For two years before his forces crossed the German frontier, Eisenhower and his staff at Allied headquarters worked on detailed plans for the occupation. The lines of command were clearly drawn, and everyone agreed that the military would be in charge. Thousands of soldiers were trained in the tasks of military government. Compare that with the chaotically devised schemes for Iraq that were cobbled together at the last minute amid squabbling between the Pentagon and the State Department. Or with the confused and confusing mandate handed to the hapless Jay Garner, the first administrator of postwar Iraq, to devise a comprehensive plan for its administration in a matter of weeks.
Nonetheless, plans, however thorough, are worthless if they cannot be implemented. For that, establishing law and order is a minimal and basic condition. There was plenty of looting and disorder when U.S. forces entered Germany. In fact, it was on a scale far greater than anticipated or now remembered, most of it due to the rage that millions of slave laborers who'd been deported to Germany from Nazi-occupied countries, chiefly Poland and the Soviet Union, vented on their captors upon liberation.
As in Baghdad five years ago, the disorder also engulfed cultural institutions. When U.S. forces entered Munich, Hitler's spiritual home and the seat of Nazi Party headquarters, scores of works of art simply disappeared from museums and art galleries. For two or three days, the northern city of Bremen was "probably among the most debauched places on the face of God's earth," wrote one witness of the frantic looting that took place after Allied soldiers entered its bomb-shattered streets.
But this anarchy was quickly and forcefully stamped out, and enough Allied forces remained in the country and in all major cities to impose stringent and often ruthless order. Military tribunals promptly disposed of Nazis who were inclined to continue the struggle by executing them or imposing severe terms of imprisonment.
The way victory was declared was crucial. Immediately after entering Germany in September 1944, Eisenhower issued a proclamation that declared: "We come as conquerors, but not as oppressors." The emphasis on conquest meant that military government ruled. There was no glib talk of liberation, and no dealing, either, with the large number of anti-Nazi exiles who had jockeyed for recognition as some sort of government in exile. Too many of them were long out of touch with realities on the ground or had axes to grind.
Critics of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq point to the decisions by L. Paul Bremer, Garner's replacement, to dismiss Baathists from public office and to dissolve the Iraqi army as critical and disastrous turning points that created a vast legion of the unemployed and disaffected. Yet in 1945, the Allies implemented a similarly draconian policy in Germany. They dissolved the Nazi Party, carried out a thorough purge of Nazis in public office and even abolished the ancient state of Prussia, which they believed was at the root of German militarism. Millions of Wehrmacht soldiers languished in prisoner-of-war camps while their families struggled to survive.
None of this, however, had the catastrophic consequences seen in Iraq. One reason is that pragmatism almost immediately took hold. It quickly became clear that Germany could be rebuilt only with the help of numerous people who had been members of the Nazi Party.
The Allies entered Germany with a strict policy of "non-fraternization" that forbade their forces to have any but the most minimal and formal dealings with Germans. "Don't get chummy with Jerry," urged the G.I. newspaper Stars and Stripes. "In heart, body and spirit every German is a Hitler." But by July 1945, the policy had been abandoned as unenforceable. It was also alienating the very Germans needed to rebuild the country and establish democracy.
As for de-Nazification, it sounded good, and indeed was morally and politically necessary. But distinguishing between real and nominal Nazis often proved extremely difficult. Small officials who'd joined the party out of necessity were thrown out of office, while big businessmen who'd profited under Hitler were left alone. The policy generated growing hostility to the occupiers, and its implementation was soon handed over to the Germans themselves. This caused its own bitterness as the Germans were often seen as being too lenient.
Even so, despite this willingness to rethink and adjust, occupation policy floundered. Two years after Allied victory, Germany was in desperate straits, facing an economic crisis that threatened to nip democracy in the bud. Only the Marshall Plan, with its massive program of financial aid, saved the country from disaster. Self-government did not come until 1949, and Allied troops remained in West Germany as occupiers until 1955, a full decade after the defeat of the Third Reich. Unrepentant Nazis stayed active on the extreme fringes of West German politics for years, and a few ex-Nazis held high positions even in mainstream politics until the 1960s. The Christian Democratic politician Kurt Georg Kiesinger, who had joined the Nazi Party in 1933, was chancellor of the Federal Republic from 1966 to 1969.
Rebuilding a nation is possible. But even in the best of circumstances, it takes effort, time, patience and pragmatism. As 1945 confirms, liberation from a dictator in itself offers no easy path to peace or democracy. Battlefield victory is the easy bit. Building peace is a constant struggle -- and it's a matter of years, not weeks.
David Stafford is the author of "Endgame 1945: The Missing Final Chapter of World War II."
Sunday, April 6, 2008; B03
Washington Post
Smash the enemy, deliver victory, topple the dictator, destroy his regime, eliminate his evil ideology, and establish peace and democracy. Oh, and -- almost forgot -- do this several thousand miles away on a distant continent while also fighting another life-or-death struggle elsewhere. Meanwhile, make sure to keep in step with our allies. And one last thing: Bring the troops back home as soon as possible.
Mission impossible? Entering year six of the Iraq war, with 4,000 Americans dead in the conflict, the president's popularity hitting new lows and results of the troop surge still fragile, it may look that way for the administration of George W. Bush. But we may also be rushing to judgment.
More than 60 years ago, during World War II, Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't think that his similar, even more daunting, mission was impossible. By the time he had completed his crusade in Europe and thanked his staff for a job well done at a farewell ceremony in Frankfurt in July 1945, the German army, or Wehrmacht, no longer existed, Hitler was dead, the Nazi Party had been dissolved, war criminals were behind bars awaiting trial and retribution, de-Nazification had begun, and western Germany -- the part not occupied by the Soviet army -- was on its way to becoming one of the most successful liberal democracies of the Western world. The Third Reich was history.
So what did the United States do right 60 years ago that it has -- so far -- failed to accomplish in Iraq since the iconic toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad and Bush's "Mission Accomplished" declaration aboard a U.S. carrier on May 1, 2003?
The question is, of course, superficial. It would be harder to think of two more different societies than Germany in 1945 and contemporary Iraq. The former -- despite Hitler and the Third Reich -- had a long tradition of law, order, constitutional government and civic society to draw on in rebuilding democracy. Nor was it riven by deep-rooted ethnic and sectarian religious tensions that erupted to the surface once the dictator's iron fist was removed. And although Germany certainly had hostile neighbors -- especially to the communist East -- the threat they posed served to create, not crack, political cohesion.
Yet in looking at Iraq over the past five years, it's hard not to find poignant echoes of the post-WWII experience and to wonder whether a better knowledge of that history might have helped prevent some basic errors. Or even -- because there may be some small crumb of comfort for optimists here -- that it's too soon to declare that the mission has failed. Sen. John McCain's 100-year horizon for a U.S. presence in Iraq may be stretching things. But let's not forget that the postwar occupation of Germany lasted for a full decade.
In 1945, the Allies had a carefully thought-out plan for what would follow victory. For two years before his forces crossed the German frontier, Eisenhower and his staff at Allied headquarters worked on detailed plans for the occupation. The lines of command were clearly drawn, and everyone agreed that the military would be in charge. Thousands of soldiers were trained in the tasks of military government. Compare that with the chaotically devised schemes for Iraq that were cobbled together at the last minute amid squabbling between the Pentagon and the State Department. Or with the confused and confusing mandate handed to the hapless Jay Garner, the first administrator of postwar Iraq, to devise a comprehensive plan for its administration in a matter of weeks.
Nonetheless, plans, however thorough, are worthless if they cannot be implemented. For that, establishing law and order is a minimal and basic condition. There was plenty of looting and disorder when U.S. forces entered Germany. In fact, it was on a scale far greater than anticipated or now remembered, most of it due to the rage that millions of slave laborers who'd been deported to Germany from Nazi-occupied countries, chiefly Poland and the Soviet Union, vented on their captors upon liberation.
As in Baghdad five years ago, the disorder also engulfed cultural institutions. When U.S. forces entered Munich, Hitler's spiritual home and the seat of Nazi Party headquarters, scores of works of art simply disappeared from museums and art galleries. For two or three days, the northern city of Bremen was "probably among the most debauched places on the face of God's earth," wrote one witness of the frantic looting that took place after Allied soldiers entered its bomb-shattered streets.
But this anarchy was quickly and forcefully stamped out, and enough Allied forces remained in the country and in all major cities to impose stringent and often ruthless order. Military tribunals promptly disposed of Nazis who were inclined to continue the struggle by executing them or imposing severe terms of imprisonment.
The way victory was declared was crucial. Immediately after entering Germany in September 1944, Eisenhower issued a proclamation that declared: "We come as conquerors, but not as oppressors." The emphasis on conquest meant that military government ruled. There was no glib talk of liberation, and no dealing, either, with the large number of anti-Nazi exiles who had jockeyed for recognition as some sort of government in exile. Too many of them were long out of touch with realities on the ground or had axes to grind.
Critics of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq point to the decisions by L. Paul Bremer, Garner's replacement, to dismiss Baathists from public office and to dissolve the Iraqi army as critical and disastrous turning points that created a vast legion of the unemployed and disaffected. Yet in 1945, the Allies implemented a similarly draconian policy in Germany. They dissolved the Nazi Party, carried out a thorough purge of Nazis in public office and even abolished the ancient state of Prussia, which they believed was at the root of German militarism. Millions of Wehrmacht soldiers languished in prisoner-of-war camps while their families struggled to survive.
None of this, however, had the catastrophic consequences seen in Iraq. One reason is that pragmatism almost immediately took hold. It quickly became clear that Germany could be rebuilt only with the help of numerous people who had been members of the Nazi Party.
The Allies entered Germany with a strict policy of "non-fraternization" that forbade their forces to have any but the most minimal and formal dealings with Germans. "Don't get chummy with Jerry," urged the G.I. newspaper Stars and Stripes. "In heart, body and spirit every German is a Hitler." But by July 1945, the policy had been abandoned as unenforceable. It was also alienating the very Germans needed to rebuild the country and establish democracy.
As for de-Nazification, it sounded good, and indeed was morally and politically necessary. But distinguishing between real and nominal Nazis often proved extremely difficult. Small officials who'd joined the party out of necessity were thrown out of office, while big businessmen who'd profited under Hitler were left alone. The policy generated growing hostility to the occupiers, and its implementation was soon handed over to the Germans themselves. This caused its own bitterness as the Germans were often seen as being too lenient.
Even so, despite this willingness to rethink and adjust, occupation policy floundered. Two years after Allied victory, Germany was in desperate straits, facing an economic crisis that threatened to nip democracy in the bud. Only the Marshall Plan, with its massive program of financial aid, saved the country from disaster. Self-government did not come until 1949, and Allied troops remained in West Germany as occupiers until 1955, a full decade after the defeat of the Third Reich. Unrepentant Nazis stayed active on the extreme fringes of West German politics for years, and a few ex-Nazis held high positions even in mainstream politics until the 1960s. The Christian Democratic politician Kurt Georg Kiesinger, who had joined the Nazi Party in 1933, was chancellor of the Federal Republic from 1966 to 1969.
Rebuilding a nation is possible. But even in the best of circumstances, it takes effort, time, patience and pragmatism. As 1945 confirms, liberation from a dictator in itself offers no easy path to peace or democracy. Battlefield victory is the easy bit. Building peace is a constant struggle -- and it's a matter of years, not weeks.
David Stafford is the author of "Endgame 1945: The Missing Final Chapter of World War II."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)