EDITORIALS / OPINION

Go straight to your favorite columnist

- Andrew Fois

Pill Popping Platoons

- Edwina Rogers

Senator Obama and Taxes

- The Georgetowner

Mugabe Must Go!

RANTS

By the georgetowner

July 2008

A new study from Allstate Insurance says Washington drivers have more wrecks on average than any other place in the country. Are you kidding? Sorry, didn’t mean to rant so loud. But, yes, after studying crash data over the past two years, researchers found DC drivers average an accident every 5.4 years. The National Average is every ten years. Here are some averages from other local other cities: Baltimore, Md.-5.9 years Alexandria, Va.-7.0 years Arlington, Va.-7.1 years Norfolk, Va.-8.1 years Hampton, Va.-10.5 years Richmond, Va.-11.1 years. Los Angeles has traffic as bad as the DC area, but its drivers average fewer wrecks... one every 7.1 years. Philadelphia is 6.6, and Chicago at 7.6.

Mayor Adrian Fenty, who did not let a deadlocked taxi commission stall his plan to install meters in every D.C. cab, recently appointed three people to replace all but one of the members who voted against meters. Current Commissioners Theresa Travis, William Carter and Stanley Tapscott are out. Appointees Scott Kubly, Paul Cohn and Bart Lasner are in. . . Carter was not surprised about being replaced. “They want what they want, not necessarily what’s best for the city,” Carter, who backed a zone meter system, said of the Fenty administration. “That’s the way this administration works.”

Remember all that posturing on the city council and by the Fenty administration on the subject of banning the sale of illegal fireworks in the district?

It was probably just me, but on the night of the Fourth of July, with big fireworks doing their thing on the mall, our Adams Morgan neighborhood had its own fireworks. In a residential neighborhood, there were fireworks in alleys, in the park, on sidewalks. with a volume that was way larger than anything seen or heard previously and went on into mid-morning. Most of it seemed to be of the really loud noise-making variety, and it produced mostly smoke blanketing some residential streets to the point that one person said it looked and sounded like “a war zone.” 

Legal, or illegal, residents probably would have liked to see some of that vaunted neighborhood policing going on that night. Alas, there was no evidence of it that we could see.

There are a few things in life that we’re fairly clueless about – the meaning of life, the names of different cuts of beef, why David Hasselhoff is still on TV without Kitt, and men’s fashion. While we can perhaps bullsh*t our way through the first few items on that list, with the last, all we can do is offer our personal preferences. That is, we know what we think looks good on a man, but we don’t really know anything about the fashion behind it (i.e. where to shop, how to make sure what you buy fits well and general trends).

Actually, we can’t even say we know what we think looks good on a man, since we’re pretty convinced a guy who looks something like Johnny Depp can wear, well, whatever it is that Johnny Depp wears and still look mighty fine. This all comes down to this: We miss the Georgetown University Shop for Men, Britches, Ignacy Kunin, and Garfinkle’s.

Senator Obama and Taxes

By Edwina Rogers

July 2008

Among the many ways in which the United States is ahead of the curve with respect to its international peers is our tax policy. Whereas many developed European countries are just beginning to embark upon the path towards a decreased tax burden (due in no small measure to the election of conservative governments in some stalwartly liberal places), we came to our senses in the early 1980’s when voters declared, “enough is enough.” Over the two decades since then, Americans have elected leaders who beat back 60% rates, double dipping in investment gains, alternative minimums, internet taxes, and hopefully, someday the estate (death) tax. The benefits of this policy have been obvious: taxpayers keeping more of their hard-earned money, stimulation of economic growth, and the diminishment of the welfare state.

If the prevailing political winds catapult Barack Obama to the White House, that progress could well be eroded in a short period of time. During the 1990’s, Republicans in Congress, strong public sentiment keenly perspicacious of 70’s stagflation, and elements of President Bill Clinton’s own economic philosophy combined to sustain the Regan legacy. But that political landscape has changed. Many Americans have forgotten the economic failures precipitated by high-tax policies. Although middle-class voters don’t want to see their own marginal rates go up, they are more amenable to the class-warfare arguments we saw crop up during the Democratic primary (a la Senator John Edwards, adopted by Obama). Proposed tax increases are framed as “applying only to the rich”, i.e. those making more than $200 thousand. There are no Republican Congressional majorities to protect us from these distributive politics anymore, and indeed after the dust is settled next year taxpayers may even lose the filibuster as a last line of defense against hikes.

Democrat assertions that their tax policy is targeted at the rich (ignoring for a moment the inherent inequity of such a policy even if it the statements were true, and ignoring their liberal definition of “rich folks”) thinly veil their overarching philosophy: it is the sole providence of government to improve the quality of your life. To be able to enforce its regulations and sponsor its programs, government needs a never-ending source of revenue. The answer: tax everything.

The candidates have been extremely politically cautious in their statements of policy this election year, but happily the voting records never lie. In the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama voted at least twelve times for higher income taxes, voted against marriage penalty relief, against extending expanded child tax credits, against repealing a social security benefits tax, against providing relief from the alternative minimum tax, and most importantly, against the capital gains and dividends tax cuts. In the Illinois State Senate, Mr. Obama repeatedly voted to increase the tax burden on Illinoisans’ consumption of energy, and is on record as opposing any mitigation of the death tax.

If this is any indication of the policy Senator Obama aims to pursue should he be elected President, it will be incumbent upon all financially savvy Americans to: not get married; not invest in the stock market—and if you own securities sell them all, and reestablish your baseline; not start a small business; not have children; not drive anywhere; not get old; and whatever you do, for god’s sake, don’t die.

Edwina Rogers served at the National Economic Counsel at the White House under the current administration.

Mugabe Must Go!

the georgetowner

July 2008

Sen. John Kerry made the following statement on the floor of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, condemning President Robert Mugabe’s terror regime that forced opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai to pull out of Zimbabwe’s runoff election:

Mr. President, we are known as the world’s greatest deliberative body in the world’s greatest democracy. We talk frequently here about our commitment to spreading freedom around the globe.

But here in Washington, the news earlier this week that Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of Zimbabwe’s main opposition party, was forced to withdraw from the runoff election scheduled tomorrow, was met by an absence of meaningful action. 

It is important that we do condemn — through both words and deeds — a brutal campaign of violence and intimidation launched by President Robert Mugabe and his henchmen which rendered free and fair elections in Zimbabwe impossible.

Morgan Tsvangirai’s courageous decision not to put his supporters at further risk in an election that Mugabe explicitly said he would not respect if he did not win should be a wake-up call to the world – and especially to the African leaders who have the most influence over Zimbabwe – that action is long overdue.

For months now, Mugabe’s thugs have savaged opposition politicians, civil society activists, and anyone else who dared to dream of a peaceful end to his reign of terror. Villagers have literally been handed bullets by soldiers and told to choose between democracy or their lives. Since the initial balloting in March, the MDC believes that at least 86 of its supporters have been killed; over 10,000 have been injured; 2,000 unlawfully detained; and 200,000 have fled their homes. The details are more horrifying than these statistics convey: Women burned to death, young men tortured and dismembered, and the elderly savagely beaten.

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a campaign of political murder as brazen and outrageous as the one that’s been unleashed on unarmed innocents. Many dictators at least go through the motions of holding a sham election — not Mugabe — who matter-of-factly stated last week: “We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X [on a ballot]. How can a ball point pen fight with a gun?”

We know that even if Tsvangirai had not withdrawn, Mugabe would have stolen the election by rigging ballots.  Once again, this unapologetic dictator telegraphed his intentions, saying that ‘only God’ — not the voters of Zimbabwe — could remove him from office. 

Democracy in Zimbabwe is not the only casualty of the news this week. Every bit as damaged is the moral authority of the international community. Make no mistake, Mugabe is again thumbing his nose at the international community because he’s heard the world say ‘never again,’ again and again — and then he’s watched the world engage in collective hand-wringing as mass atrocities unfold and nothing happens, just like the last time. 

This cannot continue. Until recently, there was little hope of a vigorous international response.  But Tsvangirai’s selfless act of courage must now serve as a catalyst for change. 

On Monday, the UN Security Council, including China and Russia, issued its first condemnation of the violence, acknowledging it would be “impossible for a free and fair election to take place.” Strong words serve to diminish Mugabe’s legitimacy, but words alone aren’t enough to save Zimbabwe’s people. The international community must take action that sends the regime in Zimbabwe a simple, unequivocal message: Mugabe must go.

Pill Popping Platoons

By Andrew Fois

July 2008

It is well known that United States combat troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan are being stretched beyond their breaking point.  The enlistment requirements of tens of thousands of soldiers are being involuntarily extended. Troops are being forced to return for second, third and fourth year-long tours of duty with inadequate furloughs between deployments.  In 2007, American troops committed suicide at the highest rate on record. An increasing number of soldiers are intentionally hurting themselves in an effort to avoid returning to the war zones. Tens of thousands of soldiers in theatre and at home suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders.  In response, the Pentagon has resorted to extraordinary measures to return such troubled soldiers to the front lines of combat.

In its June 16, 2008, cover story, TIME magazine reported on an eye-opening practice of the United States military.  In America’s Medicated Army, Mark Thompson reveals that the Defense Department is dispensing anti-depressants and other mood altering drugs, as well as sleeping pills, to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although the Pentagon does not keep track of the extent of use of these medications, a survey in the fall of 2007 revealed that 12% of Army combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan (a total of at least 20,000 fighters) are taking these drugs to help them deal with their living conditions. The full extent of their use is probably much larger.  In 2007, at least 115 soldiers killed themselves, including 36 in the two combat theatres. Nearly 40% of these took psychotropic drugs, especially SSRI’s like Prozac and its more modern varieties.

Historically the armed forces have screened out recruits with mental illness and have barred the use of mood altering drugs in combat.  In its reversal of this practice, the military does not have the best interests of the troops foremost in mind. The practice is not being used to identify and treat soldiers with legitimate mental illness, anxiety, sleeplessness or mood disorders. Diagnoses of illness are not being made in a considered and objective manner. There is no follow up to assess the effectiveness or the potentially dangerous side effects of the dispensed drugs. No talk or cognitive therapy accompanies the medications. 

Instead the military’s motivation is to use these complex medications to patch the troubled soldiers back together just well enough to return them to the front lines. Moreover, the use of these medications conveniently serves to alter and brighten the soldiers’ perceptions of what is taking place in these combat zones and their individual roles within it.

Consider the typical case of Sergeant Christopher LeJeune as chronicled by TIME’s Thompson. LeJeune was assigned to a series of extremely dangerous and deadly combat missions in Baghdad. After a while he began to worry about how difficult it was to tell who was an enemy and who was not.  He regretted searching homes where terrorists were allegedly hiding out, only to find they were the homes of innocent children.  Surprisingly, he confided his feelings of despair to a military doctor who quickly diagnosed depression, gave him anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications and sent him right back to war.

Sergeant LeJeune and other soldiers like him likely do not have a mental illness. They are surrounded by death and suffering and can be killed themselves at any moment.  If they weren’t depressed and anxious under these circumstances, their mental health could be called into question. Rather than papering them over with drugs, military commanders and policymakers need to be aware of the effects the battlefield is having upon the troops.

Moreover, LeJeune’s legitimate and conscientious questioning of the goals and tactics of the war operations, and his own role in them, were tossed aside. He was told that having a conscience was abnormal, a symptom of his mental “illness.” When soldiers and their commanders lose the ability to clear headedly assess the nature of what they are ordering and being ordered to do in war, the potential of inappropriate behavior increases.

A surprising coincidence proves again that life imitates art. In the recently released movie The Incredible Hulk, the Army is experimenting with drugs and radiation to “improve” soldiers themselves in order to make them fierce, unbeatable weapons.   That effort produces the Hulk and his doppelganger and goes horribly wrong.

Are we headed down the same path? How far are we willing to go to maximize the use of limited human resources by keeping soldiers combat ready? What is the extent of legitimate use of drugs to achieve that goal? How much will we increase the risks to the health of our soldiers? Some armies throughout history have run on alcohol, German soldiers in WWII were given amphetamines and many soldiers in Vietnam used marijuana and heroin.  Are we willing to go that far? How about steroids and human growth hormones which would make soldiers stronger and more aggressive? Are we willing to numb our combat troops until they are no longer able to make a conscientious assessment of the legality of their orders and their conduct on the battlefield?  What about cloning and gene manipulation?  What are the limits?

These are all serious questions that, especially at a time of intense concern over national security, should not be left to the military alone. The answers will say something about who we are as a nation and what we are going to become.