Those who favor gun rights and oppose gun control like to divide people into two categories, the “good guys” and the “bad guys.” Looking at people in such a simplistic way is reflective of the lack of critical thinking that seems to occur more among conservatives rather than progressives. But then again, what I just said might also be simplistic. There is some empirical evidence to support it, but we must be careful with where we go when painting with broad strokes.

There are two basic problems with using terms like “good” and “bad.” First, by only talking in polarities, we tend to eliminate consideration of shades of grey. Second, it’s hard to not use terms like these. They are low-hanging fruit; they are handles that are easy to grab.

We spend much of our political dialogue, or debate, in trying to fashion workable policies. But so long as human beings are needed to administer policy, and to make “on-the-fly” judgments and decisions, our best laid plans are susceptible to less than optimal outcomes due to that little problem called human error.

In the world of simplified thinking, there is less likelihood of human error when the people who are carrying out their jobs are “good” at them rather than “bad.”

This concept really struck a nerve with me last night when I watched a repeat PBS Frontline, “Business of Disaster,” about disaster relief to victims of major storms such as Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy.

We are talking about two storms in which damages were close to $100 billion, with a ‘B.’ That’s huge. And the program illustrated a few points very clearly:

1. While parts of the governmental responses were effective, others were not. A lot of the problems emanated from Congress under-funding FEMA, particularly in administering aid to home and business owners.
2. Insurance companies were caught in the middle of the aid process, and surprise surprise, they seemed to be more interested in their bottom lines than in adequately and properly paying claims. In fact, as reported by NPR’s Laura Sullivan, they made more money in the wake of these storms than they did in “normal” times. That seems to be a rather strange insight as to how insurance works.
3. There were some very well-intentioned and skilled officials working at all levels of response – federal government, state governments, local governments, non-profits, private companies (including insurance companies).
4. It seemed that most of the home-owners and business that had suffered damage because of the storms were honest in their claims. They were not trying to recover damages for something that happened unrelated to the storms.

But perhaps most importantly,

5. Lots of people at all levels of the response acted poorly. In the right-wing vernacular, they were “bad guys.” There was profiteering by insurance companies, by builders, by suppliers, by bureaucrats, by agencies, by leaders and even by some claimants. There was stinginess by the government, by contractors and others. The response was far short of the need. When you combine inadequate policies with inadequate people implementing them, you have a series of new disasters that follow the initial disaster.

So, while gun advocates might say that the “good guys” with guns need to be further empowered, others might say that we need more “good guys” to be engaged in public and private decision-making and the implementation of mandates. But here we get to a new list of two problems:

1. Who the hell are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys,” not only about carrying guns, but about weaving the overall fabric of our society?
2. If we need more effective people to help us have better responses to disasters and non-disasters alike, how do we identify them? How do we attract the “best and the brightest” amongst us to carry out important societal decisions?

We seem to always come up short. I would submit that the problem is that there just aren’t enough “good guys and women” among us. If our society was a sports team, we would be in desperate need of rebuilding. It wouldn’t be just a rebuilding year, but at least a rebuilding decade.

Our main problem is that critical thinking is at such a low premium. Somehow, some way, we must try to aggregate those among us who can think critically and who also can empathize to find ways to increase their numbers.

I always think that starts in our schools. When our schools place more focus on critical thinking and empathy, we will then be better at responses to disasters, and a lot more.

The post We need more “good guys” without guns appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the challenges that progressives frequently face is that they like to be sticklers for facts, at least wherever possible. And since a basic tenet of progressive beliefs is that many societal problems can best be solved through pro-active engagement by the federal government, it becomes frustrating when then federal government does not acquit itself well.

In our local community of St. Louis, Missouri, there seem to be three public works projects with considerable federal funding that seem to involve potentially unwise expenditures of those federal bucks. These local projects are often where citizens get to meet the federal government “up close and personal,” so when they are lemons, it can definitely color the confidence that citizens have in the feds to address large-scale problems. Most public works programs start off in the “aggravation lane” because they often cause disruption and inconvenience well before the first presumed benefit of the work ever appears.

Example 1 — Delmar Trolley

A $51 million project (behind schedule) in St. Louis is the Loop Trolley running 2.2 miles from the University City Loop near Washington University to the Missouri History Museum. With a transportation project, a good initial question is “does anyone travel from Point ‘A’ to Point ‘B?’ In the case of the U. City trolley, the answer is that people do indeed convene at either end of the route, but rarely do they traverse the exact route. There will be intermediate stops along the route, but none will be high capacity venues. The trolley is the brainchild of University City entrepreneur Joe Edwards who has committed most of his life to make the area in which he grew up into both a livable and exciting place to live.

A trolley is quaint, clever, and unique. Running along a major corridor, it can be very helpful to a region’s transportation needs, particularly if it has an exclusive right-of-way. But with the U. City trolley, it is designed to go down existing roadway, streets that coincidentally used to be home to streetcars. The tracks were pulled up fifty years ago because the streetcars and automobiles could not conveniently co-exist. At this point, there is no reason to believe that the new trolley will have some new magical feature that will allow automobiles to comfortably move, especially since this route has always been nothing but stop and go.

Over the course of the two years of construction, once vital businesses have bitten the dust because construction made it difficult for consumers to get to entry points. The bottom line seems to be that this idea may have been considered an asset to gentrification of an area that was struggling to rebound, but collateral damage has already been significant and it’s unlikely that when completed it will come close to meeting its intended goal. This will not look good for either the local governments or the federal government.

Example 2 — Kiener Plaza

A second project is revamping downtown’s Kiener Plaza. The $19 million project is designed to “better connect to downtown’s urban fabric, be flexible for events year-round, and offer new urban park amenities.” The problem is that the current plaza does exactly that. The photos below show how it was effectively used in 2011 in the Occupy St. Louis movement.

It was a great town hall place with an amphitheater where citizens could gather to take on issues of the day. It might have been mistaken for downtown Athens 2,500 years ago. It had a vibrancy that is lacking in most of St. Louis. But now it is demolished. It is being replaced by a “water garden,” which indeed will be nice for families, particularly children. The problem is that such a park already exists only a block away. Because the new plaza will have streaming water, it will not be a venue where citizens can gather to engage in public dialogue. Why is this $19 million being spent? There are no clear answers. What seems most likely is that local officials want to extinguish public protest downtown and they are being aided in their efforts by federal dollars.

Example 3 — Forest Park Parkway at Kingshighway

Finally, there is the surprising news that within a few weeks, work will begin on eliminating the Forest Park Parkway underground viaduct beneath Kingshighway and replacing it with a new “at-grade” crossing. Proponents say that it will improve traffic flow and make the intersection more pedestrian friendly. But how can traffic at an intersection move more smoothly than it does when one street goes under and the other street goes over? And how will pedestrians benefit from a thoroughfare through a park? There must be some answer, and it probably has something to do with the main property owners in the area, Barnes-Jewish Hospitals and Washington University Medical Schools. Their reasoning may be even sound, although not yet publicly disclosed. But the project is going to take a year of work and inconvenience. It doesn’t look good for either the city or the federal government.

I recently completed a two-week trip around America on Amtrak. All of the federal employees were extremely friendly and helpful. That speaks well for the federal government. But questionable local decisions with federal complicity do not engender faith in the federal government. I think that it would behoove progressives to work to ensure that federal monies are neither wasted at the local level nor become an enabling factor for the kind of frustration that construction projects often bring. Call these projects what you will, but they’re all pork. Some pork is better than others and we need to be more discerning.

The post How the federal government may not be serving St. Louis well appeared first on Occasional Planet.

BadgerCare is Wisconsin’s healthcare plan for low-income residents—and as state healthcare programs go, it’s one of the best. Wisconsin now ranks second in the country in percentage of people with access to health care. Massachusetts, with its mandatory health insurance program, is first.

Many states have health care options for low-income families with children, as does Wisconsin. But the Wisconsin legislature saw a need for a health care plan for adults without dependent children, and created the BadgerCare Plus Core Plan.  Here are the requirements for applying. You are eligible if you:

• Are a Wisconsin resident;
• Are a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant;
• Are age 19 through 64;
• Do not have children or do not have dependent children, under age 19 living with you;
• Are not pregnant;
• Have family income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level guidelines ($1,805 for a single person and $2,428.33 for a married couple*);
• Do not have private health insurance coverage when you request Core Plan coverage or in the 12 months before that date;
• Do not currently have access to insurance from an employer;
• Cannot sign up for insurance from an employer during month of application or next three months;
• Did not have access to insurance from an employer in the 12 months before you request Core Plan coverage; and
• Are not getting BadgerCare Plus, Medicaid or Medicare.

Once an applicant is accepted to BadgerCare Plus Core Plan, the healthcare is free with the exception of $3 co-pays for doctor visits and some prescriptions, and $100 for a hospital stay. The covered benefits are remarkably comprehensive.

As of June 15, 2009, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services began accepting applications for the BadgerCare Plus Core Plan with the earliest enrollment date July 15, 2009. Unfortunately, by October 2009, the application process for the plan was suspended because the total number of applications was greater than the 60,000 slots available. A Core Plan wait list was created, and people on the wait list will be able to enroll in the Core Plan as space becomes available.

But a wait list was not good enough for Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. On June 1, 2010, he announced that individuals who are currently waiting for health care coverage under the BadgerCare Plus Core Plan now have the option to enroll in the BadgerCare Plus Basic plan. The Basic plan is an entirely self-funded health care plan created for more than 50,000 adults without dependent children who are on the BadgerCare Plus Core Plan waiting list. Benefits will start for some enrollees July 1, 2010. Premiums will be $130 per month.

“This will not be a Cadillac health plan,” Governor Doyle said. “In fact, it will be just what the name suggests – it will be basic.  But basic coverage can be the difference between a treatable condition and a trip to the emergency room.  And basic coverage can be the difference between having protection while you try and get your feet back on the ground and going bankrupt trying to pay for medical care.”

Members will have access to catastrophic coverage plus:

•Up to 10 physician visits each year;

•Limited hospitalization;

◦Coverage for first inpatient hospital stay and five outpatient hospital visits;

◦Subsequent stays after $7,500 deductible;

•Up to five emergency room visits each year;

•Some generic medications; and

•Badger Rx Gold discount drug membership.

The Basic plan is not designed to be a long-term health coverage plan, but is instead a temporary plan to help people take care of their health care needs while they wait for coverage on the BadgerCare Plus Core Plan. BadgerCare Plus Basic builds on Governor Doyle’s work over the last seven years to make Wisconsin a health care leader.

The post On Wisconsin! Go BadgerCare! appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If David and Goliath really existed, and if their match had taken place in the Roman Coliseum, for whom would the fans be rooting?  It’s hard to tell; we don’t even know what the breakdown was between fans for the lions and the Christians.

However, we can say that if the Coliseum had been filled with progressives, virtually every fan would have been rooting for David.  If the edifice had been filled with BP executives, Goliath might have been the fans’ choice.

To the extent that we have moved towards a multi-modal transportation world, bicyclists are progressives’ choice in conflicts over rights-of-way.  Most of us can’t stand the sights, sounds, and smells of eighteen-wheelers as they seemingly squeeze us off the roads.  Never mind that the behemoth truck that you curse may be bringing you naturally grown vegetables and fruits, or more likely your latest electronic gadget.

Urban planners are now going the extra mile to extend full rights to bicyclists.  In the 1960s, when the “new town” movement was becoming a reality, the Washington, DC exurbs of Reston, Virginia and Columbia, Maryland featured miles of separate rights of way for bicyclists and pedestrians.  They included friendly curb-cuts before the ADA was passed, and it was easy for many to ride from home to work or school without having to look over one’s shoulder for an approaching car or truck.  Minneapolis was probably the first established community to recognize that bicycle rights required structural changes to ensure bicycle safety.  Some parks near downtown Minneapolis have had rights-of-way that curve through the terrain with separate (and occasionally separated) lanes for cars, bicycles, walkers, and skate-boarders.

But in most of North America, the bicyclist is a second-class citizen who lives and, unfortunately, all-too-often dies at the mercy of motorists.  Cyclists are rarely responsible for collisions; generally it is either an errant driver or a vehicle that is simply too large to safely be on any street.  Thus, when mishaps occur, anger is normally directed at a motorist.

To illustrate how perilous bike riding can be, a Canadian cyclist cleverly attached a mini-video camera to his helmet and recorded his normal journeys.  Sure enough, in one incident after another,  he is put in harm’s way, as motorists either don’t notice him, see him but don’t care about his presence, or perhaps intentionally try to scare or hit him.  Because the fine young gentleman survives all and eloquently describes his travails, we present his video from CBC by way of CNN.

It’s virtually impossible to watch the video and not have empathy for the biker and disdain for the drivers.  However, there is a third factor present in all of the accidents and near-accidents.  The cyclist, Luke Rae,  is operating under what may or may not be a fair assumption; that he has as much right to the roads he travels as any motorist.  It’s a nice thought, but considering road design, perhaps somewhat of a fantasy.  We cannot argue with his contention that he has a right to ride his bike on the roads, but we can question his premise that it should be safe for him to ride on these roads.  It simply isn’t, even when drivers are cautious and well-intentioned.  He is fighting a losing battle trying to equally share the asphalt ribbons with his four- to eighteen-wheel colleagues.

When it comes to protecting bicyclists, government has shown the ability to be responsible and respectful of the rights of the less powerful.  It’s happening more every day as separate and safe bike paths are paved to give cyclists their own right of way.  However, with the 95% or more of our roads which were not constructed with cyclist safety in mind, poor planning is often an “unindicted co-conspirator” with the motorist who wreaks havoc on the cyclist.

Most of us have had our automobile-bicycle near misses.  Sometimes we’re the cyclist, and sometimes we’re the motorist.  As the video clearly illustrates, these incidents are harrowing experiences for cyclists.  But often, it is the motorist who is scared out of his or her wits because he or she almost struck an innocent cyclist.

The accidents and near-accidents will continue, perhaps with the frequency as shown in the video, if we maintain the status quo.  Let’s applaud those in and out of government who take steps to ensure safe cycling.  At the same time, let’s be careful about which motorists we demonize.  Like so many things in life, it’s not an easy call.

The post Should bicyclists have unlimited rights? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Douglas J. Amy is professor of politics at Mt. Holyoke College. His “Government is Good” website and Facebook page feature topics such as: countering attacks against government; how government promotes the public good; and how to make government more democratic. In an interview with Occasional Planet (OP), Amy (DA) shares some of his views:

OP: You teach Introduction to Politics.  What attitudes and misconceptions do college students bring to your class?

DA: They come in with an extremely cynical and negative view of politics. The word “politics” itself has a negative connotation for them, and they tend to take a harsh view of government. I find myself battling that cynicism all the time. I try to talk about the potentials of government, and I emphasize that becoming politically active is a noble activity, a way to be a moral person in the world.

OP: But so many young people were involved in the 2008 election. Didn’t that enthusiasm have a carry-over effect?

DA: Somewhat. But Obama’s ability to rally young people was an exception. Young people saw him as a symbol of hope, but in the past year, some of the old cynicism has crept back in. There’s been some disappointment and disillusionment as the radical changes many were expecting haven’t materialized. I try to tell students that they need to be idealistic, but realistic.

OP: So, in realistic terms, have there been any qualitative improvements in government since the Obama administration came to power?

DA: Yes, particularly in the regulatory process. President Bush put a lot of effort into undermining workplace regulations, food safety and environmental protection. He knew, though, that people actually liked those regulatory protections, so rather than publicly removing them, he just didn’t enforce them, and he appointed people who didn’t know much about regulatory work or who were from the industries that they were supposed to regulate. President Obama, on the other hand, has gone out of his way to find competent people who believe in the mission of the regulatory agencies.

OP: Why don’t we hear more about the good things that government agencies are doing?

DA: When government does something right, it gets no press. Most of the time, in fact, government just goes along, day by day, doing a good job. That’s not necessarily a new phenomenon in this administration.

OP: What’s an example of government doing its job well?

DA: The Environmental Protection Agency is one. Ever since its inception, EPA has been very effective in improving the quality of the air and water in our country. And they do it very efficiently. EPA costs about $30 per year per American. It’s hard to think of a better use of $30.

OP: What’s the source of anti-government sentiment?

DA: Suspicion of government is part of America’s political culture. This country was started by people who were suspicious of the British monarchy and authority in general. In fact, I think we should be suspicious of any organization with a large amount of power—government, church, whatever. I don’t have a problem with that.  The problem is that the far right has moved from suspicion to hatred of government. That’s taking it too far. We need to see that, as a whole, democratic government is working well for us.

OP: If government generally works well for us, why do people voice such strong sentiments against it?

DA: A lot of Americans are very insecure economically. We worry about how we’ll be able to retire, how we’ll afford to send our kids to college, pay for our healthcare, or make our mortgage payments. People are looking for someone to blame for these problems. One of the loudest voices is that of big business, which routinely points the finger at government. They’ve made government a scapegoat to distract people from the real problems, many of which come from the private sector itself. The political right doesn’t want to talk about that.

OP: What frustrates you when you try to talk about good government?

DA: People often express self-contradictory views about government. On one level, they’ll say they’re “anti-government.” If you ask them, “Do you trust government,” they’ll say, “No.” But if you ask them about particular government services, like EPA, local fire and police, or FDIC, they’ll say, “Oh, yeah, that’s a good one. That works pretty well.” I often can get the conversation to that level, but in the end, people still say “I think we should limit government.”

OP: If you could immediately change anything in our government system, what would it be?

DA: Campaign financing. Our system is beyond broken. There’s so much money flowing from corporations that the whole thing has become corrupted. And this corruption of the electoral process is connected to the way people view government, because they see government as responding more to the special interests that fund campaigns than to the citizens it’s supposed to represent and protect. We really need public financing of elections, like they have in Maine, so that politicians can be less beholden to special interests.

OP: What’s your view of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance?

DA: It’s a disaster. We already had a problem with the influence of big business—through PACs and individual contributions—on elections. This decision will make a bad problem worse.

OP: Who is your role model for making government work well?

DA: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He ignited a sea change in the way people looked at the federal government and its role in society. He put into play a new philosophy of government responsibility and activism. Before the 1930s, the government played a very limited role. Economic ups and downs were viewed like the weather: they just happened, and we endured them. Roosevelt didn’t invent a new role for government; he got his ideas from the American Left and from Western Europe. They were way ahead of the U.S. in offering pensions and universal healthcare. And ever since then, we’ve taken it for granted that when big problems occur, government is the only institution that can step in to deal with them.

OP: What other websites or blogs would you recommend for readers interested in engaging in the dialogue about good government?

DA: DEMOS is doing a great job. Their Public Works Project has done a lot to advance the idea that our public sector has a crucial role to play in promoting the public interest.

The post “Government is good,” says Douglas J. Amy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

For progressives looking for a counterpoint to the hypocritical, anti-government mantra of the right, here’s a great source: Government is Good, a website offering “an unapologetic defense of a vital institution.”

Douglas J. Amy, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, created the site and describes it this way:

This website is a response to this one-sided, distorted, and misleading depiction of government.  It makes the case that government – despite its flaws – plays a valuable and indispensable role in promoting the public good.  Most government programs are working well and are actually improving the lives of all Americans in innumerable ways.

The site includes myth-busting sections such as “A Day in Your Life with Government,” “What Americans Really Think About Government,” and “Unsung Government Heroes,” a reasoned and impassioned defense of the government workers–too often vilified as “bureaucrats”–whose mostly unnoticed work enhances our quality of life in everyday ways.

We Americans need to get over this knee-jerk antagonism toward our government and its employees. We need to acknowledge that our public agencies and our public servants have a vital role to play in society, protecting us from the numerous risks and threats that surround us in a modern world. And we need to ungrudgingly pay the taxes that make this important work possible.

The work of these public heroes often goes unappreciated because it goes unseen. When a firefighter saves someone from a burning building, it is front-page news. But when the everyday heroes in our government save us from harm, few people notice.

Why? Because when they do their jobs well, nothing happens to us. We don’t get sick from a disease, we aren’t poisoned by the water we drink, we aren’t electrocuted by a faulty appliance, and so on. With nothing bad happening, it is easy to go throughout our lives ignorant of how they are being made much safer by government workers.

Definitely worth checking out.

The post Government is good! appeared first on Occasional Planet.