Ask Mr. Smartypants

Lane Filler
RSS Feeds
Posts
Comments
Archives
- September 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (6)
- May 2009 (7)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (6)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (4)
- December 2008 (5)
- November 2008 (4)
- October 2008 (3)
- September 2008 (6)
U.S. Government has funny take on transparency, partisanship
Categories: Filler
Here is the letter to the editor that the column below refers to:
On Aug. 26, The Associated Press ran a misleading story that claimed politics influenced the distribution of American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This is simply not true, and it's unfortunate that the Herald-Journal has chosen to repeat these false claims.
The truth is, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), part of the Department of Homeland Security, is utilizing $420 million in Recovery Act funding to replace aging infrastructure and enhance safety at 43 ports of entry across the country through an objective, thorough and transparent process. The process to rank the conditions and needs of all U.S. land ports of entry started in 2003, during a previous administration and three DHS secretaries ago. The ports were ranked according to expert assessments and current conditions, and funding was allocated based on these needs in addition to the parameters set forth by ARRA, which targets "shovel ready" projects. This list is public on Recovery.gov, and the process is straightforward -- no politics involved.
Americans should have confidence in the objectivity and openness with which ARRA funds are spent, and both CBP and DHS are committed to upholding this responsibility. To find out more about how ARRA funds are being used in your community and across the country, visit Recovery.gov.
Maria Luisa O'Connell
Assistant commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
Here is the column:
Tuesday afternoon, I came into work and found waiting in my e-mail a copy of the letter from Maria Luisa O'Connell, assistant commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, that you can read in the "letters to the editor" of this very section.
On Aug. 30, we had run an editorial the letter said was full of "false claims."
Largely based on a series of articles by The Associated Press pointing out that stimulus money to improve border crossings has been distributed seemingly without regard to the government's priority list for the facilities, the editorial (and the articles) showed the funding awards were swayed by political pressure. This led to a border crossing in Montana that serves three people a day getting $15 million and Laredo, Texas, which serves 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, getting no stimulus money at all, among many other obvious and similar oddities.
Now, it would be crass for The Associated Press to just assume that Montana got that money (and a lot more for other sleepy border crossings) because both its senators are Democrats and Washington and the Department of Homeland Security are run by Democrats. Luckily, The AP didn't have to assume that because Montana Sen. John Tester has been crowing about how he and Sen. Max Baucus personally appealed to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to make those and other Montana projects happen, ahead of higher-priority projects in other states.
Napolitano herself has acknowledged that politicians can influence an administration's spending plans, and she should know.
A border station in Nogales, Ariz., where Napolitano served as governor, will be getting $199 million, five times as much as any other station, while being rated only 34th on the priority list. Years of her lobbying for that project under the Bush administration yielded nothing.
The letter from DHS said if we had questions we should contact Rafael Lemaitre, senior adviser for media and communications in Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security (don't you just adore these titles). I did so.
The letter said The AP stories were "simply not true" and it was "unfortunate the Herald-Journal had chosen to repeat those false claims," so the first thing I asked Lemaitre was whether the DHS has demanded The AP run a retraction and, if so, how that was going.
Lemaitre: "We have reached out to them and they are ...I think they are not running a correction but let me get back to you on that."
To be safe, I also spoke to The AP deputy bureau chief in Washington, Steven Komarow, who said, "They took issue with the fact that our story said the funding decisions were political, but they didn't refute the sources we quoted as saying that, including the Montana senators and DHS Director Janet Napolitano, so no, there was no sense on our part that we should run any kind of correction or retraction at all."
Anabelle Garay, an AP reporter based out of Dallas who interviewed Napolitano and DHS officials for one of the follow-up articles, told me, "They were angry when I talked to them, but they weren't pinpointing what they were mad about."
The letter also asserted that the selection and funding process was totally transparent, and all relevant information could be found at www.recovery.gov. When I checked, I found a list of all the border crossings that did get funded, but not a list that also showed the ones that didn't, and the priorities of all the crossings, and why the priorities were ignored. The AP reporters based their analysis on documentation they were shown inside the DHS offices but not allowed to copy, keep, see all of or publish, an unusually opaque form of transparency.
So I asked Lemaitre if he could guide me to the information that would make it all crystal clear, as the letter we had been sent suggested such information was, and he said he'd ...wait for it ... "have to get back to you with that."
Over at The AP, Komarow said, "They are trying to argue that the process is transparent when it clearly isn't. What's on the Web site is the final decision, not the rationale or the reasoning behind funding low-priority projects ahead of high-priority ones." Komarow said even in the DHS offices, his reporters were not allowed access to "the whole deal."
When Lemaitre did get back to me, rather than having any answers on how negotiations with The AP on a correction were going (I imagine poorly, from his point of view) or any information on how I could find out on what basis, other than political pressure, we were spending millions on deserted checkpoints and ignoring mobbed ones, he said: "We have decided we are going to let the letter serve as our only response."
The fact that we, and The AP, were right seems obvious in retrospect. Our government involves too much partisanship and not enough transparency. The funniest thing Lemaitre said to me was, "This process was devoid of any political decision-making."
Me: "Was everyone excited at this historic first?"
Lemaitre: "What do you mean?"
Me: "You're asserting a decision was made, in Washington, about hundreds of millions of dollars, and it wasn't political. That would have been, in the history of our nation, a first. Did it excite you?"
That, like every meaningful question I asked Lemaitre, got no response.
The truth is ours to question
Categories: Filler
The appendix is back.
Medical science always told us it was useless, the Jerry Springer of internal organs. Humans, we were told, evolved past needing whatever service it once provided. The appendix became like the NordicTrack in the basement, ignored except for those rare occasions when it caused an injury.
It's an imperfect analogy: NordicTracks don't rupture, and people don't trip over their appendix in darkened basements while drunkenly searching for their old Nitty Gritty Dirt Band albums, but still.
Recently, though, something happened to the appendix that won't be happening to Springer or the NordicTrack. Dr. Bill Parker and his cronies at Duke University Medical Center figured out what it's for.
I read about the breakthrough and thought, "Here's an immunologist whose research might someday save millions of lives. I should pull him away from all that so he can help me write my column."
Parker said the appendix is a place where good bacteria can be stored until they are called on to go to work in the stomach, often after a bad case of diarrhea. Why did that take so long to figure out?
"The fact is the appendix serves no purpose for people who have good sewer systems and clean drinking water," Parker said. "That's why people in the industrialized world can have them taken out and not suffer any ill effects."
This was fascinating, but I wanted to talk to Parker about the authoritative voice.
Always, there is the authoritative voice. It tells us in no uncertain terms that the sun circles the Earth. Then it tells us in deep, sonorous tones that the Earth circles the sun. The voice that delivers the wrong information is no less certain, no less scornful of those who disagree, than the voice that delivers the right information.
The authoritative voice tells us there are 100 gods, of hearth and home and star and sky, of trees and grass and rivers and mountains. The authoritative voice tells us there is but one god and his name is Jehovah, or Allah, or that there is a trinity, one God in three guises: father, son and Holy Ghost. The authoritative voice tells us there is no god.
The authoritative voice says the free market solves all ills and causes them, that the economy is on the edge of a recovery and a depression.
The authoritative voice told us it's OK to own slaves. The authoritative voice told us women do not deserve to vote.
Parker said he believes in absolute scientific truths. I think as our methods of observation improve, our observations inevitably change.
The authoritative voice sounds exactly the same when it's wrong as when it's right, exactly the same when it's saying the appendix is useless as when it's saying it's not.
I doubt the authoritative voice and I hope you will, too.
Unless you hear an authoritative voice instructing you to buy my NordicTrack and Nitty Gritty Dirt Band albums. That voice, you should obey.
Secret life of cable addict exposed
Categories: Filler
Today, I expose my dirty little secret, or rather dirty little secret No. 2,193, knowing many of you share this shame.
Thanks to working nights, an inability to force our daughter to sleep in her own room and very different snoozing and viewing habits for myself and my wife, I live in a sparsely furnished dorm room.
And thanks to Charter cable, I have reached the end of my badly frayed rope.
When Quinn was born, I was working two jobs, mild-mannered reporter by day, world's angriest waiter by night. When I got home at 1 a.m., Quinn would be in bed with Angela. I would pick her up and, when Angela stirred, say, "The baby is restless, I'll take her downstairs."
We would watch ESPN or a movie together for a couple of hours, each of us enjoying our respective bottles, then I would put her back in bed with Angela and catch a few hours' sleep in the guest room. Quinn was the size of a baking potato and I was the size of Idaho, so I did not want to risk "mashing the spud."
We would redecorate Quinn's room every few months, and she would say, "Mommy, that's beautiful," then refuse to sleep in it. In four different homes, Quinn managed to own five separate beds situated in seven rooms, all the while spending pretty much every night "in the big bed."
Quinn would say, "I love mommy, and I get scared when I sleep alone." This meant, "I am addicted to television like it's heroin and there is not one in my room. If you want me to go eight hours without TV, think rehab."
At one point, when I was working only days, we did move Quinn into her room for about a month. This was long enough to trade the comfy bed I slept in to my mother-in-law for a futon, at which point I went back on nights, Quinn went back to Angela, and I was suddenly sleeping on a futon.
When we finally got Quinn into her bed for good (with the lights on, the protection of 117 stuffed animals and, possibly, cloves of garlic), Angela and I had become incompatible. I get home at 1 a.m. and like to watch "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report," but turn the TV off and go to bed as soon as I get sleepy.
Angela wakes up when I switch the TV to Comedy Central, then wants to keep it tuned to "CSI: Miami" all night long. I don't sleep well with the TV on, and David Caruso gives me a fierce set of the jeebies.
Additionally, Angela and I do not think romance is enhanced by living in close quarters or hearing each other's sleep noises. We believe real passion springs from separate bathrooms, alone time, adequate rest, scented candles, extinguished lights and bargaining.
So I sleep on a rock-hard futon in a room equipped with a 13-inch Sylvania and a scarred night table. It's like the room the guys in "Shawshank Redemption" live in when they get out of jail, but it provides cable, and solitude, which is what men really need.
But 25-year-old TVs only get so many channels. Mine gets 60. Charter moved Comedy Central to 67 this week.
So there it is, my secret life. I'm now just an exhausted man on a futon weeping bitterly at an ancient TV that no longer receives Jon Stewart.
Honestly, it's enough to make a guy break down and sleep with his wife.
You might want to put some cheese on that
Categories: Filler
Attending the town hall meetings of Rep. Bob Inglis and Sen. Jim DeMint on Thursday helped me see the issue clearly: We must stop listening to people, on either side, who engage in only half of the American conversation.
Inglis made this point beautifully. Asked whether he believes health care is a right, he said it is not, but he immediately addressed the other half of the conversation, saying he has "an obligation to care for the least of these among us, helping them with food, clothing and shelter."
Exactly. No one has any right to demand anything from me, but I have an obligation to provide for the less fortunate.
If you think it's OK for broken bones to go unset in America, then you're not part of the real conversation. If you would deny a poor person with an infection three bucks worth of penicillin, then you're not part of the real conversation.
You have a right to your opinion, but we're trying to have a civilization here. The greatest, richest, most philanthropic country in history doesn't let people die from easily treated problems.
But if you think the health insurance companies should be shut down, the doctors should all work for the government and no one should have better care than anyone else, you're not part of the conversation. We're trying to have a free nation here, and I'll buy ritzy health care if I want to.
And when we get the selfish, racist and xenophobic folks shushed, and we get the leftist, wealth-hating big-government loving freaks quiet, we can have the real conversation.
The real conversation is about levels of care, and delivery systems. The health care that needs to be available to all people should be about as good as government cheese and must be delivered via a cheaper method than emergency rooms.
Ban the dispensing of non-critical care in emergency rooms and set up government-run doc-in-a-boxes, urgent care centers open very long hours, one per county. Set up specialty offices, for cancer and the like, every 10 counties. Staff them with physicians paying off their student loans via a few years of service.
The lines would be long, the drugs generic, the service grumpy, the decor horrid. I wouldn't go there, because I have great health insurance. My company wouldn't cancel my insurance because poor people were allowed to get generic blood pressure medicine or an X-ray at a clinic. It would be cheaper than emergency rooms flooded with the uninsured seeking painkillers, stitches and antibiotics.
Health insurance carriers won't be destroyed by the public health insurance option because there won't be one.
Poor people dying for lack of a reasonable amount of medical treatment is not an acceptable option in America. We have the responsibility to do better. Single-payer health care is not an option in America. We have the right to ask for, and buy, more.
I pay taxes, and I say if someone's poor and hungry, give them a big, cheap hunk of cheese. If they're poor and sick, get them basic treatment.
Not because they deserve it, but because it's my obligation.
America is at its best when citizens and government pay attention to rights and responsibilities in equal measure.
Memories of our newspaper romance
Categories: Filler
I met my wife 10 years ago today. In 1999 I was working at the weekly newspaper in Kingstree, knocking down close to $350 a week and living the good life, when I got promoted to the company’s daily paper in Aiken. My boss in Kingstree, Vickie, predicted I would date and marry the Aiken paper’s advertising director, Angela Nalley.
It was sort of a romantic promotion to go along with the career one, the idea that I could woo and win a successful, mature, professional woman. Vickie had, that Christmas, gifted me with an ant farm so I would, “have something to focus on at work while I stared off into space.” Kingstree was the kind of place where she heard how much I had drunk at the bar the previous night before I even oozed into the office each morning. Point is, she knew me well enough that had she predicted I would chase after but be rejected by a cross-eyed and thrice divorced Waffle House waitress named Mercedes LeSabre, it would have been more in line with how she viewed me.
Off I went to Aiken, having found a spacious home in the ghetto of that generally lovely city for $250 a month. On August 9, 1999, I reported to work as the cops reporter, and at the first opportunity, snuck up to the front lobby to look at the pictures of the executives and evaluate my bride-to-be.
“Hubba hubba,” I thought. The picture was of a lovely blonde, and I immediately began prowling the building for her.
I couldn’t ask anyone where Angela’s office lay because journalists never acknowledge the existence of advertising or the need for advertising revenue. We believe our paychecks come directly from God.
Still, Aiken is not a huge paper and I should have been able to conclude my stalking of Angela swiftly. No such luck.
Not by lunch or by quitting time, or on Tuesday or Wednesday or anytime in my first week did I find the gal in the photo.
Through the weekend, I puzzled over Angela’s absence, a bit heartsick, but Monday morning I walked in the door and there she was, just back from vacation.
Angela was getting a Diet Coke out of the vending machine, wearing a sort of peach-colored dress with matching jacket (I’ve since learned the color was coral).
I introduced myself and we went outside and smoked together, because back then we were cigarette-enslaved wretches.
I started trying to ask Angela out almost immediately, but in a cowardly manner. Afraid of rejection, I would say weasely things like, “So, what are you getting up to after work?” or, “I would love to go out for a drink tonight, but I just don’t know the town very well.” These pathetic offerings received the lukewarm response they deserved.
I finally found the nerve to say, “Would you like to go out with me for a drink this evening,” on Sept. 2, and she answered, “Great, I’ll ask John Lowery to come too.”
So we had a chaperone on our first date, ditching him once we realized things were going well.
I have the visible emotional range of a statue, but I am the romantic in our marriage. I remember all the dates and remind Angela of them each year, and smiling, she says, “That’s today?”
Yes, baby, that’s today, and just so you know, I was heartbroken when you finally got rid of the coral dress and jacket, but not because I’m a romantic. You just looked smokin’ in it.