Despite any hard evidence, from either before the U.S. entrance into the war in Iraq or in the four years since, Cheney still holds to his assertion of an Iraq - Al Qaeda link. Did he miss the Defense Department Inspector General’s report that found insignificant intelligence to justify an Iraq - Al Qaeda relationship?
Just when it seems like the Bush Administration can’t take another hit, a scandal erupts. It seems like no laws were broken, which begs the question, is there a problem?
Q: Where would you find Christian fundamentalists supporting a student who, at a school event, displayed a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”?
A: At the U.S. Supreme Court.
Last night, in a lecture entitled “Religion and Freedom of Speech: Cartoons and Controversies,” Yale law professor David Boies provided insightful analysis of the tensions between freedom of speech and the regulation of offensive material.
Post focused on the recent controversy over twelve editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Rather than arguing whether the Danish paper was correct in publishing them, he discussed what the legal repercusions should have been, in relation to both European and American law, and how this issue is representative of a very basic tension existing in all democracies.
Has anyone noticed the recent trend of backlash directed at those fighting global warming politically, but not in their actions?
Both before and after the Oscars, Al Gore was criticized for his documentary An Inconvenient Truth—not merely for content, but for the way he raced around the globe in his jet in what can only be classified as environmentally unsustainable.
Similarly, during the elections last year, California Gov. Schwarzenegger was criticized for driving a Hummer while simultaneously supporting anti-emissions policies.
Since we’ve spent the last month discussing the problems existing in the American healthcare system as well as possible reforms, I thought it might be useful to consider the highly successful Japanese healthcare system as a model. While Japan spends 5.4% less of its GDP per year on healthcare than the Unites States, unlike the US, Japan provides universal coverage to Japanese citizens. The Japanese system requires all citizens to purchase health insurance. Insurance companies pay privately owned service providers directly at rates set by the government. All employees in Japan are provided health insurance by the Social Insurance System (SIS). Employers shoulder between 50-80% of the cost of insurance, while the remainder is covered by premiums paid by employees based on their financial ability. The average worker’s premium is 4% of their salary. Citizens who are not employed are covered by National Health Insurance (NHI). A third insurance agency caters specifically to the healthcare needs of the elderly. Patients are allowed to choose their own doctors and preferred facilities. This system seems to integrate private healthcare providers with government subsidy quite effectively in a way that might appeal to insured American voters preoccupied with maintaining the freedom of choice they have with private insurance companies. While the Japanese system is highly successful on a whole, primary problems include long waits to see doctors and a shortage of doctors and medical facilities in rural as compared to urban areas.
