AnnotatedOpinions.com

The Obama administration’s talks with Iran—set to take place tomorrow in Geneva—are accompanied by an almost universally accepted misconception: that previous American administrations refused to negotiate with Iranian leaders. . . . “every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed.”

February 1979, the Carter administration attempted to establish good relations with the revolutionary regime. We offered aid, arms and understanding. The Iranians demanded that the United States . . .

The Reagan administration . . .famously sought a modus vivendi with Iran in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War during the mid-1980s.  .
. . This effort ended when the Iran-Contra scandal erupted in late 1986.

Most recently, the administration of George W. Bush . . . negotiated extensively with Tehran. [but it fell through because Iran did not arrive for a meeting in September 2006]. 

[AO: These examples show that on two separate occasions, during the Reagan administration and the Bush administration, negotiations ended unexpectedly: under the Reagan administration, a US scandal ended negotiations; during the Bush administration, an Iranian delegation failed to show up for a planned meeting where Iran was to announce suspension of its nuclear program and the US was to announce lifting of sanctions against Iran.

From this, Michael Ledeed, writing in the Wall Street Journal,  concludes that (1) negotiations are futile and (2) the only course of action is regime change via supporting the opposition in Iran.

But this is a false choice. There is no reason why we should not be supporting the opposition in Iran whether or not negotiations come to fruition. Just as we have always had sanctions and negotiations over the past 30 years, we can continue to support the opposition and pursue negotiations.

Further, the examples clearly obscure whether negotiations with Iran can be successful. Just because prior negotiations ended doesn’t mean that negotiations are futile. Note that under both the Reagan and Bush administrations, negotiations ended not because the US and Iran could not come to terms that both sides could agree with but because of some other occurrence not substantive to the talks. Rather than showing that negotiations are futile, these previous talks provide even more support for talking with Iran.]

THOUGH it hasn’t been true for years, many people believe that government employees receive lavish employment and retirement benefits in order to compensate for their meager paychecks. The reality is that their paychecks aren’t meager at all: Government jobs often pay more than those in the private sector, and the difference between the two is growing.

Consider the lucrative lot of the men and women who work for Uncle Sam. In 2008, according to data from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the 1.9 million civilian employees of the federal government earned an average salary of $79,197. The average private employee, by contrast, earned just $49,935. The difference between them came to more than $29,000 – a differential that has more than doubled since 2000.

[AO: This is the problem with averages. Sure, the average federal government worker may earn more than the average private sector employee, but who is the average federal government worker and who is the average private sector worker? Remember, the private sector hires oodles and oodles of non-professional, low wage and minimum wage workers. These works draws down the average private sector salary.  

Perhaps we should consider another metric: how does the average salary of the heads of the top 100 government departments and agencies compared to the average fortune 100 CEO’s salary?

Most tellingly is the desire of most Americans to go into the private sector rather than government service. Until the recent recession, government service had been shunned like the plague by individuals entering professional careers. One primary reason so many more individuals are now interested in government service is because employment in the private sector has dried up. If the Boston Globe article is correct, why would so many make choices that are not in their best interest? Unless, of course, the Globe is overlooking important aspects of government service (like pay caps, lower pay, limits on advancement, etc.) that individuals factor into their decision making when deciding whether to seek private or public employment.]

How would the ‘public option’ outcompete private enterprise? [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

The Polanski Case: This case has nothing to do with Roman Polanski’s work or his age. It is about an adult preying on a child. It is time that he account for it. [New York Times]

Roman Polanski hasn’t paid for his crime [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Roman Polanski: It’s about time [Chicago Tribune]

Repulsion: The outcry from some over Roman Polanski’s arrest on an old California warrant for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl is, in a word, perverse. [New York Daily News]

Obama’s tough choices: The economy, healthcare, Iran and  Afghanistan — all are problems with no easy answers. [LA Times]

Summoning Keynes: Math-heavy economic models are elegant — they just don’t reflect reality. [Washington Post]

Signs of Life in Financial Reform: Financial regulatory reform has gotten a new boost of energy from Congress and the G-20, but Americans still cannot be sure it will produce real change. [New York Times]

Engaging Iran: West faces complex choices The West faces complex choices involving a historically important culture and country. [Houston Chronicle]

Tilting the Power Balance in Tehran: Why Obama should broaden his agenda to include human rights. [Washington Post]

North Korea: If communism can’t make it there…: The truest sign of the death of communism came when the ultimate dead-ender, North Korea, announced it would no longer label itself a communist country. [Boston Globe]

What in the world is China? At 60, the People’s Republic has evolved into a conscientious global player, except when it isn’t. [LA Times]

Talking With Myanmar: In the past, the punishment-only approach to Myanmar hasn’t worked. Talks, if handled skillfully, might lead in time to positive change. [New York Times]

New heights for Burns and PBS: A six-part TV series on national parks? I was skeptical, even with Ken Burns as producer/director. And with last Sunday’s first part competing against some of television’s best shows, I gave it a half-hour to make its case. Two hours later, I was still
transfixed. [Boston Globe]

Facebook’s online poll crosses a line: The social networking site reacted properly to an Obama assassination entry, but questions about responsibility remain. [LA Times]

Way Behind the Curve: Several responsible members of the United States Chamber of Commerce are quitting because of the chamber’s attacks on legislation to curb emissions. [New York Times]

Violence videos spur bad politics [Chicago Tribune]

It’s worth the trip: It’s hard to see the downside of President Obama’s decision to travel to Europe Thursday night to lobby personally for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

On Safire: William Safire was anything but a nattering nabob of negativity. He had none of the vile and vitriol of today’s howling pack of conservative pundits. [New York Times]

Shutting down child sex tourism: Pedophiles and their victims dominate the media. What has received less attention, however, is that American pedophiles pose a grave risk to children outside the United States. [Boston Globe]

‘High-speed rail’ might not deliver the Obama vision [USA Today]

Eliminating defensive medicine could save upwards of $200 billion in health-care costs annually, according to estimates by the American Medical Association and others. The cure is a reliable medical malpractice system that patients, doctors and the general public can trust. [AO: Read: Our court system is unreliable. But: One has to wonder, is our court system only unreliable for doctors? Do the courts get everything right but for medical malpractice? Really? Is it because there is something incomprehensible about medical malpractice cases? What exactly is it?]

But this is the one reform Washington will not seriously consider. That’s because the trial lawyers, among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party, thrive on the unreliable justice system we have now. [AO: Note to reader: The American Medical Association is also “among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party.” Both organizations are “heavy hitters” according to OpenSecrets.org.]

Almost all the other groups with a stake in health reform—including patient safety experts, physicians, the AARP, the Chamber of Commerce, schools of public health—support pilot projects such as special health courts that would move beyond today’s hyper-adversarial malpractice lawsuit system to a court that would quickly and reliably distinguish between good and bad care. [AO: So why can’t regular courts with regular judges and regular juries do this? Why is it that doctors need their cases decided quickly but victims of robberies, murdered victims, those who have been swindled by cons like Madoff, someone who needs a contract enforced against another party, etc. don’t need quick, reliable justice?] The support for some kind of reform reflects a growing awareness among these groups that managing health care sensibly, including containing costs, is almost impossible when doctors go through the day thinking about how to protect themselves from lawsuits. [AO: The same can be said for, let’s see, teachers, contractors, police departments, etc. If a contractor doesn’t spend time worrying about damaging your house, he may find himself in court. If a teacher does something wrong, she will end up in court. If a police officer uses excessive force, he may end up in court. In all of these cases and many many more like it, there are no caps or other limitations. Why do doctors need “reform”? Make no mistake, “reform” here simply means preventing or limiting the amount of recovery people get against doctors when doctor make mistakes. The fact is that doctor who make no mistakes don’t have to worry about malpractice.]

ANYONE who’s been surfing the right-wing blogosphere would mistake the activist group ACORN for a sinister force hell-bent on falsifying the US Census, registering nonexistent voters, and promoting underage prostitution. This caricature distorts the group’s intentions and overstates its influence. Yet the recent criticism contains one point of truth: ACORN should not be both a strident advocate for left-wing policy positions and a government contractor providing services in a neutral way. . . .

. . . in awarding contracts to nonprofits, federal agencies should stick with those that have technical expertise without a political agenda.

[AO: Although alluded to in the editorial, it’s worth noting that this is exactly the problem with former President Bush’s faith based initiative. Under that program, religious organizations received federal funds to administer social service programs. The only requirement is that the religious organizations (1) not direct the funds to support inherently religious activity, (2) inherently religious activity must be offered separately from the social programs funded by the government, and (3) religious organizations that participate in the program cannot discriminate based on religion. This is essentially what ACORN does with regard to political activity.]

States follow Georgia off the “no mandates” cliff [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Our view on paying for health reform (Part II): How Medicare Advantage turned into a boondoggle – Private medical insurers couldn’t compete, so now they get a subsidy. [USA Today]

It’s a cold truth: War means putting our troops’ lives at risk [Atlanta
Journal-Constitution]

Battle Iran From Within: Sanctions and air strikes won’t work. A human-rights campaign might. [Washington Post]

After talk, tough sanctions for Iran [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

A war president’s delicate footing [USA Today]

Twilight of Pax Americana: Since the end of WWII, the world has depended on the United States for stability. But with American military and economic dominance waning, capitalism and global security are threatened. [LA Times]

The Next Culture War: The United States needs a revival of economic self-restraint to restore its financial values and make it a producer economy again, not a consumer economy. [New York Times]

Learning Curve: Crossing the color line [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

A child uprising on education: We need students in the United States to  find their ability and power to change education in this nation. They’re doing it now in South Africa. [Boston Globe]

Peering at the Future: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recognizes what some Americans do not: the importance of education as the pathway to personal and societal success. [New York Times]

Bring Polanski to Justice: Brilliant auteur or no, he has been a fugitive from U.S. justice since 1978. [Washington Post]

Prosecuting Polanski: Editorial: Despite a host of objections, the Justice Department and L.A.’s district attorney are right to seek extradition after having the director arrested in a decades-old child sexual abuse case. [LA Times]

Polanski vs. justice [USA Today]

Pakistan’s Spies: The country’s intelligence directorate doesn’t want to be just another CIA asset. [Washington Post]

An Incomplete State Secrets Fix: If the Obama team is sincere about wanting to end state secrets abuses, it will support the State Secrets Protection Act sponsored in Congress. [New York Times]

I’m not a fan of frickin’ [Chicago Tribune]

Meg Whitman’s nonvoting voting record: Editorial: The former EBay CEO and current gubernatorial candidate didn’t cast a ballot in an election until she was 46. [LA Times]

Victory for Angela Merkel: The challenge for Germany’s newly elected government is to shoulder its full share of the burdens of constructive international leadership. [New York Times]

A violent three-time loser convicted in the cold-blooded murder of a disabled Long Island man is up for parole after only five years in prison.

Applicants don’t have to be terminal, only disabled enough that a state doctor considers them no threat. . . .

Releasing a murderer because he is sick defeats the purpose of a life sentence. Felder must stay in the can. . .

[AO: So, under a new law in New York, prisoners who are certified as sufficiently disabled to be incapable of harming society, and therefore considered no threat to society, are eligible for early release. Apparently, this program will save taxpayers millions.  

The New York Daily News is no killer coddler. They want people sentenced to life in prison to stay in prison . . . for life. However, their argument skips a step. See, the editors should first explore why criminals are imprison before demanding that those sent to prison for life should remain there for life.

Three major theories for incarceration are deterrence (personal and general), rehabilitation and retribution (i.e. punishment). It is generally accepted that prisons do little to rehabilitate prisoners. Also, the difference between personal and general deterrence is that personal deterrence requires incapacitating the criminal so she cannot commit another crime whereas general deterrence sends a message to other to not commit crimes or they’ll be imprisoned.

 An argument that a life sentence must be served whether or not an individual is a threat is an argument that the retributive theory for incarceration is the primary, and perhaps only, reason for punishment. But this is not so because if you accept that the purpose of punishment is, for example, personal deterrence. Then, there is no need to deter an individual who cannot continue to commit crimes.]

France and Germany fought three wars in 70 years before the bright idea dawned of enfolding their problem into something larger: the European Union. The United States and Iran have not gone to war but have a relationship of psychotic mistrust. The answer can only be the same: Broaden the context. . .

The choice is indeed between a military strike and living with a nuclear Iran. But what is a “nuclear Iran?” Is it an Iran that’s nuclear-armed — a very dangerous development — or an Iran with an I.A.E.A,-monitored enrichment facility?

[AO: The comparison between France and Germany and the United States and Iran is not apt. Neither Germany nor France was intent on destroying a third country. Here, Iran has been and apparently will continue to be very hostile toward Israel, with or without nuclear weapons. Of course, there are many other reasons the comparison is not appropriate, but we will save that discussion for another time.

Furthermore, the choice is not necessarily between a military strike and living with a nuclear Iran. There are other potential outcomes including a non-nuclear Iran.

Finally, the argument running through the op-ed is that Iran will be satisfied with a nuclear program that does not include building a nuclear bomb. Based on Iran’s actions, it is clear that it will stop at nothing to create a nuclear bomb. With that as a goal, it is almost certain that if the United States accepts an agreement that leave Iran in the position to more easily build a nuclear bomb, it will. ]

One man’s rumor is another man’s reality: Dispelling conspiracy theories and untruths can be difficult when people only hear what they already believe. [LA Times]

High Cost of Death Row: States waste millions of dollars on verdicts, security and maintenance in pursuit of the death penalty. Abolishing it makes economic, not just moral, sense. [New York Times]

Obama the Gambler: He’s betting that people will understand machismo is not foreign policy. [Washington Post]

Balancing act: Why can’t the Chinese be more like us? [Boston Globe]

The Be-Like-Ted Race: The contest for Kennedy’s Senate seat creates a rare opportunity for upward political mobility. [Washington Post]

Free speech vs. animals: The Supreme Court should rule that filmed depictions of animal cruelty are protected under the 1st Amendment. [LA Times]

The F.D.I.C. and the Banks: Keeping the F.D.I.C. healthy, which is key to restoring and maintaining confidence in banks, should not entail having the agency borrow from private institutions. [New York Times]

Organ transplants: In a loss, we gained so much: The death of my son took joy from my family, but the decision to donate his organs has provided an emotional connection to people around the world. [LA Times]

Guantanamo blame game: Figuring out what to do with the remaining 223 Guantanamo inmates, including ample numbers of committed terrorists, brings an array of complications. [USA Today]

Reality cooking shows: Whose reality? Enough already about health care reform — it’s time to give reality cooking shows the town-hall treatment. [Boston Globe]

Grizzlies, Back on the List: Saving a species like the grizzly bear isn’t just a matter of counting bears. It is also a matter of saving habitat and devising better long-term survival plans. [New York Times]

During Yom Kippur, a deeper appreciation for religious holidays [Chicago Tribune]

Obama’s choice in Afghanistan: With support for the war slipping, the president must decide whether a counterinsurgency strategy involving more troops is the way to win. [LA Times]

Go All-in, or Fold: The perils of the middle road in Afghanistan. [Washington Post]

Obama can’t downsize to success in Afghanistan: The president  ppears to be dragging his feet on more troops for the struggle, but that’s what an effective counterinsurgency strategy requires. [LA Times]

With kids, all work won’t work: With over 55 million students enrolled in grades K-12, it’s fair to say that some American schools are finding a balance between scholastics and health. [Boston Globe]

The Obama of Japan? How much change will prime minister Yukio Hatoyama bring? [Washington Post]

Cassandras of Climate: As climate scientists have begun reaching consensus that Earth’s outlook is getting worse at greater speed, the need for government action is thrown into sharper relief. [New York Times]

Chicago: Going for gold [Chicago Tribune]

Unlike Obama, Netanyahu is acutely aware of the urgent dangers [posed by Iran] . . .

[AO: YOU LIE!!!!

Obama is aware of the dangers posed by Iran. What kind of person thinks otherwise?  ]