Our False Debate on Health Care Reform

"Healthcare is a good, not a right." So says Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). Needless to say, I completely disagree with his assertion, but I commend him at least for having the chutzpah to declare out loud and proud the true opinion of many opponents of universal health coverage. Like BMWs, iPhones and tickets to the Super Bowl, health insurance, according to these people, is a luxury item intended only for those lucky enough to have steady jobs providing insurance as a benefit, independently wealthy enough to afford insurance in their own right, or over the age of 65 and thus eligible for Medicare. Indeed, the amount of "me" emphasized in our society is at once staggering and shameful.

But perhaps I am being a bit too harsh and presumptuous. Americans are, after all, known for being a generous people; donations to charity are among the highest in this country compared to other developed nations. Few would argue that there should be absolutely no social safety nets whatsoever. Any attempt to privatize or scrap entirely Social Security or Medicare for our senior citizens would rightly be met by nothing short of a revolution. Yet when the subject turns to extending guaranteed health coverage to all Americans, a relatively small but very vocal minority literally shouts down such efforts at reform, and the large majority who support such change, including a robust public option (if not an outright single-payer system), sadly chooses to remain silent. So what gives?

After more than a little reading and reflection on the issue, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of reform opponents certainly are not bad or selfish people. They are, though, in my estimation, woefully uninformed and--more troublesomely--willfully ignorant regarding facts that are readily available at their fingertips. With organized conservative interest groups and prominent GOP mouthpieces--Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and their king Rush Limbaugh among them--spewing lies and poison regarding the ramifications of a public option, it is of little wonder that certain Americans, rightly nervous about their economic and health security in these challenging times, are easily manipulated into believing them. Contrary to what this trio and their merry band of rogue ideologues would have you believe, under the health care reform currently being considered, Mrs. Palin's parents would be under no threat of euthanasia, and her Down Syndrome-stricken infant would not be deemed unworthy of care due to any pre-judgments of his potential "level of productivity in society." Such blatant falsehoods are not only downright insulting to the American people and their intelligence, but also extremely damaging to efforts at reforming an unsustainable and immoral "system."

Forgive me as I indulge for just a bit in the serious, real-world, grown-up debate on health care. We have all heard seemingly forever about the tens of millions of Americans who have no health insurance; latest estimates say that number is around 47 million and rising. While I would think that the fact that one out of every six Americans lacks coverage would be enough to rally the country around the need for universal affordable coverage, this apparently is not exactly the case. Fine. Forget the poor and unemployed who simply have to hope that they can avoid accidents or serious illness. Instead, let's talk about the vast majority of Americans who ostensibly are perfectly happy with their current private insurance. The question they should be asking is "Will my insurance be there for me if and when I really need it?"

I would be willing to bet that virtually every single one of the younger people we see screaming at these town hall meetings on the evening news has been fortunate enough not to have catastrophic illness wreak havoc on their lives. How do I know this? Because if they had experienced such misfortune, it is likely that their illness would have caused them to lose their jobs--and thus their insurance--or, even if they were able to keep their insurance, they would have been denied the maximum amount possible by their insurance companies (which specialize in finding loopholes designed to maximize profit instead of the well-being of participants in their plans), resulting in large out-of-pocket expenses that often bring victims up to and over the brink of bankruptcy. And, even in those few instances when the insurance companies agree to pay their fair share for some treatments or procedures, they most certainly would dramatically increase the premiums for these patients, either effectively or expressly excluding these new found "risks" from their liability pool.

As for all those seniors yelling at their representatives and senators at these forums, the irony is that they are all eligible for (and probably all taking advantage of and enjoying) Medicare, which is--gasp!--a government-run, single-payer health insurance program for the elderly, a fact that some if not many of them fail to realize. Why don't we take that away and give them a real reason to get loud?

Can we please stop making excuses for this smorgasbord of a health care "system"? The truth is that the for-profit cabal of insurance companies currently holding Americans hostage bears far more resemblance to a "death panel" than the provisions in some of the proposed overhaul bills currently circulating through Congress that would provide completely voluntary counseling on important end-of-life matters (e.g. creating a living will, not advocating euthanasia). Like the rest of corporate America, insurance companies have a singular objective: to maximize profits. The easiest way to do so is to seek to deny coverage to individuals who they know have pre-existing conditions, and to jack up premiums on those who dare to actually need their insurance, often to a point at which they can no longer afford it. In other words, their aim is to insure as many people as possible (resulting in maximum revenues) while avoiding payments for medical costs whenever possible. They could hardly care less about the health and well-being of their customers.

One of the most commonly cited arguments against a public option is that people do not want some "government bureaucrat" playing middleman between them and their doctors. Never mind the fact that this is precisely the role that private insurance companies play today--doctors routinely ask their approval before providing what they believe to be necessary services and treatment to their patients. By contrast, doctors do not encounter anywhere near this much red tape from the government when dealing with patients on Medicare, a fact to which President Obama's own former physician can personally attest. As a government-run system is non-profit by nature, there exists absolutely no incentive to deny necessary coverage to individuals.

In my opinion, the moral imperative to disrupt and dismantle this massive scheme far outweighs any other concerns, including reducing costs. Frankly, if we can find nearly a trillion dollars to spend on a war of choice, then we most certainly can find a way to insure all of our citizens. That being said, I am more than happy to engage on this important issue as well. There is no way around it: health care costs are literally bankrupting this country and its citizens. Half of all bankruptcy filings in the United States are either entirely or partially related to excessive medical expenses. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its annual GDP on health care, amounting to more than $6,000 per capita (even when including the 47 million uninsured), easily the highest such share in the whole world. (No other country, including those that provide universal coverage, spends more than 11 percent.) Granted, some of this is due to the greater amount of research and development that occurs here, but that cannot be used to explain the rapid rise in insurance premiums, which recently has occurred at rates at least double that of inflation. Comprehensive health care reform can slow the acceleration of costs. In fact, the reason the private health care industry is so fiercely fighting against any attempt to reform the system, and particularly to offer a public insurer, is that it knows that competition from the government would force private companies to lower their premiums and be willing to accept a broader range of customers. Moreover, included in efforts to reform health care are sincere proposals to start emphasizing and promoting preventive care and healthful lifestyle choices, which could dramatically reduce long-term costs associated with expensive after-the-fact procedures and medications.

It is downright shameful that the richest nation on Earth still does not possess a health care system that ensures basic care for all of its citizens, especially when virtually all of our developed allies--and at least one less developed adversary--do. Indeed, according to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks 37th out of 191 nations in terms of health care outcomes despite its disproportionately high expenditures. It is even more disappointing that those with the power to change the status quo are too afraid of the political consequences of looking abroad to our allies for ideas on how to model a system here in the U.S., even though studies show that residents of these countries are significantly more satisfied with the quality of their basic health care than are Americans. (When Fox News reports this, that really is saying something.) Personally, I am most drawn to a system based on the one currently in place in France--yes, the country that was our very first friend but that we then decided to ridicule for the past eight years and that, incidentally, ranks first on the same WHO survey--which contains a hybrid of public and private insurance. Under this system, around 70 percent of coverage is provided by the government, with the remainder being covered by private insurers, usually available through one's employer. For certain serious illnesses, including diabetes and cancer, the government picks up 100 percent of the tab. Precisely because doctors and patients in France are fiercely defensive of the right to choice and autonomy, there is no government interference in physicians' decision-making or in patients' right to the selection of a doctor. Additionally, unlike in the single-payer systems in existence in Canada and the United Kingdom, there are no waiting lines for various surgeries and procedures (although, to be fair to those countries, waits occur only for some nonessential elective procedures, not for urgent ones). Of course, every country, including France, is running into difficulty dealing with the rising costs of health care, but none is affected to a greater degree than the U.S. precisely because these costs account for nearly one-fifth of its economy. Reform cannot wait any longer.

Regrettably, I am quite worried about the prospects for a meaningful bill being passed this time around. Despite their possession of large majorities in both houses of Congress, more than a few Democrats (most of them the so-called "Blue Dogs") join the Republicans in being bought out by and beholden to the very interests that are rejecting any and all attempts at reform, especially a public option. How any of these Democrats can look Senator Ted Kennedy in the face is beyond me. The scare tactics being used by the GOP and conservative interest groups, which are largely responsible for the destructive behavior at town hall meetings intended to be serious forums on health care policy, may well serve to intimidate others into opposing a bill with a public option as well.

For his part, President Obama cannot afford to treat this August recess as a vacation. His health care plan and the public's understanding of it are on the line. It is imperative that he use his bully pulpit to explain in a cool, calm and firm manner the real implications of reform and the serious costs of inaction. He needs to forcefully dispel the lies about the bills before Congress while reassuring the American people that, even after understanding how the current system operates, they are free to hold on to their private insurance if they so desire. He must remind them that everyone will end up paying a lot more if no serious effort is made to control costs. Privately, he needs to become more hands-on with Democrats on the Hill, making it clear that failure is not an option and that the moment is too great to allow the direction of the political winds to dictate action on this vital issue.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Reform with no robust public option is no reform at all. People's lives are at stake. I hope for the sake of our country that this opportunity does not slip by unused.

Return to the blogosphere

I know the other 1.2 people (if I'm lucky) who read this blog may have been wondering where I have been the past two months. The answer: sailing across the Atlantic in a canoe. Okay, not really. I have actually been home, working and job hunting for a real permanent position. In fact, there may soon be some rather big news on that front--stay tuned.

There certainly were times at which I wanted to weigh in on the news of the day, but for various reasons, I resisted the urge. So here is a recap of some major news (and my take on these events) from the past eight weeks or so:

The streets of Iran erupted in the biggest anti-government protests since the 1979 revolution in the aftermath of a disputed presidential election that occurred on June 12. Official results showed that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad handily won re-election over his three main challengers, winning more than 60 percent of the vote. These figures, however, were immediately questioned amid strong suggestions of vote rigging and election fraud (the sheer size of political rallies and results from some polls taken in the days and weeks leading up to the election predicted a much closer race, particularly between Ahmadinejad and his main rival, the more moderate former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi). A state crackdown on the protests, resulting in the deaths of scores of civilians--including that of Neda Agha-Soltan, a bystander whose death by gunfire was captured on video, instantly going viral on the Web and becoming a rallying cry for opposition protestors--appears to have reduced the frequency and intensity of the demonstrations over time, and media coverage of the unrest in Iran certainly has diminished in recent weeks.

The dynamics of Iran's political and religious leadership are undoubtedly complicated compared to those of its neighbors in the region, so I will not pretend to have the right solution to the chaos in Tehran. I will say, though, that the evidence strongly suggests that the state illegally hindered the execution of a free and fair election and added to this offense by violently suppressing citizens standing up for their right to a lawfully elected government that represents the will of the people. I do believe that President Obama took the right approach by refraining from unconditionally backing one side over the other (to prevent Ahmadinejad from accusing the U.S. of interfering with Iran's internal political process) while condemning the loss of innocent life and expressing empathy for those who simply wanted their voices to matter. For now, it looks as though Ahmadinejad (and, of course, the religious clerics) will remain in power, albeit with a much weakened ability to control the conversation in Iran. What will be fascinating to watch as this plays out is whether the younger generation of Iranians, less prone to abide by strict Islamic law and more exposed to the outside world thanks to the prevalence of modern communications technology, will ultimately reject extremism in their government for more modern leadership, if not in this election cycle, then in subsequent ones.

Michael Jackson, legendary singer, songwriter, dancer and perhaps the greatest entertainer in history, died suddenly on June 25 after suffering cardiac arrest in Los Angeles, where he was rehearsing for an upcoming comeback concert tour set to kick off in London in July. Like most people, I was shocked and stunned by the news (I found out while inadvertently eavesdropping on the phone conversation of a fellow commuter on the way home from work), but I was surprised by how deeply I felt the loss so soon after it occurred. Sure, I am a fairly big Michael Jackson fan, but I rarely stopped to think about how much I appreciated his contributions to music and pop culture. Since before I was born, Michael constantly raised the bar, setting new standards for subsequent wannabe pop stars (compare early MJ to Britney Spears and her Mickey Mouse Club colleagues and you should have a long, healthy laugh), and now, suddenly, he is gone. I find it particularly interesting that many of those who constantly lampooned him and focused on the worst of the rumors designed to damage his image (the most serious of which I will go to my grave believing are completely untrue) miraculously started praising his abilities and talents as an artist upon learning of his passing. To paraphrase a friend, hopefully now that he is gone, he can finally be at rest. I am simply grateful for all that Michael Jackson gave us and that we will be able to rock out to his classics for generations to come.

Just one month after his history-making breakthrough at Roland Garros, Roger Federer won his record-breaking fifteenth Grand Slam singles title by reclaiming his crown at Wimbledon on July 5. He did so in dramatic fashion, just barely edging out an inspired Andy Roddick in five tight sets, 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14. The match set the record for the most number of games (77) played in a Grand Slam final, although at 4 hours 18 minutes, it fell short of last year's record length in terms of time on court in a Wimbledon final (when Rafael Nadal beat Federer 9-7 in the fifth) by half an hour. Adding to the drama, the legendary Pete Sampras arrived in the Royal Box--joining fellow greats Rod Laver and Björn Borg--during the first changeover to watch the match unfold and ultimately witness his now good friend Federer break his record of 14 major titles. With the victory, Federer also reclaimed the number one ranking from Nadal, who had held the top spot for more than ten months but decided against defending his Wimbledon title to rehabilitate his ailing knees. As if all this were not enough, Mirka, Federer's wife as of this past April, was heavily pregnant throughout the fortnight (it is a small miracle that her water did not break during that tense fifth set; Federer could not break Roddick's serve in the entire match until the very last game). She did ultimately give birth to healthy twin girls, Charlene Riva and Myla Rose, on July 23. Suffice it to say that 2009 is a year Federer will not soon forget.

President Obama and his family took a week-long international trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana from July 6 to July 12. The trip to Ghana in particular garnered my interest because I have family ties to that nation (my father immigrated to the U.S. from Ghana back in the 1970s) and I was eager to hear Obama's message to sub-Saharan Africa as the first African-American U.S. president. In fact, his decision to visit Ghana (the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence in 1957) before other countries on the continent, including his father's native Kenya, spoke volumes about his serious desire to promote good governance in a region plagued by corrupt leadership for the past several decades. While in Accra, the Ghanaian capital, Obama spoke to the parliament and citizens of Ghana, encouraging them to continue their commitment to democracy and peaceful transitions of power and set a strong example for their neighbors to follow. He also took his family on an emotional visit to Cape Coast, a former slave port that for centuries marked the departure point of millions of Africans on slave ships bound for the New World. Having direct ties to Africa, Obama was able to acknowledge the wrongs of the past while making clear that these do not serve as excuses for a lack of progress going forward (this line of argument differs very little, interestingly, from that which he uses when speaking to the African-American community at home). Only when corruption and violence end can an environment be created in which outsiders will want to invest in Africa's potential. I look forward to observing Obama's interactions with the continent throughout the remainder of his presidency, and certainly hope to see him continue to hold their feet to the fire. A continent with so much to offer the world should not have to wait yet another generation to contribute.

By now, virtually the entire country (if not the entire world) knows the names of esteemed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and the Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer, Sergeant James Crowley, who arrested said professor on charges of disorderly conduct (which were subsequently dropped) outside of his Harvard Square home on July 16. Rather than treat you to a long diatribe voicing my opinion on this incident (and more importantly, its aftermath; none of us were there and thus probably never will know exactly what happened), I refer you to this rather insightful piece by New York Times columnist Frank Rich. It pretty much sums up my take on the media hoopla that has ensued in the weeks since.

I think that covers most of the major stories of the past couple of months, at least from what I can recall. And no, I most certainly have not forgotten about the biggest ongoing domestic debate of the day: health care reform. That will be addressed in my next post.

And the winner of US Supreme Court Idol 2009 is...

Judge Sonia Sotomayor. President Obama named the federal appeals judge as his pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court in a ceremony held this morning at the White House. If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor will become the first Hispanic and only the third female Supreme Court justice in US history.

Sotomayor brings an impressive resumé to the nation's highest bench. Having grown up the daughter of Puerto Rican parents in public housing in the Bronx, she proceeded to attend Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude, and then Yale Law School, where she landed a spot as editor of the Yale Law Journal. She was first appointed to the federal district court in New York in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush and then promoted to the federal appeals court--where she currently serves--in 1998 following her nomination a year earlier by President Bill Clinton. As such, there is a decent chance that she will receive more than a little support from Republicans in the confirmation process.

That being said, conservatives hellbent on finding some mud to throw at her will likely point to a few "controversial" statements she has made in the past, namely her outlining of her belief that her ethnicity and gender provide some guidance as to how she approaches her duties on the bench, and her tongue-in-cheek observation that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," a statement she immediately sought to clarify. Still, Republicans will have to walk a fine line because, let's face it, they can ill afford to further alienate Hispanic voters. For conservatives and liberals alike, there exists some concern about her supposed lack of an overall "judicial philosophy" and the fact that she has yet to rule on or share her opinion regarding cases involving hot-button issues such as abortion and LGBT rights (which may soon come before the US Supreme Court now that California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8--more on that in my next post). I, for one, cannot understand the basis for such criticisms; I would think that the absence of an overarching ideological drive would be an asset for someone aspiring to become the ultimate interpreter of our nation's laws and Constitution.

I predict that Judge Sotomayor will sail through the confirmation process given that Democrats are virtually assured of achieving the votes necessary to invoke cloture and proceed to an up-or-down vote (moderate Republicans such as Olympia Snowe have already come out in seeming support of her nomination). Having just learned most of what I know about her in the past few days, I can honestly say that I am excited that she will be our new Associate Justice. She is undoubtedly qualified and, just as President Obama indicated was his desire, she brings to her post a vast array of life experiences, in addition to more judicial experience than any of the current justices had before their nominations. Hispanics and Americans of all backgrounds can be proud to welcome this newest member of the Court.

Comedian-in-Chief

President Obama was on his A-game at the White House Correspondents' Dinner Saturday night:

Part 1


Part 2


Meanwhile, comedienne Wanda Sykes peppered her routine with a few, erm, risqué lines, but overall it was good for a few laughs:

Part 1


Part 2

So long Souter

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter revealed yesterday his intention to retire after nearly two decades on the nation's highest bench at the end of the current session in June. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, Souter disappointed many hard-line conservatives over the years as it became apparent in numerous Court decisions that he was, well, not one of them. In cases involving such hot-button issues as abortion rights, school prayer and affirmative action, Souter repeatedly sided with the more progressive wing of the Court. Having enjoyed his job but despised the city in which he worked, he now looks forward to a quiet retirement alone in his beloved New Hampshire.

There was widespread speculation that one or two justices would retire soon, although most of the attention was focused on 89-year-old John Paul Stevens and 76-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court's oldest justices. Thus, Souter's announcement comes as a bit of a surprise. Nevertheless, it adds to the long laundry list of responsibilities already assigned to President Obama--resolving the economic and financial crises, handling two wars, monitoring the oh-my-god-run-for-your-lives-it's-a-killer-pandemic-oh-wait-maybe-it's-not-so-bad swine flu situation, etc.--the task of naming someone to America's highest court.

Conventional wisdom says he will choose a woman (perhaps even Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School and current Solicitor General of the United States) to mitigate the shame of having just one female justice. I certainly think that will be the case. Beyond that, though, it really is anyone's guess. Some minority groups have started to actively lobby the White House to name a woman of color to the Supreme Court, which would be a first. Additionally, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is starting to pressure the President to name a Hispanic to the Court, another first. Regardless of whom Obama chooses, though, the new justice is not likely to change the political ideological balance (for lack of a better term) of the Court. Still, these decisions are always surrounded by excitement and intrigue because each justice--conservative, moderate or liberal--brings a unique personality and background to the bench. I personally find it fascinating to observe how each justice views his or her role on the Court and how each approaches his or her duty to interpret the law and the Constitution of the United States. For me, these occasions in Washington are right up there with presidential inaugurations--sometimes significantly better.

I have complete confidence that the President will tap a supremely qualified individual to replace Justice Souter, and with the Democrats in the Senate all but assured of having 60 seats by the time the confirmation vote takes place, he should have no trouble getting his nominee seated. Let me know if anyone wants to start a pool on potential nominees.

Benedict Arlen?

The political world is abuzz today with the news that Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has decided to switch parties and become a Democrat ahead of his reelection bid next year.

In recent years, Specter has become increasingly well known nationwide due to his reputation as an independent-minded moderate and his courageous fight against cancer. He has now added to those identifying factors a decision which, in all likelihood, will give the Democrats that magic filibuster-proof number of 60 seats in the U.S. Senate (assuming Norm Coleman ever gives it up, or is forced to do so, in the never-ending Minnesota Senate race against Al Franken).

But is this truly all great news for the Democrats? And what are the implications of Specter's defection for the already reeling Republican party?

I'll admit, as someone who identifies as a Democrat, I've always had a certain admiration for Arlen Specter, perhaps not too unlike that which many Democrats had for, say, the John McCain of 2000. I was proud and relieved to see him break ranks as one of only three Republicans to vote for President Obama's stimulus bill in February. It was an act of political bravery that undoubtedly led him to do what he did today, given the certainty of the impossible fight he would face in next year's GOP primary race. Still, as big as it was, it was just one vote. He has since given mixed signals regarding how he might vote on the Obama budget and has proclaimed his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, an issue of critical importance to organized labor, a major Democratic constituency. In other words, while he has been largely welcomed into the Democratic caucus, Specter can hardly be expected to become as reliable an ally as Ted Kennedy. That being said, by becoming a member of the caucus, Specter will be under much more pressure on a regular basis to support Democratic initiatives, especially when they require that magic number to block a GOP filibuster. It is also very important to note that, while he may have avoided near certain defeat in a Republican primary contest, he will now have to compete on the Democratic side, which means he must be careful not to anger the more progressive voters who will decide his fate in early 2010. All in all, though, I think this is news that the Democratic party can and should celebrate.

The main reason for this is that Specter's abandonment of the Republican party summarizes quite nicely the fine job that the GOP has done over the last several years of alienating moderates and traditional conservatives with its shameless pandering to those in the extreme right wing of the party. Such patterns left them unable to become genuinely enthusiastic about Sen. McCain, their presidential nominee in 2008, and caused them to choose the utterly unqualified but bona fide conservative hockey mom Sarah Palin as his running mate. Earlier this year, they allowed conservative comedian Rush Limbaugh to take the mantle of de facto leader of their party, and those that dared challenge his credentials soon found themselves groveling at his feet seeking forgiveness. (For a sampling of more recent stances taken by the GOP and their allies, consider that their congressional leaders just weeks ago sought to enact a completely illogical federal spending freeze in the midst of a deep recession, or that their beloved mouthpieces have started using the current swine flu scare to ratchet up xenophobic rhetoric.) The bottom line: Republicans continue shooting themselves in the foot and shrinking their base in an attempt to find their voice, and Democrats are loving it.

It remains to be seen if Sen. Specter will be able to play ball in a Democratic primary and how willing he will be to help advance President Obama's ambitious agenda. For now, though, this progressive says "Welcome home, Senator."

Torturous Decisions

As the country and its new leadership in Washington grapple with the unprecedented challenges presented by the current economic crisis and ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq, the media have given varying levels of attention to the issue of torture (or, depending on the source, "harsh interrogation techniques") implemented by intelligence officials on terror suspects during the previous Administration. While I believe President Obama is right to prefer to focus on the most pressing issue of the day--hastening economic recovery--and to look ahead rather than to the past, I am equally pleased that he has decided not to attempt to block potential investigations into wrongdoing by those who devised these un-American tactics.

There is certainly legitimate debate over who exactly should be brought to justice for the use of these techniques. It now appears that those who actually conducted acts of torture will not necessarily be pursued. Granted, their Nuremberg-esque "We were just following orders" defense is worrisome. To be fair, though, one certainly cannot compare desperation to retrieve information that may save lives to the horrors perpetrated on countless innocents by the Nazis prior to and during World War II. I therefore find it a good balance to investigate those who drafted and approved the use of these interrogation methods.

The United States must seize the opportunity presented by the new-found goodwill from the rest of the world to proclaim unambiguously that it does not engage in torture. While the effectiveness of torture is debatable, it is undeniably true--regardless of how petulantly Dick Cheney protests--that when Americans employ these strategies, they severely compromise their ability to claim any moral high ground and to reduce the chances that their own soldiers and operatives will be subjected to such treatment by our enemies. Moreover, acts of torture perpetrated by Americans almost certainly increases the ranks of those who would do us harm. If abandoning torture means that our only option is to be twice as smart and two steps ahead of the terrorists who plot against us, then so be it. The United States has the best intelligence-gathering agencies in the world and does not need to sink to levels of barbarism to ensure the safety of its citizens and allies.

It is my hope that, even if no one ends up serving time as a consequence of these inquiries, at the very least serious questions will be asked and answered regarding the logic behind such decison-making and it will be absolutely clear that going forward, this great nation will live up to its own values and principles on matters of justice and the rule of law.

A tale of two Larrys

Few public figures have elicited such mixed emotions from me in recent years as Lawrence Summers, former Treasury Secretary under President Clinton and president of Harvard, and now head of the National Economic Council under President Obama.

Fairly or not, Mr. Summers has been the subject of more than a little controversy over the last decade, from his partiality toward deregulation of financial institutions while at Treasury--which is oft-cited as one of the many causes of today's financial crisis--to his very public feud with esteemed professor and activist Cornel West, to his infamous remarks regarding women and science in 2005 which served as the catalyst to remove him from the top post at Harvard one year later, to his most recent stint as a part-time adviser at New York hedge fund D.E. Shaw prior to his return to public service in Washington this year.

I certainly am not foolish enough to claim that Larry can do no wrong. He displayed, on multiple occasions, a somewhat brash and condescending demeanor that has cost him quite a few friends in academia and proved to be his downfall at Harvard. In today's New York Times, columnist Frank Rich rightly blasts Summers and his Treasury predecessor, Robert Rubin, for their firm commitment to deregulation of Wall Street back in the 1990s. Indeed, Larry's love for our free-market system almost certainly clouded his ability to serve effectively as a servant of the larger public and to place greater emphasis on pursuing careers outside of Wall Street as president of the nation's greatest institute of higher learning.

That being said, I don't believe Larry to be an ill-intentioned individual. I am particularly drawn to him due to his insistence on expanding Harvard's undergraduate financial aid program through the landmark Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, started in 2004 (the year I matriculated). Were it not for this breakthrough, I almost certainly would be unable to refer to myself today as a Harvard graduate, and the many doors that I now find open would have remained firmly shut. This, incidentally, was the primary reason for which I believed the "witch hunt" conducted against Larry by the Harvard faculty back in 2005-06 was unfair because many faculty members failed to realize--or care--that Larry's staunch support of the program had greatly enriched student life at the University.

On a less personal note, I am more inclined to chalk up Larry's exposure to today's most vilified institutions as simply a product of his passion for his field of study. Let there be no mistake: the man is brilliant--even a nerd of sorts. He became, at age 28, one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard's history. Sure, he may have slept with the devil from time to time, but he knows his stuff and has applied his background to causes both public and private, noble and not so noble.

The irony is that his now supposedly in-depth understanding of how Wall Street thinks may be his most valuable asset as he takes on his historically unprecedented task of finding solutions for this ailing economy. This theory is rather well examined in Louise Story's recent Times article. Anticipating the financial sector's response to government actions provides him, Secretary Geithner and the rest of President Obama's economic team the best chance to formulate winning solutions. And, at the end of the day, it is the President who gives orders and directives to Summers; given that few would question Obama's commitment to fixing this economy for the sake of those losing their jobs, homes and retirement (and not for the Wall Street fat cats who largely caused this mess), it is reasonable to assume that Larry has this in mind as he brainstorms with the other wonks in the Administration.

This global crisis in many ways presents Larry Summers an opportunity to redeem himself for past mistakes, misguided priorities, and yes, unfair accusations. Let's hope, if not for his sake, then for the sake of the world economy, that he succeeds.