Left Right Across and Hold

Sometimes The Dog Won't Eat The Dog Food

2012-01-06T08:34:00.000-08:00

Steve,

First rule in sales:

No matter how good a product you have, its worthless if people won't buy it.

I should know. I sold crap used cars for years, while better ones rotted away on the back of the lot. And I was pretty shameless about it too. Whenever a customer "landed" on a particular car, suddenly, as if by magic, that car became the best value in our inventory. Even if, as was most often the case, it was an over priced, gas guzzling bucket of bolts.

It strikes me that this same principle is the guiding force in politics. Maybe a long time ago, in a universe far, far away, people just gritted their teeth and voted for the sharpest, most intelligent and experienced candidate they could lay their hands on - knowing full well that said candidate wouldn't always agree with every single one of their opinions.

My how times have changed. All I can say now Steve, is that its a good thing you don't get to be an auto mechanic or a surgeon by the same process we use to chose politicians. My gosh, we just don't build junkyards and morgues large enough to handle the increased production.

-Chris

Does Justice Have a Price Tag?

2011-12-02T08:54:00.000-08:00

Steve,

I read an interesting article in the New York Times this morning: "The Bill of Rights Doesn’t Come Cheap".

Briefly, a case ( Williams v. Illinois) before the Supreme Court involves exactly how far a defendant's right to confront his or her accuser(s) extends. At issue is whether or not a defendant's counsel can call a forensic analyst to testify under the broad interpretation of accuser. The author comes down on the side of a broad interpretation.

As I began reading this I instinctively assumed the opposite side would argue that a presumably neutral technician who submits forensic analyses should not be classified as an "accuser" according to a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. But such is not the case. The State of Illinois is arguing instead that the sheer cost of bringing more or less peripheral, technically defined accusers to court for cross examination would be prohibitive. According to the article:

"...the Supreme Court has been sharply divided on the issue. In similar cases in 2009 and earlier this year, in which I represented the defendants, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr. accepted claims by state governments that, simply put, confrontation in this context costs too much. It is far more efficient, these justices contend, to let analysts simply mail their reports to court. Having to appear at trials pulls them away from their labs, and only occasionally proves more revealing than their written testimony. Hence, these justices maintain, “scarce state resources” are better committed elsewhere."

Now at first blush, one would think that abrogating an important constitutional guarantee on the basis of cost alone to be an incredibly bad idea - and the fact that four justices seem inclined to agree with it is not only mystifying, but also very disturbing. What's more, you can't view the court's divide on this issue as a difference between traditional conservative and liberal ideologies. Frankly, whenever you see Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito on the same side, you have to wonder if there's more to his animal than meets the eye.

You can find the summary of Williams v Illinois before the SCOTUS here. Skimming through the summary, you get the distinct impression that the defendant, Sandy Williams, is guilty as heck and only raised the confrontation issue as a way of trying to wiggle off the hook. From the summary:

“Overall, defendant essentially requests that we require each and every individual involved in the testing and analysis of DNA to testify at trial. For obvious reasons in the abstract and for those provided in the case at bar, we decline to issue such a ruling.”

Mr. Williams' guilt or innocence however is beside the point. You don't go around ignoring the Constitution just to convict one, clearly guilty person. But still, it seems to me this case, others like it, as well as the related issue of tort reform, raise troubling questions about the execution of justice. To wit: is it fair for a society to set limits on the amount of money it is willing to spend in pursuit of justice? After all, in every phase of law, and indeed of government itself, there is only so much money to go around. We're living in a dream world if we deny it.

Now I don't think I should have to prove by statistical evidence how sensitive our justice system is to money. People with enough money to pay for the best attorneys stand a much better chance of escaping conviction than poor people who are stuck with far less effective, court appointed lawyers. Moreover, every year, trials seem to get more and more expensive. It cost Los Angeles County 9 million dollars to prosecute O.J.!

Personally, I believe the more money we spend on determining guilt or innocence, the more likely we are to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. Similarly, where "tort reform" is concerned, the more we allow for damages, the less likely businesses will be to abuse the system. However, even I have to admit that the sheer cost of obtaining true justice must certainly have some kind of limits. How much? In what cases, and under what circumstances? Good questions, these.

-Chris

2011-11-26T09:40:00.000-08:00

Steve,

Honestly, and with as little partisan rancor as I can manage, I'll have to admit the Republican field of presidential hopefuls this year is as sorry a lot as I've ever seen from any party in my admittedly short lifetime. Though an affable and fairly intelligent man, Michael Dukakis was something of an embarrassment - and the same goes for Walter Mondale. Yet neither of these two Democrats even came close to rivaling the current crop of GOP front runners in terms of ineptitude and hypocrisy. I weep for the poor party-line conservative, who come what may is going to have to pull the lever next November for a buffoon. To be sure, such is the intensity of the Tea Party's irrational hatred of Barak Obama that they would vote Republican if their candidate was a sock puppet.

However, since a sock puppet would surely be an improvement on the likely GOP nominee, I doubt if many in the traditional moderate center of the entire electorate will do the same. Under the circumstances, Obama could erect minarets around the White House and conduct daily Muslim prayer services - and still not lose the election.

How did we get to this point? Here the story of Richard Lugar, longtime Senator from my home state of Indiana, is instructive:

First elected mayor of Indianapolis in 1967 (my junior year in high school), Dick Lugar's subsequent career in politics has been a textbook example of the kind of successes a smart, principled man can accomplish. He lost his first try at the U.S. Senate to the veteran Democrat, Vance Hartke, in 1974, but won on his second try in 1976, and has been a U.S. Senator ever since. In the 2006 election, he captured an amazing 87% of all votes cast and Democrats didn't even bother to field a candidate against him. Along the way he's amassed a pile of awards from both conservative and liberal leaning groups. Humble in victory and gracious in defeat, universally admired by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, his record in office has not ever been tarnished by a single act of hypocrisy. A lifetime Methodist and married to the same woman for over 50 years, Mr. Luger has raised 4 fine sons and can proudly claim 13 grandchildren.

Steve, if you didn't know first hand it was true, you would be inclined to believe the Wikipedia article on Dick Lugar to be some kind of fictional account of the Perfect Senator. And by the way, despite the fact that I disagree in principle with many of this man's conservative viewpoints, I've voted for him myself every time I've had the chance. My gosh, the guy even helped establish "The Richard Lugar Center for Renewable Energy", an improbable extension of Indiana and Purdue Universities, which includes funding and participation from academia, the alternative energy industry, and (amazingly) some of the biggest Indiana users of fossil fuels (Like Duke energy for instance.).

For the sake of conservatives, indeed, for the cause of conservatism itself, if would be nice if the Dick Lugar story was headed for a happy ending. But alas, such is not the case - and here's where the story gets weird. Organized under the banner, "Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate", Indiana Tea Parties have united in strong opposition to Richard Lugar's candidacy and are backing a comparative unknown, one Richard Mourdock - the current Indiana State Treasurer. For heaven's sake, why?

I'll tell you why. Richard Lugar is the kind of man who is capable of changing his mind but not his principles. This is also a man who knows the importance of tact, strategy and compromise. In negotiations, someone like Mr. Lugar will always come away with most of the loaf, where the typical blind ideologue will come away with none at all. However, Indiana Tea Partiers don't want an intelligent human being to represent the state, just a glorified sock puppet.

Now I'm not saying voters have no right to organize and promote whoever they feel best represents them. In most ways, that's what politics is all about. But I honestly think that as a nation we're headed down a disastrous road when we start sending empty suits to Washington. To me, this voids the whole idea of representative democracy. Government, it seems to me, works best when communities elect their best and brightest to lead them - and have faith that the difficult decisions those people make are the right ones in the long run.

Now don't worry, I doubt if Dick Lugar is going to lose this round. Hoosiers, even the Republican ones, aren't that stupid. But unfortunately, the same dynamic which is going to keep Mr. Lugar in office isn't going to work on the national level - and especially in the race for Presidency. Here's why:

The Tea Party constitutes only a fraction of the Republican base, and a relatively small one at that. But they are by far the best organized and financed faction. Thus, while it may be true a Republican can win the Presidency without the strong support of the Tea Party, it is increasingly obvious that you cannot win the party's nomination without it. And, just as in Indiana, the Tea Party demands ideological purity. In fact, you get the impression intelligence and overall competence are pretty much of secondary importance, if that. Let one of the candidates publicly disagree some extreme point of social or scientific dogma, and there goes his or her chances. In short, the Tea Party isn't interested in electing anyone who thinks for themselves.

On the local level, this counter-productive insistence on rigid, ideological purity can be overcome by a man with the credentials of a Richard Lugar. But on the national level, the Republican Party just plain doesn't as yet have a candidate of such overwhelming accomplishment and character that he or she can overcome the money and influence of the Tea Party. Someone like Chris Christie might have had a shot. But you know, as soon as it came out in the debates that Chris Christie endorsed the consensus view on climate change, you might just as well have written him off. The Tea Party doesn't believe in climate change and won't back a person who does. That's just for starters.

What it boils down to is the sane, rational, principled, potential Republican candidates (and there are many) are sitting this one out. Which leaves us with a truly odd collection of damaged goods. The only person in the whole bunch with a glimmer of intelligence, John Huntsman, consistently runs dead last in the polls. The consistent front runner is Mitt Romney: a man with such little regard for his own convictions that he's willing to change them at the drop of a hat. Each week it seems one or another of the others bubbles to the surface to claim the lead. This week it is the tireless retread, Newt Gingrich. Last month it was Herman Cain. Before that, Rick Perry was the flavor of the month.

Mitt Romney will continue to poll at or near the top because, week in and week out, he continues to garner support of whatever is left of the moderate faction of the GOP - and this is only by default: these people just have nowhere else to go. The real action has been on the fringe. Yet so far every time one of them has made a run at Romney, sooner or later, they've said something which enrages the Tea Party and whoops, there goes the egg money.

In closing, let me say I'm not all that bothered by whatever special interests (read: cynical, self serving, private groups) are working behind the scenes. After all, special interests have always been the name of the game and Democrats can claim no independence from them. What really bothers me is that the GOP seems to have been high jacked by the politics of rage: a naive, simplistic, media driven rage that spends all of its time apportioning blame and none of its time looking for solutions. It is a rage utterly resistant to facts or evidence. Conservative writer David Frum (who I've often quoted before) has a fairly thoughtful article on this very phenomenon: "When Did The GOP Lose Touch With Reality?".

Then again, maybe as a people we've become just too darn lazy to think for ourselves.

Bon appetit!

-Chris

Stage II

2011-10-25T10:50:00.000-07:00

Steve,

You may recall some time ago I posted the 4 stages of climate change denial. To repeat:

1. Global warming isn't happening.

2. Global warming is happening but humans aren't responsible for it.

3. Global warming is happening, humans are largely responsible for it, but there isn't anything we can do about it.

4. Global warming is happening, humans are largely responsible for it, there is something we can do about, but the costs of mitigation would exceed the costs of warming.

Now it looks like with the pending peer review and subsequent publishing of Robert Muller's BEST study, denialistas will be breaking camp and moving on to stage 2. Back in April of this year I posted an article and comment on Dr. Muller's testimony before Representative Robert Hall's (R-Tx) congressional kangaroo court on climate science: a forum designed from the start to cast doubt on the science behind the theory of AGW. Dr. Muller had been called to testify simply because he had been recognized for years as a skeptic. But, low and behold, after honestly reviewing the data, Dr. Muller in sworn testimony, confirmed the existence of global warming - not only that, but the credibility of the "hockey stick". Thus, his testimony posed an embarrassment - not only for Robert Hall, but the denialist community at large - which immediately ramped up and started trying to discredit the BEST methodology.

During that episode I was most amused by the idiotic dilettante, Tony Watts. Prior to release of Dr. Muller's findings, Mr. Watts had more or less promised on his blog to abide by whatever the BEST team concluded. Yet, as soon as it became obvious the findings conflicted with his own personal dogma, he instantly back tracked and fell in with the chorus of BEST critics.

I failed to mention in that earlier post why the Watts reversal has been so exquisitely ironic. It was Mr. Watts himself who virtually pioneered the organized criticism of surface temperature records - and the computer models which are based on them. The effort culminated in the "paper", "Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?" - - the original copy of which was as goofy a piece of flat Earth flim flam as any which has come down the pike in years. As it originally appeared, it was little more than a paste up of unsorted calumnies from a host of dubious sources. In the intervening months, Mr. Watts has painstakingly removed the most comical errors - but the paper just keeps getting flimmier and flammier. Now comes the BEST study, a thorough, well financed project which honestly pursues the objectives which Mr. Watts has been dishonestly pursuing for years. And not surprisingly, the results directly contradict the saucer of weak tea Tony Watts has been trying to pass off as genuine research.

Probably the most damning aspect of the BEST study, for Tony Watts at least, is the devastating take-down of his most cherished conspiracy theory. Namely, that the American NOAA and NASA, along with the British Hadley Centre, are purposely conspiring to drop from their data bases the temperature recording sites which give "colder" readings, while retaining sites which give "warmer" readings. You yourself made note of this in a post of your's last year. As originally conceived, the whole theory was based on Mr. Watts' total ignorance of temperature anomalies. Climate change predictions are based on anomalies at each site, as opposed to Mr. Watts' naive assumption that the readings from all sites are merely averaged: a preposterous method in which "throwing out" colder readings would have some effect.

One of the things the BEST study did was "add back" the readings from all the stations which the NOAA had dropped from the system to see if their inclusion would make any difference in the historical record.

It didn't.

As a matter of fact, the record is almost identical to that which is currently computed without the dropped stations. This should come as no surprise. For some time now, the NOAA has been trying to explain the station selection process to anyone who cares to listen. Furthermore, since all the data is freely available from the NOAA, the BEST review which incorporates dropped stations had already been performed earlier by at least one blogger - with the same results. I need hardly add that Anthony Watts himself, if he is indeed the meticulous researcher he claims to be, could have performed this same exercise with any ordinary home computer before making his profoundly dishonest accusations.

Here's the whole point of this post, Steve:

With the publication of the BEST study, the very existence of global warming is no longer in doubt. Yet, having lost their credibility as climate experts, are we supposed to believe the same pseudo-scientists who spread lies and disinformation, and promoted childish conspiracy theories about the temperature record, will now suddenly morph into experts in chemistry, oceanography, geology and physics, and then explain to us why evidence from these fields as well do not prove global warming is the product of human activity?

Steve, there isn't any conspiracy to alter the historical temperature record! There never was. Yet, now that this particular conspiracy theory has gone up in smoke, we're going to be asked to believe that scientists in fields as diverse as atmospheric chemistry and hydrology are conspiring, in an ever widening circle, to game the system and create false evidence for anthropocentric global warming. And what's more, were going to be asked to believe this by the same people who lied to us about the record of global temperature.

Pfaah! Isn't it about time we start paying attention to what real scientists are telling us about climate change? A whole bunch of them spent countless hours without remuneration to prepare AR-4, the IPCC's seminal report on climate change. Why not take a moment to visit the IPCC website, where you can review the IPCC's reports and credentials of the team members who write them. The whole process is fully transparent and backed by tons of online documentation.

Enjoy,

-Chris

2011-10-07T14:18:00.000-07:00

Steve,

By sheer coincidence I happened across a June 11th (2011) article by one Richard Glover in the Sydney (Australia) Morning Harold, "The Dangers of Bone Headed Beliefs", in which the author pokes fun of climate change denialists, mainly, but also of "green zealots", who treat the science of global warming as a sort of religion. You may not like the humor - it has the typical hard edges of British humor which some here in the Colonies find objectionable.

As it happens, the article didn't create much of a stir when it first appeared in print. However, someone posted a link to it at an American conservative website, where upon it went viral and spawned a ration of hate mail from conservative lunatics, as reported by Mr. Glover in a later article. But that's beside the point. I've no doubt liberal lunatics are as proficient at writing hate mail as conservatives are.

What caught my eye in the article was the following:

"Is it possible to get the politics out of the climate-change debate? The first step might be to acknowledge the way ideology informs attitudes to climate change on both sides.

People on the left instinctively believe in communal action, the role of government and the efficacy of international agencies such as the UN. They were always going to believe in climate change; it's the sort of problem that can best be solved using the tools they most enjoy using.

The right tended to be sceptical about climate change from the start and for exactly the same reasons. It's the sort of problem that requires global, communal action, with governments setting rules. It is a problem that requires tools they instinctively dislike using."

What I found surprising was how compactly the author was able to reduce the public's ideological divide over the science of climate change to such profoundly simple terms. Not only that, but this account makes total sense to me.

Now it is true I firmly believe in the fundamental correctness of the science which establishes global warming as an anthropocentric phenomenon. Furthermore, I've spent no little time considering the views of many in prominence who deny it - and found the criticisms to be unsupported by facts, if not downright fraudulent.

However, before I come to a review of the science, as a liberal, I have one less hurdle to get over than my conservative counterpart. I know going in that if global warming constitutes a valid threat, the solution may require some expansion of national, as well as international government. And frankly, that prospect doesn't bother me. As a liberal, I should say I'm as terrified of repressive government as you are. But, perhaps unlike you, I believe in the perfectibility of government.

This is what makes it so hard for liberals and conservatives to work together on effective solutions. To put it another way, I suppose a conservative might believe that even if the consensus view on climate change is correct, might it be that the loss of individual liberties embodied by a solution are worse than the effects of climate change in any case?

You know, I think this is a meaningful question, and possibly worth at least as much consideration as the details of the science itself. Famously, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey - a true conservative - has stated his unequivocal trust in the consensus view on climate change. Yet, he is also on record as opposing the strategies currently favored by the left. Frum Forum has a rather nice article on his position.

Now it seems to me the whole issue of climate change could be viewed as only a part of a much larger dialogue - one in which the aims of both conservatives and liberals dovetail. Frankly, a rational, integrated, national energy policy which has the objective of supplanting fossil fuels with renewables, need not require as its prime goal the reduction of carbon emissions.

Consider Charles Krauthammer: as ardent a conservative, liberal bashing, climate change denier as ever walked the Earth. Yet, a lack of faith in the science behind global warming doesn't prevent him from writing articles like this. From the article:

"For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with "The Oil-Bust Panic," the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. On this page in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for "the government -- through a tax -- to establish a new floor for gasoline," by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123."

And:

"Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes."

Let's parse this. What Charles Krauthammer is advocating, plainly, is a targeted tax on fossil fuels. What he does not advocate, characteristically, is using this tax to subsidize the production of energy with renewables. Instead, he would use this revenue to reduce payroll taxes - and allow free market mechanics to make renewables a more attractive investment.

Now there, in my estimation, is a solution we should all be able to agree on - liberals and conservatives alike. A: Tax a diminishing resource (oil), the supply of which we depend on from unstable and unpredictable foreign sources. B: Return the tax to the U.S. consumer by way of a "revenue neutral" income tax deduction. C: Allow the market to find and develop alternative energy sources without government interference.

Everybody wins: liberal tree huggers and drill baby drill neocons alike. And nobody has to fight over climatology. What do you think?

Enjoy,

-Chris

Let's get Ready To Ruuuuuuumble!

2011-08-04T12:13:00.000-07:00

Steve,

While others only talk about making home made salsa, Chef Christophe acts. Herewith, for those courageous enough to follow the trail he blazed:

Chef Christophe's Mystery Death Salsa

Ingredients:

6 large, fresh tomatoes
1 medium onion
2 large jalapeno peppers
2 serrano peppers
2 Charleston slim peppers
2 cayenne peppers
1 6 oz can of tomato paste
1 tsp cumin - 1 tsp adobo - 1 tsp cilantro

Remove stems from tomatoes, then dunk in boiling water for 1 minute and peel off skin. Finely chop tomatoes, peppers and onions. Put them in a crock pot along with the spices and tomato paste and cook at low heat for 6 hours.

For a distinctive flavor, you can also add a couple of tablespoons of brown or white sugar.

This salsa won't exactly terminate your taste buds with extreme prejudice, but it will make any taco or tostada wake up and take notice. For a kick-in-the-pants, slap-yo-mama, near death experience, puree one large ghost pepper and toss it in. But just be darn sure you wear rubber gloves (seriously) if you do that. Oh, and throw away the blender afterwards.

-Chef Christophe

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE...

2011-08-02T07:50:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Years ago, before the Internet was just a gleam in Al Gore's eye, when I read the newspaper or watched the news on TV, I was pretty much at the mercy of whatever reporter was doing the story. Now days, things have changed. Today I read or watch the news online - which gives me a powerful tool to determine the veracity of a news item. But a lot depends on how you use this tool, or for that matter, whether or not you are inclined to use it at all.

For fun, I thought I'd describe how I typically check out the facts behind a story. Here goes.

This morning the AJC had an article, "Cost of FAA shutdown could exceed $1billion", which calls attention to the central irony of the dispute between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over re-authorization of the FAA. Briefly, the whole thing started when House Republicans claimed they wanted to cut funding for the FAA at certain unprofitable rural airports before they would re-authorize the FAA. However, because Senate Democrats refused to go along, whatever minimal savings would have been gained by these relatively minor cuts (16.5 million annually), have been more than wiped out by lost revenues (125 million weekly) due to the lack of re-authorization.

Conscious of this ridiculous situation, House Republicans fired back with another re-authorization bill which does not contain these cuts. Which sounds reasonable, yet still Senate Democrats refuse to go along. Why wouldn't they? According to this description of the impasse, Republicans now seem entirely rational and conciliatory, which is most likely how the whole thing will be played out in the conservative media.

But wait. Senate Democrats claim the stalemate has nothing to do with minor cuts at all, but a provision in the House bill regarding unions. According to the AJC article:

"The labor provision would overturn a National Mediation Board rule approved last year that allows airline and railroad employees to form a union by a simple majority of those voting. Under the old rule, workers who didn't vote were treated as "no" votes."

And I can see why anyone would object to this, as it virtually wipes out the fundamental rules which govern any election. To wit: in a democracy, we only count the votes of those responsible enough to go to the polls and actually vote. This rule mandates that you not only count as votes the number of those who didn't bother, but that you count them all as a vote for one, pre-determined side. It would be like government mandating that everyone in a district who doesn't vote, should be tallied up and added to the totals as either Republican or Democrat. Which pretty much destroys the whole point of having an election in the first place. Back to the article.

According to Representative John Mica, a Republican from Florida:

"Senate Democrats are also arguing that the House-passed extension is about a labor provision, but the fact is there is no labor provision in the extension..." (my underline).

This, if you will, is the crux of the issue. If Mr. Mica is telling the truth, why then it is the Senate Democrats who are being bull headed and obstructionist - and incidentally costing us taxpayers the no small sum of 125 million a week. On the other hand, if he is lying, we're paying that 125 million a week because Republicans want to add a rule which no sane person would view as anything but anti-democratic.

As I said before, without the Internet, you just have to make up your own mind about Mr. Mica's honesty, or lack thereof. But we don't have to do that, do we?

First, let's find the bill. Go to (Thomas) Library of Congress, then "Bills and Resolutions" and search the term "FAA". This takes a little practice, but eventually you will find the bill in question: H.R. 658. Scroll down to "Evaluation and Audit of Mediation Board", section 903, which says:

"Effective January 1, 2011, the rule prescribed by the National Mediation Board relating to representation election procedures published on May 11, 2010 (95 Fed. Reg. 26062) and revising sections 1202 and 1206 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have no force or effect."

Copy "95 Fed. Reg. 26062" and paste it in your search bar, and you will find the Mediation Board's ruling as referred to in H.R. 658. Here's the summary of the ruling:

"As part of its ongoing efforts to further the statutory goals of the Railway Labor Act, the National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) is amending its Railway Labor Act rules to provide that, in representation disputes, a majority of valid ballots cast will determine the craft or class representative. This change to its election procedures will provide a more reliable measure/indicator of employee sentiment in representation disputes and provide employees with clear choices in representation matters." (again, my underline)

If you want, you can even scan through the Mediation Board's background material, which references the sound legal precedents which have been established through several Federal court rulings.

Now, all of this checking took me no more than a minute or two. But from it, I was a able to determine, independently, from reliable and unbiased sources, the actual facts behind the AJC news item - and that Representative Mica was lying about them.

Steve, this little bit is going to get spun all different ways in the media. It will probably turn into one of the thousands of anecdotal "facts" which underlie the average person's overall political viewpoint. Yet not one person in a hundred will make the least effort to determine if the spin he subscribes to is actually true or not.

This is what I mean when I say the circus going on in Washington today reflects so poorly on the voters who elected these clowns in the first place. We've become slaves to mediocre, biased and even self-contradictory reporting, despite the fact that we have at our fingertips a powerful tool to cut through the fog and establish the truth.

Maybe we'd rather live in whatever dreamworld of prejudice and ignorance which best suits our preconceptions. Or maybe we're just too lazy to make the effort. You decide.

Enjoy,

-Chris

2011-08-01T16:35:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Well they did it. It looks like we've got a "debt deal". How marvelous!

Everybody wins this time. Republicans can say they stuck to their guns and got some sure 'nuff spending cuts. Democrats can say they "saved" the economy. Obama can say he put country above party and compromised to avert certain disaster. Seems to me I've heard this song before.

As it turns out though, this fabulous debt deal is pretty much just a bunch of hooey. All our leaders are saying is that they pinky promise to look at some as yet undefined spending cuts later on. And even this nebulous commitment will be left to a "bipartisan commission", composed no doubt of has-been politico's who have nothing to lose by suggesting that maybe grandma can get along just fine without a new wheelchair.

Forgive me for saying pfah.

Steve, I'm a borderline socialist. I don't have a problem with government take-overs. As far as I'm concerned, they can take over whatever they want - so long as they start with my house payment.

That said, what ticks me off the most about our leaders in Congress is how poorly they reflect on the public which elected them. Steve, these people are two faced, attention grabbing, brain dead idiots. As the man said, none of them could pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

Sorry, just venting here.

-Chris

Here we go again...

2011-07-25T03:06:00.000-07:00

Steve,

After bombing 7 and shooting 86 people dead, now we learn through his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, that Anders Behring Breivik "... feels that what he has done does not deserve punishment" - adding, "He has been politically active and found out himself that he did not succeed with usual political tools and so resorted to violence," - and concluding with: "I await a medical assessment of him,".

Hey Geir. Here's a clue. The guy's nuts.

From all indications, we're going to get another one of those "He Didn't Know What He Was Doing Was Wrong Because He Was Off His Rocker" legal defenses, and I can just picture it. Months of delays will pass while a team of head shrinkers determine the guy's a nut job. Finally we'll get to a long trial, during the first five minutes of which the defense will concede the only important fact: that, well, yes, yes he did murder those people...

Then, everyone from the judge on down will try to look all serious for the next three months as the Mr. Breivik's lawyers try to drum up sympathy for the poor wretch. Eventually, on account of Mr. Breivik being out of his mind and all, the charges will be reduced to something only slightly more sinister than tipping over trash cans. He'll spend maybe a couple of years in minimum security, during which time he snags an interview Anderson Cooper. When he gets out he'll sell the book rights for a million five and marry a Swedish model.

OK OK, maybe I'm being a little sarcastic here. But really, do you honestly believe for one millisecond Norway will ever even consider doing to Anders Behring what Anders Behring did to 93 people without a moment's regret?

Hey Norway, wake up! This jerk killed 93 of your own people! Have your fancy trial. Then give this animal a chance to see what a bullet in the head feels like - first hand.

-Chris

Deficits

2011-07-21T08:18:00.000-07:00

An interesting graphic can be found here. It shows deficits by year, 1980 through 2010, in both dollars and as a percent of GDP. Most interesting.

From the ideological side of the fence, I notice that Clinton's surplus did not happen until after the Republicans took over in 1994. I also note that after W's 'monster deficit' in 2004 - which is no where close to where we are now(!) - was followed by a steady decline until 2008. IMHO, the 2008 deficit was predominately caused by the economic collapse, although the budget was most certainly bloated (and first pure Democrat budget in a decade or so). This trend continued into 2009 and 2010, when spending *really* took off. I also think the projected reductions in the deficit in the coming years are woefully optimistic.

All of this ideological analysis means nothing.

Whether Democrats or Republicans get proportionate blame is meaningless. Congress writes the checks, Presidents cash them. Everyone's finger is in the pie with the ONLY goal of "getting re-elected".

We both agree that we have a spending problem. Right now, it appears BOTH SIDES are trying to find a way to push things into the next Congressional cycle so THEY won't have to deal with the very hard decisions which are looming. Rest assured that I'm just as ticked off by the Country Club Republicans as I am by the Wacky Left. Everyone is on a spending spree, and the head-in-the-sand pronouncements that things are not as bad as they could be, hides the problem (and the solution).

Fundamentally, I think either you believe in economic liberty – which is to say that government IS NOT the optimum means of allocating investment – or you don’t. I am hopeful that an increasing number of people realize how we REALLY got in this mess (and who was at the controls, e.g., all of the self-serving 'power brokers'). Unfortunately, this is counter-balanced by an increasing number of the "dumb-masses" who are accepting the argument that government ought to take any money lying around to spend as government wants, and this is OK (e.g., ‘fair’) just so long as it soaks ‘the rich’.

I don’t want to fix blame, and I don't want to shift the burden from Peter to Paul, and I don't want to waste time trying to manipulate who gets the credit... I want true economic freedom to make a Real Comeback.

If I may paraphrase Jerry Pournelle again, "Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. And the universe is not fair."

- Steve

A new fantasy writer is born...

2011-07-17T09:52:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Have you ever heard the old saw about how if you put a hundred monkeys in a room with a hundred typewriters, given enough time, eventually one of them will type out the Gettysburg Address?

Well it looks like The Washington Post has decided to run this very experiment, and today's article: "Five truths about the deficit and the national debt" appears to consist of the first day's output.

No, I take that back. Comparing this article to what a monkey would randomly peck out on a typewriter would be an insult to both the monkey and the typewriter.

Where to begin? The first "truth" starts out by defining the word "deficit" (Hooray!), and ends with this head scratcher:

"Think of it this way: There are rich people who borrow a lot of money, and there are poor people who live within their means. The question of whether someone is rich or poor is separate from the question of how much money they borrow."

Steve, call me unsophisticated, but I always thought the question of whether someone is rich or poor depends on net worth, which is assets minus liabilities. In this simple equation, "liabilities" is short-hand for "how much you borrow". What person in their right mind would not understand this?

Don't bother, I checked. The writer is one Neil Irwin, whose resume includes "an MBA from Columbia University, where he was a Knight-Bagehot Fellow in Economics and Business Journalism." What was this guy's thesis on, Tantric Healing? Wicca? Let's move on...

Truth 2 starts out well, in this case pointing out that the national debt "accumulated over 200 years", thus clearing up a little confusion for those of us who thought it was racked up a couple of weeks ago. But then we learn, "The good news is that there’s really no need to eliminate the debt entirely." because doing that would be "problematic".

For who? Let's see, A: The government has no debt, therefore B: The government pays no interest on the debt, therefore C: The government can lower taxes, therefore D: us taxpayers get more money to spend on Ronco Pocket Fishermen and Suzane Somers Thighmasters. Sounds like a good deal to me. What am I missing here?

Truth 3 wastes no time going off the rails, by remarking: "Not all debt is bad. Some debt is good." No. Debt, like whooping cough, might be a money maker for the doctor who treats it, but hardly a good thing for the guy who suffers from it. Mr. Irwin opines that borrowing money for " a house or for a child’s education" could "pay off handsomely." Why sure it could! But wouldn't it pay off even more handsomely if you were able to pay for that house or that education in cash? After all, you would still have the same house and the same education, but then not have to send off checks to some lender, each heavily larded with interest, afterwards.

Next, take my word for it here, Truth 4 was lifted, with little modification, from the New Car Salesman's Handbook, Chapter 2, "How To Talk A Sucker Into Buying The Most Expensive Car On The Lot." In that handbook, salesmen are taught to say, with a straight face, "Sir, you make a good living. Don't you think you deserve to drive the Zorch 6000X with the gold plated cup holders and 200 horsepower windshield wipers?"

Irwin aligns this strategy with his version: "Not only would a stronger economy make the deficit lower — it would broaden the nation’s capacity to handle a large debt. Just as a $1 million mortgage would be ruinous for a poor family but easily manageable for a wealthy one, the United States can handle a larger amount of debt the greater our national income."

Translation: "You make a lot of dough, spend it." Steve, why? Why does making a lot of money automatically mean you need to borrow a lot of money? Don't get me wrong, I can see the guy who owns a successful business making hand buzzers going out and borrowing money so he can make more hand buzzers. After all, General Electric wouldn't be ripping the public off today with crummy coffee makers and clock radios if old Tom Edison hadn't borrowed a few pesos to get the whole thing rolling.

However, NEWSFLASH: the government isn't the same thing as a private individual or business. Now you and I may disagree on the extent of what exactly we expect government to do - but don't you think that, having arrived at a reasonable set of parameters, shouldn't we assume that government stay within those parameters? I mean why, if by some miracle, government collects enough money to pay for what we want it to do, should it then go out and borrow money so it can do even more? What kind of crazy logic is that?

Finally, as if waking up from some sort of trance or spell, in Truth 5, Mr. Irwin absent mindedly proceeds to contradict everything he has said so far. Possibly by accident, he discovers "debt dynamics". What is that? Glad you asked.

"Debt dynamics" is: "...the concept that deficits and debt have a built-in feedback loop. So when debt levels rise too high, interest rates can rise, making the debt problem all the more onerous. Debt dynamics are the reason that, even though interest rates are very low now, it is worth worrying about current U.S. debt levels."

Well what do you know. Somehow, while wrapping up two pages of naive generalizations, this Columbia University graduate stumbles on the essential truth which every high school drop-out is going to learn the hard way: when you owe a lot of money, it costs more to borrow it. Solution? Try as hard as you can not to go into debt in the first place.

What do they teach over there at Columbia anyway?

Enjoy,

-Chris

Youth, Maturity, Old Age, Life, and some other stuff

2011-07-15T12:24:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Life is a little bit like baseball. In baseball, our champions are towering monuments of success. Yet in baseball, failure is commonplace. Even the greatest athletes who ever played the game are going to fail most of the time they step into the batters box. Last year, the team which won the World Series won 93 games - but lost 70 - which means they lost 43% of the time.

Life isn't perfect either. No matter how much you want to win, most of the time you are going to fail. Civilizations have accumulated all sorts of adages and maxims about failure - most of which are meant to teach us the hidden benefits of it. Experience teaches us, it seems, that the champions among us are not those who succeed the most, but those who fail the least.

Sometimes I think we go through life carrying our failures like millstones around our necks. We learn to evaluate opportunities in terms of how likely they are to result in failure. Most of us are bench warmers, content to let someone else take the field and suffer the consequences of failure - annoyed, no doubt, in some dark corner of our minds when that someone actually succeeds.

Without consciously realizing it, we most often view success as a matter of mere coincidence. If ten people attempt, but nine of them fail, would not that make the single success sheerly a matter of good luck? What, exactly, did the one winner bring to the table that the nine losers did not?

You disagree? Consider:

The most important job of any parent who ever lived is teaching his or her kids not to take unreasonable chances. The first time my daughter ever drove a car on her own, all I could think of was how many ways it could end in disaster. I doubt if on that occasion I spent a single second thinking about any of the wonderful opportunities which driving a car would present her with. All I could think of was the potential for failure. Hold that thought.

My daughter was just the opposite. All she could think of was how cool it would be to drive a car on her own. I knew that. So, I wanted to temper her enthusiasm with a great big blob of anxiety. As she was driving, instead of thinking about weekend drives and hanging out with friends, I wanted her to be thinking about drivers shooting through windshields and mangled body parts lying on the side of the road.

I wanted her to think about failure, believing, as I did, that this would make her a better driver. And you know, I had all the evidence on my side. Its probably true that over ninety percent of all accidents are avoidable. And those accidents would have been avoided if whoever caused them had been thinking about failure first, last and always. Back to life...

Years ago, before we stopped manufacturing things here in America, I worked summers at the RCA plant in Marion while I was attending school. Being a temp, I got sent around to all kinds of jobs. One job they sent me to was just plain exhausting. A line of overhead hangers, each filled with a really heavy, old style picture tube would come by, next to a line of empty hangers going the other way. My job was simply to transfer the tubes from one line to the other.

I was just a shrimp back then, 5'10" and 155 at most. The first time I got this job I really threw myself into it. But, since the tubes were heavy and awkward to handle, the best I could do was transfer them at a rate of maybe 50%. Man, this wore me out - I mean I was dog tired. But proud. I thought transferring half the tubes from one line to another was something of a feat. At the end of the shift I asked a guy working nearby how many tubes the guy I was subbing for could transfer. Almost casually, the guy said, "all of them.".

The next day I was given the same job. Wouldn't you know it, I went from a rate of 50% the day before to a rate of a 100%. And even at that, after doubling my production, afterwards, I wasn't as tired as I had been the day before.

Bear in mind, I had never seen this rate of production actually done. All I had to go on was the word of a guy who claimed to have seen it done. I had thought that, given my size and strength, this was impossible. Yet the simple knowledge that it was possible was all I needed. I hadn't suddenly become bigger or stronger. The only difference was I was convinced of the actual possibility of success.

Trivial as it sounds, I think of this experience quite often. When I do, it occurs to me that succeeding is not so much a question of ability as it is of belief. I think, probably the best baseball players are not the most gifted, but those who are blind to the possibility of failure. When they strike out, they throw their batting helmets in disgust. They can't believe they could strike out, and hadn't spent a single spare second considering what they would do if they did.

Kids don't know much about failure. In their innocence, they say they want to be movie stars and presidents - and great baseball players. They don't know that of all the millions of kids who start out in T-ball, only a few hundred will ever make it to the big leagues.

But you know, if kids had the wisdom of old men like us, there would never have been a Stan Musial or a Sandy Koufax. Or for that matter an Archie Graham, who played one single inning in the Bigs, and whose brilliant and useful life was immortalized in "Field of Dreams".

Thank God we can't inoculate kids against failure with the morbid wisdom of old age!

Along the paths to every great novel or painting, every marvel of art and science, every wonderful thing which makes life the stunningly beautiful journey it is, lie the bodies of those who dreamed large dreams, tried and failed.

All of us, I think, can remember that one dumpy kid who entered the sack race at the annual picnic and came in a distant last - way behind everyone else and usually writhing on the ground at the finish line while everyone laughed.

But you know something Steve? That was the kid who crumpled up his doubts, tossed them away, got in the sack and tried. And he really wasn't last either - behind him, unnoticed, were all the other kids who didn't.

-Chris

Well What Do 'Ya Know...

2011-07-08T07:39:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Wow.

Yesterday I watched (via On Demand) the HBO documentary, "Hot Coffee". If you have On Demand, I absolutely urge you to watch it. If you don't have On Demand, go to the show's website and check the upcoming schedule. It will air several more times between now and July 28th. Finally, if you don't have HBO, order the show from your cable provider and I will personally pay the fee.

The show is about "tort reform" and revolves around three cases, two of which I have already put up blog posts on. The first is the celebrated "McDonald's Coffee" case, and pretty much mirrors my post from a couple of weeks ago. Some added information which I found just plain shocking:

The show features graphic images of Ms Liebeck's injuries, and they are a great deal more gruesome than I had imagined. I actually had to divert my eyes from the screen. Ironically, this segment featured several "man on the street" interviews about the case. When asked, no one was familiar with the real facts, but everyone considered the McDonald's case to be a prime example of the frivolous law suit. Then, when shown a picture of Ms Liebeck's injuries, everyone instantly recoiled, and immediately admitted they were probably wrong. There's a reason for this:

An intentionally distorted version of the McDonald's Coffee case was repeatedly used by several groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) to urge "tort reform", first, in the U.S. Congress, and second, in state legislatures across the country when the Federal effort failed.

Steve, here's the point. When Americans suffer harm which may constitute a tort, they have the right to sue the offender in court for compensation and damages. Often, the offender is a major corporation which can bring to bear millions of dollars of legal resources to the court room. When you arbitrarily limit the amount a jury can award to a plaintiff, you are also limiting the amount of legal resources the plaintiff can obtain to argue his or her case - since we all know a great many of the most significant cases are handled on a contingency basis.

Steve, really, do the math.

The rest of the show examines the political forces behind the tort reform movement, the actual consequences of tort reform and the constitutional implications of tort reform. Its every bit as absorbing and enlightening as the first segment. I'm not going to do a re-hash of the show here (you really need to watch it yourself), but a few points:

"Tort reform" has come to mean nothing more than legislation which limits the amounts and kinds of awards which jurys can award to the winners of lawsuits. And remember, in such cases the amount of the award is determined by 12 Americans who sat through the trial and heard all the evidence. When it comes to health care, there is ample evidence to indicate that in those states where tort reform has been enacted, health care costs have continued to rise at the same, or even steeper rates (as they do in Texas) than as in states where tort reform has not been enacted. In other words, in the merciless crucible of real life, tort reform does precisely nothing to bring down health care costs! And yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, tort reform is one of the centerpieces of health care reform as posited by the GOP.

Why would a political party back a measure to bring down health care costs, when in fact that measure has been demonstrated to have no mitigating effect on health care costs? Give me a minute here...

A while back I read a nice piece in the Chicago Sun Times by Roger Ebert (the well known movie critic) entitled "The One Percenters". For some reason, the article seemed to tie together a number of disparate issues for me - many of which we have been talking about on this blog - but I couldn't put my finger on why. Then it came to me. From the article:

"What puzzles me is why there isn't more indignation. The Tea Party is the most indignant domestic political movement since Norman Thomas's Socialist Party, but its wrath is turned in the wrong direction. It favors policies that are favorable to corporations and unfavorable to individuals. Its opposition to Obamacare is a textbook example. Insurance companies and the health care industry finance a "populist" movement that is manipulated to oppose its own interests. The billionaire Koch brothers payroll right wing front organizations that oppose labor unions and financial reform. The patriots wave their flags and don't realize they're being duped." (my emphasis)

Perhaps our system of justice has become antiquated and unwieldy, and should be carefully and openly reviewed for areas in which it can be streamlined and made more efficient - all of course within the framework of the Constitution. But "tort reform" constitutes no such thing. It is in fact nothing more than a cynical means by which corporations can limit an ordinary citizen's access to justice, and thereby increase profits.

Steve, don't you think its a uniquely American principle that "the little guy" has as much right to justice as the wealthiest corporation? Why wouldn't that principle be enshrined, uncomprimised, in our justice system? How can it be a good thing that the informed judgement of 12 citizens on a jury should be altered by arbitrary limitations? Do you think jury's which arrive at these sorts of awards are under some kind of trance, or magic spell, which renders them incapable of deciding which awards are fair and which are not?

One last point. There's a clear and obvious connection between the Republican Party and the Right to Life movement. I couldn't help but think of this connection as I watched the second case which was reviewed in "Hot Coffee". In this case, twins were born to a couple. One of the twins was perfectly normal and the other was severely brain damaged. As it turns out, this condition was absolutely preventable, had the couple's doctor provided the right pre-natal care and the hospital performed the delivery according to well established procedure. This resulted in one of those "frivolous lawsuits" which Republicans are always talking about. Yet the couple won the case and the jury (again, of 12 American citizens) awarded total compensation of 5.9 million dollars.

Yet, in accordance with Nebraska law (a "tort reformed" state), the judge was constrained to limit the total award to 1.6 million. Think about this for a moment. This couple's child is going to require intensive, costly care for the rest of his life, and 1.6 million would not pay much more than a small fraction of the cost. Not only that, but from that award the couple had to deduct their legal expenses, including attorney fees - which left them much less. So, in due course, now that the child has gotten older and the money has long since run out, the boy's care is now being paid for by Medicaid. And how incredibly ironic that is! The very same citizens of Nebraska, who elected the legislators who passed the laws, are now themselves paying for this child's care, instead of the parties who caused this tragic situation to occur in the first place! How fair is that?

But ever so much more important and ironic Steve, Nebraska is one of the states which has become a flash point in the national debate on abortion. In the event, you might just say Nebraskans, by a recognizable majority, would like to see laws passed which protect the rights of the unborn. Some of these laws have even called for restrictions which ultimately criminalize abortion providers under certain circumstances - and there is no doubt the Right to Life movement would like to see abortion criminalized altogether.

Do I have to draw you a picture here? If a person should be outraged, on moral grounds, by abortion, why wouldn't that same person be outraged by the harm done to this child (while unborn) by medical malpractice? Why wouldn't the same persons support laws which not only penalize, but criminalize medical malpractice of the sort which results in a brain damaged child? Why wouldn't they be calling for accountability from the doctors and the hospital which caused that harm, with the same ferocity they brought against George Tiller?

-Chris

P.S., I'd be remiss if I didn't point out some fallacies of logic and common sense in a few of your comments on this subject.

First, to characterize a subset of trial lawyers as "ambulance chasers" is both unfair and illogical. Certainly, we know from first hand experience that many firms solicit, sheerly for financial reward, citizens who may have been victims of negligence, malpractice or outright fraud. Yet, this is precisely the way free enterprise is supposed to function in American society. A business sees a need, develops a product to fit that need, and either profits or loses according to the success or failure of the product. You might as well call an "opportunist" anyone who comes up with and risks investment in any product. Remember, having obtained a client, a lawyer or law firm must then invest real money and effort in building a case - with absolutely no certainty of being compensated for that investment.

Second, the "loser pays" idea is a canard. It originates from the popular misconception that frivolous lawsuits are easy to file and often cost a great deal more to defend against than simply settling, without any admission of wrong doing, at the outset. Yet, while it is true almost any lawsuit, regardless of merit, is easy to file, the overwhelming majority of those which are clearly frivolous are easily, and at no great cost, dismissed before they even reach trial. Thus, the system has built-in safeguards against meritless lawsuits. "Loser pays" is therefore only going to affect the initial decisions by a law firm as to how much money it would be willing to invest in building a case.

How's that working out for 'ya - Phase II

2011-06-23T09:19:00.000-07:00

Steve,

I'll have to admit, I was a little stung by a comment of your's on my last post, that being:

"Chris, to point your finger-of-shame at Republicans (on the immigration debacle) specifically is beneath you..."

Then, no sooner had I started to deal with the emotional trauma caused by that remark, you added:

"I do NOT believe racial or religious bigotry is a factor AT ALL."

Let's break this down.

OK, sure, I'll admit I'm a little quick on the trigger finger when it comes to Republicans. But for Pete's sake, on this issue specifically, I was talking about a fairly blatant attempt by Georgia Republicans to cynically mine the issue of illegal immigration for votes. Of interest to me is how this attempt has now backfired in a way everyone on the planet (including those same Republicans) knew it would. Liberals in the Georgia legislature are as lame and cynical a bunch as those from the GOP, but willy nilly, they managed to get on the right side of this issue and oppose HB87. Which, ironically, closely aligns them with Georgia business interests in one of Georgia's most important industries. This issue won't go away and I intend to post more on it presently.

As for racial bigotry, I assure you I wouldn't even be participating in this blog if I thought Steve Green had a bigoted bone in his body. As a matter of fact, it has been the total absence of racial bias which has made it possible for us to reach general agreement on the most ideologically divisive points. I would only point out however, that the world outside the calm and reasonable confines of this blog is not nearly as open minded. For example:

I came across a post by Jay Bookman on HB87 in the AJC (from June 17th, a full 10 days after mine - which only proves how far ahead of the news cycle we are). Jay's article pretty much followed the same general outline of my post. The most interesting part of this was not the article itself, but the 92 comments which follow it. Among them, you will find a pretty fair number of overtly racist remarks - all made by obviously conservative readers.

One early commenter cited "an excellent rebuttal to this nonsense..." in the Marietta Daily Journal. The MDJ article itself is an example of some pretty crude journalism ( "one of my favorite sources of amusement are smug, leftist columnists who wail in anguish..." ), by one D.A. King. For factual substance, Mr. King references "the respected Center for Immigration Studies in Washington". Oh really?

Now a reader looking for confirmation of bias, and no more, would probably stop with the D.A. King piece and toddle off to beddy-by, secure in the knowledge that his opinion was buttressed by research by such an imposing, non-partisan outfit like the "Center for Immigration Studies". Steve, that's how confirmation bias works. If you want to believe the moon is made of Wisconsin White Cheddar, there's probably a "think tank" somewhere willing to provide you with intellectual ammo. But wouldn't it make sense to check out your sources first, since typing "The Center for Immigration Studies" into your search bar only takes a few seconds?

I did. And what emerges is the image of an anti-immigration astro-turf organization, one of a network of as many as 13 founded by retired opthamologist John Tanton, who has been credited with almost single-handedly creating the anti-immigration movement in America. The Southern Poverty Law Center has this to say about the CIS:

“Although the think tank bills itself as an “independent” organization with a “pro-immigrant” if “low-immigration” vision, the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked. There’s a reason for that.

Although you’d never know it to read its materials, CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton — a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials…”

But, isn't the Southern Poverty Law Center itself just some kind of glorified liberal front group? I don't think so, but on this issue at least you can check out the veracity of their claim simply by going online to John Tanton's magazine, "The Social Contract", and doing a little first hand research of your own. Check out the archive of articles, the articles themselves, the book reviews, the book reviewers, and all the rest. If you don't have time for that, you might as well accept the verdict I myself arrived at by doing this. "The Social Contract" is little more than a portal for a great deal of hard core racial and religious bigotry to creep into the national dialogue.

Steve, its like peeling an onion, and it works like this: One supposedly neutral observer, like D.A. King of the Marietta Journal, writes an article with important, but barely discernible racial overtones, and cites a source which occupies a marginally more racist level. That source is supported by others, and those in turn by still others, and to follow the trail you find yourself going deeper and deeper into world of frank, unapologetic racism.

Think I'm kidding? Or, maybe deluding myself into believing there's a guy in a white sheet behind every tree in the forest? Here's my take:

I detest intolerance in all its forms, and racism is probably the worst one. But I'm less disgusted by those who catagorically admit to downright racism. After all, they pay us the courtesy of identifying themselves as recognizable enemies of a tolerant and enlightened society. What bothers me far more are the stealth racists: those who try to pass themselves off as neutral academicians just trying to weigh the effect of race on society. If there's a level in Hell lower than that reserved for overt racists, that's where they're headed.

To say these stealth racists don't play a huge role in defining the immigration debate in this country is at best, naive.

-Chris

How's that working out for 'ya?

2011-06-07T20:10:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Most Georgia voters didn't see this coming - except for those with the good sense to follow this blog. You may recall back in July last year I posted a timely column on the disastrous effects of successful immigration law enforcement by the Obama administration. Businesses which depended on the kind of labor only available with undocumented workers were suffering as the INS pursued "silent raids", which effectively made it impossible to retain those workers. Gebbers Farms, a huge, 500 acre orchard was losing hundreds of reliable employees this way - and couldn't replace them with Americans because, well, as one legal immigrant put it: "Show me one American --just one--climbing a picker’s ladder.”. In other words, after all the hue and cry that undocumented workers were stealing American jobs, the government did something about it, the jobs opened up, and suddenly there weren't any takers. That was back in July.

Well, wouldn't you know it, Georgia Republicans heard the same hue and cry and May 13th of this year passed HB87, the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011" to recover all the jobs illegals were stealing from Georgia citizens. Among other things, the Act requires Georgia businesses to check the immigration status of their employees through E-Verify - a strategy identical to what the INS was using with their effective silent raids. In addition, it "empowers police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects. And it penalizes people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants or encourage them to come here". Practically overnight, the bill had precisely the effect it was intended to have, and thousands of undocumented workers began to leave the state and move on.

Then, on May 17th, ( 4 days after passage of the bill! ) the AJC ran an article - the mere title of which made me fall off my chair, seized by spasms of hysterical laughter:

"Governor asks state to probe farm labor shortages"

Honestly, I lack the necessary skills as a writer to describe how gigantically funny this is. Governor Nathan Deal signed an Act into law, knowing without any possibility of doubt it would cause labor shortages, now he's shocked!, shocked! that there are labor shortages and "... asked for the investigation [into the shortages] Thursday in a letter to Agriculture Commissioner Gary Black. Deal wants Black’s department to survey farmers about the impact Georgia’s immigration law, House Bill 87, is having on their industry and report findings by June 10..."

and:

"The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association has estimated the labor shortages afflicting South Georgia counties could put as much as $300 million in crops at risk."

Come on man. Does this guy really expect us to believe he didn't know this would happen? Of course he did. HB87 was nothing more than cynical pandering by Georgia Republicans to get votes. Heck, I remember months before, while the bill was still being debated, agribusiness concerns in particular were warning that it would result in severe labor shortages and the consequent loss of hundreds of thousands in lost revenues. Steve, I knew that - I mean, sitting here in my own comfy little house-e-by with only this dinky computer to work with - I knew that. And of course, so did you if you had bothered to read my post from last year.

Anyway, the results of the survey are in. As reported in the AJC, nearly half of the 134 farms surveyed across 61 counties say they are experiencing labor shortages, and only 24% said they had an adequate number of workers. The survey included space for additional comments. This one was representative:

"The labor pool has dried up because Hispanics are leaving Georgia as fast as they can. They are terrified about what will happen when this law goes into effect. Since we cannot find immigrant labor, we are trying to hire non-immigrant labor. Even with pay rates above $10 an hour, we cannot find people interested in working outdoors, in the heat. They will stay for one or two days and then leave. Our work is labor intensive, so we are losing money every day by not having dependable, hard-working laborers. This is just another blow to our business on top of what we have already lost due to the economy." (my emphasis).

Steve, this is serious. We're in a recession, Georgia is one of the most affected states and this is costing us real money. In 2008, a survey from UGA estimated the total impact of agriculture on Georgia's economy to be 65 billion dollars - and much of that comes from the cultivation of labor intensive commodities like fruit, vegetables and horticultural products. We can't afford to mess around with this industry.

One other comment from the survey struck me as exquisitely ironic:

"Agriculture desperately needs a workable labor solution–perhaps a user-friendly guest worker program."

Steve, up until they passed this bill, they already had one!

-Chris

The Reader

2011-05-29T09:23:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Yesterday I had the unexpected pleasure of watching The Reader, an incredibly moving and thought provoking movie produced in 2008 - starring Kate Winslet, Ralph Finnes, and the relatively unknown David Kross. If you get a chance to watch it, I highly recommend it.

Oddly enough, I came across the movie by sheer coincidence. Whenever I watch baseball, I always select a second channel to flip to during the commercials. The Reader was featured on Starz, so I thought, what the heck. Anyway, during the first commercial I flipped to the movie and got so hooked I never got back to the game.

The Reader (in German, "Der Vorleser") is based on an award winning book of the same name written by Bernhard Schlink and first published in Germany in 1995. I haven't read the book, but the wikipedia article on it is quite detailed. By way of a surprisingly original plot, the book deals with participation of ordinary Germans in the Holocaust - and the extreme difficulty of later generations of Germans to understand or accept the reasons why.

Critics of the book say that Herr Schlink is trying to offer an implausible and superficial excuse: that many Germans who played peripheral roles in the Holocaust were just simple, non-bigoted and often illiterate - who childishly considered their participation to be nothing more or less than performing the jobs they were paid to do. This is a fairly thoughtful step beyond the ordinary "I was only following orders...", or "No one knew what was going on..." justifications.

Kate Winslet's mastery her role is breathtaking. On trial as a concentration camp guard, she perfectly expresses the moral bewilderment of a common person forced to gradually absorb the horror her own guilt. The camp at which she was a guard was not a death camp, but hundreds of prisoners died tragically while in her care. For this, she ultimately accepted blame, but not before innocently posing some morally difficult questions to the judges.

"It was my job." She said. "What would you have done?" And the head judge was momentarily struck dumb.

What indeed. What would we have done - you and I that is, Steve. Sitting up here on the bank and watching someone else fight the crocodiles, it seems like an easy question to answer. But to me that question involves a great deal more than how we view ourselves as moral beings. Perhaps morality is not just about drawing lines between right and wrong, but relying on convenient ways to justify our own worth and purpose - which often obscure those lines.

I'm absolutely certain there are more than enough conscious, self-acknowledged racists in any country, including this one, to pull the switches at all the gas chambers of some modern day version of the Holocaust. But what about the more common and less connected work of erecting the fences, building the barracks, and guarding the prisoners? Or, more pointedly, what about the millions more who lack the moral clarity to hold up their hands and say "Stop!", before we reach the precipice?

Are we among them?

Now that's a disturbing question....

-Chris

Tort Reform

2011-05-26T11:53:00.000-07:00

Steve,

You've managed to get me interested in what you refer to as "tort reform". I've never really liked that term. It sounds a little euphemistic for an ideological notion which in reality advocates sweeping, unprecedented changes in our system of law. Nowadays, we're applying that ideology to health care. Yet it has been repeatedly advanced in the past as a sort of cure-all for many other problems - some genuine, some not. And to my mind this presumed cure has often been worse than the disease.

Largely, what we have is a philosophical divide between consumer advocates and advocates of free enterprise . An iconic moment arrived in 1994 when one Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old lady from Albuquerque sued McDonald's for burns she suffered when she spilled a cup of their coffee on herself - and won. Now be honest Steve, isn't it true that you, like myself, have always considered the "McDonald's Coffee Case" to be an almost perfect metaphor for what's wrong with our legal system?

The popular view is that some bumbling person spilled coffee, got a little inconvenienced by a few minor burns, hired some high powered "ambulance chaser" attorneys, and came away with millions she didn't deserve. Thus, because Ms Liebeck absolutely refused to accept personal responsibility for her own actions, the rest of us now pay more money for what is now disagreeably lukewarm coffee from McDonald's. And, if even a fraction of other similar iconic anecdotes are correct, this common avoidance of personal responsibility has resulted in an outburst of excessive and unwarranted litigation which every year adds billions to the price of everything from soup to nuts.

Don't bother denying you've bought into the McDonald's story - I won't believe it. Heck, I bought into it myself.

Truth is, when Stella Liebeck spilled that coffee, she suffered 3rd degree burns which initially required 8 days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and a subsequent 2 years of additional medical treatment. During her stay in the hospital, she lost 20% of her body weight and exited the hospital at 79 pounds.

But doggonit, coffee is hot, isn't it? Sure, Ms Liebeck's injuries were more severe than what has been popularly assumed, but so what? She spilled the coffee - how is that McDonald's fault? Well, the jury of 12 citizens decided it was 80% the fault of McDonalds and 20% that of Ms Liebeck. Why? Ms Liebeck's attorneys were able to prove that: 1, McDonald's knew the temperature at which they served coffee was too hot (according to their own internal investigations), 2, during the previous 10 years, McDonalds had settled over 700 complaints of similar injuries for a total of a half million dollars and 3, even their own internal quality control manager had confirmed the coffee was too hot - but that this did not constitute a problem worth addressing.

Or, in other words, Ms Liebeck's lawyers were able to prove that McDonald's knew they were serving coffee at a temperature much hotter than what was considered a safe, industry standard, but perceived this gave them a competitive advantage which outweighed the cost of paying for the inevitable injuries their customers might sustain. And what's more, a jury of twelve honest citizens agreed.

Now, as to why this particular case is absolutely relevant to our discussions on health care and tort reform...

First, this case is probably the most notorious of many others which have been used to establish in the public's mind the image of a legal system gone off the rails. Don't get me wrong - I have no doubt there are probably other cases where the litigants received unjust or excessive settlements. But even in those latter examples, there is another aspect of the Liebeck case which bears examining:

Before Ms Liebeck even retained an attorney she offered, on her own, to settle with McDonald's for the sum total of $20,000.00 - which amounted to nothing more than her medical costs and lost income. Yet McDonald's counter offer was only $800.00. This offer presented Ms Liebeck with only one option if she wanted fair, dollar for dollar compensation: to go out and hire an law firm on a contingency basis. Now think this through Steve...

Whatever law firm Ms Liebeck retained would have to face going to court against the expert legal team of a multi-billion dollar corporation. Without any prior guarantee of success, they would have to invest their own money in countless hours of research, issuing subpoena's, preparing depositions, obtaining testimony from a variety of experts - not to mention all the additional court costs and fees necessary to pursue a case like this. Furthermore, one is hardly justified in assuming such a firm should be required to do all this work pro bono - after all, McDonald's lawyers weren't.

Although the initial award due Ms Liebeck and her attorneys came to over two million, the suit was eventually settled for an undisclosed figure less than $600,000.00 - hardly the catastrophic, industry changing amount most people assume - and possibly not much more than the total costs of litigation incurred by Ms Liebeck's team.

Now let's do the math. Suppose someone had sued McDonalds 10 years prior to Ms Liebeck - and thereby added $600,000.00 dollars to the cost McDonald's pays for preparing coffee (which by the way they were selling at the rate of 1.35 million dollars a day). Its entirely reasonable to assume this would have prevented the subsequent 700 injuries. And, if those injuries resulted in medical costs and lost wages at even a quarter of Ms Liebeck's, consumers would then have been saved a total of a little over 3 million dollars. Not a bad trade-off, don't you think? Here's the wrap up:

I mentioned before that in the rush to enact "tort reform", we're basing the potential savings on what amounts to either biased or anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, as in the iconic Liebeck case, we're ignoring the possible benefits - and savings - the present system is capable of producing. And finally, the ideology is sometimes based on faulty initial assumptions - the most frequent of which is this:

The "McDonald's Coffee Case" would never have reached the public's attention, indeed, would never have aquired its sensational reputation, if McDonald's had promptly acted with appropriate concern for its customers. Remember, it was Ms Liebeck herself, not some "ambulance chasing attorney", who came to them first and asked for reasonable compensation.

In an age where we often tend to view lawyers and litigants as little more than money grubbing opportunitists, why shouldn't we at least take the time to determine how many of these high profile cases only got off the ground - and for that matter, became a financial burden - because of a defendant's initial refusal to even consider modest and fair compensation at the outset?

Enjoy,

-Chris

Tort Reform Links

2011-05-24T06:10:00.000-07:00

A quick, off-the-top list of links to several articles for consideration concerning tort reform (it is by no means complete, but what I could generate quickly):

"The Tort Tax" (WSJ): here

"Tort costs and the economy: Myths, exaggerations, and propaganda" : here
(Response and Rebuttal to EPI): here

"America's #1 Domestic Problem" : here

"CBO UNDERESTIMATES BENEFITS OF MALPRACTICE REFORM" : here

"10 Steps to Tort Reform" : here

There are many others. I am sure you will provide rebuttals (although I did present at least some links from both sides of the issue). All worth considering. However, let's not focus too much on generating a competition over who's 'experts' are 'better' : this is not an Appeal to Authority.

It is difficult, at best, to predict changes in behavior or to properly define the dollar-cost specifics of a "what if things were different". Any (and *ALL*) reductions in Health Care Costs *must* be explored; even if only "1-2%" as claimed by some. To ignore or set aside Tort Reform as an integral part of the process is foolish.

- Steve

New(?) Thoughts on simplifying and improving health care.

2011-05-23T06:36:00.000-07:00

Just thinkin'....

1. Require insurance providers to treat the entire county as one (1) risk group, with NO divisions like “preferred”, “Non-smoking”, etc… everyone in the same pool.

2. Allow deductions to be applied against the policy premium based on “healthy lifestyles” or other reasonable conditions, at the option of the insuring company, which may/will vary. Implement reasonable penalties for deliberate fraud on the part of the consumer (misrepresentation) to receive unearned benefits.

3. Use the commerce clause to allow companies to sell policies across state lines. Example: As a Georgian, I could buy a policy written under the state requirements of Montana (or California, Texas, etc.) – I’m not restricted to Georgia state requirements. *I* – as the end-consumer – get the option to pick-and-choose which set of state-level rules *I* wish to be obligated under (as a payer and recipient of benefits). Some tricky details here, but you get the idea.

4. Set a low minimum coverage requirements (specific conditions) at a national level. Require states to accept national minimum but states may (will) define insurance coverage mandates as they see fit: but which only apply to polices under their state guidelines (see #3). Kick 2% of the premium back to the state whose rules were selected by the consumer for his personal policy (incentive to states to encourage business in their state).

5. Allow consumer to choose to Opt-Out of *any* requirement: federal or state level. If I do not want to pay for pregnancy coverage, I’m not covered. The point: why are MY PARENTS - in their 70’s and 80’s - *required by law* to have a policy that covers pregnancy?

6. Require states to insure citizens (not "residents") of their state at the minimum national level, regardless of income. This could be handled by a “pre-bate” of the monthly premium amount required for national minimum (a health care spin on the Fair Tax pre-bate) – everyone gets the pre-bate regardless of economic status (only fair).

7. With new system in place, drop Medicare/Medicaid and eliminate workers comp. Not needed.

8. Require citizens to insure themselves or prove legitimate reason why not, i.e., taking a pauper’s oath.

9. Establish barrack-style living quarters for those taking pauper’s oath – these become VOLUNTARY “Service Camps”. Minimum living needs (food, shelter) to be provided by state. Unless physically unable, as established by state doctor, pauper to work for state in “community service”. Definition of work required left to states. Sidebar: All illegal immigrants shipped to service camps instead of being deported?

10. Tort reform: Adopt “loser pays” rule for all health care claims. Legal counsel (lawyers) to be personally liable under “loser pays” for lost claims by pauper or any situation where individual loses and has no assets to cover legal costs of winning side.

More details to be sure – a Big one is receiving care for a condition when you chose not to pay for coverage – but that can be handled simply.

BTW - I don’t like it, but I am willing to accept, an individual mandate if imposed on the state level – but I have a constitutional issue with any federal mandate. I can move if I want. *But* under the suggestions above, I don’t *have* to move, I can just take my business elsewhere.

Thoughts?

- Steve

They're at it again!

2011-05-22T19:59:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Holy hoppin' horny toads Steve, have we lost our minds?

On November 30th, 2010, Jared Laughner bought a 9mm Glock pistol at The Sportsman's Warehouse in Tuscon, Arizona. Everybody knows that. They know where he bought it - they have witnesses, records and video. They even know how much 9mm ammo he bought later at a Walmart. Then, the next year on January 8th, he took the loaded pistol with him on a taxi ride to a Safeway store in North Tuscon, got out, walked over to a political gathering hosted by Gabriel Giffords and opened fire, killing six people, including a 9 year old girl, and wounding 13 others.

There isn't any doubt about this. He was taken to the ground at the scene by several heroic bystanders and quickly arrested. They didn't get the wrong guy. There wasn't any mix-up. It was Jared's gun that did the shooting. Many people actually witnessed Mr. Laughner aiming the gun and pulling the trigger - repeatedly. Its even on tape for Pete's sake! There is absolutely zero possibility the shooter was anyone else but Jared Laughner.

Now we learn from the Arizona Daily Star that Jared Laughner might not be "competent" to stand trial. He may not "understand" the charges against him. Plus, he might not be able to "assist his lawyers" in their defense of him.

What in the Sam Hill is there to understand?

Judge: "Mr. Laughner, you shot and killed six people."

Mr. Laughner: "I don't understand."

Judge: "Oh. I see. Well now that's a whole different kettle of fish..."

What? Who gives a flip if this jerk understands how to zip his pants??

And by the way, what defense? Are you kidding me?

So now, once again, justice will have to wait until he gets enough taxpayer funded psycho-therapy until a taxpayer funded doctor says he's "competent". And that could take years. Who knows? Maybe he never will be. And even then, when that magic day arrives and he gets hauled back to court, who wants to bet his taxpayer funded lawyers won't use the "well judge, he just sorta' flipped out" defense. Poor guy - maybe he sat out in the sun a little too long and lost track of the fact that killing 6 people is considered a no-no!

Steve, I tell you what. Man, when it comes to human rights, I'm huge on it. I mean big. Everyone, including scumballs like Jared Laughner deserve swift access to a fair trial. But in this guy's case, why not just get it over and done with? The guy shot 6 people - there's no possible doubt about it. Who cares if he's incompetent, a little messed up or crazy as a loon? I say get him to court, try him, then string him up. I don't even think we should have to pay for a new rope.

Next?

Enough already!

2011-05-21T09:27:00.000-07:00

Steve

You and I routinely disagree on many issues, and climate change is a perfect example. Plainly, each of us thinks the other is wrong. But importantly, neither of us believe the other is supporting his position by intentionally lying about the facts. That's as crucial to me as I'm sure it is to you. We wouldn't have maintained this blog for so long if that was not the case. I'm not only willing, but happy to debate the issues with an honest person like yourself. But a liar, no matter what his views may be, deserves no credibility or respect - none whatsoever.

Just lately I've had an epiphany of sorts. It occurred to me that when it comes to politics, there are two sorts of people and the dividing line is absolutely clear: there are those who are willing to lie about the facts to support their positions, and those who are not. Now I suppose a man could justify lying if he believes some outcomes are more important than that they are attained by dishonesty. Call me old fashioned or naive, but I don't believe dishonesty is ever justified. Case in point:

On 5/19, the President gave a major speech on foreign policy. What he had to say about Israel was especially important:

"So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." (my emphasis)

As you are no doubt aware, these last 30 words set off a political firestorm on the Right.

From The American Spectator:

"...Obama is now ready to advocate the next step of his plan to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

This is absolutely outrageous. There is no way that Israel can be secure, geographically, with the 1967 borders. He knows that. Israel knows that. The world knows that. He may as well have just declared a proxy war against Israel..."

From Fox News:

"Obama, in a sweeping address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East and the stalled peace process, stunned Washington and Jerusalem by endorsing Palestinians' demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders. The break with longstanding U.S. policy appeared to immediately aggravate the Israelis, who want the borders of any future Palestinian state determined through negotiations."

Especially egregious, this, from Charles Krauthammer:

"...A new formulation favorable to maximal Arab demands. True, that idea has been the working premise for negotiations since 2000. But no president had ever before publicly and explicitly endorsed the 1967 lines. (!!!!!!)

Even more alarming to Israel is Obama’s omission of previous American assurances to recognize “realities on the ground” in adjusting the 1967 border, meaning U.S. agreement that Israel would incorporate the thickly populated, close-in settlements in any land swap. By omitting this, Obama leaves the impression of indifference to the fate of these settlements. This would be a significant change in U.S. policy and a heavy blow to the Israeli national consensus."

From Orin Hatch:

"Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) announced Friday he would introduce a congressional resolution disapproving of President Obama's stance on Israel's border lines, saying that "threatens Israel's security."

"By calling for a return to the pre-1967 borders, President Obama has directly undermined her," Hatch said of Israel. "Rather than stand by Israel against consistent unprovoked aggression by longtime supporters of terrorism, President Obama is rewarding those who threaten Israel’s very right to exist. This is not only ridiculous, but dangerous." "

I could go on and on - this is just a sample. Just about all the usual right wing pundits, not to mention most of the presumed Republican presidential candidates, congressmen, party leaders, and of course Fox News, as if on cue, condemned the speech as a horrifying sell-out of Israel.

Let's back up a minute and ask if this amazing, spontaneous outburst was factually justified. But more importantly, were the facts easily accessible to those making the accusations?

Jeffrey Goldberg, a Jew, a consistent conservative, and of all things, a veteran of the Israeli Defense Force had this to say:

"I'm amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel's 1967 borders should define -- with land-swaps -- the borders of a Palestinian state. I'm feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what's the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn't think that the 1967 border won't serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?"

So what was going on here? Was Barak Obama, as Mr. Goldberg said, just re-stating what had been U.S. policy for the last 12 years - and the right-wingers were just misinformed? Or was it Mr. Goldberg himself who was lying about the facts?

Here's an excerpt from the publicly accessible, well known (to all the right wingers), and thoroughly disseminated letter written to Ariel Sharon by George W. Bush on April 14th, 2004:

"As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

---my comment: U.N. Resolution 242, which Mr. Bush was referring to as a basis from which negotiations should start, included the following:

"(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict (i.e. to the 1967 borders);

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Steve, its just not plausible to believe at least most of the people making the accusations against Obama were not aware of this clear and succinct strategy outlined and pursued by George W. Bush and everyone else before him.

Go back and compare this excerpt with the 30 lines from Obama's speech:

"We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

This is precisely the same thing George Bush was talking about - and for that matter, Bill Clinton before him. Even as far back as Reagan, no President advocated a process which has as a goal the end result of Israel returning to its 1967 borders. Yet all presidents, regardless of party, have acknowledged the 1967 borders should serve as a starting point of negotiations - exactly as President Obama said in his speech.

Now if you were a mind reader, you might be able to claim the "mutually agreed swaps" referred to by Obama were not of the same magnitude or nature advocated by W. Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush and Reagan. But you know, none of Obama's right wing accusers are mind readers. So on what evidence did they base their accusations?

Steve, they don't have any. Or, in other words, they're lying about the facts.

Now I'm willing to accept the opinion that Barak Obama is not the same, staunch ally of Israel that his predecessors were. I don't agree with that opinion, but neither do I consider it dishonest for someone to say it. What I do object to is someone who boldly, consciously lies about the facts in order to support that opinion. This brings me to the whole point of this post...

I consider the entire problem of poor government to be, not the honest differences in philosophy like you and I have, but the differences created and sustained by dishonesty. In other words, a good policy of governance advocated by dishonesty is worse than a bad policy advocated honestly.

Why? I mean, why would not good policies transcend whatever means were employed to enact them? I'll tell you why. You can't rely on a dishonest man. Sooner or later, an honest man who favors a bad policy will have the moral courage to question the effect of that policy and change his mind. A dishonest man is not capable of this. A dishonest man will stake a claim to one position or another and never, never change his mind - regardless of the facts. As I said in a previous post, some people - lots of them in fact - are so afraid of being wrong that they are willing to sacrifice honesty to keep from admitting it.

This is especially true of Our Leaders. And maybe it is as much our fault as it is their's. After all, isn't it true the most suicidal act in politics is to say, "Sorry, I was wrong." ?

-Chris

P.S. : I apologize for not yet posting a follow on to your most recent, and excellent two posts. I'll work on it. But this last mass expression of political hypocrisy has got me so mad I just had to say something.

2011-05-19T10:02:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Here's a novel idea. If you really think it through, maybe Social Security and Medicare are nothing more than an effort to institutionalize a uniquely American concept of personal independence. Stay with me here...

I read somewhere that two thirds of Medicare payments go to nursing homes and I have no reason to doubt this figure. But for the elderly, what are the alternatives to nursing homes? There's really only one I can think of. That would be living with one's kids. In American culture, this arrangement is almost universally viewed a failed lifestyle. Consider:

While watching the National Geographic show about The Three Gorges Dam in China, I was particularly struck by the tremendous difficulties the Chinese faced in relocating families whose homes and farms were going to be submerged by the rising waters of the Yangtze River.

In nearly every case, the families being displaced were noticeably different in composition from typical American families. To wit: a typical, traditional Chinese family usually consists of at least 3 generations living together. And each generation - at least so far as I could see - had some worthwhile skill to add.

Here in America, we tend to view things differently. We attain adulthood, establish careers, get married, raise families, then retire. In China, traditionally, all of these phases of life occur within the same family in the same home.

In America, the success of parents in raising kids is determined by how soon and how well the kids are able to move off and start their own lives - independent of their parents. Well brought up kids are supposed to reach a point in life where they no longer need the help of their parents to make their way.

Steve, I can well remember the stories of how my grandfather and grandmother looked after my great grandmother in her declining years. My great grandmother had her own room in my grandparent's home. My grandmother spend considerable time attending to her.

Nowadays that sort of arrangement is a thing of the past. In today's world, my great grandmother would be living in a nursing home, essentially a ward of the state. In all cases, parents, forced by necessity to live with their grown kids, would be mortified, and consider themselves absolute failures.

Is it possible that in the process of limiting, culturally, the definition of what constitutes a successful family, we have lost something?

Ironically, it seems to me that all the cultural warriors out there fighting to define and defend marriage - the "one man one woman" crowd - are missing the point. What they should be actively promoting is not traditional marriages, but traditional families.

Maybe this sounds naive and simplistic and I'm sorry if it does, but if you are going to assert that stable marriages comprise the bedrock of American society, why would you not consider multi-generational families to be the best (and perhaps only) alternative to entitlements - and have the courage to say so?

Just trying to think a little outside the box here...

-Chris

Corporate tax Reform - some ideas

2011-05-17T08:17:00.000-07:00

In addition to targeting “the (evil) rich”, loud noises are being made about businesses not paying “their fair share” of taxes. Without jumping into an argument over what could/would be considered “fair”, I’ll admit there *ARE* some problems with business taxation.

I will accept as fact that Corporate tax revenues are now at historical lows as a share of the economy. This is happening at a time when we face deficits and debt that are expected to grow to unsustainable levels. HOWEVER, the top statutory corporate tax rate is high, the average tax rate (the share of profits that companies actually pay in taxes) is substantially *lower* because of the tax code. This is due to a multitude of write-offs and ‘loophole’ advantages, implemented over the years, so corporations can reduce their taxes. And while I think U.S. corporate tax rates are WAY too high to be competitive on a global scale, when measured as a share of the economy, U.S. corporate tax receipts are somewhat low compared to other developed countries.

But, this is all about dealing with that nagging debt problem…

In ‘fairness’, some (not all) of the burden of helping us get out of this deficit mess will have to fall upon business. I’ll make the flat statement that *ALL* parts of the budget and the tax code, including corporate taxes, should contribute to deficit reduction. This will require across-the-board reform of the tax code itself.

Now, I’m on record as supporting the Fair Tax for a variety of reasons. (The application of true ‘Fairness’ into the tax code itself is the biggest.) But since doing the Right Thing - moving from income tax to consumption tax via the Fair Tax – is unlikely in our current political environment, here’s a few suggestions for what to do under the current set of rules.

1. Reduce the tax code’s bias towards debt financing. The current corporate tax code encourages corporations to finance their investments with debt (by issuing bonds) rather than equity (by selling stock). This encourages corporations to rely excessively on debt, which, as the recent financial crisis demonstrated, poses risks for both the firms and the broader economy. It’s not good for individuals *or* business to rely on debt. The tax code should be more even-handed in treating these two types of financing. And it goes without saying that reversing the recent trend in ignoring bond holders and shareholders (e.g. the GM debacle) must *never* happen again.

2. Reduce the tax code’s bias in favor of overseas investments. U.S. multinationals pay much lower taxes on profits from their overseas investments than on profits from their domestic investments. That gives corporations a strong incentive to shift economic activity and income from the United States to other countries. Policymakers should address aspects of the corporate tax code that allow so much business activity to escape taxation and that favor foreign investments over domestic ones.

3. Improve economic efficiency by reducing special preferences. This is the absolute height of ‘fairness’… The existing corporate tax code taxes different kinds of corporate investments at very different rates. This “un-level playing field” encourages businesses to choose among investments in a large part based on their tax benefits, instead of making those decisions based entirely on investments’ real economic value. Policymakers should level the playing field.

4. Provide neutral treatment of corporate and non-corporate businesses. Over time, various policy changes have made it easier for companies to enjoy the benefits of corporate status without being subject to the corporate income tax. Reform should reflect the principle that firms engaging in similar activities and enjoying similar legal benefits should be taxed at similar rates… just add more ‘Fairness’ again.

5. Take specific steps to discourage tax sheltering. If policymakers lower the statutory corporate tax rate to *well* below the top individual tax rate, they should also establish safeguards to prevent high-income individuals from sheltering their income in corporations in order to pay taxes at a lower rate. Again, level the playing field: more fairness.

That’s a few points. I think they make sense. A lot of folks won’t like them, but that’s because they’ve been given advantages over others. Favoring one group over another is WRONG – it just isn’t fair.

Of course, if we can develop the courage to dump the existing tax code entirely and shift to the Fair Tax, none of this would be necessary.

- Steve

A rambling diatribe on what Ayn Rand got Wrong (and Right)…

2011-05-13T13:56:00.000-07:00

I wonder if Ayn Rand ever read, The Man Without a Country, by Edward Everett Hale. I *know* that too many of today’s generations have not. Pity. Folks could at least read the Wikipedia summary… (All those folks out there - If you aren’t familiar with Hale’s story, go read it, or the rest of this post will make little sense.)

Along those lines, Ayn Rand is sometimes misinterpreted to imply that people *should* have no loyalty to anything except themselves. It’s an incorrect conclusion, but it’s easy to see how some might think that is her point. This explains why Atlas Shrugged and Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism reached a popular new height in the Me-Generation 1980’s – it fit nicely with the prevalent mood of the times. The Baby Boomers (of which I am one, albeit on the tail-end) are spectacularly good at practicing what they see as desirable aspects of Objectivism, at least up until the point where they have to directly contribute something to the equation personally.

I would like to take a moment to remind anyone that might read this opinion that – IMHO, a person with no loyalty to anything but his/her own pleasure is NOT a noble hero of individualism, but instead represents a pathetic failure as a human being. Now, to be sure, there is more than one way to be a failure as a human being. An easy identifier is a self-centered narcissist blissfully pursuing the power to make others miserable for their own good. This describes way too many folks in the political arena today.

But where Rand didn’t make things particularly clear was that while it *IS* true that "the business of business is profit," such an attitude is not inherently smart, or useful to the country, although it CAN be. The downside is especially true when “business” is granted the rights of a “citizen” but not the attached responsibility. Yes, Rand didn’t exactly promote such a situation either, but to paraphrase her own words, “you cannot disregard reality”. A key point – citizens, as individuals, have another business, besides whatever actions pay their rent: the ultimate business (duty?) of being a Good Citizen is the welfare of the nation.

The definition of "success" for a business may be an increasing stock price, or increased sales...but the definition of success for a citizen has little/nothing to do with stock prices or corporate income (or personal income). A citizen is a success (as a citizen) by making things better. It does not matter how this happens, as long as it does.

A parent who manages to convey to their children the responsibility of citizenship – specifically, that the world doesn’t revolve around them and their petty desires/emotions *and* that life is NOT “fair” *and* will NOT be “a bowl of cherries – has been able to instill the belief system that, Yes, one does owe something to the society that nurtured them. And before you think I have fallen off my Individualism high-horse, there is a clear and distinct difference between contributing to ‘society’ and taking (stealing) resources from one to ‘give’ to another according to YOUR discretion.

The honest shopkeeper, the honest craftsman, the honest teacher, the honest tradesman, the honest truck-driver… are among those who obey the laws and make roads safer by their driving or make neighborhoods safer by their cooperation; those who volunteer for tasks like ambulance work or mentoring kids or working in food pantries, etc., etc., etc. These are concrete, every-day examples of doing what successful citizens do...they are supporting the social and cultural infrastructure that supports them. It sometimes appears that Rand thought those day-to-day issues would simply take care of themselves – but the Real World is more complex.

So exactly what, you might ask, distinguishes the unsuccessful citizen? Some old-fashioned vices: greed, dishonesty, laziness, selfishness, cruelty, anger, resentment, or – in short - refusal to take responsibility for his/her own acts and their consequences. This is not limited to personal accountability, but extends to anything that degrades the resources of the nation. And that includes deliberate actions ,whether intentional or not, which damage the human resources needed for a healthy society. Please note that this does not imply approval of forcing ANY particular actions upon individuals which - in your opinion - are needed to benefit "the planet". Good Citizenship does not require the slavery of mankind in service to 'lesser creatures' or 'the environment'.

When a construction firm uses substandard materials to build a highway or bridge or apartment building...that's being a bad citizen. And no amount of donations to a political candidate, or university, or any collective group, and no matter what your INTENTIONS may have been - nothing can undo the damage done to the fabric of trust that underlies healthy societies...

When a member of the armed forces uses supplies for personal gain; or fails to learn his/her job and carry out his/her duties with dispatch; or does anything that reflects badly on the service… that's damage done to public trust and/or to the reputation of the nation...

When a policeman or jail guard rapes a prisoner...when a judge rules in favor of a corporation in which he owns stock...when a company fires the employees in its own nation and hires cheaper labor elsewhere...that's damage done to the fabric of the nation. And that's being a Bad Citizen.

This nation was founded with an overt appeal to universal rights of mankind – as endowed by their Creator – which begins with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (Note that you are not guaranteed by your Creator that you WILL achieve the tangible benefits of these Rights, only that you have an Opportunity to do so.) And be aware that, by design, Rights are *not* created by Man – an important distinction.

The survival of this nation depended, from its very beginning, upon citizens taking Responsibility, not just Liberty, as one of the rights of mankind. It was so obvious, I believe to the Framers, that this principle was left unsaid. Had the signers of the Declaration been as wedded to the concept of personal liberty as the Far Right (e.g. conservatives) are accused of being today, there would have been no successful Revolution against England.

Those brave men, who pledged their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the cause, did not want total freedom for themselves. (Such would lead to anarchy.) They did not demand that others bear the burdens so they could ride in a comfortable coach. (Involuntary financial redistribution is self-destructive.)

The Framers, as I see it, were familiar with, and based their concept of citizenship on, an ancient understanding of citizenship: that courage, fortitude, integrity, temperance, sound judgment and other similar traits were all desirable virtues which, if held by all citizens, would knit together a culture that could not only survive, but yield a better country and a better lifestyle for all. They knew enough of human nature to know that no nation – at that time - had yet achieved such a citizenry. That knew it might be unlikely for such a society to always exist indefinitely in future, even with the best of intentions. But they also knew it was a goal worth trying to achieve. They knew it would take a huge sacrifice. First their own personal sacrifice, which they were willing to make, and then (in succeeding generations) more of the same. They knew that risking one's physical life in combat or a dangerous public service is NOT the only sacrifice necessary to make and preserve a sound nation. Any successful society depends on Contributors, not just the Takers.

This was one of the things Rand got Right… a society which elevates those who TAKE, while demonizing those who MAKE, is doomed to Fail. There are those who make the tools and those who use them, those who bear and support and teach and train the young who will carry on the work as adults. Society must benefit all of them – not just those at the top; not just those at the bottom; not just capitalists; not just labor; not just those who skim off a profit from the work of others; not just those with legislative responsibilities and duties…

Yes, a large and complex society needs a complex social and financial structure to support it. But a structure which deliberately (despite the best of Intentions) increases the gap between rich and poor, a society that ignores or devalues the contributions of the poor and middle-class, a society which criminalizes the successes of upper class - is a society that creates bad citizens by its very structure. This is where we find ourselves today.

When a rich man, like Ken Lay of Enron, can claim that he has suffered more than the low-level employees of the company because he's lost more money – when such folks can spend pre-sentencing time at a luxurious home in Aspen with his family, while a poor man will spend his pre-sentencing time in jail: the system is obviously creating bad citizens.

When a person with no visible means of support - who has squandered the opportunities they have had - is legally given a manufactured “Right” to collect and receive financial gains based upon the efforts and hard work of others: the system is creating bad citizens.

When a President's wife publicly announces that she and her husband have suffered more from the war than anyone else and then retire to a cushy central Texas ranch; while brain-injured and amputee vets and their families suffer in ‘different ways’: we have an excellent example of citizenship failure right at the top. When a subsequent President proclaims that he and his followers can do whatever they want to whoever they want, because “we won”: we have a crisis of petty vindictiveness ruling the roost… It’s not about particular parties or ideologies; it’s a problem of attitude. To paraphrase the comic/movie line, “with great power and wealth should come great responsibility and accountability.”

Ayn Rand got quite a few things right… she got some things wrong… and she has some that straddle the fence. For example, “Civilization is … and some that the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.” But Rand fails to consider that No Man Is An Island. It's the balance between individual liberty and civic responsibility that is so difficult. And it MUST be an exact balance, for to ignore or favor one side over the other will certainly lead to destruction.

And – IMHO - she’s absolutely correct with, “A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.” And also, “Government ‘help’ to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.” A bit extreme perhaps, but observed evidence from the Real World supports here position, unfortunately. I suspect this is due to Results, not Intentions of those responsible.

With the real world conflict with Rand’s views, there is a strong tendency to disregard *all* of her philosophy as being “unworkable”. That’s an overstatement: the principles therein haven’t even been tried. There *is* a distinct difference from what Rand proposes and what has been used (and failed) in the Real World. One must admit, she has some good points. But blind adherence to Objectivism is just as wrong as blind acceptance of Collectivism. The key word here is… BLIND.

Rand is correct when stating, “…it only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.” Rand’s solution, “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” doesn’t go far enough, only because it fails to consider the duties and responsibilities of True Citizenship. She does rebound nicely with, “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”

* * * * *

Whew. That’s all for now: I’ll be posting further along these lines…

- Steve

Honesty

2011-05-10T08:48:00.000-07:00

Steve,

I got one of my first real lessons in honesty back when I was about 13. I took over a neighborhood paper route and spent maybe a week or so learning the route from the kid who was giving it up. Then came the first day I was to deliver it myself. Since I wasn't sure I knew all the houses to deliver to by heart, I decided to go by the kid's "route book" - that's the book with little stubs in it that paperboys used to go around each week and collect. Well, wouldn't you know it, at least a third of the houses I remembered delivering to while learning the route, weren't in the route book. What this meant was that the paperboy before me had been mistakenly delivering papers to a lot of houses which had not been paying. Afterwards, I called the manager at the paper and told him about this. The manager said I should only deliver papers to the people in the route book. If there had been some mix up, anybody on the route who stopped getting a paper would surely call and let us know.

Well, nobody called. Repeat, Nobody.

Now back then, paperboys didn't make a lot of money. You got up around 5 in the morning, picked up your papers at a local drop off (mine was the fire station), banded them, put them in your paper bag and took them around. Each week you had to go around and spend another afternoon collecting. In the end, you made maybe 20 bucks a week for a good 30 hours worth of work. Like I said, not a lot of money, but not bad either for a 13 year old kid - especially with the minimum wage at below $2.00 an hour.

Anyway, it turned out that the poor kid who had the route before me was essentially paying by himself for all the papers those customers were getting who weren't paying. Now this wasn't some kind of down and out neighborhood either. Most of the people who lived on the route had good jobs and surely enough money to pay the measly 3 or 4 bucks a week for a newspaper delivered right to their front porch. You had to figure that at some point the kid had just lost their billing cards and and thoughtlessly kept delivering papers to them. Probably they were otherwise good people - went to church, obeyed the laws, said please and thank you, the whole bit. But for some reason, when they started getting a paper they knew they weren't paying for, not one of them called the office and arranged to make payment. Not one! All of them were perfectly happy with getting a free newspaper and letting some poor 13 year old kid pay for it.

It may not sound like much, but this taught me a great deal about honesty. One other example:

Once, while walking down the side-walk with my mother in Indianapolis, Mom looked down and spotted a 20 dollar bill. She picked it up, thought for a second, then went into the nearest store, handed the 20 to the clerk and told him to hang on to it in case the person who lost it should come back looking for it. Imagine that! Steve, there wasn't any way in Hell that 20 would ever get back to who ever lost it. But you know, Mom didn't care. All she knew was that it wasn't her money, and any effort to get it back to its rightful owner, no matter how futile, was preferable to keeping it.

Mom wouldn't have gone for two seconds without paying for a newspaper. Neither would Dad. If we got a paper delivered to us without paying, my parents would have tracked the paperboy down and made sure he got paid. That's the kind of family I grew up in. But sometimes I wonder how many families like mine there really are. If my experience with the paper route was any indication - probably not many.

I like to think of honesty as one of the ultimate acts of instinctive selfishness. Really, really honest people got to be that way because they just can't deal with how dishonesty makes them feel. All their lives, they will always, in every instance, chose to be honest when the choice to be dishonest would benefit them more - and never be known by anyone other than themselves. They don't require the threat of laws or law enforcement to goad them into making these choices. Even in a lawless world, where honesty is considered stupid and useless, they would still be honest.

I'm like that and I think you are too. If you're anything like me, you've made more than your share of mistakes. As a matter of fact, if you're anything like me, you've never done anything right that you didn't do wrong at least once before. But you know, honesty has nothing to do with right or wrong answers, but how you go about getting them.

Peace!

-Chris

This is insane.

2011-04-27T18:44:00.000-07:00

I really didn't want to post anything on the three ring circus going on in the media over The Birth Certificate. To me, its always just been about a bunch of right wing nut jobs trying to grab headlines by pandering to a hard core of bigots. Bigots who just can't handle a black man in the White House doing anything but clearing away the dishes after dinner. As one pundit noted, the issue of foreign birth is just code for ordinary racism.

Another pundit pointed out this dog and pony show has become a national shame. After producing exhaustive, irrefutable evidence of American birth, the President had to go on national TV and present the public with a copy of the original document. And all the perverse miscreants who fanned the flames are now strutting around like proud peacocks, as if they have accomplished something, when all they've really done is give America another humiliating episode to live down.

In another sense, by forcing a good and honest man to lower himself to respond to this inane, fake crisis, what they've actually done is lowered the nation as a whole. If any of them had the slightest sense of moral dignity they would know this. But they don't. It embarrasses me to live in the same country with them.

Like I said, I didn't want to waste your time and mine calling these birthers out for the ignorant fools they are. But I came across another article which seems to add a whole new dimension to this disgusting mess.

According to Joseph Farah, World Net Daily intends to proceed with publishing a book by the muck raking, ethically challenged yahoo, Jerome Corsi, entitled: "Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President".

Huh? Steve, we know where the birth certificate is now. Why proceed with this idiotic screed? Well according to Farah: blah blah blah blah, and, "... the real issue (now) is that Obama is still not eligible to be president because his father was Kenyan and his adopted father was Indonesian, making him a potential “dual citizen” of two separate foreign countries.".

In other words, having lost the entire impetus for producing this book, Mr. Farah invents and adds a new Article to the U.S. Constitution as a bizarre form of justification. It makes no sense. It has no basis in reality, or even passing acquaintance with logic or reason.

But what I find flatly stunning is that this book will probably sell like hot cakes anyway: an outcome which at first seemed nearly as incomprehensible to me as Boolean algebra.

Then it came to me. The issue of Barak Obama's citizenship is not really a conspiracy theory after all. Conspiracy theories deal with real people supposedly performing real acts and manipulating tangible objects in the same space/time you and I inhabit. Take away these components and what have left is pretty much bupkis. It would be like saying John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Daffy Duck, or Jack The Ripper was Foghorn Leghorn in real life. See what I mean?

But why would a person spend $14.25 for a book which amounts to pretty much nothing?

I think I know why.

I think it is because when some people want to believe something bad enough, facts no longer matter. Oh sure, maybe on some barely conscious level, they may know their "facts" don't square with reality, and that bothers them. Yet in the end, its not important how they justify what they believe, but that they believe it.

This conscious effort to re-order reality to fit a belief is nothing new. But you know, I don't think I've ever seen first hand a mass expression of it on so large a scale. Which makes me wonder if maybe the highest form of self delusion is not to distort reality - but to ignore it altogether.

On Writing

2011-04-25T07:04:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Since I first read it, my favorite work in all literature has always been "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", by T. S. Eliot. As you know, its a rather long poem, filled with striking images and unforced rhythmic cadences and rhymes. I've always felt the last three of its 131 total lines to be a compact summary of all the 128 lines lines which came before them - as if Mr. Eliot had thought, "Dash it, if you don't understand by now what I've struggled mightily to tell you, well then here, here is what I mean, blockhead!"

This thought occurred to me while reading through "Freedom Versus Organization" by Bertrand Russell (Sadly, you can't download this book for free, but much of his work is available at Gutenberg.) Mr. Russell was a terrifyingly intelligent man, but for me at least, prone to vast spells of really boring pedantry. Which I'm quite sure is an observation I make sheerly because I lack the intellectual stones to instinctively appreciate what he says on my first read, and the patience to go back over it and give it the attention it deserves.

Occasionally though, a compact, thought provoking nugget emerges. Like this:

"...if Henry VIII had not fallen in love with Anne Boleyn, the United States would not now exist."

It is as if Mr. Russell had noticed I wasn't paying attention and so reached out and slapped me... "Here! This is a potential consequence - so pay attention, dummy!"

It seems to me now that nearly all great literature depends as much on the imagination of the reader as it does on that of the writer. Average writers believe themselves possessed by above average vision, and don't care how many words it takes to describe their visions to poor slobs like us. After all, they're allowing us the privilege of seeing something which we ourselves cannot, aren't they?

Well actually no, no they're not. All of us I think, from the meanest digger of ditches to the climbers of the highest mountains, experience the same painfully beautiful visions. Its all in how we express those images to others - and the really great writers know how to reach out, grab us by the lapels and demand our attention.

My copy of "Freedom Versus Organization" is 471 pages long. It is among the best and most illuminating history books ever written. But what makes it a great book for me is the page or two of phrases which reach out and engage my imagination.

In another sense, maybe what the great writers are telling us is, "Look man, I can't do this by myself. I need your help." And it is that respect for the reader which draws us in, fleshes out and breaths life into their visions. So, maybe, before you put pen to paper, your first thoughts should not be of how you will say it, but how and by whom it will be read...

Excelsior!

Spending Limits

2011-04-23T21:57:00.001-07:00

Steve,

From your last comment:

"What percentage of the federal budget do you think is appropriate for military spending? Also, please include the appropriate percentage to be used for direct payments to individuals."

First, since every government program addresses a different set of parameters, I don't believe the more or less arbitrary application of a budget percentage to each program makes any sense whatsoever. In fact, this kind of practice actually encourages waste and inefficiency both in government and private industry, for reasons which should be obvious. Consider when you assign an arbitrary, annual budget limit to any division of any enterprise, its only human nature for the managers of that division to always spend up to that limit, in order to avoid cuts in the next year's budget. Really Steve, I imagine we've both seen this phenomenon at work many times before in our own vocational experience. I know I have.

But since I believe military spending should be no more than half its current level - a decrease which amounts to around from 350 to as much as 500 billion annually, depending on how you figure it - it shouldn't be too hard to calculate the percentage of that against the overall budget.

Direct payments to individuals are a little more complicated, since the question applies to both entitlements and sheer hand-outs. Entitlements first (stay with me here):

For programs like Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Compensation, I would treat each program as a separate account, calculate their direct, net revenues (over time) and add a reasonable sum for accrued interest. The resulting figures (again, for each account) would determine the level of current pay-out (based on the added assumption that each program should be self-sustaining indefinitely). For Social Security, the level would be fairly close to current levels. For Medicare and Unemployment, the level would be less - in the case of Medicare in particular, much less. How that translates to a percentage against current spending should be easy to calculate.

"Hand-outs" are a different matter altogether. In my opinion, modern societies must somehow reach a balance between the altruistic goal of helping the less fortunate and providing for the continued health of their economies. Too much altruism and the economy which ultimately supports it begins to deteriorate to the point where suddenly, no altruism is possible at all. Too little altruism, and genuinely deserving citizens suffer and die. Personally, I don't believe either of these outcomes to be a worthy testament to the enlightened principles on which our founding fathers erected this magnificent nation.

But, if a man simply refuses to provide for his own upkeep, I don't now or ever have believed government should be responsible for it by default. However, too often we tend to caricaturize this issue. Yes, government does indeed provide millions, if not billions, in hand-outs to undeserving needy people. But let us not forget that billions more are handed out in complex subsidies to otherwise capable individuals and profit making enterprises.

As to genuinely needy people, I believe I would certainly couple welfare payments with some kind of reciprocal work and/or on the job training. Now I've already posted a piece on how government programs like this can turn into nightmares. However, I do believe a workfare program, thoughtfully designed and managed, would benefit both the recipient and government. One proviso: I would have no intention of constructing a program which effectively transforms genuinely needy or disadvantaged people into a class of serfs. My workfare program would have to provide a full measure of dignity and worth to whoever participates.

How much? In terms of percentages, I couldn't say without a great deal more research on the subject. My best guess is that government should learn to apply different models to different situations. People become needy for a host of different reasons - many of which, like physical handicaps, are completely out of their control. Thus, the goal of getting them out of poverty is going to require different approaches. Bottom line though: government should set as a worthwhile goal that no genuinely needy citizen should lack the basic requirements to sustain life.

Now as to "corporate" welfare. OK, first, I'm not going around screaming about how General Electric paid no income taxes last year. If they didn't, its only because they had sharp tax accountants who took advantage of tax law. What we are calling "loopholes" are not unintended faults in tax law. They consist instead of laws which encourage activities which legislators believed would confer some sort of overall benefit - and therefore incentivized them with tax breaks - plain and simple.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe corporations should be taxed at all. Corporate profits are always taxed when they are distributed in the form of dividends. Taxing the profits first, then the dividends as well amounts to double taxation. This doesn't make any sense to me.

But, besides that, I do believe government does have a role to play in partnering with private industry. We need effective action from government on things like energy and health care, to name just two issues, and private industry alone doesn't seem up to the task. What percentage of the budget should go towards addressing these issues, and how should it be spent? I guess that is a little much to add to this already long post. So - more, later...

-Chris

Another un-original idea...

2011-04-20T15:29:00.000-07:00

So the bureaucrats and bean-counters are talking TAX INCREASES (again). And, as usual, without finding very many significant reductions in one the spending side. Want to generate some revenue from the "Evil Rich"? Here's an idea...

How about a 50% surtax on anything earned after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Example, leave a $300K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman-Sachs, and pay a $350K surtax. Such surtax to be in effect for ten (10) years.

Now, I'm mostly after elected and appointed positions only, not the hired rank-and-file, but they don't completely escape either. Those worthy folks being paid a salary in the upper 20% percentile of taxpayers would have their 50% surtax only kick in for the difference at 20% above their public-sector salary, and would be limited to only(?) 5 years. All those above the 20% income level take the big 10-year bite with the rest.

And while we're at it, let's take the pain another step further and say that any salaries paid to such former government officials aren’t tax-deductible for corporations while the surtax is in effect. See? There's a private-sector penalty, too.

Some enterprising budget hawk (from either party) should add this concept to a spending bill and watch the fur fly.

- Steve

Behavior Modification

2011-04-19T11:09:00.001-07:00

This is a quickie, but it obviously deserves more comment...

There is a clear understanding, among many policy makers, that if you want to manipulate societal behavior - regardless of direction - one very common method is to adjust the TAXATION of a particular activity. If you want to encourage an activity, you reduce the associated taxes; if you want to discourage, increase the taxes. Simple.

Case in point: there have been numerous attempts to 'encourage' people to suspend or quit smoking. One primary motivation technique is to RAISE taxes on tobacco products. (Caveat: there are many different approaches currently in play on this issue, but let's focus on taxes.) The idea is that people will 'grow tired' of paying the additional taxes to the point they will subsequently modify their behavior to avoid the taxes by avoiding the product; which is the stated purpose of the policy in the first place. All agreed?

Ok, Let's also consider a group of folks out there I call "wealth generators". These are the folks producing wealth, by providing products and services. The desirability of a specific product/service doesn't matter: there is a financial flow from the consumer to the creator, creating wealth. The economy *depends* on these folks to continuing to create wealth, if for no other purpose than to generate the capital which can be consumed by paying taxes.

Logically, if follows that if one targets these 'wealth generators' with an ever-increasing tax burden, they WILL eventually modify their behavior to avoid the taxes. It seems the most likely behavior modification will be to REDUCE the creation of the wealth they will not be allowed to retain. After all, why work so hard to create something that will be taking away from you?

Thus - I pose the question: If we need these generators to keep doing what they do - and we REALLY do - then why do we seek to 'punish' them for their success? And worse, why do those same manipulators FAIL to consider the ramifications of taxation in predicting future revenues? I am reminded of the 60's humorist 'Brother' Dave Gardener, who suggested we should "tax the poor folks and give them an incentive to become something", which makes as much sense as anything else...

There has been a large amount of posturing recently (all sides) which are predominately concerned with "how much we will 'save' over the next X years". Hogwash. Those calculations assume the wealth creators will blindly continue to do what they've been doing, without changing their behavior at all, and without consideration of the increase in taxation. This is wishful thinking at best.

I submit that Human Nature will take over and the currently popular "Tax The Rich" class-warfare strategy will backfire in a big way. The economy will NOT recover as expected/predicted. At the very least, the recovery (if any) will be substantially blunted. This will result in the all-too-familiar cry, "we tried, but THOSE EVIL RICH have conspired against us: they're not paying 'their fair share'.

Perhaps we need a dose of honesty - something in very limited supply in D.C. - to clearly define precisely What Level of Taxation is Considered "FAIR". But then, IMHO, if they *were* honest about exactly how much the bureaucracy wants to collect and from who, the subsequent Behavior Modification which followed would *really* wreck the economy.

Bread and Circuses.

- Steve

2011-04-14T11:22:00.000-07:00

Steve,

Picture this:

On March 31st of this year, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology scheduled a full committee hearing on climate change. As Paul Krugman later put it, three of the five "expert" witnesses Republicans called for were "...an economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing." The only scientists which Republicans scheduled to testify were two outspoken skeptics: Doctors John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Robert Muller, University of California, Berkley, and Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

Robert Muller was there for two reasons. First, he had publicly doubted the validity of the surface temperature records which scientists believed proved the existence of global warming, and second, using U.C. Berkley resources, he had just finished a thorough, independent review (BEST) of those records. That review by the way had been partially funded by, of all things, the Koch Foundation.

Republicans were all a'twitter in anticipation of a take-down of global warming alarmists by Muller and his team. Even the hack Tony Watts had written, on February 11th, a glowing post on the integrity of the methodology behind the Berkley review.

So... what happened?

From the written summary of Dr. Muller's testimony, this bombshell:

"...we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

And later:

"Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to build on it."

Dr. Muller even presented the committee with this lovely graph:

Whoa!

Republicans had been expecting a complete refutation of the data, yet got instead a complete confirmation!

How did they react? Steve, please, why ask? The majority summary of the hearings is titled:

"Witnesses Highlight Flawed Processes Used to Generate Climate Change Science, Inform Policy"

Take a moment to go have a look at it. In it, there is no mention, at all, of the testimony by Dr. Muller - their own witness! How's that for impartiality? It is as if Dr. Muller didn't even testify! And by the way, this is the committee charged with reviewing the findings of science. Steve, all the posts you've written here on this blog about science tell me you are at the very least a passionate believer in the concept that science should remain above politics. In this crude, clumsy episode, Republicans have just edited out the facts they don't want to hear.

The whole thing was intended by Republicans to be nothing more than a show trial, reminiscent (and I mean this) of the show trials orchestrated by Stalin back in the late 1930's. Why else would they have called an economist, a lawyer, and a professor of marketing to what was supposed to be an investigation of science? They expected, indeed invited, five witnesses to appear, raise their hands and swear before God to tell the truth, but had no graceful stategy for dealing with the one man who actually did. So they just pretended he wasn't there.

Anyway, predictably, after having praised the Muller effort before the results were in, Anthony Watts is now posting links on his website to criticisms of the BEST survey by the usual suspects. Back to Stalin...

If you have time, take another moment to read through the entry on "Lysenkoism", a term which,

"...is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives."

Reading through this entry myself I got an eerie sense of deja vu. The driving force behind Lysenkoism was the common man's distrust of the academic, as against the more reliable value of intuitive common sense:

"Isaak Izrailevich Prezent, a main Lysenko theorist, presented Lysenko in Soviet mass-media as a genius who had developed a new, revolutionary agricultural technique. In this period, Soviet propaganda often focused on inspirational stories of peasants who, through their own canny ability and intelligence, came up with solutions to practical problems."

I see this same distrust of a presumed intellectual elite - with sinister, ulterior motives - as underpinning the Right's dogmatic rejection of science generally, and of climate science in particular. You yourself have more than once referred to the wisdom of "the unwashed masses", which, by some kind of magic, renders perfectly clear answers to questions posed by a highly complicated science.

Steve, I'm no worshiper of science. Plus, yes, often times in matters of policy we sometimes lose sight of the simple solutions hanging right in front of our noses. But the problem of climate change is one we desparately need qualified, informed scientists to unravel. We're not going to get anywhere if we decide, as congressional Republicans apparently have, to ignore them when they contradict whatever conclusions we want to be true, as opposed to what really are.

Chris

Eat the Rich

2011-04-12T08:37:00.000-07:00

Iowahawk, noted internet cynic and genius of satire, has a marvelous article, Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day, which can be found here. A nice video version, by Bill Whittle, can be found here. It's worth a look.

- Steve

A Simple Explanation of Baseball

2011-04-12T07:57:00.001-07:00

BASEBALL is a game played by two teams, one out, the other in. The one that's in sends players out one at a time to see if they can get in before they get out. If they get out before they get in, they come in, but it doesn't count. If they get in before they get out, it does count.

When the ones out get three outs from the ones in before they get in without being out, the team that's out comes in and the team in goes out to get those going in out before they get in without being out.

When both teams have been in and out nine times, the game is over. The team with the most in without being out before coming in wins unless the ones in are equal. In which case, the last ones in go out to get the ones in out before they get in without being out.

The game will end when each team has the same number of ins out but one team has more in without being out before coming in.

See? Simple.

- Steve

Together

2011-03-30T10:14:00.000-07:00

Well now united we will stand, divided we will fall,
come on everybody and let's,
get on the ball,
let's work together....

Oh hey, hi Steve.

What was that I was singing? Oh just a little thing from my "long haired hippy type pinko fag" days... "Let's Work Together" by Canned Heat.

Say what? Hey hold on there a sec. You're not exactly Enrico Caruso yourself buddy. Well (grinning sheepishly), to tell 'ya the truth I was the only one in my senior class production of Show Boat that they forced to lip sync the words...

Anyway, that song came to mind as I was reading an article in USA Today about Michelle Rhee. As you may remember, she's the gal who blew into the D.C. school system back in 2007 and applied a deeply conservative, "free market" based strategy to improving the District's school system. You know, the kind of strategy you hinted at in our little dust up over the Wisconsin teacher's unions.

How'd she do? Glad you asked. Well, in an act calculated to gladden the heart of any free market ideologue, Ms Rhee set about firing the worst performing teachers hither and yon. And by golly, it looked like the results were dramatic and next to instantaneous. At one school she had targeted specifically, Crosby S. Noyes, math scores shot up like dandelions on the first warm day of spring. According to the USA Today article:

"Standardized test scores improved dramatically. In 2006, only 10% of Noyes' students scored "proficient" or "advanced" in math on the standardized tests required by the federal No Child Left Behind law. Two years later, 58% achieved that level. The school showed similar gains in reading."

Wow! We continue:

"Michelle Rhee, then chancellor of D.C. schools, took a special interest in Noyes. She touted the school, which now serves preschoolers through eighth-graders, as an example of how the sweeping changes she championed could transform even the lowest-performing Washington schools. Twice in three years, she rewarded Noyes' staff for boosting scores: In 2008 and again in 2010, each teacher won an $8,000 bonus, and the principal won $10,000."

Let's see. First, fire the worst performing teachers. Check. Provide market based performance incentives for those who are left. Check. Result: scores shoot up. Check and checkmate. Would you like a little mustard on that crow, Mr. NEA?

But waitaminit. Something smells like somebody left the Limburger out on the counter. Back to USA Today:

"A closer look at Noyes, however, raises questions about its test scores from 2006 to 2010. Its proficiency rates rose at a much faster rate than the average for D.C. schools. Then, in 2010, when scores dipped for most of the district's elementary schools, Noyes' proficiency rates fell further than average." (my emphasis)

Well for heaven's sake. What happened?

"A USA TODAY investigation, based on documents and data secured under D.C.'s Freedom of Information Act, found that for the past three school years most of Noyes' classrooms had extraordinarily high numbers of erasures on standardized tests. The consistent pattern was that wrong answers were erased and changed to right ones."

"...On the 2009 reading test, for example, seventh-graders in one Noyes classroom averaged 12.7 wrong-to-right erasures per student on answer sheets; the average for seventh-graders in all D.C. schools on that test was less than 1. The odds are better for winning the Powerball grand prize than having that many erasures by chance, according to statisticians consulted by USA TODAY."

What, pray tell, does Ms Rhee have to say about this?

In a formal response, Ms Rhee more or less accuses USA Today as being an "enemy of school reform". Sorry I can't copy the whole statement, but you can find it here under USA Today's full ledger of materials on this episode (look under "Responses to USA Today's Report".

I ought to remind you that we here in Georgia have become depressingly familiar with these kinds of test score alterations as a result of the recent (and if anything), more wide spread scandal involving many schools across the state. Ms Rhee offers that erasures of over 12 to 1 are not conclusive evidence of cheating. Neither is a dead body perforated by a half dozen .38 calibre slugs evidence of a murder. She says the erasures might indicate students are were just spending more time on each question. But 12 to 1? And, in almost every case an erasure produced a right answer? Come on man.

So what do we learn here?

This may shock you, but liberal minded, teacher's union supporting individuals - not to mention the NEA itself, are probably the biggest losers. Here we have an example of free market principles rashly applied to public school management and accompanied by unrealistic expectations. Ms Rhee basically told D.C. teachers their jobs were on the line if test scores didn't improve, and offered cash bonuses if they did. With this kind of pressure and these kinds of incentives, who should be surprised that it would encourage cheating?

But Steve, that doesn't mean the free market doesn't have a great many useful and effective techniques which deserve consideration when it comes to the crucial issue of school reform. We desperately need better teachers and more "results oriented" curriculum's. At a minimum, we need kids coming out of our public schools with the tools to overcome the complicated challenges of real life.

We're not going to get that so long as conservative ideologues like Ms Rhee and liberal "traditionalists" in the NEA remain at loggerheads. Genuine reform is only going to come out of a mature partnership, patiently applied. And scandals like this don't really help either side. Thus, the song. Enjoy:

"Freddy" ...a prose poem

2011-03-28T05:38:00.000-07:00

Steve,

I played freshman football in high school and I admit I wasn't very good at it. Fortunately, after one season of getting my head knocked off every afternoon on the practice field, I decided to join the swim team. But the football team went on without me and eventually went undefeated in my senior year.

Our best player was a monster of a kid named Robert Cline. I mean this guy was big in every sense of the word. Big legs, big arms, big torso... not fat mind you, but huge, and built like a combination of Andre the Giant and Shaquille O'Neal. He didn't leave anything in the locker room either.

On the field he played both defensive and offensive lineman. I can still remember his gutteral, blood curdling bellow as he came off the ball and leveled some unfortunate kid. He broke other player's bones more than once - no kidding.

Off the field it was a different story. If the only image of him you had was his face, you would have guessed him to be some kind of math wonk: big eyes behind thick, horn rim glasses, high forehead, short hair and flaired out ears. You know, the kind of kid who went around school with a slide ruler hooked to his belt like a Roman short sword.

Off the field he was gentle as spring rain - soft spoken and never, never came close to getting into a fight. I honestly don't think he would even have defended himself if somebody had hit him.

He and I were friends for quite awhile. One summer in particular I remember going over to his house up on 4th Street and then walking to the public library downtown. Man I loved that library Steve. It was everything you could ever want in a small town public library. Greek revival architecture, cool terrazzo floors, quiet reading rooms with long maple tables... and packed floor to ceiling with books.

Modern libraries don't do that any more Steve. They're constantly paring the collection down, like lions thinning out a herd of antelopes. Back when I was a kid I don't think they ever got rid of a book. Once they got hold of a book it was like a ray of light caught in a black hole. Some guy donates a 12 volume history of the Gas City Masonic Lodge? Don't worry, they'll find room. As the years went by the shelves just got higher and the aisles between them narrower.

Anyway, back to Robert Cline - the Incredible Hulk of high school freshman...

That first time we went to the library I wondered what kind of books Robert would look for. So I followed him up to the kid's section on the second floor. The kid's section Steve. You know, little, dinky first grade kids, with little dinky tables and chairs about a foot and a half high.

Well Robert went straight to one low shelf as if yanked towards it by a tractor beam, pulled out a "Freddy the Pig" book, gingerly sat his massive body down on one of those tiny chairs and began to read. You had to be there, but I hope I've told you enough about Robert and the library to visualize this amazingly touching scene.
Savor that for a moment.

Turns out there were 26 Freddy the Pig books and they were just about the only thing Robert liked to read. He checked them out, took them home, pored through them over and over, and came back for more.

Freddy the Pig was the creation of one Walter Brooks (1927-58). Freddy lived on The Bean Farm along with his friends, which included Henrietta the Hen, Jinx the Cat, Mrs. Wiggins the Cow and Charles the Rooster. There's even a "Friends of Freddy" society, and I'd like to think Robert is a member.

So here's to good friends (you're one, Steve), lovely libraries, the loss of innocence and the curative power of golden memories.

Chris

15 Minute Hammy Pasta Salad

2011-03-19T09:25:00.000-07:00

Steve,

As you know, Chef Christophe routinely circles the globe in search of flavorful recipes which have the important characteristic of being so easy to prepare an organ grinder's monkey could do it. And its a good thing, since Chef Christophe himself rarely aspires to that level. Today's entree: "15 Minute Hammy Pasta Salad".

Put one box of vegetable rotini on to boil (remove it from box first).

While you are waiting, drain a can of medium black olives and cut them up into halves. (While you are cutting up the olives, drink a bottle of Yuengling "Black and Tan".

When the rotini is done, drain it while drinking another Black and Tan. Then mix it together with one can (undrained) peeled, diced tomatoes, the olives, a bottle of creamy Italian dressing and about a pound of diced, fully cooked ham.

Whew! That was hard work! That calls for another B&T... Now, where was I? Oh, now add about a half cup grated mozzarella cheese. Then stand back and hit the ice box for another 12 fluid ounces of that delicious Yuengling restorative.

When your done, you should have enough to fill five, 16oz. storage containers. Fill them, set them on the counter and wait for them to cool a bit. Two or three more of that fabulous brewery's dark brown porter seem to be in order here.

Now, put the storage containers in the fridge or the freezer. You might have to make room for them in the fridge by removing a couple more beers (and popping the tops, natch!). While you are waiting for the Hammy Pasta Salad to cool off, run down to Kroger and pick up another 12 pack, since, if all goes well, you will be out of beer by now.

Tomorrow morning, take two ibuprofin and use one of the Ham/Pasta containers as an ice pack for that pounding hangover. You can eat the rest later for all I care.

Bon Appetit!

-Chef Christophe

"If I Want Your Opinion, I'll Give It To You"

2011-03-14T10:30:00.000-07:00

I recently ran across this segment of "Through The Looking Glass" by our friend S. Lewis. It relates a portion of the conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty. I couldn't help but think of how Humpty Dumpty uses the meaning of words corresponds directly to what passes for political discourse these days...

Further comment seems unnecessary. Enjoy.

* * * * *

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

* * * * *

- Steve

You're kidding me, right?

2011-03-10T07:07:00.000-08:00

Steve,

So I'm reading Parade magazine while waiting for the coffee to perk (er, drip).

Then when I get to the back cover I have a WTSH (Sam Hill, this is a G rated blog Steve) moment. Its one of those ads which features the typical before and after shtick - in this case, some blob of a woman with bad hair reclining slothfully on an inner tube in a lake, contrasted with the same gal as a svelte debutante with a new doo, dressed for an evening at the White House. Her secret? She dropped 74 lbs with NutriSystem. Nice work there lady.

But what got my eyeballs popping out and, as Bertie Wooster would say, "waving about on their attendant stalks", was the price of said system. Well, not really the NutriSystem costs that is. According to the ad its only around $260.00 for a month's worth of food - a figure which would barely keep me in beer and nachos. The cost that got my head to revolving like an Exorcist stunt double was the cost of the comparable Jenny Craig system - which comes to a mind blowing $752.44 a month!

Don't bother, I already figured it up. It comes to $25 bucks a day. Gee whiz Steve, if you're fat, I can see parting with 9 or 10 bucks a day for what amounts to 30 versions of freeze dried asparagus, but 25 dollars? Hold me Steve, the room is getting dark.... !

Now if you don't have a farm, go out and get one so you can bet it on the concept that the cost comparison in this ad is about as reliable as a Newt Gingrich marriage vow. Which is to say both dieting "systems" probably cost about the same and that cost is somewhere between 260 and 760 - oh, say, 15 or 20 smackers a day.

Let me give you a little background here. For years I ran residential heating and cooling service calls. One thing I learned was show me a fat person and I'll show you a person with a NordicTrac or a Joe Weider Gym gathering dust in the corner of a garage or basement. I swear, I once ran a call on a fat guy who was in the process of screwing together a bunch of stuff for a home gym. By coincidence, the very next year I went back to the same house, only to find the gym stuff pushed off in a corner and the guy about 10 pounds fatter.

Now I don't mean to be cruel here. Like smoking (and you know I smoke), being fat is no laughing matter and I'm sure its as tough to lose weight as it is to quit smoking. But why is it when people decide on a "commitment" to lose weight, the first thing they do is go out and buy something?

Here's a clue. People, if you want to stop smoking - stop buying stuff - stuff like cigarettes for example. The same strategy works for dropping the pounds. Folks, wake up and smell the Aspartame!

All the weight loss outfits out there use the same Big Lie: that you can lose weight without effort or discomfort. Home exercise outfits tell us you only need to use their silly machines for just "minutes a day". Diet plans want you to believe you can stuff yourself like a hog on "full, rich meals" and the pounds will fly off.

Come on people, THINK. The only sure bet here is you know you are losing weight when you are HUNGRY. Your body wants to be fat. Every one's does - and hunger is just its way of blackmailing you into throwing it a slice of peach pie or a bag of Ruffles potato chips. Deal with it. And NutriSystem or Jenny Craig can't make a chicken drumstick any less fattening than Kroger can. And by the way, the only exercise you really need is the "forearm push". That's where you learn to push yourself away from the dinner table after the salad and before the spaghetti and gnocchi.

Voila!

You can thank me later Steve.

-Chris

"USA Inc."

2011-03-07T11:16:00.000-08:00

Submitted for your approval... I was alerted to a site here, which refers to "USA Inc.". From their blurb:

"USA Inc.is a non-partisan report that looks at the U.S. federal government (and its financials) as if it were a business. Mary Meeker, partner at KPCB and former financial analyst at Morgan Stanley, created and compiled the report with the goal of informing the discussion about our financial situation and outlook. USA Inc. examines the country’s income statement and balance sheet, aiming to interpret the underlying data and facts, and illustrate patterns and trends in easy-to-understand ways. The report also analyzes the drivers of federal revenue and the history of expense growth, and discusses basic scenarios for how revenue and expense growth might change to help America move toward positive cash flow."

I'm just starting to review this: no comments, yet. It has the appearance of being interesting. We'll see...

- Steve

Camelot

2011-03-03T09:36:00.000-08:00

Steve,

I just got back from a short stay in Naples (FL) with my dad and stepmother. They have a small but very nice condo on the sixth floor of a complex just opposite the beach on Gulf Shore Boulevard. The view on the back terrace of that condo takes in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of condos in similar high rises which line the beach from north to south. Mixed in with these and further off the beach are a host of small neighborhoods with homes ranging from the small and neat to the huge and ghastly - the least expensive of which start in the upper six figures and can easily top out in the tens of millions.

Everybody here drives a nice car and you don't see any pick-up trucks. The main drag is usually jam up with Volvo's, Infinities, and Acuras - here and there a Bently or some European exotic, not to mention at least one Rolls. There's no waiting lines at the hospitals and clinics, of which there are many. Everyone's fully insured and the health care is beyond excellent. Neither is it hard to get a tee time at a first class golf course or a table at a fine restaurant. Steve, everything a person who favors a life of ease and comfort would want is here in Naples. Just be sure to bring your pocketbook.

Sitting on the terrace one evening I got to thinking about the economic model which produced places like Naples. I'm sure every story is different but most typical I think would be that of a man who went to college and got a Masters in Business Management, went to work at a corporation, bought a house, raised a family, earned a pension - then sold the house, bought a place in Naples and now lives off his combined income of pension and social security. More often than not his retirement from the corporation would include some form of extended health care, which, combined with Medicare, provides him with all the extra care a person over 65 requires. This would include that man's wife, who, again more often than not, spent most of her life in that now practically vanished occupation of "homemaker".

There's still some construction going on in Naples. The really, really rich are buying up a few choice properties, demolishing the homes and putting up obscenely extravagant mansions: places where the landscaping in the back yard costs more than any home I myself will ever live in (though of course to a man of your virtually unlimited wealth it would be mere petty cash). However the building boom of high rise condominiums has pretty much come to a screeching halt. To be sustained, this boom required a steady, strengthening supply of retirees entering the market with sufficient cash to pay for them - and that supply now scarcely covers the sales of existing units made available by simple attrition. It doesn't take a genius to realize that sooner or later, the supply of new buyers won't even cover that - if in fact this point has not already been reached.

When that happens, prices fall - slowly at first, then sharply. And with each precipitous drop in real estate values, come new buyers who are very different from the group who built this place. They won't be driving Infinities or SAAB's - more like Corollas and Civics. They won't have the pensions or the private health insurance, and can't afford to play golf or dine out more than once or twice a month. Many of them will work part time jobs - not to stay busy - but to pay for a life in what remains of Camelot.

Why, you ask? The fictional Camelot is changeless: a timeless ideal in an evergreen world. Our Camelots however, like Naples, are firmly attached to real life. They are the top layers of a pyramid - and their vitality depends on whatever is happening on every level beneath them. True - while suffering near the bottom of the pyramid involves doing without food or shelter whereas suffering near the top involves driving a Camry rather than a Cadillac, still - the effect of an economy in a state of gradual collapse is making itself felt everywhere.

Everywhere that is, except for two places: among the very rich and the desperately poor. This economy of ours has a big head and big feet, but a steadily shrinking waistline. Manufacture, the bread and butter of a strong, assertive middle class has all but disappeared. Take an afternoon and drive around some of the industrial parks around Atlanta, where each one seems more depressing than the last. Now the average man or woman, working 45 hours a week in one of those now abandoned factories would never have made it to Camelot. But their income would have supported some white collar guy or small business owner who could. In one way or another, the very rich in this country have learned to make their money from the labors of people in the third world and growing economies like China and India. Their capital - their resources - are not confined by national borders anymore. But what's left of the middle class is stuck.

Steve, it took a hundred years to build Camelot. And who knows? Maybe a hundred more to rebuild it after it falls. Let's hope they do a better job than we did.

-Chris

A Hidden Welfare State? Really?

2011-03-01T11:49:00.000-08:00

I was told about a recent LA op-ed article, called "Hidden federal benefits" here. I include a small portion below, but feel free to read the entire article. It is more of the same.

Three programs make up most of this "hidden welfare state," as another scholar calls it. The first is employer-based health insurance, which is subsidized by the ability of businesses to deduct some of the costs from their taxes. The second is the home mortgage interest deduction for individuals, and the third is the creation of tax-free retirement accounts, into which employers and employees can contribute. Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker calculates that such "tax-advantaged" programs make up almost a third of America's social welfare spending.

Yet a lot of citizens simply don't recognize these as government benefits. We don't get U.S. Treasury checks for mortgage interest deductions (the deduction just lowers our tax bill). Nor do we directly see the hand of the government in our healthcare; we deal with a private insurer, private doctors and our employers' benefits representatives, not a national health service. And our 401(k) plans just seem like savings accounts, not a government benefit. The way we've set it all up has, in Mettler's words, "shrouded the state's role, making it largely invisible to ordinary citizens."

In fact, according to a 2008 survey by the Cornell Survey Research Institute, 60% of respondents who received a home loan interest deduction told surveyors that they had never used a federal social program, not realizing that the tax break was the result of the government intentionally forgoing revenue to further the social goal of homeownership.

* * *

Notice I didn't highlight or emphasize any specific statement, because I want it to stand as presented. It's pure drivel. I say that because the article operates under a perspective I completely disavow. Using his own example, he states the government allows you set up "tax free" savings accounts, and by not taxing the money from you, it (government) is giving you a hidden benefit. Then, he has the gall to call this "social welfare spending".

The foundational premise behind this thought (using the "thought" word quite loosely) is that everything you own (including yourself and any/all efforts you make) *BELONGS* to the government. And, then, government graciously gives you a "benefit" by NOT taking some (or all) of the results of your labors. Further, it establishes that government - in its infinite wisdom - will determine what is "best" for its citizens by deciding "who" gets to keep "what". And oh-by-the-way, anything government DOESN'T take you should be humbly thankful for being allowed to keep it.

The only good thing about this article is you can tell exactly where this clown stands... right over there, with his hand in my pocket, telling me I should thankful he is stealing from me...

Disgusting.

- Steve

2011-02-25T11:09:00.000-08:00

Steve,

I'm not sure why I'm writing this post, but I hope you find it interesting.

My grandfather (on my father's side) was an incredibly talented and versatile man. He was an excellent mechanic, woodworker, fisherman, gardener... if it involved working with one's hands, he was good at it. My father on the other hand was not particularly skilled in any of these things. Fortunately, I inherited my grandfather's skills rather than the lack of them from my father. I like to think I can fix almost anything. My motto has always been, "If it can break, it can be fixed.".

Years ago, long before flat screens, I had a very nice 37" TV which just up and quit. Most people would just throw it away and go buy a new one. Figuring I had nothing to lose, I opened it up, looked it over and found what appeared to be just one, tiny, burnt out resister. I bought a new resister and soldered it in. Subsequently the TV came back on and provided us with service for another 5 or 6 years. I spent about 39 cents for the resistor - as opposed to $500.00 for a new set.

I taught myself, with virtually no one's help, skills in heating, air conditioning and refrigeration. Before it was all over, I got get paid, and paid well, to take a bag of tools up to a rooftop and figure out what was wrong with a compressor the size of a car engine in a mechanical room the size of a small house. I can still do it today. Plus, I doubt if I'll ever win any bass fishing tournaments, but I guarantee you I wouldn't come in last.

One thing I've learned about fixing things is that technical knowledge is far less important than attitude and motivation. When it comes to fixing things, its always amazed me how much the average man knows yet refuses to apply. Once, while training in the field an HVAC/R apprentice, I got tired of answering his incessant questions. I told him, "You know the answer to this problem, but you don't know you know it.". Facing a difficult repair, I decided to ask him questions rather than provide him with answers. As it turned out, he figured out the solution on his own. I told him to pretend the next time that he alone, by himself, would have to figure out the answers to the next repair. He became a pretty good tech after that.

I think as a nation we have become a people who want all the answers presented to us sealed in a tube. We simply don't have the intellectual passion to break open those tubes, find out how they are built, and judge for ourselves if they are valid and useful. Inquiry, the weighing of alternatives, doubt, radical new ideas and solutions, all frighten and fatigue us. Without much of a struggle, we've ceded the power of independent thought to the incoherent stupidity of the mob.

Frankly, I often find your opinions to be obdurate, insensitive and block headed.

BUT...

I've never doubted your capacity to spit in the eye of anyone who tries to tell you what to think. And that's a compliment Steve, from one guy who can fix things to another.

-Chris

Union, Through and Through...

2011-02-24T18:57:00.000-08:00

Steve,

You'll be happy to learn that thanks to some of your recent posts, they've quadrupled my already dangerously high dosage of Thorazine. I've taken to putting it in a Pez dispenser and popping it like candy. The mental institution I practically live at now is considering naming a wing after me. You'd make a stunning consort for the White Queen, Steve, who could "believe six impossible things before breakfast". But then, why limit yourself to just six?

You heard somewhere that firing the least competent 10% of teachers would improve test scores by 50% - clearly indicating you consider teacher's unions to be the main obstacle to this handsome plan. Really?

Five states (including Georgia) effectively bar collective bargaining by teacher's unions - thereby removing that obstacle. If you were correct in your reasoning (and you aren't), these states would be near the top in national SAT/ACT rankings. Funny thing is, all six of these states rank in the lower third of the rankings. Wisconsin by the way, where the WEAC (teacher's union) has till now been particularly strong - and where according you, all these incompetent teachers can't be fired - traditionally ranks near the top of the rankings.

All of this argues against taking important positions based on vague, anecdotal generalizations - as they have the habit of coming back at you like boomerangs. Let me simplify it this way then. IF this 10/50 hogwash was true, states which are not barred from firing and replacing that lower 10% would have HIGH scores and states which are would have LOW scores. But this isn't true. Steve, you need to tow that particular bromide back to the hangar and see if you can add enough horse power to get it off the ground. Moving right along...

Weighing the effect of unions on scholastic achievement can be a tricky business. One Angus Johnson (PhD in education from City University of New York, 2009) has a thoughtful, balanced post on the subject: "Teachers Unions, ACT/SAT, and Student Performance: Is Wisconsin Out-Ranking the Non-Union States?" And by the way he starts the post with the observation that comparisons of the "non-union" five states I just mentioned with Wisconsin are usually based on faulty information.

Dr. Johnson directs us to a (2000) Harvard study which: "found a statistically significant and positive relationship between the presence of teacher unions and stronger state performance on tests...", after " controlling for factors like race, median income, and parental education...".

and:

"They found that the presence of teachers unions in a state did have a measurable and significant correlation with increased test scores — that going to school in a union state would, for instance, raise average SATs by about 50 points."

Why would that be? Let me guess. The people who are doing these studies are all in unions and have a vested interest in confirming the positive effect of teacher's unions? Well that's easy enough to check. Fire up your search engine and look for state SAT and ACT rankings. See?

Steve, firing and replacing the worst ten performers in any group of a hundred in principle should always improve the overall performance of the group - and possibly a useful rule when managing ditch diggers or parking lot attendants. But as you move up the scale, other principles become equally important.

Suppose you managed a shop with a hundred mechanics. If they're good mechanics, and perform well as a group, why would you assume that arbitrarily firing the ten least skilled among them would improve overall performance? First, now you have to go out and get ten more mechanics and hope they're better than the ones you fired. Second, you've now demonstrated to the remaining 90 that tenure and attitude are pretty much worthless. Don't you think that demonstration would have some effect, not only on the way they approach their jobs, but also on the respect they have for management and the company as a whole?

The Harvard report summarizes:

"...other mechanism(s) (ie, better working conditions; greater worker autonomy, security, and dignity; improved administration; better training of teachers; greater levels of faculty professionalism) must be at work here.”

And it makes sense. Sure, certainly, unions in all trades have frequently helped incompetent boobs to stay on jobs for which they frankly aren't suited. I've seen that myself first hand, many times. And sometimes also the nature of the trade itself comes into play. Unions seem to produce positive benefits more often in some trades than in others.

But the point here is that teacher's unions, especially, can and do provide their members with a sense of dignity and security, and protect them from capricious and arbitrary administrators - or - in other words - raise the level pride and professionalism, on both sides. The payoff is a better education, and isn't that what all of us want to see?

-Chris

2011-02-23T09:17:00.000-08:00

Steve,

Yesterday I watched, via On Demand, the HBO Special, "Battle for Marjah".

It reminded me vaguely of the media build-up to this particular campaign. Marjah, we were told, was going to be the first test for the military's new strategy in Afghanistan, referred to as Clear, Hold and Build. How did it work?

Marjah, which is actually little more than a collection of crude huts at a crossroads in Southwestern Afghanistan, was under Taliban control at the beginning of 2010. In February, "Operation Moshtarak", sent three companies of Marines against an estimated 250 Taliban fighters in the town. The HBO special followed along with Bravo Company, which experienced the heaviest fighting. The fighting was over and the town secured in less than a week. The Marines suffered only one KIA.

We here in the U.S. were told our guys would be fighting along with the Afghanistan Army, members of which were supposed to be on point. That latter part turned out to be laughable. The few Afghan troops contributed absolutely nothing - in fact, got more in the way than anything else.

If you get a chance to watch this special, I recommend it. I've watched more than a few documentaries about the War in Afghanistan, but for some reason this one in particular seems to best reveal the overwhelming futility of this war. And the greatest irony of all is that this is a lesson we should have learned 40 years ago in Viet Nam.

"Battle for Marjah" consists almost exclusively of footage shot on the ground while covering the operation. And nearly all the dialogue in the movie comes from our own men and their commanders. It is in no way some kind of biased, "pacifist" account, or of cherry picked scenes designed to paint the operation from any one particular angle.

Our guys fought well and of course victory in the battle was never in doubt. But the really depressing part was the footage shot during the four months the Marines stayed on in Marjah after the battle - the Hold and Build phase. During this entire period, not one representative from the Afghan government arrived to liaison with whoever passed for local authorities. The Afghan troops on hand had all been recruited from the tribes in the far north, and as such were clearly useless as a holding force among the ethnic Pashtuns of Marjah. In the end, the Marines had to recruit the members of a local militia as a holding force to take over when they left. Ironically, it was common knowledge that many of the militia members were themselves either current or former members of the Taliban.

During their stay, the Marines spent $600,000.00 on improvements - they were most proud of the work they had done on the town mosque. Despite this, in repeated interviews, the locals all claimed their lives were better under the Taliban. After the battle, the Marines had gained control over the town and limited parts of the countryside. But by the time they left, the area they controlled had diminished, and their encounters with new IED's were increasing.

All of this left little doubt that it was only a matter of time before Marjah returned to Taliban control after the Marines left. They talked about building schools - yet there weren't any teachers to teach in them. They talked about bringing the town under the control of the Afghan government - yet no one from the Afghan government seemed to be interested. They talked about replacing the cultivation of opium with alternate crops - yet there were no secure markets for these crops.

What stands out, sharply, is how much better suited the Taliban were to run things in Marjah than either our own Marines or the weak, distant and corrupt Afghan government. Here in the U.S., we've created a narrative in which the Taliban are all maniacal terrorists. This makes it easier for us to keep track of who's good and who's evil. But the reality is far more complicated.

The Taliban of Marjah are "their" people: friends, kin... members of a closely knit, tribal society. To this society, we might as well be aliens from space. Our purpose has become to bring them our remote vision of democracy and human rights. Yet the society of these people has in its history absolutely no experience with this vision. So, on what basis can we possibly expect they will embrace it?

Today there is an ongoing debate over what the real motivation might have been for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars were demonstrably the most historically significant actions taken by our government in the last 30 or 40 years, so Americans ought to have an honest dialogue about them. However we're probably not going to get that dialogue anytime soon; too many of our leaders, and indeed followers as well, have too much invested in them politically. What they would rather do is maintain the company line that these wars were the only justified, and necessary reaction to 9/11. Not only that, but even questioning that line is both un-American and an insult to the men and women in uniform who continue to fight in them.

What this untenable precept masks is a failure of both political and military strategy. Whether or not you believe the Bush administration cooked the evidence get us into Iraq and Afghanistan, the real issue here is that once we decided on direct military intervention, we committed ourselves to two kinds of war in those countries: one of arms and one of ideas. Now, in places like Marjah, our guys are continuing to prove they can always win the wars of arms, but are painfully unprepared and unsuited to win the wars of ideas. We should have known that.

We elect persons to government based on our confidence they will wisely weigh the facts and make prudent decisions. I'm afraid what we are learning now is the spectacular failures of policy which occur when you substitute ideology for facts. Our strategists in government simply assumed that once the battle of arms was over, everything else would be an easy downhill ride. It hasn't been. Today, the central irony in Afghanistan is the government we installed and continue to support there is now negotiating with the Taliban to construct a stablizing power sharing agreement to fill the void which will occur after our troops have left. Does anyone seriously doubt that if we stayed on another year, or ten years, the outcome would be any different? Or, for that matter, any kind of "power sharing" agreement will quickly disolve and the Taliban return to power not more than a few months after we've left.

Steve, the Taliban in Afghanistan didn't just drop out of the sky. They were a home grown, indiginous movement which the Soviet Union proved could not be defeated by force of arms. Someone should have been taking notes. Certainly, as a nation we had every right to demand accountability from the leaders of this movement for their support of terrorists like the al-Qaeda. However, before we decided on invasion, we had many other options. Now we have no other option than direct, miltary confrontation with a determined enemy which enjoys vast support in the countryside out beyond Kabul.

Now would those "other options" have worked any better? Who knows? The Neocons wanted us to believe that pussyfooting around with sanctions, seasoned perhaps with stand-off, targeted attacks on the terrorist infrastructure, was a policy which was doomed to failure. Yet, what exactly were the compelling reasons to believe a direct invasion would automatically achieve success? What were the compelling facts which led us to believe the Afghan people themselves would rise up and form a stable govenment and open society once the Taliban were temporarily disarmed? Steve, there weren't any. All we had to go on was a preposterous amalgam of wistful thinking which willfully ignored lessons of history and the culture of a country incredibly different from ours.

Meanwhile in Iraq, the situation is hardly more encouraging. Backed by Iran, radical mullahs like Muqtada al-Sadr continue to gain power - and the whole nation threatens to fracture along ethnic and religious lines. Once unthinkable, the formal partition of Iraq along these lines seems more and more the least perilous alternative. How is that progress? After investing over 30,000 casualties - including over 4,000 dead - and a trillion dollars, we're leaving a country which now has the potential to pose a threat to our security much greater than it was when we went in.

Interestingly Steve, what got me started on this post was watching "Battle for Marjah" while the events taking place in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and then Libya were still fresh in my mind. It struck me how powerful a force progressive, social change can be when it emerges from within a society and how fragile and impermanent it is when imposed from the outside.

It looks like a refreshing storm of progressive initiatives are erupting all over the Middle East. No one can be sure exactly where all of this will lead. Without doubt, we'll see a few new regimes emerging out of this chaos which don't seem as friendly to our country as those which they have replaced. And neither is there any doubt that hard core terrorist organizations will be doing everything they can to exploit the situation.

Despite these perils, I think now is no better time for our country to stay out of the struggle, and put our faith in the rather ancient principle that true liberty is never gained by gift or accident, but by the sacrifices of real people who want it bad enough to fight for it on their own.

-Chris

Another Bubble coming?

2011-02-22T14:51:00.001-08:00

I just ran across an interesting article here...

What does this mean? To the untrained eye (mine), it strongly implies businesses and consumers are cutting back on tech purchases. Which, in turn, suggests that many (most?) don't have confidence in where we appear to be heading economically. More than just the movers and shakers, but all the way down to the little guys.

Combine that tidbit with the continuing strong efforts of Washington (specifically the president) along the following lines... risky loans being backed by taxpayer funds - bank, auto and energy bailouts - and the biggest topic in the news: union bailouts at all levels (local, state, federal)...

Hoo-boy.

It looks like more and more people are reading the tea leaves and deciding, "Why chance spending money today, you will likely need tomorrow?" There's also the un-stated comment (except from the crowing of far-right pundits), "Is he intentionally trying to make the Republic Fail, or can he *really* be THAT incompetent?"

Combine this approaching technological pin-prick with your recent (and excellent) post on trade deficits and a general economic conundrum of our own making, and one wonders if even more challenging and difficult times may indeed lurk ahead.

Just some points to ponder...

- Steve

Runaway Models

2011-02-22T06:44:00.000-08:00

There may be some strange cooking going on in the kitchen...

This all started when I saw a news story several weeks ago about NASA's Dr. Hansen claiming that 2010 was The Hottest Year On Record. Much was made of his most-recent studies providing yet-more 'proof' that AGW / Climate Change was Real, not subject to dispute, and the 'deniers' were flat-out wrong... Rather than take it a face value, I thought it called for a little digging into the data.

First, take a look at this link to NASA's GISS Surface Temperature analysis. Note that virtually the entire Arctic at the top is "gray" indicating "missing data".

Then, look at this link showing extrapolated GISS data. The Arctic is shown with temperatures 2-10 degrees C above normal. My understanding is this alternate set of data was used by Dr. Hansen as source material leading to his recent "hottest year on record" statement.

Clearly, even to a non-climate scientist such as myself, it can be inferred that the 'average world temperature' calculated from the second set will show higher temperatures. I guess you *have* to get values to plug into the model from somewhere... but what would be wrong with using real word data? In other words: just how good are those "extrapolated" values?

Look at this link of a NOAA animation of recorded temperatures over a recent period. As expected, some areas are above normal, some below, some stay close to the expected average. Kinda like the real world, eh? So where did Hansen's data come from, and why is it so wildly different? Well, some *model* of Dr. Hansen's was used to create that data. (Or at least some model endorsed by Dr. Hansen, else why would he use it?)

It is clear (at least to me) that Dr. Hansen's extrapolated data significantly skews the global temperature reading upwards. Also note Dr. Hansen claimed a record in 2010 by only 0.01 degrees based on this data.

I feel reasonably comfortable in saying that if the NOAA temperature values had been used instead of the "extrapolated" values, the result would be quite different. I doubt it would support a "hottest year on record" statement.

*ANY* serious scientist (regardless of discipline/area of study) would simply take the BEST available data, push it through the models, and let the results fall where they will and publish it all regardless... even if the data shows the theory/model is WRONG.

Dr. Hansen's views this subject of CO2 and AGW are well known and documented. However, I question his conclusions about 2010 global temperatures, which at first glance, appear to contradict Real World observations. I am sure others can/will do the same. I might still be wrong about this (and *I* am willing to admit it).

But even if I am not a certified Climate Scientist... "Lucy, you got some 'splaning to do"...

BTW - You'll note I didn't use any data from JoNova, Anthony Watts, et.al. I very carefully did NOT look at any of those sites, since I did not want to be or appear to be biased (or following a different herd of sheep). Just looked at easily available NASA and NOAA data... Since *I* found this, I am sure the denier sites are making similar analysis, and they probably did so weeks ago... no doubt it took me longer than those folks (who have more time). No matter where it comes from, none of this changes what the data appears to indicate. One way or another, FACTS will win out, in the long run.

- Steve

Funny Money

2011-02-16T08:11:00.000-08:00

Steve,

Quick. Can you guess which was the last year the United States exported more than it imported?

.....

....

...

..
.

Answer: 1975. By the way, that's 36 years ago for those who are keeping score.

In the 35 years from 1976 to 2010, the U.S. imported around 8 trillion dollars more in goods and services than it exported. The picture is gets even bleaker if you look at goods alone. During the same period we imported around 9.8 trillion dollars more in goods than we exported.

Now admittedly, I'm not an economist and most likely prone to over-simplifying things, but it does seem worthwhile to reduce this situation and these stunning numbers to terms which average dudes like myself can understand. Here:

I own a shoe store, which is my sole source of income. Each year I net about $30,000.00, but then go out and spend about $40,000.00 - and I've been doing this since 1975. Steve, where did the extra money come from?

Now the answer should be obvious. For 35 years I've been going deeper and deeper in debt to support a lifestyle which I honestly can't afford.

And the grim situation we in the United States face today looks just that simple. I decided to first compare the trade deficit figures (available here), to housing values (available here). One striking thing which literally jumps off these pages is the connection between the two. Note for instance that housing values and the trade deficit both hit all time highs in exactly the same year: 2006. Not only that, but the trade deficit begins to rise sharply in 1997 - exactly the same time housing values took off.

There isn't as strong a one to one correlation between the U.S. Federal debt and the trade deficit. Here, I think other factors probably influence the year to year trends. But even so, if you look at any U.S. Debt chart, its impossible not to notice a sharp rise which begins in 1975. Back to my shoe store...

Crudely stated, what I've been doing for the last 35 years is racking up debt personally, based on the collateral of the real estate I own, and jointly with my fellow citizens, based on nothing more than the "full faith and credit" of the United States.

But any way you look at it, its all funny money. History has shown that my house really wasn't worth what the banks said it was, and since the housing bubble went kablooie, I now have nothing in the way of personal property to sell and pay off my personal debt. Similarly, the 13 trillion dollar federal debt is based on the fiction that our government has the will and means to pay this money back to its creditors.

So what are the options?

.....sound of crickets chirping.....

-Chris

Even Jove nods...

2011-02-10T09:19:00.000-08:00

Steve,

Referring to your last comment on your last post, no, we're not doomed. Now coming from a head hanging, Jimmy Carteresque, deep malaise maddened Lib, that's rather unexpected, don't you think?

This last little go 'round on the Vinson ruling has revealed, to me at least, an often unrecognized truth about the U.S. Constitution. Bear with me here...

All this recent palaver about the courts, activist judges and Big Government ought to give us pause, where we ask some important questions regarding the intentions of the Framers and the meaning of the magnificent document they created. To be sure, the nature of government today at all levels is probably very different from that which the Framers originally envisioned. However, it is also true that the nature of society itself has radically changed as well in ways the Framers could not have anticipated.

I daresay the Framers would have been astounded by the growth of huge, multinational corporations, many of which dwarf in size, power and influence most of the world's political nations. They would have trouble comprehending the downright amazing, revolutionary changes in transportation and communication - where travel times have been reduced from years and months to hours and minutes - and where information can spread across the globe in microseconds. This is not to even mention the advent of weapons capable of wiping out the human race altogether, or of unparalleled advances in chemistry and biology which have occasioned miracle cures as well as unintended maladies.

Sure, these and much, much more comprise changes in society which no sane person living in 1787 could come close to predicting. But one wonders, if they could have predicted these changes, would the Constitution they wrote have been much different?

Actually, I don't think so. I don't think so because I believe the Framers themselves ultimately recognized their own inability to create a document, able to guide a nation through time and unanticipated changes, and yet not itself be immune from change and evolving interpretation.

To my mind, the judicial branch established by the Constitution is the central instrument the Framers designed, to at some times allow and at other times prohibit, the changes in law and government deemed necessary to meet the challenges the Framers could not anticipate.

Often, when we are presented with Supreme Court rulings that have far reaching consequences which we deplore, we tend to assert the court is wrong in their interpretation of the Constitution. Naturally, when their rulings result in things we favor, we say they are right. But really, what we should be saying in all cases, regardless of the consequences, is that the Supreme Court is only acting, as they should, on the responsibility the Framers charged them with.

And you know Steve, even when court rulings go against our own political, social or religious opinions, the least we can say is that we live in a country capable of dealing with constant change, and yet still preserving the human dignity and liberties the Framers recognized as absolutely essential to any great nation.

Excelsior!

-Chris

Wagging their tails behind them...

2011-02-09T06:29:00.000-08:00

Hoo Boy… You're really dancing aren't you?

FIRST – Obamacare, Romneycare, ACA call it what you will - my point was: I don’t care. But on that point – just exactly how is “Romneycare” working for Massachusetts on the financial side? If we’re going to use THAT program as a model, let’s honestly evaluate how it’s doing in the Real World before leaping to the conclusion that Sliced Bread can move to the side. I’ve heard reports (but have not personally confirmed) that Massachusetts health care costs are rising significantly with no tangible improvement in actual care being provided. But there *are* significant changes in Who Pays and How Much… Here’s a link I am still trying to digest on this topic – but IMHO it should be taken with a grain of salt since it is a government report on how THEY think THEY are doing… I’d like a truly non-partisan review of the raw data. I'm sure its out there, but I'm trying to weed through the chaff myself.

SECOND – Yes, the EMTALA is troubling. My understanding of the act itself mandates access to services but doesn’t directly address how to *pay* for those services, e.g., "paving the road to Hell", etc. And before you accuse me of callousness (you came close, but dodged at the last second: thanks), yes: I’m worried about Joe too. Lots of scenarios out there, and you mentioned only one; some get really nasty on both sides.

Regardless, I don’t think Joe should be able to walk away from his (assumed) financial obligations. You neatly dodge the issue of whether or not Joe wanted care or not. His decision might be affected by WHO is going to pay for it, or other reasons. If Joe knows he *will* be held accountable, he *may* (if able) want to think about exactly what he is getting into. *THAT* is the biggest problem with EMTALA... Joe makes decisions (doesn’t get insurance for whatever reason), but then is absolved by Uncle Sugar from suffering consequences of that decision. What to do?

I’m not sure I like the easy solution (proposed by some) of a return of indentured servitude. Once that particular door is opened - especially as the designated beneficiary is the State! – it has entirely too much potential for abuse on multiple levels. *sigh* There is no easy or ‘fair’ answer. Good Heavens… how did our founding fathers manage to survive all those years without a Big Brother looking after them?

Also - I don’t remember exactly how the Federal government is actually “charged with regulating the insurance industry”, as you put it. My experience, limited as it may be, shows that authority has been assigned to the States: hence, the existence of Insurance Commissioners (some elected, some appointed) and their duly assigned powers, legal requirements, and responsibilities which are applied on a state-by-state basis. I’d rather see this power grab be honestly presented to the public by Washington bureaucrats, with the state bureaucracies being bluntly told, “you guys are out of here; we’re taking over.” This would have a beneficial effect of reducing state budgets (by cutting back on staff, salaries, etc.), to say nothing of having fireworks between the states and federal bureaucracies for its entertainment value alone. (If it’s working, don’t mess with it, and if it ain’t working, get rid of it… you can’t have it both ways...)

THIRD – Yes, the Individual Mandate is the key problem. I deeply resent being informed by others exactly what actions are deemed to be ‘in my best interest’ and then threatened with legal force (deadly force?) to make certain *I* comply with *THEIR* demands should I choose to disagree.

I do not, and have NO intention of, assigning *any* level of authority over *MY* continued existence to an unaccountable bureaucrat (of any stripe).

The point is quite simple… If you wish to be self-reliant, you should be allowed to follow your conscience. If you wish to reject your personal responsibility in favor of largess to be provided others, that’s your choice - but in that case, you should have NO CHOICE in defining the rules, conditions, and end-user benefits of such largess (tail wagging the dog, bread and circuses, etc.). Worse, attempting to force both ends of that spectrum into the same pool is WRONG. Let's be honest for a moment - the ACA doesn't address the 'equalization' of WHO PAYS, only WHO GETS (because more of them do the voting).

Funny thing about that.. have you noticed that those self-reliant folks are typically more than capable of not only supporting the needs of themselves, but also voluntarily helping others? And the other group typically just has an abundance of *claims* upon the resources and efforts of others, to be acquired for THEIR personal and direct benefit, and have little else they are willing to contribute to the collective as a whole.. Does the ACA assist in the creation of a (so-called) "moocher-class"? Hmmm...

FOURTH – You bring up the obvious point: the wide-open funnel of (taxpayer) money to private industry. That concept is wrong here and in other areas. I *DO NOT* like the idea of government bureaucrats being given the power to pick-and-choose which companies win or lose. Compete for your customers. Don't try to rig the game by forcing participation.

Glad I was able to elevate your blood pressure: you can skip the next round of aerobics, I guess.

- Steve

Give me Liberty, or give me Health Insurance!

2011-02-09T05:36:00.000-08:00

Steve,

Great horny toads! Steve, stay where you are. I'll be over as fast as I can with a priest to exorcise the spirit of Patrick Henry...

Before I get to the meat and potatoes, a few appetizers:

FIRST: "Obamacare"? Please. For Pete's sake, If you insist on using pejorative portmanteaus, at least have the courtesy to call it Romneycare, inasmuch as Romney's Massachusetts plan is the model on which the Affordable Care Act was based.

SECOND, you say: "...the "you've got to buy car insurance" argument is bogus.". Well no, no it isn't. You may not like the law in this case, but the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (the EMTALA) requires: "...hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay." And, "There are no reimbursement provisions."

The argument here is neither tenuous nor hard to understand. On account of the Emergency Medical Act, anyone who can and yet fails to obtain insurance is receiving a tangible benefit at no cost.

Consider Joe Blow: a man of average means who decides not to get health insurance because, well, he's healthy as an ox. One morning while Mr. Blow is crossing the street he gets hit by a car. Subsequently, he's rushed to the nearest hospital, where (thankfully) he receives a quarter million dollars in emergency medical care. Think I'm exaggerating the costs? Nope. My neighbor's health insurance company has thus far paid out over 150K for the surgery and complications resulting from the accidental severance of the tip of her little finger.

Don't worry, Joe's doing fine. But who pays the quarter mil? Not Joe. Heck, he can barely afford to make his house payment. So its the ambulance company, the hospital and the doctors who wind up footing the bill.

But not really Steve. Actually they just jack up their prices to cover the cost of having to take care of people like Joe. That means the insurance company pays more, which means you pay more. Which ultimately means the Federal government, charged with regulating the insurance industry (via the commerce clause), must find a reasonable means to plug this leak in the bucket. Ergo, the Individual Mandate.

So, I submit your real problem is not precisely with The Affordable Care Act, but with the EMTALA. Now think carefully here. Suppose that in Joe Blow's case, there was no EMTALA.

OK, Joe gets hit by a car, somebody calls the cops, the cops call an ambulance company and the ambulance company determines Joe isn't insured and can't afford their service. All of a sudden the ambulance company decides they've got a cake a'burnin in the oven and and can't pick the poor guy up. So the cops (or some tidy citizen) just pushes Joe off to the side of the road where he just bleeds out.

Steve really, seriously, do you think that's going to happen in the U.S.of A.? I mean, do you honestly believe a majority of voters, including yourself, could stomach that? Do you believe if Steve Green himself was a dispatcher at an ambulance company, or an emergency room doctor, or an administrator at a hospital... Do you believe that Steve Green could turn away a person in need of life saving care just because they didn't have the ability to pay for it? Come on man!

But, and here's the kicker, you're going to have to find people capable of making these kinds of decisions and living with them if you are seriously advocating the repeal of the Emergency Medical Treatment Act (which again, is entirely the onus for the Individual Mandate). Frankly, I don't think I would want people like that anywhere near our health care system - you wouldn't either.

THIRD, OK, yes, I've come around to the opinion that the individual mandate is not a very good idea. And my objection to it has nothing to do with the constitutional issue. To be blunt, I've come to believe the individual mandate is simply the only option the health insurance lobby would allow their trained monkeys in congress to vote for in - and as such it constitutes a sell-out of greater magnitude than another recent sell-out: The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. In essence, all the individual mandate is really doing is funneling more money to the private health insurance industry while the issues of high cost and poor service continue to fester. Let's wrap this up.

Steve, we live in a wealthy country, presumably filled with smart, able health care professionals and pharmaceutical companies. Yet despite these advantages, our health care system has become an international laughing stock. I wish I could think of a way to conclude this post with some kind optimism, but I really can't. Truth is, conservatives and liberals both have good ideas on how to solve this problem. But these days the only way you can get elected is to claim your side has all the answers and the other side has none - which makes finding the middle ground virtually impossible.

-Chris

Re: We're Off

2011-02-07T07:21:00.000-08:00

Egad. I'll try to be brief.

The SCOTUS (being comprised of human beings) can make mistakes. The Gonzales v. Raich (ne: Ashcroft v. Raich) decision is one mistake out of many: Dred Scott, Kelo, etc., easily come to mind. Assuming you are implying such, I certainly agree with the concept that these numerous mistakes can frequently be traced back to using ones position on SCOTUS to provide a 'legal justification' for support of ones personal position (i.e., political viewpoint). Unfortunately, our country's legal history is continually clouded by such actions. In my mind, *THIS* type of judicial ruling - regardless of the position taken and most certainly regardless of whether or not I personally or politically agree with it - is the clear definition of "judicial activism". And it is wrong. Period.

With respect to the Raich case, I side (for the most part) with Justice Thomas. Even though I personally disagree with California's position and actions, they are within their constitutional rights to do so. To my knowledge, there is NO clear constitutional foundation granting such powers to Federal enforcement. However, the majority of Supremes, in their attempt to bolster Federal power, simply grabbed the most convenient (only?) tool available to them - the Commerce Clause. Yet-another mistake, as we are now discovering.

Salient points...

- The Raich case does NOT met the (obvious) criteria for INTERSTATE commerce. It was a local matter, being interfered with by Federal representatives who exceeded their legal authority. Period. Finding a way to 'fix' the SCOTUS decision in Raich (and other) will be extremely difficult. This is what happens when you turn political efforts over to the courts in an attempt to accomplish what are clearly legislative objectives.

- The Affordable Care Act (or whatever it is technically called: 'Obamacare') attempts to ESTABLISH a mechanism which mandates and requires actions attached to interstate commerce where none has previously existed. The regulation of the insurance industry is completely under the guidelines and control of the various state authorities. This is why I cannot buy a policy, as a resident of Georgia, which does not confirm to Georgia law. Different policies in different states have different costs: because of the state level mandates for coverage which occur on a state-by-state basis... Anyway, I do not know of any legal justification to allow - through legislative fiat - a VOLUNTARY transfer of individual rights and obligations (which is the key aspect of *any* contract for services to be provided/rendered). As such, I believe 'Obamacare' is unconstitutional, by attempting to interfere with (and ultimately control) PRIVATE commercial transactions (which would no longer be voluntary).

- Yes, there are numerous other cases - some arguably beneficial - wherein the government interferes in such matters. It's still wrong.

- BTW - the "you've got to buy car insurance" argument is bogus. You can drive a car all you want: on your own property. It is only when you voluntarily enter into a 'contract' to use 'public' roads that you must conform to the public requirement of providing insurance.

- I have a great personal desire to see the Obamacare Act set aside - I just don't think the Act, as written, or by intent, is an appropriate matter for government. That said, I do NOT seek to accomplish that goal "by any means necessary". It must be done properly, and that means (ultimately) legislatively. Unfortunately, there is a belief that using SCOTUS to rule on the constitutional side of the argument is appropriate. It may be. But ultimately, it is a legislative issue. The act was passed as legislation, and it can - MUST - be *removed* (or set aside) by the same process.

- I see the deliberate goal of Obamacare as being founded in the idea that Everyone should have 'equal' access to the same amount of stuff. Hogwash. Who decides?

What I am trying to say, is that "Inequality" and "Freedom" (or "Liberty") mean different things to different people. There is a significant debate on the idea that "Inequality" includes ethical concepts such as the desirability of a particular system of rewards. For example, since there ARE clear differences in income levels, there is inequality, by definition. Whether or not trying to modify that condition is an appropriate function of government - at the expense of Freedom/Liberty - is debatable... but not to me: I place a very high value on Freedom and Liberty. In the Real World, there is an unavoidable inequality between individuals in intelligence, desire, discipline, etc., which is part of the human condition. That inequality CANNOT be successfully manipulated by political fiat, no matter how Good the intention or how wonderful the desired Consequence. Thus:

Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free. And thus it will always be.

That's enough for now...

- Steve

The Right Side

2011-02-07T05:04:00.000-08:00

In the village of Kunming, in the Province of Yunnan, there lived twin brothers who were known by all the villagers as prodigies. They were strong and swift of both body and mind, and in all things they always competed with one another. Yet though one would sometimes win and other times lose, neither of them would always win or always lose, and such wise not one of them could ever claim he was better than the other, no matter how much he tried.

It came to pass that these two brothers tired of Earthly pursuits and so enrolled at the Jizu Mountain Monastery. Upon acceptance, they became novice monks of the first level.

Subsequently, the two brothers continued their constant competition by applying themselves to contemplation of The Tao unceasingly. Yet as the years went by neither of them, despite their excellence, was promoted to the second level.

One day the brothers visited the Monastery's most respected Teacher. "Teacher," one of them asked, "we both study hard and long. Why are we always passed over?"

"Follow me." Said the Teacher.

The Teacher led the two brothers to the central courtyard of the monastery, where stood an ancient stele. "Legend has it," he said, "that of all the sides of this stele, only one is right and the others are wrong. Which ever one of you stands on the right side, I will promote to the second level. But neither of you will advance until you find the right side."

The first brother walked over and stood on one side of the stele. The second brother then stood on the opposite side. The Teacher shook his head. Then, the two brothers circled and stood on the unoccupied sides. Once again, the Teacher shook his head. In a flash, one brother leaped up and climbed to the top of the stele, but the Teacher shook his head again.

Finally, the other brother turned to the Teacher and said, "Teacher, the only side left is the one below the ground. Is that it?"

The Teacher shook his head a fourth time and walked away.

As the months passed, the two brothers could often be seen spending their precious few hours of free time, stitting in lotus position before the stele and meditating on the Teacher's seemingly impossible challenge. Finally one day they returned to the Teacher.

"Teacher," one of them said, "would you grant us a moment of your time?"

The Teacher nodded and followed the brothers out to the courtyard. One brother then stood on one side of the stele. The other brother walked over and stood beside him, where upon the two looked questioningly back at the Teacher.

The Teacher nodded. "I now promote both of you to the second level." He said.

End

Dib and Dab

2011-02-07T04:37:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time there were two young men, Dib and Dab, who woke one morning to find themselves enclosed by an very high brick wall. Being a man of action, Dib reached down, grabbed a rock and began to pound at the wall. Day after day he pounded, chipping away ever so slowly. Meanwhile, Dab ran hither and yon about the enclosure.

"Dab," said Dib, "come join me and together we'll chip our way through."

"No thanks," said Dab. "I've better things to do."

"And what might that be?" Said Dib. "Running around all day while I alone work patiently at getting us out of here?"

"Perhaps." Said Dab.

The months flew by. Dib kept chipping away, making scant progress, while Dab continued to run. Finally one morning Dab approached Dib and said, "Well brother, today is the day!"

"And what, pray tell, makes this day so different from all the rest?" Said Dib.

Without saying a word, Dab, whose legs had grown very strong, stepped back several paces, then ran forward and jumped over the wall.

Speechless, Dib stood and stared at the top of the wall where Dab had jumped over. After some time he picked his stone back up and resumed chipping.

End

And we're off!

2011-02-05T08:35:00.000-08:00

Steve,

As I said previously, I'm still undecided on Judge Vinson's ruling.

It comes as no great surprise that an honest conservative, regardless of his or her opinion on the efficacy of The Affordable Care Act, would side with judge Vinson and his opinion on limiting Federal authority as granted by the commerce clause. Here I stress the word "honest". Frankly, it seems to me conservatives and liberals are both equally inclined to lose track of the constitutional issues and cite judicial activism when confronted by rulings which strike down laws they favor. This issue is a perfect case in point. Pay attention here...

I decided to take a look at the previous rulings which upheld the Act and compare their reasoning to judge Vinson's. Last year, in a suit brought by Liberty University (Howard's alma mater!), Lynchburg based federal judge Norman K. Moon ruled in favor of the Feds. Similarly, in a suit brought by the (ubiquitous) Thomas More Law Center, judge George Carom Steeh ruled for dismissal. Thoughtful observers will note that Moon and Steeh were both appointed to the bench by Democrats, whereas Vinson was appointed by a Republican. I guess you would have to be blind not to see that this distinction explains at least in part the different rulings.

But only in part - and that's important. Personally I see other motives operating, wheels within wheels if you will, which seem to go beyond the simple explanation of liberal vrs conservative. To wit:

As you might expect, in his 20 page opinion (a mere dip of the toe compared to judge Vinson's 128 page extended swim), judge Steeh saw the The Affordable Care Act to be entirely within the scope of the commerce clause. One of the cases he cited in support of his logic was the 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales vrs Raich. Here's where things get really interesting.

To summarize, California resident Angel Raich grew marijuana for his own medicinal use, a practice which was absolutely legal under California law. The U.S. government saw otherwise. Consequently local authorities, accompanied by the DEA, destroyed Mr. Raich's marijuana plants and Raich sued. The case made it all the way to the SCOTUS and there Mr. Raich lost. From the wikipedia article:

"Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich) ... (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes..."(my emphasis).

Curiously, the case divided the two most conservative judges: Scalia and Thomas. In concurrence, while recognizing the limitations of the commerce clause, Judge Scalia offered a line of reasoning which should put him at odds with Judge Vinson. Judge Scalia wrote:

"Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective." (again, my emphasis)

Now believe it or not, this was pretty much the same line of reasoning the Feds offered judge Vinson with regards to the individual mandate.

In dissent, Thomas stuck to his conservative guns and concluded:

"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite"..."

Oh my! Forgive me for chuckling, but isn't it entertaining to watch a sure 'nuff throw down between a couple of iconic conservative pit bulls? Anyway...

My own opinion here is that judge Scalia was most likely inclined to stretch the the interpretation of the commerce clause because in his heart of hearts he sided with the Feds on the issue of enforcing laws against the production and use of marijuana. Judge Thomas on the other hand looked further down the road and saw this as an unjustifiable expansion of Federal authority. What a pickle!

Now since we both know judges Scalia and Thomas, not to mention all the rest of the Supremes, will be fervently checking into our blog for guidance on this most important issue, I suggest we apply our customary perceptivity to it most ricky tik. Que pensez-vous?

-Chris

OK, OK... I'm running on the wheel as fast as I can...

2011-02-04T06:14:00.000-08:00

Yeah. Right. I've been outrageously busy in many different directions (par for the course, I suppose). I *am* working on long post. Someday soon (this weekend?) I'll get it posted...

I must say - in the short term - your recent diatribes strike both surprising and familiar chords for me. Tough questions. No simple answers. Or so those who don't frequent LRA&H may think. We specially in glaringly obvious answers to otherwise untouchable questions.

Here's my short answers on recent posts - thereby giving you gobs of room to scream and holler, as I will leave out far too many critical details...

1. The Health Care Bill - Why the surprise? Of *course* the Act is un-Constitutional at its core. Since when have politicians and bureaucrats allowed their never-ending desire for power to take a back seat to the Rule Of Law? Didn't one of Ayn Rand's characters claim (paraphrasing), "What do you think those laws are for? We need more laws that cannot be followed without breaking them because the only excuse to exercise power is against criminals..."

My guess is that Republicans/Conservatives will eventually cave in on Democrat/Liberal PR pressure and agree to remove some of the more troubling provisions/requirements of the act, while leaving the more subtle (but more damaging in the long-term) parts in place, so they can claim, "we did something, and we do care". Thus, as usual, reaching for the emotional 'feel-good' and political preening will trump both common sense and Doing What Is Right. *sigh*

2. Death Penalty - Personally, I have no problem with executions - after a swift, prompt legal review to confirm the sentence. I even suggest these events should be made truly PUBLIC, so as to provide an additional measure of proof that "actions have consequences" to the populous at large.

However, I remain concerned that our legal reluctance to implement such a final sentence (in appropriate cases, of course) is a direct result of society's never-ceasing efforts in favor of what I call "the Oprah Effect" - placing group dynamics above individual responsibility in *all* cases (e.g., yes, it's a Bad Thing, but it cannot be his/her fault). Yes, I know the Great "O" adopted her philosophy from her mentor Phil Donahue, but she has pushed to ever-greater heights, so she gets credit for the label on the syndrome.

There. That should get your blood pressure up. Stay tuned.

- Steve

WTH?

2011-02-02T07:08:00.000-08:00

Steve,

Last night while casting around for something to watch in the desolate wasteland of TV, I came upon a documentary about David Berkowitz - the New York "Son of Sam" murderer. The hook for me in shows like these is all the patient detective work that goes into tracking down the criminal, which I find fascinating.

Anyway, I'm watching the show and all of a sudden, here comes a contemporary interview with David Berkowitz himself! You couldn't have pried my chin off my chest with a 4 foot crowbar. I'm thinking, "WTH? For no reason whatsoever, this guy murdered 6 completely innocent kids, not to mention rendering another girl permanently paraplegic, and he's still above ground?" Are you serious?

He looked pretty good, too. Nice hair cut, clean clothes, new pair of glasses... Except for the scar on his neck from where some fellow inmate tried to slit his throat, he looked for all the world like the kind of guy you wouldn't mind entrusting your Little All with at a fairly conservative investment brokerage ("Gacy, Berkowitz and Manson " comes to mind).

For the heck of it, I went to a list of serial killers at Wikipedia and determined to find out how many of those convicted in the U.S. were ever executed. I got so depressed after the first 15 I had to stop. Of these, it turns out only two had been executed, while most of the rest had been given life sentences.

By the way, Terry Blair was tried on 8 counts of first degree murder, was sentenced for 25 years, got out in 21, then turned around and murdered 6 more women. Now he's serving life without parole. Maybe I'm a little dense, but it looks for all the world to me like 6 women would still be alive if the state of Missouri had been able to just get rid of this guy after the first go 'round.

Incidentally, this list is just of the people we recognize serial killers, and doesn't include the thousands more who murdered by onesies and twosies. Imagine that. If they can give a guy a life sentence for murdering 60 people, what do they give the guy who had the prudence to limit himself to one or two, a gold watch?

Steve, what a farce this is! And here I thought nothing could beat American politics for mind blowing inanity. As it turns out, when compared to the criminal justice system, politics is just a mile marker on the road.

Here's my logic: Some guy does away with someone, just do away with him. Simple, don't you think? I don't view this kind of thinking as liberal or conservative, moral or amoral, Christian or atheist. Neither does this strike me as an expression of vengeance - or even of appropriate punishment (for "appropriate punishment" you can check with one of the moms or dads of the kids the Son of Sam shot down). It is instead to me just ordinary common sense. Follow this plan and we all save ourselves the expense of haircuts, new pairs of glasses and clean clothes for people like David Berkowitz.

This is not to mention the annoyance of having to listen to him blathering on about how "prison is Hell". Why not just punch his ticket and give him a chance to see what Hell is like first hand?

Your turn.

-Chris

This just keeps getting jucier...

2011-02-01T03:29:00.000-08:00

Steve,

You know how much I hate it when you smirk, and cringe at every opportunity you have to do so. Now it looks like Federal Judge Roger Vinson has given you carte blanche to engage in this annoying activity. As I'm sure you are aware, yesterday he ruled against the constitutionality of The Affordable Health Care Act. And to top it all off, in a key section of the ruling he uses an analogy which should set the Tea Party a'crowing:

"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting --- as was done in the Act --- that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” "

As I said before during out discussions on Prop 8, I always admire the way an informed and intellectually competent jurist goes about rendering an opinion - and Judge Vinson's work is no exception. If you have time, take a moment to skim through the 78 page ruling. His argument here is compelling. To wit, it is: What exactly are the limits of the Commerce Clause? And we might as well recognize that the answer to this question has implications which go quite beyond this particular case. Judge Vinson invokes the troubling idea that an unrestricted interpretation of the Commerce Clause could give Congress the power to do almost anything.

That idea should give us all pause. I'll have to admit, I mostly like the Affordable Health Care Act - including the Individual Mandate provision on which Judge Vinson's ruling principally turns. However, if indeed his reasoning is correct, shouldn't we all be wary of a constitutionally derived power which allows the Federal Government to enact and enforce a host of laws we may not like? After all, practically every activity and (as Judge Vinson states in this case) inactivity is going to impact interstate commerce.

Ironically, the White House has termed the ruling a case of "judicial overreaching". Funny, that. I guess the application of the "activist judge" motif, so common these days among social conservatives, ultimately depends on whose ox is gored.

At any rate, this latest ruling only evens the score. Before this, two Federal judges had ruled in favor of the Act and now, two have ruled against. I haven't yet decided if I agree with the logic of the ruling. But one thing is for sure. Back when several states joined this suit, most in the media gave them virtually no chance. Now we find they're batting .500 and knocking on the Supreme Court's door.

Since there is no doubt the world's great statesmen frequently depend on LRA&H as a source of wisdom on the crucial issues of our times, I suggest a brief account of your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated....

-Chris

Science of Libertarian Morality?

2011-01-25T06:33:00.000-08:00

There is a new(?) social psychology study which explores the formation of the libertarian personality. Naturally, I have issues with many of the conclusions presented, but it is an interesting read anyway. It can be found here.

- Steve

Insanity

2011-01-15T05:15:00.001-08:00

Steve,

Here's one I really don't get. Some guy murders another guy, then goes to court and pleads "insanity".

Huh? How does that work? I mean, don't you have to be insane in the first place to murder someone?

While I'm thinking about it, what's the deal with this "crimes of passion" malarkey? OK, murderer "A" gets the maximum penalty because they prove in court that he "planned" to murder some poor schmoe. Murderer "B" gets off easy because they prove he just all of a sudden went off the deep end and started blasting away.

I mean, what possible difference would it make if you "planned" to murder someone or just got a wild hair? For that matter, why would society enact laws which are more lenient for people who are "insane" and tend to start shooting at the drop of a pin? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, if the aim of our justice system is to "rehabilitate" people, wouldn't it be better to start out with a sane person who plans ahead instead of some whack job who doesn't even know what day it is?

One more thing. How come most of the time when a murderer causes death they sentence him to life? This makes no sense to me.

Now I assure you I'm not a big revenge guy. But doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that when some creep murders somebody they turn around and "punish" him by giving him three squares a day and a warm bed to sleep in for the rest of his life? Wouldn't it make better sense to let Hell foot the bill for the dude's room and board rather than the American tax payer?

If you've got an explanation for any of this, I'd love to hear it.

-Chris

Chris and Steve debate AGW...

2011-01-09T07:35:00.001-08:00

You've miles to go before you sleep...

2011-01-01T09:01:00.000-08:00

Gentlemen.

As LRA&H approaches its third year in business, I should like to wish you both a Happy New Year. May you both prosper this year in all ways civil and honorable - not to mention those endeavors to which civility and honor may not be as tightly fastened.

I wish I could say all of your posts have been uniformly entertaining. Some, to be honest, have been stupefyingly boring - a category in which Mr. Rhetts leads by a nose (Though Mr. Green has made many remarkable contributions). Yet no road fashioned by human hands will ever be free of ruts and potholes, and at least this one appears to be going somewhere.

Whither? I suppose you'll know when you get there. But let's hope that won't be anytime soon...

Best wishes,

Bernardo

Wikigate

2010-12-28T05:56:00.000-08:00

Steve,

I'm not much of a legal expert, so I really can't offer much of an opinion on whether or not the recent release by WikiLeaks of over a hundred thousand classified documents constitutes a prosecutable violation of law. However I will say that anyone with half a brain should realize that hundreds of thousands of communications on domestic and international affairs among government officials are bound to include more than a few embarrassing observations, and we should all have the good sense to put these into context.

That said, out of curiosity I did a little checking into what the usual conservative and liberal pundits are saying about this whole WikiLeaks episode. And it comes as no surprise to me that on cue, the conservatives are calling it treason, while at the same time offering all sorts of explanations and excuses for what was said in the most contentious documents. For their part, most of the liberal pundits don't even mention treason and have begun to point fingers and draw conclusions.

And what an amazing irony this is! A little over a year ago, some unknown person hacked into the Hadley CRU, stole and then released to the public thousands of private e-mails - and the shoes were on the other feet. Then, conservative pundits absolutely ignored the ethical considerations of privacy and jumped immediately to pointing fingers and drawing conclusions. Liberals cried foul and started looking for explanations. Does this teach us anything?

I think so. If you want to believe something, somewhere among the thousands of private opinions expressed by imperfect men you're going to find something to bolster that belief. But you know, God help us if tomorrow, by some miracle, we should be privy to everything our "friends" have said about us in private. If this was true, none of us would have any friends.

-Chris

Merry Christmas!

2010-12-18T18:05:00.000-08:00

Steve,

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

'Tis the season!

All year long, people of abundant faith and bottomless doubt, curmudgeons and positivists, Christians, atheists, men and women of every conceivable spiritual and philosophical stripe, the fearfully intelligent and the woefully stupid, the young, the old, those claimed by the insensate providence of dogma and those who struggle against it (in short, all of us), have wasted our time pounding against walls. And yet...

Those walls won't ever come down. Our bloody fist prints might decorate them briefly after we are gone, but in time they will fade as generations after us rage on.

Steve, we started this blog a little over a year and a half ago. And, oh yes, we've raged. We've raged at different things for different reasons, and most times confronted each other, sometimes rancorously, sometimes politely, with our differences.

Yet always, always, the comforting remainder is that we have raged together.

If there is anything about this season, anything that is, which all of us, regardless of what we believe, unites us, it is that now is the perfect time catch our breath and give thanks for this magnificent gift of life and the brilliant minds God gave us.

So, thanks. I wish I could express to you how much I've enjoyed our debates, not to mention our odd forays.

And please, don't run for office. I can't tell you how embarrassed a liberal I would be to explain why I voted for such a regressive libertarian as yourself!

Peace.

-Chris

I buy you books and all you do is chew the covers...

2010-12-16T11:39:00.001-08:00

Steve,

First off, thanks for replying to my comment and question regarding the "missing hot spots". As you may have surmised, I had already checked on this phenomenon and was wondering what your interpretation of it was. At issue, for me in any case, was your conclusion that this condition comprises a "logical flaw" in the theory of AGW. What bothers me most about this is the tendency to claim any conundrum or enigma in climate science generally to be a disproof, specifically, not just of AGW, but of global warming altogether. Follow me here.

The "missing hot spots" were first identified in the late 90's by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. Later in 2004, they re-surfaced in a "bombshell" paper which Patrick Michaels announced was going to "knock the stuffing out" of the IPCC's position on climate change. Yet nothing of the sort happened. The paper was almost universally panned as being the product of poor research, while most of the discrepancies between satellite and surface station measurements were resolved (you may recall our own discussion of this in private correspondence). Now come the same authors (Douglass, Pearson and Singer, with the addition of John Christy) with a new and vastly more limited claim. The assertion now is that the rate of warming in the tropical troposphere only (not, mind you, the existence of warming there - which is not disputed), as measured by satellite and radiosonde, are not consistent with the rate of warming as measured on the ground. Thus, in roughly ten years, the more or less blanket assertions of Soon and Baliunas have been whittled down to a single and much more limited discrepancy, regarding which, as you rightly point out, climate scientists are working hard to resolve.

In any case, why would one immediately assume this whole problem constitutes a "logical flaw" in the theory of AGW? Certainly it represents a problem either in the mechanics of temperature measurement, or in our understanding of what is happening in the tropical troposphere, or most likely, a little of both. But this would be a problem whether the theory of AGW is valid or not. Or, to say this another way, this whole issue progresses from a "logical flaw", to the bare claim that, because scientists don't know everything there is to know about climate science, all of their theories and predictions are worthless.

It doesn't take a lot of brains or ingenuity to stand on the sidelines, as persons like Joanne Nova do, and claim, vociferously, that every problem or disagreement among climate scientists wrecks the whole enterprise. But that's exactly what they do. Nowhere in their literature is the barest hint of appreciation for the notable successes which climate scientists have achieved, or of the thousands of hours of patient observations made by real professionals who have spent most of their lives studying a science not one person in a hundred understands.

Sure, in climate science, as in all scientific disciplines we need, desperately, an environment which fosters honest skepticism and robust debate. But this kind of constant, ignorant back-biting from agenda driven amateurs is poisoning the well. Steve, the place for climate scientists is in the field or the laboratory, not in front of a computer answering perfidious FOI requests or trying to defend themselves from charges of political bias.

And, for the last time, climate science doesn't have all the answers. But for Pete's sake Steve, nuclear physics is riddled with unsolved mysteries. Yet that hasn't stopped nuclear physicists from successfully designing safe and effective nuclear reactors. Similarly, what we know about cancer is dwarfed by what we don't know, yet this hasn't prevented medical researchers from designing treatments which in turn have saved many lives.

This leads me to the remainder of your post.

I gather you personally are unsure of how climate models are constructed, how they are checked for accuracy, and to what extent climate scientists employ them to make predictions about climate change. What mystifies me most about this is how, after months of rendering judgements, you turn around and ask where you can find the source material on that which you are judging! Are you kidding me?

Forgive me for saying this, but frankly, what you're saying here is that you've been repeating the most common skeptical arguments without taking the obvious and rational first step of going to the source documents and checking them out for yourself. In other words, you're allowing others to do your thinking for you.

Either (a), You are so entranced by your own conspiracy theories that you have denied yourself huge repositories of useful information because you assume, a priori, they are all the work of ideologues, or (b), you simply don't know these repositories exist. I don't think I can do much about (a). The central burden of a conspiracy theory is that it usually compels one to search, not for enlightenment but confirmation. Regarding (b) however:

Back in July, I posted links to 4 separate sites: NOAA, NASA, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and The National Science Foundation, where you can find a wealth of information about the science behind climate change. In December of last year, I wrote a post specifically about climate modeling, with helpful links to UCAR's Community Climate System Model (CCSM), which reviews in some detail how one of today's most powerful climate models has been put together and how it is checked for accuracy. In separate correspondence, I sent you links to the IPCC, where you can read for yourself all the current reports, along with supporting material (By the way, the volume by Working Group 1, "The Physical Science Basis", includes an extensive discussion of climate models - along with a copious list of references.).

Are you reading any of this stuff?

Not to complain, but every time you've mentioned some new argument, I've gone to the source you referenced, read it, and done the necessary checking. Here's how that works. Some time ago in private correspondence you cited some Anthony Watts material on the unreliability of surface station temperature readings. I went to the source, found one of the stations Mr. Watts said was unreliable, and checked it out by comparing readings (available at the NOAA) from that site with two nearby sites. I overlaid the readings from the three sites and sent you back a graphic which clearly demonstrated that the readings from the station Mr. Watts was questioning were almost in perfect agreement with nearby sites - which would be virtually impossible if any or even all of the sites were reporting false readings.

What troubled me then is the same thing which troubles me now. Anthony Watts (one of the critics you apparently rely on) was telling his readers that certain surface stations were giving false or unreliable readings, yet didn't take the elementary, and easy step of verifying this claim with freely available data. But then again, neither did you. Darn it, I, a boob, easily and independently discovered a means to determine the Watts' claim was nothing more than what comes from the south end of a north bound horse. Why wouldn't you have done the same thing?

To me, this example perfectly characterizes the shoddy nature of the "scholarship" of your primary sources of information on climate change. But more importantly, it indicates that you yourself are not subjecting this material to the same standards of proof you demand from qualified and legitimate climate scientists. By all means, all theories, not just those of science, usually stand or fall based entirely on the results of repeated attempts to disprove them. Certainly they do. That's how science works. But for heaven's sake, shouldn't you demand at least some scientific rigor from your sources? In other words, how much time do you spend checking the other side of the argument before you accept an accusation as true?

I get the impression you consider climate models to be some sort of voodoo. Stop thinking that way. Climate models are really nothing more than very large algorithms which allow climate scientists to correlate millions of bits of raw data. What do you expect them to use, black boards and slide rulers? I noted in an earlier post that NASA saved millions in the design of the Mars Landers by using sophisticated models to anticipate the effect of the Martian atmosphere on the entry capsules and parachutes. Similarly, all the major aerospace companies across the globe successfully employ computer models to test aircraft designs at a fraction of the cost previously required by the testing of full scale mock-ups. Now that I think of it, computer models have saved diverse industries billions of dollars in design costs, not to mention having made a major contribution to our own safety and comfort.

How silly do you think these industries would be if they declined to use computer simulations because they are not perfect?

Anyway, enjoy.

-Chris

Colors of the Wind

2010-12-07T11:38:00.000-08:00

Chris,

Pointing out logical flaws in the theory is NOT "spreading disinformation". Private *OR* Government money in support of an advocacy group (or in support of a group with a vested interest) is not Good Science. Period. Yes, that happens on both sides. If the science is *really* settled, there would be NO question that the theory, using its reported data, holds up to careful examination BY ANYONE. (It doesn't. I'll point to JoNova's "missing hot-spot" as just one example. There are others.)

According to your definition, I would certainly consider the IPCC an "advocacy group", if for no other reason than the fact they promote an agenda-driven "solution" which cannot be verified or monitored with a sufficient accuracy to determine if the steps required are having ANY measurable effect ON THE PROBLEM.

If AGW is a "problem" which actually exists, doesn't it make sense to be CERTAIN we can accurately monitor and measure the results of ANY action taken to "solve" it? (No, we can't: not yet.)

YES - There has been a lot of research done. Various theories have been proposed. Proper peer-review consists - among other things - of a careful study of the reported results. The goal of the reviewer is to FALSIFY (disprove) the theory *not* support it. If the data holds up, it holds up. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if the reviewer agrees or disagrees with the theory itself. And it certainly doesn't matter who or what organization is funding the review, but to be safe, I want as many different reviewers as possible, from all sides and from all scientific disciplines.

OK - Where can we start? With the models (because that's the basis for all these predictions).The FACT that those models have been PROVEN TO BE INACCURATE over a reasonably short period of time (e.g. a single decade) doesn't provide very much reassurance they will be accurate in predicting conditions a hundred years in the future. But let's set that aside and talk about the models themselves. And BEFORE we get anywhere close to what the effects of the actions of mankind may/may-not be... Consider:

Sunlight reaches the earth. Sunlight energy is the single greatest component that affects global temperatures - hard not to agree on that. Some of that light energy is reflected back to space, the rest heats the surface, which in turn affects the temperature levels of the atmosphere. Have we accurately calculated the differences in absorption of sunlight energy between land mass and water? (Probably.) Also, about 70% of the surface is water, so one would suspect the effect on water and from water is much greater than the effect of land absorption, but is that true? (If not, why not?) How does the model account for the differences between them? How is an "average" temperature for the entire planet determined? To what degree of accuracy (1 degree, 0.1 degrees)? How are differences between land surface temps and ocean water temps balanced? How does this average balance the very real differences in (annual) temperature reports from various locations on the planet? Do we have an accurate method for determining sun cycles and strength which in turn affects the energy levels of radiant warming? Does the calculated average temperature consider the changes in radiant heating which occur over time? How do the models handle that? How much of the sunlight energy is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way in? And on the light that is reflected back FROM the surface, how much is absorbed? Is there an adjustment based on the change in orbital angles (i.e., seasonal rotational positions between the Sun-Earth)? Since water is the major energy absorbing unit, it's logical to assume that such absorption will produce water vapor - the largest component of greenhouse gases. How much water vapor is produced by ranges of solar energy levels? How much of the remaining energy is absorbed by CO2? How much *more* energy would be absorbed if the current CO2 levels, say... doubled? What would be the effect of doubled CO2 levels - regardless of source - on that "global average temperature"? (what does the historical record show?) Have we precisely measured the annual amounts of atmospheric CO2 from *all* significant sources? Just how much is truly "man-made"? (Be aware that ANY doubling *could* occur from NON-man-made sources.) And while we're at it, "What is the 'optimum' level of CO2 in the atmosphere supposed to be?" (and exactly how did we arrive at that value?)

And now, the key question, which I've raised before: "Have we back-checked those calculations, using the model itself, against historical records?" In other words, What are the results from the models, using available historical data from, say 1850-1900, when predicting observed conditions in 2000? How accurate is the prediction for 2000 using data from any randomly selected 50-year period of historical data? How about a random 20-year period?

Chris, this isn't about a review of "who" or "how many" agrees the model results (counting noses is not science), or who is paying the bills. I'm talking about the effect of SUNLIGHT on the ecosystem, and you've got to start at the beginning. If we can't figure out the effects of the largest single component in the equation, why are we obsessing over the suspected impact of a even smaller piece of the puzzle?

Surely, since "the science is settled" all these basic, straight-forward OBVIOUS questions are clearly and fully discussed at length and has been subject to careful peer-review for pure scientific accuracy with NO GUESSING ALLOWED. That means get rid of the 'assumptions' in the model. (If it's "A Fact", you can't be 'guessing', now can you?)

Heck, all these points are probably covered as part of undergraduate-level ecosystem studies required by all those climate scientists we're turning out... Right? Explanations and equations should be easily found on the 'net and elsewhere and should be presented in a form where an person of slightly-above-average intelligence can comprehend it with a reasonable amount of study (that describes all those college students, and both you and I)...

Where is it? Seriously. I'd like to see it. Especially that back-checking of the climate models.

Have I made my point?

- Steve

Color Me Confused

2010-12-04T12:38:00.001-08:00

Steve,

I found your comment on my last post more than a little confusing. Is it me?

With regards to funding, you are comparing apples to avocados. This makes no sense, since however much funding comes from "government organizations", none of it is spend on political campaigns and lobbying. Furthermore, there is no equivalency, repeat, none, between government financing of climate research and private funding of disinformation. On the one hand, research consists of going out in the field, accumulating data and then trying to put it all together. I was making the point that while the fossil fuel industry spends billions on research, none of that money is spent for research into global warming. And why is that?

Fred Singer doesn't conduct any research into global warming, neither does Willie Soon, Stephen Milloy, Sallie Balliunas, or any of the rest of them. Yet these are the kinds of people the industry pays to spread disinformation about the scientists who actually do genuine research. See the difference?

Finally, the funding of climate research - not to mention education - is without doubt an important and necessary function of government. If you take the time, as I have, to look into where this money goes, you will find that not one penny funds an advocacy group or "think tank". In fact, most of the money is spent on people and equipment to study the Earth's atmosphere, a subject about which global warming is only a small part.

-Chris

Who's Kidding Who?

2010-11-23T15:31:00.000-08:00

You know Steve, here at this blog you've alluded repeatedly to an organized conspiracy involving an overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists, allied to various political leaders and opinion makers. Ominously, the purpose of this conspiracy would be to use a scientifically unsupportable theory (AGW) as part of a plan to achieve a new political order. Yet so far, you haven't come up with any verifiable evidence for this, aside from the vague assertion that credentialed scientists in the relevant fields are smug elitists who are probably lying to us. I've said before I don't care for smug, know-it-all academics any better than you do. But to build a massive conspiracy on that bare annoyance is questionable logic to say the least.

Not to sound overly critical, but it seems to me that for a man who claims to be sensitive to possible conspiracies, especially those which have to do with climate change, you've made precious little effort to examine the evidence that if a conspiracy really does exist, it is probably the exact opposite of the one you believe is taking place.

Have you spent any time considering that global warming skepticism might be the product of an effort to discredit perfectly valid and well supported scientific theory? I mean, wouldn't it be logical to give at least some thought to the motivation and practices of companies and individuals who stand to lose billions in profits if carbon emission roll-backs become policy?

Isn't it is at least plausible to assume that well connected and highly motivated people in some industries will promote policies for personal gain which are generally harmful to society as a whole? Certainly there is ample precedent for this.

Just take a look at the Enron scandal. As you know, Enron was the lead conspirator in manufacturing an energy crisis in California back in 2000 and 2001. That "crisis" caused rolling black-outs which almost certainly resulted in the loss of human life.

If a massive, publicly traded corporation like Enron would knowingly conspire with other energy producers to engineer an energy crises involving the potential cost of human life, why would it be so difficult to surmise that at least some energy companies might conspire to alter public policy and opinion on the issue of climate change, especially with billions in profits at stake? Why would you automatically assume that big corporations in any field would always act in the public's best interest?

As recently as 1999, the DOJ filed a racketeering lawsuit against Phillip Morris and several other major tobacco companies - and won the suit. The judge ruled that Phillip Morris (et al):

1. conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking; 2. publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that secondhand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and 3. destroyed documents relevant to litigation.

In addition, and most relevant to this post:

"The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that passive smoking causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants."

And here's the real kicker: amazingly, some of the same "scientific consultants" who worked on behalf of the tobacco companies to discredit the scientific consensus on tobacco smoke, are today involved in an effort to discredit the consensus on climate change. And I'm not talking about little fish either. Fred Singer, one of today's most vocal and visible climate skeptics, wrote a paper questioning the science behind the hazards of second hand smoke - a paper by the way, which was paid for by The Tobacco Institute. Ironic, isn't it? The agency which paid him to write the paper already knew it wasn't true!

In 1972 Johns-Manville, along with six other major asbestos companies created the "Asbestos Information Association", the sole purpose of which was to discredit the growing body of scientific evidence linking asbestos to serious disease. In 1980, DuPont created the "Alliance For Responsible CFC Policy", to discredit the evidence linking CFC's to ozone depletion. Both of these organizations are now defunct.

People like Fred Singer, Sallie Balliunas, Willie Soon, Frederic Seitz, Stephen Milloy, Pat McMichaels and many others keep appearing and reappearing as "experts" and "consultants" in all of these and other similar industry funded (and now failed) disinformation campaigns.

Steve, I need hardly remind you that the potential health hazards of tobacco, asbestos and CFC's are no longer controversial issues. It is virtually impossible to believe the companies and industries which financed disinformation campaigns about these products were not themselves aware of the hazards. Despite this, and usually contrary to their own internal reports, they patiently set about creating doubt in the public's mind about the scientific evidence, simply to sell products which they knew posed serious and long term health risks. And they had no trouble finding "experts" to go along with the whole charade.

With these examples to go by, why would it be so hard to believe the fossil fuel industry would not be tempted to pursue the same kind of strategies? I mean, how are Exxon and Peabody Energy so different from Jons-Manville and Phillip Morris, that we should just innocently assume they would not fund the same sort of disinformation campaigns?

It's a perfectly valid question. And don't you think its at least a little revealing that many of the same "experts" who hired themselves out to spread disinformation about tobacco, asbestos and cfc's, have now become "experts" on carbon dioxide? Why is that? Wouldn't this fact alone raise enough suspicion in your mind that you would do a little checking into it?

In politics especially, a good friend of mine advised, always follow the money. Well, what about the money?

In the last election cycle (2008), oil, gas and coal industries contributed a little over 25 million dollars to congressional campaigns. Compare that to the 5.5 million (about one fifth as much) contributed by environmental and alternative energy interests.

Lobbying? In 2009, oil, gas and coal industries spent 190 million dollars to lobby congress. Environmental/alt energy interests spent 54.5 million - or roughly a quarter as much.

Steve, these ratios have been consistent for the last 20 years. During this period, the fossil fuel industry has outspent environmental and alternative energy interests by anywhere from 4 or 5 to one to influence legislation. So who exactly is the 300 pound gorilla in the room, and who's the 97 pound weakling?

This is a great deal of money. But this doesn't even count the millions more contributed individually by majority stockholders and directors of these companies to political campaigns. Nor does it include the millions contributed to finance the so called "think tanks" and phony advocacy groups which promote AGW skepticism.

Generally speaking, fossil fuel companies either own or lease the rights to recover literally trillions of dollars in carbon based energy resources. Any effective international agreement to limit and eventually reduce carbon emissions would clearly diminish the dollar value of those assets. And, as we know from experience, any such agreement would require a political consensus which agrees with the scientific consensus. If you were trying to prevent or delay that agreement, how would you go about it?

Well, first you would try to get politicians elected who were willing to prevent or delay legislation aimed at limiting carbon emissions and promoting renewables. To give them cover, you would fund a group of phony "experts" willing to cast doubt on climate science. Finally, you would spend millions on lobbying firms to gain privileged access to the legislators you wanted to influence.

Is this happening? FACT: It's well documented that the fossil fuel industry contributes almost exclusively to the campaigns of those who oppose limits on and regulation of carbon emissions. FACT: Most of the leading "experts" promoting skepticism on climate change have documented histories of contributing to previous disinformation campaigns on behalf of other industry funded front groups. FACT: The fossil fuel industry spends nearly 200 million a year on lobbying and political contributions.

Ever heard of "The Greening Earth Society (GES)"? I didn't think so. Apparently it went defunct back in 2005, but you can still have a look at archived versions of their web site here (courtesy of The Wayback Machine).

GES billed itself as a "grassroots organization". From their website:

"We encourage you to join Greening Earth Society’s group of concerned citizens. Our members seek and disseminate information, encourage activism within communities and contribute financially to our projects. Together, we provide useful materials to educators, grassroots activists, families, students, politicians and scientists. We commission original research exploring CO2’s effect on our environment."

Concerned citizens? Original research? Truth is, GES was created and funded by The Western Fuels Association, with which it shared the same offices and director, Fred Palmer, a registered lobbyist for WFA. Not surprisingly, Fred Palmer was also a senior vice president of Peabody Energy. On the GES "scientific advisory panel": Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon and Patrick McMichaels. Small world ain't it?

One last thing. If fossil fuel companies were actually looking for information instead of disinformation, why do they generously fund think tanks, front groups, critics and consultants, instead of actual research? In the last 5 years, Exxon-Mobil's profits have averaged over 35 billion a year, after an expense of roughly 20-30 billion annually for capital improvements, exploration and research.

With the question of climate change being so important to Exxon and all the other fossil fuel companies, don't you think it would be in their own interest to conduct research? Why wouldn't they? Surely they have the money to fund it. But they don't, and I'll tell you why. Just as the tobacco companies knew about the connection between smoking and cancer, the big players in the fossil fuel industry already know the connection between carbon emissions and global warming is backed by sound science. Why would they spend a few million to conduct honest research which would only verify the conclusions they don't want the public to believe?

Anyway, enjoy...

-Chris

Climate Change policy according to IPCC

2010-11-22T11:00:00.001-08:00

An interesting commentary on the purpose behind Climate Change policy as reported by Investors Business Daily can be found here. The statement in question is from Ottmar Edenhofer - an easy name to google, but I found every little. He is a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. IPCC Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change. The interview is published in Neue Zurcher Zeitung. (No, I haven't personally read the root article, but have no reason to distrust the accuracy of available translations into English.)

There are various other comments on the article posted about the 'net here-and-there, mostly (as expected) on 'denier' web-sites. Still one should find it passing strange that no one else (AP, Wash Post, et.al.) are reporting on this AT ALL.

Hmmm. Too close to the Truth, perhaps?

- Steve

Murkowski vs. Miller

2010-11-12T08:40:00.000-08:00

1. - They're both losers in my book: Murkowski because she refused to accept the results of her party's ballot for purely personal reasons. Miller because he thinks winning the primary is the same as winning the election. Knuckleheads.

2. - I expect Murkowski to win on the recount. Hopefully she will learn a few lessons from the experience.

3. "...Mud slinging has become as iconic as apple pie and Pepsi..."
- As long as both sides continue to engage in the 'politics of personal destruction' and as long as the voters respond as they are manipulated, this will continue. Sad.

4. "...every time you think of Pelosi and I think of Cheney, we find ourselves wishing those who voted for these people could be lined up against the wall and shot."
- I don't feel that way about Pelosi: not really, anyway. (I can't speak for you and Cheney.) I just disagree with her policies.

5. "And, to have some mealy mouth politician claim that elections should be decided in the courtroom instead of the voting booth is nothing more than a profound insult to every man and woman responsible enough to go out on election day and affirm the importance of that privilege by exercising it."
- THANK YOU, AL GORE! (and others).

- Steve

What A Jerk

2010-11-11T04:31:00.000-08:00

Steve,

Don't count me as a big supporter of Lisa Murkowski, the Republican Senator from Alaska. But she's beginning to look like cherries and ice cream compared to her opponent, Joe Miller, in this last election.

As you know, Murkowski narrowly lost to Miller in the Republican primary and decided to run as a write-in candidate. In the event, Alaskan law stipulates that individual write-in votes (in this case, for Senator) will not be hand counted unless the overall total of them exceeds the number of votes for any of the candidates listed on the ballot.

As it happens, the write-ins did indeed exceed the number of votes for the the winner listed on the ballot, Joe Miller. So now begins the process of hand counting the write ins. Last night on Fox News, Joe Miller explained why he intends to file a lawsuit seeking to throw out any of the write-in votes for Murkowski where her name is misspelled, claiming, well, darn it, its just the law.

No it isn't. Alaskan law gives the election commission the authority to count a write-in ballot with a misspelled name, so long as the voter's intent can be determined.

Which isn't so hard to understand. "Lisa Murkowski" isn't exactly the "Jim Smith" of names. It shouldn't be too hard to identify a "Liza Markowski" or a Lisa Merkowsky" as a vote for Ms. Murkowski. In some cases I'm sure the misspellings will be so bad that these votes will be rightly discarded - but I think those cases will be rare.

So the Miller suit is just a bunch of hot air. But The Independent puts a little more top spin on this croquet ball (my emphasis):

"But there is worse: after the courts in Alaska ruled last week that election workers could hand voters a list showing the names of write-in candidates as they enter the voting booths, Miller supporters rushed to register themselves as last-minute runners just to dilute whatever advantage the lists might give to Ms Murkowski. Suddenly there were well over 150 write-in candidates in the race."

Steve, if aliens ever decide to incinerate the Earth, there's a good chance it will be a decision made on the basis of our political parties and campaigns, which on a scale of morality have fallen a couple of notches below child pornography and witchcraft. But that's to be expected. Mud slinging has become as iconic as apple pie and Pepsi.

But if there's one place where we should draw the line it is when candidates and their parties try to game the election process itself. This demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how democracy works and why it is better than any other system.

Frankly, the voting public rarely delivers elected leaders capable of the greatness we expect of them. I'm sure that every time you think of Pelosi and I think of Cheney, we find ourselves wishing those who voted for these people could be lined up against the wall and shot.

But you know, the privilege to vote is a privilege which defines citizenship. How can you expect a man to obey the laws enacted by a government he was not allowed to select?

And, to have some mealy mouth politician claim that elections should be decided in the courtroom instead of the voting booth is nothing more than a profound insult to every man and woman responsible enough to go out on election day and affirm the importance of that privilege by exercising it.

-Chris

November Quickie #4

2010-11-09T09:24:00.000-08:00

It may be true that money can't buy love, but it can sure put you in the line of fire.

November Quickie #3

2010-11-09T09:21:00.000-08:00

Politics is the art of something for nothing. They take your something and you get their nothing.

November Quickie #2

2010-11-09T09:17:00.000-08:00

In advertising, there is no such thing as "20% more, free!" If you don't believe me, go to the grocery, ask them to open a box of anything advertised like this and then give you just the "20% free" part.

November Quickie #1

2010-11-09T09:13:00.000-08:00

You can't have winners without losers. When somebody tells you this is going to be a "win-win" deal, what they really mean is that now there will be two losers, and you're probably going to be one of them.

2010-11-05T07:59:00.000-07:00

Photographer captures the exact moment Maynard Scrumple realizes he has arrived at the wrong Halloween party...

Cordevilla and Frum and Lions, Tigers and Bears - Oh, my!

2010-11-04T07:21:00.001-07:00

I readily admit Cordevilla's article was a substantial, and driving, force of the post. There are other portions of my post from my own thoughts as well as from other sources. As I stated, the concepts were not original to me alone. I enjoyed and approved of many aspects of his presentation and could not - so I thought - improve upon them. That said, it would seem some principles that *I* thought were clear are not. I'm aware of Frum's commentary. I think Frum and some others - including Cordevilla - have missed some key points.

1. To use the terms like 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' to describe the division in American politics is inappropriate and a needless demagogue approach. In my view, the difference is more between those who look to government for their continued existence / survival on one side, and those who prefer self-reliance on the other.

2. The division is not defined by wealth OR education. Its defined by the source of their self-image. The rich think “I'm better than you because I have more money.” The intellectuals think “I'm better than you because I'm smarter.” Both are wrong. Both want to be in charge of things. The 'smarties' have been running things for quite awhile and have gotten out of control. The 'dumb-masses' want their turn. Joy.

3. Regardless of how you slice it, the purpose of our government - as currently focused - is only concerned with How To Spend All This Money. The Tea Party rose from the depths of debt because of this very point. They are discovering that the core principles behind the rampant, unchecked spending of the Elite Ruling Class trickles over into other areas - predominately the social reform arena. And they don't like what's going on there either. The budget items Cordevilla mentioned for funding cuts were the EASY ones, not the hard ones - Defense budgets, Entitlements, etc. - that's where the Real (Hard) Work will be.

4. It's not about Dem vs Rep. It's about the motivations, attitudes and the philosophical driving forces of those currently wielding political power, regardless of their party affiliation. I thought that was clear. Clinton made mistakes. Bush made mistakes. Obama makes mistakes. Recovery from them is a bitch. And we're all getting tired of fighting against avoidable, even if unintended, consequences of their policies.

5. To define the philosophical battle in racial terms is wrong. Yes, Cordevilla does this in a very sneaky way, and if that was his intent, he's wrong to do so. There are numerous cultural reasons which attract followers to join the ranks of those who rely government largess. Those attracted are not required to be of a particular race. They are typically, but not always, from the ranks of the 'less educated', but that's not a requirement either. I'd rather set aside the racial assumptions and look at the philosophical attitudes which lead to these divisions. Discrimination under the law - or manipulating the law to discriminate - are equally wrong, regardless of who benefits.

6. Frum is absolutely correct in saying Cordevilla's book is about 'feeling'. Of course it is. We are culture that worships “how you feel” above all else. [ Just yesterday, during Pres. Obama's press conference about the voting results and Republicans taking power, he was asked (seriously) how the results “made him feel” - not what he *thought*... what he FELT. Sheesh! ] What Cordevilla does say (or at least imply) is that the required CHANGES will be difficult. The question - for the Tea Party - is, “Are you Willing To Do Whatever It Takes?” I don't know.

7. Where Frum goes wrong in his critique is demanding a Full Solution from Cordevilla before acknowledging his points may actually have some substance to consider. Frum is falling back on the Intellectual argument that “if you don't have all the answers - and present them in a form *I* find acceptable - you aren't smart enough to talk about the problems, so what you have to say isn't worth listening to.” He's wrong. I don't have to have The Answer before pointing out The Problem - I don't need to find the best deal on carpet cleaners before mentioning the elephant in the room.

8. Conspiracy Theory - If a large number of like-minded people follow the same philosophical principles which lead to a particular set of actions, does mean there is a “Conspiracy”? No. Lenin rallied the Russian people to his cause: that doesn't make following Communism a “conspiracy”. Lenin *did* conspire with his leadership cadre to do specific things - e.g., control the media and the information stream - to achieve and maintain specific goals for consolidating political power. Calling something a “conspiracy” doesn't make it Right or Wrong. What word we choose as a Label does not control Reality. There are groups who promote a particular agenda - whether as part of a structured plan by a Secret Society or not.

9. Social reforms - Government is not supposed to try and manipulate society: it is and should operate in support of society, not as its controller. THAT is the problem with both sides of the political spectrum: they are so concerned with trying to implement this or that “much needed social reform” *OR* trying to 'remove' or disrupt previously implemented social policies, that they are overlooking the Main Point - Government should NOT meddle in such things! The Rule Of Law - treat everyone equally - is as far as government can/should go. Abortion? Un-wed mothers? Same-sex marriage? The government should be spectacularly UN-helpful in these matters. This is *my* problem with the Elite / Intellectual approach which can be summed up as *I* (the Elite) know what is best and therefore *you* must be controlled.

10. Intellectual superiority - you and I agree 100% about how some (not all) experts) demand deference. Where we differ, is that while that attitude WAS NOT the norm, it is fast becoming that way. It is not the fault of those who genuinely pursue knowledge for its own sake. BUT, you must admit that the organizational culture that exists within the university system, corporate R&D elements, and - yes - government departments has become increasingly bureaucratic with the goal of supporting itself, not promoting individual achievement for the “greater good of all”. THAT is where the problem with academia lies. Whether by choice, some Grand 'Conspiracy', or just the nature of the beast, those in positions of power, influence, and control of intellectual pursuits are of a like mind (“We're better than you”), and they are, individually and as groups, deliberately pursuing agendas to further THAT goal. And if you don't line up with The Consensus, you are less than Nothing, you must be shunned and discarded as 'unworthy'. As an Example: review the protests of AGW-proponents concerning who is or is not 'qualified' to have an opinion on climate studies.

11. Control of education - Even if Cordevilla recommends discarding 'professional educators' in favor of local involvement, he's correct in the respect that the Body Politic *must* become more involved on a LOCAL LEVEL than has been seen in recent years. We cannot turn over the education of our youth to a third party and expect others to impose *our* belief system on their students. What is required - and what Cordevilla missed - is that better OVERSIGHT of educators is desperately needed. That means increased accountability on the part of parents AND educators. The parents can't be 'fired' - and let's not argue about what DFACS can/cannot do, please - but there are some teachers that need to be fired. It has been shown that 50% of the failing students can be traced back to the 10% worst teachers - why is it so hard to fire the worst and improve the education of all? Because the purpose of the education SYSTEM has nothing to do with educating children - its a government jobs program. We can get into an entirely different discussion about the purpose of Government education (and I'll bring up Lenin again, then, too).

12. Religion and Government - I do not want a Government-mandated religion. Period. In any area (that includes the 'religion' of climate change). Allowing public displays of religious faith are harmless. There are way too many would seem to believe that *all* religious references must be prohibited from the public arena. That secular agenda is just as wrong as the formal status between Parliament and the Church of England in the 18th century. This country was founded, in part, from a desire to separate the State from the Church. It was NEVER intended to separate Man from God. The Rule of Law - equal treatment - takes care of government's role. Financing public displays of faith should be supported privately by those who desire such. Faith is an ultimately PERSONAL matter and should be treated as such.

Whew.

Really kicked over an anthill, didn't I? ;-)

- Steve

Bipartisanship

2010-11-04T05:49:00.000-07:00

A short one:

In 2008, Barack Obama helped elect 255 Democrats to the House.

In 2010, President Barack Obama helped elect 240 Republicans to the House.

Is that what they mean by "bipartisanship"? ;-)

- Steve

The Follies of Fools

2010-11-03T09:51:00.000-07:00

Steve,

I guess I'll have to start this out with a review of "America's Ruling Class--And the Perils of Revolution", by Angelo Cordevilla, since excerpts from that article appear to comprise roughly 90% of your five part post. As you know, the article first appeared in the July/August 2010 issue of the The American Spectator, and since has made the rounds at all the usual conservative blogs, including the SPPI. In July, Rush Limbaugh made rather a big deal of it on his radio show. A modestly expanded book form has now appeared, with a 6 page introduction by Rush, along with a further 60 pages consisting of a copy of the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and an extensive bibliography.

I don't think I could do a better job of summarizing this article (and now, book) than renegade conservative David Frum has here and here. These are a few excerpts:

"Good book or bad book, however, “The Ruling Class” takes us as deep as we are ever likely to get into the minds of Tea Party Americans. It is important not for what it argues, but for what it reveals...

Here’s what it does reveal:

...The central concept of the Tea Party is the division of the nation into two parts: the legitimate and the illegitimate, “real America” vs unreal. This is the idea behind Sarah Palin’s speeches...

...The dividing line between “classes” is not wealth. You can be a multi-millionaire and yet still be excluded from “the ruling class.” The dividing line is formal education, and the values and attitudes typically absorbed by highly educated people. You might almost say that the class struggle as defined by Codevilla is waged between people with more money than education, and people with more education than money...

...If one idea unites “The Ruling Class” it is Codevilla’s conviction that white Christians are targets of oppression and discrimination fully equal to that which ever oppressed black Americans. Thus Codevilla asserts that today’s ruling class “can no more believe that a Christian might be their intellectual and moral equal than white southerners of the Jim Crow era could think the same of Negroes.”...

...But here’s a curious fact about Codevilla’s book. Through “The Ruling Class,” Codevilla repeatedly estimates that 1/3 of the country follows “The Ruling Class” while 2/3 belong to the good-guy faction, “the Country Party.” Who are these bad 1/3? They cannot all be Stanford graduates.

Here’s why Codevilla gets coy. He notes that the Democratic party’s most loyal voters live on streets named after Martin Luther King. They are unwed parents. They are protected by the Community Reinvestment Act.

Codevilla’s story never explicitly acknowledges race, but it is unmistakably racialized. If Christian whites are America’s new Negroes, what happened to the old Negroes? Apparently they joined the Ruling Class...

...Perhaps the most surprising thing about Codevilla’s book is the absence of much in the way of a political program. It wants constitutionalism and lower taxes and less spending and less debt, which is all fine. But if you were a Tea Party politician looking for answers to the question, “What do we do?” you won’t find those answers here. Surprisingly, Codevilla more or less washes his hands of both politics and policy.

And there the book ends...

...It may seem a frustrating and disappointing end point. Having told people everything that is wrong with America – identified the guilty parties to be removed – promised that it will be easy to take power – you quit without advising them what to do if they should happen to gain power. How is that helpful?

The answer is that “The Ruling Class” is not a book about governing. It’s a book about feeling: about identifying targets for blame, about mobilizing anger against those targets, about defining who is – and who is not – a proper American. The book does not aspire to be useful, but to be satisfying to those who feel most outraged and alienated.

Which brings us to the real division in America revealed by “The Ruling Class.” Plainly, there are many people to whom this book offers a powerful and convincing message. And then there are those to whom it will appear an unsubstantiated, unconvincing mess.

Just speaking personally here, all the elements that I would expect to find in a book on this subject – some attempt to define basic concepts, some effort at proof, some attempt to justify intellectual moves like defining college professors INTO the “ruling class” and defining the CEOs of major corporations OUT – all these elements are missing.

Codevilla piles bare assertion atop bare assertion atop bare assertion, in service of a series of generalizations that will seem convincing only to those who believed them already. The “Ruling Class” is a work of prejudice-ratification, not analysis in any sense. And yet … plainly there are plenty of people who ask nothing better from a book like this than prejudice-ratification. They know what they think, and what they want is somebody to reflect those thoughts back to them – only even more emphatic, even more impassionated, even more disdainful of anybody who might think differently.

If we were dividing America into segments, perhaps this would be as good a division as any: between those who live in the closed information system served by books like “The Ruling Class,” and those who live in more open systems, where assertions must be corroborated, and where generalizations must rest on evidence.

That divide seems to gape especially wide these days, judging at least by the enthusiastic reception of this embittered polemic by so many who call themselves conservative."

I would cut this post off here, but to keep this blog from becoming little more than a battle of excerpts, I'll add my own thoughts.

Mostly, "The Ruling Class" is just one big laundry list of complaints which social conservatives have been voicing with steadily ascending ferocity since I was in grade school. It's only novelty is to roll all these complaints into one big Super Conspiracy Theory, and identifies, vaguely, a tightly organized cabal of liberal academics as the conspirators. To say it fairly blames traditional Republican politicals equally is something of a misnomer. Actually, what it does is blames some conservatives for acting like liberals - wolves, if you will, in sheep's clothing.

Now I really don't have a problem with people who advance the argument that stable, traditional marriages are better for society than same sex marriages, that smaller government is better than bigger government, that Christian faith is better than atheism - and all the rest. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, but certainly they deserve a fair hearing.

However, the real problem I have with "The Ruling Class" has nothing to do with whatever you or I think about the validity of these arguments. The real problem is that the article purposefully, directly and insultingly accuses academic achievement as the fundamental source of society's ills. You can't read it any other way. It states, matter of factly and in plain English, that people who commit themselves to excellence in the study of the arts and sciences and become experts, are magically transformed into elite, know-it-all snobs who despise the "common man". They want nothing more than to fashion a godless society in which common men are treated as cattle.

What utter bunk that is! Steve, I've known my share of experts. Some of them, frankly, are insufferable. These are the people who seem to believe their greater knowledge of one subject or another somehow makes them superior to me. I can't stand people like that any better than you can. But this is not the norm, and to build on this minor aggravation the theory that the simple pursuit of knowledge is morally corrupting is both childish and ignorant.

At a time when America is falling behind the rest of the world's developed nations in terms of academic achievement, and as never before needs to nurture and encourage education at all levels, we get blockheads like this Angelo Codevilla making education itself out to be a form of moral perversion. I don't think I can find words to describe how harmful this idea is, not just to America, but to civilization as a whole. So I'll just confine myself to one certain consequence.

How many kids I wonder, will be denied the realization of their academic potential because their otherwise thoughtful and sincere parents bought into disturbing fantasies like this one? This to me is where the pleasant distraction of political discourse begins to have real consequences for real people. You know Steve, here I'm talking about the "real people" out there in rural America which Mr. Codevilla claims he cares about. Fewer of them will become biologists, or climate scientists, or historians, or jurists, or any of a hundred other professionals America desperately needs, because Mr. Codevilla and his like have convinced some parents that study in these fields will turn their children into monsters.

One other point.

Many, including yourself I assume, will assert that education itself is not at fault, but that liberals have constructed an educational system which has the single goal of confirming their own social and political beliefs. Oddly enough this premise, as described by Mr. Codevilla, rests on the idea that it was the teachers and professors themselves who effected this construction, from the inside, if you will. Here's where things really begin to go off the rails and we start looking for a solution imposed by someone on the outside.

Ominously, Mr. Codevilla says:

"Achieving the country class's inherently revolutionary objectives in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with its own diversity would require the Country Party to use legislation primarily as a tool to remove obstacles, to instruct, to reintroduce into American life ways and habits that had been cast aside."

"...(The Country Party) would have to take responsibility for curriculum and administration away from credentialed experts, and they would have to explain why they know better. This would involve a level of political articulation of the body politic far beyond voting in elections every two years."

In other words, Mr. Codevilla advocates taking control of education away from educators and putting it into the hands of political ideologists. Again, that's the only way you can read this.

Steve, please. Think this through. Which practitioners of politics exactly are you planning on having decide which tenets of science are true and which are not? Who is going to be the new sheriff in town? And how can you be sure it will be a sheriff who always agrees with your brand of politics and religion? I mean, having set in motion a mechanism whereby politicians tell scientists what they can study and teach and what they cannot study and teach, how can you be so sure they will always agree with your point of view? Are you really that blind?

Furthermore (and lastly), what possible good can come of putting a public school teacher in charge of your child's religious education? With just the diversity and conflict among America's Christian denominations alone to go on, how can you possibly assume that teachers will always teach the religious principles you want your child to experience?

Or maybe you think it would be better to practice parochialism: public schools in predominantly Mormon areas will hire teachers to teach Mormonism, Catholic neighborhoods will teach Catholicism, Baptists will teach one of the several diverse Baptist theologies... I assume Reverend Wright's Trinity Church will furnish teachers to teach black liberation theology in Chicago schools. People of different Christian denominations in each area will just have to either like it or move out. What a mess!

Steve, that's what's going to happen when you put "religion back into government". You innocently assume government, either nationally or locally, will uniformly encourage your conception of the Christian experience. But what's worse: keeping religion out of government and in the hands of private individuals, or putting politicians in charge of it? Have you really thought this through?

Enjoy,

-Chris

Election Night Shuffle

2010-11-02T05:57:00.000-07:00

Steve,

As far as election predictions are concerned, all I can say with any conviction is that the polls are probably correct and Democrats likely lose control of the House, if not the Senate as well.

Even in the best of times, the U.S. Congress is a three ring circus, and in case you hadn't noticed these aren't the best of times. Competent government has always taken a back seat to partisan politics, and who knows if this conundrum is going to play a historically greater role than it has in the past. The only thing we can say for sure is that America is in desperate need of competent government and we aren't going to get it.

Other than that, both sides will probably claim massive voter fraud in every close race. It's become de rigueur, and no election is really complete without it. Considering all the potential law-suits, it probably won't be until well into March before the next Congress is fully seated - which ought to add considerably to the mirth and merriment.

You are voting Democrat, aren't you?

-Chris

2010 Election Predictions

2010-11-02T05:42:00.000-07:00

(National only)
In the HOUSE - I'm predicting a gain of 64 seats by the Republicans, with wins in some unexpected seats which were once thought to be 'safe' for Democrats. Conversely, they will *not* win some seats they expected to get; it balances. Some Republicans will LOSE races due to 'throw *all* the rascals out' voter anger. I wouldn't be very surprised if they win as many as 75-80 seats, but I think that's too much to bank on.

In the Senate - I'm predicting a Republican gain of 8 seats (not enough for a majority: they would need 10). I would be surprised if they pull off a major upset and actually got control, and it's possible: just remote. What I *hope* happens would be a gain of NINE seats, shifting the balance to 50-50 and setting things up for some very interesting times with Joe Lieberman for the next 2 years. ;-)

I will predict Harry Reid loses. and don't be surprised if Pelosi loses her seat, too. Lightning rods. I further predict that the Republicans will squander the 'victory' and misinterpret the results, just like Pres. Obama assumed his victory in 2008 was a 'mandate' to implement his policies and beliefs: instead, the rabble is simply frustrated with the status quo. "A pox on both their houses", et.al.

- Steve

“Who's In Charge?” - Part 5 - The New Red Outsiders

2010-11-01T09:34:00.000-07:00

“Who's In Charge?” - Part 5 - The New Red Outsiders

Who stands against the Elite? Let's call them the New Red Outsiders.

Defining the New Red is difficult because it has so many facets. It has no privileged podiums, and speaks with many voices, often inharmonious. But - It shares above all the desire to be rid of rulers it regards inept and self-important. It defines itself practically in terms of reflexive reaction against the rulers' defining ideas and proclivities -- e.g., ever higher taxes and expanding government, subsidizing political favorites, social engineering, approval of abortion, etc. Many want to restore a way of life that has been superseded. Demographically, the New Red are the other side of the Elite coin: its most distinguishing characteristics are marriage, children, and religious practice. Both groups include the professionally accomplished and the mediocre, geniuses and dolts, the New Red are different because of its non-orientation to government and its members' yearning to rule themselves rather than be ruled by others.

Even when members of the New Red happen to be government officials or officers of major corporations, their concerns are essentially private; in their view, government owes to its people equal treatment rather than action to correct what anyone perceives as imbalance or grievance. Hence they tend to oppose special treatment, whether for corporations or for social categories. Rather than gaming government regulations, they try to stay as far from them as possible. The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo, which allows the private property of some to be taken by others with better connections to government, reminded the New Red that government is not its friend.

Negative orientation to privilege distinguishes the corporate officer who tries to keep his company from joining the Business Council of large corporations who have close ties with government from the fellow in the next office. The first wants the company to grow by producing. The second wants it to grow by moving to the trough. It sets apart the schoolteacher who resents the union to which he is forced to belong for putting the union's interests above those of parents who want to choose their children's schools. In general, the New Red includes all those in stations high and low who are aghast at how relatively little honest work yields, by comparison with what just a little connection with the right bureaucracy can get you. It includes those who take the side of outsiders against insiders, of small institutions against large ones, of local government against the state or federal.

The New Red Outsider is convinced that big business, big government, and big finance are as linked and interconnected as never before and that ordinary people are more unequal than ever... and this is Not A Good Thing.

Nothing has set the New Red apart more than the Elite's insistence that Ordinary People (i.e., not the Elite) are intellectually and hence otherwise humanly inferior. Persons who were brought up to believe themselves as worthy as anyone, who manage their own lives to their own satisfaction, naturally resent politicians of both parties who say that the issues of modern life are too complex for any but the Elite. Most Outsiders are insulted by the Elite's dismissal of opposition as mere "anger and frustration" (implying stupidity). The ask the question: Since when and by what right does intelligence trump human equality? Moreover, if the politicians are so smart, why have they made life for all of us WORSE?

The New Red Outsider actually believes that America's ways are superior to the rest of the world's, and regards most of mankind as less free, less prosperous, and less virtuous. It manages to take delight in croissants and thinks Toyota's factory methods are worth imitating, but it dislikes the idea of adhering to "world standards." Also, the Outsiders takes part in the U.S. armed forces body and soul: nearly all the enlisted, non-commissioned officers and officers under flag rank belong to this group in every measurable way. Few vote for the Democratic Party. You do not doubt that you are amidst the New Red Outsiders when the American flag passes by or "God Bless America" is sung after seven innings of baseball, and most people around you show reverence.

Unlike the Elites, the New Red does not share a single intellectual orthodoxy, set of tastes, or ideal lifestyle - and have desire to try and establish one. Its different segments draw their notions of human equality from different sources: Christians and Jews believe it is God's law. Libertarians assert it from Hobbes and Darwin bases. Many just consider equality the foundation of Being American. Some just hate snobs. Some of the New Red follow the stars and the music out of Nashville and Branson, Missouri (entertainment complexes larger than Hollywood) because since the 1970s most of Hollywood's products have appealed to the mores of the Elites and its hangers on than to a large percentage of Ordinary Americans. The same goes for "popular music" and television.

Each of the New Red's diverse parts has its own agenda. Independent businesspeople are naturally more sensitive to the growth of privileged relations between government and their competitors. Persons who would like to lead their community dislike the advantages that Democratic and Republican party establishments are accruing. Parents of young children and young women anxious about marriage worry that cultural directives from on high are dispelling their dreams. The faithful to God sense persecution. All resent higher taxes and loss of freedom. More and more realize that their own agenda's advancement requires concerting resistance to the Elite ruling class across the board.

Not being at the table when government makes the rules about how you must run your business, knowing that you will be required to pay more, work harder, and show deference for the privilege of making less money, is the independent businessman's nightmare. But what to do about it? The penetration of needless bureaucracy into government and business (e.g., the network of subsidies, preferences, and regulations) is so thick and deep that independent businesspeople cannot hope to undo any given regulation or grant of privilege, simply because the people "at the table" receive and recycle into politics tons of money to keep the status quo going. No manufacturer can hope to reduce the subsidies that raise his fuel costs. No set of doctors can shield themselves from the increased costs and bureaucracy resulting from government mandates. The agenda of Independent Business has been to resist the expansion of government in general, and of course to reduce taxes. Pursuit of this agenda with arguments about economic efficiency and job creation (typically with support of the Republican Party) usually results in enough relief to discourage more vigorous action.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The sum of good government,” is not taking "from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." For government to deliberately advantage some at the expense of others, he said, "is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association." More and more independent businesspeople have come to think of their economic problems in moral terms - few realize how revolutionary that is.

As bureaucrats and teachers' unions disempowered neighborhood school boards, while the governments of towns, counties, and states were becoming conduits for federal mandates, as the Elites reduced the number and importance of things that American communities could decide for themselves, America's thirst for self-governance has reawakened. The fact that public employees are almost always paid more and have more generous benefits than the private sector people whose taxes support them only sharpened the sense among many Outsiders so that they now work for public employees rather than the other way around. But how to reverse the roles? How can voters regain control of government? Restoring localities' traditional powers over schools, including standards, curriculum, and prayer, would take repudiating two generations of Supreme Court rulings. So would the restoration of traditional "police" powers over behavior in public places. Bringing public employee unions to heel is only incidentally a matter of cutting pay and benefits. As self-governance is crimped primarily by the powers of government personified in its employees, restoring it involves primarily deciding that any number of functions now performed and the professional specialties who perform them, e.g., social workers, are superfluous (or worse). Explaining to one's self and neighbors why such functions and personnel do more harm than good, while the ruling class brings its powers to bear to discredit you, is a very revolutionary thing to do.

America's pro-family movement is a reaction to the Elite agenda: emptying marriage of legal sanction, promoting abortion, and progressively excluding parents from their children's education. Americans reacted to these challenges primarily by sorting themselves out. Close friendships and above all marriages became rarer between persons who think well of divorce, abortion, and government authority over children and those who do not. The home-school movement involves not only each family educating its own children, but also extensive and growing social, intellectual, and spiritual contact among like-minded persons.

Few of the New Red have any illusion, however, that simply retreating into private associations will long save their families from societal influences which exist to discredit their ways. But stopping the Elite intrusions into every day life would require discrediting its entire conception of man, of right and wrong, as well as of the role of courts in popular government. That revolutionary task would involve far more than legislation.

The Elite's efforts to discredit and drive worship of God out of public life convinced many among the vast majority of Americans who believe and pray that today's Elite regime is hostile to the most important things of all. Not even the Soviet Union arrested students for wearing crosses or praying, or reading the Bible on school property, as some U.S. localities have done in response to Supreme Court rulings. Every December, they are reminded the Elite deems the very word "Christmas" to be offensive. Every time they try to manifest their religious identity in public affairs, they are deluged by accusations of being the "American Taliban" or trying to set up a "theocracy." Let members of the New Red Outsiders object to anything the Elites say or do, and their objection will be characterized as "religious" in nature (e.g., “irrational”), and not to be considered on a par with the "science" (of which the Elite are the sole interpreter). Because aggressive, intolerant secularism is the moral and intellectual basis of the Elite claim to rule, resistance to such rulers, whether to the immorality of economic subsidies and privileges, or to the violation of the principle of equal treatment under equal law, or to its seizure of children's education, must deal with secularism's intellectual and moral core. This lies beyond the boundaries of politics as the term is commonly understood.

Worse, the Elite appetite for deference, power, and perks grows and grows and grows. The Outsiders now disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The Elite ruling class is convinced the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all - stupid. The Outsiders are ever more convinced that our politicians are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The (Elite) rulers want the ruled (Outsiders) to just shut up and obey. The Ordinary Americans want self-governance.

The clash between the two is about which side's vision of itself and of the other is right and which is wrong. Because each side - especially the Elite class - embodies its views on the issues, concessions by one side to another on any issue tend to discredit that side's view of itself. One side or the other will prevail - but the outcome remains unpredictable.

Frankly, the Elite hold most of the cards: because it has established itself as the fount of authority, its primacy is based on habits of deference. Changing this situation will involve far more than electoral politics. The New Red Outsiders face the uncomfortable question: must we to accept what was done to us just because it was done? Sweeping away a half century's accretions of bad habits (and trying to preserve the good things hidden among the bad) is going to be difficult, to say the least. Establishing, even reestablishing, a set of better institutions and habits is much harder, especially as the Outsiders, by definition, lack organization. By contrast, the Elite holds strong defensive positions and is well represented by the Democratic Party. A two to one numerical voting disadvantage would lean toward defeat for the Outsiders, while victory would leave the Elite in control of a people whose confidence it cannot regain.

Certainly the New Red Outsiders lack its own political vehicle. In the short term, the Outsiders have no alternative but to channel its political efforts through the Republican Party, which is eager for its support. But the Republican Party does not exist to represent the views of the Outsiders. To do so, it would have to become principles-based, as it has not been since the mid-1860s. The few who tried to do that were treated by the party as rebels: Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The party helped defeat Goldwater. When it failed to stop Reagan, it saddled his and subsequent Republican administrations with its own Elites who, under the Bush family, repudiated Reagan's principles as much as they could. Barack Obama exaggerated in charging that Republicans had driven the country "into the ditch" all alone. But they had a hand in it. Few Republican voters, never mind the larger group of New Red Outsiders, have confidence that the Republican party is actually on their side.

In the long run, the Outsiders will not support a party as conflicted as today's Republicans. The Republican politicians who really want to represent the Ordinary masses will either reform the party in an unmistakable manner, or start a new one - just like Abraham Lincoln started the Republican Party from the Whigs in the 1850s.

Regardless of names and labels, American politics in the future will be a confrontation between the Outsiders and the Ruling Elites. The Democratic Party having transformed itself into a unit with near-European discipline, challenging it would seem to require a rival party which is at least as disciplined. Any country party would have to be wise and skillful indeed not to become the Democrats' mirror image.

Unfortunately, to defeat the Elites, a new party has no choice but to imitate the Democrats, at least in some ways and for a while. Consider: The Elite Ruling Class denies its opponents' legitimacy. Democratic officials rarely speak on public affairs without reiterating the litany of his class's claim to authority, contrasting it with opponents who are either uninformed, stupid, racist, shills for business, violent, fundamentalist, or all of the above. They do this in the hope that opponents, hearing no other characterizations of themselves and no authoritative voice discrediting the Elites, will be dispirited. For the Outsiders to seriously contend for self-governance, the political party that represents it will have to discredit not just such patent frauds as ethanol mandates, the pretense that taxes can control "climate change," and the outrage of banning God from public life.

The Democrats, having set the rules of modern politics, require opponents who want electoral success to follow these rules. This means a New Party would have to attack the Elite class's fundamental claims to its superior intellect and morality in ways that dispirit the target and hearten one's own. Such attacks themselves are highly distasteful to Ordinary Americans already weary of negative campaign tactics and the politics of personal destruction.

Suppose that the New American Party (whatever its name might be) were to capture Congress, the presidency, and most statehouses. What then would it do? Especially if its majority were slim, it would be tempted to follow the Democrats' plan of 2009-2010 - which was to write its wish list of reforms into law regardless of the Constitution and enact them by partisan majorities supported by interest groups that gain from them, while continuing to vilify the other side. Whatever effect this might have, it surely would not be to make America safe for self-governance because by carrying out its own "revolution from above" to reverse the Elite ruling class's previous "revolution from above," it would have made that ruinous practice standard in America. Moreover, a revolution designed at party headquarters would be antithetical to the New Red Outsider's diversity as well as to the American Founders' legacy.

Achieving inherently revolutionary objectives in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with its own diversity would require the New American Party to use legislation primarily as a tool to remove obstacles, to instruct, to reintroduce into American life ways and habits that had been cast aside. Passing national legislation is easier than getting people to take up the responsibilities of citizens, fathers, and entrepreneurs.

Reducing the taxes that most Americans resent requires eliminating the network of subsidies to millions of other Americans that these taxes finance, and eliminating the jobs of government employees who administer them. Eliminating that network is practical, if at all, if done simultaneously, both because subsidies are morally wrong and economically counterproductive, and because the country cannot afford the practice in general. The electorate is likely to cut off millions of government clients, high and low, only if its choice is between no economic privilege for anyone and ratifying government's role as the arbiter of all our fortunes. The same goes for government grants to and contracts with so-called nonprofit institutions or non-governmental organizations. The case against all arrangements by which the government favors some groups of citizens is easier to make than that against any such arrangement. Without too much fuss, a few obviously burdensome bureaucracies, like the Department of Education, can be eliminated, while money can be cut off to partisan enterprises such as the National Endowments and Public Broadcasting. That sort of thing is as necessary to the American body politic as a weight reduction program is essential to restoring the health of any human body degraded by obesity and lack of exercise. Yet shedding fat is the easy part. Restoring atrophied muscles is harder. Re-enabling the body to do elementary tasks takes yet more concentration.

What will be required is a level of political action and activity of the body politic far beyond voting in elections every two years. If self-governance means anything, it means that those who exercise government power must depend on elections. The shorter the electoral leash, the likelier an official to have his chain yanked by voters, the more truly republican the government is. Yet to subject the modern administrative state's agencies to electoral control would require ordinary citizens to take an interest in any number of technical matters.

The Law can require environmental regulators or insurance commissioners, or judges or auditors to be elected. But only citizens' discernment and vigilance could make these officials good. Only citizens' understanding of and commitment to law can possibly reverse the patent disregard for the Constitution and statutes that has permeated American life. Unfortunately, it is easier for anyone who dislikes a court's or an official's unlawful act to counter it with another unlawful one than to draw all parties back to the foundation of truth.

How can Ordinary Americans drive home Lincoln's lesson that trifling with the Constitution for the most heartfelt of motives destroys its protections for all? What if an Outsider majority in both houses of Congress were to co-sponsor a "Bill of Attainder to deprive Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and other persons of liberty and property without further process of law for having violated the following ex post facto law..." and larded this constitutional monstrosity with an Article III Section 2 exemption from federal court review? When the affected members of the ruling class asked where Congress gets the authority to pass a bill every word of which is contrary to the Constitution, they would be confronted, publicly, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's answer to a question on the Congress's constitutional authority to mandate individuals to purchase certain kinds of insurance: "Are you kidding? Are you kidding?" The point having been made, the New American Party could lead public discussions around the country on why even the noblest purposes (say, Title II of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964) cannot be allowed to trump the Constitution.

How the New Red Outsiders and the Elite Ruling class might clash on each item of their contrasting agendas is beyond the vision of these posts. Suffice it to say that the Elite's greatest difficulty (aside from being outnumbered) will be to argue that in spite of Real World observations to the contrary, the revolution the Elite desires to force upon America is sustainable. For its part, the Outsiders greatest difficulty will be to enable a revolution to take place without imposing it by force.

After all, America has been imposed on enough. But the Revolution is upon us.

- Steve