Thursday, November 25, 2010
Deep Breath
Well, that's going to be it for a while. Having transposed my historical posts, I'll be updating this (even) less frequently, as I generate them. Doubtful that anyone will have seen all of this, but if you happen upon it, hope you've enjoyed.
Republican "Review" of HCR Repeal, November 10, 2010
Forget about the morality of dumping new protections for our most vulnerable - a concern that obviously is not weighing on the minds of Congressional Republicans.
I think we can start with the premise that a wholesale repeal will be impossible, structurally and because there are clearly popular subparts of PPACA. That leaves the interesting question of what specifically would be proposed for repeal, something that would actually increase awareness of the beneficial parts of the PPACA. Here's a chart showing the political folly of that idea:
http://voi
This is all, therefore, little more than posturing of the bovine sort. Exactly what we would expect, I suppose.
I think we can start with the premise that a wholesale repeal will be impossible, structurally and because there are clearly popular subparts of PPACA. That leaves the interesting question of what specifically would be proposed for repeal, something that would actually increase awareness of the beneficial parts of the PPACA. Here's a chart showing the political folly of that idea:
http://voi
This is all, therefore, little more than posturing of the bovine sort. Exactly what we would expect, I suppose.
Equivocations on Afghanistan, November 10, 2010
Statements by SecDef Gates have been equivocal and noncommittal on the Afghanistan timetable. Understandable, given that the strategy is to use current forces to pressure various tribal elements to negotiate despite the prospect that relief will come to them soon, in the form of a US withdrawal. (Of course a negotiated settlement can never happen in any meaningful way, given the heterogeneity of these tribal elements, for which the generic moniker Taliban is misleading, and given the rampant corruption of the Karzai "regime".)
The more interesting piece of this puzzle concerns the use of India and Pakistan against one another: a $2 billion military aid package for Pakistan, coupled with US drone attacks inside Pakistan (and coinciding with a Mosque bombing there); and at the same time gestures seeming to invite India to even greater presence in Afghanistan - a strategic threat to Pakistan. A sly game, and difficult to predict the outcome.
Whatever the outcome of that complicated gambit, the cost benefit ratio of conquering and holding this particular foreign nation as a method of dealing with an estimated 50 AQ in Afghanistan and 300 in Pak does not support a continued presence, nor does any remote prospect of TAPI. Even more so in the context of movement repudiations of AQ as a result of its impact on innocent civilians.
Time to shut this one down.
The more interesting piece of this puzzle concerns the use of India and Pakistan against one another: a $2 billion military aid package for Pakistan, coupled with US drone attacks inside Pakistan (and coinciding with a Mosque bombing there); and at the same time gestures seeming to invite India to even greater presence in Afghanistan - a strategic threat to Pakistan. A sly game, and difficult to predict the outcome.
Whatever the outcome of that complicated gambit, the cost benefit ratio of conquering and holding this particular foreign nation as a method of dealing with an estimated 50 AQ in Afghanistan and 300 in Pak does not support a continued presence, nor does any remote prospect of TAPI. Even more so in the context of movement repudiations of AQ as a result of its impact on innocent civilians.
Time to shut this one down.
On Jim DeMint's Inability to Identify Specific Budget Cuts, November 7, 2010
The Republicans' entire fiscal philosophy, having been completely discredited for well over 25 years at this point (as fiscal policy Reaganomics failed almost immediately, hugely expanding the deficit), is transparently bankrupt and a joke. It makes sense only as a tool to deliver public goods to their corporate and high wealth constituents under what every congressional Republican recognizes are utterly vacant and disingenuous arguments.
We simply can't go on buying the world's most expensive military, funding basic research, having highways, running a department of justice, etc., and telling those well off citizens who most benefit from the system that they needn't pay for it. It's like having a bunch of grandees in a fancy restaurant, then sending the bill to the waiters to put on the waiters' personal credit cards. It would be comical if it weren't so tragic.
How about let's stay a first world country, and those of us who do well here grow a sense of shame and decency and be willing to pitch in.
We simply can't go on buying the world's most expensive military, funding basic research, having highways, running a department of justice, etc., and telling those well off citizens who most benefit from the system that they needn't pay for it. It's like having a bunch of grandees in a fancy restaurant, then sending the bill to the waiters to put on the waiters' personal credit cards. It would be comical if it weren't so tragic.
How about let's stay a first world country, and those of us who do well here grow a sense of shame and decency and be willing to pitch in.
On the Extinction of Southern Democrats, November 5, 2010
Let's calm down with all the hating on the South. The Southern states are chock full of people mired in terrible hardship and suffering, not least from the misinformation campaigns and economic policies that Republicans are exporting to other parts of the country. Unless these trends are resisted successfully, we won't be able to look very smugly at the South, because we'll all be experiencing the same types of conditions they're experiencing today - reduced opportunity, less fulsome labor protections, poor access to education, deeper social stratification, concentration of wealth and income, and so on.
So instead of deriding or writing off our brothers and sisters in the South, but with no illusions about the society there, let's confront directly the racial strife that underlies our problems (both here and there) and that makes it possible for basic protections such as health care to be undermined and caricatured as deprivations imposed for the benefit of some "other" (take your pick) rather than enhancements that will help us all.
Only by exposing the "divide and conquer" strategy implemented so successfully since the 1970s by the right, and making clear to everyone (both here and in the South) the need to stand together, can we put in the basic reforms we need to come up to the standards of other industrialized nations.
So instead of deriding or writing off our brothers and sisters in the South, but with no illusions about the society there, let's confront directly the racial strife that underlies our problems (both here and there) and that makes it possible for basic protections such as health care to be undermined and caricatured as deprivations imposed for the benefit of some "other" (take your pick) rather than enhancements that will help us all.
Only by exposing the "divide and conquer" strategy implemented so successfully since the 1970s by the right, and making clear to everyone (both here and in the South) the need to stand together, can we put in the basic reforms we need to come up to the standards of other industrialized nations.
On Conciliatory Post Election Statements by President Obama, November 3, 2010
"For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred. "
Oh wait, no, strike that. What I meant to say was:
"I think I have been willing to compromise in the past and I will be willing to compromise going forward"
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred. "
Oh wait, no, strike that. What I meant to say was:
"I think I have been willing to compromise in the past and I will be willing to compromise going forward"
On Statements by Ken Buck Disagreeing with Separation of Church and State, October 27, 2010
How wonderfully well thought out all these Tea Party ideas are!
Once we dispense with the First Amendment (as long as we're chucking the Establishment Clause, heck, why not go for it and get rid of the whole thing!), we can move on to figuring out who gets to establish their religion.
With about 78% affiliation (http://rel
1. The Catholic Church, 68,115,001 members, up 1.49 percent.
2. Southern Baptist Convention
Once we dispense with the First Amendment (as long as we're chucking the Establishment Clause, heck, why not go for it and get rid of the whole thing!), we can move on to figuring out who gets to establish their religion.
With about 78% affiliation (http://rel
1. The Catholic Church, 68,115,001 members, up 1.49 percent.
2. Southern Baptist Convention
On the Supreme Court, October 22, 2010
One attractive path for making our feelings known on this issue in a way the Court will understand would be, as I also mentioned in the Justice Thomas thread, reintroducing the text of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1937. If passed today, it would give the President about five appointments to the Supreme Court, along with adding needed flexibility for lower court dockets. The new appointments, exercisable immediately, together with a dash of filibuster reform to facilitate Senate approval of nominees, would certainly bring a gust of fresh energy and perspective to the Court.
On Statements by Stephen Broden Advocating Revolution, October 22, 2010
Action begets reaction, so I wonder how this would ultimately play out for those on the right. The last few times a major revolutionary force has been unleashed (France 1793, Russia 1918-1922, China 1951-52), it hasn't worked out so well for the plutocracy.
Given the number of jobless and the increasing income and wealth inequality we are seeing these days, and the successful efforts of moneyed interests to stop help flowing to those in need, it's interesting those on the right are putting this in play just now. Rather an unwise choice I'd say.
Given the number of jobless and the increasing income and wealth inequality we are seeing these days, and the successful efforts of moneyed interests to stop help flowing to those in need, it's interesting those on the right are putting this in play just now. Rather an unwise choice I'd say.
Rand Paul Statements on Gun Rights, October 11, 2010
The original point of gun rights, from a Constitutional perspective, was to ensure a viable militia defense in the absence of a standing army. I haven't heard Mr Paul come out against a standing army yet, but you never know I suppose.
In the meantime, it would certainly behoove him to live in New York City for a while, and/or spend some time in a large city trauma unit, to get a better sense of what it really means to have a densely populated urban area awash in guns. Not that the guy who couldn't connect the dots between private conduct and civil rights is likely to absorb reality, or figure out the difference between city and country, with any degree of alacrity, but it couldn't hurt.
As to religion, Mr Paul seems all in favor of practical curtailments when the religion isn't popular, as shown by his stance on the lower Manhattan rec center, so perhaps he needs to reflect on that a bit further.
Indeed, with any luck he will reflect for a long, long time, in obscurity and not in any elected office.
In the meantime, it would certainly behoove him to live in New York City for a while, and/or spend some time in a large city trauma unit, to get a better sense of what it really means to have a densely populated urban area awash in guns. Not that the guy who couldn't connect the dots between private conduct and civil rights is likely to absorb reality, or figure out the difference between city and country, with any degree of alacrity, but it couldn't hurt.
As to religion, Mr Paul seems all in favor of practical curtailments when the religion isn't popular, as shown by his stance on the lower Manhattan rec center, so perhaps he needs to reflect on that a bit further.
Indeed, with any luck he will reflect for a long, long time, in obscurity and not in any elected office.
More Commentary on Middle East Talks, October 10, 2010
A small vignette from Israel's white phosphorus attacks on civilian areas in Gaza:
"The stairs were very smoky. We went inside and it smelled very strange. We had never experienced that before. It was difficult to go forward. First I saw my mother with burns coming out of the house. We found her at the entrance. She told us to go in and get my injured brothers. But when we got inside we saw nothing because of the smoke and dust, and we couldn't breathe. We found my brother's wife, Ghada, she was burning in flames, and also her daughter Farah, also burning. There were also my brothers Yusif and Ali. All of them were burning badly; their clothes were melting. They were all burned but Abd al-Rahim and my father had their heads cut from their bodies too. We took the wounded in two tractors, with my mother in the first one. We tried to call an ambulance but they said they couldn't come."
http://www
In addition to the use of white phosphorus on densely populated civilian areas, it is worth bearing in mind that Israelis have killed more than six times the number of civilians that Palestinians have during the past 10 years of conflict (http://www
Israel has also engaged in questionable conduct with respect to US military technology (e.g. http://www
Excerpts of the recent UN report on the humanitarian aid flotilla, intercepted by Israeli forces, on which they killed one American citizen and injured another:
http://www
"The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted a grave violation of human rights law and international humanitarian law. The Mission considers that several violations and offences have been committed. It is not satisfied that, in the time available, it has been able to compile a comprehensive list of all offences. However, there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
• Wilful killing;
• Torture or inhuman treatment;
• Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."
Brief additional background:
http://www
"The stairs were very smoky. We went inside and it smelled very strange. We had never experienced that before. It was difficult to go forward. First I saw my mother with burns coming out of the house. We found her at the entrance. She told us to go in and get my injured brothers. But when we got inside we saw nothing because of the smoke and dust, and we couldn't breathe. We found my brother's wife, Ghada, she was burning in flames, and also her daughter Farah, also burning. There were also my brothers Yusif and Ali. All of them were burning badly; their clothes were melting. They were all burned but Abd al-Rahim and my father had their heads cut from their bodies too. We took the wounded in two tractors, with my mother in the first one. We tried to call an ambulance but they said they couldn't come."
http://www
In addition to the use of white phosphorus on densely populated civilian areas, it is worth bearing in mind that Israelis have killed more than six times the number of civilians that Palestinians have during the past 10 years of conflict (http://www
Israel has also engaged in questionable conduct with respect to US military technology (e.g. http://www
Excerpts of the recent UN report on the humanitarian aid flotilla, intercepted by Israeli forces, on which they killed one American citizen and injured another:
http://www
"The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted a grave violation of human rights law and international humanitarian law. The Mission considers that several violations and offences have been committed. It is not satisfied that, in the time available, it has been able to compile a comprehensive list of all offences. However, there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
• Wilful killing;
• Torture or inhuman treatment;
• Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."
Brief additional background:
http://www
On Middle East Matters, October 9, 2010
Our taxpayers are supporting this sort of thing at present,
http://art
Not to mention this sort of atrocity:
http://www
I think we'll support programs here thank you very much.
http://art
Not to mention this sort of atrocity:
http://www
I think we'll support programs here thank you very much.
On Biden and Clinton Trading Jobs, October 6, 2010
Back in 2008, James Carville made some comments about Ms Clinton's fortitude, relative to then-candidate Obama's, that I found fairly repugnant (I won't repeat them, but they were posted on Huffpo in May of 08 if you want to look for them). And in fact I still feel that way.
Yet time has proven that there is a measure of truth in in Mr Carville's words. And for that reason, as far fetched as I think the possibility is that Ms Clinton would be put on the ticket with President Obama, I have to say I find it appealing, and I think, oddly enough, that they would make a great team in those roles.
Yet time has proven that there is a measure of truth in in Mr Carville's words. And for that reason, as far fetched as I think the possibility is that Ms Clinton would be put on the ticket with President Obama, I have to say I find it appealing, and I think, oddly enough, that they would make a great team in those roles.
More on Income Inequality, September 27, 2010
Let's start with how the federal government works. Essentially, through a complex process, there's a decision about how much we want to spend on various items. The largest of these, apart from health care for the elderly and social security (an insurance program), is military, but it would include things like highways, for example.
With that amount in mind, the question arises how it will be paid for. For most of the 20th Century, the tax burden has been graduated, with those making more money paying a greater percentage of income. That's because as you make less money, the same percentage of your remaining income, after bills, is harder to afford. During and following WWII, up to about the mid 70s, there was a consensus around this structure. Thereafter, accelerating dramatically in 1980 and beyond, this changed as taxes were diminished for the most affluent Americans. At the time, it was argued that this would lead to increased government revenue to make up the shortfall; this proved incorrect. In fact, it led to massive deficits and greater private wealth at the top. At the same time, income from stock ownership has been favored, further diminishing taxes and increasing wealth at the top.
Adding to this, deregulation in certain sectors, largely unrestricted open trade and ever more expensive education (among other factors) have shifted income and wealth upward and diminished social mobility in the US. These are conscious policy choices that affect you and will affect your children and grandchildren. Enjoy.
With that amount in mind, the question arises how it will be paid for. For most of the 20th Century, the tax burden has been graduated, with those making more money paying a greater percentage of income. That's because as you make less money, the same percentage of your remaining income, after bills, is harder to afford. During and following WWII, up to about the mid 70s, there was a consensus around this structure. Thereafter, accelerating dramatically in 1980 and beyond, this changed as taxes were diminished for the most affluent Americans. At the time, it was argued that this would lead to increased government revenue to make up the shortfall; this proved incorrect. In fact, it led to massive deficits and greater private wealth at the top. At the same time, income from stock ownership has been favored, further diminishing taxes and increasing wealth at the top.
Adding to this, deregulation in certain sectors, largely unrestricted open trade and ever more expensive education (among other factors) have shifted income and wealth upward and diminished social mobility in the US. These are conscious policy choices that affect you and will affect your children and grandchildren. Enjoy.
An Alternative Pledge to America, Septemer 26, 2010
How about this for a pledge to America:
* I'll make sure you have a job, and I definitely won't let some plutocrat trade in your future for a bunch of tax breaks. Nobody's going to be laughing on their extra yacht while you wonder how to pay the mortgage. Not on my watch.
* I'll make sure you have access to education for your children, all the way through college, and not just at the expense of hocking your children's future.
* I won't send your sons and daughters on some damn fool crusade, and I won't squander your taxes on a military bigger than the next ten combined.
* I'll make sure you have health care, just like the citizens of every other industrialized nation. Are we so inept we can't do what everyone else has? Folks, I call BS on that.
* I will let nothing and nobody get in my way. I will be ruthless. I will fight for you in any and every way possible.
* I'll make sure you have a job, and I definitely won't let some plutocrat trade in your future for a bunch of tax breaks. Nobody's going to be laughing on their extra yacht while you wonder how to pay the mortgage. Not on my watch.
* I'll make sure you have access to education for your children, all the way through college, and not just at the expense of hocking your children's future.
* I won't send your sons and daughters on some damn fool crusade, and I won't squander your taxes on a military bigger than the next ten combined.
* I'll make sure you have health care, just like the citizens of every other industrialized nation. Are we so inept we can't do what everyone else has? Folks, I call BS on that.
* I will let nothing and nobody get in my way. I will be ruthless. I will fight for you in any and every way possible.
More on Income Inequality, September 26, 2010
Memo to voters: Surprise! You've been a victim of class warfare for about the last 30 years.
And now all the folks who've been sticking it to you all that time are going to use their increased wealth and influence to make sure they can keep right on going. Woohoo!
Next time you hear one of them making fun of the people trying to give their fellow citizens a hand, calling them "socialist" or telling them to "get a job", ask yourself where you were when they were setting up their cozy little roost, and what, if anything, you're going to do about it in the next election.
And now all the folks who've been sticking it to you all that time are going to use their increased wealth and influence to make sure they can keep right on going. Woohoo!
Next time you hear one of them making fun of the people trying to give their fellow citizens a hand, calling them "socialist" or telling them to "get a job", ask yourself where you were when they were setting up their cozy little roost, and what, if anything, you're going to do about it in the next election.
On Fighting, September 26, 2010
All of the many millions of people in our nation are affected by our federal government, for good or ill depending on whom we elect. In many cases -- as with deployment of our military, elder care and health care -- life and death, privation and despair, hang in the balance of their decisions. The stakes could hardly be higher.
Hence progressives must not shrink before a fight, nor hesitate to prevail. Though the facts are on our side, we must not get lost in a blizzard of detail nor allow ourselves to be defined by our opponents. These are elections not dissertation defenses. They call for clear, direct, concrete language.
Our opponents will bring the full arsenal of rhetorical tricks to this contest: straw men, ad hominems, tacit assertions, mockery, needling, quick questions that call for complex answers, false dichotomies, exaggerated expert disagreement, bandwagon appeals, slippery slope arguments, misleading metaphors, and on and on. Being similarly armed in this high stakes fight is a small price to pay for the public good that victory can bring.
So long as -- and this is a critical caveat -- we faithfully and aggressively implement our own agenda, and do not use the moral and factual deficiency of our opponents to cover a failure on our own part.
Hence progressives must not shrink before a fight, nor hesitate to prevail. Though the facts are on our side, we must not get lost in a blizzard of detail nor allow ourselves to be defined by our opponents. These are elections not dissertation defenses. They call for clear, direct, concrete language.
Our opponents will bring the full arsenal of rhetorical tricks to this contest: straw men, ad hominems, tacit assertions, mockery, needling, quick questions that call for complex answers, false dichotomies, exaggerated expert disagreement, bandwagon appeals, slippery slope arguments, misleading metaphors, and on and on. Being similarly armed in this high stakes fight is a small price to pay for the public good that victory can bring.
So long as -- and this is a critical caveat -- we faithfully and aggressively implement our own agenda, and do not use the moral and factual deficiency of our opponents to cover a failure on our own part.
On Americans' Underestimation of Income Inequality, September 21, 2010
The CIA World Factbook pegs our GINI coefficient at the more or less the same levels as Ivory Coast and Uruguay. Without getting technical, that is an abysmal metric. And ironically, there is presently less social mobility here in the "land of the free" than in the former lands of the gentry in Europe that many of our ancestors left to come here.
These are not magical outcomes but the result of deliberate policy choices that can be undone. Though with an angry public set to put back in power the very same bozos who got us to this unfortunate spot, it doesn't look very likely at the moment.
These are not magical outcomes but the result of deliberate policy choices that can be undone. Though with an angry public set to put back in power the very same bozos who got us to this unfortunate spot, it doesn't look very likely at the moment.
On Deficit Concerns, September 21, 2010
Yes, let's pay close attention to deficits. In fact, let's see exactly how heavily the Bush tax cuts for the most affluent have affected our deficits:
http://www
http://www
On Bill Clinton - Rachel Maddow Fracas, September 21, 2010
Corporations and affluent individuals and organizations get more purchase in the system, whether it's with Bill Clinton or with any other politician, because they can spend large amounts of money, directly and indirectly, and campaigns are expensive. In the case of corporations, the ability to relocate, and the tax revenue and jobs associated with domestic facilities, provide additional leverage points.
Want to level the playing field? Limit all spending, across the board, whether on issue ads, or electioneering or anything else, to an amount that any normal private individual can afford. That would make things much more equal, though not completely equal, but would also make campaigns difficult to fund, given the expense of television and other ads. So there would also need to be a component of free airtime and/or public funding.
That would also take some of the sting out of Citizens United, since corporations and other organizations would be limited to modest expenditures.
Want to level the playing field? Limit all spending, across the board, whether on issue ads, or electioneering or anything else, to an amount that any normal private individual can afford. That would make things much more equal, though not completely equal, but would also make campaigns difficult to fund, given the expense of television and other ads. So there would also need to be a component of free airtime and/or public funding.
That would also take some of the sting out of Citizens United, since corporations and other organizations would be limited to modest expenditures.
Monday, November 8, 2010
On Removal of the Mandate from PPACA, September 21, 2010
Adverse selection is mostly insurance companies' problem, and if they'll tolerate their Republican cronies blowing up their business model, then so what. (Maybe after they all go bankrupt, we'll finally get single payer.) The exception, I suppose is in total cost of coverage, but there are both premium and out of pocket limits in the bill. Possibly they could be strengthened, but most of the risk is with the insurers.
Not that there would ever be real enforcement of the mandate, given the weak remedial provisions.
Not that there would ever be real enforcement of the mandate, given the weak remedial provisions.
More On Anti Islamic Agitation by Mr Gingrich, September 18, 2010
he United States government recites the following concerning Muslims here: "Twenty-four percent of all Muslims and 29 percent of immigrant Muslims have college degrees, compared to 25 percent for the U.S. general population. Forty-one percent of all Muslim Americans and 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average). This is likely due to the strong concentration of Muslims in professional, managerial, and technical fields, especially in information technology, education, medicine, law, and the corporate world." http://www
Ahh the wisdom of Mr Gingrich, Ms Palin and others to focus attention on this synthetic conflict and to foster division among ordinary people; that way we plebians won't have to trouble ourselves with such unimportant matters as the rich pushing a tax break for themselves while having their cronies resist jobless benefits, etc. And of course it shows how faithful they are to our cherished freedoms.
The racism inherent in Mr Gingrich's remarks is so thinly concealed that it is evident he could barely be bothered to hide it. Watching Mr Powell react, it's not just appalling that Mr Gingrich and others of his ilk have the spotlight on this; it's embarrassing.
If we remain good and decent as a people, if we hearken to the better angles of our nature, if we see what unites us instead of rising to anger and prejudice based on the unfounded statements of those who would seek to divide us for their own gain, then perhaps we will elevate a better and more noble caliber of leader.
Ahh the wisdom of Mr Gingrich, Ms Palin and others to focus attention on this synthetic conflict and to foster division among ordinary people; that way we plebians won't have to trouble ourselves with such unimportant matters as the rich pushing a tax break for themselves while having their cronies resist jobless benefits, etc. And of course it shows how faithful they are to our cherished freedoms.
The racism inherent in Mr Gingrich's remarks is so thinly concealed that it is evident he could barely be bothered to hide it. Watching Mr Powell react, it's not just appalling that Mr Gingrich and others of his ilk have the spotlight on this; it's embarrassing.
If we remain good and decent as a people, if we hearken to the better angles of our nature, if we see what unites us instead of rising to anger and prejudice based on the unfounded statements of those who would seek to divide us for their own gain, then perhaps we will elevate a better and more noble caliber of leader.
More Concerning Bush Tax Cuts, September 18, 2010
The Bush tax cuts for the most affluent are in fact the largest share of federal deficit, as illustrated below:
http://www
In addition, even the "middle class" reductions that are part of the Bush cuts are skewed disproportionately toward those with already high incomes:
http://www
And marginal tax rates were in fact at the highest levels during the great period of postwar expansion in the United States:
http://liv
CIA World Factbook figures locate the US, in terms of income inequality, at the levels of Ivory Coast and Uruguay.
These tax cuts are terrible policy and frankly should be left to expire altogether; with any offsetting relief at the payroll tax level (since those taxes are regressive and relief would be skewed toward the least affluent).
http://www
In addition, even the "middle class" reductions that are part of the Bush cuts are skewed disproportionately toward those with already high incomes:
http://www
And marginal tax rates were in fact at the highest levels during the great period of postwar expansion in the United States:
http://liv
CIA World Factbook figures locate the US, in terms of income inequality, at the levels of Ivory Coast and Uruguay.
These tax cuts are terrible policy and frankly should be left to expire altogether; with any offsetting relief at the payroll tax level (since those taxes are regressive and relief would be skewed toward the least affluent).
More on Anti Islamic Race Baiting, September 12, 2010
The Republican stance on this, led by Mr Gingrich, and designed to create a climate of fear with respect to non existent threats (imposition of Sharia in the US) and alienation of Islam in general rather than Al Quaeda narrowly (an instance of straightforward prejudice, lumping as it does the vast majority of ordinary American Muslims together with a tiny radical few), is one of the most despicable political moves I have seen in my lifetime. It makes President Bush, for all his faults, look like a beacon of tolerance, careful as he was to indicate that we are emphatically NOT at war with Islam, that there is emphatically NOT a clash of civilizations.
Our interests and image abroad, the lives of Muslim Americans (and likely our own soldiers abroad) and our great and foundational tradition of religious freedom are all harmed by this. And for what: a few talking points in a midterm election, and a half baked attempt to cast the President as "other".
It is deeply troubling.
Our interests and image abroad, the lives of Muslim Americans (and likely our own soldiers abroad) and our great and foundational tradition of religious freedom are all harmed by this. And for what: a few talking points in a midterm election, and a half baked attempt to cast the President as "other".
It is deeply troubling.
On Proposals to Extend All Bush Tax Cuts, September 10, 2010
Extend tax cuts directed solely at the wealthy? How interesting that Republicans seem unconcerned with the deficit when the interests of their affluent constituents are at issue. So different from their approach when what we're talking about is the millions of seniors and needy families that would be affected by their proposed cuts to "government programs" (read: Social Security and Medicare).
And of course "supply side" economics has never been anything but a sham. (Even if there were any substance to the notion, which there isn't, it wouldn't apply here in the slightest; we're not lacking in capacity or supply, what we lack is demand.)
And of course "supply side" economics has never been anything but a sham. (Even if there were any substance to the notion, which there isn't, it wouldn't apply here in the slightest; we're not lacking in capacity or supply, what we lack is demand.)
On Extreme Actions and Positions Among Republicans, September 7, 2010
This speech, given by FDR in 1936, could just as easily be given today. Indeed I wish it were. Listen through to at least 1:40.
http://www
http://www
On Disputes Over Nuclear Inspections in Iran, September 6, 2010
Just imagine how different the overall messaging would be if Iran were an obsequious client state. Something like this, perhaps:
http://www
As it is, all of the background noise we've been hearing lately has little to do with the real prospect of an attack, but is rather intended as sabre rattling ahead of a negotiation. Since all of this is as evident to the regime as to casual observers, however, it's unlikely to have its intended effect.
So you can forget your concern over this particular manufactured distraction and return to thinking about what will happen to you if you lose your job, given the utter absence of a meaningful safety net.
http://www
As it is, all of the background noise we've been hearing lately has little to do with the real prospect of an attack, but is rather intended as sabre rattling ahead of a negotiation. Since all of this is as evident to the regime as to casual observers, however, it's unlikely to have its intended effect.
So you can forget your concern over this particular manufactured distraction and return to thinking about what will happen to you if you lose your job, given the utter absence of a meaningful safety net.
On Future Hiring in the US, September 6, 2010
Manufacturing to be replaced by service industries? As if foreign businesses will not use their own local service providers in support of local industry; and without native industry, there won't be a big bunch of service clients around these parts, not that the numbers of people that could be employed directly or indirectly in manufacturing could ever be absorbed by service firms in any event.
We gleefully trotted out Mr Ricardo's theories when our manufacturing sector was the only game in town and we wanted in to other markets to pour off our excess capacity. Now that we're on the receiving end, we seem to continue to believe our own talking points of yesteryear.
No sensible use of trade policy; no non-military use of industrial planning tools; no acceptable reinvestment in infrastructure; educational opportunities limited by affluence; floodgates open to direct corporate participation in elections (which are as expensive as ever); and the Senate in place to be sure no change occurs that would threaten the interests of anyone currently benefited by the existing state of affairs.
What a mess.
And also, concerning income inequality:
http://liv
In fact, our income inequality levels are such that we are up there with Cameroon and Uruguay!
https://ww
We gleefully trotted out Mr Ricardo's theories when our manufacturing sector was the only game in town and we wanted in to other markets to pour off our excess capacity. Now that we're on the receiving end, we seem to continue to believe our own talking points of yesteryear.
No sensible use of trade policy; no non-military use of industrial planning tools; no acceptable reinvestment in infrastructure; educational opportunities limited by affluence; floodgates open to direct corporate participation in elections (which are as expensive as ever); and the Senate in place to be sure no change occurs that would threaten the interests of anyone currently benefited by the existing state of affairs.
What a mess.
And also, concerning income inequality:
http://liv
In fact, our income inequality levels are such that we are up there with Cameroon and Uruguay!
https://ww
On Aid to Israel, September 6, 2010
The US provides about $3 billion in military aid to Israel annually. Are there struggling families here that could use that money?
Musings on teh Question "What Kind of Capitalism?", September 5, 2010
Even to frame the question this way assumes a strange conclusion: that "capitalism", an abstraction in any event, is an end in itself. It's not. It's a system we put in place to achieve other goals.
So why not look at what our goals are in creating an economic system first, then design the system to achieve them. We'd probably want to maximize overall wealth, ensuring both an adequate incentive to produce useful goods and a relatively wide distribution of the value produced (both as an end in itself and to produce an active economy); certainly we wouldn't set out to produce concentrations of wealth, especially given the political and market distortions that would quickly produce. We'd probably want to retain a market structure, to save the transaction costs and inefficiencies associated with administering a large economy, but only to the extent necessary for efficiency, not as levers to concentrate power or to create "winner take all" outcomes.
Moreover, our economic structure is only about producing wealth, but other values are of equal or greater importance: family, freedom of expression and conscience, opportunity to pursue meaningful work, etc. So we'd only use the economic system we put in place so far as necessary to support our lives, not as the ultimate end of our lives.
In short, we'd define and use markets to serve our ends, not vice versa.
* * * * *
Suppose you're an owner of some capital, and you just paid your employees $500 to make products worth $1000. A bit of a dilemma if you'd like to pocket the difference, but you're relying on them to buy your product. One possibility might be to get your friends in government to lean on some foreign countries to open their markets on favorable terms (to you, obviously). There might be the occasional spat with local insurrectionists, and/or a world war or two as you bump up against other great powers looking to do the same thing, but hey, that could be an opportunity for more profits! Or you could produce a sort of phony credit based economy where they don't really have any money, they just hock their futures to pay for your surplus.
Gosh, that sounds grim after all. Good thing we here in the US would never do anything like that!
* * * * *
"Trickle down" involves the (utterly risible) idea that giving money to people who aren't liquidity constrained to begin with will create stimulative economic activity (i.e., demand in conditions of excess capacity).
The picture is a tad different when you're talking about workers.
* * * * *
It's astonishing how often people say that unions serve no current purpose. I'm often tempted to (and do) ask: "So the whole wages and benefits thing is over, then?"
Unfortunately, since we pulled down trade barriers, manufacturing employers will have their throats cut by domestic and foreign competitors if they decline to relocate to jurisdictions where the labor protections are weaker or non existent, meaning that not only do we need to strengthen unions here, but to avoid a race to the bottom we need to do so abroad, and (at a minimum) condition trade deals on reasonable labor protections.
* * * * *
Most European countries (where social protections are more fulsome then in the US) also have greater social mobility than the US does.
http://www
So why not look at what our goals are in creating an economic system first, then design the system to achieve them. We'd probably want to maximize overall wealth, ensuring both an adequate incentive to produce useful goods and a relatively wide distribution of the value produced (both as an end in itself and to produce an active economy); certainly we wouldn't set out to produce concentrations of wealth, especially given the political and market distortions that would quickly produce. We'd probably want to retain a market structure, to save the transaction costs and inefficiencies associated with administering a large economy, but only to the extent necessary for efficiency, not as levers to concentrate power or to create "winner take all" outcomes.
Moreover, our economic structure is only about producing wealth, but other values are of equal or greater importance: family, freedom of expression and conscience, opportunity to pursue meaningful work, etc. So we'd only use the economic system we put in place so far as necessary to support our lives, not as the ultimate end of our lives.
In short, we'd define and use markets to serve our ends, not vice versa.
* * * * *
Suppose you're an owner of some capital, and you just paid your employees $500 to make products worth $1000. A bit of a dilemma if you'd like to pocket the difference, but you're relying on them to buy your product. One possibility might be to get your friends in government to lean on some foreign countries to open their markets on favorable terms (to you, obviously). There might be the occasional spat with local insurrectionists, and/or a world war or two as you bump up against other great powers looking to do the same thing, but hey, that could be an opportunity for more profits! Or you could produce a sort of phony credit based economy where they don't really have any money, they just hock their futures to pay for your surplus.
Gosh, that sounds grim after all. Good thing we here in the US would never do anything like that!
* * * * *
"Trickle down" involves the (utterly risible) idea that giving money to people who aren't liquidity constrained to begin with will create stimulative economic activity (i.e., demand in conditions of excess capacity).
The picture is a tad different when you're talking about workers.
* * * * *
It's astonishing how often people say that unions serve no current purpose. I'm often tempted to (and do) ask: "So the whole wages and benefits thing is over, then?"
Unfortunately, since we pulled down trade barriers, manufacturing employers will have their throats cut by domestic and foreign competitors if they decline to relocate to jurisdictions where the labor protections are weaker or non existent, meaning that not only do we need to strengthen unions here, but to avoid a race to the bottom we need to do so abroad, and (at a minimum) condition trade deals on reasonable labor protections.
* * * * *
Most European countries (where social protections are more fulsome then in the US) also have greater social mobility than the US does.
http://www
* * * * *
Regarding Christianity:
All who believed were together and had all things in common; / they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. / Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, / praising God and having the goodwill of all the people." (Acts 2:43-47)
All who believed were together and had all things in common; / they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. / Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, / praising God and having the goodwill of all the people." (Acts 2:43-47)
* * * * *
Certainly we have faced significant competition from post reconstruction EU. And in fact they have done this in the context of both a more fulsome social safety net and rates of taxation, both corporate and individual, that are much higher as a percentage of GDP than here in the US.
On a Third Party, September 4, 2010
Perhaps voting Green is the answer. Certainly they have a very impressive platform:
http://www
But more fundamentally, until the system is changed to give third parties a chance, instead of reducing them to spoilers ala Mr Nader, it's unlikely we'll ever see a viable third party.
Of course, neither party today will support changes to the system, since it's the current structure that keeps them in power. We would need a sustained, grass roots effort to get corporate money out of elections and to get rid of FPTP.
I wish I could be optimistic that this would ever happen.
http://www
But more fundamentally, until the system is changed to give third parties a chance, instead of reducing them to spoilers ala Mr Nader, it's unlikely we'll ever see a viable third party.
Of course, neither party today will support changes to the system, since it's the current structure that keeps them in power. We would need a sustained, grass roots effort to get corporate money out of elections and to get rid of FPTP.
I wish I could be optimistic that this would ever happen.
On Potential Complacency Amoung Young Voters, September 4, 2010
The Claudian Election Guide for Young Voters (Simplified):
* If (a) you are wealthy enough so that your money will work for you, or you can realistically expect to be in the top 2% of all income earners in the United States, and (b) in either of these cases, you don't really care about the welfare of your fellow citizens, or people elsewhere adversely affected by our financial and military policies, then voting R makes sense for you.
* If the above does not apply, vote D.
* If (a) you are wealthy enough so that your money will work for you, or you can realistically expect to be in the top 2% of all income earners in the United States, and (b) in either of these cases, you don't really care about the welfare of your fellow citizens, or people elsewhere adversely affected by our financial and military policies, then voting R makes sense for you.
* If the above does not apply, vote D.
On Anti Abortion Groups' Animus Towards the Democratic Party, September 3, 2010
Amount of meaningful legislation/executive action the religious right has gotten from Republicans at the federal level over the years - 0
Consistency with which Republicans have contravened the Beatitudes, through warfare, redistribution of wealth and income towards the more affluent, indifference (or overt hostility) to meeting the needs of the poor and other similar actions over the years: 100%
And of course, spending money on Congressional elections won't affect Roe at all. That would take winning Presidential elections (and resulting Supreme Court nominations) over a period sufficiently long for it to be fantasy, at best, as a political strategy.
The religious right have been sold a bill of goods, and Country Club Republicans are laughing all the way to the bank.
Consistency with which Republicans have contravened the Beatitudes, through warfare, redistribution of wealth and income towards the more affluent, indifference (or overt hostility) to meeting the needs of the poor and other similar actions over the years: 100%
And of course, spending money on Congressional elections won't affect Roe at all. That would take winning Presidential elections (and resulting Supreme Court nominations) over a period sufficiently long for it to be fantasy, at best, as a political strategy.
The religious right have been sold a bill of goods, and Country Club Republicans are laughing all the way to the bank.
On the Republican Legal Strategy for Overturning Heatlh Care Reform, August 31, 2010
Republicans are playing a game here, and it has several moves.
Step 1 is to get rid of the mandate (by legislation or court action), which is unpopular but needed to ensure the insurance model works even if you let in people with preexisting conditions (otherwise everyone would wait until sick to get insurance, so the risk pool would all be sick, so there would effectively be no insurance). Step 2 involves the insurance companies, now in a panic, making an all out effort to scrap the whole thing because of the problem created by Step 1. Step 3 is to challenge the balance of the bill on the basis that the courts can't pick it apart but must instead either invalidate or validate the law as a whole.
All this because we, as a group, are unwilling to do what all of our friends and allies have done and provide universal medical coverage. (By the way, they all spend less GDP than we do and have better medical outcomes.)
Step 1 is to get rid of the mandate (by legislation or court action), which is unpopular but needed to ensure the insurance model works even if you let in people with preexisting conditions (otherwise everyone would wait until sick to get insurance, so the risk pool would all be sick, so there would effectively be no insurance). Step 2 involves the insurance companies, now in a panic, making an all out effort to scrap the whole thing because of the problem created by Step 1. Step 3 is to challenge the balance of the bill on the basis that the courts can't pick it apart but must instead either invalidate or validate the law as a whole.
All this because we, as a group, are unwilling to do what all of our friends and allies have done and provide universal medical coverage. (By the way, they all spend less GDP than we do and have better medical outcomes.)
On Meghan McCain's Allegations of Palin Drama in the Campaign, August 31, 2010
What I personally would like to know is not what Ms McCain thinks of Ms Palin, but the answer to the following fill-in-the-blank question: "The benefit of the Republican policy agenda for ordinary working people is ____________________."
I think we can exclude anything to do with faith, since at the federal level the Republicans have advanced zero legislation on that front going back to 1980 at least. (Roe is a nice wedge issue, but it hasn't gone anywhere and isn't going anywhere.) On the economic side, tax cuts for the most affluent have given more money to already liquid people, so there's no stimulation of the economy (they aren't buying more, and their investments haven't exactly resulted in a wave of employment, except maybe in China). On the military side, I notice lots of ordinary Americans coming home in body bags, so I guess it's not that. For country club Republicans, who've gotten lower taxes and have had rising income (while others' incomes have remained stagnant) and who can keep their children in expensive colleges and away from the front, things are probably pretty good. But that's just a tiny fraction. What about ordinary Americans?
I think we can exclude anything to do with faith, since at the federal level the Republicans have advanced zero legislation on that front going back to 1980 at least. (Roe is a nice wedge issue, but it hasn't gone anywhere and isn't going anywhere.) On the economic side, tax cuts for the most affluent have given more money to already liquid people, so there's no stimulation of the economy (they aren't buying more, and their investments haven't exactly resulted in a wave of employment, except maybe in China). On the military side, I notice lots of ordinary Americans coming home in body bags, so I guess it's not that. For country club Republicans, who've gotten lower taxes and have had rising income (while others' incomes have remained stagnant) and who can keep their children in expensive colleges and away from the front, things are probably pretty good. But that's just a tiny fraction. What about ordinary Americans?
On Hostile Sentiments in the Context of the Pakistan Disaster, August 21, 2010
My guess is that many people are reacting to a perception that ordinary Pakistanis have already, in essence, written off the Unites States and would therefore see assistance as a cynical gesture. There is some truth to this, although it may only be partially correct. While Pakistanis indeed have extremely negative perceptions of the US (59% characterize the US as an "enemy" according to a recent poll), post tsunami polling suggested that sufficient assistance can shift attitudes.
One could argue the political efficacy of a similar effort here, but I disagree with Mr Reich that creating a political shift is the heart of the matter. Even assuming Pakistanis generally are -- and will remain -- hostile, these are human beings (literally millions of them) affected by a tragedy of unimaginable proportions, frightened and desperate. Let us set aside our differences and help them if we can.
One could argue the political efficacy of a similar effort here, but I disagree with Mr Reich that creating a political shift is the heart of the matter. Even assuming Pakistanis generally are -- and will remain -- hostile, these are human beings (literally millions of them) affected by a tragedy of unimaginable proportions, frightened and desperate. Let us set aside our differences and help them if we can.
Concerning Iran's Busheshr Reactor, August 20, 2010
This is a light water reactor, not a proliferation threat, easily monitored, and the same type that the US help put in place for North Korea. A total non-story except in the context of a drumbeat to put pressure on Iran to enter into talks on terms favorable to the US.
Not only that but the US would almost certainly be promoting this facility, rather than raiding the alarm, if Iran were still a client state, irrespective of Iran's aspirations to regional hegemony (which were well underway under the Shah). http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t4oY2AFkthw/R2qA8z10eeI/AAAAAAAABgk/Zein0ltw6iw/s1600-h/nukeshah.jpg”
Not only that but the US would almost certainly be promoting this facility, rather than raiding the alarm, if Iran were still a client state, irrespective of Iran's aspirations to regional hegemony (which were well underway under the Shah). http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t4oY2AFkthw/R2qA8z10eeI/AAAAAAAABgk/Zein0ltw6iw/s1600-h/nukeshah.jpg”
On Comments Suggesting A Possible Israeli Strike on Iran, August 11, 2010
There is no evidence to suggest that Iran would risk a nuclear exchange with Israel, even in the circumstances (far from clear based on the available intelligence) in which Iran was already fully capable of producing nuclear weapons, so there is no threat that could even remotely justify the destabilizing consequences of an attack. Accordingly, the US will never permit such an attack. In this context, the clearly intentional leaks and other statements in the article can safely be viewed as nothing more than ineffectual sabre rattling and spiteful stabs at President Obama, each of which will be met with the derision they so richly deserve.
Concerning Rahm Emmanual's Comments on Washington, August 9, 2010
Reimpose the fairness doctrine, and pare back the legal changes during the 60s and 70s that created the modern filibuster. These measures - by reining in some of the hyperbole and permitting Senate majorities to wage attrition fights in order to overcome filibusters - would go a long way towards correcting the course in Washington. These measures plus significant election/finance reform would be even better.
The Death of Sister Denise Mosier and Related Anti Immigration Backlash, August 8, 2010
Astonishing that a drunk driving case could serve as the context for anti immigration hate messaging. Those taking advantage of this tragedy having befallen a nun would do well to be mindful of the Catholic teaching on this (as would purportedly Catholic New Gingrich):
"When persons are unable to find work and support themselves and their families, they have a right to migrate to other countries and work. This right is not absolute, . . . [but] in the current condition of the world, in which global poverty is rampant and political unrest has resulted in wars and persecution, migrants who are forced to leave their homes out of necessity and seek only to survive and support their families must be given special consideration.
The Church recognizes the right of the sovereign to protect and control its borders in the service of the common good of its citizens. However, this is not an absolute right. Nations also have an obligation to the universal common good, ... and thus should seek to accommodate migration to the greatest extent possible. Powerful economic nations,[including] the United States, have a higher obligation to serve the universal common good, .... In the current global economic environment, in which labor demands in the United States attract foreign laborers, the United States should establish an immigration system that provides legal avenues for persons to enter the nation legally in a safe, orderly, and dignified manner to obtain jobs and reunite with family members."
The open anti-Catholic sentiments expressed in the context of this tragedy are as shocking as they are unfortunate.
In any event, immigrants have a decidedly lower crime rate than those born in the US, enhance our productivity, largely do not compete for the same jobs chosen by those born in the US and are reacting to conditions that we helped to create in Mexico and elsewhere. Moreover, they pay social service taxes for which they receive no or little benefit and significant state, federal and local taxes. They are reacting to economic circumstances that led them from loved ones and homes and deserve empathy rather than disdain. And last, but certainly not least, not one of those leaving the replies, unless they are of Native American descent, would be here without immigration.
So yes, I feel safe in concluding that those spewing anti immigration sentiments in reaction to this tragedy are driven by either genuinely racist feelings or, perhaps worse, a desire to divide Americans on the basis of fear and contempt.
"When persons are unable to find work and support themselves and their families, they have a right to migrate to other countries and work. This right is not absolute, . . . [but] in the current condition of the world, in which global poverty is rampant and political unrest has resulted in wars and persecution, migrants who are forced to leave their homes out of necessity and seek only to survive and support their families must be given special consideration.
The Church recognizes the right of the sovereign to protect and control its borders in the service of the common good of its citizens. However, this is not an absolute right. Nations also have an obligation to the universal common good, ... and thus should seek to accommodate migration to the greatest extent possible. Powerful economic nations,[including] the United States, have a higher obligation to serve the universal common good, .... In the current global economic environment, in which labor demands in the United States attract foreign laborers, the United States should establish an immigration system that provides legal avenues for persons to enter the nation legally in a safe, orderly, and dignified manner to obtain jobs and reunite with family members."
The open anti-Catholic sentiments expressed in the context of this tragedy are as shocking as they are unfortunate.
In any event, immigrants have a decidedly lower crime rate than those born in the US, enhance our productivity, largely do not compete for the same jobs chosen by those born in the US and are reacting to conditions that we helped to create in Mexico and elsewhere. Moreover, they pay social service taxes for which they receive no or little benefit and significant state, federal and local taxes. They are reacting to economic circumstances that led them from loved ones and homes and deserve empathy rather than disdain. And last, but certainly not least, not one of those leaving the replies, unless they are of Native American descent, would be here without immigration.
So yes, I feel safe in concluding that those spewing anti immigration sentiments in reaction to this tragedy are driven by either genuinely racist feelings or, perhaps worse, a desire to divide Americans on the basis of fear and contempt.
On Anti Islamic Race Baiting by Mr Gingrich, August 8, 2010
What Mr Gingrich is tapping into is not a strictly localized phenomenon associated with the site of the World Trade Center attacks, but has manifested itself elsewhere as well. See http://www
"A two-year study [by Duke and UNC] concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism."
Between this and Mr Gingrich's protestations concerning the preposterous non-issue of the imposition of Sharia law in the United States, it is evident that he is engaging in fear mongering and scape goating. Historical experience teaches us that such tactics can be very effective, and for that reason extremely dangerous; and while the overall impression of Mr Gingrich may be that he is a buffoon, that should not stop us from denouncing this effort in the strongest and loudest possible terms, preferably with an ample measure of derision, as Mr Pyrdum's article has done.
I think Mr Gingrich may well have missed the RCIA class that covered the following passage:
* Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
* Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
* Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
* Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
* Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
* Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
* Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
* Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Rather obscure, I suppose, so perhaps he can be forgiven for having missed them. Given the ardent sentiments expressed by some, I have been searching for the passages in the Gospels on gun rights and low taxes, but, alas, I have not been able to find them so far.
And also: Scapegoating, fear mongering, the use of force and intimidation at political rallies, overt anti intellectualism: we have seen these tactics before. Our inclination may be to dismiss as risible these currents in our society, just as we deride their spokespeople. But this would be a mistake; these are dangerous developments that have the potential to prey very effectively on the anger and fear of a population facing hardship, fear and economic uncertainly, and they should be exposed and aggressively confronted.
"A two-year study [by Duke and UNC] concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism."
Between this and Mr Gingrich's protestations concerning the preposterous non-issue of the imposition of Sharia law in the United States, it is evident that he is engaging in fear mongering and scape goating. Historical experience teaches us that such tactics can be very effective, and for that reason extremely dangerous; and while the overall impression of Mr Gingrich may be that he is a buffoon, that should not stop us from denouncing this effort in the strongest and loudest possible terms, preferably with an ample measure of derision, as Mr Pyrdum's article has done.
I think Mr Gingrich may well have missed the RCIA class that covered the following passage:
* Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
* Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
* Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
* Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
* Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
* Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
* Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
* Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Rather obscure, I suppose, so perhaps he can be forgiven for having missed them. Given the ardent sentiments expressed by some, I have been searching for the passages in the Gospels on gun rights and low taxes, but, alas, I have not been able to find them so far.
And also: Scapegoating, fear mongering, the use of force and intimidation at political rallies, overt anti intellectualism: we have seen these tactics before. Our inclination may be to dismiss as risible these currents in our society, just as we deride their spokespeople. But this would be a mistake; these are dangerous developments that have the potential to prey very effectively on the anger and fear of a population facing hardship, fear and economic uncertainly, and they should be exposed and aggressively confronted.
Lampooning Automotive X Prize Finalists, July 31, 2010
Here is a revolutionary concept vehicle that does not require fossil fuels or even electric power, is capable of operation on existing paved surfaces, has been used in major cities, is widely available, and, believe it or not, actually confers health benefits when used:
http://www
http://www
More on Filibuster Reform, July 26, 2010
We just need to undo two of the changes during the 60s and 70s that created the filibuster in its current form: (i) undo tracking, to ramp up the cost of filibustering, and (ii) go back to 66% of members present, rather than 3/5 of the full Senate, so that the burden is on the minority to remain physically present with at least 2/3 of the quorum, rather than on the majority to bring 61 votes every time (this would make possible those attrition fights everyone seems to remember so fondly).
And in addition: There are also intermediate approaches that might work well for our federal system. For example, we could move to a Senate based roughly on the Bundesrat, in which the Senate (a) is only entitled to vote on federal laws that must be administered by the States, and (b) even then only have a suspensive veto. That would preserve some role for the States, while limiting that role to areas of greatest legitimate concern for them and permitting override by the House.
This is a theoretical analysis, of course, centering around what may be beneficial without regard to the mechanics of implementation, and certainly without regard to the intentions of the authors of the document that sets up the current structure.
In practical terms such a change would require an amendment, which the states presumably would never approve. Ergo, we will need to live with the distortions of representation created by the Senate in its present form (which by the way are unconstitutional for the states to implement in local legislatures, since they violate one-person-one-vote rather egregiously), and must settle for fixing the filibuster (maybe).
And in addition: There are also intermediate approaches that might work well for our federal system. For example, we could move to a Senate based roughly on the Bundesrat, in which the Senate (a) is only entitled to vote on federal laws that must be administered by the States, and (b) even then only have a suspensive veto. That would preserve some role for the States, while limiting that role to areas of greatest legitimate concern for them and permitting override by the House.
This is a theoretical analysis, of course, centering around what may be beneficial without regard to the mechanics of implementation, and certainly without regard to the intentions of the authors of the document that sets up the current structure.
In practical terms such a change would require an amendment, which the states presumably would never approve. Ergo, we will need to live with the distortions of representation created by the Senate in its present form (which by the way are unconstitutional for the states to implement in local legislatures, since they violate one-person-one-vote rather egregiously), and must settle for fixing the filibuster (maybe).
On Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to Expire, July 25, 2010
For a bit of historical perspective on this:
http://www
There are, broadly speaking, two arguments advanced to justify the decrease in top marginal tax rates that began in earnest with Reagan: (i) that increased economic activity resulting from the decrease would mean additional productivity and income and therefore, in fact, a diminishment in deficits; and (ii) that the foregoing would not occur but rather a net decease in government revenue, which would thereafter be used for purposes of a "starve the beast" approach in which overall expenditures would be limited. The first argument has been proved patently false; and the second, apart from having a vision that would undercut the protections on which seniors and other vulnerable members of our society rely, has also been hollow as Republicans, given the opportunity, have not hesitated to binge on spending (particularly on military expenditures that exceed those of the next 10 nations combined).
It's good that some measure of sanity and concern for our fellow human beings is creeping back into our tax policy.
http://www
There are, broadly speaking, two arguments advanced to justify the decrease in top marginal tax rates that began in earnest with Reagan: (i) that increased economic activity resulting from the decrease would mean additional productivity and income and therefore, in fact, a diminishment in deficits; and (ii) that the foregoing would not occur but rather a net decease in government revenue, which would thereafter be used for purposes of a "starve the beast" approach in which overall expenditures would be limited. The first argument has been proved patently false; and the second, apart from having a vision that would undercut the protections on which seniors and other vulnerable members of our society rely, has also been hollow as Republicans, given the opportunity, have not hesitated to binge on spending (particularly on military expenditures that exceed those of the next 10 nations combined).
It's good that some measure of sanity and concern for our fellow human beings is creeping back into our tax policy.
On the "Deficit Crisis", July 16-17, 2010
I can't help but be bemused by this sudden concern with deficit levels, since the obvious solution, not often suggested by those that raise the alarm in such stark terms, is to increase federal funding levels (by requiring the most affluent among us to chip back in more by way of taxes), which have been artificially low since at least the early 1980s.
Our thanks to the Republicans, whose attention to the deficit dramatically underscores both the need to permit the Bush era tax cuts to expire and the devastating failure of trickle-down economics.
Our thanks to the Republicans, whose attention to the deficit dramatically underscores both the need to permit the Bush era tax cuts to expire and the devastating failure of trickle-down economics.
On Statements by Michele Bachman that President Obama Is Turning the US Into "A Nation of Slaves", July 13, 2010
Perhaps Ms Bachmann should go for broke and and set out all the other "tyrannies" Republicans have complained of: the "tyranny" of Medicare (Reagan, and most recently Armey); public education (countless Republicans); financial regulation (jaw dropping in the present context), Social Security and even the federal highway system (most recent credit to Mr Buchannan on these).
Coupled with denuding the federal government of income by limiting the taxes payable by the affluent, they appear to have an interesting vision: a return to a nation of limited vision and capacity, limited concern for the welfare of our fellow citizens, but unbridled freedom for (a) greed and the "winner take all" system that tends to produce (and is producing in stark income inequality terms today) and (b) paradoxically (how will this work in the banana republic they imagine?) the exertion of military might across the world.
I hold them only partially responsible, however, for the dangerous nonsense they emit. The fact is that they are in a position to demagogue only because American voters elected them, and appear set to elect more of them, almost always contrary to their own financial interests. Until we are more informed and active as citizens of this democracy, until we do whatever is necessary to restrain the influence of concentrated financial interests in elections, until we ensure elections are more representative and our representatives more effective, we will continue to see this, and suffer from it.
Coupled with denuding the federal government of income by limiting the taxes payable by the affluent, they appear to have an interesting vision: a return to a nation of limited vision and capacity, limited concern for the welfare of our fellow citizens, but unbridled freedom for (a) greed and the "winner take all" system that tends to produce (and is producing in stark income inequality terms today) and (b) paradoxically (how will this work in the banana republic they imagine?) the exertion of military might across the world.
I hold them only partially responsible, however, for the dangerous nonsense they emit. The fact is that they are in a position to demagogue only because American voters elected them, and appear set to elect more of them, almost always contrary to their own financial interests. Until we are more informed and active as citizens of this democracy, until we do whatever is necessary to restrain the influence of concentrated financial interests in elections, until we ensure elections are more representative and our representatives more effective, we will continue to see this, and suffer from it.
On Statements by General Casey that We Could Be at War for Another Decade, July 11, 2010
We spend more on our worldwide military constabulary than the next ten countries combined (http://en.
We have lost our way as a nation.
We have lost our way as a nation.
Concerning the Fair Elections Now Act, July 8, 2010
Election and campaign finance reform are the most critical priorities there are: without fixing the system and its incentives, the outcome of the process will never change. As things stand today, money is the essential ingredient in any campaign, to such an extent that parties are constrained to recruit people who have (a) existing name recognition, (b) independent wealth and/or (c) the ability to raise large sums of money from others. Except (to some degree) in respect of (a), this systematically favors those with concentrated wealth, who effectively purchase public goods, in an implicit but pervasive fashion, with their contributions (or at a minimum block matters that contravene their economic interests using the extremely conservative structures of our legislative system).
This bill doesn't go nearly all the way but it's a start. For more details:
http://www
This bill doesn't go nearly all the way but it's a start. For more details:
http://www
On the Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor, July 8, 2010
The full story is even worse than what is revealed here. Constant calls for further diminishment of taxes, even in the context of historically low federal tax rates for the affluent, while at the same time income is concentrated in their hands. See below.
http://www
As long as the collective voice of wealthy individual donors and corporations is key to getting elected, we can all be sure those purchasing elections through their contributions will receive the public goods they seek - and stop the rest of us from doing so. Unfortunately, given the torpor of the American electorate, it seems likely things will get worse before we are sufficiently motivated to make them better in the only way that will ever really count: campaign finance and election reform.
http://www
As long as the collective voice of wealthy individual donors and corporations is key to getting elected, we can all be sure those purchasing elections through their contributions will receive the public goods they seek - and stop the rest of us from doing so. Unfortunately, given the torpor of the American electorate, it seems likely things will get worse before we are sufficiently motivated to make them better in the only way that will ever really count: campaign finance and election reform.
Sarah Palin's "Foreign Policy" Musings on Facebook, July 4, 2010
Well, I guess we can see the outlines of what life would be like during a Palin presidency: perpetual war, without the slightest inducement for governments such as Iraq's to create the conditions that would help speed our withdrawal; heavy military funding but decreased taxes (deficits for the foreseeable future) and social programs diminished; uncritical support for, and accordingly encouragement of, actions by the government of Israel, without regard to the interests of the United States and the end of the last vestiges of international support or "soft power".
Pelosi's Suggestion to End the Filibuster, July 1, 2010
As a technical matter, simply reversing the changes that created the modern filibuster would go a long way: do away with tracking and set up the filibuster as a percentage of those present rather than of the entire Senate, facilitating old fashioned attrition fights.
But as long as we're thinking boldly, we would do well to consider carefully not just the filibuster, but the role and value of the Senate as a whole.
But as long as we're thinking boldly, we would do well to consider carefully not just the filibuster, but the role and value of the Senate as a whole.
Concerning Rejection of Unemployment Benefits by the Senate, July 1, 2010
The true lodestar of the Republicans is the principle perhaps best articulated by Thucydides: "right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".
Only by remembering, only by standing up and telling the truth, only by asserting the power of the many in our democracy can we replace this with a better vision; and we can be heartened by the fact that the citizens of our closest allies and of other developed nations have tread some of this ground before us. It can be done.
Only by remembering, only by standing up and telling the truth, only by asserting the power of the many in our democracy can we replace this with a better vision; and we can be heartened by the fact that the citizens of our closest allies and of other developed nations have tread some of this ground before us. It can be done.
On Government Spending, June 30, 2010
"How do we get government spending under control?"
This is really the wrong question. The real question is why the most affluent, who benefit the most from our economy and society, have been so reluctant to chip in for the benefits it confers, as they consistently did during the great postwar expansion (when top marginal tax rates hovered between 81 and 91 percent).
We can't be a great nation on the cheap.
This is really the wrong question. The real question is why the most affluent, who benefit the most from our economy and society, have been so reluctant to chip in for the benefits it confers, as they consistently did during the great postwar expansion (when top marginal tax rates hovered between 81 and 91 percent).
We can't be a great nation on the cheap.
On Federal LEgislative Process Frustrations, June 27, 2010
Until we have serious, sustained campaign finance reform and end FPTP (for that matter, it would behoove us to do some serious thinking about the role of the Senate as well), we'll never see alternative parties or the kind of responsiveness to the concerns of ordinary citizens that all of us would like.
Here is the approximate timing we can expect for these reforms: Never.
Here is the approximate timing we can expect for these reforms: Never.
On Leon Panetta's Statement that There Are 50 of Fewer AQ in Afghanistan, June 27, 20 10
So we are ramping up troop levels to 100,000 in order to pursue 50-100 men who may not even be in the country? This is not particularly reassuring in terms of the soundness of US strategy.
But perhaps there is another justification, to wit: "Our purpose, our whole mission there, is to make sure that Al Qaeda never finds another safehaven from which to attack this country. . . . And the measure of success for us is: do you have an Afghanistan that is stable enough to make sure that never happens."
So we need a huge troop presence in a failed state to ensure AQ can't base there? Setting aside Taliban disavowals of AQ by the Taliban dating to 2008, and setting aside the dubious notion that we can create a functioning state out of thin air based on the twin pillars of the use of military force and the Karzai "administration", instability, as a criterion for such a substantial deployment, is questionable to say the least, taking in, as it does, quite a large number of other similar states (Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo, CAR, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Yemen, to name a few).
And does anyone, anywhere, really believe the government of Afghanistan will, in the near or medium term, be able "to deploy an effective army and police force to maintain stability"?
In reply to the assertion that it could do so in the long term:
What is the analysis of how the Karzai government will acheive these ends long term, given the relevant regional factors (including Pashtun nationalism, tensions with, and the historical experience of, the North, the competing interests of India and Pakistan, ISI interference and support, the connections of the Karzai government to corruption, electoral fraud, narcotrafficking and perceptions of general incompetence, tensions with the Pakistani Pashtun, the local effects of collateral damage killings during foreign military operations, interference from Iran, etc.)? And what is the conception of long term in this context?
But perhaps there is another justification, to wit: "Our purpose, our whole mission there, is to make sure that Al Qaeda never finds another safehaven from which to attack this country. . . . And the measure of success for us is: do you have an Afghanistan that is stable enough to make sure that never happens."
So we need a huge troop presence in a failed state to ensure AQ can't base there? Setting aside Taliban disavowals of AQ by the Taliban dating to 2008, and setting aside the dubious notion that we can create a functioning state out of thin air based on the twin pillars of the use of military force and the Karzai "administration", instability, as a criterion for such a substantial deployment, is questionable to say the least, taking in, as it does, quite a large number of other similar states (Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo, CAR, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Yemen, to name a few).
And does anyone, anywhere, really believe the government of Afghanistan will, in the near or medium term, be able "to deploy an effective army and police force to maintain stability"?
In reply to the assertion that it could do so in the long term:
What is the analysis of how the Karzai government will acheive these ends long term, given the relevant regional factors (including Pashtun nationalism, tensions with, and the historical experience of, the North, the competing interests of India and Pakistan, ISI interference and support, the connections of the Karzai government to corruption, electoral fraud, narcotrafficking and perceptions of general incompetence, tensions with the Pakistani Pashtun, the local effects of collateral damage killings during foreign military operations, interference from Iran, etc.)? And what is the conception of long term in this context?
Concerning Troop Levels in Afghanistan, June 26, 2010
Recent estimates put the total number of Al Quaeda at 100 or less, none in Afghanistan; estimates from the fall of 2009 put the number of Taliban involved in operations in Afghanistan at 25000, many of which are not active insurgents (and other estimates, not prepared in the context of justifying a buildup, had typically been at about 10000), and the Taliban have been dissociating themselves from AQ since 2008. The Karzai government is widely discredited and unpopular.
The buildup makes little apparent sense in this context.
And also:
Graham Fuller's recent piece assessing the conflict is well worth reading in connection with Ms Feinstein's comments.
(http://www
"- Military force will not win the day in either Afghanistan or Pakistan; crises have only grown worse under the U.S. military footprint.
-- Most Pashtuns see the Taliban -- like them or not -- as the primary vehicle for restoration of Pashtun power in Afghanistan, lost in 2001. Pashtuns are also among the most fiercely nationalist, tribalized and xenophobic peoples of the world, united only against the foreign invader.
-- It is a fantasy to think of ever sealing the Pakistan-A
-- India is the primary geopolitical threat to Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan must therefore always maintain Afghanistan as a friendly state. India furthermore is intent upon gaining a serious foothold in Afghanistan.
-- Pakistan will therefore never rupture ties or abandon the Pashtuns, in either country, whether radical Islamist or not.
-- Occupation everywhere creates hatred, as the U.S. is learning. Yet Pashtuns remarkably have not been part of the jihadi movement at the international level, although many are indeed quick to ally themselves at home with al-Qaida against the U.S. military.
-- The situation in Pakistan has gone from bad to worse as a direct consequence of the U.S. war raging on the Afghan border."
The buildup makes little apparent sense in this context.
And also:
Graham Fuller's recent piece assessing the conflict is well worth reading in connection with Ms Feinstein's comments.
(http://www
"- Military force will not win the day in either Afghanistan or Pakistan; crises have only grown worse under the U.S. military footprint.
-- Most Pashtuns see the Taliban -- like them or not -- as the primary vehicle for restoration of Pashtun power in Afghanistan, lost in 2001. Pashtuns are also among the most fiercely nationalist, tribalized and xenophobic peoples of the world, united only against the foreign invader.
-- It is a fantasy to think of ever sealing the Pakistan-A
-- India is the primary geopolitical threat to Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan must therefore always maintain Afghanistan as a friendly state. India furthermore is intent upon gaining a serious foothold in Afghanistan.
-- Pakistan will therefore never rupture ties or abandon the Pashtuns, in either country, whether radical Islamist or not.
-- Occupation everywhere creates hatred, as the U.S. is learning. Yet Pashtuns remarkably have not been part of the jihadi movement at the international level, although many are indeed quick to ally themselves at home with al-Qaida against the U.S. military.
-- The situation in Pakistan has gone from bad to worse as a direct consequence of the U.S. war raging on the Afghan border."
Concerning Statements by Rand Paul Suggesting Jobless Should Stop Asking for Handouts, June 21, 2010
Readers may wish to consult the following chart. Although real GDP is not superimposed, imagine an upward line reflecting an enormous economic boom and increase in incomes from about 1950 through the oil embargo.
http://liv
Readers might also want to look at US income inequality by Gini coefficient (notice we are nested between Uruguay and Cameroon!)
https://ww
http://liv
Readers might also want to look at US income inequality by Gini coefficient (notice we are nested between Uruguay and Cameroon!)
https://ww
Concerning Pro Taliban Statements by Hamid Karzai, June 20, 2010
All of the regional parties, within and without Afghanistan - are preparing for a withdrawal of US troops.
In this context, jockeying for position in the post US environment is unsurprising. Pakistan would like to check Indian influence; Iran would like to extend its influence and moderate so far as possible the reach and hostility of any Sunni regime in Kabul; ordinary Afghans would like to avoid any problems with post US authorities; and Karzai would like to preserve his own influence despite dissatisfaction with a government that appears corrupt and inept.
There is unlikely to be political support in the US for an indefinite, everlasting commitment to Afghanistan. Moreover, the US interest is not (except as a potential means) in reconstruction of Afghanistan but in denying sanctuary to Al Quaeda, and the US continues to face internal economic difficulties. These factors support the assumption of limited term involvement that all of the regional parties seem to share. The US must, however, continue to deal with Pakistan because (i) of the possibility that instability in Pakistan would lead to an overtly hostile government in control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, (ii) of Pakistan's proximity to, and likely post withdrawal influence in, Afghanistan and (iii) the need to work with Pakistan to directly pressure any remaining Al Quaeda elements there. The "surge" appears to have the limited purpose of positioning elements favorable to the US as well as possible as the regional planning for a US departure takes place.
In this context, jockeying for position in the post US environment is unsurprising. Pakistan would like to check Indian influence; Iran would like to extend its influence and moderate so far as possible the reach and hostility of any Sunni regime in Kabul; ordinary Afghans would like to avoid any problems with post US authorities; and Karzai would like to preserve his own influence despite dissatisfaction with a government that appears corrupt and inept.
There is unlikely to be political support in the US for an indefinite, everlasting commitment to Afghanistan. Moreover, the US interest is not (except as a potential means) in reconstruction of Afghanistan but in denying sanctuary to Al Quaeda, and the US continues to face internal economic difficulties. These factors support the assumption of limited term involvement that all of the regional parties seem to share. The US must, however, continue to deal with Pakistan because (i) of the possibility that instability in Pakistan would lead to an overtly hostile government in control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, (ii) of Pakistan's proximity to, and likely post withdrawal influence in, Afghanistan and (iii) the need to work with Pakistan to directly pressure any remaining Al Quaeda elements there. The "surge" appears to have the limited purpose of positioning elements favorable to the US as well as possible as the regional planning for a US departure takes place.
On Tea Party Criticism of A Chris Matthews Documentary, June 19, 2010
Apparently the Second Amendment is more important than the First.
Though as a fringe movement representing at most 18% of Americans, approved of only by a little over a third of Americans, brandishing guns in rallies against to protest non-existent efforts to remove them, characterized by Newt Gingrich as the militant wing of the Republican party, supporting one candidate who advocates a barter economy for medical care and another who thinks it would be fine to permit restaurants to discriminate on the basis of race, I suppose it is unsurprising that the Tea Party should decline to welcome light under its particular rock.
Though as a fringe movement representing at most 18% of Americans, approved of only by a little over a third of Americans, brandishing guns in rallies against to protest non-existent efforts to remove them, characterized by Newt Gingrich as the militant wing of the Republican party, supporting one candidate who advocates a barter economy for medical care and another who thinks it would be fine to permit restaurants to discriminate on the basis of race, I suppose it is unsurprising that the Tea Party should decline to welcome light under its particular rock.
On Blaming President Obama for TARP Related Funding Decisions, June 13, 2010
This particular piece needs clarification: the Federal Reserve issued credit lines in September and October 2008 of $85 and $38 billion, respectively, and TARP (legislation created in 2008) funding of $40 billion was issued in November 2008. President Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009.
There are many calls in this Administration that merit critical comment (for example the failure to advocate more forcefully for the public option) but this one in particular can't fairly be laid at its feet.
There are many calls in this Administration that merit critical comment (for example the failure to advocate more forcefully for the public option) but this one in particular can't fairly be laid at its feet.
Democratic Vaccilation on Health Care for Jobless, June 13, 2010
With real unemployment at close to 17% (http://www
It's clearly the wrong thing to do for people in terribly difficult circumstances whose health, or whose children's health, is threatened (imagine being on chemo and out of work); and it's clearly economically wrong, or at a minimum very poorly timed, with the economy still limping along and more in need of stimulus than deficit reduction initiatives. And even if there were a need for deficit reduction at a time like this, there would be far better targets than vulnerable families (US military expenditures significantly more than the next ten nations combined (http://en.
In this context, that Democrats in particular would be abandoning families in need, because of a "treacherous election year" (read: fear of low information Tea Partiers) is disappointing to say the least.
It's clearly the wrong thing to do for people in terribly difficult circumstances whose health, or whose children's health, is threatened (imagine being on chemo and out of work); and it's clearly economically wrong, or at a minimum very poorly timed, with the economy still limping along and more in need of stimulus than deficit reduction initiatives. And even if there were a need for deficit reduction at a time like this, there would be far better targets than vulnerable families (US military expenditures significantly more than the next ten nations combined (http://en.
In this context, that Democrats in particular would be abandoning families in need, because of a "treacherous election year" (read: fear of low information Tea Partiers) is disappointing to say the least.
Concerning Statements by Sen Schumer Advocating Further Economic Sanctions Directed at Gaza
In many respects, Schumer promotes and shares the values that are important to us (here is one summary scorecard, for example: http://the
I hope and pray that we can one day leave behind us the half century of conflict and anguish that has ruined so many lives, and led to such widespread despair and suffering.
I hope and pray that we can one day leave behind us the half century of conflict and anguish that has ruined so many lives, and led to such widespread despair and suffering.
On Boehner's Proposals to End Unemployment Compensation and Have Taxpayers Pay for BP Oil Spill
Why give desperate people $320 per week when we could give BP a taxpayer financed bailout for destroying countless ecosystems and an entire way of life, as Mr Boenher has suggested! My these Republican fellows have such fine ideas!
And also: The Republicans are, if you examine what they do over time, fine with government involvement when it promotes the interests of large corporations or other powerful economic interests, and, relatedly, with the use of force both abroad and at home in service of these interests. They deride other forms of the exercise of government authority, for example for social benefits or to preserve the rights of individuals against the exercise of the police power of the state (with the notable, and in urban areas completely bizarre, exception that they fight wholeheartedly for the free distribution of guns).
Since our particular form of government is democratic, what they oppose, in essence, is any meaningful exercise of democratic power for the benefit of the people whose government it is supposed to be.
And also: The Republicans are, if you examine what they do over time, fine with government involvement when it promotes the interests of large corporations or other powerful economic interests, and, relatedly, with the use of force both abroad and at home in service of these interests. They deride other forms of the exercise of government authority, for example for social benefits or to preserve the rights of individuals against the exercise of the police power of the state (with the notable, and in urban areas completely bizarre, exception that they fight wholeheartedly for the free distribution of guns).
Since our particular form of government is democratic, what they oppose, in essence, is any meaningful exercise of democratic power for the benefit of the people whose government it is supposed to be.
On Rand Paul's Advocacy for Deregulation, June 7, 2010
"In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be free from a nanny state."
Yes, please free me from my lack of healthcare, employment and retirement security and union representation, and I can't wait for terrorists to be freed from those pesky gun control laws, not to mention all that red tape that the government imposes on things like painted toys and offshore drilling. Discrimination? Yep, that's a thing of the past for sure, just ask those school children in Arizona.
Yes, please free me from my lack of healthcare, employment and retirement security and union representation, and I can't wait for terrorists to be freed from those pesky gun control laws, not to mention all that red tape that the government imposes on things like painted toys and offshore drilling. Discrimination? Yep, that's a thing of the past for sure, just ask those school children in Arizona.
Concerning "Raghead" Remarks by Jake Knotts, State Senator of S Carolina
This kind of thinking has long been latent (and patent) among Republicans, just not so overt in most instances. Here's Lee Atwater discussing Republican strategy back in their salad days:
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, n*****, n*****." By 1968 you can't say "n*****"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****, n*****""
The main difference here is simply that Mr Knotts is unable to be so subtle. I'm glad we're seeing the (appalling) true colors of the Republican party; perhaps everyone will finally wake up to their use of race to divide Americans while they enrich their country club colleagues.
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, n*****, n*****." By 1968 you can't say "n*****"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****, n*****""
The main difference here is simply that Mr Knotts is unable to be so subtle. I'm glad we're seeing the (appalling) true colors of the Republican party; perhaps everyone will finally wake up to their use of race to divide Americans while they enrich their country club colleagues.
On the Replacement of Dennis Blair, June 4, 2010
It will be interesting to assess the information on this choice as it becomes more available, since this is indeed to some degree a controversial choice: ideally we would want a DNI uninfluenced by parent agency concerns and not susceptible to the potential distortions that might be associated with information coming from an agency responsible for acting on, or that will be funded based upon, the information. A civilian would certainly have been preferable, given comparable experience.
It's unfortunate, though understandable, that Mr Panetta was not interested. One can only suppose the bench is not particularly deep in this area.
It's unfortunate, though understandable, that Mr Panetta was not interested. One can only suppose the bench is not particularly deep in this area.
Concerning Gov Jindal's Request Prematurely to End Drilling Moratorium, June 3, 2010
Mr. Jindal is saying, effectively:
(i) Please open the floodgates to more drilling as soon as possible (evidently those jobs are more important to Mr. Jindal than the non drilling livelihoods in Louisiana and along the Gulf and East Coasts, and the coastal and marine environments, that the drilling puts at risk); and
(ii) Even though Mr. Jindal is making this absurd request, the federal government should be on the hook if anything goes wrong.
At least Mr Jindal is one spill that will be confined to the Louisiana area.
(i) Please open the floodgates to more drilling as soon as possible (evidently those jobs are more important to Mr. Jindal than the non drilling livelihoods in Louisiana and along the Gulf and East Coasts, and the coastal and marine environments, that the drilling puts at risk); and
(ii) Even though Mr. Jindal is making this absurd request, the federal government should be on the hook if anything goes wrong.
At least Mr Jindal is one spill that will be confined to the Louisiana area.
On Pro BP Statements by Sen. Vitter June 2, 2010
This is simply a sidebar, but I have to observe that Mr. Vitter is a very puzzling figure. His educational background and credentials are superb, and include degrees from Harvard and Oxford, a Rhodes scholarship and work as a professor of law at Tulane. Yet not only has he been callous in his positions (on housing, immigration, and even CHIP, among other issues) and demonstrated remarkably poor judgment (multiple prostitution related scandals) but he is also, on a personal level, strangely less than astute.
No wonder, I suppose, that he has such a tin ear on this.
No wonder, I suppose, that he has such a tin ear on this.
On McChrystal's Accusations Against Iran, June 1, 2010
One has to wonder, even taking these statements at face value, what the reason is for publicly disclosing this information. On the assumption (questionable at this point since we have been provided with no indication of what the "clear evidence" consists of) that the general is correct, the Iranians are quite unlikely to simply concede their involvement and cease their activities. Accordingly it seems most likely the intent behind these public statement is either (i) to create public support for planned action against Iran or (ii) to give the appearance of (i).
The Iranians just effected an end run around the nuclear framework the US had been proposing, and given the difficulties we are already facing in Afghanistan, any credible threat of military action against Iran appears remote, so this is probably little more than empty sabre rattling (i.e., a form of (ii)). Hopefully the Obama administration is not, and would not consider, seriously pursuing option (i).
The Iranians just effected an end run around the nuclear framework the US had been proposing, and given the difficulties we are already facing in Afghanistan, any credible threat of military action against Iran appears remote, so this is probably little more than empty sabre rattling (i.e., a form of (ii)). Hopefully the Obama administration is not, and would not consider, seriously pursuing option (i).
On the Consequences of the BP Spill, May 30, 2010
The more one reads on this, the worse it appears. Past experience suggests that the effects of this spill will be with us for many years to come:
http://www
"Wildlife Still Exposed To Exxon Valdez Oil 20 Years After Disaster
Scientists in Alaska have discovered that lingering oil from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill is still being ingested by wildlife more than 20 years after the disaster. The research, published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, uses biomarkers to reveal long-term exposure to oil in harlequin ducks and demonstrates how the consequences of oil spills are measured in decades rather than years."
http://www
"Wildlife Still Exposed To Exxon Valdez Oil 20 Years After Disaster
Scientists in Alaska have discovered that lingering oil from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill is still being ingested by wildlife more than 20 years after the disaster. The research, published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, uses biomarkers to reveal long-term exposure to oil in harlequin ducks and demonstrates how the consequences of oil spills are measured in decades rather than years."
Concerning the Scale-Back of the Democratic Jobs Bill, May 27, 2010
I have a deficit reduction idea that should fully satisfy even the most ardent deficit hawks: return to the levels of taxation that prevailed for most of the 20th Century, including America's great period of expansion, in which the more affluent were willing to bear more of the responsibility associated with the society that rewarded them so well.
With tax rates thus restored, our national efforts can be fully funded and ambitious rather than anemic and indebted.
With tax rates thus restored, our national efforts can be fully funded and ambitious rather than anemic and indebted.
On Sharron Angle, May 27, 2010
One can only hope Ms. Angle gets as much attention and publicity as possible ahead of the midterms. It appears very likely the Republicans will do more for Democratic GOTV this election cycle than an army of volunteers. They are simply leaping off the cliff supporting candidates with rhetoric and positions like this.
"Plug the Damn Hole", May 25, 2010
If there were ever a wake up call on our undue dependence on oil, then this is surely it. Not only could we avoid devastating catastrophes such as this one, not only could we preserve the natural beauty of our coasts and the abundance of our fisheries, not only could we preserve our air quality and global environment but we could also avoid the geopolitical and military commitments to which our dependence has driven us. With our dependence intact, any disruption in supply or refinement has the potential to disrupt our economy and even have a strategic impact on our defense. It is hard to imagine a more pressing priority.
With respect to stopping this particular spill, I must confess that I am a bit puzzled at the lack of resources and expertise, since I thought that the primary operating challenges were related to the depth involved; and I had also understood that USN has very substantial deep water capabilities.
With respect to stopping this particular spill, I must confess that I am a bit puzzled at the lack of resources and expertise, since I thought that the primary operating challenges were related to the depth involved; and I had also understood that USN has very substantial deep water capabilities.
On the Afghan War Supplemental, May 24, 2010
Concerning substantial base-related expenditures: These numbers are downright mind boggling in the context of a relatively near term planned withdrawal; the investments really do seem to position us for a long term presence that has not been communicated to the public. And the lack of oversight and coordination on reconstruction is disturbing to say the least, given the breadth and complexity of the projects.
Surely there is a way to keep pressure on Al Qaeda that does not involve conquering and holding more or less the whole of Afghanistan, but that would instead preserve our ability in large measure to withdraw our troops.
Surely there is a way to keep pressure on Al Qaeda that does not involve conquering and holding more or less the whole of Afghanistan, but that would instead preserve our ability in large measure to withdraw our troops.
On Comments by Wm. Hague Distancing the UK from the US, May 23, 2010
Reading these comments in their full context, I sympathize with their message. Indeed neither our interests nor those of any nation are served by an indefinite commitment to enforced civil development of a backward and far away land in which we are unwelcome; rather we would wish to stay only to the extent and for so long as is necessary to deal with critical threats to our security. And the judgments that have led to such a lengthy stay in Afghanistan are questionable, to say the least.
Yet the public airing of these sentiments, coupled with the immediate distancing from the US set out in his earlier public statements, smacks of leaving a friend in the lurch. Mr Hague would be well advised to use caution in the future; treaties are little more than bits of paper if they are not backed up by public sentiment and the willingness, say, to put New York at risk to redress an attack on London, is a highly uncertain and contingent thing in any event, let alone in the context of remarks like these.
Yet the public airing of these sentiments, coupled with the immediate distancing from the US set out in his earlier public statements, smacks of leaving a friend in the lurch. Mr Hague would be well advised to use caution in the future; treaties are little more than bits of paper if they are not backed up by public sentiment and the willingness, say, to put New York at risk to redress an attack on London, is a highly uncertain and contingent thing in any event, let alone in the context of remarks like these.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
North Korea's Attack on A South Korean Warship, May 22, 2010
North Korea is in a difficult and unstable position, owing in part to Kim Jong Il's ill health, and a careful, economically directed response, coupled with preparations for possible collapse of the regime and dissemination of material within North Korea making clear the shortcomings of its leadership is what we're likely to see here.
The KPA is over a million strong, with substantial artillery and special forces deployments at the DMZ, in addition to the North's nuclear arms. With Seoul, a city of over 10 million, just a short distance from the border, US troops present and an ongoing NK-China relationship, as well as the prospect of conflict internally strengthening the regime, all out war is the least likely outcome here.
And also: Here is the view of Professor Bechtol (USMC Commend and Staff College) on the competency of the KPA SOF: "These are not your standard North Korean guys. They are the best-trained, best-fed and most indoctrinated soldiers in the North. They know how to fight, and if they are caught, they are trained to kill themselves."
The KPA is over a million strong, with substantial artillery and special forces deployments at the DMZ, in addition to the North's nuclear arms. With Seoul, a city of over 10 million, just a short distance from the border, US troops present and an ongoing NK-China relationship, as well as the prospect of conflict internally strengthening the regime, all out war is the least likely outcome here.
And also: Here is the view of Professor Bechtol (USMC Commend and Staff College) on the competency of the KPA SOF: "These are not your standard North Korean guys. They are the best-trained, best-fed and most indoctrinated soldiers in the North. They know how to fight, and if they are caught, they are trained to kill themselves."
On Campaign Finance, May 21, 2010
The structure of campaign finance, which affects all federal legislators, and the rules of the Senate, which empower small minorities to block legislation, create virtually insuperable obstacles to reform. As we have seen in both the HCR and financial institution reform efforts, financially powerful institutions will not hesitate to use these tools when their interests are threatened; and those threats for them exist whenever the status quo is changed in any material way.
Moreover, our system of highly fragmented and divided government makes accountability almost impossible. There is almost always a separate branch of government, party, chamber or institution to blame if popular measures are not enacted.
There is also an information issue, probably linked to the distortions that our campaign finance system leads to on who is ultimately elected (which affects selection and communication of important issues). People feel income inequality but are unaware the US is at the level of Uruguay and Ivory Coast. People reject asking their more affluent fellow citizens to shoulder extra financial responsibility for maintaining our national assets and infrastructure as they did in the mid 20th century, but do not connect this to deficits, debt, diminished resources for infrastructure repair, etc., nor do they appreciate that the US compares poorly in terms of social mobility to other developed countries.
Until the above issues are addressed there is not likely to be any significant reform here in the US. And the above issues are, unfortunately, unlikely to be addressed.
Moreover, our system of highly fragmented and divided government makes accountability almost impossible. There is almost always a separate branch of government, party, chamber or institution to blame if popular measures are not enacted.
There is also an information issue, probably linked to the distortions that our campaign finance system leads to on who is ultimately elected (which affects selection and communication of important issues). People feel income inequality but are unaware the US is at the level of Uruguay and Ivory Coast. People reject asking their more affluent fellow citizens to shoulder extra financial responsibility for maintaining our national assets and infrastructure as they did in the mid 20th century, but do not connect this to deficits, debt, diminished resources for infrastructure repair, etc., nor do they appreciate that the US compares poorly in terms of social mobility to other developed countries.
Until the above issues are addressed there is not likely to be any significant reform here in the US. And the above issues are, unfortunately, unlikely to be addressed.
On Durbin's Call for Filibuster Reform, May 20, 1010
The clock just needs to be turned back a bit here. Reversing the changes that (i) brought cloture from 66% of Senators present to 60% of the entire Senate and (ii) permit tracking would both increase the cost of a filibuster substantially and also permit old fashioned attrition fights (since the burden would be on the minority to keep its caucus physically present).
More on Labor Organizing, May 16, 2010
Many, many of us here in the US take a free ride on unions' efforts, both historical and present (including in respect of competitive wage and benefit levels), and it is high time for this to end. We have a changing workforce, trending away from the heavy manufacturing sector traditionally associated with organized employees. The first and most important step, therefore, would be to organize the vast numbers of employees in sectors that have not heretofore been unionized. If accomplished, that would produce a revitalized union base, help to ensure the preservation of the middle class and hold out the prospect of effective political action for the benefit of ordinary people in the 21st Century. Here's hoping it happens.
On the Senate's Failure to End TBTF, May 7, 2010
To get at the heart of this problem, and problems like it, we need to think big: reforms that will radically reorient Congress as a more responsive, accountable and representative institution.
One possibility: limit the competency of the Senate to matters requiring administration or funding of federal programs by the states; and as to matters within the Senate's purview, give it a suspensive veto only, capable of being overridden in the House. On the House side, establish four year terms, with proportional representation. It would also be helpful, to ensure both effectiveness and accountability, to redistribute administrative competencies, positioning the House as a more parliamentary body. And finally, to top it all off, significant campaign finance reform and reinstitution of the fairness doctrine.
Around the world, people are informed about, and fight for, reforms that benefit average citizens. Here, people seem to be a bit more indolent (excepting the ill informed but well funded reactions we've lately seen to progressive reforms). Perhaps we are disserved by a declining print media press, or perhaps the issues are too complex, given the size and commitments of our government and economy. In any event, I certainly never expect to see such reforms, or frankly any significant reforms directed at the overmastering position of the powerful, or to ameliorate the stagnant incomes or influence of the rest of us. But I can hope.
(And actually, I never thought HCR, in any form at all, would ever pass, so, you never know.)
One possibility: limit the competency of the Senate to matters requiring administration or funding of federal programs by the states; and as to matters within the Senate's purview, give it a suspensive veto only, capable of being overridden in the House. On the House side, establish four year terms, with proportional representation. It would also be helpful, to ensure both effectiveness and accountability, to redistribute administrative competencies, positioning the House as a more parliamentary body. And finally, to top it all off, significant campaign finance reform and reinstitution of the fairness doctrine.
Around the world, people are informed about, and fight for, reforms that benefit average citizens. Here, people seem to be a bit more indolent (excepting the ill informed but well funded reactions we've lately seen to progressive reforms). Perhaps we are disserved by a declining print media press, or perhaps the issues are too complex, given the size and commitments of our government and economy. In any event, I certainly never expect to see such reforms, or frankly any significant reforms directed at the overmastering position of the powerful, or to ameliorate the stagnant incomes or influence of the rest of us. But I can hope.
(And actually, I never thought HCR, in any form at all, would ever pass, so, you never know.)
On the Tea Party's Desire to Overlook Defense Spending, April 24, 2010
In the period following WWI, the US reduced the size of its army from over 4 million to less than 200,000 and Republican Gerald Nye, echoing sentiments of his colleagues, said "we shall see that war and preparation for war is not a matter of national honor and national defense, but a matter of profit for the few". It was, of course, an obtuse perspective: despite the terrible hardships WWI imposed upon most of its participants, the interwar years saw the growing threats that led to WWII, and the Neutrality Acts that resulted from such sentiments followed rather than preceded Hitler's rise to power. But it does show the astonishing degree to which things have changed. Can anyone even begin to imagine a Republican making such a statement today?
And in addition: Republicans are notably supportive of expanded police power, the exercise of military power, and the protection of the interests of private corporations and wealthy individuals, as well as paying vast sums of tax payer money (through direct subsidy and tax breaks) for these items. If we think historically, can we think of any governments that were corporatist and expansionist militarily and in the presence of domestic security? Do we really wish to follow in their footsteps?
And in addition: Republicans are notably supportive of expanded police power, the exercise of military power, and the protection of the interests of private corporations and wealthy individuals, as well as paying vast sums of tax payer money (through direct subsidy and tax breaks) for these items. If we think historically, can we think of any governments that were corporatist and expansionist militarily and in the presence of domestic security? Do we really wish to follow in their footsteps?
April 24, 2010: A Death at Pocahontas Coal Mine
Concerning labor organization: Vastly more organizing activity is needed to counteract the current trend of diminished representation and poor regulatory oversight, and (emphatically) not just in traditional labor sectors. Service, office and professional occupations need to be included. With labor consciousness and solidarity among all employees, without artificial division, we should be able to do much better by way of both regulation and enforcement.
On Financial Regulatory Reform Efforts, Circa April 20, 2010
There is a common thread that underlies this effort, in which an industry that led our economy to the brink of collapse can push back against attempts to reform it, and the healthcare effort, in which private interests heavily and effectively opposed reform (as they had successfully done for the better part of a century). That common component is a broken election and campaign finance system. Until ordinary citizens are on a more equal footing with large corporations and banks in their practical ability to influence elections and garner political access, we will always be hindered in obtaining even obviously necessary reforms.
Musings From April 2010
From a discussion concerning Ms Palin (then on Fox News): Republican policy in this era can be boiled down to (i) lowering taxes on the most affluent (meaning those with less bear a greater share of tax burdens, or we go into debt to pay for our expenses, a delayed version of the same thing) and (ii) "conservative" social policy (meaning, in theory, that religious values are foisted on others of different faiths, but in practice a half hearted nod to get the support of the less affluent for policies that harm them).
Beginnings
It's often said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Trite, perhaps, but true nonetheless.
And so it is with this small record, a journal, really, of some of my public posts on political topics. They are intended for a non-specialized audience: ordinary people, much like me, trying to muddle their way through the often dense and difficult brambles of public policy during a time in which the social, political and economic fabric of our American society has been badly frayed. They will, therefore, be a contribution, if at all, that is as modest and humble as I am as an author. But perhaps they will be of use to someone, and if so my purpose will have been fulfilled.
They will begin in reverse chronological order, with older posts appearing first, gradually catching up, over time, to more recent entries. I'll try to get to that soon, and in the meanwhile, my very best wishes to you all.
And so it is with this small record, a journal, really, of some of my public posts on political topics. They are intended for a non-specialized audience: ordinary people, much like me, trying to muddle their way through the often dense and difficult brambles of public policy during a time in which the social, political and economic fabric of our American society has been badly frayed. They will, therefore, be a contribution, if at all, that is as modest and humble as I am as an author. But perhaps they will be of use to someone, and if so my purpose will have been fulfilled.
They will begin in reverse chronological order, with older posts appearing first, gradually catching up, over time, to more recent entries. I'll try to get to that soon, and in the meanwhile, my very best wishes to you all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
3. The United Methodist Church, 7,853,987 members, down 0.98 percent.
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,974,041 members, up 1.71 percent.
5. The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members, no membership updates reported.
http://www
I hope our friends in the Tea Party have kept up with their Catechisms!