tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73681429158617268262024-03-13T16:52:14.341-07:00Political Spin RemovalConfronting US politics with reason and evidence stops the spin long enough to reveal principles and values. Click the comments count to leave a comment.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-51572288670480032012-06-28T10:28:00.001-07:002012-06-28T10:30:51.110-07:00Compassion Trumps Selfishness<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvoiRSnIaazEgArS3oDkzV6KuC6JpOjpQOsRrXotje3J66lzh2FD9MmowrKYAF28_vmX6Uth-Fz8jOxMltHO6m5fl3QnhkyFI8BJlJHF0aXJYtlsn_axfJY-wrKmTA-G1ANydApNvWrHTH/s1600/obamacare+arguments+illustration.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvoiRSnIaazEgArS3oDkzV6KuC6JpOjpQOsRrXotje3J66lzh2FD9MmowrKYAF28_vmX6Uth-Fz8jOxMltHO6m5fl3QnhkyFI8BJlJHF0aXJYtlsn_axfJY-wrKmTA-G1ANydApNvWrHTH/s320/obamacare+arguments+illustration.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The Supreme Court decided today, 5-4, that Obamacare is legal. That is, in the immortal words of Vice President Joe Biden, “a big fucking deal.” Affordable health care for millions of Americans who otherwise didn’t have it, was what Obama said he “would stake my presidency on.” The guy knows how to roll the dice. <br />
<br />
The decision was along party lines, with the four conservatives voting against, the four liberals voting for it, and Chief Justice Roberts breaking the tie by saying, “Okay, it’s legal, but only if you call it a tax increase.” <br />
<br />
Why the party-line division? Conservatives are systematically against anything that contributes to the common good. They seem to believe in radical individualism, which is a great philosophy if you are a rich and privileged individual. Then you don’t have to worry about the other guys (the 99%). <br />
Radical individualism translates also into “states rights,” which is another way to say, keep your government off my personal freedom.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBsUfZEHf_jlTRxM0muuUdwgDMmsP221AdXBHBdVDAYTPYZzGhRdTjXk2NF4pdN_eSLMYtSMFUFO7eCr_cxZrd-N2X1gxu3cJo-81vrrCT-5aEqR8bN1e8ucm2z6gohBv89wxP5m7mMwON/s1600/obamacare_protest-213x300.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBsUfZEHf_jlTRxM0muuUdwgDMmsP221AdXBHBdVDAYTPYZzGhRdTjXk2NF4pdN_eSLMYtSMFUFO7eCr_cxZrd-N2X1gxu3cJo-81vrrCT-5aEqR8bN1e8ucm2z6gohBv89wxP5m7mMwON/s1600/obamacare_protest-213x300.jpg" /></a><br />
The “official” Conservative objection is that Obamacare represents the worst of “big government” which intrudes on individual freedom. But this argument is spurious. Insurance is a statistical game. It has nothing to do with individuals. It’s a method of pooling risk in large groups of people, transferring that risk away from the individual, who is not able to sustain it alone.<br />
<br />
What about the “freedom” part though? Conservatives chafe at the idea that they are required to buy insurance. It should be a free, personal, economic choice, they say. Again, the argument is spurious, because insurance (unlike buying broccoli), is not a personal matter. Insurance is, by definition, communal.<br />
<br />
But what if an individual does not want to participate in the community’s shared risk? Let’s say this person imagines himself or herself to be a monad, willing to bear their own risk. Shouldn’t that person have the freedom to not participate in the community’s pooled risk and not buy health insurance if they don’t want it? <br />
<br />
That would be a defensible choice, but only if that person also agreed not to use the community’s resources when they get sick. No emergency room services (which the community paid for collectively). No police and ambulance support when you are tangled up in a car wreck (those are public, community-paid services). No publicly funded hospital care. No Medicare or Medicaid. And no public burial when you die. You’re completely on your own. Capice? <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, human beings are compassionate by nature (most of us, anyway). We will not watch you bleed to death on the highway because you didn’t buy insurance. We will, in fact, pull you out of your burning car and put you into an ambulance and try to save you, at community expense. By the terms of the Conservative economic argument, we should instead just step over your body, because you didn’t pay. But that’s not how it works.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEbXSfn_F0lVJMD6JNOxoG9iGC5wSWJHUGUkvIjfvhzj-lZFMSBR8wUqbk8-DlEjqZoVjm5_eiWS0WC-ORxTJEJ_M_kNv-LeBIqkotugWqoiXUTCmpCfWdg4GIMCzaBNv5YxLmMA1hZodl/s1600/ghostrider.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEbXSfn_F0lVJMD6JNOxoG9iGC5wSWJHUGUkvIjfvhzj-lZFMSBR8wUqbk8-DlEjqZoVjm5_eiWS0WC-ORxTJEJ_M_kNv-LeBIqkotugWqoiXUTCmpCfWdg4GIMCzaBNv5YxLmMA1hZodl/s200/ghostrider.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
It’s the same argument from motorcycle riders who declare it a matter of personal freedom whether or not to wear a helmet while riding. It would be, if you also agreed that when you go down (and you will), the rest of us can just shovel your injured body into the ditch, to clear the highway. Even if you agreed to that (out of stupidity, say), we wouldn’t actually do it, because we can’t, and so your so-called individual freedom makes you an unconscionable social free-rider (and that’s not a Nicholas Cage movie).<br />
<br />
Every person, without exception, gets sick, nearly everyone gets seriously injured or suffers a serious disease at some point. Everyone, without exception, gets old. Everyone dies. It is ridiculous to insist on “personal freedom” from pooled health care costs unless you are extremely wealthy, because you will need expensive health care eventually. That's an inescapable fact.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3RBIv4gUZ4gKA3NJHZmrPEfmowXKmWDgSrPKfI-jZ7xU2vFOk9LDXx1PDbAdJ9jRbn2_2NoR_nbucdXOsm5MhXADxmUwZbrixAkdXizcWDLfb7gAxgg49Dce1Wiyn-csibBhTZMnUTlDS/s1600/obamacare.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3RBIv4gUZ4gKA3NJHZmrPEfmowXKmWDgSrPKfI-jZ7xU2vFOk9LDXx1PDbAdJ9jRbn2_2NoR_nbucdXOsm5MhXADxmUwZbrixAkdXizcWDLfb7gAxgg49Dce1Wiyn-csibBhTZMnUTlDS/s200/obamacare.jpg" width="136" /></a><br />
So, Mr. Conservative, you can insist on your precious freedom, and when you do get sick, even though you are a selfish bastard, the rest of us will care for you at community expense. We’ll curse you the whole time, but we’ll do it. Because that’s how human nature works, for most people. <br />
<br />
So the argument that the community has no “right” to make you participate in the shared expense of caring for you, is either profoundly ignorant or psychopathically selfish. <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3RBIv4gUZ4gKA3NJHZmrPEfmowXKmWDgSrPKfI-jZ7xU2vFOk9LDXx1PDbAdJ9jRbn2_2NoR_nbucdXOsm5MhXADxmUwZbrixAkdXizcWDLfb7gAxgg49Dce1Wiyn-csibBhTZMnUTlDS/s1600/obamacare.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5bwCLW2NoQkHzQ4U68hw3GhqKr3vi3Gcqo5E9pQz5UGX1pFEXPTbKLlgrj3BhJ9lIdckEbA8QjfSxrPKxdeYmRZi-4Sj1ZNGO3Ig3Y1G_slaVDzqhtzx5ht8T7bO_8QlWfDyCwEFaf0hz/s1600/Love-obamacare_onpage.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDZQ2BzaKngKEOmJ188KQPluZkn4H2LoA7GD5g3VV2sKzJJcWjpCyP7_acTrpyjONfLN_yVmlWhByse7eiMwSlEr0SnkM6NYxX_FVt2_Nke74ZSeAbJYnZugIKLUq4Ex3QdMcs08DzdW7b/s1600/Obama-Obamacare-Signature.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjulcwiJ1jIrL9rX-dXphU10KRrAOD5aCmFYmBqHW9AoPKebvTEYco1pSW8FPnYGUue45EvCPlrszaYoDp5h06kdWp_CXcCI7ymcuxrRdi52xf0oGykY8vrwV4cAuPvqzWmaZKv28zPcC0g/s1600/obama-ObamaCare-Time.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a>Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-5241288325806019812012-03-22T15:51:00.018-07:002012-03-24T08:17:37.402-07:00Save Gas In Rising Prices?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYfFmf1PJQDn-447m-VtD2S-7KgROTt-rcKi0Dp4Ty0f6T9l79u3cD2BdyT-6-pGNH8W_fyly3T8fhXvkUk2M0Jhwc0W3XZusUn5QPjLgCUd67gMq0cN6oaVyHdXbaMSvn5M5O41z0xNog/s1600/Scion+xb+copper.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 250px; height: 186px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYfFmf1PJQDn-447m-VtD2S-7KgROTt-rcKi0Dp4Ty0f6T9l79u3cD2BdyT-6-pGNH8W_fyly3T8fhXvkUk2M0Jhwc0W3XZusUn5QPjLgCUd67gMq0cN6oaVyHdXbaMSvn5M5O41z0xNog/s320/Scion+xb+copper.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5722861200875916802" border="0" /></a>I need a second car, small, with high mpg. I thought a hybrid or even an electric would be a great choice, with gas prices going up the way they are. But after a little research, I realized that is not going to happen.<br /><br />My current car is a 2005 Scion xB that gets, on average, 28 mpg, well over 30 on a straight, flat highway, no passing, no air conditioning. That was terrific mileage back in ’05, but today I would expect a lot more.<br /><br />The Toyota Prius is the hybrid mileage leader at 45 mpg, or 40 mpg in the city. I used the more optimistic figure of 45 mpg for my comparisons.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOxcSr-3zwcq-tZginL6W_kOBBrOy-UNMbTO_FoDcxMm6J0I0_DkkPwVjn0XzhIVSfgthw696zuP62pqc8TH4fHUQDBZvZR5EKWBRp7GvAw8-LmiTBXd0YNzLQ1zsJgxRovlqpWiXUrDkq/s1600/2012_ford_fusion.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 235px; height: 158px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOxcSr-3zwcq-tZginL6W_kOBBrOy-UNMbTO_FoDcxMm6J0I0_DkkPwVjn0XzhIVSfgthw696zuP62pqc8TH4fHUQDBZvZR5EKWBRp7GvAw8-LmiTBXd0YNzLQ1zsJgxRovlqpWiXUrDkq/s320/2012_ford_fusion.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5722861750089493138" border="0" /></a>Other hybrids, like the Honda Civic and the Ford Fusion get closer to 40 mpg, less in the city. Some, like the Kia and Hyundai hybrids, are optimized for city, so they get 40 in the city and less on the highway. So I took 40 mpg as my point of comparison for non-Prius hybrids.<br /><br />Any of those numbers sounds a lot better than my measly 28 mpg, as gas approaches $4 a U.S. gallon. It’s $3.70 right now where I live, but climbing inexorably. I am mentally prepared for $5 gas within a year.<br /><br />But the clinker is the new car price. Hybrids command an $8,000 premium, on average. I can get a traditional gasoline-only small car that meets my needs for a second car, easily, for $20K. But a hybrid of comparable size, power, and cargo space will cost $28K on average. Sure it’s possible to get into the hybrid game for $24K, but it’s also possible to buy a perfectly adequate gasoline-only car for 17K. I’m comparing at a level of features that meet my needs, and at that level, hybrids are $8K more money.<br /><br />Maybe I should have bought five years ago when there was a $7,500 tax credit for hybrid cars. But I didn’t have the need then. This is now, and there is no tax credit now. A hybrid buyer just has to eat the hybrid premium.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkPLx1w5Yoe_8iA_Fg9zu-xJIcYuyLMSGroR3efrLGDNzC_BFzi4f_fFU4BfwliXeKrtfQ7nXZYkk5ernLVDT2REAz2vApO-OWB54RYxWFO2023XYgoasV5LPfuXvpgYts6L2uuMkhgXfF/s1600/Chevy+Volt.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 183px; height: 123px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkPLx1w5Yoe_8iA_Fg9zu-xJIcYuyLMSGroR3efrLGDNzC_BFzi4f_fFU4BfwliXeKrtfQ7nXZYkk5ernLVDT2REAz2vApO-OWB54RYxWFO2023XYgoasV5LPfuXvpgYts6L2uuMkhgXfF/s320/Chevy+Volt.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5722861941888358994" border="0" /></a>What about an all-electric? I live in the southwest U.S. where it is 25 miles round trip to the grocery store, 50 to school and 70 to the doctor, so I need plenty of “range,” which only the Chevy Volt can offer. (It’s nominally all-electric, though it has a tiny gasoline “assist” engine). A Volt costs about $40k. There is a tax credit of about $2,500 for an all-electric, so the net is $37.5K. That’s a whopping $10,000 price premium. The other, cheaper electrics don’t have range, so it’s Volt or nothing. Nothing is cheaper.<br /><br />Going back to the $8000 hybrid premium, wouldn’t I save that much in gas purchases in a short time? Alas, no. I don’t commute every day and often my car doesn’t even leave the garage two days out of the week. My annual mileage is only 8400. So I burn 300 gallons of gas in a year. For $5 gas, that is $1500 a year in fuel (and of course I am not actually paying $5 yet!)<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrCQHVuczoQ-d6VMJ1svhdvUau06ZbPlLk2or8cQEYujr3jjWb3PFBOOgXWjh5iHiNHQxFxt_-toyMFKTrrBOzeHoD9L-O01p99kig8abojdZ7Z_qtS8-OtwErkGkqRRASD37Gz2hdcxEW/s1600/Prius.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 304px; height: 166px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrCQHVuczoQ-d6VMJ1svhdvUau06ZbPlLk2or8cQEYujr3jjWb3PFBOOgXWjh5iHiNHQxFxt_-toyMFKTrrBOzeHoD9L-O01p99kig8abojdZ7Z_qtS8-OtwErkGkqRRASD37Gz2hdcxEW/s320/Prius.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5722860475336083650" border="0" /></a>If I had a Prius, I would need only 192 gallons a year, costing me $933, an annual savings of $567. That savings would be nice, but it wouldn’t go very far toward offsetting the $8,000 premium I had to pay to get the Prius. It would take me almost 14 years to break even! The warranty on a Prius is only 5 years.<br /><br />Ah, but what if the price of gas really went through the roof, which it well could? What if gas ramped up to $12 a gallon? The Prius, with its 45mpg would cost me $2,240 annually in fuel, compared to my current clunker, which would cost an eye-watering $3,600. That’s a monster savings of $1,360 a year for the Prius. Unfortunately, that still is more than a six-year break even.<br /><br />Of course the savings calculations are even less favorable for hybrids other than the Prius, with their lower mpg ratings. So the obvious conclusion is that the savings in fuel costs I could expect from a hybrid do not even come close to balancing the premium I would have to pay to get the hybrid in the first place. The calculations simply scale up the same problem if I were driving 12,000 miles or more a year. The math just doesn’t work.<br /><br />I could tell myself I would be contributing to America’s effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil, so maybe that $8000 hybrid premium is worth it. Maybe it is, to some rich person. For me, $8000 is a lot of money to donate just because the U.S. congress is incapable of passing a rational energy policy. No thanks; it’s not worth subsidizing incompetence to that extent.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgP_90ID1jPsXfySuC6xLAQMVWvIsFui4qZPdV1cddxvgd6Vx_D3ssr3E3-r8KeBDPWInp4ZjXWRx22GvnzDLzC-IKyafDULnMLnZZIx5t9Rd-fRTE4fwszCdahWyBUlcMJoL4ASL1782eQ/s1600/Scion+IQ.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 190px; height: 115px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgP_90ID1jPsXfySuC6xLAQMVWvIsFui4qZPdV1cddxvgd6Vx_D3ssr3E3-r8KeBDPWInp4ZjXWRx22GvnzDLzC-IKyafDULnMLnZZIx5t9Rd-fRTE4fwszCdahWyBUlcMJoL4ASL1782eQ/s320/Scion+IQ.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5722862638669050850" border="0" /></a>And here’s the sick part. When I look at the mpg of smaller, lightweight “crossover” vehicles, gasoline-only, like the Honda CR-V, I see mileage ratings like 22/32, which isn’t even as good as I get now with my aging box. The new Scions, regrettably, are bigger and heavier and now get only 22/28, no improvement for me. I could get a tiny 2-seater Like a Scion IQ or a Smart, that will make 37 mpg, as long as I stayed away from the freeway, where I would be crushed like a bug by one of those 18-wheelers smoking north out of Mexico.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZBDzab4LWm1g3cjENQxJHHWugHCqDLVr2m8Y6spx7Yvk89AnTYjMRBQyavP-K8IChSii6gzxQNUfB_ydo5PWuoDox7HI1qSJCQjOCI51cyIlVXpIA5n2S_OFTQsznQP955pd4uKA0lvvK/s1600/Hyundai+veloster.JPG"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 157px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZBDzab4LWm1g3cjENQxJHHWugHCqDLVr2m8Y6spx7Yvk89AnTYjMRBQyavP-K8IChSii6gzxQNUfB_ydo5PWuoDox7HI1qSJCQjOCI51cyIlVXpIA5n2S_OFTQsznQP955pd4uKA0lvvK/s320/Hyundai+veloster.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5722862842620368546" border="0" /></a>Or I could bow to harsh reality, and go for a traditional smaller sedan with mileage only slightly better than what I get now:<br />Chevy Cruz 28/42<br />Chevy Sonic 30/40<br />Ford Fiesta 29/40<br />Ford Focus 28/40<br />Honda Civic 29/41<br />Hyundai Accent 30/40<br />Hyundai Elantra 29/40<br />Hyundai Veloster 30/40<br />Mazda 3 28/40Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-69501736049733530722012-02-20T14:56:00.000-08:002012-02-20T16:47:18.699-08:00Why Rationality is Not Relevant<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwpffiGo_MaYGgA5gnjWezuot04gt4dMTYcgWDDbeNVilV5CtyEVNxtfUiz_h4MGiVkhdiootxWC-0LJP3qBLPOu0JRXNuoaUE0KL_tFM6RLqQcNV0zTxvaEIkJnHr6Ih7O8QWYNQIkKy0/s1600/Friedman.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 230px; height: 201px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwpffiGo_MaYGgA5gnjWezuot04gt4dMTYcgWDDbeNVilV5CtyEVNxtfUiz_h4MGiVkhdiootxWC-0LJP3qBLPOu0JRXNuoaUE0KL_tFM6RLqQcNV0zTxvaEIkJnHr6Ih7O8QWYNQIkKy0/s320/Friedman.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5711355816554781042" border="0" /></a>In an op-ed column in last Sunday’s New York Times (Feb 18, 2012), Tom Friedman suggests that if Rick Santorum wins the Republican nomination, a third-party candidate for president would emerge, someone more moderate and reasonable, who could appeal to a larger constituency, and possibly beat Obama.<br /><br />Friedman recommends David Walker, former the U.S. comptroller general under the G.W. Bush administration, for that role, because, according to Friedman, Walker says reasonable, moderate things about fiscal policy.<br /><br />This idea demonstrates that Friedman misunderstands the current political climate, which has nothing to do with policies. Rather, the upcoming election is about self-identity. Republicans want a candidate who will represent who they think they are, plain working folks. They want someone who can stand up to the snooty elites in Washington who they think try to tell them how to live and what to believe. That’s what it’s about: identity, inclusion, and respect. It has nothing to do with fiscal policy or any other policy.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinogZVJgWuS84BAcAhPpCNXW_wsmVICSQol7yS2X2D-qCVRpgmYn7Vx9zuD4D8bK6ZNNwCGR3om3T-MVkDt4EU8MZAyJ0zfBgqG0raxrJyqmVGZb33pAGO5el2IQS07ViweLqWztJfTd9U/s1600/help.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 207px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinogZVJgWuS84BAcAhPpCNXW_wsmVICSQol7yS2X2D-qCVRpgmYn7Vx9zuD4D8bK6ZNNwCGR3om3T-MVkDt4EU8MZAyJ0zfBgqG0raxrJyqmVGZb33pAGO5el2IQS07ViweLqWztJfTd9U/s320/help.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5711356050069077986" border="0" /></a>Virtually no normal person willingly accepts and enjoys a negative self-identity. Nobody will admit or declare, “I am an unschooled, uninformed, unintelligent, unskilled, ineffectual, fearful, dull-witted sheep in search of a shepherd. Help me.”<br /><br />Instead, a person wants a self-identity that says “I am salt of the earth; embracing the real virtues, the ones endorsed by God, not Washington; I am humble, intuitive, honest, strong, brave, hard-working, steadfast, resilient, self-sufficient, abundantly possessed of common sense, imbued with wholesome, traditional values, rooted in the past, unimpressed by fancy arguments, statistics, or reasoning; and I won’t be bullied. Respect me.”<br /><br />That’s what the Republican primary is about, identity, not policy differences or “principles.” If discussion were to shift to policy, there would be no meaningful distinction between self and other, which is tantamount to psychological self-annihilation for a person without a mature self-identity.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguF5eYTf19DkcJtnVmSNukI65sW_J9SSdbkBCUY2DWuJUueq-oASfG8Kg1nf0r8MaVZAmpAqltfs8Gl6oXUnat4oXVbeQ4GJozeMTkUwD6ITwTM6yK6RMS4dspikYjQg9Qt5gRFmzolgU2/s1600/Obama-2012.jpeg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 141px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguF5eYTf19DkcJtnVmSNukI65sW_J9SSdbkBCUY2DWuJUueq-oASfG8Kg1nf0r8MaVZAmpAqltfs8Gl6oXUnat4oXVbeQ4GJozeMTkUwD6ITwTM6yK6RMS4dspikYjQg9Qt5gRFmzolgU2/s320/Obama-2012.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5711356298997370050" border="0" /></a>Rational discourse will only resume when the out-party feels included and respected, and therefore sufficiently safe from bullying and humiliation. Obama thought he could facilitate a bipartisan feeling, but he didn’t count on racism, which is not rational, nor the bifurcation of American society into those who could adapt to a rapidly changing world and those who cannot. He is, in fact, facilitating the eventual return to civil discourse, just by being in the office and conducting himself with dignity. A genuine return to rationality in the body politic could take a long time, generations, perhaps. It’s like growing up: nothing can be done to rush it.<br /><br />Nevertheless, we should note, the current unpleasant and unhelpful atmosphere of irrational squawking is far, far better than the alternative kind of discourse we see in other parts of the world: guns and bombs.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-60902029202775220012012-02-03T08:23:00.000-08:002012-02-03T08:42:27.047-08:00Why Theocracy?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2ry4cE28tQdIZVKQ084dG-tRSEuWndt2b4zBL_13Epv_LUjEVpeBhK4SzD9_Zte5meISMz8w8BRWaXtjYGHzipMb7LVCBG6pUu12FtzxMRXuFrZ-fTqsRQvywyNkGtwfQ1uYvtwwmuxhd/s1600/flag.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 196px; height: 123px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2ry4cE28tQdIZVKQ084dG-tRSEuWndt2b4zBL_13Epv_LUjEVpeBhK4SzD9_Zte5meISMz8w8BRWaXtjYGHzipMb7LVCBG6pUu12FtzxMRXuFrZ-fTqsRQvywyNkGtwfQ1uYvtwwmuxhd/s320/flag.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5704947110351178258" border="0" /></a>What is the Attraction of Theocracy? It seems like a lot of people in the world wish for a government controlled by religious principles. Some places have that already, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City. Some countries are nominally secular but under constant influence and pressure from religion, countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, Pakistan, Israel, America.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW0EqqSzBZm3Qh5-KDVa-atFdgT-ZT76tTMhmTGl3D2eT15Co8Hw97amxvyOGb0jOvmeMIOZ6GVdXd0Ffx3zT-G9vgRS23tPqoT7mVf7sfFz2Jcw9KJ3Kzauayi_HJ2G0PXTBaZG1cfKA6/s1600/imam.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 138px; height: 115px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW0EqqSzBZm3Qh5-KDVa-atFdgT-ZT76tTMhmTGl3D2eT15Co8Hw97amxvyOGb0jOvmeMIOZ6GVdXd0Ffx3zT-G9vgRS23tPqoT7mVf7sfFz2Jcw9KJ3Kzauayi_HJ2G0PXTBaZG1cfKA6/s320/imam.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5704947246307595202" border="0" /></a>For certain people, controlling a government seems desirable because of the power and relative wealth it would bring to them. So naturally they would like to see themselves in power. But the venality of a few aside, the real mystery is why so many ordinary people seem also to desire government by religion. Why would anybody want that?<br /><br />This thought was provoked by a recent article in the Arizona Daily Star (http://azstarnet.com/): Rhonda Bodfield, “2 AZ bills would allow Bible class in schools,”<br />posted Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:00 am.<br /><br />According to this article, “A Republican lawmaker from Tucson wants to allow the Bible to be taught as an elective in high school. State Rep. Terri Proud said … HB 2563 and HB 2473 aren't about bringing church in the classroom, but aim to familiarize students with the way biblical references impact literature, art, music and public policy.”<br /><br />Apparently, instead of explaining to students the meaning of a biblical reference in Shakespeare, it would be better to just teach the Bible itself, old and new testaments.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKcG6yCtkSIbFmaaikfSDYU_BEvwAYryjuBnLzI_5BfBrE43cAlbRV60iQmnSXK1N_sZ4gGAfJ5O3A7bv1wwH7whkmWiVUtyd7f8gvFGDULL4VePHmzbUHDP7URoGIiZwFTbSAiTYi5oBf/s1600/pope.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 98px; height: 114px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKcG6yCtkSIbFmaaikfSDYU_BEvwAYryjuBnLzI_5BfBrE43cAlbRV60iQmnSXK1N_sZ4gGAfJ5O3A7bv1wwH7whkmWiVUtyd7f8gvFGDULL4VePHmzbUHDP7URoGIiZwFTbSAiTYi5oBf/s320/pope.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5704947913499569522" border="0" /></a>Arizona being Arizona, this kind of thinly disguised push toward theocratic indoctrination is an endemic disease on the body politic. It can’t be stopped, and probably shouldn’t be anyway, in deference to the First Amendment. And it's not just Arizona of course. The theocratic impulse seems quite alive in national political figures like Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and on and endlessly on.<br /><br />Still, it made me wonder what motivates people like that. What do they think would be the good part of a theocracy?<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBg5vQP9lu2BDgCj7YN5Gj2-uNFAyD5jR5bZW4nsp9zRZYJF-6cP7AMvtEEjBcZuqjbJ8_H4mIczPU2GeIFop61QQwnoJwTf0tQuqevxFQKBoFJ-SzYBrXdOUJ9kF0IC0Im3w8IXrG9ip3/s1600/faith.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 123px; height: 115px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBg5vQP9lu2BDgCj7YN5Gj2-uNFAyD5jR5bZW4nsp9zRZYJF-6cP7AMvtEEjBcZuqjbJ8_H4mIczPU2GeIFop61QQwnoJwTf0tQuqevxFQKBoFJ-SzYBrXdOUJ9kF0IC0Im3w8IXrG9ip3/s320/faith.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5704948271609933378" border="0" /></a>Historically, government not separated from religion has led to decades, and even centuries, of violence and oppression. But let’s assume Rep. Proud, and most people, don’t know history and don’t fear it. What then are the positive benefits they would hope to gain from a government imbued with religion?<br /><br />Let’s imagine the public schools could teach the Bible obsessively to their heart's content, pray in school endlessly, indoctrinate the youth, leading to a uniformity of <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE0PFS2XYu_g5ucO5-OnScW7us4oi138r9FRQRKtJ9gNRuApsmywxbC1GGIsuNfTW6lFFYzjzb5SgcYetOjN1mlOnC8AgWiAg6Rq3nTcSc107dl8dXnQ98wbsnElCt5S5nlRH38jIGaYkY/s1600/sign.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 153px; height: 147px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE0PFS2XYu_g5ucO5-OnScW7us4oi138r9FRQRKtJ9gNRuApsmywxbC1GGIsuNfTW6lFFYzjzb5SgcYetOjN1mlOnC8AgWiAg6Rq3nTcSc107dl8dXnQ98wbsnElCt5S5nlRH38jIGaYkY/s320/sign.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5704948462237666146" border="0" /></a>thought centered on Christian doctrine, expunging evolution, cosmology, and other contentious topics from the curriculum. After a generation or two, we could have a theocratic government, perhaps much like Iran’s, complete with thought police. What is the good part of that?<br /><br />Why is a government without diversity and freedom considered desirable? Our constitution prohibits the government from supporting any particular religion, and at the same time guarantees freedom of religious expression outside of government. What is the flaw in that setup that makes people want to move instead to theocracy? I just don’t get it.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-20522407203784756122011-12-09T11:59:00.000-08:002011-12-09T12:19:38.200-08:00How To Leave Your Big Bank<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQPsq_z2y0Wwb0tWgx5oC-kLOrLaMb8IQWuWSbvH0CESdxnbzCNMgoeOTVF5xACWC_-J3wVQoOojk6jBZa8TxUxsZXDfLm-Q35PbQ4XXyu4fQwE9BMO-Chtaof3kT2XDJg7ElTcPGnfwWN/s1600/Bank_of_America-online.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 231px; height: 174px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQPsq_z2y0Wwb0tWgx5oC-kLOrLaMb8IQWuWSbvH0CESdxnbzCNMgoeOTVF5xACWC_-J3wVQoOojk6jBZa8TxUxsZXDfLm-Q35PbQ4XXyu4fQwE9BMO-Chtaof3kT2XDJg7ElTcPGnfwWN/s320/Bank_of_America-online.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684223517557433026" border="0" /></a><br />I decided to leave my big national bank and move to a local credit union. It was not easy. Here are some tips on how to do it.<br /><br />First though, why do this? There are many reasons, but the main one is that the big banks don’t play fair. They are hoarding trillions in cash but refuse to make loans. Why? Because they do not want to properly value the mountains of bad mortgage derivatives they still hold from the financial crisis, because if they did that, it would be obvious that they are virtually insolvent. So they would rather perpetuate the national housing crisis than write down their own profits.<br /><br />Secondly, most are indeed virtually insolvent. I had serious concerns about my big bank, which keeps announcing cutbacks and layoffs. Just because they are called “too big to fail” does not mean they are too big to fail.<br /><br />Third, fees keep creeping up and service keeps declining. My bank told me the only way I could retain my no-fee checking account was to go 100% e-banking, totally online, which was fine with me, but they also said I was no longer welcome in the lobby of the bank and if I ever talked to a live person in the bank, I would have to pay a fee. Friendly!<br /><br />Next, their software has become unstable. Several times I have been locked out of my accounts because of faults in their software that suddenly does not recognize me or any of <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOand4KEZa9MaeHjf1Yxpkjy5zCsFEOKnZViERo1nEHLr6w7RtVLKn4XsglNgKrGoVPjQrCQz8nTJJLEfP7t6Eb-zLf5gjgrEPPDd1RfF-vf8ofA3mdnLkl8bi-skZbbDNQZZ6vb98rO7d/s1600/occupy_wall_street.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 225px; height: 146px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOand4KEZa9MaeHjf1Yxpkjy5zCsFEOKnZViERo1nEHLr6w7RtVLKn4XsglNgKrGoVPjQrCQz8nTJJLEfP7t6Eb-zLf5gjgrEPPDd1RfF-vf8ofA3mdnLkl8bi-skZbbDNQZZ6vb98rO7d/s320/occupy_wall_street.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684223981691193346" border="0" /></a>my credentials. When I call the 800 number, the agent knows nothing can do nothing. Usually after a couple of days, the software rights itself and I can bank again. A financial institution must NOT have unstable software.<br /><br />Next, I think it makes more sense to support banking in my own community instead of financing fat bonuses for parasites in New York.<br /><br />I’ve been thinking about changing banks for a long time, but the Occupy movement convinced me to finally do it.<br /><br />So here’s how it went.<br /><br />1. The first thing is to write down all memorized passwords, pins, user ID’s and so on that you use at the big bank. Hide that scrap of paper in a secure location. You do this because the changeover to the new bank can take up to two months and you will forget all those secret codes as you develop new ones at the new bank.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6dY3giT7N3-lsTJ8-jFHDij3C9nTYY3Df5mT0rDzoajG2JgqnR0Kn-mFFSjeglL6CQEJz6wnQ9QENOjHG7L3X7CZnWmj_pP9dxvG7s9X5jKOCv_FNBg9n_1ACBmvApyFsU3qQT06qZD3L/s1600/community-bank.jpg"></a>2. Find a community bank you can work with. I surveyed several credit unions in my city for availability of branches near me, no-fee checking, ATMs and other services I need. I visited three of them. In two, I couldn’t get anyone’s attention. If you walk right up to a teller, the teller cannot open a new account and will only refer you to a “manager.” But the closest I ever got to a manager was a clerk who handed me some brochures. At the third CU, there was a greeter at the door who welcomed me and made an appointment for 5 minutes later with an appropriate manager.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJOj7j5UdZv6d2NX3wkz9fcEosVbsCm4qC-LF-6L2rssU3tRoasjbs8_7nM-ICIaBNYTSZNvK-cSUF4ljojrzxddsxwzB5O-putlX_p4BeT9kh3O3TmCWpjhHZZRHAgW7DjBH8ntQA7PRn/s1600/community-bank.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 217px; height: 217px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJOj7j5UdZv6d2NX3wkz9fcEosVbsCm4qC-LF-6L2rssU3tRoasjbs8_7nM-ICIaBNYTSZNvK-cSUF4ljojrzxddsxwzB5O-putlX_p4BeT9kh3O3TmCWpjhHZZRHAgW7DjBH8ntQA7PRn/s320/community-bank.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684225066259013570" border="0" /></a>3. Read the financial statement of the new bank. This is available in the lobby, or you can ask the manager for it. Just check the balance sheet to see if they are making money, not deeply in debt. If you don’t know how to read it, get a friend who does. Make sure your deposits are insured by the appropriate federal agency for that type of institution.<br /><br />4. Verify that the new bank offers the services you need at rates you are willing to pay. My new CU has virtually free checking, savings, home and car loans, and they sell some kinds of insurance. The checking is “virtually” free because you must maintain a $25 savings balance to make the checking account work, so that is basically a one-time charge for opening a checking account, okay with me.<br /><br />5. Open a test account with a minimal balance, just to see how the paperwork goes. I opened an account for a hobby that generates about $20 a month in deposits. With such an account, you can test the bank’s bill-paying software and other online services, get some checks printed, and you can try their ATM network. Most credit unions have collaboration agreements to honor each other’s debit cards, so even though the small bank has far fewer branches and fewer ATMs compared to the big bank, the collaboration makes a virtual network just as functional. Some of the participating credit unions charge a small fee for using their ATM with another bank’s card, but many do not. When you’re traveling, you can use the network, or use the old grocery store trick to get cash (pay with debit card and ask for cash back). The big stores will give $100 with no question.<br /><br />6. Make sure you have enough money left in the big bank to pay a month’s worth of bills while you transfer your direct deposits over to the new bank.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiENRDHJ16og61ZZe7LZnBQAPfm4aOjog25wys_LvyOVYdBjhYYWTiLEblnER0xTQWxcmAwF9MKcJQB_XnMhcVBLbXJnYy1kU2efNtd3PjrVHPna3vfdRocN-cwNiqZ_c9gxz3Tbba5KMMd/s1600/credit+card.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 237px; height: 212px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiENRDHJ16og61ZZe7LZnBQAPfm4aOjog25wys_LvyOVYdBjhYYWTiLEblnER0xTQWxcmAwF9MKcJQB_XnMhcVBLbXJnYy1kU2efNtd3PjrVHPna3vfdRocN-cwNiqZ_c9gxz3Tbba5KMMd/s320/credit+card.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684225209142005826" border="0" /></a>7. If you have a credit card with the big bank, stop using it and start using a new credit card, either from your new bank, or from an airline, or somewhere else. If you have investment accounts, your new broker will roll them over. The new broker might be at your new bank, or be an independent broker, even an online service such as Fidelity or Vanguard, etc. If you have loans with the old bank, the new bank will help you move them over.<br /><br />8. If all has gone well, open another account at the new bank to handle your main financial transactions (or just use the hobby account if you didn't really need it for that), then acquire and fill out the forms necessary to arrange for direct deposits to the new bank. You get direct deposit authorization forms from your employer, your pension manager, investment broker, social security, whatever. Send those in. Let a month to six weeks go by until you are sure deposits are going to your new bank, not your old bank.<br /><br />9. While you are waiting, begin documenting your payee information for the new bank. You will find that the old bank will not reveal your payee information to you, because that is one way they make it difficult for you to leave. So when a new bill comes in the mail, or comes due online, write down all the information you need to pay it, including account number, the full address of where the payment goes, the customer service phone number, everything. Then you can enter that information in the new bank’s online bill payer service. Keep the written copy because the new bank probably will also hide most of the information from you (it’s a common bank strategy).<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjByKdNmghoLg9lpDvHrbpEOP5hWXnsnqg8A5VFm-bCSkC40PGuCNaW7mIAAFBrnRIWVdDIyeyuQa3AaIshlkV2NzhKJzWUCKBWxKPNmp3cpEPpdKquTFafxXZuwo4TRBrlT1hxwqBK8t6P/s1600/americaculogo.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 155px; height: 155px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjByKdNmghoLg9lpDvHrbpEOP5hWXnsnqg8A5VFm-bCSkC40PGuCNaW7mIAAFBrnRIWVdDIyeyuQa3AaIshlkV2NzhKJzWUCKBWxKPNmp3cpEPpdKquTFafxXZuwo4TRBrlT1hxwqBK8t6P/s320/americaculogo.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684225469164274322" border="0" /></a>10. As direct deposits come in to the new bank, use them to pay whatever payees that you have set up so far online at the new bank, to make sure the bill payment system is working right. If you have authorized some creditors to debit your account directly, you need to contact them and change the debit to the new bank. Until all the deposits are finally coming in to the new bank, pay the rest of your bills out of the old bank until it is out of money, which will be after all the direct deposits have switched over to the new bank. Eventually, you will have transferred all your deposits and all your payees to the new bank.<br /><br />11. Use your new bank account to pay off the balance on your old bank credit card, or, if you can’t do that, transfer the balance to the new card.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-v2opftISO3Z5u6zXSB02DDA_oQrI-h05unTRNJwOsM4L6Bg5-A8bCKgEyHRKg5SzF8kRtcdz3dbqjKAm0QAaFgV41ZKPYGnC2QA4zrv_4TxdMFh5eglhZHVsuISnFQ7J4NsEzaFJMfDG/s1600/soxfirst.com.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-v2opftISO3Z5u6zXSB02DDA_oQrI-h05unTRNJwOsM4L6Bg5-A8bCKgEyHRKg5SzF8kRtcdz3dbqjKAm0QAaFgV41ZKPYGnC2QA4zrv_4TxdMFh5eglhZHVsuISnFQ7J4NsEzaFJMfDG/s320/soxfirst.com.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684225633733978914" border="0" /></a>12. When all is good, write a check against the old bank to zero out the balance and deposit it in the new bank. Be sure to get an accurate current balance at the old bank, net of any fees. You can do that at their ATM. After that check clears, notify your old bank in writing or email that you are closing the account. If you fail to do that, they can continue to assess fees on you and when you don’t pay them hassle you and your credit rating. You can just cut up your old bank credit card or you can call the 800 number and cancel it. <span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">(cartoon soxfirst.com)</span><br /></span>Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-31243290456518129232011-11-28T11:13:00.000-08:002011-11-28T12:02:56.239-08:00Are the Super-Rich Really Job-Creators?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu1wCdDlPa1QiF63Y0j2Ti_nHdjHTUskjQXeJZTpMO0i-I1GYZEggwNec_28LHqZFnsjefTxlgaZY5vTAyEgTMlzTuLHwQyK2t0PcY3-KpW0gXq2XS8HUGd-5uacTYKDU-scqnfSQe7mVb/s1600/Krugman.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 219px; height: 161px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu1wCdDlPa1QiF63Y0j2Ti_nHdjHTUskjQXeJZTpMO0i-I1GYZEggwNec_28LHqZFnsjefTxlgaZY5vTAyEgTMlzTuLHwQyK2t0PcY3-KpW0gXq2XS8HUGd-5uacTYKDU-scqnfSQe7mVb/s320/Krugman.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5680127265939876178" border="0" /></a>In a New York Times op-ed column today, the ever-surprised economist, Paul Krugman, argued that it makes sense to tax the rich (“Things to Tax: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/opinion/krugman-things-to-tax.html?_r=1&ref=opinion). To those who say taxing the rich wouldn’t raise much revenue, he counters that “The I.R.S. reports that in 2007, that is, before the economic crisis, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2 million — had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money…” Let’s note also, that’s from just one-tenth of one percent of taxpayers.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUds8xtgO3IF2g4RcOifM4adlCSGoNf7Ro1jw95LdVyt5Ya2Lcgu2f-tWScjJV4dauX6BmiJP_VJBa4kb_Nakdre2cxOZ1dXUnryMGsdm8XnDaP3PSwnv4OKQiUr0wajY2vYTDtGC0i_9D/s1600/John+Kyl.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 184px; height: 110px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUds8xtgO3IF2g4RcOifM4adlCSGoNf7Ro1jw95LdVyt5Ya2Lcgu2f-tWScjJV4dauX6BmiJP_VJBa4kb_Nakdre2cxOZ1dXUnryMGsdm8XnDaP3PSwnv4OKQiUr0wajY2vYTDtGC0i_9D/s320/John+Kyl.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5680127478955448706" border="0" /></a>Republican Senator John Kyl is ready with a well-worn comeback. Also in the New York times today, Kyl argues that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be continued because, “increasing taxes on the most affluent Americans, including small-business owners who report business income on their personal tax returns, would undermine the fragile economic recovery. The best way to hurt economic growth is to impose more taxes on the people who do the hiring…” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/us/politics/senator-questions-extension-of-tax-cut.html ).<br /><br />This is a common Republican refrain, though patently bogus. Do the top one-tenth of one percent of income earners in America actually “do the hiring?” Notice that Kyl’s criterion is “small-business owners who report business income on their personal tax returns.” That’s a different group than the top 0.1% of income earners.<br /><br />Anybody can report business income. That doesn’t mean they are creating jobs. If you sell some stuff on Ebay, you should report that as business income, even though it doesn’t make you a job creator and it doesn’t automatically put you in the top 1% of earners.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy2eojLekLC_F3U6nuCtCVO8tT9STGUT1JejBywk1XMUVKHIX8HNFDX6NXaxOZSTkcayV4VlGiMHibQn635WoYVMCnYPZJOYHNohyphenhyphenxNVs0bRLt-GbvOuSSDtq1o6HH_eOSTCk3Oszz16Xf/s1600/2010_06_urbanbodega.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 210px; height: 141px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy2eojLekLC_F3U6nuCtCVO8tT9STGUT1JejBywk1XMUVKHIX8HNFDX6NXaxOZSTkcayV4VlGiMHibQn635WoYVMCnYPZJOYHNohyphenhyphenxNVs0bRLt-GbvOuSSDtq1o6HH_eOSTCk3Oszz16Xf/s320/2010_06_urbanbodega.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5680128537439926706" border="0" /></a>What is “business income?” The treasury department defines small business income as any ordinary income, long-term or short-term gains, from sole proprietorships, S corporations, partnerships, estates and trusts. (factcheck.org, March 6, 2009).<br /><br />By this definition, are the rich the small business owners? 73% of Americans in the top two tax brackets report some kind of business income on their tax returns, but that does not mean they are “hiring employees” or “creating jobs.” They could be just cashing their trust fund checks.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfnqcVTPx602b3ctTp5HgoSLmF5anPlmiVNxk7HfpXacmUxME8Hn2Iym6bn0DFb1kBm4s563MkU9VsmVtvIIK3DAWAXLM7R9gEtBm7svGdqeqeXliOnxuLn3AQ29AOVUzx0YOzixk2DXFP/s1600/cepr-20110414-incomegap.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 231px; height: 175px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfnqcVTPx602b3ctTp5HgoSLmF5anPlmiVNxk7HfpXacmUxME8Hn2Iym6bn0DFb1kBm4s563MkU9VsmVtvIIK3DAWAXLM7R9gEtBm7svGdqeqeXliOnxuLn3AQ29AOVUzx0YOzixk2DXFP/s320/cepr-20110414-incomegap.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5680128758532529874" border="0" /></a>It is a crude sleight of hand to suggest that anyone who is rich is automatically a job-creator. If that were true, it would be hard to explain why employment has not jumped way up over the past ten years while the incomes of the upper 1% of Americans rose 18 percent. (http://mediamatters.org/research/201110200011). It must be that all those rich people were not actually “hiring,” as Republicans claimed.<br /><br />Some of the super-wealthy are corporate executives whose companies do create many jobs. It is hard to imagine that increasing the marginal tax rate on their personal income would cause their companies to hire fewer people. And anyway, they are not “small” business owners, the ones who actually create most of the jobs in America.<br /><br />In fact only 27% of upper income tax returns show business income that makes up more than half of wages. Presumably, a real small business owner would take home most of his or her wages from the business (factcheck.org, March 6, 2009). The vast majority of people who <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi69XxPphRI0SEzu7Ptiz5SRROQKrSuUWBEM6j2wrAt0PjPgYUVthELqU2r-nGIDxkFe1Rbh5DjTT5SSrZdZLTP71qPi5Q0RUDnzdbSSgmPS9TCiT5_N-BRN_aIfF9BNH5e8wtMeSDWG1Wu/s1600/The+1%2525.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 259px; height: 194px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi69XxPphRI0SEzu7Ptiz5SRROQKrSuUWBEM6j2wrAt0PjPgYUVthELqU2r-nGIDxkFe1Rbh5DjTT5SSrZdZLTP71qPi5Q0RUDnzdbSSgmPS9TCiT5_N-BRN_aIfF9BNH5e8wtMeSDWG1Wu/s320/The+1%2525.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5680129555512418146" border="0" /></a>report business income on their tax return are not running a small company that’s on a hiring spree. And even among those who are, only 2% of them earn enough money to make it into the top tax brackets (factcheck.org).<br /><br />The categories, “rich” and “job creator” are almost non-overlapping. Yet Republicans routinely equate them. It is a spurious equation and I can’t understand why the news media let it go uncommented. Even Krugman doesn’t mention it. It is a completely false argument that taxing the rich destroys jobs. How Republicans continue to get away with spouting such nonsense is a mystery.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-16001309183148875422011-09-06T14:10:00.000-07:002011-09-07T15:35:58.670-07:00Why the Wheels Fell Off<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxR3xQiyjbmEqrdAy-EJV_3tDuDUOpBuIHLg5tBx4oUSzpWRBl2_91hqzwbhMp-XO9_i5rpgalNzlwCMgy8aTg9O1tm0E6B7RK0C4urVxyPeuPJx8G3Go1TVE1yxxYVE7Lf95nKCC_0abM/s1600/Wheels+off.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 180px; height: 137px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxR3xQiyjbmEqrdAy-EJV_3tDuDUOpBuIHLg5tBx4oUSzpWRBl2_91hqzwbhMp-XO9_i5rpgalNzlwCMgy8aTg9O1tm0E6B7RK0C4urVxyPeuPJx8G3Go1TVE1yxxYVE7Lf95nKCC_0abM/s320/Wheels+off.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649359713794225426" border="0" /></a>Three years after the financial collapse of ’08, the American economy is still on life support. The main devastation occurred in unemployment, which remains above 9% nationally, as high as 25% in some regions and much higher among some age and ethnic groups. Even among those employed, the mortgage crisis limits economic growth, with almost half of mortgages worth more than equity, and tens of millions of houses in foreclosure. GDP has been limping along at 1% for years, with no prospect of an upturn as long as consumers don’t spend (what would they spend?) and retail credit remains inaccessible. There is talk about continued recession for at least two more years, more likely six.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGM6GZ4wJ_xf9QWAff2FLcRSwP93CayGfz9jni_tvIIkx6JfN6JcO5Yk2BKwDVf3njWPJE-qwCpcq1LlNBw8G50rfq-fUUmH-Oxs1g_3yeH-7h-yqkikiXyXk31hl0DD3HYw-HOQ1lLMrw/s1600/money+drain.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 166px; height: 110px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGM6GZ4wJ_xf9QWAff2FLcRSwP93CayGfz9jni_tvIIkx6JfN6JcO5Yk2BKwDVf3njWPJE-qwCpcq1LlNBw8G50rfq-fUUmH-Oxs1g_3yeH-7h-yqkikiXyXk31hl0DD3HYw-HOQ1lLMrw/s320/money+drain.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649359799407432594" border="0" /></a>What happened is that rich people took all the money. They left next to nothing for the rest of us. They played the capitalist game and won. They are still winning, and I expect will continue to do so, barring the unforeseen. This does not make the rich, bad people. The whole point of the capitalist game is to get rich. There are winners and there are losers. But the present outcome, painful recession for most people, is the inevitable consequence of the rich siphoning off America’s wealth over the last thirty years. It could have been moderated, but it wasn’t. Now here we are.<br /><br />First, let’s make sure we understand that in fact, the rich have siphoned off the country’s wealth. According to G. William Domhoff (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html),<br /><br />As of 2007, the top 1% of American households (the upper class) owns 34.6% (more than a third) of all privately held wealth in this country.<br /><br />The next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) holds 50.5% (more than half).<br /><br />This means that the wealthiest 20% of Americans hoard 85% of the country’s wealth, leaving only 15% for the rest of us (wage and salary workers).<br /><br />If you exclude the value of one’s home from the calculations (because the rich often have very expensive homes), then you see that just the top 1% of households owns 42.7% of the all the nation’s financial wealth. The richest 20% hold more than 93% of financial wealth. That’s basically all the money there is! Nearly all of the country’s money is in the personal bank accounts of just a few people. The rest of us are left to squabble over the remaining 7%.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5fWD6i3iQEHkasI-l7azLsLM55kqnjtQNlEGneGNkpZVIaA7CaAL9wxSST51yZYB6ZD9lPgBUCUYOHJIr_WTQgz8JBYAQZUb0Cx64jRXjBFh9lZUPetsy9aDKn15RGe5OlLO5aeyE72eT/s1600/Wealth+distribution.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 292px; height: 173px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5fWD6i3iQEHkasI-l7azLsLM55kqnjtQNlEGneGNkpZVIaA7CaAL9wxSST51yZYB6ZD9lPgBUCUYOHJIr_WTQgz8JBYAQZUb0Cx64jRXjBFh9lZUPetsy9aDKn15RGe5OlLO5aeyE72eT/s320/Wealth+distribution.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649359944647866242" border="0" /></a><br />The rich are the big winners in the game of capitalism, and the winnings have been huge. A hundred years ago, the richest 1% of Americans owned only 18% of the nation’s wealth (Noah, http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026). Today’s huge wealth inequality is a recent phenomenon, since about 1980. It is the most obvious outcome of a capitalist system gone awry, and an explanation of the current economic recession.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQthdPVCIZ1GIQbXAJmAvDl2ZmlTlflrx3FEWpn9n7sjgfYJcEeJIUGe1WC3CiXLZqjcykz4xE71nyQ5HPjhXgXTM2whjjRg18DJ3_fdBAcEwUxV4PGrbDl4neN0g7D3xUyERVNrbXh_Cl/s1600/DJIA.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 232px; height: 164px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQthdPVCIZ1GIQbXAJmAvDl2ZmlTlflrx3FEWpn9n7sjgfYJcEeJIUGe1WC3CiXLZqjcykz4xE71nyQ5HPjhXgXTM2whjjRg18DJ3_fdBAcEwUxV4PGrbDl4neN0g7D3xUyERVNrbXh_Cl/s320/DJIA.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649360361320575570" border="0" /></a>Today’s painful recession is the consequence of the richest people having sucked all the money out of the economy since 1980. The rich are not having a recession. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is about 11,000 today, down a few percentage points from its bubbly high of three years ago, but by no means disastrous for the companies indexed, such as American Express, Chevron, IBM, Microsoft, Verizon, and others. Some of the big banks are having disasters recently, but that is a separate situation, and long overdue anyway. Most large businesses are doing well, making plenty of money. It’s ordinary wage-earners who are hurting.<br /><br />How did nearly all the money in America flow to the top 20% of bank accounts, leaving the rest of us in recession? In my opinion, the main factors since 1980, in order of importance, were:<br /><br />1. The information technology revolution.<br />2. Failure of education.<br />3. Government corruption and incompetence.<br />4. Globalization of economics.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5rhE3GeovP4RInZ1C3RTcjfiKgEQmPJrEu-VenaEdJLu_IiY2QDXSAr50qGPov99HFzd1zTsItE3g8XtMLpoaYOJMM1r8q0mepaBH5lxd0g9F5YM-reGJ_BNokIXsgQGc7YDZRGllU3pW/s1600/automation.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 144px; height: 88px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5rhE3GeovP4RInZ1C3RTcjfiKgEQmPJrEu-VenaEdJLu_IiY2QDXSAr50qGPov99HFzd1zTsItE3g8XtMLpoaYOJMM1r8q0mepaBH5lxd0g9F5YM-reGJ_BNokIXsgQGc7YDZRGllU3pW/s320/automation.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649360521041514466" border="0" /></a>The rise of the computer put a lot of people out of work from automation. I made much of my personal wealth doing just that (although not for that reason – I plead naïvete). I spent many years automating the pulp and paper industry with computer controls and robots, putting scores of hard-working people out of jobs forever. My bad. As a possible redemptive factor, I spent many more years using networked computers trying to educate the youth. However, I had far more success with the former than the latter.<br /><br />Other aspects of the computer and information revolution made it easier for those who understood and controlled technology to separate people from their money, through deceptive and unscrupulous advertising and marketing (e.g, Big Pharma, Big Finance, etc.), and <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6m3jeHpHeDnqjjVf70TZdRcJ9wDR2e7_Cq9gwpMfCh86VEIaXd2tkfEbYPjfQJKyKtd6Yzh6A3SxV9Ll3E5q3X_kgpXTJpBy_TEhpotYEsZWgfp-nyCmr9yC1hVPGf1_NFkzbzIj0A0sl/s1600/early+computer.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 180px; height: 154px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6m3jeHpHeDnqjjVf70TZdRcJ9wDR2e7_Cq9gwpMfCh86VEIaXd2tkfEbYPjfQJKyKtd6Yzh6A3SxV9Ll3E5q3X_kgpXTJpBy_TEhpotYEsZWgfp-nyCmr9yC1hVPGf1_NFkzbzIj0A0sl/s320/early+computer.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649360698108568610" border="0" /></a>accumulation and exploitation of information about people. Technology and information resources are expensive and knowledge-intensive. Those who could understand it, and who could afford to put it to work, reaped wealth. Those who couldn’t, suffered. The technology revolution was not neutral – it favored the economically privileged and the well-educated, and still does. It was a primary factor causing wealth to flow from the bottom to the top of the economic pyramid.<br /><br />And that brings me to the second cause of today’s financial crisis: failure of education. I have been a lifelong educator of youth and adults (except for my two-decade stint as a technology raptor). From personal experience, I can say that the educational system in this country is largely ineffective, virtually moribund. The basic cause of that is economics. Teachers are not well-paid because their product is very long-term (tomorrow’s leaders, movers, and shakers) and as we know, future value is heavily discounted. Also, students don’t vote, so why worry about them? Consequently, society as a whole has little incentive to properly finance education. Granted, many teachers are incompetent and curricula laughable, but those are consequences of economic underdevelopment, not causes.<br /><br />There are plenty of smart people in this country who would become educators if they thought they could make a living at it. But except for the most elite, it is not possible. I myself dropped out of academia for twenty years because I needed to make some money. If a starting college teacher made $75,000 a year (instead of 30,000), and could expect salary growth comparable to a business or legal career, there would be qualified candidates. Actually, if there even were such a thing as a starting college teaching position, it would be an improvement. About half of college teachers are now “adjuncts,” which means part-time, with no health-care or pension, and that percentage is on the rise. Currently, postsecondary education is not a viable career for a principal earner. The situation is comparable for K-12 education (but much less so for educational administrators, who do better).<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdv0haW2fT0183DQHfauu4Jbl9q5u63pHIVK1udSoDUteQ2EnmRlFuLseb5hnrN82zD51mk9XlyQMWdqdPHIIdu9NXhRYZjr9ubhMg663t1tTJQWr735YF-6uepuHienVG1dNKk109W9Ty/s1600/classroom.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 204px; height: 204px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdv0haW2fT0183DQHfauu4Jbl9q5u63pHIVK1udSoDUteQ2EnmRlFuLseb5hnrN82zD51mk9XlyQMWdqdPHIIdu9NXhRYZjr9ubhMg663t1tTJQWr735YF-6uepuHienVG1dNKk109W9Ty/s320/classroom.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649360846365332226" border="0" /></a>This economic analysis assumes that talent in education, as in any other field, costs more than lack of it. It is simply not reasonable that widespread, high-quality education in this country is impossible. The problem is that inadequate investment is made in classroom and administrative talent. There are also profound structural flaws in the educational system that entrenched interests are loath to address. In addition, political corruption favors the status quo (see #3: Corruption). The failure of education ultimately makes it easier for the economic elites to separate ordinary people from their wealth.<br /><br />Third on my list of causal factors is government corruption and incompetence. The corruption is a direct consequence of how American politics is financed. The rich pay the politicians, who in turn, write laws that favor the rich. It’s an incestuous system that works well for both sides, <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp5pvdIQCzg3LiGF9GIfQhyphenhyphenm-sEeve6FG6qliamf0o8anlSlMhR5kAbb7acTjas5kzwoFpRa8RlfJKM1rQ2upwQKfXKjGSyXo96YBRn2a82xD8f8B3Vb3K1laibWSznPioT3DS_1_2O6dD/s1600/bribery.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 187px; height: 163px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp5pvdIQCzg3LiGF9GIfQhyphenhyphenm-sEeve6FG6qliamf0o8anlSlMhR5kAbb7acTjas5kzwoFpRa8RlfJKM1rQ2upwQKfXKjGSyXo96YBRn2a82xD8f8B3Vb3K1laibWSznPioT3DS_1_2O6dD/s320/bribery.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649361046004624466" border="0" /></a>selling power for money, trading money for privilege, all at the expense of ordinary people. It is not overt bribery, usually; this is not suitcases full of money. No, just as racism and sexism have moved from being overt to subtle, government corruption at all levels is now only detectible to the discerning. Just a special-purpose clause in a bill here, an appropriations contingency there, a blind regulatory eye, a tax loophole, and plenty of rhetorical obfuscation. It doesn’t take much to shave points off a game.<br /><br />I’m not saying that illegal things are being done (though recent history suggests some of that goes on too), only that corrupt things are being done. Actions are corrupt when they violate the trust that ordinary people grant to politicians when they ask them to work on their behalf. Anyone who doubts that the American political system is corrupt is under-informed (see #2: Education).<br /><br />The fourth and final causal factor in my list is globalization of economics. This came about mainly as a consequence of the technology and information revolution (see #1), which allowed rationalization of labor markets and currencies. As a result, jobs flowed out of America’s <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaje6M4MYvO89UlbiCJ7f05MH7QpIem8NZcDZFoM9Y0jZ6wE-qtchtSe1ZwQdZkLcGECHvWFY5UCs_PyZqXcItcxduJhrLH8qNJbVJTXDInetZshH99sDzAme0RihHc6uBiiCq5l17mXYh/s1600/sweatshop.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 237px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaje6M4MYvO89UlbiCJ7f05MH7QpIem8NZcDZFoM9Y0jZ6wE-qtchtSe1ZwQdZkLcGECHvWFY5UCs_PyZqXcItcxduJhrLH8qNJbVJTXDInetZshH99sDzAme0RihHc6uBiiCq5l17mXYh/s320/sweatshop.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5649361473026382834" border="0" /></a>expensive labor market to cheaper markets abroad, to the great benefit of many millions of people around the world (e.g., in China, Mexico, and elsewhere), but to the loss of high-priced American workers.<br /><br />Globalization of labor will continue, eventually consuming the livelihoods of the American affluent. We are already seeing this as jobs like legal research, financial trading, and X-ray interpretation move offshore. That trend will continue as global economics reaches equilibrium over the next couple of centuries, when even the most wealthy will find it difficult to exploit market anomalies to their own advantage.<br /><br />Beyond labor market equilibration, globalization of trade, especially in oil, has sucked money out of the economy and funneled it to Big Oil. It is largely due to government corruption and incompetence (see #3) that America’s addiction to oil has not been treated in the past half century, despite numerous and obvious warnings.<br /><br />What should be done, what can be done, about the current economic recession and its dark shadow of unconscionable wealth inequality? I have ideas, but that’s a different essay. Here I want only to enumerate my perception of the fundamental, distal factors causing the deep economic hole we are now in and from which we may never fully emerge.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-74015977996256837062011-07-05T09:19:00.000-07:002011-07-05T10:43:18.791-07:00Paper Training David Brooks<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT-xQrrSwRFmDS4Glf4YLBkkIxYLxRkNAvn_Kze-tTuBsTVAGzmGwkeKPpGENlmvIVO1FMJ7pieCWUbcWk-OGq4cYobevsXVKsNWRSh9GQEfGniC90e4YyLlKIgsS2RXLZrKWittdm-WhL/s1600/Brooks.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 160px; height: 209px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT-xQrrSwRFmDS4Glf4YLBkkIxYLxRkNAvn_Kze-tTuBsTVAGzmGwkeKPpGENlmvIVO1FMJ7pieCWUbcWk-OGq4cYobevsXVKsNWRSh9GQEfGniC90e4YyLlKIgsS2RXLZrKWittdm-WhL/s320/Brooks.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5625906504131841266" border="0" /></a>In today’s New York Times, Op-ed columnist David Brooks, the last rational conservative in the country, claims that the Republican party is unable to make a decision that does not even require a brain: compromise on the negotiations to raise the national debt ceiling. Republicans have the opportunity to significantly cut government spending and put long term limits on the growth of the federal government, with negligible harm to current economic growth. (www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).<br /><br />These are all allegedly goals that Republicans hold in high priority. Yet they reject the opportunity to achieve them because the word “tax” has been mentioned. They are so religiously, irrationally, fetishistically, unreasonably opposed to any sort of revenue increase, they literally will walk out of negotiations if even the phrase, “closing tax loopholes” is mentioned. (http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-24/news/29699882_1_budget-talks-jay-carney-debt-limit)<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcNBBefPEMCaeRsFkNPqxXXWKyMmf3d2gqyNILrWg4p81SLj6G5Qv1pWuB2fOijBF4YC1TG96-f7om0wfaLj8kApVJGWGtgO1WCpz5FeAXo3gf22_012zCvni_Hk7C78Xm_miYObjJA1MB/s1600/Repos+Walk+Out+110623_wg.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 214px; height: 120px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcNBBefPEMCaeRsFkNPqxXXWKyMmf3d2gqyNILrWg4p81SLj6G5Qv1pWuB2fOijBF4YC1TG96-f7om0wfaLj8kApVJGWGtgO1WCpz5FeAXo3gf22_012zCvni_Hk7C78Xm_miYObjJA1MB/s320/Repos+Walk+Out+110623_wg.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5625907106622176706" border="0" /></a>Are Republicans mentally deficient, then? Brooks notes that they do not accept the logic of compromise, reject clear evidence, won’t hear expert opinion, deny the legitimacy of scholarship, have no economic theories to back up their position, lack moral grounding, indulge fanatical “fixation” on worshiping “their idol” of resisting all forms of government revenue increase, and are “not fit to govern.” Other than that, though, I wonder how he feels?<br /><br />Now, I am no fan of these Republican tactics either. I would add to Brook’s litany of complaints that the Republican behavior is hypocritical, even extremely cynical. They care nothing for <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWjAsEF3EuoUEcPGAn2CkTcQU6PnX4VivsSbvjup7-NJ_04S2aUN2vOWPRC4gYPrpr6xn8H-SnUpKS9szHuXUTI8XQ3XqcJA8CM-8LW8tp9TEGlbxJz6rme4kVpdgudrTlmL2uzSSoMF5w/s1600/Flying+pig.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 112px; height: 86px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWjAsEF3EuoUEcPGAn2CkTcQU6PnX4VivsSbvjup7-NJ_04S2aUN2vOWPRC4gYPrpr6xn8H-SnUpKS9szHuXUTI8XQ3XqcJA8CM-8LW8tp9TEGlbxJz6rme4kVpdgudrTlmL2uzSSoMF5w/s320/Flying+pig.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5625907604252698370" border="0" /></a>governmental fiscal responsibility, as the previous eight years of Republican rule amply demonstrated (two unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts for the rich, failure to regulate the financial industry, unfunded drug benefits for the elderly, untrammeled military spending, and on and on and on). The record speaks for itself: Republicans care only for money and power, nothing else. Their talk about fiscal responsibility is transparent cover for their greedy pursuit of personal gain through economic rape of the country. Touche, Brooks.<br /><br />Nevertheless, purely as an exercise critical thinking, it might be interesting to consider: what could they be thinking in the current negotiations about raising the government’s debt ceiling? Surely they realize that if the U.S. government defaults on its debt, the worldwide consequences would be catastrophic. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that these Republican negotiators are not mentally deficient and that they do have a rational strategy. What would it be?<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLa26daQhiT2oSE_YwHVRfNwGh-cNO425mpgukHFUZx4Jw3SczcuF5ApjD-2htpdI10w16Sk4yFULPEkkZJxAS_vqhFIb2UogOJdGIF_NpDjFdd69GHVZZDf4xg_4peQLoP6Q3-CvUkMNx/s1600/paper+training.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 180px; height: 151px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLa26daQhiT2oSE_YwHVRfNwGh-cNO425mpgukHFUZx4Jw3SczcuF5ApjD-2htpdI10w16Sk4yFULPEkkZJxAS_vqhFIb2UogOJdGIF_NpDjFdd69GHVZZDf4xg_4peQLoP6Q3-CvUkMNx/s320/paper+training.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5625907826902049794" border="0" /></a>I think it might be the same strategy one uses in paper-training a puppy. You want the dog to stop peeing on the floor, so what do you do? You whap it on the nose with a rolled up newspaper in the presence of its smelly offense, and you reward it with a dog biscuit when it goes on the paper. Simple, and effective.<br /><br />Here is what you do NOT do: You do not try to reason with the animal, explaining why it is better for everyone’s health and state of mind, and for the relationship itself, that peeing should take place only on the paper. You also do not give a dog biscuit reward when the puppy pees a little closer to the paper than usual, because it was “pretty close” or “at least in the right direction.” It’s pee on the paper or nothing. You also do not refrain from the painful and humiliating swat on the nose when the animal pees “just a little”on the carpet. It’s swat if you missed the paper, no compromise.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQQe57VwJssgBJ3KnvAAEE7VI-rHOFhlw5gl6BK3K0b0AadZkg9rQt1ZcM5BRV9qKW-xvaOcHR792qW2RtSdQlCHyBnDH7VX4OQlbXrUwZw9opwbpfZk4AhI8fuYCMpvnvRRGGYniiWwp-/s1600/Animal+training.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 185px; height: 144px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQQe57VwJssgBJ3KnvAAEE7VI-rHOFhlw5gl6BK3K0b0AadZkg9rQt1ZcM5BRV9qKW-xvaOcHR792qW2RtSdQlCHyBnDH7VX4OQlbXrUwZw9opwbpfZk4AhI8fuYCMpvnvRRGGYniiWwp-/s320/Animal+training.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5625908037545252098" border="0" /></a>Republicans believe, let us suppose, that discussion on the matter of federal spending, is pointless. Many discussions have been had in the past, all to no avail. Spending continues to increase and so do taxes to pay for it, they believe. The Republicans may also realize that they have no legitimate standing to argue for restraint, given their own history of profligacy.<br /><br />So if discussion is pointless, that leaves only behavioral control. Like any good animal trainer, they will enforce a painful and humiliating government shutdown as long as the government continues to pee money on the carpet, and they will only allow the biscuit of revenue when the government shows proper restraint, which is to cut Medicare and Social Security.<br /><br />There is a logic to this strategy, even though it incorrectly presupposes that Republicans have the intellectual, moral, or political authority to arrogate the role of trainer. But they do have a bit of leverage with the debt ceiling limit looming and control of the House. Of course the proper way to train the government is to win a popular mandate at the ballot box, but they haven’t been able to accomplish that, so this is an opportunistic substitute. It’s a flawed logic, <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFmVkDL62e2kzUKdltMZCix2OdQ0tK_23UTv4wpP-RKKU3PBHwJ9dZej3Ps5zP7r7OYjJPGMmmJqME6RdoPPlFWn2ssYBrJUT31-MG-SeAcEkvfGQtMXZFvnC0tj5-gFSF5NCF6lzlF_HI/s1600/rolled+up+newspaper.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 147px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFmVkDL62e2kzUKdltMZCix2OdQ0tK_23UTv4wpP-RKKU3PBHwJ9dZej3Ps5zP7r7OYjJPGMmmJqME6RdoPPlFWn2ssYBrJUT31-MG-SeAcEkvfGQtMXZFvnC0tj5-gFSF5NCF6lzlF_HI/s320/rolled+up+newspaper.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5625908321344808530" border="0" /></a>but it is a logic, and a case could be made that the Republicans are being canny, not retarded.<br /><br />However, I do agree with Brooks that this animal training strategy is so primitive, so flawed, so misconceived, that it will backfire and result in their own humiliation in November, 2012.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-4091459924918722272011-05-14T15:46:00.000-07:002011-05-14T16:08:55.253-07:00The Afghanistan Pullout<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBjIIXz2ho416m81gDVu3es2mT1r7eSGv-HA-jVj-HanTDoUXGLBdtzzra5hf5OiviKbMaOClFvBUndqD9qg0E5YsPauDSS_T9tLaskfoOryWpfVdMXzmKLcoHIMx4UocPRKacUu4au9ws/s1600/Troop+withdrawal.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 221px; height: 149px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBjIIXz2ho416m81gDVu3es2mT1r7eSGv-HA-jVj-HanTDoUXGLBdtzzra5hf5OiviKbMaOClFvBUndqD9qg0E5YsPauDSS_T9tLaskfoOryWpfVdMXzmKLcoHIMx4UocPRKacUu4au9ws/s320/Troop+withdrawal.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5606710233440278866" border="0" /></a>The U.S. is scheduled to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in about a month, after a decade of fighting there. Full withdrawal is supposed to be by 2014. Everyone expects the July 2011 withdrawal to be a token number, more symbolic than a meaningful proportion of the 100K troops there, because the battle against the Taliban is still at high pitch and the Afghans are not yet competent.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyDXWm-ZAILUgKp7KQ0t-lGN577XKIjv08JAfGds3EQ5ZC1zCUHDG0T3gyyUuX-WG2y5hPnxXB9ly26R8RlKsBUVMmAEnceeU7hB_vJNsq819ZbefPU6U5UgsJpVKFd5hwKX7UHjDOAkNz/s1600/bin+Laden.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 116px; height: 106px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyDXWm-ZAILUgKp7KQ0t-lGN577XKIjv08JAfGds3EQ5ZC1zCUHDG0T3gyyUuX-WG2y5hPnxXB9ly26R8RlKsBUVMmAEnceeU7hB_vJNsq819ZbefPU6U5UgsJpVKFd5hwKX7UHjDOAkNz/s320/bin+Laden.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5606710357073705810" border="0" /></a>However, with the recent decapitation of Al Qaeda, there is opportunity to rethink the Afghan plan. The U.S. could plausibly declare the “war on terror” essentially won, because we got the perpetrator of the 9-11 attacks. Then we can get out of Afghanistan (and Iraq too!) much more quickly. Those were Bush’s wars of choice, which Obama inherited, and promised in his presidential campaign to end quickly. This is his chance to do what he said.<br /><br />There is talk among the punditocracy that we must not “abandon” Afghanistan. We must “stay the course,” and make withdrawal sensitive to “conditions on the ground.” What is behind this kind of cautionary talk?<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQK2JbjVxtyiwFcmYC42QPpyYkcVPC8fwUNtggG42t7jy6MtkkRkXYDlRDYxW-4A-E24QCz9XwM_gT6OFMgLMcGbkvr-vmSlWUQz0lCdnpIq1v7zqoNCRZ1q1a3E7uk0rTFmo6nIePvU2g/s1600/bomb.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 168px; height: 118px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQK2JbjVxtyiwFcmYC42QPpyYkcVPC8fwUNtggG42t7jy6MtkkRkXYDlRDYxW-4A-E24QCz9XwM_gT6OFMgLMcGbkvr-vmSlWUQz0lCdnpIq1v7zqoNCRZ1q1a3E7uk0rTFmo6nIePvU2g/s320/bomb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5606710515592637698" border="0" /></a>The fear is that as soon as we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over (probably under the leadership of our man, Karzai). If that happens, then Pakistan may well go Taliban too, and then you’d have nuclear terrorists. Who they would attack first, the U.S., Israel, or Europe, is beside the point; we assume they would attack. Bad scenario. Therefore, do not pull the troops out of Afghanistan “prematurely.”<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ895NZ7iJrZH-Cp5AFyrBN1kBkHMANCB-eklMZ2H_egZwep1bqM8aku9I0HpRrG-d4KIgxa7xduo2VgS2Z4f6rRn2rMvCr15SMIu0WMjun-3xTjsawWtT7vXZtdPz-ynOQb_FjfIamLWX/s1600/Obama+2012.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 102px; height: 102px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ895NZ7iJrZH-Cp5AFyrBN1kBkHMANCB-eklMZ2H_egZwep1bqM8aku9I0HpRrG-d4KIgxa7xduo2VgS2Z4f6rRn2rMvCr15SMIu0WMjun-3xTjsawWtT7vXZtdPz-ynOQb_FjfIamLWX/s320/Obama+2012.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5606710669518870370" border="0" /></a>But that logic can be rethought. There are two sets of arguments for simply declaring victory and pulling out all the troops as quickly as possible. Argument set one is domestic: The war is very unpopular in the U.S.; it is bankrupting us, and Obama needs to win in 2012. One reason for the 2014 date for a “serious” drawdown in troops is that it would be after Obama’s re-election, so couldn’t hurt him, and might give Democrats a boost in the midterms. But that is chicken thinking.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfFA5QCHEvxN1EJRIrb5iBQzlnh5xOeFa_z-B86cadEVkuB3_6LP8wLuxgyvxk5ueg3X09vmuS_kA9VF675nkxuzyfEvLyeJ-rvUk5cwZkn7FHcPYhLs5FPi6NpboysFKII2Exflm8INUh/s1600/Karzai.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 230px; height: 158px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfFA5QCHEvxN1EJRIrb5iBQzlnh5xOeFa_z-B86cadEVkuB3_6LP8wLuxgyvxk5ueg3X09vmuS_kA9VF675nkxuzyfEvLyeJ-rvUk5cwZkn7FHcPYhLs5FPi6NpboysFKII2Exflm8INUh/s320/Karzai.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5606710814925979634" border="0" /></a>The second set of arguments for pulling out now/soon from Afghanistan is that we are not accomplishing anything significant there anyway. We cannot kill or capture every Taliban terrorist in the country. They breed too fast. They can easily wait us out. As for “nation-building,” we aren’t doing much of that either. We’re trying, with clinics and roads, to make life better for the people, but we are not winning hearts and minds; the populace is ethnically divided and not susceptible to democracy; and it is an opium-based economy. Even the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, doesn’t’ want us there. Hawks like senator Joe Lieberman insist we need to “build a country we can be at peace with.” But he doesn’t say how to do that, and he can’t, because it is not possible, at least not in his, mine, or Obama’s lifetime. Our position there is unsustainable as a practical matter. We cannot win militarily and we cannot be successful politically. The writing is on the wall: Afghanistan is going to be an anti-western, fundamentalist, Islamic theocracy. Let’s plan for the reality, not the fantasy.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUnUYrS9fmbTd5auWmtAn6m5WVQpzlRvX4RZ0koXi0DOCWrSyKgUMz0r4NdDFGlkZ8wTKLDZ_L6sGTkH1z5G7j25_qqJqKQPw18gRcToeX9ei7D7joXxva7gBG3oZYLHllC7taKJF13thn/s1600/Map.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 163px; height: 160px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUnUYrS9fmbTd5auWmtAn6m5WVQpzlRvX4RZ0koXi0DOCWrSyKgUMz0r4NdDFGlkZ8wTKLDZ_L6sGTkH1z5G7j25_qqJqKQPw18gRcToeX9ei7D7joXxva7gBG3oZYLHllC7taKJF13thn/s320/Map.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5606711016003573234" border="0" /></a>Once Afghanistan has gone over to the dark side, the Taliban probably will influence or virtually take over Pakistan too, which is already halfway down the slippery slope to a failed state. Maybe we could continue to prop up Pakistan, just as we have propped up Israel for decades, and keep the nukes out of the hands of the Taliban. That would be much cheaper than what we are paying to keep troops in Afghanistan. But even that plan is not a sure thing. The Pakis are extremely ambivalent about us. They love our money, but that’s about all. Many are sympathetic to the Taliban. It is not for certain that we can buy their allegiance for much longer, and it is seriously not clear if Pakistan can survive as the pseudo-democracy it is now.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUuhdp6RFgVVh2rBNFgbd2Y4vMkF9hdaGd1lZ25MJ1OeJSuByRc8UD_WouQp1k70_lUKzWm2gtqq33SK-05w70_iKBlRZQwMg2hWVkdjm4KzLBxbqDY7DH-r82RtuxbZyvc0juiHXuFMIl/s1600/O+silver+tongue.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 256px; height: 197px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUuhdp6RFgVVh2rBNFgbd2Y4vMkF9hdaGd1lZ25MJ1OeJSuByRc8UD_WouQp1k70_lUKzWm2gtqq33SK-05w70_iKBlRZQwMg2hWVkdjm4KzLBxbqDY7DH-r82RtuxbZyvc0juiHXuFMIl/s320/O+silver+tongue.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5606711199340340882" border="0" /></a>Conclusion:<br /><br />Let Obama put his silver tongue to work and convince Americans of the real problem: We are stalemated in Afghanistan and so we should get out and plan instead for surgical retaliations when the Taliban acts up, as they surely will. We can, without being public about it, switch from a “global war on terrorism” to more of a police footing, where we kill and capture perpetrators, but do not invade whole countries and fight literal wars on their soil. We need to keep our legal options open. The president probably does not want to give up his “war” authority to pursue badguys to the four corners of the earth, across international borders where necessary, but there is probably some kind of slippery political language to finesse the legal points. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSF48bi9zaZH6OUr4eLCZtkf6JwgjNZAkKVbqZ9Xdk21lprzdNvs8dTWtfXxxq0dNrhSX3Mtp6l-Y4rwbXA5_tRaG9VC0HXcs_1alwZsSBMvaWpGl_b1gCavicLhiuyADy8c1NLeEwTXCf/s1600/crack.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 113px; height: 152px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSF48bi9zaZH6OUr4eLCZtkf6JwgjNZAkKVbqZ9Xdk21lprzdNvs8dTWtfXxxq0dNrhSX3Mtp6l-Y4rwbXA5_tRaG9VC0HXcs_1alwZsSBMvaWpGl_b1gCavicLhiuyADy8c1NLeEwTXCf/s320/crack.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5606711593881141970" border="0" /></a><br /><br />We should also prepare to prop up Pakistan (with the money we save by ending the war!) and also prepare for a failed Pakistan and even for nuclear terrorists. How will we react? Why not plan for the real probable future world, rather than hanging on to the status quo like some talisman that lets us avoid lifting our heads. A “stay the course” policy in Afghanistan is like a child’s superstition: Step on a crack, break your mother’s back. Hey, that won’t save us. It is pure superstition, not realistic policy.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO22qaA0xqVtWbcKQsWlPzh7of9_Z6c0wusjnvRRay_UvZpzRnNZ6n2oyEcQ5gRCF1ypZUnhXExLDTxuyAjrvkz0yn_FVDvPltKhw4HKWOB6ON3VXLtRUZqYxldGnrAw2ncWnAWrb6JRCt/s1600/troops+coming+home.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 207px; height: 243px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO22qaA0xqVtWbcKQsWlPzh7of9_Z6c0wusjnvRRay_UvZpzRnNZ6n2oyEcQ5gRCF1ypZUnhXExLDTxuyAjrvkz0yn_FVDvPltKhw4HKWOB6ON3VXLtRUZqYxldGnrAw2ncWnAWrb6JRCt/s320/troops+coming+home.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5606711814759635858" border="0" /></a>Obama could pull virtually all the troops out of Afghanistan now and be ready to react to the next move. Yes, it’s a reactive approach, but we cannot be proactive against the Taliban in Afghanistan. That is amply demonstrated by the “facts on the ground.” The Taliban will not act rashly before 2012 because they know a Republican victory would probably bring the troops back in. They will wait. That gives Obama time to be ready with a thunderbolt response. Meanwhile the troops stop dying, and the money stops hemorrhaging in Afghanistan, and we’re no worse off geopolitically.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-72625634719648056282011-03-20T09:48:00.000-07:002011-03-20T10:09:47.998-07:00It's Not About Libya<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSCjrAwFg4x5F6nmkIcLXuDexIt4rv9e1RJDu0Fh7l03O4P50d9wBY_jifKzZ1pKq_pPIANgQXEC4pdPE-lEogZrtQ7Z2va1pY0t_EKBQciZtEY_yNNv04I9KYA37uZsmIwMM_g6qzAEVe/s1600/No-fly+Libya_380.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 224px; height: 149px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSCjrAwFg4x5F6nmkIcLXuDexIt4rv9e1RJDu0Fh7l03O4P50d9wBY_jifKzZ1pKq_pPIANgQXEC4pdPE-lEogZrtQ7Z2va1pY0t_EKBQciZtEY_yNNv04I9KYA37uZsmIwMM_g6qzAEVe/s320/No-fly+Libya_380.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5586207623166109938" border="0" /></a>France, Britain, and U.S. forces (“The Allies” according to the New York Times, as if we were still in World War II), invaded Libya today or yesterday, establishing a no-fly zone to protect civilians being slaughtered by Qaddafi. The action was authorized by the United Nations (with the BRICs abstaining) and endorsed by the Arab League. The Arab League has now reversed itself, saying, essentially “Mashalla! We didn’t realize it would involve bombs!” But the no-fly has apparently been established, despite Arab racism and/or spinelessness. <span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">(Photo: Christian Science Monitor)</span></span><br /><br />The political and military consequences of the attack, in Libya and internationally, remain to be seen. For example, will “The Allies” maintain the no-fly zone indefinitely, with one or two planes being shot down every few months, as was the case in Iraq's no-fly zone? Maybe that’s not too expensive to tolerate. And since Qaddafi is a nut job, you can expect him to violate the intentions of “The Allies” in some way, bringing more grief upon himself and his country. Maybe that is ok too. There is, as usual, no clear exit strategy for impulsive acts.<br /><br />Why did Obama do it? Why did he urge “regime change” and offer to lead the operation? The man has a friggin’ Nobel Peace prize for God’s sake. I thought he understood more clearly than anyone, that an “optional” war is never justified. What was he thinking?<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBv1q72MZuIkC_0_8O7eNAW_lcpzT0zA7fiFeJTpGQ6jqLI4JIBtPqACySMgP-D7dvyZ-yHcc0Ab1U8YPh0QVHmaQ7lxwldubOPHVnnAVoKgY9LwD8CcWMJUCDkJY58_q0xwz8eOz1rmBa/s1600/bombs.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 256px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBv1q72MZuIkC_0_8O7eNAW_lcpzT0zA7fiFeJTpGQ6jqLI4JIBtPqACySMgP-D7dvyZ-yHcc0Ab1U8YPh0QVHmaQ7lxwldubOPHVnnAVoKgY9LwD8CcWMJUCDkJY58_q0xwz8eOz1rmBa/s320/bombs.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5586207860601753330" border="0" /></a>Sure, he acted like he was dragging his feet, and that the invasion was a “last resort” and a “humanitarian necessity,” blah, blah, blah. And no question that Qaddafi is a bad actor, just as Saddam Hussein was. It was a righteous move, as they say. But the fact is, war is hell, and Obama invoked it, and he didn’t have to do it.<br /><br />This is yet another U.S. war of choice. And make no mistake, we have committed an act of war. Ask Secretary of defense Gates. Sure, Libyan people were being killed by the brutal government. Terrible thing. But what’s that got to do with the United States Government? People are being killed in Yemen. Should we bomb Yemen now? How about Syria? Things are pretty bad there. Let’s bomb Syria! Bomb Bahrain! How about Venezuala? Hey, lots of people are being killed in Mexico right now by the federal government there…. What’s the rule for bombing the crap out of other countries? There are other ways to deal with problems besides bombs. Obama has got to know that.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQk-ykK2dHlM10hrr8RAi1ZGKetyDoO3L8mJ1lDEr78FcwPdbWL6NBDLSbFil2qvB0f2ia2I0EgVOryJj4UaHsia4ZiAFCpRouBLddDeNAelzfCdKxozO9hg-FbWfD7BS1SHewJNrTI0NT/s1600/Qaddafi+WSJ.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 174px; height: 115px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQk-ykK2dHlM10hrr8RAi1ZGKetyDoO3L8mJ1lDEr78FcwPdbWL6NBDLSbFil2qvB0f2ia2I0EgVOryJj4UaHsia4ZiAFCpRouBLddDeNAelzfCdKxozO9hg-FbWfD7BS1SHewJNrTI0NT/s320/Qaddafi+WSJ.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5586208058722055058" border="0" /></a>Perhaps Obama calculated that he did not want to appear “weak” by standing aside as Quaddafi slaughtered his people with impunity. Bill Clinton took a bad rap in the history books by standing by too long while the slaughter continued in Kosovo and Serbia. Obama did not want to appear “weak.” But I thought Obama was intellectually above that disease: the slavishness to future history that seems to infect every president. Is he already writing his memoir?<br /><br />Obama has made a huge mistake, one that mocks his Nobel prize, aggravates even further relations with the Arab world, immensely complicates U.S. foreign policy (if there is one), and greatly diminishes the U.S.’s moral standing, and Obama’s personal moral standing. But the man is not stupid. So why did he do it?<br /><br />What if this is all about Pakistan, and ultimately, getting the troops out of Afghanistan next year? My guess is that Obama's end game is ending both the Iraq and Afghan wars by 2012. This has nothing to do with Libya, or at least, very little. Pakistan, which often seems on the verge of anarchy, is a nuclear power that harbors al Qaeda and the Taliban, who we are fighting in Afghanistan. Why does Pakistan do that? Because leaders there think the U.S. is “weak” and will leave Afghanistan too soon and that the Taliban will take the place over. Pakistan is therefore currying favor with what it assumes to be its future neighbor, the Republic of Taliban. Essentially then, we are in a tacit war with Pakistan. We even bomb them every few weeks, have been doing so for months. Pakistan is the third war we are fighting that nobody talks about.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDGBxlKvu2pBTrZXP5JuvlAotslr-uapTvnj_7M_XUlv-FbZGc22KKvmv2R7WKrIxTshXtNUZOuBHTvkxoby1ePbGl8RE5-uD2fbJvzl3DYzqwBjY_CQbK4PCT0baBG7pkbUlZ4CNBferz/s1600/Afghanistan.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 259px; height: 194px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDGBxlKvu2pBTrZXP5JuvlAotslr-uapTvnj_7M_XUlv-FbZGc22KKvmv2R7WKrIxTshXtNUZOuBHTvkxoby1ePbGl8RE5-uD2fbJvzl3DYzqwBjY_CQbK4PCT0baBG7pkbUlZ4CNBferz/s320/Afghanistan.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5586208255809753794" border="0" /></a>The Paki’s think the U.S. is weak because they read the papers the same as we all do. They know we are in a recession, that the two overt wars are killing us fiscally, and that those wars have lost whatever popular support they ever had at home, and that Obama (“man of peace”) has vowed to end both wars, and that Obama faces a fierce election in 2012. They know all that, and they also know we are covertly at war with Pakistan. They calculate that the U.S. has neither the nerve nor the resources to force Pakistan to play ball with the U.S. in fighting the Taliban either in Afghanistan or in Pakistan itself. That is Obama’s bind. He is stalemated in the covert war on Pakistan.<br /><br />Solution? “Send a message” to our nominal allies in the war on terror, the Paki’s, one that will also be heard and seen in Teheran, on the other side of Afghanistan: We still have the will and the way to bring a world of hurt down on you at any time. Do not “misunderestimate.” That, I think, is Obama’s rationale for invading Libya. It’s not about Libya.<br /><br />Is Obama’s presumed strategy justified and is it smart? There is insufficient information to assess, but we can say, it is extremely risky. We’ll have to wait and see what future historians say!Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-70607032873210676452010-11-08T16:25:00.000-08:002010-11-14T07:37:24.638-08:00What Republicans Fear<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhomXMZSVMNgDCi-Y5h4FXFxexyzLusCDceWb-6CMgseLzIc4Yw4TJ6-1GjBMPoMp9YVnxYDA6Ft3zWfhjK-zJ3FSi_wf60ybU32QNekcz4jXZAqYi2uwU0InoG2nKqpEZ-v37J51aHcf27/s1600/Party+logos.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 187px; height: 124px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhomXMZSVMNgDCi-Y5h4FXFxexyzLusCDceWb-6CMgseLzIc4Yw4TJ6-1GjBMPoMp9YVnxYDA6Ft3zWfhjK-zJ3FSi_wf60ybU32QNekcz4jXZAqYi2uwU0InoG2nKqpEZ-v37J51aHcf27/s320/Party+logos.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5537345087157644610" border="0" /></a>The big victory for the Republicans in the recent midterm elections was predictable and predicted, but still a mystery to me. For a long time I have been trying to figure out why so many people vote against their own economic and social self-interests. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not rational. At first I thought Republicans were just less well informed than others, so they genuinely did not understand what they were voting for. But I decided that can’t be right. There are plenty of well-educated Republicans and plenty (Lord knows) of uneducated democrats. Analyzing Republican rhetoric reveals several consistent themes, and I thought those themes might reveal what the attraction is.<br /><br />Some of the themes are admired traits of:<br /><br /><ul><li>Plain working folks with common sense, not those Washington elites who tell us how to live</li><li>States’ rights, not federal government authority</li><li>Individualism, not collectivism</li><li>Low, or no taxes, not redistributive progressive taxation</li><li>Individual effort, not welfare</li><li>Personal overcoming of problems, without government programs</li><li>Voluntary charity, not wealth redistribution</li><li>Strong, aggressive, even bellicose defense policy, not nuanced negotiation</li><li>Absolutism, not compromise</li><li>Religion, not secularism</li><li>Strict morality, not permissiveness</li><li>Moral interpretation of sickness, weakness, poverty, crime, bad luck</li><li>Personal toughness, not mood-altering drugs (except for alcohol, nicotine, painkillers etc.)</li><li>Free market economics, not government regulation or interference</li><li>Strict, even literal interpretation of the constitution, without reliance on judicial precedent</li><li>Isolationism not internationalism</li><li>Uninhibited access to guns and weapons of all kinds, not regulation</li><li>Racial, or at least ethnic homogeneity, not multiculturalism</li><li>Tradition, not change</li><li>Untrammeled business practice, not labor unions</li><li>Economic growth, not inhibited by environmentalism or land use policy</li><li>Fear of God, intolerant of atheism or agnosticism</li><li>Non-acceptance, or intolerance of non-Christian religions</li><li>Non-acceptance, or intolerance of non-democratic forms of government</li><li>Heterosexuality only, no other patterns of sexuality</li><li>Anti-abortion, anti-free choice about conception</li><li>Merciless on crime, no mitigating circumstances</li><li>Appearance more than reality</li><li>Simple rather than complex solutions</li><li>Intuition or gut feeling, more than reason</li><li>Small government not large</li><li>Passive government, not activist</li><li>Government that spends no money except on constitutionally defined purposes</li><li>Conformity over creativity</li><li>American exceptionalism, not ordinariness</li><li>Low tolerance for and acceptance of different cultures, ways of life</li><li>Historical amnesia, not connectedness</li></ul><br />I think that list hits the main points. These were culled from campaign speeches from the current midterm elections and other speeches going back to the 1950’s, such as speeches by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and others.<br /><br />Democratic speeches tend to emphasize the mirror image of those values, but this is about <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHbXNb8yjIKeFC1CHuXHLn0apHcmHsJC41ZLsug4Wwq6qOrBqJeQYcWkuFuFIMmPInLlTqgJUQH86J44lGNTF9d4w9bt-KP2WwOvS39PmsMszDgeBzfoCc9VyZz5kaGMlNmphA1phF9N-/s1600/buttons.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 173px; height: 173px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHbXNb8yjIKeFC1CHuXHLn0apHcmHsJC41ZLsug4Wwq6qOrBqJeQYcWkuFuFIMmPInLlTqgJUQH86J44lGNTF9d4w9bt-KP2WwOvS39PmsMszDgeBzfoCc9VyZz5kaGMlNmphA1phF9N-/s320/buttons.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5537342048398413922" border="0" /></a>Republicans, trying to understand why, for example, they trumpet the sacredness of the “free market,” which brought us the mortgage crisis, the S&L crisis, the collapse of banking credit, and so on. Why are they so against government programs when their own children go to public schools and they drive on public highways and are glad to have social security and medicare? Why are they vehemently against government regulation which has halved air fares, and helps keep E. Coli out of our vegetables, lead paint out of children’s toys, and poisons out of medicine? Why do they chafe against separation of church and state while worshiping every word of the constitution? Republican values listed above, with a few exceptions, generally act against the economic and social self-interests of most voters. So how do Republicans win elections?<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7e5-ZoBZodmlSOfuKAwkBOgyW_PIWn0-NrlKic7KLegKflQDyXxZahLhMxLAncMbCL5z2FGYwcfu3R0pRp_FYBuHbDKpCXvbzM02jKWnooP0ZZnaRWJoPvYYBT5ELY2Q02U7qzQQjYYWh/s1600/childhood+fear.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 192px; height: 192px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7e5-ZoBZodmlSOfuKAwkBOgyW_PIWn0-NrlKic7KLegKflQDyXxZahLhMxLAncMbCL5z2FGYwcfu3R0pRp_FYBuHbDKpCXvbzM02jKWnooP0ZZnaRWJoPvYYBT5ELY2Q02U7qzQQjYYWh/s320/childhood+fear.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5537342657968096018" border="0" /></a>I think I have found the answer. In a word, fear. Republicans are fundamentally, personally, deeply afraid. They are afraid of criticism, ridicule, seeming foolish. They are afraid of appearing weak. It is a mentality of victimization. They feel they are always only a hair’s breadth from being oppressed, ridiculed, hurt, abused, and abandoned. It is a childish, or childhood reaction, not a reasoned adult attitude.<br /><br />The fear arises from these sources: 1. Childhood abuse and/or neglect; 2. Just bad parenting in childhood; 3. Poverty in early life. 4. Poor early socialization leading to social exclusion, victimization, and low self-esteem.<br /><br />To manage this deep-seated fear, Republicans, unconsciously, engage in “reaction formation,” a defense mechanism that emphasizes and exaggerates strength, fearlessness, prosperity, membership, high esteem, moral probity, social status. Of course everyone would like to enjoy those attributes, but when they arise from a psychological defense system, they become unrealistic, highly exaggerated, grotesquely inappropriate, because they are based on deep, unconscious emotion. These desired values are displayed bigger and louder than is necessary or even reasonable, because they have the impossible burden of keeping the lid on fear.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi04ZBLHAn2hQSFPuwcM_T2RSGMuZbAWIEXbemupasPCVHaowJeK3itI-5WC5dukbwLK01wFNwmTbWWnmemfrkyqUn1N73di7fkoKQDOXQebDSEhHh2cFGum2iTsPhPkAobJKUehZjbh31t/s1600/fear2.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 162px; height: 130px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi04ZBLHAn2hQSFPuwcM_T2RSGMuZbAWIEXbemupasPCVHaowJeK3itI-5WC5dukbwLK01wFNwmTbWWnmemfrkyqUn1N73di7fkoKQDOXQebDSEhHh2cFGum2iTsPhPkAobJKUehZjbh31t/s320/fear2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5537342967850886562" border="0" /></a>Defense mechanisms are ultimately not completely effective, however. The unconscious fear will still get out. The reaction formation is only a loose fitting lid over a seething cauldron of unconscious emotion. Consequently, Republicans still deeply fear the poor. Why? Because they know (unconsciously) that they themselves are just inches away from that pathetic, weak, morally suspect condition. For the same reason they fear the sick and are not much interested in reaching out to alleviate that suffering. Not because they lack compassion, but because psychologically, they simply cannot afford to contemplate what it means to be sick, weak, a helpless victim of Fate.<br /><br />Big guns, big military, bellicose policies? Of course. It covers up the weakness that might be evident in nuanced negotiation. Big business and wealth? By all means. That means strength, not weakness. Government regulation? None needed. Regulation is like mom or dad telling you what you can or cannot do. It is victimization, and that cannot be tolerated. Taxes? The fewer the better, because paying taxes is victimization, giving up your hard earned money/strength/respectability to a tyrant. States’ rights? Yes! Submitting to mandates of the federal government is just like being sent to your room. It is victimization. Leave us alone.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxaZfaLdAI5JnNnBVbisrIrGlHwAghJHOgHhSCJVAyW4kD7oglCdQ4M07pKxVGVnX6x3ZgckJB7gMvUqSck1VfwAs-rINBPL2djpo8UFWfWT3V6zKuITKc1kZHb2D1mpdD5_oBLxq3x2jI/s1600/fear1.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 196px; height: 159px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxaZfaLdAI5JnNnBVbisrIrGlHwAghJHOgHhSCJVAyW4kD7oglCdQ4M07pKxVGVnX6x3ZgckJB7gMvUqSck1VfwAs-rINBPL2djpo8UFWfWT3V6zKuITKc1kZHb2D1mpdD5_oBLxq3x2jI/s320/fear1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5537343215060913602" border="0" /></a>How do Republicans win elections? They appeal to fear, and that works especially well when people are in fact afraid, for their job, their house, their retirement, their health, their safety against terrorists. It’s immediate, and it's not rational, so people will vote for the perception or even promise of strength over any economic or social reality.<br /><br />How can Democrats win elections? By minimizing fear, providing safety and prosperity. By convincing ordinary voters that they are OK, and that everything is going to be alright. Just the way you calm a child who is afraid. What you do NOT do is try to explain to them the tax codes or Fed policy, long term strategies for reducing the debt, or the subtle chess games of international politics. That is not what elections are about. It is not a rational issue. It is all about fear, and overcoming it, despite the campaign rhetoric that tries to focus attention instead on rational, intellectual, policy debates. That’s all just cover talk for the real issue: fear.<br /><br />People hate negative “attack” ads because they are <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfuk5XKJzdS767nm8uDrhTyB-KyRvMu83oSW3Vtn90EtR5mLvI_fOHhdjSonu4KmNeLBlZJVY3rv844UuD9xHP6IQAyjuHxoqdUBTqtJu2064ZDIY0tBzRO6UpaGrMVtMFCOzSiGyq1fHy/s1600/Goldwater+Daisy.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 191px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfuk5XKJzdS767nm8uDrhTyB-KyRvMu83oSW3Vtn90EtR5mLvI_fOHhdjSonu4KmNeLBlZJVY3rv844UuD9xHP6IQAyjuHxoqdUBTqtJu2064ZDIY0tBzRO6UpaGrMVtMFCOzSiGyq1fHy/s320/Goldwater+Daisy.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5537343916287092898" border="0" /></a>irrelevant ad-hominem messages. They miss the point. They do not address the issue of fear. Except when they explicitly do: “Candidate X will ruin your life, raise your taxes, embrace the terrorists, confiscate your retirement, eliminate your job, send you to your room.” But of course you must be able to prove those claims to get away with them (because of government regulations). The anti-Goldwater "Daisy" ad that showed a nuclear bomb going off behind a little girl was a perfect campaign ad.<br /><br />Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs were only possible because, despite the Vietnam war, it was a time of prosperity. People (most voters) were not personally, psychologically afraid.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz1_Nhm-jktc6TEjut4BL3NK4-_WX2Ks2GScrrBbSLbN1aTfZZA5XpuupYj27rgkOldiBNwcN9QrVcVmDs6DC_9J35kjaVM2hqu-rEm3qBhmpla9J1dXxsNWVDmHGbFmQWZGnkD4ZkKdP4/s1600/scary+demon.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 196px; height: 167px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz1_Nhm-jktc6TEjut4BL3NK4-_WX2Ks2GScrrBbSLbN1aTfZZA5XpuupYj27rgkOldiBNwcN9QrVcVmDs6DC_9J35kjaVM2hqu-rEm3qBhmpla9J1dXxsNWVDmHGbFmQWZGnkD4ZkKdP4/s320/scary+demon.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5537344329962859154" border="0" /></a>Another move is that, when circumstances are so bad that fear turns to literal panic or outrage, the fear becomes conscious, explicit, no longer the unconscious childhood fear that Republicans can cover up (more or less). In that case, voters will look for realistic, rational solutions. This happened for FDR and Obama. But unless actual safety and prosperity are then forthcoming, voters will quickly revert to the difficult task of tamping down irrational childhood fears and rationality is no good for that, so Republicans will win again. Voters can’t help it because the underlying fear is not conscious.<br /><br />Are Democrats immune from this unconscious fear-driven approach to life, most of the time? Not entirely, but there is a difference. In brief, Democratic psychology is bimodal. There is a hump of poor, undereducated, badly socialized, socially marginalized, but communal-living people at the low end and a highly educated, self-aware, critical thinking hump at the high end. The low mode are the likely beneficiaries of Democratic compassion and government largess, but they are also exactly what a Republican unconsciously fears. Republicans eschew the unwashed masses but they can draw votes from them when people feel the fear.<br /><br />This is a story that satisfies me, after many years of thinking about why people vote against their own self-interests.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-58295244132111957432010-10-23T15:56:00.000-07:002010-10-23T16:07:29.575-07:00Is Obama Threatened in 2012?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdOXpqyNrRaJfVx_8z6F9RjbiFtHSrU52DS_6UpZVuAfWUc12HWqSehwb2Xf31Mjy_yf0G8RSNQ3O9nhSzS57PG3CJn1mC2xy9SoUXCLbziXlOoDQN4fqzbLnENMdL4gcZKmb6xh5YqB6J/s1600/Obama+in+2010.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 144px; height: 204px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdOXpqyNrRaJfVx_8z6F9RjbiFtHSrU52DS_6UpZVuAfWUc12HWqSehwb2Xf31Mjy_yf0G8RSNQ3O9nhSzS57PG3CJn1mC2xy9SoUXCLbziXlOoDQN4fqzbLnENMdL4gcZKmb6xh5YqB6J/s320/Obama+in+2010.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5531380839383926418" border="0" /></a>Much is being made of the fact that this year, 2010, the midterm elections also happen be in a census year. After a census, congressional districts are redrawn (“gerrymandered”), a highly partisan political process led by the winning party and its governor in each state. Districts are drawn so that they are “pure” Republican or Democrat, so there is virtually no chance for dissent in any district, and therefore no serious competition for legislative seats. If, as expected, Republicans win more governorships and House seats this year, they will control the gerrymandering process, eliminating much competition for the next ten years, and that includes 2012.<br /><br />The President will need, as always, 270 electoral college votes to win in 2012. The number of congressional seats in each state determines how many electors it gets. Republican states in the south, such as Texas, are expected to gain more electors after the census. So according to some sources (e.g., http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/23/midterm-races-hold-key-white-house-congress/) this will make it especially hard for Obama to get re-elected.<br /><br />This is a spurious argument, I believe. Electors cast their vote according to the popular vote in their state. It is not illegal for an elector to ignore the popular vote and cast a ballot arbitrarily in a partisan way, but to my understanding that is extremely rare. So the census is not a direct threat to Obama.<br /><br />A more serious threat is that the GOP will have some new Governors elected in 2010 and among them, there might be some credible presidential candidates, although two years is not much time to build an organization sufficient to mount a successful presidential bid. Still, their stable is awfully sparse now, and would benefit greatly from an emergent figure.<br /><br />It’s true that Obama will have a difficult time governing if he loses the House majority to the GOP, as seems possible. However I think there are two silver linings in that scenario. One, the republicans will have to put their necks out when they are in charge. If they really want tax cuts for the rich and do not believe in health care for the poor, they will be forced to say so, and vote so. They no longer can throw stones from the sidelines without any responsibility. I believe the GOP has become so extreme that their bizarre ideas will be illuminated for all to see and that will be good for Democrats in 2012.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT6JiXFKF4wdDIuGourdfwtMA8WxL17AYSz4veblYIN3JhdDYx-wQUkKCTDUK6HwxvZO94H5I8txias1hdY8eD2iCSEioobWKB3UEjrFBM3kmMy8huHKfHkt9XxkIlV4W3rsODMomzSKYD/s1600/Obama+2012.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 225px; height: 225px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT6JiXFKF4wdDIuGourdfwtMA8WxL17AYSz4veblYIN3JhdDYx-wQUkKCTDUK6HwxvZO94H5I8txias1hdY8eD2iCSEioobWKB3UEjrFBM3kmMy8huHKfHkt9XxkIlV4W3rsODMomzSKYD/s320/Obama+2012.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5531380971271136866" border="0" /></a>Secondly, I am not so sure that congress will be gridlocked for the next six years. Unless the Republicans really are delusionally detached from reason, some of them are going to have to realize that it will look bad for them in 2012 if they continue to act like petulant children. The more reasonable among them, and there must be some of those, will be forced to talk reasonably about reasonable legislation and make reasonable compromises, to get reasonable things passed. It could happen.<br /><br />It is almost inconceivable that Obama could fail to get re-elected in 2012. By then, people will be more familiar with the Health Care act and maybe the Financial Reform act too, and will appreciate those. The economy will almost certainly be better by then, although probably still limping. Both wars should be essentially over. Guantanamo should be closed. And, I think Obama will compromise on letting the Bush tax cuts expire, renewing them even for the rich for two more years, so that in 2012, it will be the Republicans who have to explain why it is good for America for the richest 2% of the population to get an enormous tax cut. That’s a tough sell even for wing nuts. However, most Americans consistently vote against their own best economic interests by electing Republicans, I think because of a lack of critical thinking ability, which is my fault (I am an educator).Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-33907850376678124172010-07-11T16:12:00.000-07:002010-07-13T07:55:03.054-07:00Republicans in the Ascendant?<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKjZg_T22R_4hjQz1LjPuWYJai6UNOkRJDcP6vdGW0n27DgB05KsytHwJv0G2Ac2aNO0hNhwQA7zDHR8JehIp4eLy6_WpoknFVGkk8ehnKYqkIQYLr0FcezW1_kV5XC38UFXXPQLkVkCh0/s1600/Bond-776022.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 143px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKjZg_T22R_4hjQz1LjPuWYJai6UNOkRJDcP6vdGW0n27DgB05KsytHwJv0G2Ac2aNO0hNhwQA7zDHR8JehIp4eLy6_WpoknFVGkk8ehnKYqkIQYLr0FcezW1_kV5XC38UFXXPQLkVkCh0/s320/Bond-776022.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5492792062246251954" border="0" /></a>Senator Kit Bond, Republican from Missouri, sent a letter to the Economist magazine, published July 3, 2010. I thought it was noteworthy in revealing a lack of critical thinking, and conversely, a penchant for rhetorical fallacies, especially imprecise metaphors and emotionally loaded modifiers. Both sides of the political divide indulge this kind of phatic speech but this is a particularly interesting example because it seems like he is trying to be even-handed and facts-based, but just can’t manage it.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The new Republican agenda</span><br />SIR – Your analysis of what is wrong with the Republican Party hit one right note: voters expect solutions, not just rage (“What’s wrong with America’s right”, June 12th). President Barack Obama and his party in Congress came to power by riding the powerful tailwinds of discontent; Americans were rightfully angry that some on Wall Street had caused a financial crisis that left many families with a pink slip instead of a pay cheque.<br /><br />The Democrats have taken advantage of this anger to force their agenda through Congress, while blocking Republican bipartisan solutions. Democrats have steamrollered through both chambers their policies of expanding government, increasing spending and swelling our debt. It is no surprise that American voters are once again angry, sick with bail-out fatigue, government overreach and runaway spending. Americans feel like Washington is no longer listening to them.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">[My Comments: Is any majority vote a “forced agenda”? Did the Democrats “steamroller” their proposals through congress? I recall plenty of debate. But the Republicans lost. The majority rules in this country. That cannot be a novel concept for the senator. So what is his point? That he is a sore loser?</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />Did democrats “block” Republican solutions? I am not aware of any serious proposals from Republicans on Health Care Reform or Financial Reform. Republicans attempted to obstruct every single legislative proposal and not a single Republican voted for Health Care Reform. Republican proposals were invited but were not forthcoming. But let’s assume there were some proposals that I am not aware of. Were they bipartisan? Declaring that an idea is bipartisan does not make it so. If no Democrats accept a particular Republican proposal, in what sense is it bipartisan?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Do Democrats have “policies” of expanding government, increasing spending, and swelling our debt? These may be short term consequences of Democratic actions, but there is no policy that Democrats hold these as principles. The national debt tripled under George W. Bush. (Wars are expensive. Tax cuts are expensive.) Was it therefore a “Republican policy” to increase spending and swell the debt? I doubt the senator would agree. The senator conflates selected, short term consequences of legislation with general political policy. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Some Americans, perhaps including the Senator himself, may be “angry, sick with bail-out fatigue, government overreach and runaway spending.” However polls do not support that characterization of the majority’s views. I myself, for example, do not feel that way. I think the Democrats pulled the country back from the precipice of disaster with the bail-out, then used its majority power to extend health care to millions of Americans. There is no evidence that the spending was, or is, “runaway.” </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It may be true, however that “Americans feel like Washington is no longer listening to them.” But that is always true. Politicians in Washington live in a bubble world, regardless of what party is in power. Hardly any information gets in or out. So this objection is not germane to the Senator’s complaints.]</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">[The senator continues...]</span><br />This new wave of anger offers the Republican Party an opportunity to promote its policies, which reflect the philosophy that America’s future depends far more on empowering individuals than empowering big government. These pro-growth solutions, such as Paul Ryan’s sound plan to deal with the deficit, include tax relief for individuals, families and small businesses, a comprehensive American energy bill and real health-care reform that lowers costs and improves care. Common sense solutions will not only sate voter anger and erase economic uncertainty, but bring sanity back to Washington policies.<br />Senator Kit Bond<br />Washington, DC<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">[My Comments: The first sentence of the senator’s final paragraph is a legitimate proposition and is well-stated. The Republican party should promote its policies. However, the next sentence begins by characterizing Republican policies as “pro-growth.” But growth for whom? History would suggest that Republicans favor growth of wealth and power for those who are wealthy and powerful. Democrats, on the other hand, are concerned more with economic prosperity for the lower and middle classes. “Pro-growth” is thus a vague generalization. In political speak, it is generally code for pro-business. </span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> </span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />The senator endorses Paul Ryan’s “sound plan.” What is that? It is, roughly, a House bill (HR4529) that would cut medicare benefits for millions of Americans. Is that a “sound” idea? Yes, in the sense that it would significantly reduce the government’s entitlement burden, the main factor that must be addressed to “bend” the deficit curve. However, what about all the millions of people who have no other form of health care? Let them eat cake?<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">Ryan proposes that people be given vouchers with which to buy private insurance, which would take them off medicare. We must assume that these vouchers would be worth much less than the parallel value of medicare costs over a person’s lifetime, for otherwise there would be no savings to the government. So essentially, the plan is to undo the Democratic health care reform, not by repeal, but by replacing all those newly covered millions by millions of others kicked out from the full coverage umbrella of medicare. Is that sound policy? Depends on whether you think government is to serve all the people, or just the rich ones.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">I also notice in the senator’s last paragraph that he speaks of “tax relief,” instead of “tax cuts.” Apparently Republicans have become aware that their favorite slogan is mindless and subject to ridicule. But who could object to tax relief? Everybody wants relief.Nevertheless , I would rather have “relief” from the two wars started under Republicans that have drained the treasury, rather than “relief” from mass transit, hospitals, green energy, financial regulation, education, and health coverage. “Tax relief” without a discussion of what taxes buy, is not a proposal, but a specious shibboleth.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />Are common sense solutions the best as the senator asserts? It depends on whose notion of common sense you mean. I don’t trust Senator Bond’s. It’s up to him to persuade voters that his idea of common sense is in our own best interests. He, and other Republicans, may be able to do that, because most voters are not able to exercise critical thinking any more than the senator is. It’s all about emotion, personality, and innuendo.] </span>Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-14446576182879607992010-06-02T17:48:00.001-07:002010-06-04T09:05:24.096-07:00Who is Running Israel?<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjrR1t4FrIAbfqe0FxEE19Lz0b69uSbV2CnVhTD_S643KJJ7w4m6stzpAz_i40lLSDDFKxY0u4-yaYVeUHU9z14npeHJVMfG2PIIu4tX0Fygn8XxOiZbj_8ggwz5QmOGWVkVZRfAKdZWM5/s1600/Netanyayu+WSJ+100602jpg.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 262px; height: 174px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjrR1t4FrIAbfqe0FxEE19Lz0b69uSbV2CnVhTD_S643KJJ7w4m6stzpAz_i40lLSDDFKxY0u4-yaYVeUHU9z14npeHJVMfG2PIIu4tX0Fygn8XxOiZbj_8ggwz5QmOGWVkVZRfAKdZWM5/s320/Netanyayu+WSJ+100602jpg.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5478343094002824338" border="0" /></a>Israel is receiving international condemnation of its raid on a ship bringing supplies to Gaza. The Wall Street Journal reports Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has argued that “the blockade of the Palestinian territory is necessary to prevent missile attacks against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.” (“Israel’s Isolation Deepens,” http://online.wsj.com/article, 6/2/2010). That may be true, but it is not at all relevant to the criticism that Israel used inappropriate force in stopping the ship and killing ten civilians.<br /><br />How many ways are there to stop a blockade-busting attempt? You can warn the invaders; apparently that was done to no avail. You can physically block them with other ships, or rafts, or other barriers. You could allow your own boats to be damaged by the invader, demonstrating provocation. You can tow the other guys away. You could tear gas the crew. You could ram their boat. You could tangle their propellers with nets.<br /><br />Is it necessary to board the ship and kill everyone? What kind of thinking is that?<br /><br />This incident betrays a far deeper problem than a diplomatic “incident” from a mishandled operation. It may demonstrate that the Israeli military is not really under civilian control. The military seems to be blinded by bloodlust, (as demonstrated by inappropriate use of force this time, and in the past), so let’s hope it is not generous to assume that cooler heads exist in the civilian government.<br /><br />From Netanyahu’s remarks, there is some doubt about that. Naturally, it is his job to defend the action. But if we take his irrelevant defense at face value, it shows that he hasn’t got a clue.<br /><br />He refuses to apologize “for defending ourselves.” He blames the Obama administration for encouraging others to gang up on Israel. He blames Hamas for shooting rockets into Israel. He says Israel has a right to inspect cargo going into Gaza. He reiterates his claim that there is no shortage of food or medicine and no humanitarian crisis in Gaza (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Israel-PM-Defends-Deadly-Raid-on-Aid-Convoy-95435204.html) . He asserts that this is not an issue of human rights and not even an issue of right vs. wrong.<br /><br />Can he really be that stupid to not understand what the international outrage is about? I don’t know anything about him personally, but it is hard to believe that he is stupid. So the alternative interpretation is that he is boxed in by the military and can say nothing else. I would rather have a stupid person in charge than nobody in charge, or worse, have an autonomous military in charge there.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-50134557132939533042010-03-23T08:54:00.000-07:002010-03-23T08:58:16.356-07:00Nancy Pelosi, National Hero<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikO4Imeyad8ZewQ1OAPGCOiD3eewThN6sfO_JVn_8PJx0C4CLqIVXWDNV8pq98DA_II16qvkwWM1kmjD2cH1AcoenDSHXdJpV3iWGsTmAtbWW1nxA_xoq80w44CVpONvVV76zNPawlAnfd/s1600-h/pelosi.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 206px; height: 226px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikO4Imeyad8ZewQ1OAPGCOiD3eewThN6sfO_JVn_8PJx0C4CLqIVXWDNV8pq98DA_II16qvkwWM1kmjD2cH1AcoenDSHXdJpV3iWGsTmAtbWW1nxA_xoq80w44CVpONvVV76zNPawlAnfd/s320/pelosi.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5451858586319665090" border="0" /></a>I say three cheers to House Speaker Pelosi for shepherding the Health Care reform bill through the house this weekend, to get it to senate reconciliation. Just a couple months ago the bill was all but moribund after the senate lost its Democratic majority.<br /><br />Pelosi is a fierce partisan, much reviled by Republicans, but that’s exactly what was needed in this case. She is often criticized, even by Democrats, for not being more accommodating to the other side in her work. But I think that is naïve. Not a single Republican voted for the health care bill. Not one. They are apparently against health care for all Americans, satisfied that the affluent have care. Nor did Republicans propose any serious alternative, or engage in any serious debate of the substantive issues. They behaved merely as petulant obstructionists and continue to do so.<br /><br />People who say Pelosi should have been more accommodating of Republicans to avoid the brinksmanship of this past weekend are not aware that we are in the era of “Fuck You politics.” There is no cooperation. There is no possibility of compromise. Conversation is not even possible. Pelosi knew that from the start and played her cards accordingly.<br /><br />Some Democrats criticize her for being greedy. They say she wasted a lot of valuable time and political capital trying to get American health care grounded on a public option, rather than on private industry. Had the house supported a more moderate bill, the deal would have gone through earlier, more easily, and without the political fallout that some representatives will now suffer. But that is the fallacy of hindsight.<br /><br />Pelosi had a large majority in the House and there was a narrow majority in the Senate, and Democrats were in the White House, so why NOT go for the brass ring? I would have done the same. It was not unreasonable to set the sights high. It was Republican propaganda that killed the public option, that, and Democrats’ characteristic inability to sell their ideas. Pelosi was not wrong going for the whole garbanzo. And she was smart enough to rein in her aspirations when the reality on the ground changed.<br /><br />So I say, when it comes to the toughest, most junkyard-dog of a partisan legislator around, I am grateful she is on the right side.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-50788261819332871942010-03-15T16:03:00.001-07:002010-03-23T09:00:06.879-07:00Hail Mr. Moderate<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbGYqPl8-MA132W5SyAkcDo6x9cxTC_e2OCK9RXbe1Gfo0xUJUruOrZfkKO2oyjumsTSCqUV_XaUi4JbOgOMAM8_7XOE4hjo7HF6Y_DPh2QlQJ4IyZCYfepd2D8DvMUHozQDVsDjq0D_2k/s1600-h/dodd_jpg_535661gm-k.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 358px; height: 204px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbGYqPl8-MA132W5SyAkcDo6x9cxTC_e2OCK9RXbe1Gfo0xUJUruOrZfkKO2oyjumsTSCqUV_XaUi4JbOgOMAM8_7XOE4hjo7HF6Y_DPh2QlQJ4IyZCYfepd2D8DvMUHozQDVsDjq0D_2k/s320/dodd_jpg_535661gm-k.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5449000197627492434" border="0" /></a>Senator Chris Dodd unveiled his financial reform proposal today – alone. No one else would stand with him at the podium to announce it.<br /><br />The proposal is deeply unpopular with all Republicans, who favor laissez-faire economics, despite the historical evidence that such policy is absolutely devastating to the country. They're not much on history, Republicans. Dodd can probably expect zero support from them on his bill.<br /><br />On the other side, the bill is not popular with Democrats either, at least the radical left wing. They favor iron-fisted, almost Stalinistic government control of every aspect of the economy, an approach that is not only impractical, but dangerously disruptive and historically destructive. For example, many Democrats would like to expand again the size of government bureaucracy to create a consumer financial protection agency. That is the Nanny Government at its worst. Caveat emptor is a better policy. How about we take all the money we <span style="font-style: italic;">would </span>have spend on administering a new government agency, and instead spend that amount on financial education for high school students?<br /><br />Dodd’s bill is well summarized at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/dodd-unveils-financial-overhaul/article1501089/<br /><br />It is a down-the-middle approach that will curtail some of the most egregious financial offenses without trying to remodel the entire financial system. In that it is reasonable, moderate, and safe.<br /><br />Whether he can get it passed is a whole different question. There is no middle ground any more in American politics.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-30315691687390600632010-02-07T09:26:00.001-08:002010-02-07T09:38:13.975-08:00Support Palin in 2012!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9D2PpNA1C8Hiwt_c17MDlptN5gN7vFVCJ35FkMFiUt_GEg1mUoHStD_sO6W6ZEgh-kkD6qyNwFKxrHl2UdEAgXo5C8tcTbnd98U-sE9XXXWYWdTOaMFVeAFVp0ye8K7lYeLGEZziIna3b/s1600-h/Palin-Fox+News020710.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 181px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9D2PpNA1C8Hiwt_c17MDlptN5gN7vFVCJ35FkMFiUt_GEg1mUoHStD_sO6W6ZEgh-kkD6qyNwFKxrHl2UdEAgXo5C8tcTbnd98U-sE9XXXWYWdTOaMFVeAFVp0ye8K7lYeLGEZziIna3b/s320/Palin-Fox+News020710.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5435554386034530898" border="0" /></a>Sarah Palin told FoxNews.com she "would be willing" to challenge Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/palin-willing-obama/.<br /><br />This is tremendously good news. Anyone with any political sense should start contributing to her political campaign, now and continuously. <br /><br />Likely Republican candidate Mitt Romney is also not a bad choice to support, since his religion probably makes him unelectable to the far right. Huckabee is also a good choice, although he could be a surprisingly dangerous populist. But Palin is so completely over the top that all Democrats should enthusiastically support her political ambition, to keep her ambition alive for two more years, and to block the path for any reasonable Republican candidate (if there is such a thing).Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-50904595714481488682010-01-19T09:22:00.001-08:002010-01-19T09:40:26.973-08:00Google's High Horse<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyAYRNXP8j6db1J6TWnbqlCHbrdhEglLQcbn8tkxhdoh6_IT3QdjYT_guq6pP4c_9x93p2IzlKZTacpEyB3yXU7roJdToCuSNtkOKKq0brtZIfTMmShmj89iRI_S1bK6P4YuXRjsgTH45_/s1600-h/Google.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 63px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyAYRNXP8j6db1J6TWnbqlCHbrdhEglLQcbn8tkxhdoh6_IT3QdjYT_guq6pP4c_9x93p2IzlKZTacpEyB3yXU7roJdToCuSNtkOKKq0brtZIfTMmShmj89iRI_S1bK6P4YuXRjsgTH45_/s320/Google.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428503851749394898" border="0" /></a>Google is posturing and harrumphing these days. It says it may decide to pull out of China because of continued censorship of its search engine. According to The Economist (“Flowers for a funeral” Jan. 16, p. 41), a report by Google’s chief legal officer says the company is “reviewing the feasibility” of doing business in China because of ever-tightening limits on free speech there.<br /><br />Memo to Google: There is no free speech in China. They are communists over there.<br /><br />It simply cannot be the case that Google has not been aware of this fact, so what could they be <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIR3AMjHKMS4cPYdUZRcLSjf4MCPBmzGQFcPFtey8sqJJChLon_0VSw80NfGahKKBXCs0kcTq8YDmmHVLVZcXfE4bSra0Oae84YolFY5kH5gwWS5vKI-QXt6QDnugpFW6Vk5-OpjqtiteF/s1600-h/Google+china_search_cnnic.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 246px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIR3AMjHKMS4cPYdUZRcLSjf4MCPBmzGQFcPFtey8sqJJChLon_0VSw80NfGahKKBXCs0kcTq8YDmmHVLVZcXfE4bSra0Oae84YolFY5kH5gwWS5vKI-QXt6QDnugpFW6Vk5-OpjqtiteF/s320/Google+china_search_cnnic.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428504034718104274" border="0" /></a>thinking? Some writers (especially those from Baidu, the number one search engine in China) say that Google is just looking for a cover story to leave China without admitting economic defeat. Naturally, Google Denies this.<br /><br />Google also cites recent hacker attacks on its Gmail service as a reason to leave. The hackers have been traced back to China and apparently targeted individuals critical of the government.<br /><br />Memo to Google: One may not criticize the government in China. It is against the law.<br /><br />And today, the New York Times reports that Google has postponed the release of its new smart phone in China (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/technology/companies/20phone.html). The phone uses open source Android software but has been highly customized to work well with Google applications.<br /><br />Why would postponement of the phone be germane at this time? Google says only that its current controversy with the Chinese government would put a pall of bad publicity over the phone’s release (NYT article). That argument, however, conveniently overlooks the fact that said controversy is censored from Chinese media, so there would be no bad publicity. One can speculate that the real issue involves the phone’s ability to easily record pictures, video, and sound, and upload such information to Google sites. Likewise, there are probably slick interfaces to social networking sites. All of that would be feared by the Chinese government, which wishes to control all the information its citizens receive. That’s my guess.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkqWgS-9gTw6bHdCMO7AYOanOPEjOsOmplHXKEOpRbH6CstJID1fUfnh2Cegi5qN9F2TW4Z-90oU219ZpqWZh8ycjxfG1oGZ4m2jkMQpA0uH_Emqv83v4eO2QJkmVBWFUy9yGyyIVlAJCv/s1600-h/Google+smart+phone.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 277px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkqWgS-9gTw6bHdCMO7AYOanOPEjOsOmplHXKEOpRbH6CstJID1fUfnh2Cegi5qN9F2TW4Z-90oU219ZpqWZh8ycjxfG1oGZ4m2jkMQpA0uH_Emqv83v4eO2QJkmVBWFUy9yGyyIVlAJCv/s320/Google+smart+phone.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428504296986388802" border="0" /></a>The Chinese government is on the wrong side of history on this argument, and sooner or later (probably sooner than they would like), it will become infeasible to maintain effective censorship in an age of global communications. I worked with a fellow once who had escaped from Bulgaria (pre-wallfall), and defected to the U.S. He told me that there was an armed guard at every copy machine in the country, the state’s effort to control even the most primitive methods of communication. We know how that turned out. It will be the same in China.<br /><br />However, until that day, the Chinese government has every legal and moral right to censor anything they please. They are not a democracy. They do not have a Bill of Rights. There is no right to free speech. It is illegal to criticize the government there. They have a different system than we do. So Google should get off its high horse and either comply or get out.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-10317772614040139412009-12-26T07:42:00.001-08:002009-12-26T07:54:35.380-08:00Is The Republican Party Doomed?<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjELPzNcaM0bQPp-6wEq12aPLcJ1BvNIC3Md1D1G_ZrmyWtMB6ueUjzKOx73pXx7SzH8P4kwmz77X_CXMQ8TCTVhGobJxaemr434yZIFOTTvwBlOppUKvHl7iIHfAD1WXZqQAuvCw4zaTVw/s1600-h/Republican-Logo.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 156px; height: 129px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjELPzNcaM0bQPp-6wEq12aPLcJ1BvNIC3Md1D1G_ZrmyWtMB6ueUjzKOx73pXx7SzH8P4kwmz77X_CXMQ8TCTVhGobJxaemr434yZIFOTTvwBlOppUKvHl7iIHfAD1WXZqQAuvCw4zaTVw/s320/Republican-Logo.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5419570961077993314" border="0" /></a>The Senate passed its version of a health insurance bill just before Christmas. Much of that victory belongs to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who somehow managed to get the 60 votes needed to stop Republican obstructionism. That must have been harder than herding kittens with a stick. There are reports that the senate legislation contains considerable pork benefitting individual senators in exchange for their votes. So be it. That’s how it must be done in a less-than-perfect world. Reid deserves a medal.<br /><br />On the other hand, what is up with Republicans? Their obstructionist behavior proves that they are motivated to make the Democratic party fail, regardless of what is right or wrong. Not a single Republican vote was cast for health care reform in the Senate. Not one. How can ALL Republicans be in the pocket of insurers? How can every one of them be without compassion? How can 100% of them be contemptuous of the needs of the people they supposedly represent? It is unfathomable. It’s not that they wanted more debate; they wanted to shut down all debate. They are simply petulant obstructionists, like a child who threatens to hold his breath until he gets his way.<br /><br />The Republican party has become morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt. I am sure that as soon as the legislation is reconciled and passed, they will begin campaigning for its repeal. If Dems have any sense of public relations (and they often don’t), they will start framing their victory message now to inoculate the public against the unconscionable Republican hypocrisy inevitably forthcoming.<br /><br />At some point, even the most ignorant of American voters surely will realize that the Republican party is the party of small-minded greed, selfishness, and immaturity. It will become patently <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbfyXnfcxPjYmy4T8HYIQ_8nEGcPfQR7UZOaYZtvc5ntVHk00t1etbaVEf4OwJozddgNLDMCD6M7QcEWT0wXjw5tzIpTOEs-YlGU7y2lkPPnZbB4Oa89AUHx8dhRnKFsi43qw3F3mcEP76/s1600-h/GOP+RIP.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 226px; height: 226px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbfyXnfcxPjYmy4T8HYIQ_8nEGcPfQR7UZOaYZtvc5ntVHk00t1etbaVEf4OwJozddgNLDMCD6M7QcEWT0wXjw5tzIpTOEs-YlGU7y2lkPPnZbB4Oa89AUHx8dhRnKFsi43qw3F3mcEP76/s320/GOP+RIP.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5419572218104350898" border="0" /></a>obvious through the party’s bizarre, unjustifiable antics. Won’t it? There <span style="font-style: italic;">must </span>be a bottom to the well of ignorance. This health care reform episode might illuminate that bottom if the Democrats play their P.R. cards right.<br /><br />I will not be too surprised if, within a decade, the Republican party is defunct, replaced by a new political party, The Conservatives, or something like that, made up of lawmakers who are responsible to the American voters, who do have conscience, ethics, and ideas, but who, unlike Republicans, would like to seriously and honestly engage American voters about important issues such as excessive government spending, and have the courage to stand for election based on their principles. They will become strong. The GOP will be no more.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-89656868445200823272009-12-14T17:51:00.000-08:002009-12-14T18:05:05.144-08:00Killer Joe?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDkhl5OAboTZGCTxZivDOjJbpP_MybuuzJBKMQtoS7yUKhYw2pNDAEIe6m7YohI_6FEY4tpIuS6kevi6wp9IlVImxxpDlBaVHh_AbWwV3AQ0MfFaXYs2BUJpbfN8Ite1c0trkeCKMHgzqu/s1600-h/joe-lieberman-072409.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDkhl5OAboTZGCTxZivDOjJbpP_MybuuzJBKMQtoS7yUKhYw2pNDAEIe6m7YohI_6FEY4tpIuS6kevi6wp9IlVImxxpDlBaVHh_AbWwV3AQ0MfFaXYs2BUJpbfN8Ite1c0trkeCKMHgzqu/s320/joe-lieberman-072409.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415277947885616514" border="0" /></a>Fox News.com reports that Senator Joseph Lieberman is being called a "killer" because of digging in his heels on the health care debate. (www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580229,00.html).<br /><br />He has vowed that he will not vote for the currently debated health care reform bill if it includes a current proposal to extend Medicare to persons under 65 years of age. Thousands of people without health care will die, and Lieberman is their killer if he doesn't extend healthcare to them, the argument goes.<br /><br />It's stupid rhetoric. Lieberman is right. The cost of extending Medicare down the age ladder would be too expensive. Medicare is already enormously expensive and inadequately funded. Expanding it makes no sense, especially since the rest of the healthcare reform bill will provide for people under 65 in other ways anyway.<br /><br />Lieberman is not my favorite senator, by a long shot. But I grudgingly admit he has called this one correctly. Spending is fine. We need to spend on our people. That's what government does. But Harry Reid and the other Democrats can easily go completely bananas with public money if nobody speaks up. There are limits to what is possible. Thanks, Joe. <span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span><b><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12pt;" ></span></b>Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-42744701954995933902009-12-11T10:13:00.000-08:002009-12-11T10:21:02.326-08:00Two Errors in Obama's Nobel Speech<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyCtFREvgKPHWJUSwsBTwk7SuUiMTvIQB2EaSKEpZXS7FPj4OJHt0E7sl0Fa_SdosVzblDx1IQb7AZmXIXVoUgs7_oOTDtFmZq0Voq8-eQ4oIhHeOuk6PrsXMVRIV42rbIf6jZScITbClm/s1600-h/Norway_Obama_Nobel-NYT.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 199px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyCtFREvgKPHWJUSwsBTwk7SuUiMTvIQB2EaSKEpZXS7FPj4OJHt0E7sl0Fa_SdosVzblDx1IQb7AZmXIXVoUgs7_oOTDtFmZq0Voq8-eQ4oIhHeOuk6PrsXMVRIV42rbIf6jZScITbClm/s320/Norway_Obama_Nobel-NYT.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5414043644223603298" border="0" /></a>“…Perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars,” said President Obama, accepting the Nobel Prize for Peace on December 10. That fact was a stark incongruity that framed the speech and which made it an almost impossible situation for him. Yet it is that very incongruity that will make the speech endure. School children will read it for generations precisely because it eloquently addresses the inherent tension between peace and war.<br /><br />He did far better than could have been expected under the circumstance, and delivered a very articulate speech on the topic of peace while commanding armies at war, still, I thought he said two wrong things.<br /><br />One was his assertion of the universality of American values, which is a myopic, self-centered view. Obama listed “the” iconic American values as if they were automatically universal human truths: defense of human rights, the ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law, and so forth. In fact, not all people and not all governments embrace these values (obviously) which are very far from being universal human values. They just happen to be things that we believe are good. There are other ways to live. Obama does not try to force these values down the throats of others, as G.W. Bush often did, but to list them as universal virtues without qualification is an error that reveals a surprising blind spot.<br /><br />The second wrong thing Obama said was that “…Evil does exist in the world.” It is true, as he explained, “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.” These “small men with outsize rage,” as he called them, cannot be spoken to. Unfortunately they must be killed, in self-defense. That is the sad reality. But that does not imply they are evil. It just means we are unable to talk with them because of utterly incompatible world views.<br /><br />If a rabid dog attacks you, you may have to kill it, but that does not make the dog evil. It just means that, regrettably, you have no other method of communication. This is a distinction I thought Obama would be familiar with, and I was surprised to hear him invoke the Manichaeism that G.W. was so fond of. It is an erroneous and dangerous way to characterize your enemy.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-68511220355681985002009-11-17T08:59:00.001-08:002009-11-17T09:12:50.737-08:00Palestine by Fiat?<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGefKnUqR6FO4m15sTVI0-Dscd2j2xkopwQRDUbxYnViO9WL4g2qBeUWbB3KjCWuVun2zLCub5amFVsOmkTBfoCbk_Gx7ko202dquXEHwE0JFoK2RfQTob6zRGkg-KPe1aOlNbfmDUb6wh/s1600/koret1967+borders.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 206px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGefKnUqR6FO4m15sTVI0-Dscd2j2xkopwQRDUbxYnViO9WL4g2qBeUWbB3KjCWuVun2zLCub5amFVsOmkTBfoCbk_Gx7ko202dquXEHwE0JFoK2RfQTob6zRGkg-KPe1aOlNbfmDUb6wh/s320/koret1967+borders.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5405119781677646530" border="0" /></a>Late last week, the head Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, announced that Palestinians would ask the U.N. Security council to recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. The chance of that happening is nil, since the U.S. would veto it.<br /><br />Nevertheless, is it such a bad idea to ask? It would force the U.S. into an awkward position, drawing world attention to its one-sided, pro-Israeli policy. That might dislodge some diplomatic energy that is lacking at the moment.<br /><br />What would happen if Palestinians were to unilaterally declare such a state? It would be interesting. Israel might acknowledge it, but would seal its borders and shut off the water. Trade and transportation would stop. There would be no effective communication between Gaza and the West Bank. Since Hamas controls Gaza and is against such a declaration, in effect, you would have a Palestine on the West Bank only.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">(1967 Borders)<br /></div><br />Israel would not give up its settlements without a fight, so the idea of 1967 borders would not be real on the ground. Still, there would be, in fact, a Palestinian state. The Arab world would recognize it and money, goods, and military support would flow in immediately. Palestine would no longer be dependent on Israel, but instead on Jordan, and other neighbors, until it could find its feet.<br /><br />One can imagine that over time, the new Palestine would develop its own governance and economy and become a functioning state. It would solve the persistent “middle east crisis” by its defacto recognition of Israel. Israel would be hard pressed not to acknowledge the legitimacy of the new state (not necessarily with formal diplomatic recognition). Palestine declared independence once before, in 1988, and many countries recognized that declaration, but for practical reasons, nothing came of it. Is it worth trying again?<br /><br /><a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7AE7_sGCwpUNPxQBdizd23mi2Tgz3XPZQ4SwCrml8rPvxTV7-HgNmr9EMH9ZUj4XIX3_Mx-I58B6liOYfn4-6tmRhxOm0HrPq6FZGVaeo7EKl-xd6qDaBJ4Zf4vszitXwmT-jS9UdcDSk/s1600/1947-partition.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 185px; height: 252px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7AE7_sGCwpUNPxQBdizd23mi2Tgz3XPZQ4SwCrml8rPvxTV7-HgNmr9EMH9ZUj4XIX3_Mx-I58B6liOYfn4-6tmRhxOm0HrPq6FZGVaeo7EKl-xd6qDaBJ4Zf4vszitXwmT-jS9UdcDSk/s320/1947-partition.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5405118488721791058" border="0" /></a>On the down side, there is the problem of the illegal settlements. Essentially, there would be an unresolved border issue there. But if the Palestinians were to simply accept the border of The Wall that Israel has built, and give up on land already annexed, they would have stopped that erosion and staked firm borders. They would have to get past wet-eyed talk about historic homelands and all that, and just go for the certainty of statehood.<br /><br />Gaza would be left to itself. In the long run, it might declare itself the new state of Hamas, or be taken over by Egypt, or if Hamas were to fall, opt to be annexed to Palestine. None of those outcomes is so terrible.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(Original 1947 Borders)</span><br /><br />The new Palestine could join the U.N., the Arab League, and whatever other organizations it could. Any hostility between Israel and Palestine would be a matter for U.N. negotiation. Israel would remain secure with U.S. backing. Such an outcome would take much of the ideological wind out of extremists who excuse their militancy on grounds of supporting the struggle of the Palestinian people. That struggle would be over.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-89646225691546168562009-10-19T12:33:00.000-07:002009-10-19T12:41:03.029-07:00The AFPAK Conundrum<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNyNs6xJhbElJbkBksUL0EzqJ8qhjzsi1donQA2JOzE3HNoeocAsTwHjLQedVrvkdOPxAo9EuNBMhJYXMt_Rel5msk6mUNUjw7r6FGlG1MDQZEl9zePoJrQ1NYJ6aO_f0znpgwZAvAkE2V/s1600-h/mcchrystal.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 191px; height: 223px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNyNs6xJhbElJbkBksUL0EzqJ8qhjzsi1donQA2JOzE3HNoeocAsTwHjLQedVrvkdOPxAo9EuNBMhJYXMt_Rel5msk6mUNUjw7r6FGlG1MDQZEl9zePoJrQ1NYJ6aO_f0znpgwZAvAkE2V/s320/mcchrystal.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5394396786579947650" border="0" /></a>President Obama will soon announce whether or not he will agree to General McChrystal’s request to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Most pundits agree that 40K would be merely a downpayment; that at least 100,000 would be needed to suppress the Taliban there. So we are looking at a Vietnam-style gradual escalation that slowly bleeds the country (our country) white, whereupon we throw in the towel in defeat. It’s not even clear what these 40K troops would be used for. It’s not even clear what the present troops there are doing. The war in Afghanistan is not popular with Americans, but even allowing for the fact that the American public has a short attention span, sending more troops is a bad idea now and an even worse trend.<br /><br />Should we pull out then? Let the Taliban take over? An argument could be made for that option, except for one small problem: Pakistan has the atomic bomb. The Taliban are not going to stay in Afghanistan. They have already migrated into Pakistan, which is now their headquarters. We do not need another bunch of nut-case Islamic extremists with nuclear weapons. The consequences are too severe to even consider.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk3846OiCKrVIzJbehWCMSSaoJlLZAxHgOu_W4AnT818vaWsL02pcSepDIGHmE3XKhyJRzzxLLe_NgK7Ve_ICKrTV0s6Dy4sdCGxaIcRJMj4NkpfYOKVaWg8Ruyegy02ZU_T0g9bjJoJE3/s1600-h/pakistan_swat_nwfp_fata.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 176px; height: 176px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk3846OiCKrVIzJbehWCMSSaoJlLZAxHgOu_W4AnT818vaWsL02pcSepDIGHmE3XKhyJRzzxLLe_NgK7Ve_ICKrTV0s6Dy4sdCGxaIcRJMj4NkpfYOKVaWg8Ruyegy02ZU_T0g9bjJoJE3/s320/pakistan_swat_nwfp_fata.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5394396977876839906" border="0" /></a>So what is a good strategy? Not that Obama calls me any more, but if he did, I would say, don’t sent any more fighting troops to Afghanistan. It’s a never-ending battle there. No matter how many Taliban we kill, they can easily recruit more. Instead, send 40,000 troops into Pakistan to wipe out the Taliban in the Northwest region, drive them back into Afghanistan. Pakistan is what we need to protect, not Afghanistan.<br /><br />Granted, the Pakis may not care to have 40,000 American troops barge in. But maybe there is a way around that. Maybe they are 40,000 trainers, advisors, logistics personnel, and whatnot; everything but trigger-pullers.<br /><br />Once Pakistan is secure, we take these further actions in Afghanistan: We seal the borders of Afghanistan (as much as possible) from the inside with troops, and from the outside with <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_obUM1hD35799q7yPGBXswJiqL2Lbg7561qtoAoQxTWHcInUMK0-5gi4XX_otKKy0STEyFXjYe_iZd7d_lGPO6qD4-NSunHBhumimLs125SJmvmD9VOdegkMuQ-0dhJ4hYX6rqWUj6bXq/s1600-h/Marines_Afghan_Village.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 233px; height: 163px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_obUM1hD35799q7yPGBXswJiqL2Lbg7561qtoAoQxTWHcInUMK0-5gi4XX_otKKy0STEyFXjYe_iZd7d_lGPO6qD4-NSunHBhumimLs125SJmvmD9VOdegkMuQ-0dhJ4hYX6rqWUj6bXq/s320/Marines_Afghan_Village.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5394397178219496802" border="0" /></a>economic and political sanctions. Especially the border with Pakistan. Then we eradicate the poppies, which is the Taliban’s source of income, and we pay farmers a subsidy to grow something more useful to the same profit level. Hey, it works in Wisconsin, it can work in Kandahar. I am sure that farm subsidies are less costly than a war without end. Finally, we spend money, money, money on training and infiltrating human intelligence into Afghanistan, psychological warfare, and on building schools, electric generators, and water systems in villages. We do NOT try to convert the country to democracy, capitalism, or Christianity. I would guess that all these efforts, costly though they might be, would still be less expensive than another eight years of warfare.<br /><br />So Obama should send in, not 40,000 troops, but 40,000 civil engineers, spies, and micro-diplomats. Troops are not what we need.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-19670057688766203702009-09-17T07:35:00.000-07:002009-09-17T07:52:43.333-07:00Better Than a Poke In The Eye<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizalBYEXTyve2SIM8yMeXkeV-im5nWObdDqUCwypwlQAMWWU6DCOG7NXb3KrbMw-WXg3PLeHOApf3ulIgGudhwLXwFzgRsz_fwZaChdb9DHO1OBUHaSHKJ-rIzwZc9y_TxO9NFcApE9Yyp/s1600-h/Max_baucus.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 151px; height: 194px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizalBYEXTyve2SIM8yMeXkeV-im5nWObdDqUCwypwlQAMWWU6DCOG7NXb3KrbMw-WXg3PLeHOApf3ulIgGudhwLXwFzgRsz_fwZaChdb9DHO1OBUHaSHKJ-rIzwZc9y_TxO9NFcApE9Yyp/s320/Max_baucus.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5382445875516784274" border="0" /></a>The recently released “Baucus” senate health care reform plan has the virtue of providing health insurance coverage for a good proportion of the currently uninsured. Everybody will be required to have health insurance, just as we must now have car insurance, but the cost of insurance will be subsidized for the poor and the lower middle class. Those costs will be recovered through “fees” (basically new taxes) on health insurers, pharmaceutical makers, health labs and medical device makers.<br /><br />Providing health insurance for the poor is a good thing. It could even nominally reduce costs by reducing use of emergency rooms, (which we all pay for in increased costs), the method by which the poor get health care now. It also introduces some slight regulation of the insurance industry, eliminating the more egregious practices, such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, and by setting some minimum coverage standards. Regulation like that is badly needed.<br /><br />However, the plan does not propose to reduce overall health care spending. The high, “unsustainable” cost of health care has been Obama’s main argument for why reform is needed. This plan does not address that argument. There will be non-profit consumer cooperatives established for the purpose of providing health care insurance. These are supposed to provide much-needed price competition, but it is hard to see how they would, unless, over time, they became extremely large and essentially became the “public option” not included in this plan. A small insurance co-op just wouldn’t have enough actuarial muscle to spread the risk.<br /><br />State-based exchanges, or central markets, would be set up where individuals could easily compare prices and coverage from health insurers. That will help with price transparency, but is not much different than spending a few hours on the internet. You still can only buy insurance from companies licensed in your state, which is a limited choice. And if the pricing information is provided by the industry, it will be about as transparent as mud. Have you ever tried to compare pricing for TV cable services, or wireless services online? There are so many vaguely defined variables, misdirections and subtle subterfuges that a straightforward comparison is impossible. I am not sanguine about the helpfulness of that idea.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Svlty3-ftIGx6p_W-dm03UEfprjGan6uKKG77k_M4CedMe_ps16f7qw48V_sjDrf20y_PajIh1E3CKLAUqZqpXEP1iz2D1qj_KXvR11R7jJnRxqrWGhflvGoL8nP38pt_XRFMofYvVz0/s1600-h/Stooges-%2520Eye%2520Poke.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 296px; height: 177px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Svlty3-ftIGx6p_W-dm03UEfprjGan6uKKG77k_M4CedMe_ps16f7qw48V_sjDrf20y_PajIh1E3CKLAUqZqpXEP1iz2D1qj_KXvR11R7jJnRxqrWGhflvGoL8nP38pt_XRFMofYvVz0/s320/Stooges-%2520Eye%2520Poke.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5382445996913811874" border="0" /></a>We should assume that the taxes levied on the health care industry to pay for the Baucus plan will be passed along to consumers. The companies are not going to just take the hit. They will raise the cost of coverage, probably across the board but mostly on the high end. This will have the effect of employers choosing to offer lower grade coverage or higher prices, and the same for individuals buying their own coverage. There are simply no price controls in this plan. By assigning the new costs disproportionately to higher end consumers, the plan effects a wealth transfer, the rich subsidizing the newly insured poor. That’s not a bad thing in principle, but it does nothing to reduce overall costs, which was the problem to be solved.<br /><br />So this plan is batting .500. It does address one of the two outstanding problems, health insurance coverage for the 50 million uninsured in this country. But it whiffs the second problem, lowering the overall cost of health care. One out of two is better than none out of two, but it is not the sweeping FDR-like vision many had hoped for. Perhaps it is not the final word.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7368142915861726826.post-12113568492455139452009-09-06T11:15:00.001-07:002009-09-17T07:48:44.397-07:00It's the Insurance, Stupid<a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH04OG7vq8MGGdD5eTLRmZW5FiCF_sPQvuh4TPWEPSYBTtGwuWDuXX4W5ubF0n5jfwv0vCLDuPJ8Mz4_elCXOo4BYX-NUJBmFH7JAaa4NKqQfXGT_eSm5AxednnmRxu0x34u5t-M0dkpw8/s1600-h/HealthInsurance.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 226px; height: 219px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH04OG7vq8MGGdD5eTLRmZW5FiCF_sPQvuh4TPWEPSYBTtGwuWDuXX4W5ubF0n5jfwv0vCLDuPJ8Mz4_elCXOo4BYX-NUJBmFH7JAaa4NKqQfXGT_eSm5AxednnmRxu0x34u5t-M0dkpw8/s320/HealthInsurance.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378419796935447282" border="0" /></a>President Obama will soon give a big speech to congress (mostly to the Democrats) about health care reform. He needs to right the ship of discussion quickly. It has been listing badly under the weight of irrational and malicious propaganda from the right and petty bickering on the left.<br /><br />The plain fact is that the current health care system is financially unsustainable. Three quarters of Americans will simply have to go broke from health care costs if it continues on the present course. Or, more likely, premiums will rise sharply and benefits will be cut to keep it going, leaving more of us out in the cold. None of these is a desirable outcome. Ergo, we need to reform the health care system.<br /><br />Obama has at least identified the problem correctly as an insurance problem. The problem is not that doctors are price gouging. The problem is not that hospital profits are too high. The problem is not that the quality of health care is low. The problem is not fraud (although there is some of that, to be sure). The problem is not frivolous use of medical services. The problem is cost, cost cost. Why are the costs so high? Because the insurance companies charge too much for the services they render. The problem is with the insurance companies.<br /><br />I am very satisfied with my health insurance just the way it is. It is comprehensive and low cost. I fork over a $15 copay every time I visit the doctor, and that’s it. I don’t even know what the true cost is of the medical services I receive. As far as I know, anything I want costs $15.<br /><br />What do I pay for this fabulous level of care? Thousands and thousands of dollars! I pay about $6,432 annually for basic health insurance (including wife). My employer pays at least that much, probably double that amount. I also pay $624 per year for dental insurance (employer pays the rest) and $3,214 a year to medicare, a service I do not use, so I am donating that amount to “the system” so others can benefit.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYNGVg3Wi6zuu7OFymyh8J9oJNn9X7DEmQM7hFz_lMAI2QFJ2VtFybe1YpQIJ9vjmPW1AXvl4lrhJ11u7APmNpBhcEpntmsZdFfXNV6CzTmXhO-mZpiG-1xP3u6xK11kQusN_OhmsNE8gW/s1600-h/money.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 228px; height: 152px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYNGVg3Wi6zuu7OFymyh8J9oJNn9X7DEmQM7hFz_lMAI2QFJ2VtFybe1YpQIJ9vjmPW1AXvl4lrhJ11u7APmNpBhcEpntmsZdFfXNV6CzTmXhO-mZpiG-1xP3u6xK11kQusN_OhmsNE8gW/s320/money.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378420384828257970" border="0" /></a>But just looking at basic health insurance, Aetna gets $6432 annually from me and let’s assume $12, 864 annually from my employer, for a total of $19, 296 per year in premiums. And this has been going on for the past 40 years, at ever increasing rates. I can guarantee that I do not consume $20K worth of medical services in a year and never have. So Aetna has literally, made a fortune on just me and my employer!<br /><br />Now, granted, my employer can deduct some of their portion of the insurance payments from their taxes, which amounts to a government subsidy (a partial “single-payer” system). And granted, I paid less for insurance in the distant past. And granted, when I get really old, it is not inconceivable that I might blow through $20K in medical services in a year. But I have been paying in for a long time, and I am just one person! Millions upon millions of people have been paying these same premiums into Aetna and the other insurance companies for years. Who is getting rich?<br /><br />Does the “free-market” system of insurance work? It works for me. I have no motivation to change anything. But in two years, my employer-subsidised medical insurance runs out. Then what will I do? Will I be able to come up with private insurance? Preliminary research shows that I will have to pay at least $1500 a month, or about $27,000 a year for private coverage that includes only the most catastrophic medical events, with a high copay and a high deductible. That is nasty. No more annual physicals. No more lab tests that detect potentially serious conditions before they occur. No more going to the doctor every time there is an infection, rash, or pain that is not life-threatening.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdJHg0N85Usmit2GnmaJSa-UDMpj8e4xVejO_AdDOBJWw75fQ9UMLWwBup8N6Eg4-wFpK19C-SygGKtGRMFW8RxV7t4tR1KYEiP75l-Ph3YOqczwW6-XRnbQ1iBpKxORuZhqjBSLboPfEO/s1600-h/HBHW_AetnaLogo.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 265px; height: 121px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdJHg0N85Usmit2GnmaJSa-UDMpj8e4xVejO_AdDOBJWw75fQ9UMLWwBup8N6Eg4-wFpK19C-SygGKtGRMFW8RxV7t4tR1KYEiP75l-Ph3YOqczwW6-XRnbQ1iBpKxORuZhqjBSLboPfEO/s320/HBHW_AetnaLogo.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378419952717352050" border="0" /></a>I simply cannot not afford the level of coverage I have now once I separate from my employer. It is no wonder that nearly 50 million Americans have no medical coverage at all. It's expensive! I will just chance it for a few more years until I qualify for medicare.<br /><br />Obama has suggested that the government should offer public insurance to compete with the private companies, like Aetna. Presumably, it would be cheaper than Aetna’s and just as good. That would force Aetna to lower their prices (and take a lower profit, poor babies.)<br /><br />Critics object that if there were a public option, many small to medium employers (and maybe the large employers too) would simply stop offering health benefits. Why should they, when the public option is available to anyone? So, the complaint goes, the public option would force out the private option.<br /><br />That objection is nonsense, borne of either ignorance or malicious disinformation. Why would private employers continue to offer health coverage? For the same reason they offer salary: to compensate employees! Health insurance is part of the compensation package. If my employer stopped offering health care coverage, that would be equivalent to a $12,000 per year pay cut. Forget that. I would look to a more generous employer rather quickly.<br /><br />Secondly, if the public option is cheaper and just as good, and let’s say employers do stop offering private coverage, and workers move in throngs to the public option, what is Aetna going to do? Will they say, “Oh well, it was good while it lasted, but now we’re out of business. Too bad?” Of course not. They are not going out of business. They will fight back, and that is the whole point. They will lower premiums and improve services and do whatever it takes to be competitive and stay in business. And that is exactly the desired outcome.<br /><br />Who could be against lower costs for health care at the same high level? Only a few groups. The insurance companies are against it, of course. And the politicians they support are against it. And all the lawyers, accountants, adjustors, clerks and millions of others who feed off the insurance <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5_BdXz7FZ3oFf4_3uH8_3KWnO1yn1Ph5o9psyTnhdYKlQoOgEn_rgNNHQGDSbUYX1sWYxahvwkFl4SgJGfnUnf6X76J8-Yd_6lClLQcPPIKoS22PqInI-mm-SONSsab5zdhD5YrAYkJW7/s1600-h/barack_obama5.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 254px; height: 203px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5_BdXz7FZ3oFf4_3uH8_3KWnO1yn1Ph5o9psyTnhdYKlQoOgEn_rgNNHQGDSbUYX1sWYxahvwkFl4SgJGfnUnf6X76J8-Yd_6lClLQcPPIKoS22PqInI-mm-SONSsab5zdhD5YrAYkJW7/s320/barack_obama5.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378422532112010322" border="0" /></a>industry would be against it. But those are all greedy self-interests. It is perfectly clear that health insurance reform is in the best interest of the public.<br /><br />I hope Obama addresses the health insurance issue head on and does not get drawn into peripheral or nonexistent issues such as “unnecessary lab tests” fraud, paperwork reduction, tort reform, health rationing, “death panels”, and so on. None of that is keeping his eye on the ball. Insurance is the ball.Bill Adamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950185676692819673noreply@blogger.com0