Stop Making Sense

Part 2 Why we vote against ourselves?

2008-01-14T18:46:00.000-06:00

Part 2 of Why Americans Vote Against Their Own Interests

In Part 1, we discussed how the development of fundamentalism as a growth industry caused it to radically revamp its teachings of old. And how this made it attractive to the rich and powerful (justifying their position in society) and business (helping convince rank and file Americans that facts either didn’t matter or weren’t true).

Today we will take on the dumbing-down and of American journalism and its swerve to become a tool or the radical right wing.

Sinking Journalism

Beginning with the Nixon White House, the radical right has continuously attacked the press as part of its march to power. This was partly an effort to simply recalibrate the scales – moving the center of American philosophical thought to mid-stream conservatism, where the Radical Right didn’t seem so radical. It was also an attempt to discredit the press and thus reality. And more recently, part of this has been to make the press partisan. Several factors contributed to our modern partisan press.

The attack on the press has been long-lived, aggressive, and from many directions (political, commercial, and religious entities have all attacked the press). And the press, weary of this attack began to slowly crumble in a number of ways. Bit by bit, it found itself adding tag lines to articles to express outlandish or unsupportable propositions, so as not to be accused of bias. From here, it became less willing to investigate, much less report on, the factual realities necessary to sort out claims and counter-claims. This, of course, left more and more people on their own, needed to make decisions based on personal judgment and the pronouncements of the authority figures in their lives, rather than an understanding of facts and a dispassionate analysis of what those facts would portend.

This shift has occurred subtly, and for quite some time was denied by the press itself – both collectively in public, and by its membership in private. However, this shift was and is very real, and reinforces the American public’s inability to rational decisions.

As the news organizations began to view themselves as media (rather than press), they developed a need for eyeballs. Its first goal was no longer news, but volume and profitability – an idea that has been repeated hailed by all sort of leaders as good and inevitable. However, the ideal was lost, that the press had a higher calling than other profitable enterprises. And with this loss came a reduction in editorial standards.

Media should be entertaining and uncontroversial. It should take one’s mind off of the everyday stresses and strains of life – not force one to consider how to better live their life. Media is not art, nor press, nor anything else that is noble Media often caters to that which is most base in mankind – such as ourselves apart from other, who we look down upon in order feel better about ourselves. And lord knows that today, most American career’s, do not provide the positive sense of self that would limit our need seek these unfortunate forms of self-fulfillment.

The American press did not have to begin catering cravenly to corporate interests. The move toward being media, or entertainment, might have only been accompanied with a reduction of content, and a change of focus to the trivial – like coverage of the girls Spears.

Wall Street and corporate CEOs, however, found a significant financial interest in consolidating and enlarging any form of commercial enterprise – including media organizations. The American press had a number of (political) protections in place against control by hegemony of elitist money or political interests. However, pressures to consolidate news organizations coincided with the desires of certain business and religious leaders to gain political power.

Their drive for political power fit into their larger pattern of enriching themselves off of the work of others – and needing to remove the yoke of government to accomplish this goal. Once again, these interests depended on the denial of facts and reality. So, on the one hand, there were players desiring to profit off the consolidation of news/media resources, and on the others were players who could grant this wish who needed a way to stifle the open sharing of knowledge and reality.

Through the Regan and both Bush administrations, we have seen a constant flow of gifts to those who did or would own media. These gifts took the form of relaxing or even eliminating the long-standing controls that ensured that we had a fair and free press in America. In return, the new owners of media modified the message they broadcast to fit with the needs of religion and business. In most cases, this meant that they ignored, obscured, or misrepresented facts and reality in their ‘news’ reporting. And even this started in small ways.

But it has grown. Several months ago there was a move on the floor of the House to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Vice President. Even if this were not a very serious issue, the political drama that ensued should have been enough to ensure that the event headlined the nightly news and the front pages of every significant newspaper in the country.

In their typical fashion, the Republicans attempted to bottle up this move with parliamentary votes. They typically do this as long as they can on each and every issue that their corporate masters dislike. But, if this effort fails, and they may be held accountable to voters for, being among the minority to vote against a potentially popular issue/bill/maneuver, they will switch their vote so as not to endanger their ‘moderate’ reputation amongst their constituency. Safe voting is a tradition long cherished in D.C., but one that is greatly facilitated by an abetting press.

At the beginning of this impeachment vote, they had hopes that enough democrats would defect so that they could claim that a bi-partisan consensus disapproved of the move to impeach. But apparently they got cold feet, or felt that they could create embarrassment for the Democratic leadership by crossing over. So they began changing their votes to be in favor of impeachment and thereby ensure the passage of this maneuver.

The Democratic leadership (for reasons that most of us can’t understand) was afraid to impeach, and bent the rules of voting so that the leadership could caucus and then the representatives themselves could switch their votes to ensure that debate on the floor was tabled to a committee for ‘further discussion’.

The House started with Democrats on one side of the issue and Republicans on the other, then with no change to the circumstances or resolution, both sides crossed over (en masse) and voted for the other side’s position. The move to impeach was referred to committee, but not without historic political drama.

Again, even if this were a trivial issue, it should have been reported boldly just because crazy our representatives behavior was. But, if you didn’t watch live on C-Span, or pay attention to one of a few progressive blogs, you never heard or saw any coverage of this historic occasion. Not one network, not one significant paper, reported on the activities that occurred that day in the House of Representatives.

Clearly, the word was out: Don’t report on the impeachment issue. Similarly, bad news isn’t reported, and good news is hyped regarding the war in Iraq. Misinformation is reported about the both the victims and relief efforts from hurricane Katrina. The list goes on and on, but most of what is known as the MSM (mainstream media) continues in this fashion, and even taking fight against anyone who points it out.

Paralleling this change has been the rise of the political pundit (PP). The PP represents both a reaction to criticism by the radical right and part of the shift from news to media. What used to be a columnist with a point of view, has become a mouthpiece for pre-determined ‘talking-points’. This individual is occasionally directly (but discretely) on the payroll of some organization or interest group (including parts of the federal government), who want to sell a certain message to the American public. And even when the connection is less direct, there are book contracts, speaking engagements, career opportunities, and surprising high income potential for these individuals. It is exceedingly more lucrative to shill while feigning a base in sound thinking, than to present a position based on sound thinking – without an agenda.

It would be naive to suggest that such shenanigans have never before occurred within the American press. But what we see today far overwhelms any historic examples of misleading the public. In part, this is because the consolidation of ‘media’ has made it so much easier to control the message – keeping everyone on board and under control.

Today’s press is comprised in large degrees of entertainment and fiction masquerading is news. Industry, political elites, and fundamentalist leaders have convinced us to ignore facts take their word for things. To this sick mixture has been an effort to fundamentally control facts themselves, which will be our next post: Thinking Lost

Part1 of Summary

2008-01-13T16:59:00.000-06:00

As part of my returning to posting, I’ll be switching directions a bit.

I think that the answer to my original question is at hand, which I will summarize in three or four posts beginning below. After that, we’ll start to consider what's up with economics. In my opinion the field of economics is far from being a science. In fact, many of its fundamental beliefs, theories, and assumptions may be off course – and increasingly skewed to support globalism and its march to global hegemony and social stratification. I’ll be using this blog to 'think loudly' about this topic. You’re welcome to join in with your ideas.

If you’ve been following old posts, you know that this blog was conceived to understand why the American public could continually vote against its own interests over an extended period of time. It seems like we, as a nation, have encountered a 'perfect storm' of adverse political conditions that have interfered with people’s judgment and thought processes. The conditions which have brewed this perfect storm include:
- The movement of fundamentalist religion to co-opt greed as a desirable and honorable quality.
- The almost total loss of journalistic standards in this country.
‘Privatization’ of thinking.
- The commercialization of the legislative process in Washington D.C. and elsewhere.

I would suggest that a great number of conspiracies have been hatched and executed under the three umbrella gestalts above. But I would also suggest that the place, at which we have arrived, has been driven largely by Darwinian forces, and that the various conspiracies work together through groupthink accident rather than as part of an elaborate plan. Having said that; the accrual of power to a few, requires less accident of coordination every day. Put otherwise, ‘market forces’ in religion, thinking, news, and politics have created a world managed by a greedy elite, and this is the natural course unless common men and women stand up demand reasonable government, which necessitates regulation of the outlandish power of the few.

This article isn’t ready for http://www.wikipedia.com/, and probably won’t ever be. I'm not of a mind to do the scholarly efforts, but that doesn't mean it isn't ready for you to read, consider and discuss.

Rising Fundamentalism
Let's consider a simplified view of the rise of Fundamentalism in America since the 1960s. Fundamentalism gained a unique growth opportunity as our country grappled with desegregation, especially for Southern schools. Parents who didn't want their children integrated needed a schooling option, and fundamentalist churches and leaders provided this option. In contrast, in the North, where strong public school systems were more ingrained in the culture, suburban migration served as the outlet to parents who wanted to avoid desegregation.

At the same time, radio ministries were evolving into television ministries, and these were providing a path to riches for certain fundamentalist leaders. Fundamentalist religion was slowly evolving to become a growth industry with big payoffs (and no pesky shareholders or SEC).[1] Religious academies created a new and important channel to growing congregations and revenue.

Ultimately, this has culminated in the super-churches with congregations that number well into five-figures. Leaders of these super-churches spend their time as religious CEOs. They organize and oversee those who provide the ministry of the church, debate and agree on issue, priorities, and policies with their lay leadership and fellow religious CEOs. And they often spend time with politicians, travel by limo and private plane/helicopter, drive fancy cars and live in big homes.

Unfortunately for this thriving fundamentalist leadership, the Carter administration, and then the Regan administration, began to eliminate the tax-exempt status of religious schools due to the schools' segregationist policies. This threatened the growth prospects and revenue streams of fundamentalist leaders, while hindering these schools continuing efforts to offer a segregationist outlet. There was reason to be concerned if children returned to secular schools where they might be exposed to alternative points of view.

To counter this challenge, the religious leadership realized their need for political power in Washington DC. To these ends, they sought an emotional issue around which to rally the troops. Their core rallying issue became the elimination of abortion. And handily enough, it was a holier than thou issue that would appeal easily to fundamentalist followers. This came to pass despite the fact that, until this time, fundamentalist leaders expressed virtually no concerns about abortion. In fact many of them actually endorsed the decision in Roe v. Wade.

As with any growth industry, a time comes when it must break out of its niche to sustain growth. And, to do this fundamentalism had to confront reality – which is inherently secular. If too much of life can be explained without religion or 'faith', then the need for, and power of, religion naturally diminishes. Science and technology have brought us wonderful new understandings of the world around us. With understanding, we overcome fear which lessens the need for faith. So, the ongoing growth of knowledge actively shrank the audience of potential new converts. And new converts are necessary to feed the growth machine of modern American fundamentalism. Consequently, fundamentalism has had little choice but to wage an active war against ‘secular’ knowledge.

In a different, but related, vein, fundamentalism needed a base among the elites, of power and wealth, in order to develop its own power. Many of the teachings of fundamentalism have historically been at odds with, and distasteful to, those of power and wealth. Accordingly, the fundamentalist brand[2] had two challenges to confront in order to continue growing: 1) limit the impact of scientific knowledge, 2) and gain a base within the power and wealth elites.

The rise of health and wealth Christianity provided cover for the growing wealth of fundamentalist leaders, while providing an incentive for the rich and powerful to convert. The idea that success (no matter how derived) was God's reward for being good and pious (which amounts to making the claim that one is born again), provided justification for class stratification and the sanctified self-serving beliefs of the rich and powerful[3] It has also done much to force religion into politics, while simultaneously corrupting both.

Anything one does (even politically), to increases one’s wealth, is inherently godly behavior, because it leads to the rewards that demonstrate God’s favor. Some would argue that this is an unfair construction of health and wealth Christianity - but any such argument ignores the fact that this is how health and wealth Christians explain and justify their own behavior. Ultimately, their arguments smack of tautological thinking, but faith isn't constrained by the niceties of good logic.

Fundamentalism has always had an uneasy relationship with facts. It has always imposed bible literalism to deny observable reality. But, in the past, the key points of bible literalism served mostly to appeal to followers and maintain the control of religious leaders. Denying natural selection supported the idea that people (like you and me) are a special creation of God. From there it is a small step to take pride in one's life, no matter how limited or challenged. In essence, it had roots in populism whereby the lowly on earth would be the chosen in heaven. Creationism allowed one to join a club that provided the psychic rewards that made life worth living[4], even if many of these rewards came in the form of disdaining others who weren't part of the club. But it is common for all sorts of fundamentalists, all over the world, to rely on disrespect for others as a basis to overcome one’s own insecurities.

From this, it becomes clear how far health and wealth fundamentalism has skewed from its populist roots. Here and now, rewards on earth are a sign that one has earned ones ‘chosen’ status before the eyes of God.

Importantly, the fundamentalist rejection of facts also fit the needs of big business. We were reaching a point where the public’s knowledge about issues[5] began to interfere with the unfettered self control of big business. And thus was born an opportunity, and a point of synergy, between business and fundamentalism. Ironically, these two forces had long been at odds. But now the question could, without blushing, be asked: who should one believe? Should we trust the secular scientist who believed in facts and observation, or a business leader who declared his faith? And if business leaders were more acceptable than scientists, academics and researchers, then the influence of facts over political policy, and their ramifications for business, would be radically diminished.

Reinforcing this, facts were reinforcing inconvenient truths (thank you Al Gore), such as: the need for individuals to consume less and work together more cooperatively. In denying facts, we legitimize driving an oversize, highly consumptive and highly polluting vehicle (as just one example); thus serving individual egos and corporate profits. From this basis the synergies of reality avoidance become manifold, complex, and powerful.

[1] The scope of businesses around the fundamentalist movement is breathtaking if one isn’t already aware of this sector. Book publishing, educational materials and textbook publishing, media production companies, media broadcast companies, musical acts/venues/promotion/publishing, and religious materials all fall under this umbrella.
[2] Brand is a fair characterization in as much as fundamentalists are unabashed about their co-opting the discipline of marketing meet their needs.
[3] Such as that: greed is good; the rich 'earned' their wealth the hard way; and, the idea that everyone who isn’t wealthy is lazy, or dull.
[4] Ironically due to faith in the hereafter.
[5] Issues like: finite resources; pollution; and economic inequities.

Hello

2008-01-05T08:59:00.000-06:00

It's time to publish again - more coming soon.

According to the President

2006-08-21T10:41:00.000-05:00

According to our esteemed leader, the American Revolution was a series of unwarranted terrorist acts committed by a bunch of ideological zelots.

Moreover, he feels that we need to take a stand. If our generation doesn't stop this evil, no one will get to heaven. So, it is imparitive that we act together to be strong against this form of terrorism. We need to get them before they can get us (notwithstanding that the American Revolution is long over and its participants passed away over a century ago). To these ends, we must eliminate the constitution which itself is a revolutionary document. We must silence the press, execpt when they are speaking for, and in support of, the President. We must hold Congress to be accountable to no one, except the President himself.

And the President, must be the decider. No on else has the depth of knowledge or decision-making capability for the job.

So folks, lets get on with it. We don't have to succumb to the terrorist threat. Let's stand firm and live out the Presidents convictions.

Coming Elections

2006-08-17T19:43:00.000-05:00

Just remember, in the coming elections...

You're better off dead than red!!!

American Conservatism

2006-08-17T19:35:00.000-05:00

Have you read John Dean's new book: Conservatives without Conscience? You should, whether you're a Liberal or a Conservative. Probably most Conservatives are too paranoid to read it.... they can't take the risk of being looked at critically. But that's too bad because they could learn alot.

BTW, how do you like this pink font for Conservatism?

Guess What!

2006-08-17T19:33:00.000-05:00

Guess what?

Jesus was a liberal, you fucking morons!

Just How Stupid Can Conservatives Be?

2006-07-12T18:49:00.000-05:00

Well, that title may seem a bit inflammatory. And, we have to accept that there are truly stupid (or shall we say mentally challenged) people of all stripes.

However, I'm using the word "Stupid" to mean those folks with apparently reasonable faculties and education who insist on denying reality.

Want an example? Even Novak now publicly concedes that Karl Rove was one of his sources for outing Valerie Plame. Anyone with a reasonable memory recalls that the shrub insisted that he would fire anyone in his administration who was involved in outing Val. That same reasonable memory would remember that the shrub's spokesman insisted that Rove wasn't involved. Then Karl's memory comes back to him, in fits and starts, causing him to repeatedly ask to revisit the Grand Jury to fill in holes in his previous testimony.

No reasonable person can possibly believe that this outing was anything but a political vendetta carried out against someone speaking the truth in public. The facts are all there. Every republican lie (aka "talking point") has been clearly and fully refuted.

Yet today, some imbecile calls into a radio program this afternoon to claim that Joe Wilson arranged for the administration to out his wife - as a means of discrediting the shrub. The correct reaction to this is "Huh?" A simple application of Occum's Razor is enough to establish the foolishness of this claim.

But ignore the obvious stupidity of the claim. If it were true, what would it say of the administration? Their incompetence would be pretty amazing if Joe could do this.

On the other hand, their incompetence is pretty amazing - look at the track record. I wonder what else might Joe Wilson have made them do? Can we all get into this game? I'd like to sell them some swamp land in FLA!

What's worse than outing Valerie Plame, however, is that they've destroyed the CIA. Credible analysis and judgment is necessary in any spying operation. Without an application of unbiased intelligence to all the "data" that's acquired - it's all just so much noise. And that's all that left between the shell of the CIA, and the political hacks in "military intelligence"

A colleague of mine believes everything Rushbaugh has to say. When shown analysis discrediting Rush's rants, this colleague retreats to the assertion that he believes his sources and that I believe mine - and that their is no objective standard by which to analyze the respective reporting. In other words, he denies reality. Not that my reality is necessary any better than his just because its mine. But, between us we ought to be able to come up with a way to determine who's telling the truth about what - and this is what he fundamentally denies. This is really stupid.

If we can't rationally determine what's accurate, at least about our temporal world, than nothing matters. Why should my colleague believe anything? What I say? What he says? If its all unknowable, why should he vote? How does he know when he doesn't feel good? And if he doesn't know that, why should he have an opinion on policy to make him feel better or worse off? But, my colleague isn't smart enough to sort this out.

A sucker may be born every minute, but these examples go beyond being a sucker. So the question is, what's in it for these folks to be so stupid?

Inflation and Interest

2006-06-07T23:16:00.000-05:00

We've covered this before, but I think it warrants a little more digging. Perhaps someday someone will do some serious research on the subject - but until then, this will have to do. Inflation is coming! It’s pretty much a guaranteed thing (such a claim, what a good way to make a fool of myself).

We have one crucial resource that is in short supply and growing demand: Oil! The classic definition of inflation is too much money changing too few goods. In this case, the amount of money is growing with the world economy. As more folks are in a position to purchase oil and its byproducts, the supply of money is growing. But, the supply of oil is not. If the shrub has his way, and attacks Iran, the supply will get even smaller. But, just look at what we have today. Iraq's capacity is materially diminished. Demand is growing. Venezuela (a major US supplier) is increasingly at odds with us (due in no small part to the shrub's inability to get along with others). Speculators and members of the futures and options exchanges smell an opportunity. So, gas prices aren’t likely to head down soon.

For those who think rising prices will create more oil, think again. Only when there is excess unused capacity can production boosts moderate growing demand. And, it’s not clear that the producing nations or the producing companies have much of this capacity. More importantly, it’s not clear that they have the interest to exploit their capacity. Oil reserves are money in the bank, and they are worth more every year. Oil kept in the bank now can fund the future.

World oil production isn't a monopoly but it is an oligopoly divided by politics, but united by greed. It is only when the economic problems of the US, and the rest of the developed world, hurt the oil economies, that they have interest to moderate pricing. Some will say that rising prices will induce oil-producers to increased production. That ignores the fact that we are looking at what is essentially inelastic demand for inelastic capacity.India and China are quickly becoming major consumers of oil. As the two most populous countries in the world, these two markets alone have a huge impact on world oil prices. Their demand is growing with their economies. Their demand is growing with their desire to curtail pollution by converting from coal.

Closer to home, our automotive markets are in the midst of a gigantic horse-power race. Who can get the biggest, most powerful, auto? In a related move, more and more Americans see the need to drive large SUVs with inefficient 4wd/awd systems. Among those in the mid to upper tiers of the economy, there doesn’t seem to be a concern with supply. As prices rise, there is some carping, but no effort to find more efficient autos. Read the automotive and popular press. Both seem to enjoy pointing out that hybrid cars are not strictly cost effective. Of course, if that’s the criteria, neither are large cars, or powerful engines. But, the message is there – it is out of character with society to concern one’s self with moderation. Facts be damned, we’ll deny global warming, or the economic harm of excess oil consumption.

Meanwhile, the US budget deficit continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Who ever thought that the Republican Party would one day preside over the most massive case of budgetary irresponsibility that the world has ever seen? But, the facts are as clear as the nose on your face (assuming that you have a nose). Traditional economics views a growing economy as the “printing of money”, the key driver of inflation.And, our foreign trade imbalance is growing. Part of this is due to oil imports, and part of this is due to China's currency manipulations. The "free market" forces that might mitigate the foreign trade deficit can't help us if major currencies don't float. And China's currency doesn't float. This discussion, so far, is all old-school economics. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but economics is such a new discipline that it often mistakes itself for a science. It's not. The ability of economics to predict and therefore help manage the dynamics of the economy is limited. And what is most forcefully forwarded by economists is often what is most dogmatic about their thinking. We are told that here in the United States, we now live in a service economy. We don't make things (apart from housing/construction this is largely true), we provide services. And, we are told that the service economy is a good thing. It represents a move up the economic ladder, moves pollution offshore, and leverages our intellectual talents. Heck, look at doctors, lawyers, and politicians.

Some people may question the beauty of a service economy. They’d say we should look at Walmart clerks and McDonalds fry cooks. But, it’s true that value is created both by products and services. So, one possible redefinition of inflation, in the 21 century, could be too many dollars chasing too many goods and services. This begs, of course, the question: “What is credit?” Isn’t this a service? Or, is it something else?

The classic causes of an excess money supply are: deficit spending by the government; or, too high utilization of credit. The first cause increases the number of dollars available to spend, while the second allows the same number of dollars to be reused more quickly. So there are two possible ways to reduce the money supply and thereby reduce inflation. The first is to reduce government spending while increasing government revenue (taxes). This curtails the size of the actual money supply. Unfortunately, this is usually a task which exceeds the political will of most countries experiencing inflation.

The second method is to increase the cost of credit. This makes individual deficit spending more difficult and should therefore limit credit borrowing and slow the velocity of money. That's the theory anyway. What if money is just one more asset and credit is just one more service? What if there's not enough money to fund all the demand for credit, causing interest rates to rise? Will this drive inflation? It seems likely from at least a theoretical point of view.

How could money be in short supply? It may seem politically unlikely, but if the government continued to issue T-bills and T-bonds, and would pay whatever rate it took to suck up money, and meanwhile it hoarded that money rather than buying things with it, our money supply would dwindle.

In order to purchase with credit, we would have to pay higher interest rates. To cover this cost, individuals and businesses would try to charge more for their services, leading to a greater cash shortage, raising interest rates, driving the spiral of inflationary – at least until we broke the economy’s back.

You may ask: “Why are we considering an extremely unlikely hypothetical?” Because, if high-interest rates can be an inflation driver under these unlikely circumstances, why can't they be under more usual circumstances? Why wouldn't rising interest rates just be one more straw in the bundle of inflation? In part, the solution to the question is how difficult is it for people to forgo each of the straws in the bundle? Those that they can forgo, they will as they become expensive. Those that they cannot, they will fight to obtain in spite of inflation. In other words, inflation, in the general case, isn’t about the supply of money. It is about inelastic demand running up against inelastic supply.

How many people in this country can buy a car or home without credit? How many people in this country can live without a car or home? The answer to both questions is: Not Many. The demand for homes and cars is relatively inelastic – even if the consumer can limit how much home or car they purchase (within some limits). And, the demand for credit to purchase homes and cars is also relatively inelastic.

The latter claim may be difficult to accept at first. So, consider, what proportion of consumer debt is consumed by cars and homes? [I’m not a lawyer, so I can ask questions for which I don’t know the answers] It seems reasonable to me, however, that autos and homes represent the lion's share of consumer debt. Assuming this to be true, and knowing that the demand for homes and auto’s is relatively inelastic, how easy is it to curtail the consumers demand for credit? The answer is that it’s not very easy: their credit demand is largely inelastic.

Perhaps that's why we saw mortgage rates go up over 21% before inflation was whipped in the 80’s. Go recalculate your current mortgage payment at 21% - now could you pay that amount? Probably not. Assuming that rising interest rates can quell inflation, it probably does so only by a scorched earth policy towards the national economy. That is, drive up costs to a point where the economy can no longer work efficiently or effectively. And, this appears to be what happened once interest rates climbed over 20%. Banks failed. Business growth and profits plummeted. Unemployment rose. Home sales nose-dived. This, in and of itself, doesn't seem like good economic, social, or political policy. The burden of this policy is carried by those least able to handle it. Rich folks may not be making as much money as in a stable economy, but poor folks can't afford the car they need to hold a job, and if they do, they can't afford a home to live in.

Perhaps more importantly, this approach fundamentally strangles the economy. It makes otherwise efficient enterprises inefficient. Excess capacity abounds, to the point that market for the capacity is illiquid. Those with cash purchase at cents on the dollar. Good for them, but not the polity as a whole. However, despite the fact that the economy largely caved in, it’s not clear that high interest rates cut inflation as much as moderating oil prices.What if we look at inflation somewhat differently? What if inflation is a matter of resource allocation awry? This is our definition of inelastic demand hitting inelastic supply. In this situation, there is no good allocation of supply to demand.

If inflation occurs when goods can't be effectively allocated – won’t we see that certain interests fight to increase their allocation, and other interests fight to maintain their allocation? And in a see-saw battle, labor costs, then product/service costs continue to escalate? Past oil-shocks have pummeled our economy. Oil is something we don't know how to live without, so when its price rises, we can afford less of everything else. And, when it falls, we can afford more of everything else.

In the seventies, oil shocks drove inflation and we had no way to maintain our collective standard of living. Labor fought to maintain its share of the pie by raising wages. Owners/managers sought to maintain their share of the pie by raising prices. And, the vicious circle was started.

I would suggest that rising interest rates, for most of the ensuing period of inflation, only accelerated the process - until the fundamental economy was crushed. Meanwhile, those who had the cash to invest, maintained an increasing stream income in the form of interest payments and various hard capital purchased at discount.

Eventually, OPEC relented, and opened the oil taps. Oil prices went down, and the economy started up again. Not because we solved any fundamental problems in the balance of dollars versus available goods and services, but because the oil producers allowed our economy to revert to an allocation of goods, across classes, which was considered acceptable to most.

Since them, the global economy has opened up considerably. We have seen wage rates in our country stagnate except for among the top wage earners in this country. This is due to the threat of, and actual movement of, jobs (hence income) to low wage-rate countries. In the process, some of us got poorer as we competed with the global wage-rates. And some of us got richer, as our incomes held parity or better while the cost of goods went down due to global wage rates.

In other words, as the price of gas moderated, there was more discretionary money to be spent by individuals. As we outsourced production to lost-cost regions, supply grew faster than demand – so the prices of discretionary good tended to hold firm, or in some cases retreat. No genius of American competitiveness propelled this result. No superior fiscal or monetary policy drove this. No, it was that one of our most key raw materials became very supply elastic, so that the inelasticity of demand didn’t matter. Several factors are now present that may again cause allocation issues to raise their ugly heads: 1) We are creating a growing and unhappy underclass in this country; 2) Gas prices are rising and likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future; 3) We have lost the sense that our country is a shared destiny requiring all to contribute to the common good, based in some important part on their ability to give.

As long as the underclass is cowed and bowed, they will not play a significant role this country’s policy and economics. But, they do not have a history remaining cowed and bowed in our country.

Gas prices are subject to our global politics. If we insult and attack the rest of the world, we can expect to see growing geo-political limits to oil production. Moreover, it is possible that a two tier international oil pricing system could prevail – where the US pays a higher price than the rest of the world for its oil imports.

Without shared destiny, there is no reason for any faction to relent on their demands for a larger share of the pie. If resources are largely viewed to be inequitably distributed, then why not take them from those with more? By taxation? By seizure? Or, whatever means are necessary. What creates hyper-inflation?

How about a major disparity between inelastic supply and inelastic demand? Take a country dependent upon goods from out of country. Make these goods core to the country’s economy. Give that country a significant trade imbalance so that they can’t buy enough of those goods to maintain the economy. That ought to lead to hyper-inflation.

Some might say that if currencies float, the price of the country’s export will fall, leading to greater exports and a more workable balance of trade. And, within some broad outline, this should be true.

What if, the country simply can’t find a balance point where it exports will pay for the necessary imports? Is this possible? In the abstract, it seems very likely.

Send a thousand people to live in Antarctica and begin a new country. Set them up with homes, food, tools, etc. to last a year. After that, they will have to come up with exports sufficient to cover the cost of everything that they need, including raw materials (wood, steel, etc), fuel (oil, gas, and natural gas), educational materials, tools, food, and so on. What is the likelihood that this new country will become self-sufficient in the sense of being able to pay to import all that they need? My answer is “Not very!”

We haven’t experienced hyperinflation in the US. Is this because of our superiority, or something else? You’ve probably guessed that I posit “…something else…” We are not that Antarctic community; we have had important resources, considered valuable by the rest of the world, throughout our history. We might encounter inflation. We might have to change our consumption. But, we haven’t had the crisis of not being able to import goods.

Will this continue forever? It’s hard to say. Agricultural exports have long been important to our economy. But, we really can’t afford the modern welfare (aka corporate) farm. Farms need to be cost effective on their own, without government subsidy. We are beginning to experience a shortage of potable water in this country. Part of this shortage has to do with diversion of water to irrigate farms. Can we continue to irrigate and have an adequate supply of safe water for our homes, schools, and places of work? Again, we haven’t got a good answer.

Might some other economies make strides in agricultural production that would weaken our export trade? Sure, why not? The Ukraine and the rest of the European breadbasket may become more efficient and hence larger exporters. South and Central America are becoming more important sources of food, even in the US. Locally, for half the season, our corn on the cob comes from Mexico. Meanwhile, much of the world is concerned about our engineered foods – making them suspect and less marketable. So, yes, we could lose our lead in the agricultural exports.

The US was long a major exporter of raw materials, either in their raw state, or in finished products. As finished goods increasing come from overseas, our role as the source of raw materials diminishes. At the same time, many of our raw materials are becoming scarcer, especially iron ore and oil. So, the risk here is clear.

For a long time we have taken pride in our intellectual leadership, especially in the areas of science and engineering. In fact we have shipped our knowledge overseas for others to use. Japan was the first example of how quickly a motivated economy could catch up, or even surpass us using science and engineering, albeit in limited sectors. The growth of the Asian tigers isn’t just a matter of low cost labor.
In fact, Taiwan (as an example) isn’t really a low labor cost market any more.

The leadership in engineering and production of LCD screens and certain types of micro circuits has moved to the far east. What we often consider US companies, don’t see them selves as such. If moving their intellectual capital overseas makes economic sense, they’ll do it. And, generally that entails a process of moving capability to grow intellectual capital as well. No, the export of intellect isn’t going to save us from the risk of trade imbalance in world where China, India, Iran, Israel, Korea, and Pakistan can develop nuclear capabilities.

The one export we continue to project better than anyone is military power. But, this too has a limit. This approach to foreign policy encourages our friends and foes to enable their own capabilities. Our natural human errors in projecting our power create enemies – sometimes among those with the resources we most need. It’s been proven that the oceans will no longer protect us from violence, and that we can’t be assured of winning battles against lesser foes. When we sell our munitions, we make the world less safe for ourselves. When we project the might ourselves, we drain resources from our already burdened economy. So, it seems likely that this is one more area of export that we cannot rely on in the long run.

If these premises are accepted, it is clear that hyperinflation is not something that we, as Americans, are immune to. Moreover, as we compete on the global stage, we have to assume that other economies will challenge our hegemony in global economics. This is a future we should be preparing for in our political and economic policy, both internally and internationally.

The University of Chicago once represented the pinnacle of economic thought. They, the champions of free-market theory, do not however understand the fundamentals of economics better than the average farmer or trade-person.

As long as blind experts lead the development of economic policy, our economy is at risk. A risk that is even greater than if no one was leading economic policy. The time has come for Economists to understand:
- that economics is the art of allocation
- that free markets generally doesn’t exist in a manner consistent with the theory – hence are not good at allocation
- and, that inflation is proof of failures in allocation.

Until then, we won’t get to rational economic policy for the future of this country.

Wingnuts Destroying Themselves.

2006-06-04T22:49:00.000-05:00

The Wingnut generation is back at it, and God is mad!

The Wingnuts are lying again. They're inserting Bible study into schools while maintaining that these studies don't advocate religion.

The simple facts are these:
1) We as a nation have done just fine without Bible study in public schools
2) There is no urgency for secular Bible study compared to a whole variety of subjects which are underserved in most school districts across the country today.

So, the only possible justification for Wingnuts to push Bible study is to push their religion.

"So" you say? So they're lying again. And God doesn't like liars. God doesn't like us to lie about or silly little selves, or our mortal lives. But, God really hates it when we lie about him, and what it means to know him.

God is vengeful. He has already visited a variety of damages, as warnings, in the bosom of American Wingnuttery. But they don't listen. Hurricanes in Florida and the Gulf Coast - they don't listen. Droughts on the plains - they don't listen. Mad-cow disease - they don't listen. Foreign sealife taking over our waterways - the don't listen.

What does he have to do to smack these Wingnuts upside their collective heads? He has been brewing global warming for some time now. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg so far. Our brother, Prophet Gore, has been making clear how serious an issue this is. But they still turn from the warnings just as they turn from God.

God will not always be so gentle with these corrupt soles. God will not wait forever for them to see the errors of their ways. No, God is not only able, but he is quite willing to punish eternally those who fail to heed his warnings.

What will he do to those who follow the course of darkness? He could send them to prison to spend a life being buggered. But he won't. God doesn't use people to do his ugly work. No, God will reign down upon these evil people problems that they can't even imagine. Do you think AIDS is a bad disease? God will make evil people sick in ways both cruel and cunning. Do you think hurricanes are a problem? How about shifting shorelines inland, in some cases many hundreds of miles. Whole communities will drown together, and the stench of their rotting bodies will hang in the air to warn the others. Do you think a couple of years of drought is tough? How about a dust bowl where the temperatures never fall below 150 degrees, and the wind never stops and the skies never rain - year after year after year? And this is just the beginning.

If you are a wingnut, a fundamentalist, be fearful. God knows where you are. God is biding his time. And God will punish you. Continue your heresies, and reap your evil rewards. Your time is near.

More Wingnuttery

2006-06-04T21:31:00.000-05:00

NPR was playing in the car today, telling a story of a school district in Texas where they were adding the Bible to their Curriculum under Social Studies. It seems that some yahoo group has been pushing this, trying to build an agenda for teaching a public school course on the Bible that can somehow skirt constitution prohibitions against state sponsored religion. Hmmm....

This group has represented to the school board that their syllabus/outline whatever has withstood testing in other districts (it would be great to see all of the places that this is being done), so that the school board needn't worry about legal objections.

It does appear that the courts have made clear that the Bible may be a course of study if it is to study it as a literary and historic document - not to advocate a religion. To any lawyers out there: no attempt is being made to state this in a legally defensible manner - just to state the gist of the argument.

What all of this begs, however, is where does the bible fit in literacy needs of our children? Moreover, what makes it special that doesn't apply to the Koran and the I'Ching etceteras. The courts have found, by the way, that teaching these other documents is also protected in the same context.

When, however, the document being taught is at the spiritual center of the majority of a community, it seems likely that additional consideration and safeguards must be in place in order to avoid a conflict with the establishment clause of the Constitution.

What would constitute an unbiased and unambiguously academic study of the Bible? This really is the question that needs answering if we are to posit that a given course is not in violation of the establishment clause.

Clearly, if the literature related to a minority religion is offered in a course of study, and the course of study is clearly not oriented toward discrediting the beliefs of this religion, then there can be a presumption that the course in no way violates the establishment clause. Make no mistake, the course is studying more than the history and literature, it is studying the religion - even if this is done in a strictly objective and non-judgmental way.

Where would Judaism be today without the Koran and the collective history of the Jewish people? Where would Christianity be today without the Bible and the collective history of the Christian people? And so it goes with each of the documented religions. There is history, there is literature, but neither can be studied without studying the associated religion. The history and literature make no sense without the religion and vice versa.

However, the study of a religion is different from advocating a religion. And it is for this reason that a course related to a minority religion can generally begin with a presumption of not violating the establishment clause. Clearly there have been states where the political leadership comes from a group observant of a minority religion - and were that to happen within a political unit of the United States, and if this group was to require the teaching of their religious literature, then the establishment clause would be at risk. But no where in our political or educational landscape do I see this happening - and so again - courses related to minority religions can be presumed to not violate the establishment clause.

What of the Bible, however? Is it enough to merely refrain from vocally advocating in favor of Christianity as part of the class discussions? I think not. While it is difficult, I think we have to consider the intent of those forwarding a Bible curriculum. Why is it that they consider this a subject that requires public dollars and a place in the limited school day of certain public school students?

The most coherent answer that I've heard is that it is to assist students in understanding their parents' (and other elders') references to biblical passages. It seems to me, that this is an awfully small hole to plug in the overall intellect of our children.

In a time when math, reading, writing, science, and logical thinking are all below where need to be in most of our schools, it would seem that schools should focus on these areas, which aren't easily addressed at home. Meanwhile, for those students confused by a biblical reference, a simple query after the reference should provide them with all the learning that they need, without need to step foot in a school. Likely, if their parents often use Biblical references, the child attends church and Sunday school. Don't they learn about these references in this setting? If not, how on earth will school be able to accomplish what church and parents cannot?

It also seems, that if the Bible is being studied purely from the perspective of literature and history, then it is only appropriate that equal time be given to those who would argue against what it has to say, either for a specific case, or in toto. However, when the syllabus consists of the Bible and nothing else, this is an unlikely course of events. And, it seems that very often these courses that are presented as a pure academic study of literature and history do not go to secondary sources, or if they do, they go only to secondary sources which reinforce the Bible.

So, what we are talking about here is a study not of comparative religion, nor of a history of the middle east from before until shortly after the life of Jesus, nor a study of middle eastern literature, prose and poetry. Rather, we have a teaching of the stories of the bible.

Unless the course seriously attempts to investigate the accuracy of these stories, they may be literature, but they are not history. And no serious history of the region and time can be investigated without giving healthy consideration to the body of Judaic and Islamic literature of the time. So, calling a Bible class a study of history is merely cover to hide the true intent.

Similarly, if Bible study is a study of literature - it has be undertaken in a critical manner. There is the old adage: "Don't believe everything you read." And, this adage applies here. To accept the Bible literally requires an act of faith. There is nothing wrong with this. But, to present the Bible as anything but a very fallible and flawed story of history is to suggest that the Bible be accepted literally. It is hard to conceive of a school board pushing for a Bible course that teaches that the Bible is fallible and flawed.

So, we have a course which:
1) Is supposedly being taught to help inter-generational communications when a simpler solution is readily available, while there are more pressing subjects to be taught in school;
2) Where the concept of objectivity is an abstraction, for which the curriculum advocates have not provided substance;
3) Where alternative points of view are not given a good-faith presentation
4) Where history is defined as what is written in a unabashedly religious text;
5) And where the disection of literature ends with the acceptance that the Bible contains, and communicates with, words.

Given these factors, it is wholely unbelievable that this Bible study is not state sponsorship of religion. And simply put, state sponsorship of religion is a violation of the establishment clause of the constitution.

The Wingnuts are working hard again. They're lying again. They will do anything and stop at nothing to undermine our constitution, our country, and our rights, in order to overcome their insecurities. May they all fall in the ocean.

Values or Principals?

2006-06-04T09:28:00.000-05:00

Building on the prior post, let me share a variety of thoughts.

Liberals tend to be humanists, whether they are secular or religious in their humanism. I submit that this is basically a system of values. However, both inside and out of the humanist movement, the term "principals" is probably applied at least as often. Are values and principals really different? Probably not, but the great mass of people, while fully capable of intelligent thought, usually don't spend a lot of time parsing what they hear.

There is a certain emphasis on logic, facts & observation, and thoughtful analysis within the boundaries of humanism. And, as such, it can begin to sound a bit like science - and science cannot (at its core) be about values. Take a car. It is a real physical thing. It has no values, but it can represent values. A Hummer represents self-determination and a lack of concern for the planet and ones fellow humans. A Prius represents a tree-hugger mentality. A police car represents authority. But a car, by itself, has no values.

Science is like that. Good science ignores the values of scientists & society, and instead it observes what is in an untainted fashion. Its findings can be used to promote good values or bad values.

When people describe themselves as being principled, I think that they are saying that they have a strong value system built around being fair to others. One could further refine this definition, but for our purposes it should be adequate.

To a fundamentalists (of any ilk), those who are principled are lacking in values. They subscribe to some secular notions that don't honor the sort of faith or deities that the fundamentalist does.

So too, in American politics, the fundamentalists have hijacked the "values" label. And, we have let them so do. We have let them attack us one issue at a time, set up straw men for each issue, and take the collective of their attacks to prove that we are lacking in values. Personally, I resent this. It bothers me personally that some silly fundamentalist claims that they have higher values than me. And, I think its necessary to challenge them on this point.

Unfortunately, the nature of fundamentalism makes it nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion one on one with fundamentalists to debate these points. In my experience, the underlying weakness of their values and/or their faith inevitably cause them to verbally or physically leave the debate. This is, in part, because they don't see the value debate occurring at a higher level. Their leadership plays the arguments of values loudly in various national forums. Who, among the humanists,does likewise?

For many years, the fundamentalists were marginalized. There input could be ignored, and as a nation we could focus our discussions on the issues of the day. This is not to suggest some perfect democracy in action - that's a pipe dream anyway. No, democracy will always be dirty, it will always carry baggage, but it can also focus most of its resources on the job at hand. This, I think, it has done through most of the period post-WWII.

Because values were presumed and largely shared, values weren't part of the discussion. [Time out, this obviously over simplifies much of the discussion around civil-rights and Viet-nam - but even here there was little attempt to bring the values discusion to its core] Issues were. And today, we humanists are too often left stammering when someone suggests that we are lacking in values. We have such strong assumptions about inherent commonality of our values that we find it difficult to first establish these values before moving to issues.

This has to stop. First of all, we can't carry a debate when its issues versus values. Second, we can't gain respect of people who are consciously values-oriented if we don't make clear that we are also values-oriented. Third, there are many common values between fundamentalists and humanists. Raising these common values to the fore leads to some obvious contradictions within fundamentalist thought. The latter needn't be pounded into their heads, however. Instead, it should be allowed to fester within them and challenge their thinking.

I was speaking with a fundy friend recently about Iraq. His defense of Bush and our policy was much weaker than before. It came down to asking: "So why did everyone else go along with...." Bush? Clearly, over time, facts can break through fundamentalist thinking.

We need to move the values debate to a national level. We need to re-establish our values. The values upon which this country was based are inherently humanist. They're not capitalist, free-market, hyper-christian, or pre-emptive strike. They are, at their core, respect of each other and of all man-kind. These are hard values to argue against.

Once we have established that we are values-driven, then we will be in a place where we can have a discussion of issues. And, if we follow this course, IMHO we are likely to win most of the debates on the issues.

Making Progress

2006-05-19T22:29:00.000-05:00

To make progress, Democrats, and others with of a humanist perspective, will have to do two things: 1) Make known our common value system; 2) Establish self-sustaining organizations which advocate the humanist perspective.

We, as a group, have done a poor job of number 1, both in definition and in selling. The republicans haven't simply been on message, there message has always been wrapped inside of catchy words, or "sound-bites" (should that be "sound bits"?). We haven't done so well at this. I say the republicans are "...the party of fear hate and greed." Its a sound bite, and people on both sides of the issue know what I'm saying and react to it. This particular phrase doesn't sell republicans on my point of view, but it stops them in their tracks, makes them ask "...how can I say such a thing...", and generally puts them on the defensive.

If I were a word smith, I'd offer to come up with all the catch phrases of the left. However, I just get lucky sometime. The above just an example to illuminate the point. And, if you reacted by saying that I'm hitting them over the head with a coal shovel - you're probably right. Someone more artful can do better than me.

Before we go into presentation, however, we need to think about position. Just as the republicans need a platform that brings consensus, so do we. So what is this platform?

To begin with, humanism has a religious and a secular track. Whatever our approach, we need to respect and support both groups. And, in fact the central tenant of humanism is the respect of our fellow man, even republicans and fundamentalists.

The Fundamentalists are fond of saying that they love and care about those that they condemn, even as they call them evil. The Humanists might reframe this to say: We may not like you, but we respect you.

Is this silly niggling little semantics? I think not. Our fundy friends are fond of claiming that their rights are being trammeled, as they go about trammeling the rights of others. The whole indecent scene about the "war on xmas" being a great example. Or rewriting history and the constitution to argue that we should move towards a government of christian theocracy.

In my opinion, most fundies don't love themselves or each other. They couldn't love anything as a-spiritual as a stump, and they certainly don't love anyone or anything that is not in keeping with their beliefs. If I love you, I won't hold off feeding you, or sheltering you, or teaching you how to support yourself, just because you don't want to talk about my dogma. Nor will I try to guilt you, or intimidate you, or bribe you into listening to, much less supporting, my dogma. But, this isn't how they work.

If I respect you, as a human being, and I'm able to help, then I must. Regardless of whether I like you, or love you, of share your beliefs or faith.

So, finding a context to discuss the difference between loving someone and respecting someone might give some leverage to turn back the worst excesses of the fundies, and it might allow us to reframe their attacks to show that they are attacks, not desperate acts of defense. But first we need to reaffirm this basis of Humanism.

BTW, part of our problem, I think, is that we take for granted much of our beliefs and the history of thinking behind them. This country was based on humanist thinking much more than it was based on religious thinking. However, the philosophical basis for our country is something which isn't much taught in our schools - despite the various states' requirements for teaching American History.

Finding self-sustaining organizations for the Humanist side of our culture is difficult. Its hard for us to come up with something like the vaudvillian appeal of a tent revival, or the economic appeal of the fundies practice of christian Keiretsu. To me, this is one of our biggest challenges.

It does seem possible, however, that an appeal to nation, history, and patriotism might work in some quarters. "We hold these truths to be self evident...." Strong words, and words that should grab more than a few peoples' attention. Given the right context, perhaps something powerful can be done with them to strengthen the Humanist cause.

I think this is where I'm camping for the night. Feedback is welcome.

Speak Out for Web freedom!

2006-05-18T20:27:00.000-05:00

We, as a nation, are facing another serious problem which is in the hands of our Congress. This is the potential demise of Net Neutrality.

In today's world, every user pays his/her share of the cost of the internet in the form of their access fees. The fees charged are based on how much content (data) one's connection can pass to or from the net.

The major Telco's have decided that they can increase their take by changing the rules of the game. In particular, they want to charge additional fees to web sites that provide content to the rest of us, whether these are blogs, news sites, topical interest sites, or entertainment.

The Telco's argument is that the traffic is crossing their networks. There are two problems with this argument: 1) They are already being compensated via access fees from both the provider and user of content; 2) In many cases, they don't own the networks that provide their services. Much of the Internet cloud is run through service providers that you've never even heard of, so the idea that ATT owns the network is bogus.

More critically, if these providers can charge fees, they will be able to run independent content providers out of business. This includes everything from this blog, to charity web-sites, to wiki-pedia, to news sites and political blogs. In one fell swoop, these telco giants could reduce the Internet to the worst aspects of cable TV. Kind of an ugly picture, isn't it?

The following is copied from an announcement by MoveOn.org. Please read it then call or fax your Representative and Senators and let them know how you feel.

Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team Thursday, May 18th, 2006

P.S. Can you support this member-driven campaign today? As companies like AT&T spend millions lobbying Congress to gut Internet freedom, we will win this fight because of the power of regular people. A donation of $10, $20, or more would go a long way. You can donate here: https-colon-slash-slash-civic-dot-moveon-dot-org-slash-donatec4-slash-creditcard-dot-html?id=7705-4813410-PkE15PjD3UZWSJTI4duhvw&=3

P.P.S. Here is our press release about today's event.

Rep. Markey, Moby Speak Out for Internet Freedom, Against Corporate Web TakeoverMusicians band together to demand Net Neutrality with congressional showdown over the future of the Internet imminent
Washington, D.C. Grammy-nominated musician Moby joined today with Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, to demand that Congress reject upcoming legislation that would allow AT&T, Verizon, and other telecommunications giants to take over the Internet.

The growing list of major artists and musicians who have joined the SavetheInternet.com Coalition's Artists and Musicians for Internet Freedom includes Moby, R.E.M., Q-Tip, the Indigo Girls, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, the Roots, the Dixie Chicks, Jill Sobule, and Wilco. These artists join Internet advocates, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Gun Owners of America, the Christian Coalition, consumer groups, and more than 600 diverse organizations in the fighting back against a congressional proposal to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment.

"If Congress guts Net Neutrality, independent music and news sites would be choked off, consumer choice would be limited, and the Internet will be become a private toll road auctioned off by companies like AT&T," Moby warned. "We need to stand up for Internet freedom now. Congress must uphold Network Neutrality."

Net Neutrality is the long-held principle that ensures small music blogs and independent news sites open just as easily on people's computers as large corporate sites. Companies like AT&T are spending millions lobbying Congress to pass legislation that critics charge would set up a discriminatory tollbooth system on the information superhighway. The proposed legislation would allow Internet providers to decide which Web sites work best on people's computers based on who pays them the most, favoring large corporations with deep coffers while marginalizing everyday people, community groups and small businesses.

"The legislation in the House of Representatives threatens the Internet as we know it," said Rep. Markey, author of H.R 5273 "Save the Internet Act of 2006" which would preserve the open architecture of the Internet and prevent companies from downgrading and discriminating regarding Internet access and services."Right now we are heading down a dangerous road that will stifle the openness of the Internet, endanger our global competitiveness, and warp the web into a tiered Internet of bandwidth haves and have-nots. This coalition is the beginning of a nationwide effort to stop creeping Internet protectionism into the free and open World Wide Web. This is the time for Internet users to express themselves to rise up and save the Internet," said Markey, Congressional leader of the movement to prevent the COPE Act (HR 5252) from passing without a strong net neutrality provision.

Thousands watched the Moby event online at www-dot-SavetheInternet-dot-com-slashmoby, which posted a Congressional call-in number on the screen encouraging viewers to call their representatives to demand they protect Net Neutrality. "We are seeing a massive public outcry, the people are joining together to save the Internet. Artists and musicians are part of this vast movement, as are the nearly 700,000 people who signed a petition, and the thousands calling Congress every day," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, which is coordinating the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. "The American public won't allow the Internet to be turned into just another cash cow for greedy corporations. Americans will be watching how their representatives vote on Internet freedom."

The Save the Internet.com Coalition, an alliance of organizations from across the political spectrum, consumer groups, educators, small businesses and bloggers that have come together to protect Internet freedom has galvanized support for Network Neutrality from artists, musicians and hundreds of thousands of average citizens. In less than a month, almost 700,000 people have signed an Internet Freedom petition to Congress, more than 7,000 friends have joined SavetheInternet.com's MySpace, and thousands of blogs have linked to the coalition Web site. Also supporting Network Neutrality are companies such as Google and eBay and groups such as AARP, the ACLU and the Christian Coalition.

Where's the progress?

2006-05-15T21:28:00.000-05:00

If you've been reading this blog for a while, and you're still reading it, you've probably got some sympathy for the notion that the republicans have done a better job of recruiting and retaining self-reinforcing groups as their base. Well, that's a long sentence, so lets parse it out a little to make sense of it, and what the implications are.

The modern republican is based on a constituency of fundamentalists. These fundamentalists take many forms:

Christian fundamentalists
Tax reduction fundamentalists
Gun nut fundamentalists
Anti-abortion fundamentalists
Economic Neo-Con fundamentalists
Foreign Policy Neo-Con fundamentalists

These groupings of people often overlap. For example, CF's (Christian fundamentalists) and A-AF's (Anti-abortion fundamentalists). Or, GN's and FPN-C's. Most of these groups don't overlap with Democrats, liberals, or liberal groups.

The fundamentalist groups share three key similarities:

Lack of belief in objective reality
Socially derived ego gratification
Have an agenda for the larger society

These are important factors. The members of these groups generally cannot be swayed by facts and logic. Rather, they have faith in their beliefs that overrides any facts or logic presented to them.

The members of these groups find their ego gratification from their groups, they find their friends and mentors from within these groups. So, asking group members to change their thinking is akin to asking them to reject their friends and family. Moreover, it is to ask them to admit to being not merely wrong, but duped.

Clearly the republican leadership is mostly about other things. To the degree they share common beliefs with these constituent groups, the leaders beliefs are tempered (at a minimum) with a sense of political pragmatism.

The republican leadership is about waging class warfare on behalf of the economic top 1% of this country, the top 1% wanna-be's within the leadership itself. Some will accuse this of being a cynical view. But, one has only to look at what the Washington has accomplished over the last 6+ years. It's done two things: 1) Shift wealth up the ladder; 2) Used the federal government, and the military industrial complex in particular, to provide shortcuts to wealth for key players. Talk is all great, but the proof is in the pudding - its not to be argued with.

So, we have a leadership nursing fundamentalist agendas, and offering them a series of breadcrumbs (albeit breadcrumbs with huge social impacts). In return for which, its been allowed to enrich itself. Now that, my friends, is an act of cynicism.

Some people were surprised when Shrub won the first time. A number of folks were surprised when he won the second time. But, really no one should have been surprised. The Democratic party isn't supported by any movements.

Mind you, I don't think Democrats are universally smart, right, or moral. But, they are, taken as a whole, more concerned about finding the right solution that works (or should work) for everyone. As a consequence, they have been able to enforce the party discipline, much less the daily party message, that the modern republican party has done. Dissent is allowed, and even (up to a point) considered a very good thing. This, by the way, is an idea near and dear to the founding fathers.

The republicans have demonstrated that they do not believe in such plurality of opinion. No one who doesn't toe the line, right or wrong, is allowed to maintain a position or power within the republican party. It wasn't always so, but clearly it is today. Any one who doubts this need only read a newspaper regularly. Show me the open dissent and the open process for resolving dissent. There is no dissent and no process to resolve it. Yet, there are way to many republicans, even in the leadership, for this to be a credible reality. The only possible alternative is that dissent is silenced, one way or another.

And this, in fact, is the sort of behavior one finds in any organization that goes awry. What happened at Enron? What happened in Hitler's Germany? What's happened in Chicago City government?

Interestingly enough, the combination of fundamentalist groups supporting the republican party has been enough to maintain its hold on power in the face of objective reality. At some point Hitler ruled only through fear and power. At some point the Heads of Enron were ratted on. At some point, a smart district attorney is bringing Chicago government to accountability.

So what of the republican leadership of the US? Well, the various groups are realizing that the leadership hasn't given all that its promised. And, given these groups agendas, this isn't really an improvement over rational government. However, starting with fundamentalist Christians, there is the possibility that a new leadership could arise to continue the power of the republican party - even if its agenda shifts.

We should realize what we know. That is, there is a portion of the CF leadership that is fundamentally corrupt and part of the current republican gravy train. There is also a part of their leadership which may be morally pure (and factually pure too - never been exposed to any), leadership always seeks power and rewards. The CF leadership wants its share just as much as it wants to convert souls and kill abortion providers.

So one question is whether this group is large enough, either by itself, or with groups representing other forms of fundamentalism, to maintain the republican party in power and expand their own social agenda. The issue of a coalition is an interesting one. The CF leadership may not be willing to align will all of the different fundamentalist groups that the current republican leadership embraces. Can the CF leadership maintain its own sense of moral authority while embracing neo-con foreign policy, or while playing to the gun lobby? Its interesting to speculate, but I'm not comfortable predicting.

Meanwhile, what has changed on the liberal side of the spectrum. If the Democrats are merely the party of inclusion, rationality, and in support of the constitution - what do they have to fire up their constituency? The answer may be nothing. It may be that the grover snotquists and karl rogues of the world have convinced them that government can only be successful in limited ways. If this is the case, there may be nothing left to motivate liberals.

So, the question in my mind is how to convince mainstream Americans, liberals and Democrats that there is work to be done. Work that is important and doable? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure that this is the question we must address if we are to wrest the control of government from demagogue, fascists, fundamentalists, and the welfare 1%.

Its late and this needs an edit, but it will have to wait for tomorrow.

A little lame

2006-05-09T21:53:00.000-05:00

At times it seems that keeping this blog is a little lame. After all, what can I accomplish? What impact can my thoughts have? And, aren't there folks out there who are better informed and better focused than me? Still, I have the itch so I'm probably keep scratching it for a while.

There's been more news of the decline of traditional news organizations. Hmmm..... Do you suppose that they still don't get it? As noted before, the decline of newspapers and broadcast news outlets ties closely with the decline in the quality of their reporting. Even news.google.com got "sanitized" a while back - making it mainstream North America-centric. Why would anyone bother to search out alternative news sources on the web if they felt there needs were being met by traditional news sources?

The issue of immigration is causing consternation for all of Washington, but particularly the republicans. Here's a no-win issue for them. How come? Because they can't address it with fear, religion and corporate cash.

The problem is big. Republicans' financial backers love the cheap labor, but republican voters tend to hate immigrants. But its not only politics that makes the problem big. How many immigrants should we allow into the US? With what sorts of backgrounds/qualifications/skills? And, from where?

There has been a traditional leniency shown to Europeans, especially northern Europeans, in our immigration process. This is often taken (probably correctly) to be partially a manifestation of latent racism. There has also been a tendency to be tolerant of immigration from our most heated foes. This, combined with pressure from influential constituencies give us the Jewish migration from the Soviet empire and the wet foot/dry foot policy of Cuban immigration. But, its unclear that any of the above policy has served us well, or for that matter poorly.

Some political operatives, and some citizens, have said that they're not against foreigners or immigration, only illegal immigrants and immigration. Tsk tsk, we must all be upright, law-abiding citizens. Of course how many of them never drive over the speed limit, or never make a left turn across a double yellow line in the road?

Naturally these folks are followed closely by those who suggest that illegal immigration is a national security issue. Lets see, our borders are porous so we are at risk. Let's kick out Mexicans and we'll be safe. Hmm, but what about inspecting containers in ports? Nah, the security issue doesn't carry much weight when we don't demonstrate adequate concern about all critical aspects of national security.

Then there are those who argue that foreigners are coming and stealing our social services without paying for them. Well, that sounds like a serious issue. Of course, this supposes one or more of several situations are taking place:

Immigrant labor isn't paying its taxes.
Immigrants don't work, so they don't owe taxes.
Their contribution to the economy by taking hyper-low paying work doesn't constitute a form of tax payment of its own.

Some illegal immigrant labor is below the table, and the proportionate rate of this may be higher than in the larger population. But, are they, or are their employers, the problem? And, are they a bigger problem than tax cheats, or the large corporate loop-holes? Frankly, this issue begs the question of whether their economic contribution out weighs their social burden. This is a question left unasked and unanswered by those that raise the social services issue.

The bottom line is that we haven't had a coherent and sustainable philosophy of when and why to limit immigration. Nor have we had one since this country was founded. And yet we all know that the USA can't take up the burden of being the refuge, or economic incubator, for every person in the world looking for political freedom, economic opportunity, education, or an escape from whatever circumstances they currently face where they are. And we shouldn't feel guilty about this, no other country could either.

One of the problems that the republicans are facing is that their lies and misuse of language have succeeded (until now) in disguising the fact that they aren't conservatives. They have also confused much of the world about a number of terms such as: liberal, communist, free-market, democracy, torture, and so on. And this has been part of their strategy; confuse people. But while confusion can be a useful tool for social coercion, its a bit like a vacuum. That is, nature abhors it and societies find ways to eliminate confusion - even though some of these ways may be disfunctional.

So, we have a backlash against immigration even without anyone showing that its a bad thing. And, as the immigrants keep telling us, our economy is completely dependent on them. They are too integral a part of the economy to be forced to leave. And here is where the republicans first get in trouble. They are in favor of cheap labor, regardless of whether its indigenous, imported, or in the Marianas Islands. After all, their first allegiance it to stuffing their pockets (which to them is akin to free-market capitalism).

In the US, maintaining low labor costs appears to be more complex than busting unions and minimizing the minimum wage. In fact, without immigrant labor, its quite possible that we would be facing a labor shortage here today.

At first blush, this may seem hard to fathom. After all, we've exported nearly all of our manufacturing, and farming is an increasingly mechanized proposition. Its hard to find well paying work without a college degree. So, where is all of our labor going that we would have a shortage? And, mind you, the baby-boomer retirement effect hasn't yet begun in a significant way.

My short answer to the question is I'm not sure where our labor is going. Some to Iraq, but not enough to be of consequence. Yet, immigrant and second-generation labor, especially from Mexico, is becoming more and more visible as it takes on higher status and higher profile jobs. Most fast-food restaurants seem to staff almost exclusively with immigrant/second-gen labor. More and more sit down restaurants are using immigrant/second-gen labor in serving positions. More and more immigrant/second-gen labor is active in skilled or semi-skilled jobs in the construction industry. So, where are the native American laborers? Whoops, I didn't mean that. Close call! What I meant to say was where are the good-old red-blooded American workers who used to fill these jobs?

In different vein, we have a trade deficit, an oil addiction, and a costly war to fund. How come we aren't bankrupt and destitute? Well, we may be closer to that state than we realize, but there must be some way that we claw back dollars and employ red-blooded Americans outside of manufacturing, farming, and construction.

Here are some thoughts:

Economic theory is enamored with the benefits of scale. Most of this is overrated, but power does come from scale. So, there is an inherent, consistent, move to consolidate businesses, industries, and governments. As businesses grow, they become harder to manage and spawn corps of professional managers. My son was explaining certain major inefficiencies in his small department of the major company for which he works. These could be easily be eliminated by publishing some guidelines so that people weren't daily reinventing the wheel. But, no manager wanted to be held accountable for what the guidelines might say. It was much easier to justify the inefficiencies resulting from no guidelines than to be responsible for the results of any guidelines. That's economy of scale for you!

Consider that, as companies aspire to grow, the sales function takes on supreme importance. We have to make the numbers! And so the sales force becomes the best compensated part of the firm. Of all the revenue earned, what percentage goes into sales and marketing? In many firms, the number is surprisingly high. We take sales to the marginal dollar. In so doing, we spend on sales and marketing until the next sale is a net loss due to sales and marketing costs incurred to achieve it. So, a foreign manufactured good is produced cheaply and shipped economically to the US. Then its sold expensively due to sales and marketing costs. What part of the consumer price of goods stays in this country?

Services! We've been told that we're a services economy. Look at Skilling over at Enron. Some pundits have suggested that he had too little knowledge for his role because, prior the Enron, he had only ever been a consultant. As a consequence, he shouldn't be expected to understand the difference between a paper profit and a real one. This kinda begs the question of what a consultant would be good for? Eh? But, they don't have to be good for anything, as long as their services can be sold. Management doesn't want to "ad to headcount", so it hires a consultant for 3x or 4x the cost - sometimes for years at a time. Management doesn't like what its own people are telling it? Hire a consultant who will consult with you before offering his/her opinion (in support of your own). Now this may sound cynical, but if consultants are so good at running businesses, why are they consulting?

Finally, we do have one big export commodity - war. Whether waged by us, or merely arming the rest of the world and stimulating their conflicts, we do get hard currency from our military industrial complex. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it? Is this what our economy is built on?

NEWS: Against the prevailing wisdom

2006-03-14T22:15:00.000-06:00

The Knight-Ridder newspaper chain has been for sale, which has caused me some angst. They are probably the only chain that has shown spine in reporting in the face of the current fascist administration in Washington. I've been concerned that once purchased, their voice would be silenced.

Today it was announced that a much smaller chain based around the Sacramento Bee was buying Knight-Ridder. I don't know much about them, but it sounds like they take news seriously and so might preserve some integrity at Knight-Ridder. Hoorah. But we'll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile the commentators were asking the inevitable business/media questions. Especially as how the newspaper business is in the toilet of an inevitable and irreversible decline in the face of new media (i.e. the web).

That is the conventional wisdom.

Now, the question in my mind is why should this be? IMHO, reading from a paper or book is much easier than reading from a computer screen. It's also easier to take the paper with on the bus or train, or even into the throne room. Some might argue that access to online news is free but that the paper costs money. Of course access to radio and TV has been free for nearly 50 years but was not enough to knock newspapers on their butts.

Actually, that last statement is probably an exaggeration as the number of print news sources per market has gone down drastically in this time. But, broadcast journalism hasn't been posited to lead to the elimination of print news. The web has.

Thought leaders, business leaders, political leaders, like to seize on trends. They rarely predict them and often are slow to recognize them. But, when the trend becomes obvious, they are its greatest supporters. And, they prop up each other's thinking - creating a self-fulfilling society of trend-leadership.

I think that newspapers are in trouble for two fundamental reasons. The first has to do with the consolidation of markets. When there is only one paper, it has to appeal to the whole market or lose share. So, issues get toned down, soft news becomes important, major different points of view (and I'm talking more about philosophy and policy than did he/she or did he/she not) have no pulpit.

Through this process, the press has begun to offer gruel. Who really wants it? What is it offering the readership? Its offering a big blank boring hole, except for trumped up sensationalism.

Along with this natural market reaction, we have a second cause. The current administration has offered the media companies the option to further consolidate and make their corporate leadership rich. In return, it has tasked them with editing themselves to stay on message with the administration. Some will say otherwise. Some will return to the tired old saw of the liberal press. But the facts are out there and documented. And these are documented in intelligent ways that prove that we aren't just positioning one side versus another. For anyone who would disagree, I say visit and read mediamatters.org daily for a month. Then we can talk.

The two causes can be likened to the invisible hand and a very visible hand, but pushing to turn newspapers into pap. Is it any wonder the folks are looking elsewhere for their news? Is there any place other than the web where open, intelligent discourse takes place (yes I know that there's also lots of stupid, course, narrow-minded discourse on the web). It's not the cost that is driving readers to the web. It's not the convenience that is driving readers to the web. It is the dearth of meaningful reporting in the mainstream press that is driving people to the web.

It has been reported that newspapers are trying to make money by providing news on the web. And, that they are making progress, but not as fast as they're losing money on the print side of their operations. But, their web sites are as typically as bad or worse than their print news - so it should come as no surprise that they are not succeeding.

The issue isn't the medium - its the content. A free press that does its job will never be sold out by its readership.

And that's all for tonight folks.

Hatred

2006-03-05T22:17:00.000-06:00

Hatred. We're going to take a slight, but important, detour before trying to weave our threads into a cloth.

An under-reported item is the bill before the Missouri legislature (as reported by channel 4, KMOV, St Louis) which would:

Make Christianity the states official "majority" religion;
Recognize "a Christian god";
"...protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs." (whatever that might mean, and with no similar protections for members of religious minorities);
recognize that "..a greater power exists....";
and, Proclaims that Christianity alone receives "...justified recognition..."

Now this report can lead us in several directions. The first would be to start a movement to de-accredit any and all christian colleges. Clearly they do a poor job of teaching anything, and should therefore be prohibited from conferring any form of degree. If you need proof, consider this: no torturous reading of the Bible could possibly account for the need to promote a law such as this.

But, more importantly we should look at what causes people to offer such silliness. There is a elected official in Kentucky who has taken it upon himself to poll the state legislators (with the help of a church youth group) regarding their acceptance of jesus christ. And, we have the blanket abortion ban voted into law in South Dakota.

What is this need to legislate one's personal religious values? How does it relate to policy creation and administration of a moral state? And why is it that the personal values so often advocated have such consistently narrow scopes (if we value life, for example, why would we not eliminate execution and adventuresome war?).

One can argue that morality is a gift from god(s). That is, morality is a code or set of rules determined by a higher being than ourselves. And, as such, we need to observe its strictures are face punishment.

This is not a position which can be proven. The existence of God, though widely accepted, cannot be proven. And the documents that the various religious consider to be his word, cannot be proven to originate from this unprovable god. Moreover, they cannot be reconciled to each other, and very often contradict themselves internally. So, this basis of morality is determined by individual beliefs. And while these beliefs are protected by various social norms, and sometimes law, they can also be considered delusional no matter how widespread the belief.

The science of logic and the science of factual observation cannot prove these beliefs. However, lack of proof doesn't prove compelling to most people as a reason not to believe.

Science can't prove that some "higher being", whatever its nature, doesn't exist. Religion, philosophy, and science, apart or together cannot explain the existential riddle. On the other hand, this riddle doesn't seem to be something that most adults spend much time contemplating.

Obviously a dictatorship (monarchy/junta/whatever) can pronounce morality by fiat. The willingness of its subjects to agree is less important than their willingness to obey. Merely changing the control to a majority of leadership doesn't make the imposition of morality on disbelievers any less odious. And when that "majority" is actually a vocal or powerful minority within a majority - this imposition is very much like that of a dictatorship for those members of society of differing moral beliefs.

A social compact theory of government suggests that for each of us to enjoy the opportunities we want and feel entitled to, we have to ensure that all of share in those opportunities. Only by protecting the rights of each other do we ensure the protection of our own rights.

The alternative to this is that each of us uses our skill, cunning, and force to protect our own rights, but then only a few individuals or groups have the strength to effectively protect themselves, and everyone else suffers.

A social compact theory of government, because its based on balancing the wants/needs/rights of the community, leads necessarily to a nuanced morality. What is considered moral and right at one point of time will not be so considered at another time. Mormans once believed in and protected polygamy, but do not do so today. It would be interesting to study what caused this change. Was it a need to better fit in with the larger society as a modern economy limited their isolation? Was it a need to make their religion more palatable in order to successfully carry out their missionary intentions? Or was it something else?

Abortion was not always considered a right in most countries, even though the evidence suggests that abortion has been and will be with human society for ever. Those who try to push back against abortion, though, choose not to understand its causes or drivers, rather they seek to punish those who would offer or obtain abortion. Some of this can be attributed to the natural tendency to trivialize most problems and create simplistic, although often ineffective solutions. But, many voices have been raised to offer understanding of what drives abortions, and what can be done to minimize the cases where abortions are sought. Yet the fiercest opponents of abortion will have nothing to do with this discussion, and their quiet supporters typically look away saying "...we can't solve every problem..."

To suggest that an abortion is a soulful act is silly. To suggest that a condom or a morning after pill is immoral is silly. Why does it seem that we can't find the bridges between differing positions that clearly have some common ground?

As the republicans further exercise their power, we find that they aren't in favor of states rights, if these are exercised to act independently from the republican agenda. We find the republicans don't believe in a true democracy, if it puts their power or agenda at risk. We find that the republicans are not strict constructionists of the constitution, nor do the hew to the pre-existing body of law unless it protects them and their interests.

Clearly republicans, as little as they may like to admit this, are moral relativists. Good law is what's good to me, not you. Now, this isn't meant to be a putdown of republicans. But they have been advocating a position that liberals and Democrats are moral relativists and that this is bad. They also have posited that these liberals and Democrats are moral secularists, and that this also is bad.

When a republican can advocate, justify, and protect the bloodbath of the war against Iraq, they can only be secular moral relativists. No god who says "thou shalt not kill" is going to be bamboozled for a moment that this war in any way supports his morality. No logician can possibly resolve that abortion is wrong but war (with the possible exception of self defense) and criminal execution are right. No, these simple cases prove that we are all moral relativists, and that most of the time most of us are secular moral relativists - no matter how literally we read our bible/koran/etc.

It's too easy to point out the irony of those moralists who would make Missouri an officially christian state - that buys us nothing. Moreover, if we have to give up a state, it might as well be hill-billy land - we aren't losing much there.

No, the question is what drives the creation of fascist nationalism, whether based in religion or not, and what drives the creation of a philosophical, rights-based nationalism. Our forefathers faced many similar influences to what we face today. Fanatic religionists are nothing new. Bamboozling the masses is nothing new. So what allowed a historic and globally inspirational democracy to form in our country, and what is now putting that same democracy at risk.

It is too easy to point at the various demagogues, but why are they so threatening today? Why has fundamentalism become so pervasive in this country? Just as abortion cannot simply be legislated away, neither can demagogues. What can we do to reinforce the common belief in reason, facts, shared values, and tolerance?

If I could simply answer these questions, I would have begun this blog at that point. But, something has raised the national level of angst, something is fomenting hatred of our fellow beings, and something is causing us to damage the various institutions which has made us so strong as a nation, and so free as a people. If we don't answer these questions soon, I fear we will fundamentally change our country in ways that we and our children will be hurt significantly and repeatedly.

At the core (cont'd)

2006-03-04T22:15:00.000-06:00

I've taken the liberty to edit the prior post slightly to clarify some concepts. This post, then, builds about that.

If democracy and capitalism are not tightly related, and if in the thinking of our nation, capitalism seems to be in ascendancy, but democracy seems only to be an adjunct (and a feeble one at that); we have to question how has democracy come to have such a minor role and why would we sacrifice it at the alter of "economic freedom."

Several pieces of this puzzle seem clear to me, and they form the beginnings of a fabric of political thinking which we see so commonly today.

The challenge of any government, but perhaps more so in a democracy, is that choosing solutions to the issues of the day is a difficult process. The more people who feel they are disenfranchised by political process, the more force government must use to maintain its power and status. Naturally, decision making and maintaining the authority of government becomes more difficult in times of dwindling resources. The resources include items of value (food, gold, tools, land, etc) but also commonly held beliefs (including symbols, knowledge and faith). When resources shift from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes, it takes no faith to understand that this shift erodes the resources by which government maintains its power and legitimacy.

Ironically, some political leaders gain in power by ensuring that resources are taken away from the masses. Sharon took power in Israel by insulting and threatening the Palestinians who intern lessened the sense of personal security felt by individual Israelis. By weakening Israel, Sharon justified his hawkish approach to the Palestinians just as a peaceful settlement was close to a possibility. It appears now that the majority of Israel's no long agree with this policy, and many wish that Palestinian lands weren't "settled" after the '67 war. But, we are still far from reaching the peace that could and should be in the middle east.

Closer at home, the combined efforts of the business community and the religious right has worked to destroy American's confidence in facts and science. Global warming is not a liberal conspiracy. It's not the work of a few fringe scientists. It is a reality and one with dire consequences that we need to face as a nation. But, the business community has worked hard to debunk science and facts whenever they are inconvenient to profit. There is no question that curtailing pollution has at least short term negative consequences on profits. Who, however, would consider this a worse solution than possibly eradicating the human race?

Very often the religious right has joined in these attacks. Recently some of the wingnut leadership has come out against accepting global warming as a reality or an issue. What's in it for them? We may never know. But one thing is clear. To the degree that science is undermined, faith becomes reinforced. And faith is the key to the control these leaders hold over their people. Make no mistake, power and money are key drivers for these leaders. If you doubt it, check out their life styles.

Democracy, to be successful, seems to require a variety of checks and balances. Power corrupts, whether its the economic power of corporations, the power of the military might, or power in government. Human (or perhaps better said: animal) nature has each of us protect our own interests against that of our fellows - very few among us can regularly claim to do otherwise. The distribution of power among us, especially related to organized human endeavors means that power will always be at risk of being mis-used. Positioning counterbalancing powers as a protection against corruption is the key that can allow a democracy to exist. Through all of this, we know that no democracy will be perfect. But we also know that without democracy, power tends to quickly filter up into the hands of a few who do not treat the rest of us very well. So, for all its warts, its sometimes economic inefficiencies, the sometimes impossible demands placed on it, and the weakness of human leadership, democracy remains the most likely social/economic organization to promote fairness to all people.

And here lies one of the fallacies promoted by capitalists and free-marketeers. Remember, capitalism is anti-free market (except for labor), and free-markets marginalize capitalists. So, these two concepts that hold each other dear are very different from one another.

The capitalist argues that markets are free and that the "silent hand" allocates resources and rewards without bias. As such, the argument is that the free market leads to fair results for all. The corollary to this is that the rich of the world deserve their riches, and the poor of the world deserve their misery.

This, of course, is a lie; but to understand it requires that we peel back the layers of its logical onion. First, markets generally aren't free, so one can't argue that resources are allocated without bias. Second, it can easily be established that rewards do not accrue in some algebraic manner from combination of ones intelligence, cunning, education, effort, and risk. In fact, we find that CEO income has no relationship to company performance, and a plausible study would likely find that companies' performances have no relationship to CEO actions. Stupid people have become rich. So have lazy people. Hardworking intelligent people have gone bankrupt. Taking a risk implies that postitive outcomes are unlikely. So, how could an individual constantly take risks and constantly achieve positive outcomes? The fact that their outcomes tended to be positive establishes that somehow, this individual, engage in a process without risk, or that they were just a statistical fluke. Who can claim that success being a statistical fluke is a harbinger of a just and fair system?

Again, studies show that successful people credit themselves too much for their fortune, and unsuccessful people credit themselves too little for their fortune. Why is this? Probably its a fundmental mechasim of self protection. Must of us aren't calibrated to hurt our fellow man and feel good about it - that is we aren't good at being evil and accepting that we are so.. Most of us aren't calibrated to believe that we're bad/useless/incompetent. Considering ourselves to be evil, or considering ourselves to be bad/useless/incompetent, seem likely to be personality traits which will make us less successful at surviving and procreating. Our survival and success is based on feeling good about ourselves. And so, eons of natural selection have given us the ability to blame problems on others while taking credit for success.

Well, it's late again. More soon.

At the core

2006-02-28T00:04:00.000-06:00

I was reading the latest issue of Newsweek earlier today. This is unusual because the mainstream press has become so biased in favor of the dogmatic right. But there I was reading about India. I'm no expert, but having spent a little time in Mubai about 7-8 years ago, the place is fascinating to me. Naturally, it intrigued me to hear the latest about this so-far quiet giant.

In the course of the article, the author made some various comparisons between India and China, and between both and the US. Frankly, some the article was either poorly written or poorly thought out, as many of the various ideas seemed to contradict themselves and each other, as presented.

What struck me, however, was a discussion which seemed to contrast democracy against capitalism. This contained a clear bias that capitalism was better/more important than government, especially a democratic one. And this seemed curious to me, yet very much in keeping with what we see advocated every day in our modern American society.

So, what of this? Well, to begin with we should applaud the author for not trying to lump capitalism together with democratic government as being one and the same. Too many pundits now confuse these two concepts as being the natural parts of a single whole thing.

My problem with this concept is two fold. First, business doesn't concern itself with the common good - which should be the first concern of a democratic government. In fact, business often recognizes that its goals are at cross purposes with the common good - but never lets that deter it from it's path. Second, almost a corollary, business has learned to grow bigger than government as a means to reach its ends ahead of the common good. First we saw business's drive bidding wars between states and municipalities for tax rebates and various other incentives. A good example from here in Illinois was when Sears had the state to give them a highly valuable piece of property (and provide a number of improvements for this property) that was many many times larger than their operations required (or would for century's to come). This, in essence, made them a real estate company and twenty (appox) years later they are still making boat-loads of money off this gift. Thank goodness for that because they have yet to find a management team that can figure out how to make Sears a profitable retailer. Kind of a sad record and certainly not a good argument for the strength of capitalism.

Since then, companies have expanded this agenda where they now have nations and labor pools playing the game of self-marginalization in the name of attracting their facilities and jobs.

As a side light, consider that capitalists love to talk their drive for efficiency and what a valuable contribution this is to society. So, when an assembly line job goes from the American rust belt to Asia, and the hourly labor rate drops orders of magnitude, they look at this as progress.

I disagree. To look at efficiency we have to consider what we value most. If it is capital or cash, then the argument above works. But, if it is people and quality of life, this doesn't work. A hour of labor input is an hour of labor input. If the person providing that input sees their rewards lessened, then their effort has become less efficient. The gain to the corporation and its investors isn't shared with the labor providers - so what is being called efficiency is merely a way of shifting wealth further to the elites.

Returning to the subject at hand, do democracy and capitalism walk hand in hand? Is democratic government an impediment to the well-being of people? Is Newsweek on to something here?

Let me answer the last question first. I think not.

If democratic government is an impediment to the peoples' well-being, then we need to seriously ask the question: What kind of government is better? The likely choices are: a) None, or as little as possible; b) Centralized government driving an economy (ala China); c) Government that does as it wishes as long as it stays out of the way of business.

The problems with A seem self-obvious. Humans, as a species, seem to have needs and conflicts that can only be worked out via some method of government. Attempts to do without lead to savagery and decision based on one's personal power and strength, which most of us consider an unfair and unacceptable process. And yet every need and every conflict can be resolved in many different ways. And these different solutions accrue differing benefits and costs to the various citizens. We can argue that the process of government optimizes solutions for no one. But we can also argue that the fairest solution is when no one is happy with their share. Hence, everyone wanted a more rewarding solution to the problems addressed by government is not an argument in favor of less or even no government.

Solution B harkens back to Communism, a bankrupt concept. It also leans towards socialism which is often placed in basket with Communism , perhaps unfairly. My friend the investment banker told me how superior we are to the French because they have a socialist system which interferes with efficiency. Interestingly, the data shows the French to be more productive per employed person than are Americans. From this, it doesn't seem clear that the capitalist argument is necessarily true - even using their assumption that the value of money trumps the value of people. So while while a centrally controlled economy, and other trappings of a narrow non-democratic government aren't desirable, we can't say that social welfare is undesirable or that it hurts efficiency or the economy.

Solution C offers a slightly novel approach. It suggests, leave all aspects of the economy in the hands of business, and allow government to manage all else. Unfortunately, unchecked business acquires and uses up a variety of resources that neither belong to it, nor are paid for by it. Do you want an example? How about clean air? Or, how about sun-light? Water? And the list isn't limited to natural resources. How about police protection? How about a traffic officer who is assigned to the entrance of a business or office park to help departing workers safely join the stream of traffic? Business clearly doesn't value that which is free, and therefore it's axiomatic that business will not be a good steward of these resources.

So, Government and business/economy address different by related interests. Business cannot be relied upon to take care of the needs of the larger community. There are needs of the larger community that need to be measured, balanced, and adjudicated, and this will ever be the provenance of government.

Capitalism and democracy are not the same thing. One doesn't require the other, one doesn't create the other. Democracy, however, is the force most likely to look after the greater good.

Well it's late. This is already much for you to chew on. More soon.

Good night.

VooDoo Economics

2006-02-15T18:23:00.000-06:00

1st Draft

The prior post stimulates my thinking about capitalism.

In much of the west, communism is seen as a failure. Consider what has happened to Russia. Look at the changes driving the Chinese economy. These two factors alone convince people that communism is a bankrupt concept.

I cannot defend communism - but to consider its short-comings really requires that we consider it apart from the totalitarian regimes which claimed it as their philosophic core. By divorcing communism from the emotion around its implementation in Russia and China, we can better understand its weakness and thereby be smarter in evaluating other alternative forms of social/economic organization.

Communism seems likely to fail due purely to human nature. People seem to be hard-wired to collect and hoard stores of value. No doubt this is a basic survival instinct. Remember, we can't graze off the land, can't live in most climates without warm clothes, can't survive against any number of animals without tools, and so forth. We are a physically weak species - which depends on advanced adaptations (that is characteristics that are not part of one's physical being) to survive. And survive we do.

One of these adaptations is to grow more food than we need, and store the excess for times when food is scarce. In a different vein, the tools that we have developed don't "grow on trees". Not only do we make our tools, but they have become more complex, requiring time, specialized materials, and acquired knowledge to create. So, just as we need to hoard food, we need to protect and preserve our tools (including clothing and homes) in order to maintain our lives. Trusting a society as a whole to take care of these needs seems fundamentally at odds with our hard-wired learning to hoard.

With out advanced adaptations, one of our greatest threats is our fellow man. So, our hoarding behavior is rarely implemented beyond the boundaries of tight small groups, a family unit, a tribe, but not farther.

Moreover, for a society to provide for the needs of its members, the members need to give up some level of freedom in order for the society to organize and run those activities which create, hoard, and share resources back to the membership. The human being is a complex animal, but it seems clear that the core personality includes both pack-affiliated (or teaming) and independent-behavior characteristics. So strong are these opposing forces, that no matter the rewards that are made available, many individuals will strongly resist the socialization of anything like communism unless they see a means of exploiting the system to their advantage.

So, we must accept that communism is not a likely course for the preservation of our species baring a significant evolution of our core personalities.

But, it is not the case that the alternative is capitalism. First of all, capitalism and communism are recent concepts. It's not clear that all society over the course of human life has distributed resources according to one or the other of these models. In fact, even defining capitalism loosely, only part of any society has distributed assets according to the capitalist model.

We should also clarify that capitalism and free-markets are different and not inherently connected concepts. This distinction is often lost. Capitalism is fundamentally about raising and preserving capital to fund profitable enterprise. By profitable enterprise, we mean endeavors that return more money (in the form of profits) than was invested into them. Capitalism, at its core, is anti-free market.

How can this be? The goal of the capitalist is to maximize the return on capital (now days the model is broadened to include capital, borrowings, and other sources of economic value). To maximize this return, one needs markets. That is, someone has to pay for the outputs of the investment, in order for there to be a profit. But, a free market implies full access to information on the part of the buyer, and that the market is freely open to competing sellers, such that the return on capital is marginalized. As such, a true free market works against the capitalist and the rich.

This is why the modern capitalist talks so much about free markets. He/she is trying to convince consumers that capitalism is providing them with more goods for less money. The reality is that he/she is trying to extract more money for fewer goods.

And who has been at the forefront of confusing capitalism and free-markets? Why our leading economists, which is why I accuse them of VooDoo economics.

That some amount of money leaves the purses of the rich is no surprise. Someone has to pick up the garbage, and it won't be the rich themselves, so yes they spend money. But, fundamentally capitalists are driven by their need to acquire and hoard resources; which means that they are constantly plotting how to further grow their net worth. Implied in this is that their capital grows faster than they spend money. Some will say that they rich need a middle class to purchase good from which the capitalist can make a profit. This assumes that the most efficient means to improve the assets of the rich is by an indirect path whereby other participants in society work to acquire more than marginal resources - and that the capitalist gains a profit by providing these "luxury" resources. The true capitalist believes, and most of history confirms this, that this approach is wrong. A truer capitalist model would have the rest of society toil industriously, but consume minimal resources so that the capitalist obtains all the rest of the created value. This would be an example of maximizing the return on capital.

In what way is this trickle down? How is this benefiting the masses? The course of history shows that trickle down is another way of saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And, this is true regardless of whether the fundamental social-economic system is capitalism, monarchy, or a military dictatorship. More makes it way to the masses only when they threaten to overwhelm the elite.

How then do we explain he emergence of the broad middle class of western democracies? Before examining this, we should consider for a moment the health of the middle class. It is interesting to listen to American capitalists comment on Europe. They are dismissive of these democratic/capitalist societies. Their position is that European democracy has lead to excessive socialism. This has, in turn, weakened these societies and reduced the income and assets of their residents.

When I travel to Europe, the Europeans seem behind us in pure materialism. They do not seem like an impoverished race. They do not lack for access to the arts. They seem to have plenty of food, and often very good food. Their educational institutions are strong and capable. And, like us, and virtually every society in the history of mankind, they have a somewhat hidden underclass that is some part helps to fuel the success of everyone else.

My friend the investment banker has pointed out to me how we have a larger gross domestic product per capita than France. Moreover, that we have a better unemployment rate. What he forgets to point out is that the French actually deliver higher labor efficiency. Moreover, that much of our high per capita GDP is based on two earner families, which most people seem to think is a sub-optimal arrangement. And finally, that the unemployed in France are better treated financially than the unemployed in the US (who often aren't even counted as unemployed). I doubt that the average French man or women envies the average American, even if the wealthiest French envy the wealthiest Americans.

Our American capitalists meanwhile insist that the US is doing fine. That GDP continues to rise, and all ships rise with the tide. They ignore the fact that the distribution of rewards is not only uneven, but shrinking the middle class and creating greater gaps between the upper class and both the middle and lower class.

So how did the Western middle class come to be? I'm not sure anyone has a full answer to this question. But, I would submit that the following are contributing factors.

1) Part of the American Revolution was a rebellion against the idea that the rights of corporations could trump the rights of man. Strict limits were put into play to protect the rights of individuals in the United States such that free-markets were better empowered relative to capitalism than had traditionally been the case within the British Empire. Consciously or not, some of this was picked up in the evolution of democracy in Europe.

2) Our country started at a time when a free market was easier to achieve. For much of what one might purchase, it was relatively easy to eyeball quality or establish the reputation of the seller. Certainly there was fraud and trickery, but what equivalent was there to what we now call Marketing (with a capital M).

3) In America, we had the benefit of nearly limitless resources. Yes there was a cost, but one could always move West. At the least one could homestead arable land. At he best, one might stumble across silver, gold, or other precious resources. For Europe, there was a world to colonize and provide a number of the benefits of limitless resources.

Notice that while there were parallels for Europe, much of the evolutionary roots for a broad middle clase were found first and strongest in North America. And indeed, the middle class grew here best and fastest. In fact, we became in many instances the home of the middle class for other countries such as Ireland.

We cannot for a minute sugar coat the American experience. There were any number of bad things that happened here that were not about facilitating the growth of the middle class. We had slavery, indentured servants, Indian massacres, Hells Kitchen, political corruption, violence against unions, and more. But consider that the people who came to America didn't come schooled in how to create a middle class or in how to become members of a middle class. Consider that we never had a stated national policy of creating a middle class, nor a state policy as far as I know. And, once you've done this, you'll realize what an amazing thing that our fore-fathers accomplished.

Today, resources are not infinite. In fact, people are rapidly overpopulating the world. We are running out of energy resources quickly, usable water is getting harder and harder to find, our air is no longer clean, and we are upsetting our global climates. This is far from the early American history where the West served as a pressure valve of excess resources.

Nowadays, it can be hard to know what's what about anything, not merely commerce. So many people have been scared into believing that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. So many people have been scared into believing that the theory of evolution is evil and wrong. So many people don't have a clue as to how to sift through and evaluate all the media blasting at them daily. Is it any wonder that these same people are at a disadvantage when evaluating goods in the market place? Meanwhile, the market is not really freely open to all sellers. So many segments have been taken over by giants, creating a situation where a certain critical mass is necessary to gain access to the market. A ma & pa operation can't begin to get the traction necessary to succeed.

Finally, we have (well someone has) shifted the rules in our country. The corporation has more rights and fewer responsibilities than the individual. We have fallen into the trap that gripped Great Britain at the time of our Revolution.

In short, we've lost the advantages that made a middle class easy. From here on out it will take hard work to maintain a middle class. This might not matter, but no nation that has ever been considered a true democracy became such without a substantial middle class.

Doing as Told

2006-02-15T16:52:00.000-06:00

God spoke to me (see his notes to previous articles). He asked that I return to publishing more "....Intellectual..." pieces. Who am I to do otherwise - and so I humbly submit the following.

A number of topics are giving me pause. It's hard sometimes to keep them all straight. But then, any rational consideration would show how these topics weave together in so many ways.

One central question, however, consumes my thoughts: How has the mass brain-washing of the right come about? What do I mean by this? To start with, there is a lot of right-wing thinking which is simply unrelated to reality. There's probably a bit of unrealistic thinking on the left as well, but it doesn't have much policy impact these days so we'll keep the focus on here on the right.

A very simple and personal example: I was speaking with a conservative friend some weeks ago. He posited that the Capitalist system was the ultimate, that everyone else in the world envied us, and that this was because the median family income in this country was constantly on the rise. This individual is well educated, closely in touch with wide range of economic statistics (as part of his work), and absolutely believes what he told me.

The facts are these (per the White House and Census Bureau web-sites - which may be subject to a massive liberal conspiracy): median family income is at the same level as it was 20 years ago; and, median family net worth is at the same level as 20 years ago. The later statistic is interesting. We know that the average age of American's is growing. We also know that people grow their assets over time, and tend to be worth more later in life. So, we should see some growth in median family net worth when the population of the country is aging. That we don't could have many explanations, but, one can't help but question whether this statistic is a simple sign that we are collectively getting poorer.

My well educated friend believed that trickle-down was working - even though it wasn't - and he should know better. Is this a unique situation? I don't think so. So much of the conservative agenda is forwarded with a fundamentalist zeal, even by its leaders. For me, its a bit unbelievable that this agenda is merely a cynical mechanism to keep the People's eye off they ball while certain leaders screw us (which I'm certain happens). If this were such a conscious plot, too much information would have leaked out already. Look at how well we understand Karl Rove methods.

There's an interesting article here: www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2006/021206.html. This piece analyzes the right's (successful) efforts to politicize the CIA since the time of Nixon. As a result, they have forced a more hawkish foreign policy upon our collective shoulders by significantly over estimating the threats posed by our enemies and others. The economic cost of this is not calculated in the article, but must certainly be enormous. The moral cost, and loss of popular standing in the world, is even worse.

Nothing in the article suggests anything except that the leaders of these efforts fully believed in these crazy positions. These people were generally well educated (I'm obviously not speaking here of the vepe and Skippy). So, the question is why did they have such strong convictions? What predisposed them to so believe? I wish I was ready to posit an answer to this question, but I'm not.

What seems clear, however, is that when we focus our resources on fighting off non-threats, we lose the resources available to fight real threats. The slightly less obvious corollary to this is that in fighting off non-threats, we create real threats. Iraq being a prime example.

In the case of economic policy, its easy (although perhaps incorrect) to suggest that ignorance of the "facts" is based on zero-sum gaming mindset. That is, people may espouse policy that serves their immediate interests - even if they know that it doesn't serve the greater good, and should know that by hurting the greater good they may yet hurt themselves. For example, a policy may lead one to have a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If the pie become small enough, having a bigger slice doesn't help. Or, perhaps as the pie shrinks, some of the holders of bigger pieces get forced into the ranks of those with smaller pieces.

As we have discussed previously, those who are successful tend to credit themselves too much for their success while those that fail tend to blame the world too much for their failures. Hubris can cause any of us to choose narrowly self-serving policies. In this state we will not recognize how we may yet be hurt by these policies. It's somewhat like a child who insists on eating all the available chocolate - even if he's been warned that this will cause a stomach ache.

I don't believe that most folks really don't care about the welfare of anyone else. So some of the dichotomy between beliefs versus reality may be based on a need to excuse themselves from hurting others. But, there are too many cases of brain-washing that this doesn't explain.

Many people have voted to lower taxes for the rich thinking. What purpose did they think they were serving? Do they believe in trickle down? Did they think the cuts would be more equitable - but never check to see that Washington walked the talk? Did they believe that the cuts would be more equitable, but now are to wedded to the administration, or are too embarrassed at being made the fool, to challenge what's going on? Perhaps they're acting like an ostrich sticking their collective heads in the ground?

What has caused a generation of economists to suggest voodoo economics - and believe in them? What causes a nation that approves of abortion but dislikes it to elect a president who disapproves of abortion - yet has created policy that has raised the rate of abortions in this country?

The question of how people makes bad decisions is ageless. The likelihood of eliminating bad decisions is low. But, can we learn to be smarter and more often base our decision-making on facts and reality? I hope so.

God is talking to you, are you there?

2006-02-01T21:37:00.000-06:00

God speaks.

God doesn't generally speak by raising his voice. Look at the bible. Look at Jesus. Jesus spoke softly, not loudly. Jesus spoke with compassion, not judgment. Jesus spoke first to the downtrodden, not to the leaders. Jesus offered hope, not criticism.

All of you who call yourselves fundamental Christians. All of you who claim to be born again. Listen to Jesus.

Jesus would not wage a war against a sovereign nation for oil. Jesus would not wage a war against a sovereign nation for political gain. Jesus would not lie or manipulate public sentiment to initiate a war; especially a war without purpose. So, what true Christian, what person who has truly accepted Christ into their heart, can support a President who would do so?

How can anyone not hold this infidel morally accountable? Jesus wouldn't campaign against bad leadership. Jesus wouldn't try to kill or coerce bad leadership. Jesus would ask questions, and he would lead by example.

And yet our so-called fundamentalist Christians act very differently from Christ. Not only do these people refuse to hold the President accountable, but they bow down to him as if he were a King of Kings. And why?

These fundamentalists believe in killing or coercing leadership that they think is bad. Look at the issue of abortion - look at the many people, staff and patients, who have been harassed abortion clinics. Look at how many people advocate the murder of abortion doctors, and look at how many abortion doctor have actually been murdered. Unlike Jesus, the American fundamentalist is blood thirsty.

Look at health and wealth fundamentalism. If you are not succeeding with a healthy and wealthy life, its because you aren't born again, or because you're stupid and lazy. Anyone who receives God deserves all the material rewards that they can collect on this earth. Those who can't collect material rewards have done something wrong. The only way to help the less fortunate is to introduce them to the fundamentalist's God. We can't give them money. We can't fund welfare. We can't provide them with good schools (unless they are Christian academies). We don't want them in our neighborhoods (unless they meet our social-economic status). Those fundementalists who break the law who "...haven't done anything everyone else doesn't do." They "...haven't really done anything so bad." They are being "...persecuted by the secular minority. "

How far is this thinking from that of Jesus? People came to know him and to love him because he respected them. Not because he made them rich materially. Not because he taught them a form of worship. And not because he was condescending to them or to others. To think of a human example, people were attracted to Gandhi in a way very similar to how they were attracted to Jesus. But this is not how the fundamentalist makes Jesus attractive.

No, the fundamentalist talks of the here-after but focuses on the here-and-now. How much American business today is self-trading within the church? How many people select their business partners/vendors/customers at church? On the other hand, how many fundamentalists offer support to others who are outside of the church? And, when they do, how often is that support predicated on first offering a sermon. Jesus let his behavior be the sermon. Jesus took care of the needs of others first. The destitute. The prostitute. The heathen. The saved didn't need his attention. The saved didn't need material reward, for theirs was the kingdom of heaven.

Fundamentalism has become a team, complete with mascots, cheerleaders, players, coaches, and lots of fans. Fundamentalism is self-serving. Like a family, fraternity, social club, or ethnic association, fundamentalism is about taking care of ones own - on a material basis. Fundamentalism is about better enjoying life through drama. The drama of identifying our team and identifying with our team. Likewise it is the drama of defining who is outside of our team. It is the drama of identifying and holding morally accountable those who are on the other team, while ignoring the moral accountability of our selves, or the members of our own team. So naturally, this group favors the President despite his limited powers of reasoning and his dogmatic thinking - this fits their own model. This group favors the President because he is one of them, the first rule is to protect one's own. This group favors the President because he supports and reinforces their prejudices and this is self-affirming and therefore rewarding to them.

Are you a fundamentalist? Are you born again? God is trying desperately to speak to you. He has given up on speaking nicely. You have challenged His authority over and over again. You have not only laid waste to the perfect world He created, you have continued to lay waste to your fellow man. Your fellow man that He created. Your fellow man who is as perfect and as imperfect as you. This is why God is speaking with a strong voice. This is why God is hurting the Conservative Crescent with Floods, Droughts, Wild Fires, & Hurricanes. Are you listening? Can you listen? Will you hear? It's time to change your evil ways.

Listening to God

2006-01-19T18:52:00.000-06:00

I've been listening to God again. He is the King of Kings, hence the purple font, for purple is the color of Kings.

People, God is angry with us. We are fortunate and undeserving because he has chosen not to unleash his awful power against us. No, God moves with moderation even when he is angry with us.

It takes great failures to make God angry. He made us. He perfectly made us imperfect. And He is all-knowing. And so it follows that He expects us to act in imperfect ways.

But, God shared with us his own self. He made us in his image. He gave us the ability to surmount stupidity, pettiness, greed, and slovenly behavior.

When God is angry, he reminds us of the truth and allows those of us who will, to know it. We have been beset by drought, pummeled by hurricanes, and now scorched with wild fires. Oh people, how much does it take to open your eyes? When will you heed his call? Do you wish to perish eternally in cages of his hell?

Look around around us and see. Where has God visited these truths? Wild fires have a hold on Texas and Oklahoma. Hurricanes devastated the gulf coast and Florida. And, drought has been hitting the farmers located across our once fertile plains.

Do you think that God's anger is dispensed without regard to who will feel his wrath? Only an evil and imperfect god could do such a thing. Our God is all that is good and true. He is not only all knowing and all powerful, but just, fair and honest.

Why is it that the crescent of conservatism is the focus of His warnings?

If you are part of the great American fundamentalist movement, you have crossed God's commands. Don't react, think. Can there be any other explanation? If you were leading people to God, would he choose you to punish? God could have made his message heard in the the great Northeast? He has not. God could have made his message heard in the liberal bastion of Chicago. He has not. God could have made his message heard along the Pacific coast. He has not.

I listen to God, do you? How can you avoid hearing his voice. God is angry.

You say to me that you attend church, but so what? You pray, but so what? You Evangelize, but so what? These are things that you do for you, not for God. If you want to please God, there is only one thing you can do. If you want to please God, you must make this world, his world, his creation, a better and more godly world.

The world God created was perfect. The world that God created was full of beauty. The world that God created was full of genius. The world that God created supported all of his creations, all of his creatures in accordance with his laws.

This world today has been damaged. This world has been damaged by man. The damage done by man is a sacrilege, that is an insult to God.

We are racing to extinguish the natural resources God has provided to us. Resources such as water, oil, clean air, and wilderness. And you, the conservative fundamentalists, have not only embraced this rush to destroy the planet, rather you have embraced this race as being your just reward. Health and wealth christians ignore their duties to preserve and enhance the world in which God put us. You choose instead to believe that your prayers entitle you to rape and pillage this earth, God's earth. You ignore the needs of those around you. You ignore the needs of future generations. Instead, you gorge yourself like no generation that has come before you. Woe is you.

But, this is only a part of how you have sinned against God. We are not done with this conversation.

Dijaya Ever Think?

2005-10-02T21:11:00.000-05:00

Ya know, these here United States are one big crazy mixed up family. Think about it. And, traditionally, this is part of our charm (not to mention our successes). The old melting pot it real - even if it isn't all evenly stirred and not all the bits and pieces melt at the same temperature.

But now days, we are a country divided. Some of this seems like cultural payback for the civil war. Many of the same interests (the South, Racism and Classism, Rights versus Responsibilities), that led to that conflict, are in the drivers seat today. However, painting a bigger picture might ignore a simpler explanation: the simple dialectic swings of power between different interests in society over time.

One parallel that I have too little expertise to prove, seems nonetheless interesting to me. In grammar school, we were taught that large southern land-holders tended to work their land until it was depleted and them move on to new ground. Later came subsistence farmers who did much the same, except that they couldn't move on.

Somewhere (my impression is that it started in the mid-Atlantic states and stretched North), practices shifted. Land was treated as being more precious and was more likely to enjoy simple programs like crop-rotation and laying fallow. Certainly in New England, with the need to remove trees and stones before planting, the cost to move to new fertile soil would be high. There seems also, in puritan religion, more of an emphasis on being good stewards of God's bounties than in other religions.

Today, we see the administration moving to leverage the disaster of Katrina into an excuse to drill the ANWAR in Northern Alaska. This has been a goal of these folks since they took office - and like invading Iraq, it's a dumb issue looking for emotional cover to become policy. Katrina may be that cover, so its important to consider conservation and conservatism. These terms do not, by the way, have to be mutually exclusive regardless of the wingnuts.

ANWAR supposedly has enough oil to supply all of the needs in the US for 6 months. That is at once a lot and not very much oil. We consume a lot of oil in 6 months, but if it only lasts 6 months - where does that get us? The later is not a rhetorical question, rather it should be the heart of the conversation.

TIME OUT: I believe ANWAR should never be drilled in the interest of protecting wildlife and biodiversity - but that is not what this rant is about.

TIME IN: We have a short-term and long-term problems with oil prices and supplies. BTW: oil is a good example of the failure of market theory to explain market behavior. When rising prices don't cause production to expand to capacity (various oil crises we faced in the '70s and '80), or when production expands to prevent or counteract price increases - the market is operating on drivers other than achieving supply/demand parity.

Anyhow, short-term we see historically high gas prices, prices which have negative consequences on the overall economy as people are forced to reapportion their spending to cover the rising price of fuel. Consequently, these people aren't spending as much in other sectors of the economy, and people dependent on those other sectors are being harmed economically. Meanwhile, the oil producers may see higher profits, but the benefits of these profits aren't apparently trickling down into the economy in ways that offset the harm done to the other sectors.

Notice, none of this spoke of inflation, deflation, recession, or even my old favorite: stagflation. People aren't going to buy as many car, homes, boats, etc - and folks working in those industries will be hurt. Over time, the economy may sort itself out - or not. But there is a real short-term problem for many people in this country.

The Saudi's insist that overall crude supplies are fine, and policies have been implemented to facilitation the importation of more finished petroleum products to offset the lost production (extraction and refining) capacity from the Gulf. But overall, prices of gasoline (at least here in Chicago) are hovering around $3/gal depending on the grade.

We also have a long term problem, one that our policy makers have shied away from. That is the Oil Peak: soon, the global oil capacity will begin to go down every month and every year. As this happens, we must expect constantly rising prices. In fact, prices will probably rise faster than the capacity goes down - at least in countries such as ours. In less developed countries, the need for oil is much diminished. The average person can't afford and doesn't use oil in any significant manner.

In the United States, oil demand is relatively inelastic. We don't have good methods for reducing our use of oil. Much of our manufacturing has moved offshore - so efficiency improvements in manufacturing can't contribute much. We live in a travel society. Food (think of how much food nationally comes from California) and other products (what can you buy at a Wal-mart that isn't made in China?) that we acquire and use daily are typically not produced locally.

Moreover, they aren't purchased locally. Take for example the grocery store. It used to be, at least in a cities, that there was a grocery story on every other corner. Not anymore. The suburban grocery store, complete with large parking lots, long ago invaded the city and largely eliminated the corner store. The parking lots are important because the larger store needs to be supported by a broader geographic customer base - that is we travel to shop. In order to save money, many of us now go to a big-box (K-mart, Costco, etc) store for groceries. This often means driving even further than to the traditional suburban grocery store.

So, goods travel long distances to stores, then we travel long distances to stores, and eventually those goods make it to our homes. Without oil, transportation breaks down. So, we can't just stop the travel (hence using gas) without interfering with people eating - in other words our demand is inelastic.

When demand is inelastic and supplies drop, the price curve moves up an accelerating curve. Ouch!!!

It would seem that under these circumstances, a prudent national policy would be to acquire off-shore (that is belonging to other nations) oil now while it is relatively cheap, and use our own oil later when prices are high and access to production is contentious. If you're wondering about that last bit, consider this: when supplies become limited, and not all demand can be met, do you think other nations will sit by idly and let us buy and consume all the world oil? Not likely. And with the growth of other powers in the world - we can't rely on our military to protect our interests.

This is not a condemnation of our military. But the world is a complicated place now that it is global. We have state and non-state actors, with the later being particularly unpredictable. We have nuclear and bio-weapon technology spread around the world among friends and foes alike. We have a China with a population 3X our size, which has largely taken over the world's manufacturing and which is quickly coming up to speed to become the worlds greatest technical innovator. Against this, we can assume that sooner or later we will be out-matched in quality and quantity of weapons.

In the future, the greatest power a nation may be able to bring to bear is the ability to help itself and its allies eliminate their dependence on oil.

Going back to ANWAR, it will not solve our short-term problem. Assume that it will take at least several years to bring it online with significant volume - and by then we're no longer dealing with a short-term problem. But, what role can it serve as a strategic reserve? If we face a long-term problem, wouldn't it be nice to have this reserve available should we find it impractical to any longer import overseas oil? Spend that oil now, and we lose this reserve. Hold this oil back, and we have an ace up our sleeve.

Remember, however, that this reserve can only supply America's energy needs for six months. And, that's at current rates of consumption. Consumption is currently on a rising curve. So, at a future date, we can expect ANWAR to provide us with less than a six month cushion.

That brings us back to our larger problem. We cannot continue to use gas, a rapidly dwindling resource, without consideration for how we replace it in the future. Our first steps must be conservation. We cannot continue to ignore the fuel economy of our cars and trucks. We don't need 'hemi's. We don't need SUVs. We need to conserve. We need to stimulate passenger rail travel. We need to find ways for both ourselves and our goods to travel less.

Just the efforts suggested in the prior paragraph will be very disruptive to our economy and way of living. It is reasonable to suppose that our overall standard of living may go down somewhat. Over the last two decades, we have seen a continued erosion of concern for the poor (working or otherwise). We have seen an increasing concentration of money and power amount a small elite in our country. It seems likely, if overall standards go down, that we will have to reverse these trends. We cannot expect to maintain stability in this country with a large and poorly served underclass. Do we as a people have the vision to see this problem and make this level of change?

What happens after conservation? Well, the oil won't last forever. Nor will our other natural resources. While some are renewable, it is possible to consume them beyond their ability to recover. And other resources are like oil - fixed in amount. And then there's the simple matter of land, of which we have less today because we've poisoned what otherwise was good usable land.

So, we need to employ two strategies: a) find energy replacements for oil; b) reduce demand to sustainable levels for all forms of natural resources. Take a simple thing like water. Water has always been a contentious issue in the West. Over the years, rights have been established (not always fairly), and those with rights use it, everyone else does without. Water is getting to be a bigger issue - much of the country has experience extended drought. We don't know if this is just a statistical anomaly in the weather, or part of the larger global warming we've created. There are clear signals that it may be the later. But, water could become the next oil.

If we can't any longer rely on long distance shipping of most of our food, the Central Valley of California may no longer need so much water, and other areas may need more. But, can this diversion occur? Will water be regarded as property, and subject to property rights. Moreover, will we continue to consider corporations as having more and stronger rights than individuals? If so, the owners of the water may push for unrealistic compensation that further undermines our economy.

But, that's not all. People need a certain amount of water each day. To make sure that we have that available, we need to limit the number of people in our country. Can we? Can we limit immigration? Can we limit procreation? It's hard to say. But, these are some of the questions that arise in a discussion of limited water resources in the face of rising demand.

Conservation & stewardship of our country and our resources will be critical to our survival. Not just as a nation, but as a people. This is the untold story of our time. Politicians, businesses, and religious leaders all tell the people that "...You can have it all..." It's an easy sale, that's what people want to hear. The reality is that we can't have it all. The reality is that no one has it all, and few people even begin to come close. We're so busy chasing dreams and fictions, that we can't even look after our own self interests. Now that's a scary thought.

Angry Enough?

2005-09-28T22:20:00.000-05:00

Someone recently commented that folks need to get angry for there to be change. Did I do angry well enough in the last post? Angry is probably easier for me than Funny.

OK, Delay is indicted, Frist appears to be close to being indicted (maybe the fix will get in first), Abramoff is at risk of being sold down the river by the mafia types he appears to have hired to off Gus Boulis (a business partner of Jack's who Jack was apparently trying to cheat). Meanwhile, Jack is deeply entangled in every controversy in the Republican party and could be turned himself. Does this mean the mafiosos better make public confessions soon (including clear and convincing stories of Jack's involvement) or face the likelihood that the Men in Black will off them?

Could Tom Clancy and John Le Carre together (John, sorry to hook you up with literary trash) come up with a more far-fetched, convoluted, intertwined story line?

So, where the press? Mostly feigning balance as they provide cover for the criminals. How soon will the general population catch up with what's going on? Decades? Is it any wonder that the republicans are brazen.

There was an interesting piece on NPR today about an Indiana town that had lost some boys in Iraq. It did much to confirm my opinion that Hoosiers generally are nice, but not very smart. And that the smart ones, tend to be operators - pushing the bounds of law and morals.

In it the towns-people noted how they had a tradition of supporting our and their soldiers. Many of them have families with multiple generations of soldiers. But, what was most striking is that they cannot separate support for the troops from support of shrub government. They noted how soldiers were sent into battle ill-prepared and under armored. That didn't dissuade them. They ignored that we had no reason to attack Iraq. They ignored that the presidential amnesia for his rational for attaching Iraq. And, they made clear the need to stick the battle out until we accomplish our objectives (whatever they may be) even if that means increasing the level of our commitment and armed forces in the war. Are these folks smoking crack or what?

Are their lives so narrow, boring and pinched that they need the Iraqi conflict to convince themselves that they are a good and noble people? What is it that causes them to ignore all the facts? They have access to too much information, despite our ineffectual press. A bi-partisan committee of congress has noted that there wasn't a connection between Iraq and either WMD or global terrorism (surprise - why do you think that the first Bush didn't take Saddam down). The president has acknowledged as much. The parallels to the Vietnam quagmire are too clear - there is no plausible way to think that there is anything we can win over there - not even oil. So, what drives these folks?

It can only be that people need reasons to think of themselves as good and worthy. And, the reactionary right establishment has put together the two trump cards for this: religious and patriotic superiority. The battle, my friends, is about self-righteousness.

Too many people in our society are exposed to rampant consumerism - but not allowed to play that game. Exposed is not the right word - no the word is brainwashed. It is not fundamental human nature to want a Porsche, even if we often want what another has. Our media and advertising has painted a glamorous world that generally isn't real even for the wealthy of the world. If you doubt that, think about Paris Hilton. She may be laughing all the way to the bank, and doing whatever she wants. But, she has to be really fucked up, and can't possibly be a healthy happy human being in her core.

Meanwhile, most people (especially Hoosiers and other agricultural belt people) are as far from this fantasy world as anyone. Heck, even in the ghetto people see excitement. Out in the country, most people are afraid to do or say anything out of step with the norms because it will be talked about. Out in the country, most people have a low standard of living - if you're doing well, you have a boat or a motorcycle but you still have a cheap house, cheap clothing, cheap cars and so forth. There isn't much to do. Mind you, 4th of July parades are great. Going to church and Sunday school are fine. Stopping on Friday nite at the tavern for a beer or two is an opportunity for social exchange. But, none the excitement associated with consumerism thoughout our media is available in the country.

Is it any wonder that many country youth ape ghetto styles of dress? Is it any wonder that a lot of young women in the country dress in a fashion I would not allow my daughter to copy? Folks are bored, constrained, and evidently (according to the TV, movies, and magazines) missing out on the glamour of life.

How do you deal with that? How do you avoid depression? Read People and talk about the latest Hollywood scandal with authority. Position your conformity and duty and dedication as something that places you above those city/union/minority folks who don't support the troops by sending them to battle. Join a church that promises health and wealth, supports immoral activities as long as they tithe, interferes with national politics for the financial well being of its spiritual leader, and attempts to defeat science to provide an epic battle that will brainwash the flock into blind adherence to its leader. Its a sick sick spiral down to hell.

So, how do we break these folks out of this death roll? It won't be by logic - passion over-rules that. It won't be by facts - they've already learned how to refute them. It will only come by offering a better form of salvation. What could be this mass salvation? Its hard to tell. What chink hasn't been covered already with the clever machinations of the right? How do we free the wingnuts from this purgatory?

Let me know if you have an insight.

Nuanced Flip-Flopper

2005-09-27T22:18:00.000-05:00

Took a peek at the headlines this morning in the Chicago Tribune. It said that the president has announced that we have to conserve gas. It seems like just a short time ago that he said that we needed an energy policy that: "....promoted consumption..."

I didn't much agree with promoting the consumption of fuel. It seems supremely stupid to burn up, quickly as possible, finite and irreplaceable resource.

But, that was his position and now he's gone and changed the darn thing. That's a flip flop. A big one.

You know, I've been listening to the so-called conservatives (who don't seem to want to conserve anything) and the fundamentalists, and I've learned some things. You know, they're right. You can't trust a leader who keeps changing his mind: be it on energy policy, the cause for war, or his belief or lack thereof in "....nation-building..."

There's just no getting around the fact that he's nothing but a squirmy lying little rat - and that's not the stature that we need in our elected officials. The conservatives are right, he's unqualified to hold office. The job is too big for him and he's too small for the job.

Now, there are some softies on the right. They're out there right now making their excuses for him. Let's see, what could they be? How about this, the president doesn't control the weather, and this is just a reaction to an act of nature. When things settle down again, he'll go back to being in favor of squandering precious resources. That's believable, don't you think?

The problem is, these folks (and the president) are squirming in nuance. Just because of a storm? You see, I've also learned from the right that any leader who practices nuance isn't to be trusted. Nuance may be the traditional means of resolving tough issues. It may be the means by which corporate affairs as well as the affairs of nations (apart from God's country) are handled and resolved. But, no God-fearing American should prostrate him or herself to nuance. We are the best. We are right (even when we don't agree among ourselves). There is no reason for us to settle for nuance, and we damn well ought not to settle for a leader who practices nuance (especially one too dumb to spell nuance).

So, here's my question: Why the hell (or would you prefer that I say "h", "e", "double hockey sticks"), can't these folks figure out how to handle the aftermath of a little storm? After all, we have the free-market, the bold and brilliant leadership of the energy industry (not to mention Wall Street), and the best God-fearing government in the world to handle this problem. No, a little abnormal weather shouldn't cause these folks to wilt.

What could be behind this flip flop by the chief flip flopper in charge? Maybe its polling data? Maybe the republicans smell a risk in staying the course? Maybe they don't think that they can maintain the metaphoric sandbags on all of their boondoggles and F***ups? Now, that seems likely to me. See, the best way to figure out what how a republican leader operates is to look at the accusations that they hurl at their opponents.

They accuse the Democrats of lying when the republicans liar. They accuse the Democrats of cheating to hide the republicans cheating. They accuse the Democrats of inappropriate and risky nation-building because the republicans want to gain office to engage in stupid imperialist ventures. And, they accuse Democrats of being too sensitive to the polls, because, when they can't lie there way out of trouble, the republicans closely analyze the poll data to effectively chose there battles - where should they flip-flop versus holding tight.

If you're silly enough to disagree with the above, I won't bother educating you with examples and facts - you won't listen. But, if you're open to the possibility, then look at the list of published examples and proofs ranging from the Presidential Election to nonsense that is the college republicans (which is the reform school of the republican party - the place where their juvenile delinquents go to perfect there illegal and immoral craft).

So the conservatives are right, shrub doesn't belong in office. Just don't hold your breath waiting for them to figure that out.

Our press today continues to service this country poorly. For the sake of a few more dollars, they have sold out our interests to the republican party. If we eventually break down into civil war between practical & rational thinkers, and everyone else - the guilt will lie at the feet of our press.

Lately, the press has been congratulating itself on having the balls to honestly raise issues coming out of hurricane Katrina. However, they never fully dropped their fawning attitude towards the president. They have forgotten to continue to watchdog the relief efforts as they turn into a giant republican porkbarrel, placed ahead of the interests of the American citizens. And they still aren't doing a good job of shining a light on the record of our president and his colleagues in the House and Senate as they continue to damage the economy, damage the environment, damage America's standing in the world, and as the republicans generally try to extinguish democracy as they turn us into a third-world country as quickly as possible.

Mind you, too many of the Democratic leadership are doing their job either. Why any Democrat would vote for Roberts is unclear. We can't stop him from gaining the necessary votes, but what are we doing approving this unqualified fascist?

It seems to be part of the the fear by many Democrats. The fear that the general population won't like them if they stray from the extremist republican platform. Well, this isn't a popularity contest (and if it were - the Dem's are losing it anyhow). This is about contesting ideas for the proper leadership of our country. republican-light just doesn't cut it in such a debate.

It is not radical to realize the limited natural resources of the world. It is not radical to realize the limited political and military resources of this country. Neither of these situations have improved since the first Gulf War. That war is where Bush the elder realized that he could put Pandora back into the box that is Iraq, but that he couldn't fix Iraq. So, he stopped short for replacing Saddam. shrub never learned this lesson, and has us bogged down in a quagmire which is financially, politically, and militarily unacceptable. Where is the outrage? Where is the countervailing voice? Where is the offer of an alternative? Just as it is not coming from the press, it is not coming from the Democratic Party. Sure, Dean, Kennedy, and others try to offer some of this, but they are constantly are being undercut by their own team. What is going on? When will this change? How long until the Democratic Party becomes obsolete? Or, has it already? And if it does or has, what replaces it? A totalitarian one-party system? A battle between two parties representing (respectively) the very conservative and the hyper conservative? These options don't seem appealing to me. Not because they represent view-points that I disagree with, but because they fundamentally undermine the sense of democracy upon which our country was founded, and because without that sense of democracy - that which is good and noble about this country cannot continue to endure.

This is a sad time for our country.

A Quick Rant II plus an argument

2005-09-19T21:51:00.000-05:00

Well, as you might imagine, the message in last piece did nothing to sway the "libertarian" with whom I was in dialog. It seems to me that choosing the solutions to the problems of society, any society, requires an understanding of politics, business, people, government, and philosophy. Some understanding of science and statistics wouldn't hurt either.

Now, I don't expect everyone to believe that. But, its hard to understand how many people believe that a broad understanding of society and the arts is unnecessary. I wonder if some of them don't feel without the gifts to attain that understanding, and so chose to make decisions ignorantly - and defend those decisions. But, I'm not sure because some of these folks seem reasonably intelligent even when they're naive.

I'm sure I was overly ambitious and way too impatient with my erstwhile correspondent. But, it was amazing how he responded. He allowed a couple of small points, ignored most of my arguments, and resorted to name calling. Oh, and he blamed the democrats for the Kelo vs. New London decision. We do share a distaste for that decision.

After that, I took a good long time responding. My response was fairly brief. But, I noted that Kelo vs New London was function of a court with only 2 justices appointed by democrats. And, that Rehnquist has a record of eroding personal rights and championing the interests of big business.

He maintained his position, noting that all the democrats voted for New London, but that Rehnquist and three other republicans voted for Kelo - hence it was the democrats fault. He didn't bother to notice that the majority of the majority (a favored republican ideal) voted for Kelo. So, does he get it?

I haven't bother to look up the language of the opinions to see what the turning points were in this case. And, it certainly wouldn't make any sense to discuss that level of detail when the argument presented is so moronic. Nor does it make sense to point out that Rehnquist has a record of changing his vote to the majority in order that he may write their opinion where he wants to ameliorate the impact of decisions that he doesn't like. So, why didn't he do this with Kelo vs. New London if he was so concerned.

No, nothing will get through this fellows thick skull. If any democrats voted for the decision, then its their fault, all their fault, and only their fault. Got it?

My correspondent also suggested that all government is corrupt and messes up everything it touches. Hence, we must not let it touch important things like healthcare.

This is an argument that is so simplistic as to be dangerous. And, it fits as part of the pattern of right wing smears and confusion. The republicans have long been smearing government, especially the federal government, portraying it as a bad thing: ineffective, inefficient, corrupt.

Mind you, it would be Pollyannish to think any government is perfect - because it is an institution of mankind and mankind is imperfect. By estension, this argument extends to businesses, non-profit organizations, churches, schools, and social clubs.

The republicans long-standing attack on the federal government has had several effects:

People start to believe these stories uncritically - and the stories are supported and embellished by people who need to blame something or someone.
With belief comes distrust. More malice is seen in the federal government and people become encouraged not to respect and support, but to teardown our government. This strikes me as both unpatriotic and unhealthy for all citizens.
As the republicans come into power, it puts them at risk. So far they've been allowed to talk the talk but take a different walk. That won't last. And then citizens are likely to say: see, we even put the republicans in power and we still can't get a good federal government. Little do they realize, that by putting the republicans into power, they short-circuited a good government - and created their own problem.
Related to this, as people come to distrust government, along with science, they are left with only voodoo - or religion. This isn't meant to pick on organized religion, but is a reflection that there isn't a very good track record behind religion in government. And, that the track-record has nothing to do with democracy. So, perhaps the good republicans have brought our society to the point where they are ready to renounce democracy. While people will say no, it appears that they only like democracy when it supports there views. And rather than have spirited intelligent debate, they look for ways to short circuit democracy to hold sway.

You wouldn't know from the republicans that Social Security and Medicare are highly regarded around the world as models for how to efficiently and effectively provide assistance. No, that wouldn't server there arguments or their interests.

There's an interesting article at: http://www.mediatransparency.com/story.php?storyID=83 about how two christian evangelists are trying to take over the state republican party in Ohio. They quote the Reverend Rod Parsley as saying: Americans must be "....Christocrats..... And that is not a democracy; that is a theocracy..... That means God is in control, and you are not." By the way, the reverand Rod is aligned with J. Kenneth Blackwell - yeah the guy who orchestrated the theft of the Ohio election.

Moving back to my correspondent, he isn't too worried about religion in government. His framing was that he's agnostic (which strikes me as a cowards position), but that he isn't disturbed by "...in God we trust..." Hence, if he has to chose between lower taxes and God in government, he'll take the latter. He couldn't even consider that now that the church is on the dole, taxes can only go up. Nor, can he consider that his agnosticism may be at risk of the godlings take over the government.

The level of self-denial and delusion is so strong amongst so many of these people as to be scary.

It seems to me, that to reach them we need something other than logic or facts. First this seems like a wrong approach - its manipulation and that should not be what democracy is about - its what the other guys do. But, how can we get them with the facts if they continually reject them? Somehow, we have to make (for want of a better term) the "liberal agenda" attractive to them. Part of that has to come from making liberals likeable. I'm not sure what that looks like. I'm not sure how we do this with creating in them another, different fear. So, perhaps we need to be patient and be available to tend to their wounds when the reality of their leadership comes crashing through their brains.

Any ideas?

A quick rant

2005-09-16T07:22:00.000-05:00

The following was an email. Background: a non-political list was becoming politicized with neo-con and libertarian trash talk. One member tried to engage me off-list to continue the argument (that we have the best health care system available). This was my (long) off the cuff response. I thought it merited sharing - but you can judge for yourself. To begin with, the individual claimed that I favored socialized medicine....hmmm. His other key argument seemed to be that government is corrupt, so should be allowed to do as little as possible.

Dear Xxxxxx,

Fair enough. I am in favor of socialized medicine - not the least afraid to say it or use that term.

Our society and government has become bigger and more complex than the founding fathers ever considered (at least from what I've read). Making any system (medical or otherwise) difficult.

To suggest that all government is corrupt is a bit broad from my perspective - and makes it hard to identify and correct the problems. I think the corruption in government varies, and that corruption is at least as controllable as the problems with our current system of medicine.

As background: I'm not an expert, but I try to keep up with the news, outside reading, and refer back to my studies (BA Political Philosophy, MBA Finance/Marketing).

I think our federal government has become significantly more corrupt since the republicans started to take over Washington. Boy, talk about running away from your beliefs, eh? BTW, either you get that statement or you don't. I no longer try to convert die-hard republicans.

Either one believes in the basic social compact theory of government or one doesn't. In the latter case, one can try to achieve a dictatorship or the like that drives ones own interests, or one needs to turn to anarchy (which I consider to be the libertarian model without cheating). Anarchy sometimes works - in small groups where resources are not in short supply. I think that it has yet to succeed in any sort of large group much less a nation. I don't believe in dictatorship - although some of the right wing-nuts seem to. Often in the guise of a Christian government. So, yes, I believe in the social compact theory of government.

That inherently supposes socialism. That is, the social compact requires us to consider the needs and interests of those around us. We have to balance our needs and wants against those of our peers, friends, colleagues, leaders, followers, enemies, and assorted low-lifes. BTW - what's so bad about that?

Fundamental to a social compact is a sense of justice. You know, things like where the constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. One aspect of justice is to recognize that no system of distributing wealth is perfect. That some people fall through the cracks, and usually it is through no fault of their own. Hence, we have a need to provide some baseline quality of life for these individuals.

Now some people (like the dittoheads) would say I'm soft on lazy folks who want to live off of my work. Well, that's an interesting concept. I venture to say, none of those people have ever spent time living the life of these so-called welfare-cheats. If they did, I think they'd see that the lifestyle provides plenty of incentives for change, but few avenues. I do think that its possible to get trapped mentally as much as socially into poverty - and that it is largely the responsibility of the individual to fight the mental trap. But, these folks aren't generally in the position to fight the social traps - and if we don't take care of that, and their basic quality of life - then these individuals have no benefit from the social contract. Just as companies and rich people fight contracts which they decide are not in their best interests, those individuals left out by society have found ways to fight back over the eons.

It is irrational to think that this sort of unhealthy conflict will change unless these individuals are co-opted into the system - that is brought into the benefits of the social contract. Many people prefer to hate, disdain, whatever these individuals. It doesn't solve the problem - but seems to make these individuals feel better about themselves. Oh well...it's hard to fix shallow minds.

The constitution, the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, etc. don't talk about capitalism or free markets. Funny that so many people today (often influenced by the neo-cons [which is short for Neanderthal con-artists]) seem to think that democracy, capitalism and free markets are inherently related. They're not, ever hear of the term: Social Democrat?

Very few people can speak with any accuracy about what a free-market is, either in a classical sense or as the term has come to be defined by economists. Too bad, 'cuz that means that they just don't know what they're talking about. Thinkabaudit. Free markets sound like a good idea. Air travel isn't a free market, but is one of the closer examples currently at hand. Guess what, airlines can't make money in anything like a free-market. Nor can anyone else. It is only by undermining a free-market that business succeeds.

I keep meaning to look up a piece by one of the marketing guru's (not Drucker, but I can't think of who right now - a sign of old age). Anyhow, it defines what marketing (and therefore fundamentally the strategy) of companies should be. Funny thing, its almost a point by point description of all that is considered predatory or unfair trade and/or monopoly behavior. In other words, the marketing gurus fundamentally teach that business should actively undermine free markets. So, it should be no surprise that its hard to find any free markets.

In a related item, economists have concluded that in a fair stock market, no one can beat the system (that is average over-all returns) over time. Any short term wins are random chance. We know that some people are able to regularly beat the system - although most of us can't. Yea for free markets!

Capitalism. Hmmm, what can we say. Largely defined by the Marxists (no i'm not one of them - they're crazy). Understood correctly, I think a capitalist is someone who succeeds in undermining free markets in order to accumulate more wealth/material/capital/power for themselves than their contribution to society might otherwise earn. Is that what we're all about? Not me or most people I know. Capitalism is not the same thing as commerce or commercialism. Both are driven by greed (which is fairly instinctual), but the capitalists get ahead by cheating the social compact and fair play.

Unfortunately, many in this country don’t understand that distinction and fall for simplistic arguments - that convince them to support capitalism. The business leaders of this country drive this thinking, even though they intend for capitalism to be just as defined by the Marxists. Hmmm.... almost enough to make me want literacy standards for voters.

Going back to the freedoms thing... What rights to do we have? The constitution doesn't protect our right to be tax free. Being tax free isn't necessarily a good thing. It is arguable that as a nation we would be stronger and our economy would be stronger if business wasn't taxed on income (maybe not for real estate either), and that the general public picked up the difference. Now, that won't happen because there are too many people making too much money off of the current tax system. And, they're in a position to protect their interests in the social compact. Eh?

We also aren't free to opt-out of social welfare programs such as: 1) police and fire protection; 2) protection by armed forces; 3) national forests; 4) other national resources like the capital; 5) EPA standards (although shrub has made these largely go away); 6) FDA standards (shrub's tried to prune these); 7) public roads, airports, sea ports, etc. Why is health care such a hot button? We don't see most people getting upset about this other SOCIALIST solutions.

Healthcare is funny. Its often one of the most emotional purchases we make, and often with little time for research and comparison shopping. As such, we are particularly vulnerable the anti-free market forces. I hear folks say that they know someone from Canada and that person says Canadians come here for medical care all the time. Can we parse this a little?

First, only wealthy Canadians could possibly afford to come here for health care - we're too expensive and they aren't on our insurance plans - so ya gotta be rich. By the way, if you've spent much time with the rich - most of them need (that's need not want - just ask them) more of everything.

Second, I live in Illinois. Many people from Illinois go to Minnesota (Mayo Clinic) or Ohio (Cleveland Clinic) or other places out of state for medical care. Does that mean our medical system in Illinois is deficient? NO!!!!

Most of the people who go out of state are in a position to pay for their own health care comfortably, and have good health insurance. They fall into two categories: 1) hypochondriacs, who just aren't ever satisfied with a diagnosis. They travel from famous clinic/doctor to famous clinic/doctor seeking someone who will invest in their hypochondria. 2) legitimately seriously ill people who either are looking for THE sub-specialty expert to ensure that they get the best possible care - or looking for an astute second opinion. These folks can afford the best, have a serious condition, and know how to get business taken care of. Bully for them. But, the bottom line is that the available healthcare facilities in Illinois are extremely good across the board. Thankfully, because most of us don't have the option to seek out out-of-state health care.

I married into a medical family (funny thing to do. i named our dog doc. guess what happens on at a familhy gathering when I say "here doc!"). My wife is a clinical psychologist. Her brother is an orthopedic surgeon. Her mother was a GP. Her father was pioneer in emergency room medicine. Both her Grandfathers were surgeons. Her cousin is a rheumatologist in Canada. Her Aunt just retired as a GP in Canada. Now these are all people serious about taking care of patients. Guess what, they all think the Canadian system is much superior to ours. Cheaper, more streamlined, and more willing to let the Doctor make the decisions as to what is the proper course of treatment. Think about that last idea - it's not one the "anti-socialists" want you to think about. When insurance pays for your medical care, you get a form of socialized medicine where greed is the driver of all decisions related to the quality of your care. Makes me shiver.

People want to blame Americans' eating and exercise habits for all the shortcomings of our healthcare system. Well, both are factors in our overall well being. But, Canadians (and arguably Australians) are much like us and report better health statistics for a lower cost. So.... the argument doesn't pass the smell test.

I have a friend, an investment banker, who is convinced that our health care system is the envy of the world. But, he doesn't get that opinion from foreigners. He points out that in England, the national health trust wouldn't give his wife the care she gets here for her MS. Its true. On the other hand, she gets her treatment from a doctor who works outside of conventional protocols. And, my friend has the position and insurance policy to make this work. Most Americans with health insurance couldn't get this protocol. Those without a policy can't get any protocol. I think the English system is more effective and more equitable - even if nimrods don't have the opportunity to opt out. Meanwhile, people in my friend's position are able to get supplementary healthcare both in and out of country. So - the rich don't get shafted - they just get to uphold the social compact with the rest of us. Now, call it socialized, call it bongo medicine, call it anything - but it sounds like an idea that merits serious consideration by every American.

Then there's the subject of intellectual property rights. That's a biggie, which I can't do justice to right here. 1) How much intellectual property, owned by the drug and related companies, was created by themselves with their own funding vs. how much comes directly from government research or their own research funded by the government? Check it out, you might be surprised at the answers. 2) If you think of an idea before I do, what about that sequence is other than luck? And, if its only luck, why should you get exclusive rights to the idea? 3) What particular societal benefit accrues to having a corporation have IP rights? And, how do IP rights actually play out in business (if you check you'll probably find it serves only to exclude new/small players - big players trade rights back and forth all the time - IMHO all of IP law [globally] needs to be seriously revisited starting with questions like: what do we want to accomplish?). Have you ever discussed with anyone knowledgeable how effectively rights are protected in the courts [even for big business]? I think you'd find that even for simpler technologies, it’s a total crapshoot. Things that don't deserve protection get it, and things that do deserve don't. I remember a business law professor talking about a patent having to do with a paper mill. A roller had a groove and was described as such in the patent. The competition simply claimed that they didn't use a groove, they used a slot (which had the same shape, location, dimensions) and they won. ERGH!!!

There is no system that can ensure that citizens get what they deserve, and deserve what they get. At least no one has come up with one yet. This probably is related to Arrow's Theorem (which I think is now proved so no longer a theorem). Basically it states that given three or more alternatives to rank, and three or more voters, no voting system can be devised that ensures that the collective preferred option is selected. If you've never heard of this before, stop and take a second to think about it - the idea should blow your mind. Start with the fact that there are generally a lot more than three issues in voters minds when they go to a poll - hence no voting system is guaranteed to reflect the collective voters wishes. Then, consider that we "vote with our $" every day, and again each decision involves more than three factors (like, which color do I like, which will get me in the least trouble with my wife, and what can I afford). As a society, we may be buying something other than what we want. The good thing is that most voting systems work most of the time. But, not always - and this is before we get to issues like: lying politicians, brain-dead or brain-washed voters, limited and skewed information in the marketplace of ideas.

Back to IP. Historically, there seems to be a big disconnect between those who innovate and those who profit from innovation. Now, there are all sorts of silly arguments that its not really innovation but risk taking that drives profits. And, that the innovator doesn’t encounter risk, but that the firm that owns the IP does. BS! Firms don't engage in risky behavior. Why? Cuz managers don't engage in risky behavior - it puts their bonus at risk.

In a slightly different vein: an attorney I know specializes in class-action lawsuits. This might upset me, but it does seem to be the only mechanism to get businesses to change shoddy behavior. Anyhow, he was explaining to me one time how this works. First, they look for a case where there's already been a criminal conviction. A criminal conviction has a much higher standard of evidence, and therefore all but assures them that they will prevail in the civil litigation. At the end of trial, there is a form of fact finding to determine how hard the case was to win. You see, they get paid contingently. So, if they only win half their cases, they only get paid half the time. The system is set up to apply a multiplier to their hourly fee (which is very similar to that of the corporate atty's on the other side of the aisle), based on the difficulty of winning the case, to ensure that at the end of the year they get paid as if they won all of their cases (in other words they didn't suffer from contingent pay). As I said at the beginning, these guys (with some notable exceptions) generally only take shoe-in cases. Yet, they often argue successfully to receive up to treble their hourly rate. No wonder legal fees take such a big dent out of settlements. What's this all about? Everyone tries to beat the system by getting paid for risk that doesn't exist.

OK, now some game theory. Why the social compact? Cuz we're all better off working together rather than each on his/her own. Individual homo sapiens aren't very successful in nature. However, we are all better off (at least to the degree that we're motivated by greed) if everyone else has to follow the rules of society - but we don't. Whether this means coming to a full stop at an intersection, or engaging in business by the rules, there is this fundamental conflict. We need everyone else to obey and believe that we obey, but we want to cheat. Guess who succeeds best at this play? How about the people with the top 1% of personal income? But, of course, they claim that capitalism or some magic hand ensures that they only got what they deserved for their contribution. In fact, they'll all argue that that they've been shafted.

Well, I got a right fine rant going here. :)

Xxxx, your points seem to be: 1) you don't trust government and that nothing can be done to improve it; 2) you don't like socialism (it's not clear why, or in what context [ie should we get rid of the army too?]; 3) You're in favor of intellectual property rights; 4) Innovations are a function of profits which are based on IP.

If you believe 1, then don't vote - it won't help.

You probably have a narrow definition of socialism [and capitalism] that warrants some more thought - especially in light of the relationship between democracy and the social compact.

3 apparently is based on 4, but doesn't demonstrate analysis of the truth value of 4. I would suggest that most innovation occurs because some people are naturally innovators - not because of greed or profits. If so, then the social value of IP rights sinks quickly.

I welcome challenges to the above. But, I just can't let you get away with suggesting that we have something good going on here with our health care delivery program.

A short slice of life

2005-09-12T21:25:00.000-05:00

Assume with me, if you will, that life is a fleeting part of the timeline of the cosmos. Moreover, that mankind fills only a short portion of the timeline of life, and that the life of any individual is almost imperceptible within that timeline. It's likely, then, that my life and anything I have to say is very small and perhaps meaningless in this context.

But, if you accept Freud's insight that "...Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny..." - them maybe that short life of an individual, any individual, can be a source of learning. We live in interesting times. Throughout most of my life, I have regarded this as a blessing. Of late, those issues and forces that make our times interesting, seem more of a curse to me. Moreover, many of these forces appear poised to come together in ways that will reinforce the scariest elements offered by each.

Science is under attack, as it has often been in the course of history. Any locus of political power can be undermined by true facts widely disseminated - and so various powerful, or would be powerful, individuals constantly "spin" the facts. As mankind's knowledge becomes greater, the wiggle room for the powerful shrinks - "...the truth shall set you free...." if it is commonly understood.

Science also carries an implicit burden. That is, science is of little use without its handmaiden: technology or the application of science. Technology is the use of knowledge to create or do what could not otherwise be: move produce, manufacture tools and machinery, create goods, blow-up enemies. But there is a subtler burden in the sense that science ultimately leads to the evolution of societies and their peoples, which over the course of many steps brings them to a point of dependency on technology.

There are infinitely more people on the face of the earth today than there were 2,000 years ago. I would be willing, however, to take a bet that there are fewer sailors today than 2,000 years ago, who are capable of navigating beyond the sight of land using only the sun and the stars. So, if we lose the navigation technologies of today, would we be able to replace them with methods sailors used 2,000 years ago? And if not, what would happen to us?

Science has taught us many things, some of which we have difficulty absorbing and using. A trivial example is the continuing argument about Evolution in the classroom. But another example, which may be more important because it is more subtle is this: science has proven intelligence in other forms of life apart from man. And at least some of this animal intelligence could be of use to us if better recognized - but that might force us to alter our relationships with nature. The idea of becoming one with nature may not really be a romantic concept - it may be the recognition of our own limitations and the benefit of leveraging all that is around us.

For example, think of herding animals, be they zebras, deer, or fish. Some herding behavior appears more instinctual or programmed, some seems more socially dependent, but in any case it serves many of the same purposes. In fact herds act much like the convoys of WWII and for many of the same reasons. But, did we figure out convoys from herding behavior, or did we have to reinvent the wheel for ourselves?

The United States was once capable of standing with some autonomy in the world. This is not to suggest that we have not been a trading nation from the beginning. Rather, there was a time when sufficient knowledge and natural resources combined in ways that we could have cut off ties from the rest of the world. Moreover, we had no natural enemies save those separated from us by oceans.

As isolationist as we have believed ourselves to be, we have always been an expansionist power. And, while we may not have believed that we were doing so, we have used our combination of knowledge, natural resources, and attendant wealth to further build our power and wealth by extracting resources and production from the rest of the world. We have refused to accept limits set by man or nature. But, as McGeorge Bundy once said: "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris"

In Northern Minnesota lies what remains of the Mesabi Range. The Mesabi Range is/was the chief deposit of iron ore in the United States. It largely was used up (at least the high quality deposits) during WWII. To say that the Mesabi Range is vast is to employ a term over-used by the press, politicians, and PR clowns. But, if one considers that much of the allied war effort for WWII was based on this deposit, and that it played a major role in the success of the US steel industry (for machinery, buildings, appliances, and transportation) in the many decades leading up to, and immediately after, that war, it should be clear to even a casual reader that "vast" is indeed the term to describe the Mesabi Range.

I owe my knowledge of the Mesabi Range to growing up in Minnesota during the '60s. That was an exciting time; one in which most of us felt more optimism. The town and the era of my origins represents an interesting core sample of sociological and anthropological strata related to the maturing of our country. Computers became real, jet and space flight were rapidly advancing. As a nation we felt our success, and along with that our responsibilities. My home town shared in all of that and more.

The changes in the Mesabi Range were just one deposit in the sediment of our society. Despite its size, the high quality ore eventually played out. Northern Minnesota was (and still is) a poor part of the country. Apart from mining, it is home to lumber & pulpwood operations and tourism. The later consists largely of fishing, taverns and snowmobiles - with at least two of the three being available in any month of the year. The closing of mines was a great hardship for the folks that lived up there. Farming wasn't especially viable, and the weather discouraged most sorts of industry from migrating "...up North..." unless absolutely necessary.

The good scientists at the University of Minnesota were tasked with finding a solution to this problem, knowing that there were widespread deposits of low quality ore. And the scientists responded with something called Taconite. This was all part of our education as good junior citizens of Minnesota, but to be honest, I never learned what the heck Taconite really was or how it was made (I think that it required lots of water and electricity). In essence low quality ore is refined into pellets that are somewhat purer than the ore from which they come. Further, these pellets can be easily used in place of high-grade ore for the manufacture of steel. For our purposes this explanation is sufficient.

As we noted, to survive WWII we developed the herd approach (aka convoys) to safeguard our shipments across the ocean. And both the ships, and the non-human cargo that they carried played a major role in depleting the Mesabi Range, and therefore the eventual development of Taconite.

It should be noted that the Taconite business seems to be largely gone - its no longer a cost-effective way to make steel. Now days we buy foreign steel or repurpose old steel. But for a while, science and technology offered the promise that Mesabi Range would keep functioning long after its good ore was gone.

The place I grew up was a suburb of the twin cities. It was a railroad town, but by the time I was born it had no passenger service and there were only a limited number of freight trains that went through. The "train station" was intact and seemed to be well maintained but it wasn't any longer staffed.

Our town went through its share of ups and downs, like many Midwest towns that rode on the larger trends of commerce, industry and the economy. Like the rest of the country, my town endured and grew through the Gilded Era, WWI, the roaring-twenties, the depression, WWII, my eventual birth, and so on.

Many years ago, a street car line ran from St. Paul to the far eastern end of the lake where there was an amusement park. Over time, first electric service and then gas came to the town. I can remember when the gas lines were laid in my neighborhood, but the street car and amusement park were gone before my time. Several boat yards succeeded along the lake front, and though the business was about to die, two of them still made wooden boats by hand when I was growing up. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to visit and tour both of them.

At its core, however, it combined tourism with being the commercial hub of an agricultural area that helped support the twin cities. Our town was unique in some interesting ways. It was located on a large and attractive lake - and early on developed a reputation as a place to "summer." The well-to-do came not only from the Twin-Cities, but also Milwaukee, Chicago, and other Midwestern cities, to enjoy life on the lake front.

Eventually, two areas predominated for these summer homes. There was a large island, one tip of which connected via short wooden bridge to the Western shore. My uncle had his first summer job there on an estate belonging to the Weyerhaeuser’s. His job was to dig up dandelions. He would start at one end of the lawn, and by the time he was done, it was time to start at the beginning again. Later, he moved up to caddying at the "Yacht Club" (where he recounts listening to the announcement of Lindy’s arrival in Paris over a loud speaker) located on the North shore of the lake - the other posh part of town.

The scale of these (as they were known) cottages was impressive. I remember one that had been offered for sale, it’s sign advertising 10 bedrooms and 7 bathes. On the island, the original cottages didn't have kitchens. This was not a sign of frugality. Instead, there was a communal kitchen where the staff would cook meals without heating up the owners' homes. Eventually, the central kitchen disappeared, and the cottages became year-around homes with all the amenities.

By the '60s, many of these homes (especially on the Northshore) were white elephants. People didn't want to pay for the heat and taxes - and consequently they were hard to sell. What had been mere summer cottages at one time became too extravagant for use as year-round homes.

Along with prohibition and the depression came the rise of criminal gangs. While they hadn’t been active in my town, it was a place where criminal leaders went to "chill" when the "heat" was on back in Chicago. They had their local spots including a nightclub on the Southwest corner of the lake.

My Grandfather (who was originally a harness-maker) ran a shoe repair shop. One day, a large limo pulled up in front and several people got out. I'm not sure exactly what he was thinking, but he felt it prudent to send my mother out the back door and on her way home. The visit turned out to be peaceful - one of the dancers at the club had broken the heel off or her shoe and needed repairs.

My town had a broad variety of religion, as long as it was Christian. We had Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Baptists. And in hindsight, by their churches, one could tell who had the money. We had a growing, but still close community. Our version of a minority was someone of French-Canadian ancestry. Given that we had neighboring towns named Little Canada, and Vadnais Heights, the French-Canadian presence was strong.

I had one friend in my first years of school who was French-Canadian: Gordon LaBell. He wasn't much different from the rest of us, although he probably had more "woods sense". My mother seemed to think that he was OK, but I had the impression that she didn't approve of how the women in his family had pierced ears, and that this extended down to little girls. It had to be a moment of emancipation when my mother finally had her own ears pierced.

In my youth, the South side of town was beginning to be developed into suburbs, with neat grids of streets and rows of ranch and split-level homes. The area always felt a bit off to me. Today I realize that this was because it didn't have any trees. It was a source of growth, however, and by the time I reached High School our town's population was over 25,000.

Life was simpler than, as in much of the country. The Junior (ex-Senior) High was located on what had once been the grounds for the County Fair. One of the Fair Buildings remained: the Hippodrome. This was a large drafty building in which the floor was flooded with water for skating during the winter. It was better than skating outside on a dark cold night - but still plenty chilly. On the far side of the building were some sheets for curling, in the center was ice for hockey or free-skating. At one end was a simple room with benches and heat. As I recall, Friday and Saturday nights were popular for the Junior and Senior HS crowd.

Through all of these snippets, we’ve seen examples of technology, and its delivery, changing the course of life and society. My grandfather changed from harness maker (a high-status, high-economic-value profession) to shoe repair man (low-status and low-economic-value profession) because the gasoline engine came of age and replaced horses. The railroads helped develop my town, and then died away. The world became smaller when Lindberg crossed the Atlantic. And, technology was used to overcome the depletion of high-quality iron ore, for a time.

Today, the town where I was born cannot function without natural gas pipelines, electrical lines, automobiles and trucks. It doesn’t need horses, the farming is gone, and the train line is unimportant to the town. While there is some local manufacturing, even with the surrounding area, this town doesn’t come close to being able to be self-sufficient for its residents. It is a the end result of scaling and the global economy.

But, today, large and grand homes are no longer white elephants. Buyers in prosperous parts of the country seem to be competing for who can acquire the biggest, fanciest home. Modern residential architecture has evolved to Gablitis – which is the unnatural development of excessive gables on a home. Homes sometimes have gables stacked 3 and 4 deep on the front of a home and as many across – in a vain attempt to be distinctive.

Growing up, my parents never had air-conditioning, color-television, or cars with electric windows until they were in their 50s (about 25 years ago). This was true despite their being relatively prosperous and not ascetic or parsimonious. Today, the percentage of new cars sold without electric windows or the percentage of new homes sold without air conditioning must surely be in single digits. Some of this change is due to improved efficiencies in industrial and manufacturing processes. Some of this change is due to better leveraging the global economy (that is, paying someone in China or Malaysia starvation wages to produce our goods). Some of it comes the growing set of expectations that emerges from each new generation in our society. But these changes take our people, our communities, and our country further and further away from the possibility of being self-sufficient.

There was a time when we considered self-sufficiency a key strategy for the security and protection of our nation. A combination of poor quality in the auto industry and enticingly priced import goods have caused us to forget this strategy. Who would settle for a black & white TV made in the states when they could have a color model from China for the same price or less? But then, who wants to be dominated by China, either?

A sad day with a lesson

2005-08-31T14:40:00.000-05:00

Many of you having been watching the news about New Orleans and the latest tropical storm disaster to devastate our Southern Crescent. If it makes you sad, however, you're not learning your lesson.

God is speaking to you, and me, and all of us. God is angry with us. God is tired of having his name taken in vain. And so he is punishing us at the core of where all that is unholy has its roots in this country.

Oh yes! He has looked to see where his name has been employed in vain to justify the killings in Iraq. He has looked to see where his name is used to justify prejudice and maintain segregation. He has looked to see where his name is used by false idols to steal in his name and make themselves rich. He has looked to see where these false idols have prayed to have more stolen from the needy to give to the rich. He has looked to see from where has come the absolute corruption that is Washington politics.

God gave us this great land and allowed us to become a great nation. A large measure of what made us great was our efforts, no matter how inadequate, to act has He would. We pioneered the rights of individuals. We lead the way in providing a path for all people to be successful and to rise up to what there talents and perspiration could produce. We drove public education, suffrage, and concern about the common welfare. These are all things that Jesus did. These are all noble tasks. And for all our faults, God has been merciful and good to us because we tried to find a better way to live together as people.

Do you think that heaven has an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class? Of course not. So these false prophets who worship the so-called free market system, these false prophets who worship material success, these false prophets who worship power, and these false prophets who tell you that God can be found through marketing - they are all wrong! Dead wrong.

It was said, leave unto Caesar what is Caeser's and unto God what is God's. Do you understand that? Do you? Some people think that this is a discussion of taxes versus spirituality. Do you think God wants to tax you? Rubbish!!!!! Do you think that God wants to run your Government? If he wanted these things, he would have them. God is all knowing and all powerful. All of us together couldn't stop him, couldn't begin to delay him, if he decided to tax us or to run our government.

No, God was speaking of something else. God was saying that as people, he expects us to find ways, good ways, appropriate ways, to get along and lead Godly lives. This is the problem of mankind. This is the problem of our governments. And, this is the problem of our leaders. God was telling us to have good government, to support good government - and by the way, government isn't about spirituality. But what do we have today?

Today we have country that is squandering its natural resources. Do you think God wants us to do this? Do you think he'll replace them just because we wasted them? What thoughts does God have when we steal, manipulate, or go to war to replace these resources? It can't be pretty thoughts, can it? Oh course not!!!!

Today we have a country that is rolling back civil rights without ever having fully achieved them. We are finding alternative ways to make it "OK" to limit the rights of others. Fancy language and power politics have seen to it that these changes are taking place today, with the help and support of some of our most powerful religious leaders. What must God think, when a people, on whom He has lavished His gifts, now acts in this way? Does He think these people are Godly? Does He think these people are God-fearing? He can't possibly.

What must God think when the leaders of these so-called "Christian Ministries" focus on gaining power and money? What does He think when these leaders insist on influencing politics? Is this rendering on to Caesar? I think not. Why is it that these so-called "religious" leaders need to be in the limelight? Why do they need to get rich? Why do they need to build bigger churches? Why do they need to be involved in politics? Why do they align with and support the rich and powerful elite in this country against the needs and interests of their own congregations? Can it be that they've lost the humility it takes to truly love others? Can it be that they have turned away from the teachings of Jesus Christ, our savior, long ago? Can it be that they have become false prophets, bearing witness to something other than the almighty God? To Satan? Of course!!!! And, those that follow these false prophets find themselves worshipping Satan as well.

God is worried. God wants to save us, but He can't if we worship Satan. And so, God is trying to get our attention. All of those fundamentalists that hate gays, who claim that AIDS is God's punishment of gays, are wrong. AIDS is a test for all of us. AIDS is a test to see if we can behave Godly. We're not doing well on the test, by the way.

But, the Hurricanes that have devastated Florida, Louisiana, and other parts of the Gulf and Southern Atlantic coasts are not a mere test. Where do these "fundamentalist Christians" come from? What is the source of their ideologies of hate? Why, they come from the good old "solid south". The home to racism, segregation, gay baiting, congressional pork, self-righteous religious expression, corporate malfeasance, religious interference with government, and the tele-evangelist. All of these false idols are to be found in the solid south. The fundamentalist christen leadership, their universities, their PR machines, their ties to government and business, it all starts in Dixie.

This lawless, soulless, irreverent part of the country is the home to the evils that manifest our society today. A peaceful women wages a Godly protest against the war in Texas. And, some agitator inspired by these satanic leaders drags a chain over American flags and crosses bearing the names of the soldiers whose lives have been lost in this Godless war. In one move, he has desecrated not only those soldiers, not only the country for which those flags stood, but, he has desecrated the name of God. And, God will have his vengeance.

No I can hear some of you thinking: Shouldn't God strike down George Bush, not some weak-brained good old boy? Well of course He will. George Bush will not be able to enter the gates of heaven. George Bush is an unrepentant sinner who takes the name of our Lord in vain! George will have his reckoning. But, God knows with whom to settle up with on this earth, and for whom he should wait until judgment day.

Those who have made a pact the devil can't be dealt with here on earth - and they will perish in hell. But, for the rest of, God wants to help. He wants us to see the error of our ways before it is too late. For the rest of us, He needs to send warnings. For the rest of us, He needs to mete out punishments. And it is our job to learn from this. God won't learn for us. This is the one expectation that He has of us - that we chose to be Godly by ourselves. He will give us the opportunity. He will give us the warnings. But, we must make the decisions.

The time is now to turn away from the false prophets. God has warned us. God is warning us. And, God will wait for our decisions. But, at some point, He cannot wait anymore. At some point He will make His decisions. And, at this point it will be too late for us.

So, I ask of you, in the name of all that is Holy, turn away from your unholy ways. Cast off your serfdom to the false prophets! Cast off you allegiance to the politics of hate and destruction! Cast off your love of war! Cast off your disregard for this earth that God gave us. And, instead, learn humility and begin to learn how to make yourself more Godly, every day, in everything that you do. Before it's too late

Amen

Can I be funny?

2005-08-20T21:14:00.000-05:00

Well...... that last post ran on a bit eh? I wonder could I be funny? Could I make my points in a clever and quick way? Hmmm......how might that look?

I got an email the other day from one Connie Morris. You probably know the type: sincere, involved, middle-aged, religious right leader. Yeah, she even wrote a book about how Christ helped her recover from incest and rape while growing up in Appalachia. Now I always took those stories about hillbilly incest as elitist left-wing thinking, but apparently its true and Connie recovered from this through Christ.

Anyway, our communication was regarding the debate on Evolutionary Theory for Kansass schools. Can you guess which side Connie is on? Yeah, she's against Evolutionary Theory. She says the Board isn't trying to implement religious training in the public schools. But then, I think I saw her with one of those funny cigarettes just before she said that. You know, the kind you don't want the cops to see. So, I'm not sure she was on her best form at that time.

If you think I'm being mean, consider this: as a Christian woman, would she lie to us if she had the benefit of all of her faculties? So, somethings gotta be coming between her and her senses. Maybe it's the lesbian love affairs I've been hearing about. Of course, some people say that Rush Limbaugh isn't really a druggy. The reason he purchased all those pills was to share them with other right wingnuts that can't handle the pain of being cooped up in this country with normal people.

Mrs. Morris goes on to say she wants to "... simply encourage criticisms of Evolution-as the evidence abounds." Well do tell. She is a sharp number when she sobers up. I've never been taught about any of this evidence. Heck, coming from a member of a State School Board, this is something to check out. Who knows what wacko conspiracy has been suppressing the facts.

One wacko conspiracy agrees with Intelligent Design (ostensibly Mrs. Morris' basis for criticizing Evolutionary Theory), but finds it incomplete. They find that Intelligent Design has gaps as big as those in Evolution. For example, how do we reconcile what we know by faith and what we know by experience? Good question. They answer this question in their religion, through revelations regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pirates. On yeah, its true. Check them out over at: www.verganza.org. They have a long list of name academics and scientists that support their theories - its worth checking out.

But, I suspect that Mrs Morris doesn't agree with much of what these nutballs are saying. No, she's staying with respectable proponents of Intelligent Design. So,I did some research. it seems that many of us on both sides of the issue don't really understand the academic or scientific arguments behind it. In fact, I'd venture to say that most Americans don't have the credentials in mathematics, nor the development of their logical skills to understand the theory of Intelligent Design. And when the proponents try to explain it, they water things down so far that they are pandering to the fundamentalists who are predisposed to disagree with the evil Theory of Evolution.

So, an interesting question is: Does Mrs. Morris belong to those who don't understand the Theory of Intelligent Design, or the one's that do? In the first case she's just a quack and an idiot. I don't say this to be rude, but pushing science, if you don't understand, it is idiotic. Anyone who disagrees better have a good argument on their side!

Let's suppose that she really does understand Intelligent Design. If she does, she must be well educated and well informed. So well informed that she would know that the few (two) capable proponents of Intelligent Design: a) Don't agree with each other on key points; b) Don't agree with themselves over time; c) Continue to find their arguments countermanded by better stronger arguments against intelligent Design, and as a consequence are constantly having to retrench. And knowing this, a reasonable person would have to concede that for the time being, the arguments for Evolution are much stronger than the arguments against it, and that Intelligent Design hasn't developed sufficiently to be called a scientific theory.

So, we know Connie as a Hillbilly from a bad family who has embraced a fundamentalist Christian faith, who is attacking Evolution from her role on the Kansass State School Board, either as a liar or a idiot and a quack.

How do such people get into positions of authority?

Do you think the above is any better? It certainly more biting. Maybe not funny. Hopefully a little shorter. Well, maybe practice will make me better.

Naive and dull

2005-08-20T19:52:00.000-05:00

It's been a long time since the last post. This time has been useful for me to reflect and learn. Among my conclusions are two that stand out: 1) I've been naive about the motivation and coordination of the right wing-nuts; 2) My wordy pieces may satisfy my own interest in pointing to the logical fallacies that we are dealing with, but are not intrinsically fascinating reading. You may say "Duh", so be it.

One area that I've studied a little more closely of late is the concept of (sub)Intelligent Design and the debates in Kansass. And in reviewing who's doing what to whom, it becomes clear that the (sub)ID campaign is coordinated, knowingly duplicitous, and focused on making it difficult for any reasonable knowledge to enter popular culture.

You don't have to take this on my word, and I'm not going to try to prove my conclusions here. But, one little example is illustrative of the thinking that is going on.

If you aren't aware of the variant of (sub)Intelligent Design which is based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you need to do a google search on "Flying Spaghetti Monster." Better yet, go right to the source: www.venganza.org. It should leave you in stitches, and expose the sophomoric level of argument used to promote (sub)Intelligent Design.

But, this got me to thinking. venganza.org has a link to the website of the Kansas State School Board (or some such name) where they give bio and contact information for the Board members. At present, there is a minority of intelligent members who are trying to limit the damage (not just to students education but to image of Kansass around the world), but they don't have the votes to generally prevail.

So, I sent some emails to the Board just to smoke out the issues. One member, Connie Morris, chose to respond in a most interesting manner (although I suspect that hers was an automated response). Here's the lowdown on Connie (who I guessed was a wingnut just from her picture) off the official Board website:

"Connie has served on numerous school committees and was a member of the Kansas Behavioral Science Regulatory Board appointed by Governor Graves. Her autobiography, From the Darkness: One Woman's Rise to Nobility, has been published by Huntington House Publishers. The book is Connie's story of recovery through Christ from incest, rape, domestic violence, substance abuse, and poverty during her early years in the Appalachian Mountains region."

Don't get me wrong, it looks like she has a fascinating life story. And, no matter how one gets past the childhood described here, one has to respect her getting past it. I'm not picking on Connie personally, it just that she provides us with an example of the lying ways of the so-called Christian wingnuts. So, let's get right to it. Connie responded to me by email. I will include the entire message so don't claim that she's been taken out of context.

"Thank you for emailing! Please know that I make a sincere effort to read every correspondence that comes my way, however it has become impossible to personally respond to every contact. I deeply appreciate your support and the valuable information that you may provide. Input from each and every individual is important. PS(sic): The KSBE is NOT seeking to implement Religion in public schools. My hope is to simply encourage criticisms of Evolution-as the evidence to do so abounds. Be well! -Connie Morris "

What is critical here is the post script: "PS(sic): The KSBE is NOT seeking to implement Religion in public schools. My hope is to simply encourage criticisms of Evolution-as the evidence to do so abounds." It doesn't take much to break this down into a series of lies, so let's do it!

First of all, it may be fair to say the the KSBE is not seeking to implement religion in public schools because 40% of the board is working hard to prevent that from happening. However, we shall see that the other 60% is trying hard to implement religion in public schools and this is the group to which Connie belongs. So, her statement is disingenuous, knowingly-misleading, and can only be intended to deceive rational people into complacency. A quick search on "lie" at dictionary.com comes up with: "To convery a false image or impression:Appearances often lie."

Now, someone might suggest that we take Connie at her word, so lets examine that. She is part of an organized movement that is seeking to undermine the teaching of evolution in schools. This movement, is populated and lead by fundamentalists. And, there is a non-scientific reason why they are so irked with the Theory of Evolution, meanwhile they have no concern about the correctness of other theories taught in our school systems. That is, they are concerned that the Theory of Evolution (and its random nature of the development of Universe and all within it) causes them to fear that faith might not stand up to this theory.

Before anyone takes exception to that statement, consider the following: 1) They are not asking for a general upgrade to the process of vetting scientific theory prior to its being presented in class rooms. Rather, this one theory, which has caused them consternation from its inception, is the sole focus of their charge. 2) They claim that the leaders and supporters of evolutionary theory have put it forth to sway people away from faith and to a secular gestalt. 3) They use silly logic and arguments, and in fact only a few of the proponents have advanced theories that have ever warranted consideration from serious thinkers in the fields of science, mathematics, and philosophy. Not only have those few serious proponents been repeated forced to retreat from their positions, their arguments are beyond the education and logic of virtually all of those advancing the (sub)Intelligent Design discussion.

To summarize, the adherents of (sub)Intelligent Design only have problems with a selected subset of science, which subset that consider dangerous to their beliefs. They attack the motivations of the leaders of this branch of science, and are unable to put forward valid arguments for why the Theory of Evolution should be criticized. So, the best we can say about these individuals (including Connie) is that they might be dupes of the band-wagon effect. In other words, their leaders argue that Evolution is wrong, and though the followers don't understand the logic they still vocally support the positions of their fellows. To which I say Corncobs!

Connie knows full well that she and the majority of the Board are trying to railroad evolutionary theory as a way to support their religion. As such, they very much are trying to teach religion in school. This makes her (as Al Franken would say) a Lying Liar!!!!

Ok, so in politics everyone isn't honest. But, when one is promoting God and religion there ought to be a little higher standard. President Clinton said he didn't have sex with ML, and by some definition he did not. Connie Morris says the school board is not seeking to teach religion in school. And, by some construction of those words, it is not. But, President Clinton did lie and Connie Morris is lying. In the case of President Clinton it was to protect himself and his family from a right wingnut witchhunt, and really had no bearing on the general public or the policies of this country. Connie Morris lies and it is to try to circumvent open scrutiny of what she and her fundamentalist colleagues are trying to do on the Kansass School Board. This has a grave bearing on the general public and of the policies of the State of Kansass.

Where are the indignation at how our democratic process of governance is being undermined by these Lying Liars? Where is Pat Robertson? Where is President (sic) Bush? Right in bed with the Lying Liars. hmmmm......

Maybe it's time to tell everyone about Connie's lesbian affairs. :)

Capitalist Rap

2005-05-30T13:10:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I was out having fun with some capitalists that I know. As things went on, it became clear that they and I had some different perspectives on a number of matters. Klaus and I ended up having a very lengthily conversation which ended with neither of us changing our point of view. But, I thought some of the ideas bantered about would be interesting material for you, the reader.

Klaus, mind you, is someone I like and respect. I probably thinks I'm naive and I think his realism is based on the delusion that his success is self-made. Who knows who is right.

We began with the topic of health-care. My POV is that our health-care system is corrupt in many ways and that the pharmaceuticals industry, in particular, serves us poorly. Klaus felt that pharma industry was a bad place to invest, but that it did a great job of investing and taking risks in trying fight disease.

At this point, there were several other participants in the conversation, all of whom felt I was ill-informed. Especially when I pointed out that drug costs were out of control in this country and many of us find it necessary to purchase out of country to afford the drugs we need. Their POV is that in order to gain incremental sales, pharmas price their drugs too low outside of the US. That they recapture costs including R&D in the US, then capture only production, marketing, and distribution costs over seas.

This seems like a great repositioning of the facts. Rather than US prices being too high, foreign prices are too low. And, it appears that the US pharma's will begin to raise overseas pricing to maintain US pricing. Interestingly enough, they don't propose and arbitrage where US pricing also goes down somewhat.

So I pulled out the laser cannon on consumers. How come the US pays significantly more per capita for health-care than other nations but doesn't come close to leading the world in health? It was interesting to watch responses here. First, came Jimmy who tried pseudo-science. He pointed to the diet of American's, the ethnic diversity of American's, their travel around the world, and so forth, and posited that these provide risk factors that don't exist in other countries.

What Jimmy left out is that for many years we did lead the world in health, and the factors he pointed to were symptomatic of our population at that time. A much simpler explanation is that our health-care industry has replaced health with profitability as it's primary goal. We know that this has happened. We know that executives in the health-care industry are making money hand over fist and we know that the quality of health in this country has turned downward. It's hard to ignore capitalism as the primary driver in marginalizing our health-care.

So Klaus and I continued from this conversational base. He shifted the discussion to peoples behavior in response to different health-care systems. Klaus noted that Canadians come to the US for health-care treatment. His implication was that they can't get good treatment in Canada. He continued this theme pulling examples from several other countries.

Now, it must be acknowledge that some small percentage of patients cross borders in search of treatment. That flow isn't always directed to received treatment in the US. And where it is, it isn't directed to the general US health-care system. Finally, it is done in the context of self-funded access to health-care.

Within the US, patients seek treatment from: a) distant care-givers; b) care-givers outside of their payor's designated care-givers. No one uses these facts to establish that parts of the US health-care system are no good, so how can any use similar facts to argue that the Canadian health-care system is no good. Some folks go to the Mayo or Cleveland clinics, but most would never consider doing so, either in Canada or the US. Moreover, the patients seeking out the best treatment regardless of location of cost are the patients with the means to not care about the overall quality of their countries health-care system. When netted out, this argument in favor of the US health-care system is specious, if not jingoistic.

We also spoke further about the woe-is pharma industries problems of risk and profitability. I contended that it is the most profitable industry in the US, but was told I was emphatically wrong, that it was losing money hand over fist. So I inquired whether stock prices had gone to zero, knowing full well that they hadn't. Klaus acknowledged this is a left-handed manner, noting that they were currently down and still too high for the inherent value of their firms.

So I pointed out the standard free-market saw about the stock market representing all available knowledge. Which being the case, meant that the stocks must be more valuable than any current accounting based statement of profitability. Klaus had trouble accepting this point of view, noting that it takes time for the market to recognize changing value and apply it to stock prices. So, I asked him how long pharma pricing had been going down. Klaus' estimate was 5 years. Hmmm, I said, sounds to me like plenty of time to for the market to digest information and reflect pharma's negative value with a stock price of zero. This one left him a little flat-footed.

So then I went into how the pharma and larger health-care industries were not subject to market discipline (underlying thought of mine in response to free-marketeers: the free market doesn't really exist). I pointed out how typically, with medical insurance, comes a prescription drug card. This card essentially makes the price of all prescriptions equal. So, there is no need to consider efficiency, only efficacy. That pharmacies typically don't post pricing and are reluctant to release it except on one's bill. And that patients and doctors don't have access to good information on drug's cost effectiveness or even on the relative efficacy of different drugs.

Well, Klaus denies that doctor's have anything less than all the information they'd like. So, why is it that doctor's persist in prescribing drugs that are less effective and more expensive? It must be a problem with doctor's. As to pharma pricing, the issue is with "single payer systems", that is insurers. Well, I don't know who came up with the prescription drug card - it doesn't matter. This card isn't why there is no pricing discipline, it is an outcome of that fact. Insurers and pharma companies are the only place in the process where market forces can play out. The drug card provides a way for the insurance to push some costs onto the consumer and get some price relief from the pharmas. One of the interesting phenomena in all this, and one which comes up in the delivery of all types of health-care, is the need for insurers to see discounts. This is achieved by further raising retail list prices rather than reducing the price paid by insurers. Leaving the uninsured in a more vulnerable position than they already were and the pharmas with even fatter profits.

Capitalism is the conscious attempt to evade the price discipline associated with free markets. Free markets are the enemy of any large business, corporate leadership, and the leadership of the Republican party. That they embrace free-markets in words, is one more example of their euthenising language to advance their goal. And that goal is simple: to further concentrate profits and assets into the hands of a small elite at the expense of the lifestyle of everyone else.

More on this later.

Kansas is God's Monkey

2005-05-07T13:27:00.000-05:00

OK, here's the first edit. It still needs to be shorter, less redundant. Will get to it soon.

Have you may have noticed that the Scopes monkey trial is being revisited in Kansas? We can't expect too much from this trial, after all the witnesses for the creationists admit to not being fully familiar with Kansas educational policy on evolution, and members of the hearing board have deemed that appropriate and acceptable because they aren't familiar with the details of the policy either.

Now this is a great example of faith. The witnesses and the board have faith that they know what the policy says (or means to say), and that they are each sufficiently well positioned (by their faith) to pronounce judgment on educational policy. This despite their clear personal biases and the limitations of their knowledge, education, or understanding of scientific theory. Sounds a lot like a Russian show trial, only without the benefit of an outside party to raise hell over the stupidity of it all.

Mind you, I don't expect too much from the land of Toto. Kansas hasn't offered anything of substance to the rest of America. We get some corn and beef from them because Kansas has a lot of farmers. Farmers are, of course, arguably America's largest, and certainly richest, welfare class (lets get some welfare reform going for these guys). Kansas is home to that cloying card company with its schmaltzy products and made-up holidays - but on the whole, most of us would be just as happy if this company went away. And that's about it, so let's look at the other side of things. How many people want to vacation in Kansas? How vital is it to our nation's defense? How critical is Kansas to our economy? Heck, Kansas could sink 2000 feet below the surface of the earth and it would probably take us a week or two to even notice that it was missing. Taking in all that is Kansas, it may be sensible for them to put on Scopes II. After all, this is one sure way to generate excitement & fill up their hotels.

But this article isn't about bashing Kansas (that's just a bonus), rather it's an attempt to discuss the silliness of creationism and look at it's impact on American politics. Creationism....what does this mean. It is the belief that we should take literally the description in the Bible regarding the origins of the universe and all that is in it, particularly life forms.

What's wrong with this?

My first question to you is: Should the whole bible be taken literally? If you answer yes, then what should we do when the bible contradicts itself? You don't think it does? How about "...an eye for an eye..." versus "...turn the other cheek..." Look, it doesn't take a biblical scholar to find the examples of self-contradiction in the bible. It also doesn't take a biblical scholar to find examples of passages in the bible that no one takes literally. So, why must we take literally the description of the origins of life? What's so critical about this?

The answer, of course, is nothing. Whether the description is literal, poetic, or apochrophal doesn’t really matter. Why? Because the origin of the human species shouldn’t impact one’s faith. Is God all-powerful? If so, then he could use the “random chance” of evolution to create people. So from a biblical and faith perspective, there should be nothing scary or heretical about considering or believing in evolution.

Everyone likes to feel special and important. Like the right wing-nuts pushing Scopes II. They no doubt feel like they're doing important work – making sure the rest of us share their faith. Not with standing the fact that this effort of theirs appears to be unconstitutional (legislation of religion), and is anethetical to the basis of the founding of this country, they believe they are doing important work.

At the time that Darwin's theory of Evolution became known to the general public, people largely tended to believe that they were entirely unlike other animals. Many people have advocated ideas such as: animals don't feel pain; or, animals don't have feelings; or, animals are incapable of learning; or, animals are incapable of communicating; or, that animals can't process abstract thoughts. From this reference point, to hear that humans are closely related to and evolved from other animals was distasteful. God & bible didn't really need to be part of the discussion because the very ideas of Darwin were repugnant to many. Not that this would stop the faithful from joining in to condemn the ideas from a theological perspective.

Thou shalt not kill. It couldn't be simpler or more straight forward than that. If you're a biblical literalist, this should be your imperative. It is a commandment from God (unlike the stories of creation). Does capital punishment, a state sponsored activity, undermine the belief in God or the Bible? Maybe, but no one seems to be talking about that. Does the sanctioning of war undermine the belief in God or the Bible? I know plenty of folks who lost their faith in God in the process of serving active duty. But, the literalists don’t seem to be concerned about curtailing our armed forces. Heck, we send the Army off to Iraq for make-believe reasons, in defiance of promises to our people and our allies, and destroyed a country while killing off thousands of our best and brightest. But the literalists don’t complain that this behavior - which violates a commandment of God - interferes with faith or beliefs.

From here, it looks like the biblical literalists choose their battles rather subject themselves to limitations that a truly strict interpretation would offer. So why choose to fight evolution? Well, it already had a strike against it as an unattractive issue – the idea that man evolved from apes. This makes it an issue for dull minds. By this I mean, rigorous facts and thoughts aren't necessary to sway people's thinking about evolution. Common people aren't prepared to put up a good argument in favor of evolution. Rather, they will accept weak arguments and poor logic. Especially if situated amongst a bunch of bobble-heads. After all, no one wants to stand out from the crowd. Tell me that America isn't blessed by God and I may shoot you, but tell me that evolution is bad science and I'll probably say "...a yup."

Haven’t we gone through all of this before? Didn’t we, as a nation, largely get past this anti-evolution thinking? I believe so. But a confluence of forces has put the issue back on the table. Why is this? It’s not simply because simple minds are willing to accept creationism. For some, science serves to undermine, or has the potential to undermine, faith. Personally, I find the curious. This fear that facts will contridict God, and therefor undermine our belief in him, seems a sign of poor faith. Would a perfect God create a world where the facts contridict his teachings and put our faith in him at risk? Isn’t our faith already at sufficient risk because we are imperfect, or sinners?

We know that one's spiritual beliefs are largely dependent upon those of the society in which they grow up and live. With the shrinking of our world through technology (which is simply applied science), there has been more cultural evolution. Christianity in Korea? Islam in America? Judaism in modern Russia? Still, peoples’ spiritual beliefs still seem largely determined by their parents and their community. Who cares about this? I would suggest that faith in God can exist in many contexts apart from the literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. Certainly God could be tricking us all, expecting us to accept the teaching of a certain religion or denomination in order to be accepted by him - while at the same time placing many (most?) of us in positions where it was unlikely that we should accept those teachings. But I ask you, what kind of God would that be? Why would God want to set us up to fail? And, if he wouldn't want to do that, then why would so many people never be exposed to his teachings? It doesn't make the least bit of sense that God operates this way. Now, faith can trump sense (Scopes II). But sense must be counted among our God given gifts. As such, it should be employed by those who want to know Him. And, this sensibility says that a literal interpretation of the bible is hard to justify, and even more so when done selectively.

Leaders need to lead, and followers need to follow. Part of the strength of religious leaders is their abilities to get the laity to follow - voluntarily. People need to participate in the church for the church to have power (and look at how church leaders feel the need to insert themselves in politics if you doubt that church leadership is about power). People need to tithe the church for the church to have operating capital (the need to build cathedrals hasn't past - nor has the need for many church leaders to live wealthy lifestyles). Church is not a democracy, but can't operate as a military dictatorship (well not lately). In this way, a church is like a corporation. But, whereas a corporation motivates people with money, a sense of a common bond and a common purpose are critical to leading people to participate in a church. And that common purpose or bond requires us to distinguish those that are part of the church from those who are not.

The existential question leads many to faith. When we can't explain the difference between being and nothingness, we assume that there must be a higher power that has set the stage. I'm not arguing pro or con to the idea of a higher power here, just observing people. We must remember, however, that using a higher-power to solve the riddle of being, is a bit like trying to find the last image in a pair of mirrors facing each other. What created the being of God? And what created the being of that which created the being of God? And so forth, ad nuseum.

The cosmology of this eludes us, so we take the short cut of positing God as being all powerful and all knowing - sort of a logical shortcut out of the riddle. It has not always been so amongst the beliefs and understanding of God by man. In Moses and Monotheism, Freud provided insightful analysis to the transition of human beliefs from polytheism to monotheism, and makes interesting reading regardless of ones personal beliefs. Throughout history, to some small minded people, the advancement of knowledge through science has threatened faith. If we cut to the chase, there have likely been only two concerns:
1) Science might disprove certain representations of religious leaders, weaking their grip on power.
2) Science might solve the mysteries of the universe (and therefor existence) and thus short circuit the basis of faith.
However, whenever science promoted an idea inherently distasteful to common man, the leaders of faith have had a tool by which to defeat it. Whether the Earth circles the Sun, or vice versa, is not likely an important topic for common man. But, clearly common man can see the Sun rise above the horizon in the East and set below it in the West. If his own eyes tell him this much, science must be daft to say otherwise. Of course, the weakness in this is that common man can easily be educated to understand what science is saying, unless someone gets their first to pollute his mind. We have gotten past the issue of the earth revolving around the sun. And in so doing, faith itself has not been displaced. But, there was considerable turmoil getting mankind to this point, and many church leaders acted strongly to deny that the earth traveled around the sun. Now we see the story repeat itself with the issue of creationism.

In the 60's religion reached an ebb tide in America. We had the combination of rapidly growing knowledge and broad dissemination of knowledge via TV and radio. As a people, we had a growing belief in our ability to solve problems. At the same time, a number of cultural issues (corporate-relocation, alternative diversions, increasing sophistication of participants, etc.) weakened traditional churches. Church leadership needed help if it were to maintain is position and power within communities and the country as a whole. As noted elsewhere on the blog, no one anymore asks the question: "Is God dead?" What's changed? Several key factors seem to be involved, we have seen:
- Entreprenurial nature of fundementalism.
- The growth of fundamentalism.
- Increased uncertainty.
- Modified approaches to marketing religion.

I would argue that the second and third points are mutually self-supporting. When all is uncertain, we are ill at ease. When all is certain, we can relax. As we feel more uncertainty about the world around us, it is easier to be seduced with the absolute certainty espoused by a fundamentalist approach to religion (regardless of which religion is involved). During the 60's as our society became more technocratic, where was the uncertainty? We were learning the risks to the environment, and how to promote social policy to protect the environment. We were learning the limits of “What’s good for GM is good for America”, and how to recast our understanding of the role of business in culture. We were learning the difference between politicians' positions and the reality of policy on the ground whether with in the US, or overseas, and beginning to force policy into alignment with our principals and interests. We were not unified, as a nation, in any of these ventures. But we did have broad support in each of these areas.

As the federal government tried to impose anti-segregation policy, particularly in the south (to which Kansas may not be geographically connected, but to which it is spiritually connected), uncertainty rose in many peoples lives. Whites, who felt deeply that African-Americans were inferior and a risk to they and their families, found themselves being forced to integrate. One of the common outcomes was to form private Christian academies for their children's education. These academies were often associated with fundamentalist churches, and served as an effective means to limit educational integration. And as long as their basis was to educate children with Christian values, not to prevent integration, they were a safe haven. The south, which had long been the home to fundamentalism, had one more reason to embrace and support fundamentalist churches.

At the same time, in the North, the solution Whites took to integrated schools was known as White Flight. They moved en mass to the suburbs, leaving the poorer African-American families with their old neighborhoods and schools. Not only were churches not part of their solution, but ties to the old churches were lost and not always replaced by ties to new churches. While both the North and the South resisted integration, religion played different roles in the two areas resulting in stronger religious support in the South, particularly of the fundamentalist type.

So it should be not surprise that in an era of power based on uncertainty and faith, much of the power establishment has southern roots.

The typical fundamentalist preacher was and is no dummy. Theirs' is often an entrepreneurial lifestyle, where upon completing their education they must go out and drum up a congregation to earn their sustenance. That they may have been poorly educated, by most measures, was irrelevant. These individuals knew how to reach people, one on one and in a crowd. It didn't take much for them to identify the issues that their constituents were sensitive to, be it protests against the Vietnam war or the Federal Government's meddling in local affairs (especially racial affairs). They chose their issues well. They also learned the value of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), the old IBM sales mantra. And they constantly sought opportunities to challenge the prevailing wisdom, to increase uncertainty, and to make people more dependent on the church for reassurance.

One of the issues that they took up again was creationism. But, this was an uphill battle in the sense that the common wisdom had pretty much given way to the theory of evolution. As fundamentalists expanded their reach to better and better educated Americans, this became an increasingly tough pill to swallow.

Meanwhile, certain right wing political and business leaders were learning the value of dis-information. By paying friendly "experts" to offer opinions contrary to the accepted common body of knowledge, the opinion of the real experts was devalued. As time went on, these leaders found more and more creative ways (for example creating "independent" think-tanks with attractive and public-minded sounding names) to enhance the credibility of their "experts" leaving the public in a state of confusion. When nothing is clear, people rely on faith. Whether its faith in their God/religion or faith in their "team". Interestingly, there developed overlapping circles of entreprenurial faith leaders and entreprenurial business leaders that both depended on disinformation o grow their leadership status.

It’s amazing to talk with fans of Rush Limbaugh. The extent to which Rush’s stories are made up, the extent to which he lies, are unimaginable to his fans. Further, no matter how many facts are piled up, they tend to respond along the lines of: "Your guy says this, and my guy says that." The implication is that there's no way to reduce the conflicting viewpoints to simple truths. And when offered tools to resolve the facts, the ditto-heads end or redirect the conversation.

In government, especially foreign relations and espionage, there is the concept of the cover story and plausable deniability. In other words, coming up with a lie to obscure what is happening. The experts employed by the right wing-nuts provide plausability deniability to the leadership and pundits of the right. And the pundits provide plausible deniability to the average joe who doesn’t want to think to hard, and is (and wants to remain) comfortable with his/her prejudices (or should I say faith?).

Science is about finding and proving the truths. As such, it is limiting to those who would wield power - in government, business, and religion – by other means. In business, there are many leaders who direct a path which may not be supported by the facts. In my experience, they are much more apt to be upset and to resort to punishing those who point out the facts, than to adapt to the facts. The unwillingness to live with reality is not unique to politicians and religious leaders. But, more often it is the political and religious leaders who are effectively threatened by science, and who move first to undermine it. However, for topics such as industrial pollution, even business leaders are threatened. So, it should not be much of a surprise that today we see all three groups working to undermine science. And with this has come increased public uncertainty.

Basic business marketing skills also began to be conciously understood, and taught, during this era (say from the Korean war onward). How does one make a product desirable? What must it do to the purchasers self-image? How do we convey these messages to the purchaser. Fundamentalist leaders weren't ignoring these trends. Rather, they saw and adopted these tools. Traditional churches might shun marketing as an inappropriate path to spirituality, but for fundamentalists, the ends justified the means. Have a rock band on stage during worship service? Sure! Create interest groups (essentially clubs) to keep people connected with and in the church? Great! Create all sorts of collateral marketing materials including billboards, posters, handbills, books and stories? Why not! How about business networking? If the Rotary and Lions can do it, so can a church. Create bible study groups that bring congregates together and create a network of opportunities for their outside lives. All of this fits into the marketing message that being a Christian would make you a happier and better person. Moreover, there is the constant message that one is saved and therefore better than those who are not. What a great example, it is the most basic expression of us-versus-them team-building imaginable.

So, with these four fundementals:
- Entreprenurial nature of fundementalism.
- The growth of fundamentalism.
- Increased uncertainty.
- Modified approaches to marketing religion.
Fundementalist religion began to align and coalese around a common goal: challenging the authority of science. And at the same time, the tobacco, automotive, and energy production industries were also trying to debase science. Because the leaders of these groups had distinctly different interests, they were well positioned to work together.

While it began simply by pitting the Bible against science, that wasn’t yet a compelling argument for many people. So a new countervailing theory had to be developed, and evolved into what is now called Intelligent Design.

Within science, it is generally conceded that a theory that is developed to justify a preconceived point of view, or one that then goes in search of facts to fit a conclusion, is poor science and unlikely to be true. And, this description neatly fits Intelligent Design. Perhaps more fatally, it is only by creating the false premise that bible literalists have a valid scientific or cosmological perspective, that there is a need to argue against evolution. That is to say, the literalists are selective in their literal translation. They don't have a basis in faith, reason, for selecting the parts of the Bible that they interpret literally. Why pick creation for literal interpretation? Well, why not? There is no particular reason – except that it appeals to core emotions in people, making it a useful argument to build power and mold people’s opinions on a variety of topics.
From a different perspective, it can be argued that God gives us our senses, and reasoning, and experiences so that we can learn more and better know his plan. If evolution was part of that plan, then we are being less than faithful if we reject it. So by building a phony base of pseudo-science, they confuse the public and make it appear that creationism is sound science – masking their true intentions. Make no mistake, the right wing-nuts court fundemental religious leadership for a reason. Here is a leadership which can lead its constituents to act against their own best interests, in return for some favors that the wing-nuts willingly offer up in return for being allowed to corruptly lead this country to enrich themselves. And, as we see in Kansas and other places the wing-nuts and their designated religious leaders are often winning the battle for peoples hearts and minds (not to mention their pocketbooks and votes).

Creationism, be it called "intelligent design" or anything else is bad religion, bad science, bad politics, and a bad basis for policy. Its time to call the fools out on this one.

And now a moment for Prayer

2005-05-04T12:33:00.000-05:00

This is a little out of sequence relative to my other articles, my apologies. But, I'm feeling inspired and this is a topic that can be covered reasonably quickly - thus allowing me to get a new update on the blog without too much delay.

I'm no theologian, so don't expect lots of biblical references. It's unlikely that I can escape my judeo-christian cultural basis. However, the following applies to a great many religious movements around the world, and likely has its roots more in humankind's underlying tendencies towards team-formation and self-preservation than in divine inspiration.

So, what about Prayer? Here in the United States, it's everywhere. Today an article on the web mentioned an inquiry at the Air Force Academy (those guys/gals sure have trouble staying out of trouble). Apparently christian leaders at the academy are discriminating in significant ways against others, as demonstrated when various ranking individuals (instructors and academy leadership) try to coerce cadets into christian prayer. We see it in a pronounced and highly visible fashion in our professional sports. Naturally our politicians are deeply into prayer. And, of course, all sorts of protestors (Schiavo, anti-abortion, anti-democrats, pro-nukes, etc.) invoke prayer at every possible opportunity, especially when the cameras are rolling.

I don't think that all religious people condone all of the examples above, but few people that I know of are bothered by, much less offended by, most forms of prayer. Does that seem strange to you? It does to me.

Let us begin at the beginning. What is prayer for? This could be analyzed from many perspectives, but let's begin with what's simple. Most prayer seems to be a request for something. Dear God, let us compete to the best of our capabilities and win this game. A few people might throw in something about this being done as a witness to God's greatness - or even a promise to do something good if God complies.

Let's be straight here. There are some really elemental questions that have to be asked about this form of prayer:

Why should God care about a football game? Anybody?
Are we really trying to win for God, or for fame, money, prestige? Where's our humility?
If both sides request a win from God (or do they say "...to win for God"), does this create a no-win situation for God? I mean, who is he supposed to support? And, if my sides loses, do I try to turn it into God's wish to teach me (or maybe someone else) something? If so, does everyone on my team, and all our supporters, need to learn something at the same time? Is it the same something? Sheesh! Let's not be silly, God doesn't want to hear a lot of whining about helping me or you or your team or mine to win a game. You'd have to be a stupid lout to think otherwise.
What right do we have to ask God to intercede? Doesn't he know what he's doing? Doesn't the very definition of God incorporate the notion of all-powerful and all-knowing? In which case, why does he need our kibbitzing? And, before you answer, remember that when you're in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.

The little bit I remember about the bible suggests that we "...make a joyful noise unto the Lord...", or that we be thankful. What about asking to win a football game (or war) is offering thanks? Even if we throw in the tagline "We thank you..." as part of the request, we all know that's not the inspiration for this prayer. Heck, if we were thankful, we would say thanks for the opportunity to play this game. <= that's a period. If we were thankful, our first concern wouldn't be whether we won or lost - it would be how did we play the game - did we live up to the opportunities that God has given us. Now, that's an interesting concept that gets lots of lip service in our society, but not so much support for anyone over about 6 years of age. In fact, look at Texas High School football - its life and death on the gridiron in the heart of the bible thumping baptist belt.

Some people will respond that this example unfairly treats the larger body of prayer. So, when I pray for someone else's health - is this done as a disinterested party? Take an example of war - do we pray for the good health of our enemy's? If anyone proposed doing so, they would be vilified and probably lynched in almost any society I can think of, including the United States. Even on those rare circumstances when someone says "...may the best man win...", how often do you suppose that the speaker thinks that the best man is anyone other than himself?

Why did all those right-wingnuts hold prayer vigils for Terry Schiavo? Was it because they were so concerned about her tragic fate? Given the number and scale of tragedies in the world, it hardly seems like this particular one required so much intense prayer. Do we think that these prayerers (people who pray) felt a close personal bond to Ms Schiavo? Do we think that they were strongly concerned that her fate might soon befall themselves - and warranted an extraordinary intervention? Do we think that they constantly throw themselves into prayer on all the key issues and tragedies of the day? None of these explanations seems likely to me. What were they doing? Playing holier than thou? Hiding from their sins by trying to point out the sins of others?

How about praying for God to bless America? This prayer begs two questions:

Hasn't God blessed America already?
What would a blessed America look like?

Anyhow, lets get real. Why should God bless America? America is an institution of man - that means its flawed and always will be. Why bless such a thing? Shouldn't taking care of America be the duty of people, not God? There are already so many man-made conflicts in the world, does God really need to, or have time to, take sides among the nations? Of course not. Asking God to bless America is a blaspheme. It amounts to renouncing what he has given us, and supposing that we mortals know better and should direct God in the use of his almighty powers. Our saving grace is that we aren't telling him or directing him, we're asking him. But how long is it before we hold our collective breath and have a tantrum if God isn't forthcoming.

It seems to me that the only possible form of prayer request that might be acceptable is a request for God to protect one's enemies. Help those that I try to hurt! Anything else has the taint of greed on it, and even this has the taint of knowing better than God what he should do. Fortunately, I don't think there are many among us who would utter this prayer so we're unlikely to offend God with it.

Anything other than a prayer that says: Thank you God for all that I am and all that I experience (including war, pestilence, disease, hunger, pain) is not a real prayer at all. So, why do we continue to pray for the things we do? Why don't our religious leaders correct our prayer behavior?

My personal belief is that most prayer exists because people need a crutch to lean on. No one is ready to say that they are blessed in their current state. In my experience, those with the most complain the most about their lot in life - no matter how religious they are. Think of all the rich folks, even when they evade most of their taxes, who complain about how they're being taken advantage of by poor folks. But, when combined with faith that one's God can hear and will respond, prayer provides comfort.

An understanding of this can be easily co-opted by religious and other leaders. Rather than telling their disciples to revel in their fate, the leadership offers them the alternative to improve their fate. In so doing, they gain the support of their disciples and a measure of control. Teams can form around a vision of God, a definition of what constitutes good work by man, and a form of prayer. It becomes self-sustaining too.

Prayer becomes a tool of team formation - a manifest demonstration of our shared faith. It clearly draws the line between us and them. Those that pray for what we do versus those who don't want God to bless America. It also becomes a foil to avoid the necessity of good works. I say my prayers so I don't need to worry about my fellow man. Or, I give to my fellow parishioners and don't need to worry about others. And, it becomes a weapon against our enemies (God protect our troops in battle and lead them victorious to establish...blah blah blah).

The right-wingnuts give us plenty of examples of all these sorts of behavior. How can any leader believe that coerced faith is real faith? But the Air Force Academy affair is hardly the first instance of such behavior, and this coercion is not a uniquely Christian trait either. In fact, our country was founded in part to escape coercive religion. And, the basic notions of democracy trace back at least to ancient Athens - not judeo-christian ethics. So, when the right-wingnuts try to establish our society as biblically based, and that it must therefore intertwined with christianity - one can be sure that either their comprehension, or their representation of history and God is fundamentally flawed.

It's time for true democrat's (as in believers in democracy) and the truly faithful (as in those thankful to God) to say: Enough with this prayer! Get it out of government. Get it out of sports. Get it out of schools. Get it out of the public eye. Start taking responsibility for your own moral compass you sinner, not someone else's. Start to be grateful for what you and we have, instead of begging for more from God, and cheating your fellow man out of his due. And, generally just keep your religion to yourself. IMHO

A Short Diversion

2005-04-29T22:00:00.000-05:00

Someone asked my why the silly name Tommy Pain and tommypain1000.blogspot.com. Well, I was feeling a little lazy and short on time. The literary reference is obvious, if somewhat self-inflating and gratuitous. It turned out that someone else got tommypain.blogspot.com first. I just did the quickest simplest thing I could to move onto creating content. So, sloth, conflict, self-importance, and time. Fortunately, the name should prove to be irrelevant - its only a handle or address. Ultimately, people will either find the content stimulating or not. If the former, maybe someone will develop a big idea in response. If the later, well, google doesn't care if I blather.

Content creation is, unfortunately, a slow process for which I have too little time. The last blog clearly needs additional editing, as I knew when it was published. This editing will happen soon, but I needed to see progress by getting something out here in the meantime. BTW, this article is part of a much larger piece that will be published in 8-10 installments.

As I pull logical constructs together, jumps appear where assumed but unexplained analysis and connections need to be teased out to ensure that the good reader understands well enough to make informed decisions regarding the value of the concepts presented. Originally, 8-10 pages of content in this particular thread seemed a likely target. As editing progressed, it became clear that individual articles of 8-10 pages needed to be published to cover my planned subject matter. And as I noted above, it looks like there will be 8-10 of these articles.

By the way, I'm not being cute (but maybe a little lazy) in constantly saying 8-10. These are my estimates for now and it's coincidental that the anticipated page lengths of the chapters is similar to the anticipated number of chapters. All of this may change as more gets committed to type and goes through the process of editing.

For now, this is the end of house-keeping issues.

Faith and Media or Unfaithful Media?

2005-04-24T21:44:00.000-05:00

The last entry ended with a question: How has the plurality of interest-groups diverged from a healthy dialog with room at the table for everyone? That's a tough question to answer.

Many on the left fault the Democratic Party, arguing that an unclear message cost the election. But that misses how electoral communications work. Is president Bush an evangelical? Many Republicans think so, but a number of experts say he is not. Was he in favor of eliminating abortions? His past says no, and his focus has been on destroying Social Security, not stopping abortion. What was his message? That he has a sense of humor?

Every politician must, to some degree, tell people what they want to hear. And different people are looking to hear different things. So yes, signals can be confusing, on both sides. But, I don’t see that the Democrats did much worse than the Republicans in conveying their messages. Looking at the political landscape, I can't see how the right and the Republicans could have lost.

John Kerry achieved a stunning vote total. Moreover, he did this despite unprecedented slanders and libelous attacks. He did this in spite of efforts to mobilize racial and religious tensions. And, he did this in spite of wide-spread voting process irregularities. In the end, however, the sitting president won and more importantly saw his party gain in the House and Senate. So what was behind this?

A good starting point is to analyze our media. The Fourth Estate has long been accorded special rights and privileges because of its role and responsibility to keep the all facts on the table and to insure that minority interests are heard. In other words, it should provide a countervailing force to: 1 Pure majority power; 2 Propaganda, or the manipulation of facts by the powerful. Today, those roles are undermined by a combination of factors including: 1 Mass-media (fewer but more common messages heard throughout America and across interest-group boundaries); 2 Weak media (ranging from limited reporting & poor research budgets to intentionally skewed reporting); 3 Changed leadership in certain interest-groups which better manages the media through a variety of techniques.

These factors have altered the quality and nature of reporting made available to the American people. And this, in turn, has altered the quality and nature of people’s knowledge and understanding of the facts and issues. As a result, the dialog, debate, and compromise among the various interest-groups has been substantially reduced. It can be argued that these changes are eroding the rights of minority interest-groups (and increasingly put them at risk); in part by denying most citizens full & clear access the facts. It can also be argued that these changes are snowballing as powerful leaders become bolder and bolder in their tactics.

These changes in public intelligence have a strange symbiosis with faith. The threats of fundamentalist religious leaders (whether economic boycotts or controls over voting blocs) have driven some changes. Other changes have occurred because fundamentalists tend not to care about issues (including how government is run and power is distributed) apart from those directed by their leadership, allowing corrupt business and political leaders to harvest votes cheaply while forwarding their own agendas. And, ironically, as the empirical become distorted and devalued, individuals are forced to rely more on faith to make decisions.

This emerging dependence on faith for decision making is not limited to religion, but includes any number of subjects (pollution, energy policy, welfare, international affairs, party allegiance), thus reducing the effectiveness of plurality in our great country. Hence, the leadership of powerful groups is beginning to dictate the direction of American politics, unfettered by free and open dialog. Do you need evidence? Who thought, even 4 years ago, that Social Security would be under attack and at risk of being destroyed? Who thought Medicare would be about to run out of funds without debate? Who thought that a “Market Oriented” administration would install a Medicare prescription drug bill that prevented Medicare from using market dynamics to obtain fairly priced drugs? Who thought we would be dragged into an illegal war, which was unrelated to our security needs, and in fact has raised the level of risks our citizens face?

None of the above is meant to allege a grand conspiracy. While certain leaders have taken advantage of the current situation, and some have coordinated their efforts, much of our situation seems to have developed by accident or as unintended bonus consequences to the actions of various players. We know that sense of team or kinship is a common political phenomenon that exists in all cultures. What is of interest is that there has been a confluence of teams, behaviors, and interests of late that has reduced free dialog in this country and enabled the establishment of a something verging on a fascist state. This has occurred elsewhere in history with disastrous results – but the results could be worse for us and the world given the power at disposal of this country today. But I'm jumping ahead here.

An interesting counterpoint on our modern state of religion can be found at godownsyou.blogspot.com (link on page). Back in the sixties, a magazine, Time I think, asked the question: "Is God dead?" That's not a question that would even be considered by editors today, in fact we see Time and similar magazines discussing God & religion, in what appears to be an attempt to take advantage the resurgence of religion in America. And there can be no doubt that some of the resurgence of religion is caused, in part, by dark elements who interfer with the disemination of empirical knowledge. More on this point later.

The occurrence of aligning the profit motive in media with our faith based team culture began, I think, as an accident. But it's an accident that is being exploited by both religion and media who see the synergies of working together. Religious and quasi-religious groups can bring pressure on broadcasters and the FCC. Look at the recent refusal of a network to air Private Ryan when it had been aired on public television twice before. The pressures can include both positive and negative sanctions. This implies that war between the media and religious groups isn’t inevitable, but that co-option can take place. The religious groups can offer pre-packaged “information” reducing the costs of programming. They can work their legislative and administrative contacts to make ensure that their allies are well treated in government (for example rolling back long-standing prohibitions against media consolidation). They can provide the media with a range of available “experts” who can speak in clear and sometimes interesting ways on a variety of topics. This isn't the full extent of common interests between media and religion, but serves to give example of the temptations offered to the media that tend to prevent it from being “fair and balanced”. Meanwhile, media, it's leadership (it's owners and pundits [who I define as media correspondents who attempt to form opinions for profit – previously we thought this was done with a sense of independence but we are increasingly seeing that pundits thirst for profits puts their opinions up for sale]), and the Republican leadership, is finding religion a useful prop to shape public opinion. Had our religious leaders pointed out the lie’s that went into selling the war against Iraq; or had they stood up and simply noted that God doesn’t condone war; or if they pointed out that this war was evil and unjust; it seems likely that the administration's war plans would have been curtailed. But, instead, many of the evangelical leaders (who appear, in general, to more successfully control the thinking of thier followers than other religious leaders), went on record in support of war. The much of the media and many of the evangelical leaders in this country worked together to whip up enthusiasm for a war that heart corrupt from the beginning and against the better interests of most Americans.

This resurgence of religion ties to several trends which correlate obviously and strongly to the rise of power for the current administration. As I have suggested above, it appears that the administration is forwarding a private agenda, not that of its key constituents among the religious right. We haven’t yet see Congress take on the abortion issue, even though they have the votes. But we have seen the Republicans attack the limited social welfare system that exists in this country. Where there have been paybacks to the religious right, it has been in the workings of UN committees and international charitable groups where the impact in this country is more image than substance. We have also seen huge financial payouts to “faith-based initiatives”. Here again, faith is the driver. In this case being the vehicle for political payoff. Sadly, the track-record of these groups is suspect at best, regardless of whether one agrees with their philosophy. Moreover, this is the intermingling of government and religion which has been resisted through constitutional protections for over 200 years. The separation, being in part to protect religions from the potential bullying influence of Government, has been savaged by those naive religious leaders whose pet programs are funded. But, money buys votes. So despite what a terrible precedent this set, and despite any the difficulty related to putting this particular genie back into the bottle, it is where we are today.

I spoke to the Editor of a national newspaper who was in charge covering the Presidential campaign. This was during the Gore/Bush elections. I asked why they were willing to print obvious lies coming from campaigns, rather than do fact checking and set the record straight as part of their reporting. He told me that their job was to report news, not make it. What is said by a campaign operative or candidate is news, the facts aren't. This was an intelligent independent thinking individual, academically well-trained for a career in journalism and with many years of experience under his belt. I would bet that most citizens of this country expect that their media are uncovering the facts and making them available to be part of the dialog that precedes elections. Is it any wonder we have president Bush?

The Jaded Age

2005-04-10T20:13:00.000-05:00

It's trite to say that we live in interesting times. Which era isn't interesting, especially to it's inhabitants. But by my observations, there seems to be something unusual about many of the supporters of the right-wing in America today.

I say (because I believe it) that the republican party is the party of fear, hate & greed. It's hard to get a republican to agree with that even on a piecemeal basis. But while the individual members/supporters don't feel that they or the majority of their fellows have fear, hate & greed in their hearts - a brief look review at the the advertising and campaign literature of the right (from both the republican party and it's fifth-column affiliates) shows a consistent and overwhelming tendency to pander to issues of fear, hate & greed. And, these campaign tactics work. So, despite personal denials, it is clear that the majority of the right wing is open to and responds positively to these appeals.

I work with a fellow (let's call him Sean), a charming glib gentleman of Irish ancestry. It is rare for Sean to say a bad thing about anyone, and he is always spreading good cheer. Sean and his wife have done well in life. Both of them work, but neither needs to. Clearly they enjoy living well, but not ostentatiously given their circumstances. They know (unlike many well-to-do Americans) that they are well off. They hope to leave something for their children and grandchildren, but aren't inclined to think that its better to pass on more rather than less. Both could have retired years ago, but they like to work and continue to do so. Rather than continue to collect two salaries, they contribute Sean's salary to their church. In short, they are pleasant successful people with a tendency towards generosity.

What could be wrong with this? Certainly nothing on the surface, until one starts a discussion on politics. Bring up any liberal points and you'll be rewarded with a critical discussion of every fault that Edward Kennedy ever had. No matter what, the discussion circles around to Edward Kennedy, one way or another. Sean will point out that he grew up as a Democrat but abandoned that to become a republican, and that Edward Kennedy is part of the reason why.

You see, Sean grew up on Boston. And the period of his political conversion was during his time in High School. He didn't live in Back Bay, but he attended a Catholic high school not far from there. And, this was a time when the Back Bay Irish grew incensed by Kennedy's refusal to fight busing and desegregation of schools. I'm sure my friend would deny that this was behind his switch. He would even point to the African American's he's know and been friends with.

Today, it may be argued that in large part busing failed to achieve its goals. Look at the South where a separate network of private religious schools developed and siphoned off the white students - after which white voters were stingy at funding public schools. Look at the North where white flight rapidly converted urban areas a neighborhood at a time from essentially white to essentially black. And so, segregation was largely maintained by a population that was fearful of change.

Back to Sean, he grew up in an atmosphere where hatred of Kennedy grew. He didn't need to know or understand why. He just knew the man was on the other team from that of he and his friends. Sean's brother continued to live in Boston until this year when he retired to Florida. Sean notes his brother's continued dislike for/hatred of Kennedy as sufficient reason for Sean to continue believing in his existing point of view without critical self-examination. No amount of facts or logic will change that, and so long as Kennedy is a liberal, liberals are on the wrong team.

How does a smart, caring, capable individual become receptive to right wing fear mongering? Why now? Why here? Why are facts and logic so hard to reach?

Sean and I haven't spoken much about race relations. But I think I know something about where he stands. Sean would say that we're all equal and that people shouldn't suffer discrimination on the basis of race. He might or might not add that that freedom from discrimination should be a right for white men too, but if asked he would agree with that point of view. He would also suggest that essentially America is changed from the days of his youth. That the African American youth of today need to seize their destiny (a sentiment that a number of African American leaders agree with). But, he would also suggest that there is too much emphasis on past wrongs, and that discrimination is not a problem for African American's today. Finally, he would point out that we can't fix everything.

We haven't spoken in depth about Ireland either. But, I've heard enough from him to know that he still holds the British (as a whole, not individuals) accountable for all the ills visited on the Emerald Isle anytime since it was first occupied by England. And, he is sympathetic to plight and interests of the Catholics of Northern Ireland. Why is this important? Well, despite the behavior of a portion of the Protestant population in Northern Ireland, one can argue that the condition of Northern Ireland Catholics is no worse than, and is in many ways much better than, that of African Americans in their respective societies.

Again, facts and logic have no bearing. England wronged the Irish and should be punished. Any Protestant in Ireland is obviously a descendent of England. And regardless of generations and hundreds of years within Ireland, these Protestants have no place there. Sean likes to tell the story of the Irish American couple who return to Ireland to research their roots. He has a Protestant name and when they go to the local parishes and town halls, they quickly learn to use her (Catholic) maiden name, otherwise they're simply told that there wouldn't be any information found "here" about anyone British. While Sean sympathizes with his friend's plight, he's also proud of how the true Irish stick together against the invader. Sort of like the Back Bay Irish against Edward Kennedy and the liberals.

I can't help but wonder just how much of our current reactionary political bent has its foundations in the efforts of the 50', 60's & 70's to make our country more inclusive and more true to the ideals upon which it was founded so long ago. One must remember, the founders of our nation believed in education, logic & facts - sort of a continuation of the enlightment. Moreover, the study of Philosophy was prized, unlike today where it is mostly regarded as the trivial pursuit of ivory tower liberals and is often dispised. So, today, when right wing hate mongering leaders point to our Judeo-Christen roots, and use this to recraft the intentions and ideals of our founding fathers, we can respond with a positive and powerful message to the contrary. However, I fear that this will not be enough. There is more exploration to come as we try to untangle the question of how the plurality of interest groups that we've enjoyed in the country for 200 years is suddenly been rejected for tight-fisted control by a small leadership group?

Why SMS?

2005-03-28T12:30:00.000-06:00

Why the funky name? It seems to me that an awful lot of Americans are saying just that now-a-days. We live in a society based upon the advances brought to us by reason, science and democracy. Everywhere you look is high technology, in medicine, transportation, information, construction, agriculture, and manufacturing.

Yet much of this same society, while enjoying or even lusting over these advances, now appears to turn its back on reason, science and democracy. Inevitably, when one of these simple Americans is called to task, when they are presented with facts and logic, they become bothered and push away (at least verbally) both the message and the messenger. It's like they're saying: "Stop Making Sense!"

What's going on here? What are the implications? Why is it happening? What can we do about it? These are the questions to be explored here in this space. They are age old questions, ones for which no simple static answer may exist. But they are questions that our colonial forefathers worked hard to address in launching a new government. And this new government turned out to be wildly successful, eventually becoming the dominate world power in terms of wealth, knowledge and military might. It can be argued that we are as a nation diminishing in each of these categories. Again, why and what can we do?

If you'd like to share in the dialog, join me here for an exploration.