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.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
American Conservatism
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?
BTW, how do you like this pink font for Conservatism?
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Just How Stupid Can Conservatives Be?
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?
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?
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Inflation and Interest
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?
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.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Wingnuts Destroying Themselves.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Making Progress
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.
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.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Speak Out for Web freedom!
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.
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.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Where's the progress?
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:
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.Tuesday, May 09, 2006
A little lame
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?
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.
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?
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
NEWS: Against the prevailing wisdom
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.
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.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Hatred
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:
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.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
At the core (cont'd)
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)