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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wingnuts Destroying Themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Wingnuttery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Values or Principals?

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.