Wealth Distribution

Here is a nice video on wealth distribution (not income inequality) in the US.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/surprise-viral-hit-income-inequality-movie

On a similar note WRT to income inequality and minimum wage - As of January 1st  the municipality of Sea Tac will have a $15/hr minimum wage for some airport and hotel workers.  By far the highest minimum wage in the US.  It will be interesting to see how that works out for all impacted parties (vendors, employees, customers) over the next year.

Race 6

There is a picture of Romney and family which includes an adopted black grandchild.  I'd never heard of it until today and did not know that they had a black grandchild.   http://therightscoop.com/marc-lamont-hill-romney-grandson-photo-was-exploitative-to-begin-with/

MSNBC put up the pic and made fun of it and Romney on the grounds that it was exploitative in some way.  (After the election!!!)

CNN had a discussion including Mark Lamont a black commentator that I never heard of before.  Lamont thought it was OK for them to do that,  but that it would not be OK if the party and color situation was reversed.

A viewer put in a comment:

• "This most recent batch of black spokesman are the most vile and ignorant people, it makes me sad for the future."

 I disagree with the conclusion in the comment above.  I think that it is good that the racism mongers are vile and ignorant.  That means that the reasonable black people do not engage in that kind of thing and probably do not support it either.

For a list of civil rights leaders that I do not think of as racism mongers (except Sharpton) see http://newsone.com/1102975/top-15-civil-rights-leaders-of-the-21st-century/.  The list includes Cornel West and Van Jones.

Gay ducks

Jon Stewart and Bill Maher et. al. relentlessly ridicule Christianity and the loony left never raises a peep.

But one little quack about homosexuality and they go berserk.

Voltaire's definition of freedom of speech was:  "I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The American left's definition of freedom of speech is:  "If I disagree with you, I will call it hate speech and shut you down if I can."

I am pleased to note that several gay folks I know have publicly condemned this hypocrisy.

Mincome

The link below contains an article and video in which Krystal Ball at MSNBC puts forth a plan that would, in her words, “eliminate poverty”. 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-krystal-ball-we-could-eliminate-poverty-with-a-mincome/   

 Be sure to watch the video with the picture of Uncle Scrooge.

Race 5

This post has been replaced by a refined version on Feb 21, 2014.

The Civil War in Four Minutes

I first saw this film on a wall in the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield IL a few years ago and was fascinated with it.  It is the one of the ways battles, wars and perhaps social movements should be presented.

Happily the Lincoln Library has allowed the Univ. of Tex to present it to the public and Terry sent it to me,

http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsSd38sd6QmnDPhOyYCUqejtPqtPhOyOYej76zASDsQsEIL3C6kjqtPhOyOYejuhdFTd7abxEVjoud79JSNfli7NE2JtJmkbsKrRSRpgJOVKPbHx0QsFLZvATS7TXLtuVtd4QsFYO-Ztx6_bnhIyyHssNOEuvkzaT0QSyrpdTdTdw0yrqKMBenQDUvJe00VIr4V6vFy4ycFWunzWRqiDm9rbicOfbCdyntGT4KHa3s

Mandela

If an American could imagine a kind of Washington-Lincoln-King all rolled into one, he would have what I think the South Africans see in Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela was a violent revolutionary in his youth, a paragon of patience in his middle years, and a peaceful nation builder in his later years.  His enemy was South Africa's apartheid - the strict separation of the black and white races and the absolute supremacy of the white race. 

After being held in jail for twenty-seven (27) years for the crimes of his "youth" he was released in 1990 in response to world pressure at the age of 72.  To me the most impressive thing about Mandela is that he emerged from that 27 years without being overcome by bitterness.  He kept his eye on the prize and his approach was the antithesis of seeking revenge.  He worked with his former jailers, the Apartheid government, to build a new South Africa.  He produced a new Constitution and universal elections which placed him in the presidency.  He also instituted a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (chaired by Bishop Tutu) which is renowned for meeting the objectives of its name.

He received over 250 awards, including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, the US Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Soviet Union's Order of Lenin.

They call him Mandeba or Tata - the father of the nation.

Mechanization vs Employment

To kind of piggy-back off of Tom's post wrt Amazon's mechanization of their processes, here is an interesting little video and explanation showing how the Amazon warehouses work.  This is an example of why the unemployment rate has stayed so stubbornly high.  Humans are being phased out of just about anything that involves physical movement and much that doesn't.  I see in my industry that the diy tax return preparation software is getting smarter and more user friendly every year. 

I always thought that if I did have to retire I would take my guitar and find a bar to play in every night and play for tips. Oh No!!!!  Computers do that too.  They even write their own songs.  AND they take requests.

Maybe I could become a plumber.  I had one out yesterday to replace the fill valve and flapper on two toilets and he charged me $120 in labor.  Which reminds me of the old joke where the lawyer has a plumber come out and do some work and when the plumber hands the lawyer his bill the lawyer gasps and says "I'm a lawyer and I don't make this much."  The plumber says "yeah, I didn't make that much when I was a lawyer either."  rim shot!

http://www.chonday.com/Videos/how-the-amazon-warehouse-works

Drone Deliveries

Amazon stole the news cycle Sunday with its presentation of a proposed drone delivery system.  On Monday the internet was full of articles that admitted the idea was cool and the technology was available, but the concept simply would not work.  Most of the articles included a “common sense” laundry list of reasons why it would not work.

It may or may not work, but what I do remember is that the current delivery model using national “hubs” had its naysayers in the beginnings as well. 

I am reminded of an exchange I had with a Dr. early in my career.  The Dr. asked me how much it would cost to build a computer system that would do X (a long list of great ideas).  As I calmly began to explain the problems involved the Dr. abruptly interrupted me by saying “I did not ask you why it could not be done I asked you how much it would cost”.  The Dr. got his system.

Quite honestly I see drone deliveries about as practical as everyone commuting to work by helicopter, which is none.  Still, Amazon is one of the most successful retailers in the history of the planet and it would be and is absurd to tell them they don’t understand the problems involved.

Race 4

At the end of Race 2 I listed four things that should be considered about the national anti racism policies of the last half century.   In future posts I will offer my thoughts on each of them.  Today III.

From Race 2.   I believe that the argument for special treatment because of prior oppression is valid and sufficient, because I see no other way to overcome the results of the prior treatment. 

.....  III.   a.  Will there be special interest groups that grow up around the protected classes?     
        b.  If so, how will you deal with them?


I would say that the answer is yes there will be.  How will it happen?  The NAACP and established membership organizations elect representatives who have a right to be considered as leaders of the protected groups from which their membership comes.  Their significance should be based on the number of members in the organization.  However much you may support the purpose of such organizations there is one simple fact that ought to be kept in mind.   Their purpose is to promote the interests of their protected group.  Considering the advantages that come from being a protected group it should be obvious that the group will attempt at all cost to maintain the existence of protected groups in general and, in particular, of the protected status of their group. They will then have a vested interest in maintaining the view that we are a racist society.  Any claim that we have made progress on that problem will be met with vigorous disagreement.

Another way the leadership of those protected classes is designated is by other forces.  For example, who elected Al Sharpton as a leader of the black community?  or Jesse Jackson for that matter?  The answer is that the media did. These folks could, and some say that they do, pick a business or organization and warn them of racism in their organization and solicit donations to their special racism fighting organizations.  The business can then prove their lack of racism by contributing to the charity.  This, if it exists, is extortion and should be treated as such.

What can be done about this?
Again, at some point, replace advantages that are based on  race with advantages that are based on poverty. If the current protected class is still being oppressed, then it should show up in high poverty figures group and they will still be helped.

What is the point in time at which we could do this?  Maybe now.

However, we should for sure say now that there will be a time when this will end.  That we will not, on a long term basis, be a nation whose operations are based on race.

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007

The Return of History and the End of Dreams

In his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), Francis Fukuyama argued that “the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government.” (Wikipedia)

In the The Return of History and the End of Dreams Robert Kagan (Alfred A Knoph, 2008, 105 pp) argues that the desire for hegemonic power, whether regional or global, is unabated; that the intervening quarter century has demonstrated the world has not turned into a collection of liberal democracies; and that international competition is still a long way from being limited to peaceful economic version. He argues that the democracies should exert more effort toward controlling the development of the new world order.

I thought it was very good.

A New World Chess Champion

Magnus Carlsen, the 22-year-old Norwegian who has been the most dominant chess player since 2010, finally broke through on Friday to win the game’s most important title, the world championship, for the first time.

Carlson 6.5 Anand 3.5
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/crosswords/chess/norwegian-22-takes-world-chess-title.html?hpw&rref=&_r=0

Race 3

At the end of Race 2 I listed four things that should be considered about the national anti racism policies of the last half century.   In future posts I will offer my thoughts on each of them.  Today I and II.

From Race 2  I believe that the argument for special treatment because of prior oppression is valid and sufficient, because I see no other way to overcome the results of the prior treatment. However, there are some concomitant questions that ought to be answered.  Such as:
I.  How much?
II.  For how long?
III.   a.  Will there be special interest groups that grow up around the protected classes?      b.  If so, how will you deal with them?
IV  How do you deal with rogues among the protected classes?

I.  How much?

I think affirmative action is fine if the action is:

a)   “Prefer the protected class person if they are at equally (or better) qualified for a job than the white male.” 

Not so fine if the action is:

b)  “Prefer the protected class person for a job if they meet minimum qualifications regardless of their comparison with other applicants.” 

The latter format should be used only if the organization has a proven record of discrimination.

c)  “Prefer the protected class person for admission to universities with restrictive requirements even if they otherwise have qualifications less than other applicants.” 

This doesn’t bother me too much, but there are two issues about it:

            1.  The school should provide assistance to the student if he doesn’t meet their normal standards for admission.

            2.  It seems like there is a risk that the student will be unsuccessful at the higher ranked school even though he might have been very successful at a school for which he could have met the requirements.

II  For how long?  First of all it should have been stated early and frequently that racial preferences are a temporary expedient and will eventually come to an end.

a)  One answer is “As long as slavery lasted.”  I disagree with that because there is really no reason to link the two times together and

b) If it takes more than a couple generations then maybe it is not working.

c) I think it has accomplished a lot and perhaps it is time to say that disparate opportunity is today more likely to be a result of simple poverty than race.  One could grant these preferences (in an effort to “level the playing field”) based on family poverty.  If you did that, then,

1.  as long as the race was a factor in poverty you would still be working on the race aspect,

and

2.  if race ceases to be a factor in poverty, then what is the rationale for race based preferences?

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007

Debra Burgess - teacher

http://wkunews.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/kythof-2014/

Members of the seventh class of the Gov. Louie B. Nunn Kentucky Teacher Hall of Fame have been selected.
The three chosen by the statewide selection committee are Golda Pensol Walbert, Debra Burgess and Cynthia S. Wooden. The 2014 induction ceremony is scheduled for Feb. 6 at the State Capitol in Frankfort.
The Kentucky Teacher Hall of Fame was created in 2000 through a gift by former Gov. Nunn, who hoped to recognize the vital role that primary and secondary teachers in Kentucky play in the education of young people and the positive impact education has on the state’s economy. WKU was selected as the home of the Kentucky Teacher Hall of Fame because of its more than 100-year history in teacher education

Maturity

E J Dionne began an article yesterday about what we lost on Nov 22, 1963 with the following:  

"Whenever we reflect on the horror of Nov. 22, 1963, we mourn not only the murder of a graceful and inspiring leader but also a steady ebbing in the years thereafter of our faith in what we could achieve through public life and common endeavor."

Readmore: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/21/112263_what_we_lost_120736.html#ixzz2lHwhAKqv 
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

I think that this is the kind of claptrap that comes out a very naive version of modern liberalism.  It is a liberalism that believes that, not only is man perfectable, but that it can be done in the short run.  They end up letting the perfect make them condemn the good.

Consider the main aspects of "the good life":

1.  Material - I think that most people in this country and certainly in the world who make a living in activity X are better off now than they were in 1963. 

2.  Health care - The same is true.  The "30 million" uninsured is 10% of the population. The percentage was higher in 63 since medicare did not even exist.

3.  Opportunity and Social Justice – Were at that time denied to a good majority (minorities and women) of the population.

Dionne and others unlike him are unhappy that “then” we felt that government could do great things and now we don’t.  What happened?

Well I say that what happened is:

a) that we undertook to actually do some of those things that he thinks needed doing,

b) we have made a lot of progress in all of them, particularly 2 and 3 and

c) those things are very hard.  (Find another country as racially diverse as this one that has even attempted to achieve social justice.)

So we have had a little dose of reality about what government can do and maybe some of what it cannot do.

It is called maturity and it is not a bad thing.
(minor modifications at 7:40 AM same day)

Historical note: The Gettysburg Address

Some things bear repeating:

At the Battle of Gettysburg on July 1-3, 1863 a hundred and seventy thousand men launched themselves at each other and suffered almost 50,000 casualties. Lee was repelled and returned to Virginia. At the site on this day, later that year, the noted orator, Edward Everett, held forth for over two hours on this momentous occasion. 

Abraham Lincoln was there too, and before the photographers had finished setting up for him, he had completed the following remarks. In C-span fashion we note that his remarks lasted for about two minutes.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln - November 19, 1863

Race 2

I described in race I, my understanding of how powerful the American version of racism was and that the reason for its power was because it involved the bringing together of race, slavery, and dehumanization.   After two centuries the nation paid a heavy price in blood and treasure to formally abolish slavery.  But it was replaced (in the South) by a share-cropping economic structure married to a segregated social structure that amounted to an American apartheid.  This lasted another century.

Then toward the end of that third century the nation set about to finally deal with its race problem.  In the words of Martin Luther King, “…to live out the true meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal.” That story is well known.  The end of segregation, the expansion of voting rights, and access to opportunity came to the forefront of the American agenda.  But it was not going to be easy.  

I expect that now we have come to the end of the general agreement about how we got where we were in 1965.

Fighting the very strong American racism would take very strong measures.  Affirmative action – use discrimination to fight the effects of previous discrimination.  Laws against racial discrimination in the workplace that were strong enough to actually achieve their purpose.  If the victim was being discriminated against by an institution or a large group of people within an institution, then it would be very hard to prove it.  Since the group was stronger than the individual, we shifted the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.  It is now true that even appearing to be a racist is one of the worst things that can happen to you in this society.

Why do I call them very strong?  Because following them takes you outside of normal American jurisprudence.  You have created a protected class of people.  How do you prove that your hiring practices are fair?  Show that the relevant demographic of your hiring comports with that of the general population.  Some call it “quotas”.  Some don’t.  But did you notice how easily you passed over the sentence:  “How do you prove that your hiring practices are fair?”  How easily we accept the idea that the accused has to prove their innocence rather than that the state has to prove their guilt?

How can you justify such special treatment?  My friend Tom Brieske, from South Carolina by way of Wisconsin, used to offer the following metaphor for why 300 years of oppression might justify a bit of special treatment.  He imagined two guys X and Y who were going to get into a fight.  X had a large gang with him who grabbed Y and held him down for several minutes and beat the hell out of him.  After they were through, X then offered Y the opportunity to have that “fair” fight.

I believe that the argument for special treatment because of prior oppression is valid and sufficient, because I see no other way to overcome the results of the prior treatment.

However, there are some concomitant questions that ought to be answered.  Such as:

1.  How much?

2.  For how long?

3.   a.  Will there be special interest groups that grow up around the protected classes?

      b.  If so, how will you deal with them?

4.  How do you deal with rogues among the protected classes?

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007

Race 1

I think that the place to begin a discussion about race, if you are an American, is to clearly acknowledge how bad the American version of racism was and why.  The short answer is slavery.  Racism is not just an American problem and slavery existed in many other societies.  But in America they came together in a particularly destructive form.  Those who were enslaved in this country were of course denied the freedom to choose the type of labor they would do, the fruits of their labor, and the opportunity to rise above their original position in life. 

But it was much worse than that. 

The people who held the slaves knew that what they were doing was contradictory to what they claimed to believe in.  In England during the revolutionary war some people ridiculed the Patrick Henrys of America as being slaveholders who prattled on and on about freedom and unalienable rights.  Thomas Jefferson said that slavery was, “A wolf that we are holding by the ears and don’t know how to release.” 

If you are economically locked into human slavery and philosophically devoted to inalienable human rights, then you have a limited number of options about how to sleep at night.  Where they went on this made use of the fact the slaves were quite different in appearance.  They “realized” that the black Africans were "not quite human".  In the terminology of the modern era they “blamed the victim.”  This meant that it was not just their labor that was taken from black slaves.  It was their inherent humanity.  Their right to reproduce as they chose; to live where they want; to love whom they chose; to love and protect their families; to strive to build something; and the opportunity, at the end of their lives, to reflect on and enjoy the satisfactions that are available to a person  who has made good choices.  They were, in short, dehumanized.

This was the original sin in the American Garden of Eden.  It predated the American Republic which was begun in 1787.  If slavery could have been abolished at that point, then perhaps our American racism would not have been so bad. I do not think that that was possible.  They did not choose between a union with slavery and a union without slavery. They chose between a union which could eventually abolish slavery and no union at all.  Eighty years later slavery was officially abolished.

But by then two centuries of conflating slave, black, and not fully human had gotten all intertwined into a deep seated and peculiarly American kind of racism.  It was one that would not be easily rectified.

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007

A Conversation About Race

Americans are repeatedly exhorted to have a “conversation about race”.  Many of us have been reluctant to participate in such a conversation.  One concern is that some of those who want this conversation the most will be more than willing to label anyone who disagrees with them as a – racist!

But this is not new.  A friend of mine once told me that you really shouldn’t consider yourself to be a good liberal unless you had been called a communist.  I think most of my conservative friends have been called fascist a time or two.  It goes even beyond that.  I find a lot of folks seem to be quite unable to accept the idea that someone is a centrist.  They want to know: “What is the centrist’s doctrine?”  It reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s incarceration in 1918 for opposing WWI.  At check in he was asked his religion and when he responded ‘agnostic’ the lady said, “Well, there are so many new religions these days, but I suppose they all worship the same God.” 

So with some fear and trepidation I will begin my part of the conversation. 

Tomorrow.

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007

Ratification - The People Debate The Constitution

This book by Pauline Maier is delightful if you among those of us who can't get enough of exactly how they pulled off the creation of the American nation.  You can follow the year long debate about the Constitution as it moves from state to state and marvel at the flukes that may have been critical.  For example,  in Virginia the formidable orator Patrick Henry was opposed because he thought the new government would free the slaves.  The issue was crucial both with respect to timing and Virginia's importance  and it was very close.  When the debate came to New York almost all of the major players in the state were opposed.  The convention was two to one against ratification.  If NY had come earlier it might have all been different or at least a lot harder.  But there were already 10 states in the union by then, so the question was no longer whether to have a union but whether to join it.

I very much enjoyed the book.

It is 588 pages (of which 100 are notes) by Simon and Schuster, 2010.

Oklahoma! Where the Kids Learn Early

http://nyti.ms/1gzpNZL  

Free speech

Patrick Maines writes in USA Today of the new idea of the meaning of free speech.

" The latest example is the recent shoutdown of NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, who was invited to speak at Brown University about the city's "stop and frisk" policy. After he was met with protesters who wouldn't allow him to speak, the university pulled the plug.
As reported in the Huffington Post, one of the students who helped organize the protest, Jenny Li, said that when the university declined to cancel the lecture, "we decided to cancel it for them." It was, this Li said, "a powerful demonstration of free speech."

He also reports on some voices from the left who are condemning this kind of thing.  So there is hope.

Minimum Wage

The President has proposed a federal minimum wage of $10/hr.  I have never been in favor of a legislated minimum wage because I perceive it and its results as follows.

1.       It is inflationary by definition.

2.       It has a temporary negative impact on commerce, especially the food service industry.

3.       The increase in purchasing power for those who get a raise as a result are muted because the increased  salary cost  will be reflected in the cost of goods and service which they too buy.

4.       The benefit to those who get a raise is temporary because once the increased salary expenses flush through the system (6 mo. – 2 years) their net purchasing power will be the same as before.

5.       It is a thinly veiled redistribution of wealth scheme.

6.       The politicians clearly understand the above and are simply pandering for votes.

book recommendations

For quite some time now, I have been reading non-fiction almost exclusively.  Most of it is history.  Recently, I have been thinking of posting brief commentaries on the books I have liked best because I think many of them would be of interest to the readers of this blog.  So here we go:

THE RACE BEAT: THE PRESS, THE CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE, AND THE 

    AWAKENING OF A NATION.  By Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff,  pub. 2006.  

     Won the Pulitzer Prize.

This is one of the very best books I have ever read.  The sub-title is an accurate summary  of its contents. The early chapters describe the valiant efforts of the black press to trace and document the violence against blacks which was occurring in the south during the earlier part of the century.   By and large their reports of white riots and lynchings went unnoticed by white America.  The rest of the book is about the civil rights movement people of my age are familiar with.

The pivot between these two eras is Emmett Till and his mother.  Till was fourteen years old when he was abducted, tortured, and murdered in Money, Mississippi, in 1955.  His mother was determined that this atrocity would not be ignored.  She handled his funeral in such a way that the white press was compelled to pay attention.  That white press would go to Money for the trial of two men who, after their acquittal by a jury which required just shortly over one hour to determine their innocence, would not merely admit to but boast of the crime they had committed.

From then on the national media was on the story.

The Affordable Care Act

I urge you to watch the news and recall the quote from Nancy Pelosi:

"We'll have to pass the bill, in order to find out what is in it."

Big Government vs Small Government (2)

In the first part of this discussion of Big Government vs Small Government I mostly talked about our need for, yet fear of, government in general.  I talked about the fact that the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives can, in some ways, be boiled down to this one concept.

Now let's take a look at this concept of small government and the benefits thereof.  The first problem in trying to discuss this is one of definition.  What qualifies as a small government?  I'm sure one could write a book on that subject, but not this one.  It would help if we could look at examples of governments that are clearly small.  It seems to me, looking around the world, that small governments are found in countries that could best be described as third world ones.    And in those countries it appears to me that government is largely ineffectual and corrupt, benefiting a relative few.    I generalize, but I can't really think of a country, that has what all would agree is a small government, that doesn't show those attributes.

Perhaps an example that we would be most familiar with is Afghanistan.  The long running war we have been fighting there keeps developments in our news.  It is apparently a small government fan's paradise.  Not much government interference.   But the drawbacks of having an ineffectual government there are clear and well known.

I don't tend to worry much about "big government".  Nor am I a proponent of "big government".  I am a proponent of "big enough government".

Lone Survivor by Chris Stringer

Have you ever looked at one of those charts that represent the precursors of our species and some lines in our species that didn't make it and feel like it was just a jumble of unconnected short  lines?  Lone Survivor attempts to remedy that.  The book is by Chris Stringer one of the authors of The Complete World of Human Evolution and is published by Henry Holt and Co, 2012.  It presents a view of most likely connections among our ancestors.  It is subtitled - How we came to be the only humans on earth.

Like The Complete World .. the presentation seems scientifically sound and accessible to the interested reader.  It is very well done and I highly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in the subject.

I enjoyed the book very much.

Big Government vs little government

“A government that is big enough to give you everything you want,

 is big enough to take from you everything that you have.” 

 

The above quote was used in an earlier post by Wayne to point out the dangers of  the government forcing us to do something "for our own good".

 

1.  What else does a government do besides force us to do things that are for our own good?  Why else was government even invented?  Nobody likes it but the reasonable person can see the reasons why it is absolutely necessary.  Even our little Home Owners Association has, as reason for existence, that "everyone cannot be trusted to do what ever they want without doing harm to the others in the subdivision".  Eventually someone is going to, just for example, paint their house a color that everyone else agrees is horrid and brings down the average property values just by its presence.  So while "forcing us to do things that are "for our own good"" sounds absolutely unAmerican and indefensible, in fact that is what government is for.  Basically there is no other reason to have it and it speaks to the fact that when you get right down to it people will not agree on what is "for our own good"...not even on the simplest of things.  If one wants to never have any other force them to do something for their own good then they should, from a practical standpoint, live the life of a hermit.  Kind of like the uni-bomber without the bombing.  But that's not really practical for the sane person.

 

2.  There has never been a government that has been big enough to give everybody everything they want.  I guess ours is big enough to give a small few everything they want, and them some, but not everybody everything they want.  Will there ever be a government big enough to do that? I don't know?  And if a government was big enough to give everybody what they want would that necessarily mean that that government would take everything that everybody has.  I don't know that.  It's an interesting discussion.  Some would say that since the government could, they would.  Others would say that it depends on the government.

 

3.  This may be the most important point.  There is not one government in the industrialized world that is not big enough to take everything that their citizens have.  So we are there already.  The question is, is that automatically a bad thing.  This seems to be where the conservatives and liberals often clash.

 

I have spent most of my life as a conservative Republican and I bought into all of Ronald Reagan's criticisms of "Big Government" and even Government in general.   "The biggest lie you can hear is 'hi I'm from the government and I'm here to help you'."  Hahahaha.  so true, so true.  Or... is it?  If I need a fireman, don't I call the government and I hope to hear very quickly "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."  Well Yipee!! Get with it!  If I am a farmer and I'm having some trouble with my crops that can be very serious to my livelihood I will likely speak to the local Dept of Agriculture rep at some point and it is my understanding they can be quite helpful.  It doesn't take much thought to come up with endless examples of needing something from the government that is a good and reasonable expectation.  It's easier to think of it in the negative if you think of the government as some generic negative cloud that hangs over everything sucking the economic life out of everything else.  For example, many criticize the postal service as being the ultimate in inefficiency and bloat.  But it is my understanding that we have had the most desirable postal system in the world for a long long time.  The current transition we are in to electronic communication from physical paper delivery is most definitely a genuine hurdle which I see them working on even now.  But, what is their national calling as the nation's postal delivery service?  I would not want to go forward at this time without one.  So I say they should carry on, losses and all.  We citizens need that service to be there.  The country needs that service to be there.  I hasve been receiving my mail everyday but Sunday, including hurricanes, for my whole life.  If it can be made more efficient then do so, but let's not pull the plug on it just yet.

 

Those who are still in that groove where they think "small government" is better than "big government" have every right to believe that, of course.  But I would urge everyone to think about what parts of the government specifically you feel comfortable getting rid of.  Generally what I get from people when I ask them that, if they haven't already walked off in disgust at such a stupid liberal question (I do live in a very conservative district in Texas) , is "there's a lot of waste in the government", although they don't name the specific waste they are referring to, or criticism of some study they heard about where some scholastic types were trying to find out what the warthog does on its day off or some such nonsense.  Then of course I get the attacks on the government giving money to people who don't try to do for themselves.  I don't know anyone who thinks that is a good thing, liberal or conservative.  It's a red herring that gets thrown a lot!  I will work side by side with anyone who wants to come up with a system that no one can cheat.  and short of that I will work side by side to punish those who do cheat.

 

But think about all the things the government does that allow us to just walk around feeling safe pretty much 24 hours a day.  I don't think much about what's in my water or my food or underground or next door or in the air, or whether my purchased products are safe.  I feel fairly safe that our justice system will treat me fairly if I get involved with it.  Our government supplies us with so much freedom.  Yeah, it sounds weird but it's accurate.  It is that freedom from so much worry that we would otherwise be saddled with that benefits every American that is one of the reasons that our enemies hate us.  We, generally speaking, are so comparatively worry free while so many people in the world have to worry about so much every day.  I have more to say on this later.

Voter Fraud

Full disclosure:  I believe that you should have a picture ID to get any of the things that we get  from the government including access to the voting booth.  The government should provide an easy and cost free way of getting  a working ID for voting.

Now how many times have you heard or seen the following argument:
Voter fraud is a fake issue because there have been only a small number of prosecutions for voter fraud.

Here are two more arguments using this reasoning.

You can count the number of drinkers by counting the number of prosecutions for drunkenness.

or

You can count the number of young women who are engaging in sex by counting how many of them are getting pregnant.

Tea Party and Science

Those who are open to evidence about the Tea Party might be interested in the following article

Tea Partiers Score High on Science Literacy

in the Cultural Cognition Project from Yale Law School.

The Cultural Cognition Project is a group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs. Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities. Project members are using the methods of various disciplines -- including social psychology, anthropology, communications, and political science -- to chart the impact of this phenomenon and to identify the mechanisms through which it operates. The Project also has an explicit normative objective: to identify processes of democratic decision making by which society can resolve culturally grounded differences in belief in a manner that is both congenial to persons of diverse cultural outlooks and consistent with sound public policy making.

enslaved persons

A few years ago I took a trip around the US and went to several historical sites in the east.  I noticed that in many (I think all) of these locations the word “slave” was not used.  In its place was the expression “enslaved person”. 

My initial reaction was, “Well there is another example of politically correct nonsense.”

But the expression hung around in the back of my mind and finally I felt the need to analyze it.  What do the two terms say about the individuals who wear them?  How is the word whose root word is slave, used?  In the first case “slave” was a noun.  The individual was a s-l-a-v-e.  In the second case “enslaved” was an adjective.  It described the individual’s condition, not his essence.  The individual was a p-e-r-s-o-n (who had been enslaved).

Now, I know what you’re thinkin’.  To the slave it is a distinction without a difference.  Maybe. But even in the hardest of times perhaps the most important thing of all is how you think of yourself.  Frederick Douglass may not have made the verbal distinction, but I believe that he did make the psychological one.

Be that as it may, a modern American who wants to understand his country and how the reality of its history correlates with the exceptionalism of its vision ought to consider the distinction above to be about a very significant difference. 

PS  The term enslaved person also implies the existence of an enslaver.

Default 3

The saddest part was the name calling.  Extortionist, hostage takers, and even terrorists.  Apparently this disturbs me more than most people.  I generally assume that people who stoop to name calling don’t have a very good argument.  But in this case everyone says the Ds won and the Rs will pay a heavy price.  But I wonder.   In the next few years the younger folk are going to figure out how badly they are being served by our particular version of the welfare state which is very biased toward the old folks who are immediate spenders and biased against the young and investment. (Its advocates are not biased against the word “investment”.  They love the word.  They will call a hip replacement on an 80 year old man an investment.)

When the young figure this out, it is possible that they will become interested in a more fiscally responsible government.  At that point they may remember who was on which side of the fiscal responsibility ledger.

Default 2

The word default got a lot of interesting usage in the discussion.  If we do not raise the debt limit then we will be in default - we would not be able to meet all of our obligations.  That would be bad.  But there is bad, worse, and worst.   In this case, the worst would be not paying the interest on the national debt.  That would roil the international markets and put the “full faith and credit” of the USA in question.  With a quick flip of the tongue Democratic speakers (including Obama) would switch and act as if not paying the interest on the debt would be the FIRST default on the list and that it would ruin the “full faith and credit”.  This fear mongering caused the short term treasuries interest rate to go up to – are you ready – almost one half of 1 percent.  There followed a “panic” and a flight to safety!!!  Where did they go to feel safe about the location of their money?  They bought US Treasuries.  Perhaps the more astute of them, or their advisers, had read the 14^th amendment to the US Constitution which says in part: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, …, shall not be questioned.”  That overrides any regular law about debt limits or otherwise.  It would also put debt payment at the head of the line.  

Default 1

I found several things interesting about the recent shutdown of the government – debt ceiling crisis.

As noted here some time ago, I am opposed to the debt ceiling.  I assume that it was a well intended proposal to hold down the growth of government or the debt.  The Congress and President pass laws without adequate funding and therefore, without admitting it, they raise the debt.  The debt ceiling is, I suppose, intended to lay in the background and control the growth of the debt. It doesn’t work.   Partly because the propaganda around holding fast to it is just too great.   Partly because the argument that when a bill is passed that itself suffices to raise the debt if the bill is not paid for in some other way.  What might work would be  to require that a newly passed bill must include a funding provision specifying how the bill will be paid for before it takes effect.  This would have to be done a)  regardless of actual cost or else they would just claim that it would cost very little and b) even if debt was the way it would be paid for.  This  wouldn’t hold down debt, but it would be more honest.

The ridiculous right with its attempt to delegitimize Obama – eg birthers - has now been joined by the lunatic left in its efforts to delegitimize the Tea Party with references to the Confederacy - Andrew Sullivan, Jesse Jackson, and Eleanor Clift.   Ms. Clift based it on seeing someone with a Confederate flag.  I do not recall hearing a similar response when immigration marchers waved Mexican flags some time back.  Bill Maher thinks Obama is so tentative in his governance because of a fear of assassination.   Before next year is over I expect that these four will view any opposition to Obama as simple racism.

No Comment

Dear Senate Judiciary Committee members,

Every time there is a Supreme Court Justice nominee they come before your committee and you ask them what they think about this or that and they say: “I can’t comment on that because it might come before the court.”

And you then say, “Oh yes.  I forgot about that.”

Why don’t you consider the following.  Well ahead of time of the hearings, give the nominee 2 or 3 recent Supreme Court cases and ask them to study the transcript of the case and render an opinion in the same way they would have done if they had been on the court at the time the case was heard.  

They may object that the matter might come before them if they are on the court. 

Explain to them that that is true and that if it does then it will also come before all of the other justices who rendered a real verdict.  Therefore the nominee (if confirmed) will be in exactly the same position on this case as all of the other (current) justices.  

On what basis will they then object to indicating what their verdict would be?

Political Tactics

Jeff Greenfield says in this column what I have been feeling better than I have or could.  I still can't shake this feeling that the subject tactics are something new and heretofore unthinkable by American politicians.  Mr. Greenfield has been reporting on Washington politics for a long time and seems to agree.  Of course not everyone likes him and I haven't always agreed with him.  But he does always seem to be reasonable, rational, thoughtful and knowledgable.

http://news.yahoo.com/default--are-there-people-in-congress-who-really-would-do-such-a-thing--180324720.html

comment on Bruce's comment of October 7, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Bruce's comments are in black my remarks are in red.

If the Rs trying to force a person (the President) by force, intimidation or undue power It is not undue power.  I know from your previous posts that you do not like the fact that the Congress has the power of the purse – in fact the HR has the power of the purse - but there it is, in Article one of that pesky Constitution.  (not only shutting down almost the entire government, not anywhere near the entire federal government much less the states but blaming it on Obama because he won't capitulate...oh, I mean "negotiate") I have seen Obama on TV saying repeatedly that he will not negotiate on this or the debt limit. doesn't meet the definition of extortion as posted above, then I don't know what to say. What would they have to do to meet the definition in your eyes? Is there anything legal that they could do that you would call extortion? I would love to read what that would be. 

Since extortion is a crime it will be hard to arrange .  I gave Wikipedia’s definition before:       Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

 Also see merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extortion:  ex·tor·tion noun \ik-ˈstȯr-shən\ :            the crime of getting money from someone by the use of force or threats

 If they are committing a crime, then Obama should have Holder arrest Boehner. There's a headline for you.  That is where you end up if you follow the logic of this kind of rhetoric. The real question is: does this kind of rhetoric improve your argument?  I would think only with those who are already in your choir.

But I feel that we are drifting off into semantics now. Precisely. What the Rs have done in shutting down the government, and soon holding the debt limit and the country's credit rating hostage (yeah, I said it...hostage), is wrong no matter what you call it. The monthly income of the Feds is about 10 times the interest on the national debt.  The Full faith and credit business is a straw man, issued by people who believe that there should be no limit to how much debt that we run up.  I don't care if its a political tactic practiced by everyone including all of my friends and my entire family, it's still not right. Shutting down the government is just too much, too painful for too many. It's way off balance. It's bringing a bazooka to a knife fight. Its having your Dad beat up the elementary school bully. It's putting a yacht in a stock pond. Its fishing with dynamite. All over one law.  Will they try to change the law to make it better? Nooooo. It's got to go or nothing. I've heard some of their ideas about changing it, but that's just gutting it and taking the teeth out of it. If Obama drops the employer mandate – no problem.  If the Rs insist on dropping the individual mandate – then all the above slurs apply.  I understand about the Peter and Paul stuff. But frankly, that's the way that insurance works too.  If you think that “that Peter and Paul stuff” is the way insurance works, then I’m not sure that you have got a handle on the one very large difference between "the stuff" and insurance.  In our society the government uniquely has the right to the initiation of the use of force.  A regular insurance company cannot force you to buy their product.  The government can, eg SS, ACA, Medicare.  That is the real and substantial difference: force.  The insurance companies want Peter to pay for Paul   that is if they have to have a Paul. They would really rather keep Paul out of the system so that Peter is actually paying for nothing at all. Does Peter like that better?  That is why this Peter supports the ACA and the eventual implementation of national health insurance.  But I believe in looking the downside straight in the face and not pretend that it doesn’t exists.  This is another example of the Government forcing us to do something “for our own good”. 

Those things are very dangerous for two reasons. 

1.  It is hard to honestly finance them (see medicare). 

2.  If I may borrow from Thomas Jefferson Gerald Ford (corrected - 10-09-13):

“A government that is big enough to give you everything you want,

 is big enough to take from you everything that you have.” 

So I say again that in view of the fact that it is our side of this debate that is supporting a program that involves force, it seems passing strange that some on our side should accuse the other side of extortion.  Perhaps we hope that if we assert loudly enough the claim that they are doing it, then no one will notice that we really are doing it.  I prefer straight forward argument and I think we have a good case.  I think name calling makes us look like we have a bad case. 

The Current Language of Politics

Apparently I am not (in the last two entries) communicating well in the exchanges in the posts of Oct. 3 and Oct. 4.  Whether we continue them or not I want to try again to state what  I think about this and some things that I don’t think about this. 

1.  I am with the supporters of the ACA on the issue.  However, the Republican general position (smaller government) is a legitimate position and they have a right to use all legitimate methods to pursue it.  One is to use the rules of the House to prevent a vote on "the Senate Bill".  They can do that - and Obama can get on TV and say: "Just have a vote!" and make them look bad.

2.  I am offended by the tactics that my side (let’s call them the Ds) is using – in particular the name-calling.

As was noted in one of the posts "extortion  does have a definition": 

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.  

Please note the word criminal.

3.  It seems to me to be particularly offensive to call the opponents (let’s call them the Rs) “extortionists” when the Rs are using the same tactics that the Ds have used in the past (when the Rs and Southern Ds held a majority in one body or the other of Congress).  This kind of hyperbolic language was not used.  You can say that it is because our politics was not so bitter then, and I will say sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between cause and effect.

4.  Since a basic principle of the ACA is that the government will “rob Peter to pay Paul” by forcing the payment of a fee or a tax or a premium by Peter. (I agree with C J John Roberts that a rose by any other name …)  The money will be used to provide “affordable” health care for Paul.  Does that sound like any criminal activity mentioned above?  I would agree that the operation of the ACA is technically not extortion.  But I agree only because it is the government which is doing it and it is done according to law.  Still, it seems to me to be spectacularly ironic for the Ds to say that the opponents of the ACA are engaging in – extortion.

5.  Consider the following two things in connection with Obama’s sudden adoration of “the law”.
1. a) About the ACA's health care individual mandate Obama says: “It’s the law we can’t delay that.”
b) About the ACA's health care employer mandate Obama says: “We are delaying that.”
2. About the “Dream Act” (which did not pass and change the immigration law) Obama said I’m not going to enforce that part of the immigration law. Poof

This is not a minor irrelevant discrepancy from out of the blue.  Obama makes 1.a)  the justification for calling the Rs extortionists.  Because “the ACA is the law and therefore I can’t negotiate about that”.  The other two are the evidence that he doesn’t take that argument seriously.

6.  I support the ACA and I think the Rs are messing up bad on this and that they will pay for it.  I think the arguments that can be brought to bear against their position are strong and persuasive.  Instead the Ds have chosen a type of name-calling that leaves their defenders making arguments like, “Well, I don’t really know what the president meant by that.”

I support Obama, but I am depressed about him. In general, I believe that we should not have to wonder what the President intended to say and, especially, the world should not have to wonder whether or not he meant it.