yellowarmadillos

Americans Elect

2012-02-15T18:52:00.001-06:00

I wonder if the YA community thinks that this whole Americans Elect thing will actually go anywhere? I am doubtful.

For a while I thought that Jon Huntsman might end up being the AE candidate, but he was so quick to endorse Romney that it seems highly unlikely. Is there a serious person out there who would consider bucking their party in favor of an internet primary?

I am trying to come up with a few potential candidates, but am not having much luck. Maybe NYC mayor Bloomberg? I don't know.

best statistics question ever

2012-02-12T18:23:00.000-06:00

.
By way of Raymond Johnson, the best statistics multiple choice question ever written on a chalkboard. Try not to think too hard.

If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct?

a) 25%

b) 50%

c) 60%

d) 25%

To see it on the blackboard go to best-statistics-question-ever .
.

Birth control mandate

2012-02-10T00:34:00.002-06:00

.
I'm really having a hard time following the birth control mandate question.

A friend told me that she had read some of the comments on a blog and that it was depressing how simplistic the writers (on both sides I think) were about the topic and that none of them thought that it was complicated at all.

Well that's the way blogs are I thought, but then I listened to Senator Boxer and pro and con views on PBS last night and they took the same view.

"This is not a religious issue it is a health care issue," Boxer said.

Then on PBS:

"Of course it is a religious freedom issue since the government is forcing the Catholic Church to do something that is contrary to its fundamental beliefs."

The other side says, "I see it as a health care issue. I don't see it as a freedom of religion issue." Poof. (She was Methodist.) She showed no sign of ever having contemplated any religious aspect of it. She apparently believed that the freedom of religion argument was sufficiently dealt with by saying: I don't see it that way.

It reminds me a bit of the water boarding question. Some were horrified that the Government would water board a known terrorist for information. It was clearly a civil liberties issue they said. [later that day: I am told-not civil liberties rather international law. The point is the same] The other side took the view: I see it as a national security issue. I don't see it as a civil liberties issue. Poof.

Same song, second verse. Strange thing though there has (I think) been a bit of a role reversal. Those who worried over the water boarded terrorists are not the same group as the folks who are now decrying the coercion of the Catholic Church. In fact ...
.

An apology(?) tour

2012-02-07T11:31:00.001-06:00

.
Romney is now speaking about Obama's "apology tour" and arguing that instead of apologizing for America, Obama should be apologizing to America.

Maybe that works. I did not think that it was an apology tour, I thought it was a reality tour. An attempt to let the world know that he recognized that this was not the fifties or sixties. That he knows that the US GDP is no longer half of the world's GDP, it is now only one fourth of the world's GDP. We no longer dominate the world. But if we have enough sense we can still be the first among equals for a long time. But to do that we cannot continue to act as if we are the the elephant in the room.
.

Trump again

2012-02-04T21:40:00.000-06:00

.
If Trump had any class at all he would have imitated what the John Birch Society did when they wanted to support for Barry Goldwater in 1964. They had enough sense to know that their reputation was very right wing and their support might have a negative effect.

The story was that they notified Goldwater that they would either support him or oppose him which ever he thought would help him the most.
.

Pro Choice

2012-02-03T07:00:00.001-06:00

Right to have an abortion – Liberals Yes, Conservatives No

Right to not join a Union – Liberals No, Conservatives Yes

Go figure - I have no problem with the position of liberals or conservatives on either issue. I do have a problem with the rational that both/either group puts forward to support their position on both/either issue.

On the abortion Issue the only issue for me is at what point in the development of a human being do we extend legal protection of life.

On the closed shop (union membership required) issue I find it surprising that Americans will tolerate mandatory membership as an employment requirement.

American Exceptionalism 2

2012-01-30T23:10:00.007-06:00

In a 10-31-2010 post I made my case for American Exceptionalism.
Now I would like to say what I believe are some of the consequences of that belief. What you might call the rights and privileges and responsibilities of that status.
Well, let’s start with the part about being a “shining city on a hill” and a light unto the world. I doubt that we were a very bright light when Winthrop was talking about the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 16xx. But if my understanding of history is correct we were such a light (an example of freedom) to some of the world in the late 18th century and to much of the world in the 19th century and well into the 20th century. But now there are lots of places that promote freedom and opportunity. You might or might not think of that as a success of ours, but in any case our special role in that regard is over. There were no rights and privileges that went with the role of “shining city on a hill” other than perhaps an unfortunate inclination to self adulation. But, since we claimed the role, there was a responsibility to live up to its image.

This is incomplete.
.

Dole on Gingrich 2

2012-01-30T22:49:00.000-06:00

.
I heard a story that when they were in Congress together, Gingrich and Dole once had the following conversation:

Gingrich: " Why do so many people take an instant disliking to me?"

Dole: "Saves time."
.

Chessmaster Ken Smith of Texas

2012-01-28T00:20:00.003-06:00

.
“It is my belief that chess is an amazingly accurate model for many situations in life. The strategies, the competition, and the challenges of living.” Ken Smith, Texas chessmaster of Smith - Morra gambit fame, 1930 - 1999.

Ken Smith will probably be remembered for the work he did on what was previously known as the Morra gambit which was of sufficient quality and quantity that he felt (as do many others) that he was justified in calling it the Smith - Morra Gambit.

A gambit is the giving up of material (usually a pawn) for space or time. The Smith-Morra Gambit is played by white against black's Sicilian Defense. 1. P-e4 P-c5 2. P-d4 PxP 3. P-c3. If black captures PxP the white replies Nxc3 and white is a pawn down with (most people think) insufficient compensation in space and time.

Smith played the gambit at every opportunity against weak and strong players alike. In one tournament Smith was white against Mario Campos Lopez who played the French Defence, 1...e6 instead of the Sicilian against Smith. This led the world class player Bent Larsen to give Lopez's move a question mark along with the comment "stronger is 1...c5 which wins a pawn", presuming Smith would play his 2. d4 gambit.

When I lived in Texas in the sixties and seventies I had four encounters with Ken Smith which netted me one draw, one loss, one win, and one compliment (sort of). The sort of applies to three of the four occasions. The loss was real. The first was in 1964 when I went to the Texas Open (my very first tournament). Ken Smith was giving a simultaneous exhibition (i.e. he was playing about 30 to 40 players at the same time on 30 to 40 boards). Since I was a newbie he perhaps underestimated me and I managed to get a draw by perpetual check. The next two occurred at the Orin Perry Open in West Texas in 1965. We played in the first round, I was white and played P-e4 he played P-c5. Figuring that it would be an interesting way to lose, I played the Smith-Morra against him and sure enough he crushed me. Later in the day we were between rounds and he decided to show off a bit and offered to play me a blindfold blitz game. I have never seen anyone play a game in 5 minutes in which they did not look at the board. Sure enough he lost. He was a little short on a sense of humor though, because I reminded him of the draw the year before and said, "So I guess we have an even score." He was not amused.

Nine years later at a tournament in Fort Worth I had had unusually good results on Friday and Saturday and in the penultimate round 6 I was on Board 2 against an expert named Babcock who was much stronger than me. But "on any given Sunday" ... I sacked a pawn for position and found some very nice moves and won a pretty little miniature of about 23 moves. Smith had watched the game closely and afterwards he said that it was a very nice game and that it should be published!
I beamed and then he said: "I didn't think that you'd find all of those moves."
Like I said, a compliment, sort of.
.

Dole on Gingrich

2012-01-26T21:56:00.001-06:00

Received from a reader:

“I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.

Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. By 1997 a number of House Republican members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when Newt could read the writing on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.

Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. He loved picking a fight with President Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press. This and a myriad of other specifics like shutting down the government helped to topple Gingrich in 1998.

In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty bucket in his hand — that was a symbol of some sort for him — and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it, and I’m not certain he knew either.

The Democrats are spending millions of dollars running negative ads against Romney as they are hoping that Gingrich will be the nominee which could result in a landslide victory for Obama and a crushing defeat for Republicans from the courthouse to the White House. Democrats are not running ads against Gingrich which is further proof they want to derail Governor Romney.

In my opinion if we want to avoid a sweeping victory by Obama in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer. He could win because he has the requisite experience in the public and private sectors. He would be a president in whom we could have confidence and he would make us proud.”

state of the union

2012-01-24T23:56:00.000-06:00

.
I'm kinda sickly so I'll not say much.

There are a lot of things that he wants to do. Most of which I would support, if we were in a position to pay for them.

I do find it troublesome that he refers to a reduction in one person's taxes as equivalent to an increase in someone else's benefit. It really does give credence to the Republican's claim that Democrats think that the whole GDP belongs to the government and it lets some people keep what they earn and it gives money to others.

The main thing though is what is he asking of us? He wants more money from the rich. From the rest of us he doesn't ask for any sacrifices. I think that a return to the Clinton tax rates that is limited to those making over 350K will produce 70 Billion per year. That is less than 5% of the short and medium term problem which is a current deficit of 1.3 Trillion per year. That is not a serious attack on our money problem.

I believe that he is doing the nation a disservice by giving all of my liberal friends a basis for the belief that we can get what we need from the rich alone.

BTW I support a return to the Clinton rates for all of us. If you have to implement it in stages (because of the recession) that would be ok but adopt it now.

South Carolina

2012-01-20T18:21:00.001-06:00

.
It appears that Newton Leroy Gingrich will win in SC.

If you do not believe that "the people" are disgusted with "the media" you should find a replay of the opening of 1/19/12 debate and watch it.

If you didn't see it. As the first question John King asked Gingrich about the fact that his second wife had said the day before that Newt had asked her to agree to an open marriage allowing him to continue his affair with the woman who would become his third wife.

Gingrich unloaded on King, the question, and the media. The crowd roared their approval.

More amazing was the fact that King was not willing to defend his question! Which confirmed for the crowd that Gingrich was right.

To win, Romney will need to stay calm until the race moves to an area that is not quite so retro as South Carolina.

I bet you didn't mind my saying Newton Leroy Gingrich.
Would you feel the same about it if I had said Barack Hussein Obama?
.

Tenure

2012-01-19T15:45:00.001-06:00

.
See a description (and/or buy) My Tenure Biennium a memoir by this blogger at this link on CreateSpace.
.

No Labels

2012-01-18T13:36:00.001-06:00

.
Point number 10 on the No-Labels 12 program is bipartisan seating in congress. A small thing.

It is worth a look.
.

Gingrich

2012-01-18T08:37:00.001-06:00

.
Gingrich is arguing that Santorum and Perry should get out so a conservative (Gingrich)can go head to head with Romney.

He should have, long ago, proposed a criterion by which the conservatives would now have decided who their champion was and have everybody else drop out.

If he were as capable as he thinks he is he would have gotten them to agree (back then) to one that would now make him the choice.
.

Pragmatic environmental proposals

2012-01-17T13:43:00.001-06:00

“The beauty of these pollution-control measures is that over five to 10 years they pay for themselves in the developing world,”

The statement above was made by Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies regarding a list of proposed pollution-control measures he and other scientists claim are cheap, practical and easy to implement, even in third world economies. See the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/countering-climate-change-without-waiting-for-a-payoff.html

Having seen several articles with similar proposals in recent weeks I am encouraged.

New England Patriots 45 - Denver Brocos 10

2012-01-15T13:16:00.001-06:00

.
Apparently God is no substitute for a powerful front four.
.

geek joke

2012-01-14T16:32:00.000-06:00

.
A physicist represents the scientific link between the operational perspective of an engineer and the theoretical inclination of the mathematician. This is illustrated by the following story (which makes fun of mathematicians, if not all three) that I have heard for as long as I have been in mathematics.

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician each notices (in separate places) a fire.

The engineer immediately runs a large bucket of water and pours it on the fire extinguishing it completely.

The physicist examines the fire, does some calculations, measures a precise amount of water, and pours it on the fire extinguishing it without a drop to spare.

The mathematician looks at the fire and says, "There exists a solution." and walks on.
.

New Hampshire Actual

2012-01-12T10:23:00.001-06:00

.
Huntsman did a bit better than I thought he would.

Romney 39.3
Paul 22.9
Huntsman 16.9
Gingrich 9.4 (by 203 votes)
Santorum 9.4
Perry .07

They tell me that the Tea Party runs the Republican party. But I would note that the TWO moderates got a total of 56.2% and the THREE conservatives got a total of only 18.9%.
.

New Hampshire prediction

2012-01-09T14:49:00.000-06:00

.
1. Romney clear winner (weaker than he was, 30-40 %)

2. Paul clear second

3. Huntsman squeaker third

4. Gingrich squeaker fourth

5. Santorum close fifth

6. Perry

3 PM Monday

Recess appointments

2012-01-06T21:48:00.001-06:00

.
President Obama has just made some recess appointments to the CFPB and the NLRB which will agitate some Republican Senators.

For those who don't carry a copy of the Constitution in your jacket pocket, recall that the President normally makes appointments by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. If the Senate is "not in session" then the President may make "recess appointments" which do not require Senatorial approval (but are also not permanent). To put it in context, I believe that the Senate made it clear to the previous president that they would not approve of the nomination of John Bolton to be the UN representative and Bush put him up there via a recess appointment. Recess appointments are an accepted part of presidential powers.

What is the difference here? The Senate claims that it is "in session". But the Senators have almost all been gone for some time. They have a member come onto the floor every 3 days to have a 5 minute "session". The Senate Democratic majority goes along with this pretense, presumably because they want to retain the right to engage in the same sort charade themselves in the future (as they have done in the past).

If my mother's children had engaged in such silliness, she would have given us a whipping.

Obama rightly claims that the Senate is in a phony session and he went ahead and made the appointments as if they had formally recessed. The Rs will howl that he has crossed the Rubicon and we are now only days away from the final destruction of the Republic.

You can find Lawrence Tribe's piece on this here. It makes me a bit nervous to agree with Tribe, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

Two more points.

1. The Ds claim, and I think I have heard the Rs acknowledge, that the Rs would like to block those appointments (in part) because they don't like a new law that the NLRB is supposed to enforce. It was passed in the last Congress (which was Democratic). Now, let's "pass over and leave unmentioned" the fact that this is not an appropriate tactic by the Rs and ask ourselves this: Do the Rs not know that Obama's campaign theme is going to be that Congressional Republicans are playing partisan games with the country's future? Are they going to fight him on this and make an even bigger issue of it, giving Obama all sorts of ammunition for that theme? As Seth Meyers would say on SNL: Are they going to do that? Really?

2. I am sure that all of the Democrats who hear about this will reflect for a few moments and say, "Now I understand why it was inappropriate for all of those Democratic state legislators in Texas and Wisconsin to go AWOL a while back." (For those who don't remember, those states require a super majority for a quorum which protects a large minority's right to present their case. The large minorities recently prevented legislation they opposed by leaving their states. A lot of folks on the left cheered.) I'm sure the Ds will see the similarities, won't they?
.

Eight is enough!

2012-01-04T23:31:00.000-06:00

.
So Romney won by 8 votes.

I think he got more than that. The other two of the "three tickets" from Iowa are serious candidates for "Republicans least likely to win the nomination".

He improved his prospects considerably.
.

Iowa caucuses prediction

2012-01-02T08:38:00.000-06:00

.
Top 3

Mitt Romney Will do well in Iowa. Top 2. Might win.

Rick Santorum [resurrected] Will surprise some folks in Iowa. Top 3 on Jan 3. Might win.

Ron Paul Will disappoint a bit in Iowa. Top 3 on Jan 3.

Also rans

Rick Perry will barely meet his goals.
Newt Gingrich will be unhappy.
Bachman will trail the six and should quit, but may not.

Huntsman is not competing there.

2012 Candidates - Jan - 2012

2012-01-01T16:56:00.003-06:00

.
An interested citizen's view of the possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The sequences in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them had monthly, Jan-current month, of getting the nomination.
My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.
The YAMSLT test can be found here.

AmericansElect may produce a candidate, too. This will make the list more interesting.

DEMOCRATIC
Barack Obama (99) I will consider him again, but he is worrying me.

REPUBLICAN
Mitt Romney (25-25-26-24-25-30-30-33-35-35-50-50-60) I would consider him. He continues to run a good solid campaign. Does the right wing want to feel good or have a chance to win?

Newt Gingrich (4-4-4-4-03-03-01-01-1-10-13-33-12) - Newt (with or without the tears) is still Newt. He went way out of bounds on the courts. He fails the YAMSLT.

Rick Perry (x-x-x-x-x-x-06-22-25-30-25-20-10-10) The predicted chance of implosion has been confirmed and recovery is now harder. His wearing his religion on political sleeve is too much for me. He fails the YAMSLT.

Ron Paul (x-x-x-x-01-02-03-05-08-05-04-03-06) The libertarian's delight.

Jon Huntsman (x-x-1-1-01-05-06-01-05-0-3-06) Huntsman has all of his eggs in the NH basket. He is doing what he hoped in New Hampshire but has to hope that Romney stumbles.
May be running for something else- VP or2016 or Americans Elect.(revised Jan 2)

Rick Santorum [resurrected] (x-x-x-01-02-01-01-01-1-1-0-06) - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.

The candidate's below are (I think) out of the running and barely possible (altogether 1%).

Herman Cain (x-x-x-x-x-x-01-01-1-5-12-0) GWTW
Chris Christie (x-x ... x-x-10-0) GWTW
Michelle Bachman (x-x-x-01-01-10-20-13-20-0) A lightweight. Fails YAMSLT. GWTW
Sarah Palin (20-20-21-16-16-19-3-01-1-1-0) - She is playing games. Fails the YAMSLT.
Tim Pawlenty (05-07-08-16-14-20-25-15-1-1-0) - GWTW
Gary Johnson (x-x-x-x-01-01-01-01-01-01-0) Will highlight the drug prohibition issue.

Jefferson and Lincoln and King

2011-12-31T01:18:00.002-06:00

.
Some see in Thomas Jefferson only a hypocrite who owned slaves.

I see Jefferson as a man, admittedly flawed, who lived in a world not of his making which he could not change.

But I will also say that he did not simply "accept that which I cannot change" as in the cleric's serenity prayer. He contributed to the eventual solution in the only place where it could happen: the future. He placed in the hands of, then unknown, leaders a powerful weapon that could be wielded when the time came that it was possible to "change the things they could".

Lincoln: "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."
Gettysburg, November 1863

King: “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’”
Washington, August 28, 1968
.

Hitch

2011-12-30T23:05:00.002-06:00

.
"Religion is man made. All gods found so far are man made.

But that is not to say, at all, that there may not be a prime mover or higher intelligence.

But I say that no one has yet earned any claim to act in the name of that entity."

A comment presented on ABC's This Week.

Christopher Hitchens - April 13, 1949 – December 15, 2011 - thinker, writer

Though Hitchens retained his British citizenship, he became a United States citizen on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial on April 13, 2007. It was his 58th birthday and the 264th anniversary of Jefferson's birth.
.

Islamic dress code

2011-12-29T08:51:00.004-06:00

.
On a trip to Texas we stopped in a Waffle House in Arkansas and saw what I assumed to be a Muslim family of father, mother and 3 children. The mother and teen daughter were carefully scarfed so that only their faces and hands were visible. Not even their hair showed.

Well sort of.
The scarves were very colorful almost form fitted so that one could see that underneath was a lot of flowing hair. The slacks that they were wearing were also form fitted and very colorful .

While they appeared to meet the requirements of "covering" I expect many of the mullahs in the more backward parts of the Islamic world would have been shocked at the sight.

Like all of the other threads that make up the fabric of America, Islam will change what we become.

But America will change Islam too.
.

Midlife Crisis Economics By DAVID BROOKS

2011-12-27T18:32:00.000-06:00

When the administration came to office in the depths of the financial crisis, many of its leading figures concluded that the moment was analogous to the Great Depression. They read books about the New Deal and sought to learn from F.D.R.

But, in the 1930s, people genuinely looked to government to ease their fears and restore their confidence. Today, Americans are more likely to fear government than be reassured by it.

According to a Gallup survey, 64 percent of Americans polled said they believed that big government is the biggest threat to the country. Only 26 percent believed that big business is the biggest threat. As a result, the public has reacted to Obama’s activism with fear and anxiety. The Democrats lost 63 House seats in the 2010 elections.

Members of the administration have now dropped the New Deal parallels. But they have started making analogies between this era and the progressive era around the turn of the 20th century.

Again, there are superficial similarities. Then, as now, we are seeing great concentrations of wealth, especially at the top. Then, as now, the professional class of lawyers, teachers and journalists seems to feel as if it has the upper hand in its status war against the business class of executives and financiers.

But these superficial similarities are outweighed by vast differences.

First, the underlying economic situations are very different. A century ago, the American economy was a vibrant jobs machine. Industrialization was volatile and cruel, but it produced millions of new jobs, sucking labor in from the countryside and from overseas.

Today’s economy is not a jobs machine and lacks that bursting vibrancy. The rate of new business start-ups was declining even before the 2008 financial crisis. Companies are finding that they can get by with fewer workers. As President Obama has observed, factories that used to employ 1,000 workers can now be even more productive with less than 100.

Moreover, the information economy widens inequality for deep and varied reasons that were unknown a century ago. Inequality is growing in nearly every developed country. According to a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past 30 years, inequality in Sweden, Germany, Israel, Finland and New Zealand has grown as fast or faster than inequality in the United States, even though these countries have very different welfare systems.

In the progressive era, the economy was in its adolescence and the task was to control it. Today the economy is middle-aged; the task is to rejuvenate it.

Second, the governmental challenge is very different today than it was in the progressive era. Back then, government was small and there were few worker safety regulations. The problem was a lack of institutions. Today, government is large, and there is a thicket of regulations, torts and legal encumbrances. The problem is not a lack of institutions; it’s a lack of institutional effectiveness.

The United States spends far more on education than any other nation, with paltry results. It spends far more on health care, again, with paltry results. It spends so much on poverty programs that if we just took that money and handed poor people checks, we would virtually eliminate poverty overnight. In the progressive era, the task was to build programs; today the task is to reform existing ones.

Third, the moral culture of the nation is very different. The progressive era still had a Victorian culture, with its rectitude and restrictions. Back then, there was a moral horror at the thought of debt. No matter how bad the economic problems became, progressive-era politicians did not impose huge debt burdens on their children. That ethos is clearly gone.

In the progressive era, there was an understanding that men who impregnated women should marry them. It didn’t always work in practice, but that was the strong social norm. Today, that norm has dissolved. Forty percent of American children are born out of wedlock. This sentences the U.S. to another generation of widening inequality and slower human capital development.

One hundred years ago, we had libertarian economics but conservative values. Today we have oligarchic economics and libertarian moral values — a bad combination.

In sum, in the progressive era, the country was young and vibrant. The job was to impose economic order. Today, the country is middle-aged but self-indulgent. Bad habits have accumulated. Interest groups have emerged to protect the status quo. The job is to restore old disciplines, strip away decaying structures and reform the welfare state. The country needs a productive midlife crisis.

The progressive era is not a model; it is a foil. It provides a contrast and shows us what we really need to do.

For NYTimes reader's comments got to the NY Times site

the debt and the left

2011-12-26T17:23:00.001-06:00

.
E.J.Dionne has found a way to describe the election of 2012 in a way that completely ignores the problem of the debt. As Paul Samuelson notes, that is consistent with the left's refusal to consider it.
.

Lie of the year

2011-12-25T00:01:00.002-06:00

.
Politifact comes under fire from the left for judging the "pushing little old ladies over the cliff" add by the left as Lie of the year.
.

NPV 7

2011-12-24T11:47:00.000-06:00

.
National Popular Vote is starting to get some push back.

Gingrich and the courts

2011-12-18T17:54:00.002-06:00

.
One of the two things that I am furthest to the right on is the role of the courts.
I believe that the courts should stick to what the constitution says, not what they wish it said.
Pretend for a moment that you agree with me. What is the solution to this problem?
Elect people who will select judges that agree with that view of the role of judges.
Problem solved.

With that in mind, I want to express my dismay at what Speaker Gingrich is saying about the courts and what he would “do about them”.
"I was frankly just fed up with elitist judges imposing secularism on the country and fundamentally changing the American Constitution," Gingrich told reporters, adding that "it was clear to me that you have a judicial psychology run amok, and there has to be some method of bringing balance back to the three branches."

Well, no, they haven’t “run amok”. They are perhaps stretching their power to the limits just like any institution is inclined to do.

One of the main decisions that Newt has complained about is the 9th circuit court’s decision about the unconstitutionality of “one nation under god” being in the pledge of allegiance. There are two very important facts about that decision. One, the pledge wasn’t adopted by Congress until 1942 and the phrase “under God” wasn’t added to the pledge until 1954 and therefore its presence there has absolutely no support by the founders. Two, the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court! That is to say, (if it is a problem) the judicial branch itself provided an internal solution to this particular issue that he is so overwrought about!
Now that he has exaggerated this problem to the level of a constitutional crises, he offers his equally exaggerated “solution” :

“In order to restore balance between Congress, the White House, and the courts, Gingrich recommended ignoring rulings, impeaching judges, subpoenaing justices to have them explain their rulings and, as a last resort, abolishing the courts altogether.”

It's breathtaking. It is hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with the balance between the three branches and this idea that the Supreme Court is the most powerful of them. The Judiciary is totally dependent on the Executive to implement its decisions. The courts are totally dependent on the Executive and the Senate to staff itself. The Congress has the power to remove any member of the judiciary. The fact that Congress does not exercise that power should lead a rational person to assume that they do not believe that things are that far out of balance.

What kind of person turns a small problem into a big problem and then proposes a radical solution to it?

Has Gingrich even thought about how he will maintain an independent judiciary and the rule of law while he has Congress sending subpoenas to judges?

In the monthly report I expressed my distress with Newt when he indicated that he had abandoned the first amendment,
but God-Lordy he has really lost it now.
.

Reading List

2011-12-18T15:50:00.000-06:00

Neil deGrasse Tyson, full-time astrophysicist and part-time actor (usually playing himself) recently held an interview on the news aggregator website Reddit.com starting with “I am Neil deGrasse Tyson -- AMA [Ask Me Anything]”.

Responding to the questions “Which books should be read by every single intelligent person on planet?” he answered:

The Bible, The System of the World (Newton), On the Origin of Species (Darwin), Gulliver's Travels (Swift), The Age of Reason (Paine), The Wealth of Nations (Smith), The Art of War (Sun Tsu), The Prince (Machiavelli).

If read all of the works above, you will have profound insight into most of what has driven the history of the western world.

Any additions? Subtractions? Comments?
I would also recommend reading the entire interview, and his previous interview here, if only for the comments about education and his very simple debunking of the "Ancient Aliens" myth.

the opinion of David Brooks et al.

2011-12-16T22:53:00.001-06:00

.

"The people who have worked with Romney and know him well, want Romney to win.

The people who have worked with Gingrich and know him well, want Romney to win."
.

When will Armey speak?

2011-12-15T23:22:00.000-06:00

.
Richard K. Armey (R) Texas was in the House for 16 years and was the House Majority leader for half of those years. They included the years of Gingrich's Speakership.

I don't think we have heard from him about Gingrich's candidacy. That should be interesting.
.

Rick Perry

2011-12-14T12:03:00.002-06:00

Rick Perry says that when he's elected he will end Obama's war on religion.

There you go.

Monkey Butts

2011-12-14T09:00:00.000-06:00

Monkey Butts: In one of the more vivid illustrations of the political landscape in some time David Axelrod had this to say about Newt Gingrich today, Devin Dwyer reports: Â "Just remember, the higher a monkey climbs on a pole, the more you can see his butt," Axelrod said, citing a piece of political wisdom he said he learned from a Chicago alderman. "So, the speaker is very high on the pole right now and we'll see how people like the view."

Chess in School

2011-12-14T08:24:00.002-06:00

.
"The exciting part, educationally, is the discovery that children who learn chess at an early age achieve more in the traditional math and sciences. Chinese, European, and American research all find significant correlational values after just one year of systematic chess exposure. The most striking benefits of chess are those associated with problem solving and creativity. A four-year Pennsylvania study compared the effect of various enrichment techniques on student scores on standardized tests. On the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, non-chess enrichment showed an average annual increase effect of 4.56%. Chess groups' annual increase effects weighed in at 17.3%. The York Board became the first English board in Canada to add chess to the curriculum. In December, New Jersey became the first US state to legislate chess into the curriculum starting in 1993. The United States now joins Quebec and New Brunswick and 29 other countries in the world in deploying chess systematically to develop thinking." –

Canadian Education Association Newsletter: June 1993

Two or three notes

2011-12-12T01:15:00.001-06:00

.
Sorry I'm not getting much up lately I've been kind of sickly.

1. “The first job of a leader is to define reality.” – Max Depree
Are our candidates, including O, telling us about the hard times ahead or are they pandering to our wish that it be easy?
Have you heard anyone say that serious sacrifice is needed from the middle class (as well as the rich)?

2. Some potential irony. Wouldn't it be strange if the post-mortem of next year's election showed that Obama had beaten a weak republican candidate, and that the tea party was the reason that stronger candidates had fallen by the wayside? Meaning that the tea party had reelected him.
.

Pragmatic Chaos

2011-12-10T00:45:00.000-06:00

Hi. I'm Diogenes. I will be the psuedonym for all of the people who don't want to put up things on their own but, instead, send things to Wayne that he thinks that you might like.

Try this

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html

Trumped update -(12/13 Cancelled)

2011-12-07T13:59:00.002-06:00

.
I don't remember where it came from, but I heard that this is just an SNL scam. They won't have to parody this debate. They can just run excerpts from the original.

We will update this and I will include my predictions:

Candidates attending: Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum,

Candidates attending and moderating: Donald Trump

Candidates predicted to attend: Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry

Candidates not attending: Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney
.

Belief in Science and Religion

2011-12-07T03:01:00.004-06:00

.
This is a prelude to a post on Climate Change and Capitalism.

Those who are familiar with the topic of belief will find nothing new here. This is a note for those who, like most of the reporters that I see on TV, could not pass the science part of Jeff Foxworthy's ten question test to decide if one is Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.

I come from the math-science side of Academia. I believe in science (thank you Aristotle, Roger Bacon, et al.) I believe scientists in general, even those whose work I know nothing about. That is because I know how they decide what they claim is true. That is, I believe in the scientific method and I think that those who have not practiced it may not understand that, inherent within science, are two of the most delightful devices for the correction and prevention errors.

The first is that your evidence must be reproducible. If you get results and someone else performs the same experiment and doesn’t get those results, then there is a problem and you basically start over. This is quite different from the way disagreements in religion have been handled. When Jesus and Mohammad have different visions then you had a very long religious war. Then of course there was the Pope and Martin Luther.

The second involves the difference between scientific and faith based belief. Faith based belief is often absolute – the expression that comes to mind is “written in stone”. Scientific belief is very tentative and can perhaps best be described as a belief that the position in question is the “best explanation available” at the present time. It may give way to a better or more complete theory at any time. The example that comes to mind is Newton’s mechanics which stood for 300 years before the arrival of Einstein's relativity. Those who are familiar with (or should I say committed to) faith based belief often imagine that the practitioners of science meekly accept its current beliefs as if they too were written on stone tablets. (I think I have seen this argument used by the intelligent design folks.) This is a more profound question because it speaks to the possibility that the whole enterprise may become biased in favor of its current beliefs. (The claim currently made about global warming.) In fact, it is true that errors have, in the past, been allowed to linger too long, the Piltdown Man comes to mind.

The corrective for that is, I think, one of the most profoundly delightful aspects of science. It is this: far from worshiping the pedestrian follower of the current perception, the scientific community reserves its highest accolades and greatest honors for those individuals who shake the very foundations of the current “best available explanation.” Carl Sagan is very well thought of as a presenter of science, but he will never compare to Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin in the pantheon of scientific stars.

Science saves its loudest applause for those who “look where all have looked and see what none have seen.”
.

Trumped

2011-12-06T17:32:00.000-06:00

.
So Donald Trump is going to hold a debate for the R candidates.

I've heard some pretty silly things in my time so I'm reluctant to say that that is the silliest, but it is a contender. Ron Paul and Huntsman have, to their credit, announced that they will not come.

And Gingrich is going to go.

So here is a test for the rest of them.
.

Capitalism vs Climate

2011-12-06T00:54:00.002-06:00

.
KW introduced us to the article Capitalism vs Climate by Naomi Klein in two earlier posts A and B .

He then makes a statement and asks the question:

"Will the private sector be able to deal with the massive climate changes bringing rises in sea levels, increased flooding and drought and widespread population movements? I would like to see someone on this blog try to answer this question in the affirmation, without simply writing off the coming crisis as a plot by leftists who want to destroy capitalism."

I want to try to give my answer to the question in a day or two. But first I want to respond to the statement by KW.

I think that it is relevant that her article is a criticism of a Heartland conference of Climate Deniers. Her arguments seem to be against this omnipresent conference. In the world of this article there is no reasonable person who agrees with her objective, but disagrees with her methods. These characters are convinced that climate change is a plot to destroy their way of life. They are the tools of the corporations who place their profits above the existence of our species or any species. In short, she has selected a perfect straw man.

Now to KW's statement:
I had said, "It seems that Ms. Klein arrives pretty quickly to her solution to the environmental problem – get rid of capitalism."

KW stated: "Wayne, Ms Klein does not say we should "get rid of capitalism" but only that it needs to be regulated and controlled because of the amount of planning necessary to deal with climate change."

I am going to offer some excerpts from her article first noting that the title is Capitalism vs Climate. To facilitate checking the context I will note where they are in the document (My copy is a word document in Times New Roman 12 pt font. It runs 19 pages.) Bold type is my emphasis.

page 5: "The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, “Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation.” Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.
Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong."

page 6: "It is true that responding to the climate threat requires strong government action at all levels. But real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.
Here is where the Heartlanders have good reason to be afraid: arriving at these new systems is going to require shredding the free-market ideology that has dominated the global economy for more than three decades."

page 12: "So let’s summarize. Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency."
...
"But for progressives, there is responsibility in it, because it means that our ideas—informed by indigenous teachings as well as by the failures of industrial state socialism—are more important than ever. It means that a green-left worldview, which rejects mere reformism and challenges the centrality of profit in our economy, offers humanity’s best hope of overcoming these overlapping crises."
...
"Climate change detonates the ideological scaffolding on which contemporary conservatism rests."

So, I (of course) agree that she did not actually use the words "get rid of capitalism" But based on her words, I don't think that I have misrepresented what she did say. I believe that KW advocates "regulation and control", but detonation is more than regulation and 'shredding the free-market ideology' and 'breaking every rule in the free-market playbook' are well beyond control of the free-market.
.

If not now, when?

2011-12-05T06:00:00.001-06:00

.
I don't remember who said this but it goes something like this:

If you have a declining infrastructure, high unemployment, the availability of money at 2% fixed for 10 years, and you don't rebuild your infrastructure then when are you going to do it?
.

nearly a free lunch

2011-12-04T06:00:00.001-06:00

.
I heard Bill Clinton describe what he called "the closest thing to a free lunch" that we have. It seemed reasonable to me. It goes like this.

Adopt a bond issue to retrofit public buildings for energy savings. Let the owners of the buildings pay off the bond issue with the energy savings.
.

2012 Candidates - Dec - 2011

2011-12-03T22:16:00.003-06:00

.
Perhaps it it time to drop this feature. My predictions have been so accurate (see recent Gingrich rating string) that readers have known the outcome of the election for some time now.

An interested citizen's view of the possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The sequences in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them had monthly, Jan-current month, of getting the nomination.
My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.
The YAMSLT test can be found here.

Americans elect may produce a candidate too.

DEMOCRATIC
Barack Obama (99) I will consider him again, but he is worrying me.

REPUBLICAN
Mitt Romney (25-25-26-24-25-30-30-33-35-35-50-50) I would consider him. Some say he has a problem in that the Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare. I think not and I now think he can make the case. Does the right wing want to feel good or have a chance to win?

Newt Gingrich (4-4-4-4-03-03-01-01-1-10-13-33) - He is seeming even more like a serious possibility. He could be the last non Mitt standing. We need a person of big ideas and he has always tried to be that. Unfortunately one of those big ideas was to take $1.6 million from Fannie and Freddie. He is an experienced professional politician. But he is also Newt Gingrich. [Also, I would like to hear him reaffirm his commitment to the 1st amendment. (……… his position on Park 51: not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.)]

Rick Perry (x-x-x-x-x-x-06-22-25-30-25-20-10) The predicted chance of implosion has been confirmed and recovery is now harder. The main questions now are: Does he pass the yamslt test? [ all of those questions that were asked before seem to have the same answer-no. Can he become a debater? Is America ready for another brash Texas Governor? Is his jobs record that good? Can he correct his immigration problem? ] His recovery seems less likely every day.

Ron Paul (x-x-x-x-01-02-03-05-08-05-04-03) The libertarian's delight.

Jon Huntsman (x-x-1-1-01-05-06-01-05-0-3) Huntsman is resurrecting himself. He is doing what he hoped in New Hampshire and the rise of Gingrich could slow Romney.

The candidate's below are (I think) out of the running and barely possible (altogether 1%).

Herman Cain (x-x-x-x-x-x-01-01-1-5-12-0) GWTW
Chris Christie (x-x ... x-x-10-0) GWTW
Michelle Bachman (x-x-x-01-01-10-20-13-20-0) A lightweight. Fails YAMSLT. GWTW
Rick Santorum (x-x-x-01-02-01-01-01-1-1-0) - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Sarah Palin (20-20-21-16-16-19-3-01-1-1-0) - She is playing games. Fails the YAMSLT.
Tim Pawlenty (05-07-08-16-14-20-25-15-1-1-0) - GWTW
Gary Johnson (x-x-x-x-01-01-01-01-01-01-0) Will highlight the drug prohibition issue.

.

Individualism without group purpose

2011-11-30T07:34:00.007-06:00

What follows is a my own assessment of our politics, our society, and our economy. It is probably short-sighted in a number of areas, and certainly dark. I hope that you all can pick it apart so that you can give me hope.

Politics: This begins with the current state of affairs in Washington. The vast majority of the politicians seem to have no overall compass guiding them, and so when they find themselves lost in partisan rhetoric they can't find their way out and they don't even seem to realize that their statements are irrational. I believe that the Peggy Noonan article (The Divider vs. the Thinker) that was posted awhile back contained a compass for them and for us all, and I wish that Washington and the country were introspective enough and honest enough to read an article like that and take some guidance from it. Unfortunately they are neither. Our pendulum (between the individual and the collective) has swung so far to the individual side, that too many people don't consider anything but what they consider to be their own ideal state. Four years ago, I thought that Obama had the charisma to pull a critical mass of people together to work for a common good, but he wilted. Now the next person to come along to lead has to overcome not just the problems we have but also disillusionment over what happened with the promise of Obama.

Society: Why should we expect much of our politicians: they are only a reflection of ourselves, since they sculpt what they say so as to get us to vote for them. We're without a compass ourselves. We know something is lacking, but we can't quite put a finger on it. We do seem to remember that our country seems to hold the individual as important, and so we take a certain part of that to an extreme. We now seem to be a country of individuals who are concerned with others mostly to the extent that it affects *me*. Moreover, for some reason many people seem to need to express their status/importance by getting the newest-greatest thing that money can buy or by standing out in some other way. I have a theory that so many people do things just to be 'in' and attract notice (including multiple earrings-and-tattoos-who-knows-where) because they do not invest enough effort anywhere to stand out by achieving something...anything. I think we all have a need to have something to be proud of, and being able to plumb a house well is something to be proud of; however that requires substantial effort and time investment which won't pay off for years. In my father's generation, that was what it meant to 'discover who you are', although he remarked that he didn't understand the phrase. Did you ever notice that the intersection of the crowd that accomplishes things and the crowd that shocks others is mighty small?

Economy: Globalization might have its advantages, but I think that some disadvantages are: (i) the resource waste by shipping things across the world that could have been produced a few hundred miles away, (ii) we've given up so much manufacturing in this country that (a) we'll be in a fix if we have to pull another WW II-like armament build-up and (b) a lot of the good blue-collar jobs are gone and replaced by jobs like serving coffee and lattes [not only do they not earn much, but at the end of the day, what do you have to show for your day's work]. Our economy and the world economy are built on spending. From media accounts, it seems that the economy has to grow at close to 2% a year or we feel that something is wrong and that our standard of living is dropping. Various events of the last decade have put a real strain on the economy, but even if these events had not happened I think that things would have faltered sooner or later. In order to continue to grow the economy at this rate (or to continue to bolster our standard of living with the new and trendy), we would have to burn through resources faster and faster; faster than can be maintained for long. Once the economy couldn't keep pace any longer, then all the rest of the toothpicks we were using to balance our elephant would no longer be able support its weight and it would come crashing down. We're burning not only our grandchildren's money, but their natural resources as well.

I think that the real individualism of this country was tied to self-actualization. We all need to be able to pursue certain occupations such as meet this need and simultaneously support ourselves and contribute back to society. Globalization for the sake of the economic engine has made it difficult for many to realize their potential, a compass that used to be a good guide. Without this, we are a society that lacks group purpose or direction...except to keep earning more and buying more. However, now our economic future looks dark and we need statesmanship to lead us out of this difficulty. Unfortunately, the society fractured by a hollow and extreme individualism seems incapable of either following or rewarding such statesmanship.

yellowarmadillos: Freedom of Assembly

2011-11-29T08:49:00.000-06:00

yellowarmadillos: Freedom of Assembly

congress

2011-11-28T16:56:00.001-06:00

.
from a friend:

Subject: Traffic Jam
A driver was stuck in a traffic jam on the beltway around Washington,DC.
Nothing was moving. Suddenly, a man knocks on the window. The
driver rolls down the window and asks, "What's going on?"
"Terrorists have kidnapped Congress, the man replied, and they are asking for a $100 million dollar ransom.
Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in gasoline and set them on fire.
We are going from car to car, collecting donations."
"How much is everone giving, on average?" the driver asks.
The man replies, "Roughly a gallon."
.

Immigration

2011-11-26T06:01:00.005-06:00

.
I have friends who disparage the notion that there is anyone who favors "open borders" by which I would mean someone who believes that anyone who wants to come here should be allowed to come here and stay.

I have not seen anyone acknowledge that they support open borders. But there are keys that appear in the discussion of those who are very close to it. Here are a few:
The fact that there is a law against hiring people who are not here legally is not mentioned.
The notion that if they could not work, then they would self deport is not mentioned.
The statement that You can't deport 11 million people. is accepted as an obvious fact.
The persons in question are referred to as residents or immigrants.
The words illegal and unlawful are never used. The closest that they come is undocumented worker.
The fact that at some time ago someone broke the law in coming here is referred to euphemistically as "something in their past".
There will not be a question such as:"Do you believe that a nation has a right to determine who can come into their country?"

Last night I saw a show on PBS's Need to Know series which was, more or less, an infomercial for amnesty for the "undocumented immigrants" that are here now and coming in the future. It was mostly about the recent Alabama law. (I don't think much of these state laws either.) Someone mentioned a friend who was a naturalized citizen who didn't have a driver's license. It was noted that she couldn't carry her naturalization papers as ID because they are way too valuable and must be kept in a lockbox. The speaker doesn't indicate whether copies might work.

One of those interviewed was New York University Law Professor Alina Das.

When asked about improving the laws she answered with:
"The laws do have to recognize the reality of the way people come to this country ..."

In her view we do not set the law and aspiring immigrants follow it. It goes the other way:
First comes the reality of how people come into this country and then the law recognizes that.
She does not say the words "open borders", but her statement sure does sound like it.
.

Freedom of Assembly

2011-11-23T20:39:00.001-06:00

.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So what does that mean? I think it means the right to have a parade or a demonstration or a large congregation like the "Million Man March" a few years ago. You get to interact, speak your piece, send'em a message, etc. That means for a short period you get to disrupt other people going about their business.

It does not mean that you have the right to use occupation to force other people to bring their lives to a halt until you get what you want. It does not mean that you get to coerce people to do what you want them to.

Some people are confusing this with civil disobedience as in the civil rights movement. But a fundamental part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of the law. If you go to jail, then you get the appropriate amount of added publicity. The current crop of occupiers seems to be outraged at the idea that the law should be applied to them.

I would encourage those who support the occupiers as they are camping out and preventing other people from carrying out of their business to give it some thought. For example, the Supreme Court long ago determined that freedom of assembly does not allow a right to life group to close an abortion clinic by occupying it.
.

YellowArmadillos Pledge

2011-11-22T06:00:00.001-06:00

.
Grover Norquist has a lot of Republicans taking his pledge and swearing that they will not raise taxes.

I understand there is a group of Congressional Democrats who are formulating an analogous pledge for the left that they will not vote for any entitlement cuts.

I'm taking the YellowArmadillos Pledge: I will not vote for anyone who has taken a pledge that will keep them from being part of the solution to our fiscal problems.
.

Pepper Spraying of Protestors

2011-11-21T10:19:00.002-06:00

On November 18^thprotestors at UC Davis were pepper sprayed by Campus Police. The protestors were intentionally blocking the Campus Police from exiting the school quad and refused to follow the officer’s orders. Two officers and the Police Chief have been placed on administrative leave. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1121/UC-Davis-police-chief-on-leave-after-pepper-spraying

UC President Mark G. Yudof has stated that he is “appalled” at the spraying. Here is what I think he should have said.

“On November 18^th protesters on this campus were pepper sprayed by Campus Police. Member of my administration firmly hold that free speech is part of the DNA of this University and we will make every appropriate effort to ensure that it remains so.

I have ordered a full investigation of the incident to determine whether the Police acted appropriately and determine, in the end, whether they used appropriate force. I have also placed the Officers involved on administrative leave until our investigation has been completed.

Inherent with the privilege of being on this campus is the obligation to follow instructions given by our Campus Police. In the future all student protesters that refuse to follow instructions from our Police will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal from this school. All non student protestors on our campus that refuse to follow instructions given by Campus Police will be subject to arrest and prosecution under the appropriate civil law”.

Here is my bottom line. I think the protestors were wrong to intentionally block egress for the Campus Police and to not follow the Officer’s orders. On the other side I think that in the absence of a true emergency or pressing need for the Officers to exit the quad the tactics seem harsh.

Natural Born Citizen

2011-11-21T05:58:00.002-06:00

.
This just might make your day a little brighter!! You, who worry about
democrats versus republicans -- relax, here is our real problem.

In a University classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to
be President of the United States . It was pretty simple. The candidate must
be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age. However, one girl in
the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a
natural born citizen.

In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable
individuals from becoming president. The class was taking it in and letting
her rant, and not many jaws hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by
stating:

"What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country
than one born by C-section?"

Entitlements and the genius of FDR

2011-11-20T20:48:00.003-06:00

.
I promised a nephew of mine that I would give a response to one of those irate emails that you get from time to time. It was similar to that geezer group that was in that commercial recently threatening any politician who touched "his" entitlements.

I will omit most of it and just give you one paragraph which will give you the drift:

"I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills."

Now it may be that they have mismanaged it. But it is certain that we have not paid in enough to get back what we are scheduled to get back. Of course people who write these letters never tell you what they paid in. But I know one geezer of 68 who retired to half time at 62, got on medicare at 65, and began drawing SS at 66. I suspect that his facts are not much different from hers.

So here are the numbers from our geezer's SS report: SS 71,080 from him + 71,080 from his employer. That is a total of $142,160 from his compensation. Now if you assume some reasonable rate of growth, say 6%, then(the miracle of compound interest being what it is) that comes out to (roughly) $300,000 today. This geezer is scheduled to get about $24,000 a year for the rest of his life. That is probably not too far off the mark. That is why they say that SS just needs a bit of tweaking.

Now his Medicare coverage is worth about that much too. What does full scale healthcare cost for someone who is in the Medicare range? But how much does that SS schedule say our geezer paid for his Medicare? The total is ($16,345 +$16,345 =) $32,690. That was over time so we apply the miracle of compound interest again and come out with about $65,000. That is the approximate net present value of what this guy paid into medicare. His wife has paid almost nothing but she is covered too when she hits 65.

Now imagine that you are running a health care service. Would you agree to provide these old folks all the health care that they want for the rest of their lives in return for that 65 K?

This is the real genius and horror of entitlements. Someone proposed to Franklin Roosevelt that it would be better if people got SS without having to pay for it. Franklin said no! "If the people pay for it, then just let someone try to take it away from them." He understood people well enough to know that they wouldn't actually calculate the value paid as against the value received.

I wonder if he would be surprised at how far his successors have taken his idea.
.

supercommittee

2011-11-17T10:27:00.001-06:00

.
It is all over the news that the Supercommittee is about to make its report. There is great fear that the task is so daunting that even these giants of the congress may be stymied by it. Nevertheless, they are nobly doing what is, unfortunately, probably their best.

Critics should keep in mind the enormity of the task. They are being asked to propose a plan that would, if followed for ten years, reduce the cumulative deficit by 1.2 trillion dollars!

When you factor in the fact that the current one year deficit is 1.3 trillion you can fully appreciate how far into the theater of the absurd we have come.

They hope to plan to promise to reduce the total ten year deficit by less than the amount of the current one year’s deficit!!

and these clowns don’t seem to be able to do it.

Is it time for ALL OUT?
.

YAMSLT 2

2011-11-13T12:30:00.002-06:00

.

There has been a bit of discussion about the YAMSLT from April 2, 2011.
Or you can see it below:

For more on the Laffer Curve go here.
.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
YAMSLT
.
This is the Yellow Armadillos Math Science Literacy Test. Revised August 18, 2011

I expect political candidates that I support to be able to pass this test.

Q.1. If the annual budget for program X has a built in annual bump up of 11% per year and you reduce that bump up by 3%, then the change in the amount spent for program X is most accurately labeled as:
a) an 8% decrease, b) a 3% decrease, c) a 24% decrease, or d) an 8% increase.

Q.2. Can we eliminate the deficit by returning to the Clinton tax rate for those making over 250,000?

Q.3. Do you believe that, regardless of what the income tax rate is, cutting that rate will stimulate enough growth in the economy to increase revenue?

Q.4. Do you oppose teaching religious belief in science class?

Desired answers are in comment 1.
Posted by Wayne Bell at 11:18 AM
Labels: politics
5 comments:

YA said...
Desired answers: 1. d, 2. no 3. no 4. Yes .
August 18, 2011 12:28 AM

tryanmax said...
I don't understand the point you are trying to make with question 3. Are you saying that regardless of any specific, the tax rate has no effect on economic production or that production has no relationship with tax revenue? Because that is the meaning that I take away.

But to paraphrase Buckley, you strike me as someone too intelligent to believe that.
October 14, 2011 7:12 PM

Wayne Bell said...
No. The negative of a universal is not another universal.
A 'yes' answer to 3 would mean that
the candidate believes that "regardless of any specific" lowering the rate will change behavior enough to increase revenue.
My 'no' answer to 3 means that I believe that there is at least one example where lowering the rate will not increase revenue.

To listen to the Rs talk you would think that they believe that reducing tax rates ALWAYS increases revenue.

My point is that their universal (the one in my question) is false.

If you find the rate at 91% (as Kennedy did) or 70% (as Reagan did), then a reduction apparently changes behavior and perhaps increases revenue.

If you find the rate at 10%, I don't think a reduction in rate will change much behavior. I expect that Buckley would agree that changing the tax rate from 1% to 0% will not increase revenue.

The really interesting question is: "What is the revenue maximizing level of taxation? That is, what is the high point on the Laffer curve? The taxation level that is such that any change, either an increase or decrease, reduces revenue.

The fact that the Clinton taxation level put us in the black in the nineties and the lower Bush level put us in the red in the oughts seems like a good indicator that the Bush rates are on left side of the Laffer Curve high point and raising rates from the Bush level would raise revenue.

PS However, perhaps the recession prevents raising tax rates now.

PPS The fact that I think the revenue maximizing taxation rate is interesting does not mean that I am advocating that the govt should maximize revenue.
November 11, 2011 3:12 AM

tryanmax said...
Ah, I understand now. Though I might suggest that the question is deceptively loaded in its brevity (as indicated by the length of the explanation).

That said, while clever, I think #3 is the wrong question to be asked. Sure, it's a quick and dirty way to judge the depth of a candidate's fiscal acumen. But for the vices that grip Washingtonians, I'd be satisfied if any candidate could demonstrate a grasp of kitchen table economics. That alone is a rarity.
November 11, 2011 9:18 AM

Wayne Bell said...
As to length, Q 3 seems very similar to your follow up question.

In my case I'm getting old and don't have much time left!
November 13, 2011 12:25 PM
.

Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-12T06:00:00.007-06:00

.
For those cynics among you who claim that you don't know what the Occupy Wall Street movement is all about I give you Jim Oliver of Occupy Portland who was on the PBS evening news Friday, November 11, 2011. He made a clear and ringing statement:

"The goal of the Occupied Movement is to make systemic changes to the economic and political systems in this country that are failing the 99% of Americans who see our wealth decreasing as the wealth of the point zero one percent of Americans who control policy in this country increases."

So now you know. They want to take our country back. No wait. That's the Tea Party.

PS The mathematically literate will note that he left out 99% of the top 1 percent. He thinks that things are controlled by just .01% that is to say 1/100 of 1 percent. Oh well ...
.

Wealth disparity

2011-11-11T06:12:00.002-06:00

.

There is much talk these days about the growing disparity between the rich and the poor.

I find it worrisome as well. I have two questions;

1. Do you think that it is a bad thing? and
2. If you think that it is a bad thing, then what should be done about it?

History

2011-11-10T13:04:00.000-06:00

This morning I heard a commentator ask the question “If other countries do not intervene do you think Israel will attack Iran to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon?”

What past events make anyone think they will not?

ALL OUT?

2011-11-07T19:17:00.001-06:00

.
I just heard Senator John McCain describing the agreed to consequences of "failure" by the budget supercommittee as being "aspirational". That is, they might not do what they said they were going to do. That is, what was promised to get the debt ceiling increase approved was just another insincere promise.

I am moving closer and closer to believing that we should take everyone of these clowns that are up for reelection next year just vote them ALL OUT.
.

Herman Cain RIP

2011-11-07T18:39:00.002-06:00

.
Put a fork in him. He's done.
.

pictures

2011-11-05T13:01:00.000-05:00

.
Some nice color pictures from America circa 1940 at this Denver Post blog.

Americans Elect 3

2011-11-03T11:17:00.001-05:00

.
As I said earlier this is a very interesting idea. I urge you to look at it on their website. You can also look to Rise of the Center.

Mayor Bloomberg on the financial crisis

2011-11-03T00:21:00.004-05:00

.
"I hear your complaints," Bloomberg said. "Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn't have gotten them without that.

"But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for."

Hear it here. Scroll down (there)for the video.
.

2012 Candidates - Nov - 2011

2011-11-01T06:00:00.080-05:00

.
An interested citizen's view of the possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The sequences in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them had monthly, Jan-current month, of getting the nomination.
My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.
The YAMSLT test can be found here.

Americans elect may produce a candidate too.

DEMOCRATIC
Barack Obama (99) I will consider him again, but he is worrying me.

REPUBLICAN
Mitt Romney (25-25-26-24-25-30-30-33-35-35-50) I would consider him. Some say he has a problem in that the Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare. I think not and I now think he can make the case. Does the right wing want to feel good or have a chance to win?

Rick Perry (x-x-x-x-x-x-06-22-25-30-25-20) The predicted chance of implosion has been confirmed and recovery is now harder. The main questions now are: Does he pass the yamslt test? Can he become a debater? Is America ready for another brash Texas Governor? Is his jobs record that good? Can he correct his immigration problem? If he does recover it is still a two person race: Romney-Perry. (except see Gingrich)

Newt Gingrich (4-4-4-4-03-03-01-01-1-10-13) - He is starting to seem like a serious possibility. I have not heard him indicate a restored commitment to the 1st amendment. (……… his position on Park 51 not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.) He could be the last non Mitt standing.

Herman Cain (x-x-x-x-x-x-01-01-1-5-12) The bloom is coming off of the 9-9-9 rose. I still think he won't last. [Last time I said: Someone will soon point out that if you turn his plan upside down it is drummmrrrooollllll - 666- the mark of the beast. I thought it would be comic not a candidate (Bachmann)].

Ron Paul (x-x-x-x-01-02-03-05-08-05-04) The libertarian's delight.

The candidate's below are (I think) out of the running, but still barely possible (altogether 1%).

Jon Huntsman (x-x-1-1-01-05-06-01-05-0)
Chris Christie (x-x ... x-x-10-0) GWTW
Michelle Bachman (x-x-x-01-01-10-20-13-20-1) A lightweight. Fails YAMSLT. GWTW
Rick Santorum (x-x-x-01-02-01-01-01-1-1-0) - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Sarah Palin (20-20-21-16-16-19-3-01-1-1-0) - She is playing games. Fails the YAMSLT.
Tim Pawlenty (05-07-08-16-14-20-25-15-1-1-0) - GWTW
Gary Johnson (x-x-x-x-01-01-01-01-01-01-0) Will highlight the drug prohibition issue.

.

The Divider vs. the Thinker

2011-10-31T09:54:00.000-05:00

.
While Obama readies an ugly campaign, Paul Ryan gives a serious account of what ails America.

By PEGGY NOONAN in the WSJ

People are increasingly fearing the divisions within, even the potential coming apart of, our country. Rich/poor, black/white, young/old, red/blue: The things that divide us are not new, yet there's a sense now that the glue that held us together for more than two centuries has thinned and cracked with age. That it was allowed to thin and crack, that the modern era wore it out.

What was the glue? A love of country based on a shared knowledge of how and why it began; a broad feeling among our citizens that there was something providential in our beginnings; a gratitude that left us with a sense that we should comport ourselves in a way unlike the other nations of the world, that more was expected of us, and not unjustly—
"To whom much is given much is expected"; a general understanding that we were something new in history, a nation founded on ideals and aspirations—liberty, equality—and not mere grunting tribal wants. We were from Europe but would not be European: No formal class structure here, no limits, from the time you touched ground all roads would lead forward. You would be treated not as your father was but as you deserved. That's from "The Killer Angels," a historical novel about the Civil War fought to right a wrong the Founders didn't right. We did in time, and at great cost. What a country.

But there is a broad fear out there that we are coming apart, or rather living through the moment we'll look back on as the beginning of the Great Coming Apart. Economic crisis, cultural stresses: "Half the country isn't speaking to the other half," a moderate Democrat said the other day. She was referring to liberals of her acquaintance who know little of the South and who don't wish to know of it, who write it off as apart from them, maybe beneath them.

To add to the unease, in New York at least, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance. If you are a New Yorker, chances are pretty high you hate what the great investment firms did the past 15 years or so to upend the economy. Yet you feel on some level like you have to be protective of them, because Wall Street pays the bills of the City of New York. Wall Street tax receipts and Wall Street business—restaurants, stores—keep the city afloat. So you want them up and operating and vital, you don't want them to leave—that would only make things worse for people in trouble, people just getting by, and young people starting out. You know you have to preserve them just when you'd most like to deck them.

***
Where is the president in all this? He doesn't seem to be as worried about his country's continuance as his own. He's out campaigning and talking of our problems, but he seems oddly oblivious to or detached from America's deeper fears. And so he feels free to exploit divisions. It's all the rich versus the rest, and there are a lot more of the latter.

Twenty twelve won't be "as sexy" as 2008, he said this week. It will be all brute force. Which will only add to the feeling of unease.

Occupy Wall Street makes an economic critique that echoes the president's, though more bluntly: the rich are bad, down with the elites. It's all ad hoc, more poetry slam than platform. Too bad it's not serious in its substance.

There's a lot to rebel against, to want to throw off. If they want to make a serious economic and political critique, they should make the one Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner make in "Reckless Endangerment": that real elites in Washington rigged the system for themselves and their friends, became rich and powerful, caused the great cratering, and then "slipped quietly from the scene."

It is a blow-by-blow recounting of how politicians—Democrats and Republicans—passed the laws that encouraged the banks to make the loans that would never be repaid, and that would result in your lost job. Specifically it is the story of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage insurers, and how their politically connected CEOs, especially Fannie's Franklin Raines and James Johnson, took actions that tanked the American economy and walked away rich. It began in the early 1990s, in the Clinton administration, and continued under the Bush administration, with the help of an entrenched Congress that wanted only two things: to receive campaign contributions and to be re-elected.

The story is a scandal, and the book should be the bible of Occupy Wall Street. But they seem as incapable of seeing government as part of the problem as Republicans seem of seeing business as part of the problem.

Which gets us to Rep. Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan receives much praise, but I don't think his role in the current moment has been fully recognized. He is doing something unique in national politics. He thinks. He studies. He reads. Then he comes forward to speak, calmly and at some length, about what he believes to be true. He defines a problem and offers solutions, often providing the intellectual and philosophical rationale behind them. Conservatives naturally like him—they agree with him—but liberals and journalists inclined to disagree with him take him seriously and treat him with respect.

This week he spoke on "The American Idea" at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. He scored the president as too small for the moment, as "petty" in his arguments and avoidant of the decisions entailed in leadership. At times like this, he said, "the temptation to exploit fear and envy returns." Politicians divide in order to "evade responsibility for their failures" and to advance their interests.

The president, he said, has made a shift in his appeal to the electorate. "Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy and resentment."

But Republicans, in their desire to defend free economic activity, shouldn't be snookered by unthinking fealty to big business. They should never defend—they should actively oppose—the kind of economic activity that has contributed so heavily to the crisis. Here Mr. Ryan slammed "corporate welfare and crony capitalism."

"Why have we extended an endless supply of taxpayer credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instead of demanding that their government guarantee be wound down and their taxpayer subsidies ended?" Why are tax dollars being wasted on bankrupt, politically connected solar energy firms like Solyndra? "Why is Washington wasting your money on entrenched agribusiness?"

Rather than raise taxes on individuals, we should "lower the amount of government spending the wealthy now receive." The "true sources of inequity in this country," he continued, are "corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless." The real class warfare that threatens us is "a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society."

If more Republicans thought—and spoke—like this, the party would flourish. People would be less fearful for the future. And Mr. Obama wouldn't be seeing his numbers go up.

This came to me from Adam Madison.

Perry's Flat Tax 2

2011-10-30T11:48:00.001-05:00

.
Whether Perry's proposal is actually more regressive than the current would depend on what percentage of their total income the wealthier people actually pay now. It is certainly true that with their deductions what they pay now (as a percentage of total income) is less than their marginal rate. Probably, with Perry's plan, their taxes as a percentage of total income would go up for some (those who have a lot of other deductions) and down for others.

One note the Rich Family E in the post may have to pay a bit more (than indicated there) because Perry would disallow deductions for those with income over 500K.

As Tom noted (in his comment to the previous post on this topic) this is not progressive enough for some.
Presumably one could add an extra tax for those whose income is over some amount X.

Finally, I like the flat tax but I think it will have to be higher to obtain the income that the government now gets from the income tax.
.

Juan Williams Firing

2011-10-27T16:14:00.001-05:00

.
To see how it looks to him one year later go to
One Year Since NPR Fired Me -- What Are the Lessons Learned?

Perry's Flat Tax

2011-10-26T06:00:00.025-05:00

.
I like the flat tax idea with large individual deductions(otherwise, the fewer deductions the better) which will keep it progressive. In this case the individual deductions are $12,500 per family member and, in addition, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable contributions are also deducted. Your income minus all of those deductions is your taxable income. The tax rate is 20% of that taxable income.

Let me point out a few things about it that get lost in the propaganda from those who want to use the tax code to promote whatever it is that they want to promote.

The flat tax in general and this one in particular is not regressive. Consider a few examples for a family of 4 with this flat tax.

Family A makes 50,000 and pays no income taxes because their deductions are 4 x 12,500 = 50,000 leaving no taxable income.
They actually pay 0% of total income.
This applies to any family of 4 with income (after deductions) of less than 50,000.

Family B makes 70,000 and has a total St and local taxes, charitable contributions, and home mortgage interest of 10,000. They would have 60,000 in deductions and would pay 20% of the remaining 10,000 in taxable income which would be 0.2 x 10,000 = $2,000 in taxes.
They actually pay 2000/70,000 or 2.86% of total income.

Family C makes 150,000 and has a total of 20,000 in deductions. Their remaining taxable income is 80,000 (=150,000 - 50000 - 20,000) on which they too will pay 20% which is $16,000.
That is 16000 / 150000 and They actually pay 10.667% of their total income.

Richer family D makes 400,000 and has 40,000 in deductions. Taxable income is 310,000 (=400,000 - 50,000-40,000). (Notice that a much bigger share of their income is taxable.)
20% of that is .20 x 310,000 = 62,000.
That is 62,000 / 400,000 = .155 and they actually pay 15.5% of their total income.

Rich family E makes 1.5 million and has 70,000 in other deductions. Their total deductions are 120,000. Therefore their taxable income is 1,380,000. 20% of that is 276,000.
That is 276,000/1,500,000 = .184 and they actually pay 18.4% of their total income.

Notice that as income goes up so does the amount of taxes and the rate of taxation of total income. The more you make the higher your actual tax rate is with an upper limit of 20%.
.

Perry's "Grand Bargain"

2011-10-25T23:02:00.000-05:00

.
As you would expect his proposal is leaning to the right. But it is a "Grand Bargain" proposal. If somebody on the left would put one out there we would have a starting point.

Although he still has a long way to go he just improved his stock with me.
At least he is thinking big.
None of the others (including Obama) seems to be doing that.
.

Gadhafi’ death

2011-10-24T10:27:00.000-05:00

For six months NATO conducted a mission to strategically protect Libyan civilians from Gadhafi’s troops. A mission which required the expedient tactic of backing a ragtag group of anti-Gadhafi rebels and a mission that was obviously going to continue until there was a regime change.

Now there are those who are indignant about the way Gadhafi was killed post capture. I will grudgingly concede their right to be indignant but, in my opinion, they have no right to be surprised.

Hillary

2011-10-21T00:06:00.002-05:00

.
A couple of days ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said we hoped that they would capture or kill Qaddafi. Then when she got word that he was dead, she said, "We came, we saw, and he died."

Perhaps Bill Clinton may have been luckier than we knew in the Monica tale.
.

The Republican debate 10-18-11

2011-10-19T01:46:00.001-05:00

.
Long story short: Romney holds his own, Perry improves his performance and stays in the hunt,
Cain is, in Joel Sappenfield's description of one of my long ago chess moves, "preparing to lose".

Cain's 999 would shift the tax burden down the income scale.

He argues that it is not so because his whole program will eliminate a lot of hidden taxes that we are now paying, but don't know about. When presented with "studies that show" that it will raise taxes on the poor he says that people should do their own calculations and they will see. Hmmmmm I wanted to do my own calculations, but I had this very real problem: "How much do I save from not paying those hidden taxes that I don't know about?"

Next he will say that when he cuts those taxes on the producers, transporters, and retailers, then they are just naturally going to pass the savings onto us.

999

2011-10-17T06:00:00.003-05:00

.
In the Oct 2 monthly candidate’s report I wrote that someone would turn the 999 upside down and connect it to the Biblical "mark of the beast". I was expecting that to come from a comic, but it was actually Michelle Bachman who sprang it on the world in the Tues., October 11 debate. Well maybe I wasn’t wrong about what the source would be.

So what about the 999? Well, it was funny watching David Gregory on Meet the Press attempting to “explain” to Cain that his 9% sales tax would come on top of state taxes!!! Apparently David thinks that the current federal taxes do not come on top of state taxes.

Seriously though, the idea of replacing a very progressive income tax, which almost half of the people do not even have to pay, with a flat rate sales tax is considerably more regressive than I would like to see us go for. Cain is apparently betting that he can sell this as an approach that does not shift the burden of taxation from one group to another. Perhaps Cain should be forgiven for believing this since the public accepts so much mythology these days. But I think that this is a fairy tale too far.

I expect that when people understand it better they will not like it either. But the people who really won’t like it (the left) will, I expect, never have the chance to vote for it.

I give them an A+

2011-10-15T14:37:00.001-05:00

HHS has announced that the long term disability program (part of health reform) referred to as CLASS will be suspended indefinitely because it is not financially sustainable. This post is not about whether I like or dislike the proposed CLASS program. It is about applauding the HHS for the candid admission that, no matter how well intentioned the program is, the numbers don’t work so they are not going to do it.

You may see the details at the URL below

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-14/u-s-won-t-start-class-long-term-care-insurance-sebelius-says.html

Solyndra

2011-10-15T13:51:00.002-05:00

.
The Solyndra loan is starting to look really bad.

The situation: The "green" company Solyndra got into financial trouble. The government gave them a loan guarantee of 500+ million dollars. The company went bankrupt anyway.

So far that looks a little bit like croney capitalism. But it will probably be alright. It was a big company and of course, in the bankruptcy, the government will have priority over the private parties who, after all, were being saved by the government loan guarantee. Right?

Wrong, it turns out that the agreement provided that: To get our money back the government has to get in line BEHIND the private people that the government had been trying to help!!
This is pretty bad.
.

NPV 6

2011-10-12T15:33:00.001-05:00

.
With respect to the NPV program to replace the Electoral College with a plurality election by a backdoor "amendment" to the Constitution.

After you consider the program on its merits (which I think are not good) you might want to consider how this would affect presidential elections.”

Here are 2 facts that might be a hint: Eight states and DC have adopted the NPV compact (CA, IL, MA, HI, WA, MD, NJ, DC, VT). In the last five elections every one of those 9 have voted for the same political party.

That is a highly unlikely coincidence. If it were a random choice of (5 times 9) = 45 selections of a binary choice the chances of them coming out the same in all 45 events is less than one in 16 trillion. That is 1 in 16,000,000,000,000.
.

Fairy Tales

2011-10-11T06:00:00.019-05:00

.
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil;... Exodus 23:2

In this case the evil is that each side imagines that there is a simple solution if "they" would just do what "we" know that everybody should.

The Tea Party thinks that it is "over taxed." In response to the taxation question ("How much of one's earnings should a person be able to keep?), one of them recently said that you should be able to "keep all of what you earn". Zero taxation! Next they will ban death.

The Occupy Wall Street group apparently wants free stuff. (A sign said, "Free Health Care.") How to get it? Take it from the rich. I asked a liberal friend, "If you took all of the money the rich people had and gave it to the poor, then who would the poor work for?" You know the answer that I got: "If they had all of the rich people's money, then they wouldn't need to work."

Another group, another fairy tale.

Fairy tales are why we don't have compromise. Each side is so convinced of its own fairy tale that it is certain that, in the next election, the rest of us will finally wake up and realize how stupid that we have been all along not to see things as they see them. Then of course we will give them enough power to fully implement their "dream scheme".

Have you noticed how the right's description of the OWS is eerily similar to the left's description of the Tea Party? Substitute mob for racist and you have updated the complaint.
.

California

2011-10-10T06:00:00.000-05:00

.

From the Daily beast: Illegal immigrants in California will be eligible for financial aid now that Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Dream Act. But at the same time, Brown vetoed a controversial bill that would have let public universities consider an applicant's race and sex in admission decisions. "I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of this legislation," Brown said in his veto message, but he thought that the courts, not the legislature, should decide on the affirmative action law. Brown is sifting through a flurry of legislation that passed the legislature at the end of the session; he must sign or veto 142 more bills before midnight on Sunday.

Read the entire article in the SF Chronicle.
.

Wanted, dead or alive

2011-10-09T06:00:00.000-05:00

.
Here is some more on the Wanted Dead or Alive business.
.

The filibuster in winter?

2011-10-08T06:00:00.000-05:00

.
It wasn't mock shock in the Senate last week. It was real.

It wasn't really dumping the filibuster itself, but it was a serious step in that direction.

They have a rule in the Senate (the filibuster) which makes it necessary to have 60 votes to do anything. To change a rule in the Senate requires a two thirds vote (at least it does if you are in the middle of a session).

But there is another way to change the rules or at least suspend them. It goes like this. In a certain situation the rules allow the minority to propose amendments from the floor. The Senate majority leader simply asserts that the rule does not apply. Someone appeals for a ruling from the chair. The chair rules that the leader is wrong, thus upholding the rule. So who has the final say? The whole body - the Senate. (It would be hard to argue against the right of any such body to decide the meaning of its own rules. In this case we also have Article I section 6 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings") The leader then appeals the decision of the chair to the whole body. The body then decides whether to uphold the chair (maintain the rule ) or support the leader (overturn the rule ). And THAT decision is by majority vote. When the Senate voted by 51-48 to uphold Leader Reid's "interpretation" of the rules they changed that rule by a simple majority.

But it did more than that. This kind of thing has been proposed as a method of shutting down a actual filibuster by a simple majority vote. It has been called the "Nuclear Option" because it is such a big change in the way the Senate operates and people have shied away from it before. The Republicans are outraged and if, as many expect, they have the majority in 2013 then they will presumably resort to this method with much less hesitation than has been exhibited before.

So maybe the filibuster is on its way out. I hope so.
.

A proposal for the Democrats

2011-10-07T06:00:00.003-05:00

.
I received a blurb from Nancy Pelosi today. It seems that the Rs are trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare again and the Democrats have sworn to protect those "initiatives." (They just stay in that mode don't they. SS is 75 years old but she still refers to it as an initiative rather than a program. Presumably focus groups show that "program" does not poll well right now.)

Of course they were Democratic initiatives when they were begun and the Ds can properly take the credit for them (or blame if you see the world that way). I wonder if the following wouldn't be a better approach right now:

My Fellow Americans we have a problem with the financing of Medicare and to a lesser extent with Social Security. We are going to have to make some combinations of reduced services and increased revenues. What you have to decide is who do you want to trust to make those changes? The Democratic party which brought these programs into existence or the Republican party which has not been so supportive all along the way.
.

New Confederacy Rising

2011-10-06T06:00:00.002-05:00

.
This article is a very interesting attempt to associate the GOP with the old Confederacy.

What was to me the most interesting pair of paragraphs were:

"...
For the pragmatic and progressive America that grew out of secularized higher education, truth has a provisional, this-worldly orientation. It’s more evolutionary than eternal in character—a fluid body of knowledge and interpretation, subject to revision and expansion.

For the Confederacy that now dominates the GOP, truth is solid and fixed and divinely embedded in the structure of the universe. Humanity’s responsibility is to accept and believe the truth rather than test ideas against actual experience. The Confederacy’s obsession with “originalist” interpretations of the Constitution—a twin of biblical literalism—is the classic example: truth must be eternal, universal.
..."

I find this very interesting but I have to dwell on it a bit before I comment on it beyond asking: Is searching for truth in the sense of the scientific enterprise the same kind of endeavor as interpreting a legal document such as the Constitution? I think not.
.

Cruel America

2011-10-04T06:00:00.003-05:00

.
Cruel America by Jonathan Schell
This article "appeared" in the October 17, 2011 edition of The Nation.

Mr. Schell talked about Gov. Perry, the death penalty, Republicans and other cruel people, Iraq, Bush and Cheney, and torture.

He criticized Obama too - for not holding Bush and company accountable for their crimes.

Funny though, he apparently hasn't heard about Obama's assassination of American Citizen Awlaki.
.

Rebel Without a Cause?

2011-10-03T07:42:00.001-05:00

I was looking for a definitive news story that explains what the “Occupy Wall Street” protest is all about. I did not find one but I did find the article at the following URL (and link in the heading)

http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-wall-street-rise-up-and-burn-this-system-to-the-ground-2011-10

I sincerely hope the protest has more substance than simple inflammatory language. Does anyone know what “Occupy Wall Street” is really about?

2012 Candidates - Oct - 2011

2011-10-02T06:00:00.002-05:00

.
Here are some possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The sequences in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them had monthly, Jan-current month, of getting the nomination. My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.
The YAMSLT test can be found here.

Remember I am not a professional at this, just an interested citizen.

DEMOCRATIC
Barack Obama (99) I will consider him again, but he is worrying me.

REPUBLICAN
Mitt Romney (25-25-26-24-25-30-30-33-35-35) I would consider him. Some say he has a problem in that the Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare. I think not and I now think he can make the case.
Rick Perry (x-x-x-x-x-x-06-22-25-30-25) The predicted chance of implosion seems confirmed. He can recover though. The main questions now are: Does he pass the yamslt test? Is America ready for another brash Texas Governor? Is his jobs record that good? Can he correct his immigration problem? If he does recover it is still a two person race: Romney-Perry. (except see Christie)

Chris Christie (x-x ... x-x-10) He is thinking about it more than he lets on. He would make it a 3 person race. He might be strong. But, as Perry has demonstrated, you need what someone has called a long entrance ramp into a presidential race.

Newt Gingrich (4-4-4-4-03-03-01-01-1-10) - He has moved up a bit. I would have considered him but he abandoned the 1st amendment. ……… his position on Park 51 not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.

Herman Cain (x-x-x-x-x-x-01-01-1-05) Still has a long way to go to be a serious candidate, but he does have a "program" - 9-9-9. Someone will soon point out that if you turn his plan upside down it is drummmrrrooollllll - 666- the mark of the beast.

Ron Paul (x-x-x-x-01-02-03-05-08-05)

Jon Huntsman (x-x-1-1-01-05-06-01-05) As I know him more, I like him more. I would consider him. Seems like serious people take him seriously. I don't see how he wins the nomination though. His plan is to put it all on New Hampshire. It might work.

Michelle Bachman (x-x-x-01-01-10-20-13-20-1) A lightweight. Fails YAMSLT. GWTW
Rick Santorum (x-x-x-01-02-01-01-01-1-1) - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Sarah Palin (20-20-21-16-16-19-3-01-1-1) - She is playing games. Fails the YAMSLT.
Tim Pawlenty (05-07-08-16-14-20-25-15-1-1) - GWTW
Gary Johnson (x-x-x-x-01-01-01-01-01-01) Will highlight the drug prohibition issue.

.

The Death of Awlaki

2011-10-01T09:52:00.003-05:00

.
A search of this blog for Awlaki produces a short list of entries beginning with this one so you will have to scroll down.

I don't have much to add to that, but I will repeat (more or less) this:

"Basically, I think I'm OK with it. I am assuming that the President has a very serious procedure for putting someone on such a list and doesn't just wake up some morning and say, 'You know that guy really got on my nerves.' I would think that the procedure should involve some sort of self proclaimed identification with our enemies."

and I will add that:

I am still amused that some people think that it is totally outrageous that W's people poured water in the face of a known foreign terrorist and, simultaneously, are not troubled when O's people cross into a foreign country and assassinate an unindicted American citizen.

You will generally find those people among those who say that they believe that we should deal with terrorists in the same way we deal with other criminals.

Elizabeth Warren

2011-09-30T10:21:00.001-05:00

.
Ms. Warren has been a Law Professor at Harvard, the University of Texas, and elsewhere; was a member of the Obama Administration; and is currently a candidate for the US Senate from Massachusetts.

In a recent discussion she said
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

Warren rejects the concept that it is possible for Americans to become wealthy in isolation.

"You built a factory out there? Good for you," she says. "But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

She continues: "Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

This was brought to my attention by Gib.

For one presentation of the other side go here.
.

pension plans

2011-09-29T06:00:00.013-05:00

.
How did so many state governments and companies get into the desperate situation of huge shortages of funds to pay pensions?

One part of it goes like this: The managers (corporate in the case of industry and politicians in the case of government) wanted to please their employees. They didn't want to spend the extra money though. So they hit on a bargain of the sort that appeals only to those whose approach to problems includes a willingness to avoid the issue. They promised the employees generous pension plans.

This would work fine if the company required (of themselves and/or their employees) that they put enough money into the retirement fund to pay for those benefits. Then there would be no misleading, no shortfall, no problem.

But, you guessed it, they were (and are) not doing that. That is a good part of why GM got into trouble, and Wisconson, and NJ, and California. (Also Greece, ...)

Why were they (execs and union leaders) willing to do that to themselves, their employees and us? Well, I won't speculate on their motives, but it sure gave them all an easy way out of dealing with their problems.

That gave the employer happy workers and more money immediately in company (or government) coffers. It was short term and carries a price later, but it made it appear that they were doing better than they were.

The employees also got the illusion of having more money immediately too. How? They saw their retirement as being taken care of and reasonably concluded that they didn't need to save as much as they might have. This made them feel that they were doing better than they were and so they spent more than they might have.

The sad part is that the day of reckoning for this kind of hustle is way into the future. When that point arrives you have a different set of managers and union leaders who didn't cause it and so they feel abused. The workers had a contract for (and paid for part of) that pension. If it is cut, then they feel abused.

It is the kind of sad thing that you expect from irresponsible people not organizations that are run by people who are supposed to know better.
.

bloomberg's ideas

2011-09-28T17:31:00.001-05:00

I have a pretty surface level knowledge about all the economic intricacies of the immigration debate, but NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed some ideas in this speech that seem to make some pretty good common sense.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

2011-09-28T12:11:00.001-05:00

.
It would appear that the Republicans have taken up Rahm Emmanuel's maxim that you should: Never let a crisis go to waste.

The current financial crisis was exploited by the Democrats to obtain the passage of Obamacare.
Now the Republicans are exploiting it to force cuts that they always wanted to make anyway.
.

political extremes

2011-09-27T13:43:00.002-05:00

.
Revised 9-27-11
The reason that the center appeals to most of us (who are in it) is not that the partisans advocate stuff. Our problem is that each side has a mythology and its followers actually believe that mythology which is why they act so strangely.

The Rs believe this stuff about all problems can be solved by lowering taxes.
The Ds believe that if they put enough time between them and the day of reckoning then the existence of the day of reckoning is just propaganda.

For a better presentation of this thesis see Brooks's piece in the NYT.
.

Kinds of immigrants

2011-09-26T17:13:00.000-05:00

.
If you are listening to someone talk about immigration, take note of whether they distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. That will tell you a lot.
.

measures of the center

2011-09-25T06:00:00.004-05:00

.
As folks get more and more fed up with the extreme partisans in Washington it is becoming fashionable to think of oneself as a centrist. But if the only people on your right are William F Buckley and Genghis Khan or if the only people on your left are Eugene V Debs and Mao Tse Tung, then I think it is a stretch to call yourself a centrist.

Here are a couple of tests to determine whether you are a centrist.

A) My liberal friends think that I am conservative and my conservative friends think I am liberal.
(If you do not have friends on both sides, then a) that is unfortunate and b) you are probably not a centrist.)

B) For another, perhaps more objective, criterion I would suggest the questions:
1) Which candidate did you vote for in all of the general presidential elections since you became eligible?
2) Which candidate did you vote for in the last five general presidential elections?

For me the answer to B is: All (12 in my case): D-9, I-1, R-2 and in the last five: it is D-2, I-1, R-2.
This could be summarized by looking at the sequence: DDDD DDDD DIRRD
I suppose that marks me as someone who was a liberal in youth who is moving to the center with age. That is a well known path.

I think of myself as a center left person.

(For more on this click the centrist label below this post.)

taxing the rich

2011-09-24T06:00:00.001-05:00

.
I do want to raise taxes on the rich. But I am very much opposed to a tax at this time on ONLY the very rich.

It doesn't affect me directly. (I won't qualify for it.)

But the thing is that I think that those of us in the middle are also going to have to pay more to get the country back on track. In particular, I think that we should return to the Clinton tax rates of the nineties. (Maybe, because of the recession, not right now.)

If you BEGIN that return to the Clinton tax rates with a tax on the rich, then when you get ready to get serious about our problems and go the rest of the way and return to Clinton rates on the rest of us(where the real money is) you will have a problem. Because then (I can hear them now) you will be raising taxes "only on the middle class and letting the rich off scot free."

I'll leave aside my disappointment that Obama has abandoned the attempt to solve our problems in favor of a 14 month presidential campaign.
.

Grand Bargain

2011-09-23T06:00:00.002-05:00

.
If one accepts that it is the Republicans who are the ones being obstinate, then how should Obama proceed?

Here is a good description by Friedman of what I wish that he would do.
.

Palestinian State

2011-09-21T06:00:00.002-05:00

.
I think that all sides (except Hamas, Hezbollah, and some extremist Israeli groups) have agreed that a two state solution is the way to go.

So what is wrong with the Palestinians going straight to the UN and asking for one?

Of course, I wouldn't see anything wrong with requiring that, in order to get it, they be required to accept the right of Israel to exist.
.

Fair – the meaning of

2011-09-20T17:20:00.000-05:00

It seems to be a quite empty word. I looked it up in Webster’s and found that it means equitable and that equitable means fair. Thanks a lot.

The meaning of fair is, of course, important because it is currently being claimed that America’s wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes. I don’t know what that means.

I suspect that at some point, early in life, most of us experienced an event that gave us a sense of fairness. Perhaps being forced to give half of a candy bar to a sibling, letting someone else choose the TV channel half of the time, or taking equal turns on a see-saw.

So how does the fairness concept apply to taxes for individuals that have different earning levels? Here is what I think would be fair. Everyone should pay an amount of tax such that after paying this tax they have the same remaining purchasing power as every other American.

I don’t, of course, believe nor advocate that at all. But what I do believe is that we should drop the fairness pretense and simply admit that we want to tax the rich because, to quote Willie Sutton, “Because that’s where the money is”.