Jefferson on Generations

Thomas Jefferson is famous for having written memorable words for commonplace ideas.  One of these ideas is:  “the earth belongs to the living, the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.”  This quotation comes from a letter he wrote to his friend James Madison on 6 September 1789.  The context for his remarks is the new U.S. Constitution.  Jefferson was registering his concern that a piece of paper composed by one generation might bind the next generation.

Put our quasi-sacred Constitution out of your mind for a moment and consider how you feel about this idea: that the laws of one generation should not bind the next generation, that each generation should make up its own rules for living.  I’ll wait while you consider your own position on this question.

Some historians believe that Jefferson had personal motivations for this idea: his father in law’s death left him with a legacy of land and slaves – and debt.  And he resented the debt being left for him to pay off.  Consider now how you would feel if your father left behind debts for you – his only son – to pay off.  Should a single son be responsible for his own father’s debts on his father’s death?  This time I will quit the essay and wait while you consider this question.  Please do not read the next part of this essay until you have thought this out.

Ferguson

It would be wrong not to comment on this sad story, wouldn't it?  So here goes.

Here is what I don’t know.  I don’t know if Michael Brown assaulted police officer Darrell Wilson.  I don’t know if Michael Brown ever had his hands up in surrender or if he ran away.  I don’t know if Officer Wilson’s life was threatened or if he had reasonable cause to believe it was.   I don’t know a lot of things.

Deficits Don’t Matter

“Deficits Don’t Matter” sounds like some weak liberal defense of our out of control deficit spending.  As I have shown in my book – and what is clear to any student of recent American History – it was Reagan who was the first President to submit huge deficit budgets without a real war to justify them.  While one might argue that he did have a war to justify them – the Cold War – and that that struggle was brought to a successful conclusion in 1989 (under the Presidency of George H W Bush) partly because of the defense build-up and spending, there was no compelling reason not to collect the taxes to pay for that spending (and thereby avoid unnecessarily large deficits) as we were not digging our way out of a depression.

However, the quote belongs to Dick Cheney – Vice President under Obama’s predecessor, George W Bush – and here is the “full” quote: “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.”  He was speaking to Paul O’Neill, the Treasury Secretary at the time (within days of becoming a former Treasury Secretary).  While it was primarily a political statement, its contempt for “balanced budgets” and “fiscal responsibility” shines through nonetheless.  It was 2004 when Cheney said it, and the Debt was on its way toward doubling what George W Bush had inherited from Bill Clinton, exploding from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion.

The reason for this partisan rant is this: it is good to have at least one political party be the party of fiscal responsibility.  It is not so good when they ignore their own cardinal principles when they control the government.  But it is not so good when they remember their principles just in time to attack relentlessly a successor President of the other party who has the job of reining in a recession that was their gift to the American people.

The Corruption Perceptions Index

Virtually all my writing is a protest against the political “corruption” in the United States of America, in the form of legislation and jurisprudence in favor of the highest bidder.  This might lead some to think that I believe that the USA is especially “corrupt” among nations.  This is neither the case nor do I believe it to be the case.  Transparency International, self-styled as “the global coalition against corruption,” annually ranks countries on their “corruption perceptions index.”  In 2013, the USA ranked as the 19th LEAST corrupt nation in the world.  19th!  As an American, as a patriot of the land of my birth, I would like to see us much less corrupt than that.  Ahead of us (in order of the organization’s 2013 ratings) are: Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Singapore, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Luxembourg, Germany, Iceland, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Barbados, Belgium and Japan.  Our score is 73% while the top two (Denmark and New Zealand) have scores of 91%.  There are 175 countries that the group considers and North Korea is at the bottom with a score of 8%.  

So we are better than average!  Great!  That’s nothing to write home about.  When we get to 1st place with a score of 93%, I will still be banging the drum for us to get cleaner.  This is my country, and as long as she sells herself to the highest bidder, I will continue to sound ugly noises.

John Ferling on Paine's Common Sense

Nothing that I have read, by or about Thomas Paine, does so good a job explaining my connection to the great American revolutionary as this passage from John Ferling’s book, Independence:The Struggle to Set America Free, Bloomsbury Press:2011, pp. 217 – 223.  

Thomas Paine didn't invent the American Revolution, he brought people around – aristocrats and the common people alike – to the necessity and the urgency of it.

This passage is totally worthy of your time and attention.  If you like what you read here, read the book.

Just days before word of the Canadian calamity reached Congress, an express arrived with the first tidings of George III's October address to Parliament.  “It is decisive," a New Englander instantly responded.  No greater proof was needed that Britain's monarch "meant to make himself an absolute despotic Tyrant."  Samuel Ward added that "Every Man must now be convinced that . . . our Safety depends wholly upon a brave, wise and determined Resistance."  Samuel Adams told others that this proved the king was the driving force behind British policy.  War guilt "must lie at his Door," he added.  A Virginian, Francis Lightfoot Lee, concurred.  The king's speech laid bare his and North's “bloody intentions" and demonstrated beyond doubt that it was folly to any longer continue "gaping after a reconciliation."

Thirty-six hours after the express brought the king's speech to town, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, the most important pamphlet published in the American Revolution – indeed, the most influential pamphlet published in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century America – hit Philadelphia's streets.  Its central argument was cogent and timely: Reconciliation was not in the best interests of the colonists.

The thirty-seven-year-old Paine was an Englishman who, like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams,

On Representative Democracy

Putting aside a real question – do we really live in a democracy? – I’d like to talk for a brief moment about our representative democracy.

It seems to me that a representative democracy can take two forms: where our representatives do as we bid them or where they do what they think is best.  As to the first choice, it seems to me that if we really wanted them to do as we demand, then we should begin to implement a technology-based referenda state for all matters big and small and just let the people decide.  No need for representation at all.  On the other hand, I personally believe that our representatives ought to do what they think is best for us.  If we disagree, it is their job to explain to us why they think what they think.  If it is convincing, fine.  If not, it becomes our job to explain to them why they were wrong until they agree with us.  Failing that, it is our duty to remove them from office.  Or to allow them this difference from us ("we agree to disagree but we still love you").

Equality: What Does It Mean?

If the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are America’s Holy Bible, then surely “all men are created equal” is its 23rd Psalm, as no phrase rings so true for Americans as these immortal words.

But what do they mean, exactly?  And what do they not mean?  

Why Are You So Angry?

One of the most effective rhetorical devices used against women, gays and other minorities to undermine their arguments and invalidate their passion is the cool, calm question: “Why are you so angry?”  Proof that it is effective is the fact that nearly invariably the speaker disowns his anger and says it is really not anger, it is really something else.  Further proof that the device works is the fact that it is still being used; if it stopped being effective, it would stop being used.

But let me not waste your time.  The one and only proper response to the rhetorical “Why are you so angry?” is: “What!  Are you fucking nuts?  If you heard what I said and it doesn’t make you angry, you’d have to be an emotional cripple, you’d have to be someone who was never taught the difference between right and wrong, whose parents never taught him fair play.  If you are not angry at what I have just described, YOU are the problem; it is because of people like you who are NOT enraged by injustice that the injustice exists in the first place.”

That’s it.

Regulations, Again

This post is written as a small "corrective" to the essays in my book about regulations.  It is easy to imagine from my essays that I am FOR a regulatory state.  This is a simple way to characterize my more complex notions about regulations, but it is inaccurate.  I am for SENSIBLE regulation.  I am for whittling away much (probably most!) of today’s regulations and today’s regulatory agencies, but I am not for eliminating them.

On Misunderstanding Ayn Rand

Many of those who have read my words may suspect that I am a closet liberal.  That may have elements of truth in it.  Some (fewer) may suspect that I am a closet conservative.  That too has elements of truth in it.  Those who have read me carefully know that I am virulently anti-Republican and not much more in love with Democrats either.

Ayn Rand, author of (among other works) Atlas Shrugged, can be said to be an inspiration to most Libertarians and many conservatives.  Indeed, she is an indisputable founder of modern American conservatism.  I read Ayn Rand’s books (all her fiction – 4 books – and some of her non-fiction) decades ago.  It would be true to say that I was under her spell while I read her books.  It would also be true to say that I escaped her spell within months of reading her.  Let me say, unequivocally, that I consider her a good novelist (by which I mean she grabbed my attention and kept me interested all the way to the end, and what more can a fiction writer want?  Rand wanted more).  And that I admired, respected and loved her heroes and heroines.  But the reasons that I did not become a "follower" of hers are these: 1) the world of her books is NOT the world we live in, and 2) she conflates indispensable titans of industry with all successful businessmen.

Is Ebola the Coming Plague?

I am not a trained physician, I do not work in the health profession, and I am not a student of biology.  So, what I am about to write may be a small pile of shit.  Nonetheless.

The “Black Death” (the second outbreak of the bubonic plague, ca. 1340 – 1400) took 1/5 to 1/3 of the population of the entire world at the time (some 75 to 200 million souls).  The 1918 flu pandemic took 20 to 100 million souls worldwide.  These figures compare frighteningly well against the casualties of our most horrific wars.

Best and Worst CEO's

Hey, THIS is hardly a legitimate blog post but I couldn't resist!  Consider this a public service!

You may not agree with all or many of these picks, but CNBC has put together two Portfolio lists: Worst American CEOs of All Time and Best American CEOs of All Time.  I don't know how old these lists are, or who is responsible for them, but they are a hoot!  Have fun!

Consistency in Presidential Elections

This survey stops with the Presidential election of 2008.  Too lazy to update it.

Four states – Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota – have voted Republican in every Presidential election since 1940 (FDR’s third term), except for 1964 (Johnson vs. Goldwater).

Four more states – Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming and Idaho – have voted Republican in every Presidential election since 1952 (Eisenhower’s first term), except for 1964.

Accidents

It affronts our sense of fair play when we consider someone having an accident having to pay for the accident and its consequences and repair.   But it attacks our notion of fair play and common sense when we consider the victim of the accident paying for the accident, its consequences and its repair.  In other words, we don’t think BP should have to pay for its “accident” and the consequences of the accident on the Gulf Coast until we consider the residents of the area having to pay for it.  At which time it becomes 100% obvious that the perpetrator of the accident, not its victims, must pay for their “accident.”

The Contraceptives Controversy

Reader: if you are a practicing Catholic who believes the Pope has a right to define women’s sexual behavior, please do not read this essay; it will only piss you off.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

Have you caught the spat about contraceptives between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church?  Church doctrine forbids contraception and the Church objects to the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) providing information about and access to and coverage for contraceptives to its faithful.  Newt Gingrich – a third wife convert to Catholicism – called it the biggest assault on freedom of religion since … well I am not sure, maybe since Martin Luther hammered his 95 Theses to the door of his church.  Rick Santorum, a one wife Catholic, has said equally nasty things about it too.  The Obama administration, as its first response, offered to allow the church, as an employer providing health insurance to its employees, not to have to pay for that part of the insurance package; but the insurance company would still have to provide contraceptive services to the church’s employees and insurance policy holders.  I suspect that will not satisfy everyone as the church may want to deny its members information and access to contraceptives (despite the fact that many of them already use contraceptives, doctrine be damned).  So, for Gingrich, Santorum and others, freedom of religion in the USA seems to mean the right of the Catholic Church (the employer) to deny freedom of choice to individuals who work for them (employees).  Ironic.

Guns

Here’s a rule.  If there is a politician or a TV or radio political commentator – or worse yet more than one – with whom you are in agreement 100% of the time, what that proves is you are not an independent thinker.

Obvious, right?  Good.  Because I am sure that the following will rub many Americans the wrong way, Americans I most want to reach.  

But just because we may disagree on one issue does not make everything I have to say unworthy of your time and consideration, right?

OK.

Abortion

Before Roe v. Wade, American women had abortions.  Some were self-administered and very dangerous, even fatal; some were black-market, expensive and very dangerous, even fatal; and some were safe, expensive and out of the country, where the law couldn’t do anything to you, even when you returned.  And for many of those who went to term, there were abandonments (dropping newborn babies in dumpsters or leaving them on door-steps in strange neighborhoods) and there were orphans, millions of orphans.  But for those who seriously considered abortion, what there was very few of was a happy couple welcoming a newborn into a loving family life.

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that is so “controversial,” the decision that forbids a state to outlaw abortion for the first trimester, was not a close 5-4 decision pitting conservative justices against liberal justices.  The decision was 7-2.  The makeup of the Court was 6 justices installed by Republican presidents and 3 justices installed by Democratic presidents.  Five of the six Republican justices voted with the majority and two of the three Democratic justices voted with the majority.  Bet you didn’t know that.  It was not a close decision, nor was it a party-line decision.

Social Darwinism

“So, Social Darwinism, whazzat?”

If “Darwinism” can be thought of as “survival of the fittest” (not Darwin’s idea at all; he preferred survival of the best adapted or the most adaptable), or prominence of the strongest, the most competitive, the wealthiest or the best connected, and then you apply it to humans, rather than the “inferior animal species,” that would be Social Darwinism.  The Law of the Jungle, applied to humans.  A corollary to survival of the strongest or fittest is the non-survival of the weakest or least fit.  Only the “best” would survive and reproduce, and this would naturally result in a superior human species, superior to what it would be without this kind of a Natural Selection.  Social Darwinism has no need for any “social safety net” to rescue the least fit, as it does not approve of allowing the least fit to survive.  Social Darwinism is cruel but efficient; think the ancient Spartans and the not so ancient Nazis.  A good case could be made that a more compassionate society would be a stronger, more fit society in many ways, but I am not approving or condemning Social Darwinism, just defining it.

Non-Violence

Many of my liberal friends – and I have more liberal friends than conservative ones (because of where I live!) – seem to believe that non-violence is the right approach to any issue that has the potential for violence, the ONLY right approach to any such issue: violence is never justified.  No doubt Martin Luther King, Jr’s non-violent approach to African-American Civil Rights worked wonders in the sixties, but I am not convinced that the perceived threat of mayhem posed by the Black Panthers didn’t help the cause some, maybe a lot.  Indeed, I am not so sure that the back-sliding of black power since the sixties cannot be traced at least partially to two generations of near total black non-violence.

Mohandas Gandhi (an inspiration for Martin) knew that non-violence was the only way to win when the other side outgunned you; you have to pick your battles.

But putting the Civil Rights struggle aside, my personal answer to the Left’s near-absolute allegiance to non-violence can be found in a simple movie of long ago: High Noon.  Those who know the movie know what I mean, and I would bet that all of them agree with me that non-violence has its place, as does violence.  For those who have not watched High Noon (or listened to its Oscar-winning song), I recommend it highly.  You might come away from it not so sure that non-violence is always the right answer to every question.  Sometimes, being a man means getting dirty.

Freedom of Speech, Revisited

“Well, I don’t think that you have made the case against money as protected speech.  For example, Meg Whitman (former CEO of eBay) and Carly Fiorina (former CEO of Hewlett-Packard), not only spent gobs and gobs of money running for governor and senator, respectively, of the great state of California, but they lost, and they lost embarrassingly, Whitman to a Democratic fossil who had been governor when T. Rex's ruled California.  Money did not corrupt the electoral process there, did it?”

Freedom of Speech

The 1st amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech is a pretty simple affair to anyone who has not thought about it too deeply.  “I can say what I want to and too bad if you don’t like it; you can’t stop me, ‘cause it’s a free country.” That pretty much sums it up.  To a 1st amendment scholar or to any lawyer or to a legal mind, it is not quite that simple.  “I can say anything I want to except for the following: 1) I can’t slander or libel anyone and get away with it (both of these require the statement of an untruth, malice, and damage to a person or his reputation or his financial security).  2) I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, thereby provoking an unnecessary panic with possible consequent damage to persons or property.  And 3) I can’t be obscene, whatever that means ('but I know it when I see it').”  That’s what freedom of speech means to a person familiar with how the law works.

But things have gotten interesting lately.  The already infamous Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has introduced another wrinkle in the fabric of just exactly what speech is protected by the Constitution.  Now corporations are persons whose free speech rights are protected by the Constitution and, as it may cost money to place a political ad on a network TV station, now money is protected as speech without limit too.  And a lot of people are upset with this decision, without knowing really how to get around the issues of just exactly what speech is really FREE and protected.

So, this essay is my 2c worth.

Texas After Roe v. Wade

Let’s indulge a thought experiment.  Let’s imagine the repeal of Roe v. Wade, effectively returning to each state complete sovereignty over the abortion issue.  Let’s further suppose that Texas, not wishing to be outdone, legislates abortion to be the same as first degree murder (far from impossible – if abortion is murder – and no abortion is ever not pre-meditated – then abortion is pre-meditated murder, 1st degree murder), punishable by death or life in prison without hope of parole.  Let’s further suppose a Texan Jane Roe who just found out that she is pregnant and for whatever reason does not want to have a baby, Texas law notwithstanding.

The BIG Question

The Big Question for the 21st Century is whether a critical mass of humanity will realize by the start of the 22nd Century that it has been on a path of self-annihilation for a long time and that it may be too late to save itself by changing course; so why bother?

Open Carry Gun Rights

Apparently it is Constitutional to openly carry firearms.  So here is my question: May a business prohibit you from openly carrying your firearm into their place of business?  May a business prohibit you from carrying a firearm into their place of business at all?  Prohibit you LEGALLY?  The answer is remarkably simple: yes and yes.

The 2nd Amendment prevents Congress – and the federal government and state and local governments – from infringing your right to keep and bear firearms.  It does nothing to prevent a private entity from prohibiting you from entering its privately owned space.  The private entity makes up its own rules as to who may enter and who may not and – except rarely (as in cases of discrimination) – may enforce those prohibitions.

Here’s the rub though.  By the above, it would seem that your right to bear should allow you to bear arms into government buildings, right?   Hmmm.  Not so quick, Charlie!  Logic may be on your side, but you will have to sue.  And don’t bet that logic and rights will help you to win your case.

Every now and again, common sense needs to trump what someone thinks is Constitutional.  Not often enough if you ask me.

If someone can find an official and somewhat comprehensive list of companies on one side of this “issue” or another, please let me know.  I will publish a link to it, to the delight of all those on either side of this issue.

Hobby Lobby

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case is yet one more case that the Supreme Court has decided that remains controversial.  Whose rights are we to protect anyhow?  Are we going to protect the "religious rights" of owners of a corporation, their rights to refuse to allow some health-care coverage to their own employees, even if they do not have to pay for it?  Or ought we to fight for the protection of the rights of the many more American citizens who work for them, who do not share the religious biases of their employers?  Whose freedom is it anyway?  The Roberts court affirms that the freedom they will protect is the freedom of the employers.  The Roberts Court has a long and consistent history of imagining that corporations have Constitutional Rights.  <Sigh>

Gifts to my Readers

Dear Reader of To My Countrymen!

The links below are gifts to you for reading To My Countrymen, every word of it (not necessarily from front to back)!

Needless to say, anyone who can read this blog post can access these links freely without buying or reading my book.

But I swear to you: if you have not read my book, and absorbed its lessons and dreams, these gifts will seem to you like "What's the big deal?"

So, be forewarned: these "gifts" will only BE gifts for those worthy to receive them!

Democracy: lyrics and performanence.

The Highwayman

You are most welcome!

Libel, Slander & Lies

Libel and Slander are laws that penalize careless and harmful speech.  They require malice or ill-will on the part of the speaker or author, they require that what is said or written be Untrue, and they require some kind of damage to the aggrieved party.

Famous people – political office holders and celebrities – are not protected by libel and slander laws.  Pretty much anything may be written or spoken about them with impunity on the part of the author or speaker.  The idea is that people in the public eye can defend themselves without the aid of the courts, that they have a voice that people will listen to, and that their credibility will be a match for their accuser.

Net Neutrality

Some political issues are just SO simple – so right vs. wrong, so good vs. evil – that no one would dare to admit he favors the “wrong” choice.  Like democracy vs. fascism.  Like the use of nuclear weapons on a populated city to prove we are still the strongest nation in the world and no one should fuck with us.  Simple issues with a clear right and wrong.

I THINK that Net Neutrality (Internet Service Providers, ISPs, carriers – MUST provide equal bandwidth [imagine a water “pipe” between you and your ISP] to all web services; ISPs cannot charge web services extra for a faster pipe that only large corporations can afford, while consigning all other web services that cannot afford the toll – like my blog – to a slower pipe) is one of these simple issues.

But before I have my say, before I say something that I may regret later on, I’d like to hear an argument against Net Neutrality.  A real argument by someone who honestly believes that Net Neutrality is the wrong choice.

Monica’s back

Better she had gotten on with her life in private.

The problem with Monica Lewinsky is not that she gave Bill Clinton a blow job (I was never interested enough in the story to gather the details – was it once or ten times, and did they ever … kiss?), the problem was not that she showed such bad judgment trusting her "friend" Linda Tripp, the problem is not that she still blames Bill for taking advantage of her, or that she blames Hillary … for what?

The Balanced Budget Amendment

A Balanced Budget amendment is a great idea, an idea whose time has come.  Finally, as it is long past overdue!

A Balanced Budget amendment is an essential symbol of an economy that lives within its means, within the rules of fiscal integrity, fiscal responsibility.

But that is its biggest problem – isn’t it – that it is just a symbol of fiscal integrity and fiscal responsibility?

“OK, what’s the problem?  Why is it just a symbol of fiscal integrity and fiscal responsibility?  Why doesn’t it FIX the problem?”

The problem – I think we all agree – is an out of control National Debt.  And balanced budgets do not fix that problem.

“Whoa, really, why not?”

Wikipedia

I link to Wikipedia articles a lot in my Blog.  I don’t ever use it for my writing because my posts would be much wordier than they are and I prize brevity; and because the audience I am writing for is not so compulsively interested in learning all that there is to know about a subject – who has the time?  Not me!  But I do like to give my readers a place to go for more information about a subject that I write about, if they are interested.

But why Wikipedia?

Moral Hazard

“Moral Hazard” (for a longer discussion) was one of the most important – and necessary – factors that allowed the Great Recession of 2008 to occur.  Indeed, it may have compelled it to happen sooner or later.  So, maybe a sufficient factor, too.  For the mathematicians out there, moral hazard may have been a “necessary and sufficient” factor for the Great Recession of 2008, the Recession that was nearly the Second Great Depression.

So, what IS this thing called “moral hazard”?

Corporate … What?

It’s called “Corporate Personhood.”

“Corporate personhood” means that corporations are treated as though they were persons, indeed citizens, under the law, as having the same Constitutional Rights as “natural persons,” as citizens.

On the one hand it seems innocuous enough.  On the other hand it seems absurd – and dangerous.

The New Economy, Revisited

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.  I forgot the main reason I sat down to write about "The New Economy."  The main reason is that the New Economy is a “structural change” in the economy, it is not just another down-swing of another “business cycle.”

Huh?  What you talkin’ about?

Many if not most economists are so wrapped up in Economic Theory that they see the recent Recession as just another recession, just another Bust following another Boom.  This strait jacket of Economic Theory forces them to see everything as business cycles and keeps them from seeing the obvious: that this recession – the jobless recovery part of it – is not the result of a cyclical Surplus in Supply or a Deficit in Demand (I capped these 4 words because they alliterate!), it is rather the result of a new economy that needs fewer and fewer workers.  I am not talking about Globalization or the out-sourcing of jobs to China and India, etc. which will continue to savage American jobs.  I am only talking about the Technology piece of the New Economy – computers and artificial intelligence and robotics – performing work that was previously performed only by human beings.

The New Economy

In the early 1990’s, IBM laid off 135,000 workers (this is a number that I remember but I can only find support online for 115,000, still a HUGE number to be laid off in less than two years).  Few to none of them were low-skill workers.  And the number was SO huge that it was 10 times the total number employed at the time by Microsoft, the company that more than any other was making IBM’s life miserable.

From the early 1980’s through the early 2000’s, General Electric under the leadership of “Neutron Jack” Welch laid off between 120,000 and 160,000 workers (internet research supplies varying numbers).

From the distant past, I dredge up these two cases to make the point that “The New Economy” (the economy that is less and less dependent upon human labor, or high-skilled American labor) is not merely the consequence of computer / internet-based productivity gains or globalization / out-sourcing manufacturing jobs.  These two and other early massive layoff events were often a consequence of “Mergers and Acquisitions.”  M&A was part of a new strategy to boost corporate Bottom Lines – by terminating workers who did not contribute directly or adequately to that goal.

A. Lincoln on Capitalism

These words are the words of Abraham Lincoln, a Libertarian before his time.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

A Workers' Paradise

Who first spoke the expression “a workers’ paradise” is not certain.  It may have been Karl Marx glorifying a stage on the path to a Socialist Utopia, or it may have been coined (or re-coined) by a very Left Wing American in the 1930’s as a reference to Stalin’s Soviet Union.  Few people today believe that Marxist Socialism would be a paradise, and everyone (even those 1930’s Communists) today knows that Uncle Joe’s USSR was more a workers’ Hell than a workers’ paradise.

But there is a real workers’ paradise, and it is here – in the good old USA.

Republicans and Democrats

The core difference between the two major political parties is over the role of government in our lives.  Republicans believe that government interferes with our lives and should be kept to a minimum.  “The government that governs least governs best” (falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, as it does reflect his thinking, but more likely spoken by Henry David Thoreau).  Democrats believe that government should help us out when we need its help.  “I am my brother’s keeper” (Genesis' Cain did NOT say that).

Republicans believe in competition; Democrats believe in cooperation.  Mostly.

American Exceptionalism

Watch this video because I will not be repeating what the news anchor says to his audience.  If you don’t watch it, you will miss most of the context for what I have written.  Go ahead; it is an entertaining and dramatic five minutes (they killed the extended eight minute version).

We’re Broke

You’ve heard this before.  “We’re broke.”  You’ve heard it many, many times.  You’ve heard it so many times that you probably believe it, because in many ways it seems true.

But it is not true.

First, some context.  When a politician says “we’re broke,” he is always arguing to cut government spending and/or arguing against tax increases or for tax cuts, usually for the wealthy.  If “we’re broke,” we surely cannot get blood from the stone of people’s incomes.

Redistribution of Wealth

Every penny, every cent, every sou, every shilling, every yen that was ever taken by taxation at any time in history and anywhere in the world is a “redistribution of wealth.”  Never is a single penny taken in tax not a redistribution of wealth.  Whether it is taken in the form of a sales tax, an income tax, a property tax, a FICA (Social Security) tax, an excise tax or a luxury tax, every cent that gets taken by government will be “redistributed.”  To government workers who handle the collection and distribution of tax monies, to other government workers, to construction teams, to doctors and hospitals, to teachers, to police and fire-fighters, to sanitation workers, to mass transit workers, to retired and “elderly” citizens as a subsistence income and, yes, to thieves.  It is sheer demagoguery for any politician to call a tax hike on the wealthy a re-distribution of wealth when you consider that the most massive re-distribution of wealth in American history was the legal theft of wealth (by way of indecently huge tax cuts for the wealthy) from the pockets of the poor and the middle class into the bank and investment accounts of the super-wealthy over the past thirty-five years in America, ever since the top marginal income tax rate was cut from 70 - 91% (you read that right!) down to 28 - 39%.  These monies, that were never collected, if they could be recaptured by the U.S. Treasury, would erase the National Debt.  These tax cuts caused the National Debt.  Many Republicans use this phrase when they want to steal your money and redistribute it to their wealthy friends, the sources of their campaign war-chests.

Obamacare: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I do not like Obamacare AKA the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

But before getting to the particular points of this blog post, let me say that if you think that Obamacare is 100% perfect, or if you think it is 100% evil, in both these cases you are displaying an impatience with thoughtfulness and detail.

So, let me now beg your patience for a while.

First, Obamacare is not so awful that, if it were totally repealed, it would not have to be replaced by something better, because it IS better than what we have had for the past 35 years.  And here is why:

Mankiw on Economic Inequality: Part II

Now for Professor Mankiw.

Argument 1 – The title “Yes, the Wealthy Can Be Deserving” is disarmingly inoffensive.

Reply 1 – Is there a person alive who does not agree that “the wealthy can be deserving,” the logical equivalent of which is “some of the wealthy are deserving”?  The title is deceptive as no one wants to debate it, and surely no argument is necessary to defend it.  Surely Professor Mankiw means to argue more than his title suggests; and that is what I will answer.

Mankiw on Economic Inequality: Part I

N. Gregory Mankiw, professor of Economics at Harvard, and author of THE Economics 101 college textbook, wrote a piece for The New York Times published on February 15th, 2014, called “Yes, the Wealthy Can Be Deserving.”  What follows is my open reply to his article, which you should read (click on the title link) before reading my reply.

But what became clear writing this reply is that there is such fundamental confusion regarding the issue of economic inequality that I must deal with the confusion – first.

The National Debt

This is the first of many blogs on this subject.  And the reason I know I will post on the subject again is the widespread misunderstanding of what should be easy stuff.

The National Debt is the sum of all annual Deficits minus the sum of all annual Surpluses plus Interest on the Balance.   Debt = Deficits – Surpluses + Interest.

What the Interest part should tell us – now that the Debt is at $31.2 Trillion – is that we should work to CUT the Debt, as Interest payments are beyond starting to get serious.  Even at only 1% interest, the annual cost of Interest on the Debt is $312 Billion.  When interest rates begin to creep up – as they surely must – the Interest hit will become $600 Billion or $900 Billion or $1.2 Trillion, every year.  The current low figure – $312 Billion – costs every man, woman and child $945 / year in taxes, or a family of four $3782.  Not chump change, for the nation's credit card Interest.  And each citizens owns $93,705 of that Debt!

My Political ID

I vote in every election, Presidential and mid-term.  EVERY election.  Since I could.

I have moved often within the states over the years.  And one of the very first things that I always do is register with their Board of Elections.  My right to vote is precious to me.

I have been a registered Republican and I have been a registered Democrat.  I have even been registered with a third party.

Katy Perry and Allah

To my Muslim brothers and sisters:

For starters, you may not choose to call me brother when you finish reading what I have to say.

For hundreds of years, Jews have suffered indignities from their fellow-Americans.

For hundreds of years, Roman Catholics have suffered indignities from their fellow-Americans.

Gay Rights and Religious Freedom

The state of Arizona (with its Senate Bill 1062: Denial of Service to Gays on the grounds of religious beliefs) presents us with an interesting problem. Who has rights and who does not? The issue argues the rights of gays to be served anywhere in public vs. the rights of business owners to refuse to sell to gays (because of religious freedom).

Let me begin by suggesting that no Christian religion worthy of the name discriminates against gays. Jesus would not have approved. The Old Testament, maybe. But Jesus, never. But that is just my opinion (we both read the same Book; we are just pointing to different passages in the same Book).

Patriotism

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

WTF???!!!

This is the most famous quotation ever about patriotism, and it is a slander!

Introduction to My Blog

I am "A Son of Common Sense," a son therefore of Thomas Paine (1737 – 1809), who was sometimes called plain “Common Sense,” after his pamphlet’s title.  Paine's Common Sense (1776) was the most important and most persuasive argument for the colonies’ independence from Great Britain.  It called on us to form a democratic republic, it called us for the first time the “United States of America,” and it can honestly be called the father of the Declaration of Independence, whose sentiments echo its own.  It was by far the biggest selling book in U.S. history – after the Bible of course – as it sold 500,000 copies to a population of 2,000,000 (which would be like selling 80,000,000 copies in today’s America).  Paine published Common Sense anonymously and he earned not a penny from its sale.  He cared about his message.  (As an aside, a half-dozen new biographies have been written about Thomas Paine since the turn of the century.  Here is an article from Wired magazine written in 1995 that may have sparked the renewed interest in my Dad).  And here is Bill Moyers interviewing a conservative and a liberal, both huge fans of Paine.

I care about my message too.