What is the Debt?

At a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire on Monday, December 21st, an audience member asked Republican Presidential candidate Governor Chris Christie about the National Debt, claiming that Barack Obama had tripled the Debt in his seven years in office.  Governor Christie, without attempting to correct the man’s exaggerated figure, claimed that Obama had added to the debt more than every other President combined; in other words, he had doubled – not tripled – the Debt, still a potent charge.   But here is the truth: Presidents Reagan and Bush I more than quadrupled the Debt, from $998 billion to $4,411 billion, President Bush II more than doubled the Debt, from $5,807 billion to $11,910 billion.  President Obama took over a Debt at $11,910 billion and the Debt stood at $18,151 billion at the end of the last fiscal year, September 30th, 2015, an explosion of 52%, not 200%, not 100% (but he has only been responsible for 6 years of budgets so far).  And while President Bush II only had surpluses as far as the eye could see to overcome, President Obama had a deep recession to fight (and additional government spending is every serious economist’s response to a recession).

Politicians lie, even with numbers that are easily verified.  But politicians don’t expect you to care enough to hunt down the truth.  So, I am happy to do that for you. 

And, by the way, here is the SOURCE of my numbers.  I wonder what the governor’s source was.

And Governor Christie knows he told a whopper.  The alternative is: he is ignorant and he doesn’t care.  Which is worse?

For what it's worth, this is not an anti-Christie post, it is a post aimed at setting the record straight re: taxes and the National Debt.  All Republicans have put these untrue facts out there.  Democrats lie too, but Republicans – the party of fiscal responsibility – like to emphasize the fiscal irresponsibility of President Obama, and they don’t seem to care that it is just not true.

Big Deal Dates in Recent US History

This blog post is just an exercise in historical silliness.  There is no way you could come up with this personal list of big deal dates if you asked Google or Bing.  It is just MY list, 13 events.

November 4^th & 5^th, 2008

Barack Obama wins the American Presidency.  The world went crazy, the world celebrated, America had elected a black man President, America had grown up!  Even in the USA, Obama had a 76% approval rating following his inauguration, so even conservative Republicans were glad for America (for a short while).  It was quite an event, you could feel it!

A Jewish friend of mine …

A Jewish friend of mine wrote this and I thought it deserved being seen.

Someone in the <deleted for the sake of anonymity> group argued that we are a Christian Nation.  As a Jew, I would say that makes me just a bit uncomfortable.  Not to mention that historically, it made Irish and Italian Catholics uncomfortable, too.  If we are a Christian Nation, we are a Nation of Salem Witch trials, of Pilgrims who fled religious intolerance only to practice it themselves, of Christians who justified killing the red (native-born) savages for not converting to Christianity, and of Christians who dressed in white robes to go on lynching rampages.

Allah Revisited

In a piece that I called Katy Perry & Allah, I probably sounded like an enemy of Muslims.  I suggested that American Muslims needed to get used to being discriminated against, at least individually and personally (rather than officially by the government).  But my whole drift was that they could not expect to have their prophet Mohammad respected, not as they wanted him to be, not by the American people.  Because individual freedom of expression is America’s creed (not just YOUR freedom, but everyone’s); what makes us American more than anything else, is our RIGHT to offend, to blaspheme, to insult, to disparage.  And I was suggesting that this lack of “respect” was part of a period of indoctrination that might last a hundred years or more; ask a black man how long it will last that they won’t respect you, and he will say with some justice: “it never ends, white Americans are all alike, bigoted as hell.”  Seen the movie The Gangs of New York yet?  I recommend it, it will give a real face to American intolerance.  But it will allow you to breathe easier about it.  Really!

So what am I here for this time?  To associate myself with President Obama’s sentiments, and not with Donald Trump’s.  And to honor the New York tabloid Daily News (NOT a liberal rag) for its graphic eloquence!

The ACLU & Citizens United

I have spent a lifetime walking in near lock-step with the ACLU and its unwavering support of our fragile Bill of Rights, particularly the 1^st amendment, and its laser-beam concentration on that amendment’s “freedom of speech, or of the press” clause.  God knows I could write a short book glorifying dozens of unpopular cases that the ACLU took on, and won.  But here I would like to register my dismay at their narrow reading of the issues in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case of 2008 – 2011.  In this case, the ACLU submitted an Amicus brief for the film maker, and it was right to do so: Citizens United had every right to have its movie broadcast.  But the ACLU erred in siding with the Court in its expanded consideration of the place of money in politics.  Here is what they wrote for public consumption in defense of their position.

Paris

I can recall from long, long ago an older relative calling World War II "the recent unpleasantness."  It had a clever ironic ring to it that made you wake up to how really awful it was.  Indeed, if you don't know how really awful it was, you have no sense of history.  If you are not old enough to remember the war, an over-exposure to images and facts and figures may do the trick; so put a day aside and immerse yourself in a bit of "recent" history.

The "recent unpleasantness" in Paris is a European capital's 9/11.  A wake-up call, not that any European capital needed one.  And it is having all sorts of unintended consequences here, too.  The governors of many (23 as of this morning) American states have decided to close their borders to Syrian refugees who are trying to escape the self-same bastards that are now targeting Europe.  They don't want to be next, "not on my watch."  And who can blame them?  Because of a few evil bastards, hundreds of thousands of innocents will see their cries for help turned aside.

The Four Freedoms

       

The following is stolen verbatim from the Norman Rockwell Museum's website.

Democratic Socialism

As independent senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders has a real chance to become the Democratic candidate for President in 2016, it is time for the American people to understand what he stands for.  Sanders’ party is the Democratic Socialist party.  So, what is a Democratic Socialist?

Snowden and the NSA

Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Duplessis

After the homilies he immortalized in Poor Richard’s Almanac (“A penny saved is a penny earned,” “Early to bed and early to rise …,” “Old too soon and wise too late”), Benjamin Franklin is best known for two more mature aphorisms: “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it” and “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

In other words, alongside of the wise Mr. Franklin, I am squarely on Edward Snowden’s side in this contest between the forces of civil liberties vs national security.  If we can’t protect ourselves without resorting to undermining the very freedoms that make us proud to be Americans in the first place, well then, God help us.

Having said that, this is a tough one.

Employment

The Obama administration likes to boast that it is responsible for 59 straight months of employment expansion, of employment growth, the longest positive economic growth in American history.  I cannot comment on the streak as I don’t have that level of data, or for that matter that level of interest, to affirm or deny that factoid.  On the other hand, the level of employment growth leaves a lot to be desired.   “Why,” you may ask, “this is an impressive accomplishment, isn’t it?”  I guess it is.  But not as impressive as you may think.  Here is why.

Comics

Some of you may think, from reading my stuff, that I have no sense of humor.  Well, you’re RIGHT!

To amuse myself, I treat my weary brain to comics realized by the BEST comics writers who ever lived.
In alphabetical order, they are:

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

In my book, To My Countrymen, I wrote two essays that talk about how computers threaten jobs: Productivity Rocks and The Future.  I would have written more about this hugely important disruptive technology, but it was not my intention in this book to scare you half to death.  I wrote my book to move you to join our revolution.

In any event, I picked up a book just a few days ago, called Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground Between Humans and Robots, by John Markoff, New York: 2015.  It’s an examination of the progress of the twin strains of computer intelligence: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intelligence Augmentation (IA), AI vs IA.  Over-simply stated, AI aims at machines replacing humans while IA aims at super-charging human skills.  Mars Rovers and totally automated factories are results of AI thinking, while Microsoft Office and the Internet are results of IA thinking (lest you think that IA is benign, products that empower a human to be more “productive” empower his employer to cut his labor force).

Who is John Rawls?

My apologies to fans of Ayn Rand for stealing a favorite line of theirs ("Who is John Galt?"). I couldn't help myself.

Most of us, I think, choose our political party because of how we perceive our identity. For example, if you’re black, you vote Democratic and you don’t have to think hard about it. Similarly, if you are gay, Jewish, secular, poor, Latino/Latina, a Union member, a government employee or a teacher, you vote Democratic without having to think hard about it, because that is what your group does. On the other hand, if you are wealthy, a small businessman or woman, evangelical Christian, country, a farmer, a cop or military, you vote Republican without having to give it much thought, because that is what your group does.  This is, of course, mostly but not always true.

Externalities

Externalities are economic costs not borne by the producer or the consumer.  They are external to the entire costing process, from creation through sale.  Most often, not paying for externalities benefits private corporations (and their direct customers), whereas costs of the externalities are typically borne by the public.  There are externalities that are “positive externalities” where there are external benefits rather than costs (the classical example of a positive externality is a community with an excellent public education system in place that provides a high-quality labor force for any employer who might want to headquarter there; the community pays for the education, the new employer gets a high-quality labor force free of charge).  But we are going to focus on negative externalities here.

The Fisherman and the Businessman

This is a golden oldie.  You probably know the story, the tall tale, the parable.  If not, follow along.

Mexican Fisherman Meets Harvard MBA

A vacationing American businessman standing on the pier of a quaint coastal fishing village in southern Mexico watched as a small boat with just one young Mexican fisherman pulled into the dock. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. Enjoying the warmth of the early afternoon sun, the American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish.

"How long did it take you to catch them?" the American casually asked.

"Oh, a few hours," the Mexican fisherman replied.

Gay Marriage, Updated

U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s decision to jail Rowan County, Kentucky’s Court Clerk Kim Davis was an overreaction.  Thank God it is done with, and in only six days’ time.  Too long by six days; better he had put her on leave without pay until a resolution could be reached.  And a perfect resolution was indeed reached, in less than a week.  As long as one clerk or assistant clerk is able to fulfill the letter of the law, there is no need for Ms. Davis to be forced to betray her conscience.

Washington Post 2015/09/04, etc.

You should be clear that I am on the side of the LGBTQ community in the gay marriage argument.  For several reasons.  One, it is no skin off my back if a gay couple gets married, it costs me nothing.  Two, the argument against gay marriage is a religious one, and the first amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion (or group of religions) in the nation and in the states, and a legal ruling in favor of a religion is an “establishment” of that religion.  Third, no religious organization will be compelled to marry – or even recognize as married – any gay couples, as the Supreme Court decision only relates to civil law.  Fourth, before the Court decision, civil law sometimes distinguished between married people and single people, oftentimes advantaging married people; now gay people will be able to take advantage of those same advantages of being married.  And last, does your happiness really depend on the unhappiness of human beings who are not like you?

Tax Reform

Republicans talk about “Tax Reform” a lot.  Democrats talk about “Tax Reform” too, but not so often.  Not a single member of either party has ever disclosed what he means by “tax reform.”  Soak the rich, soak the poor, subsidize the poor, subsidize the rich?  Doesn’t matter, they’re not talking.  But you know what they mean, don’t you?  Well, "tax reform" doesn’t mean anything, it is just a slogan that politicians think will earn them some electoral gravitas.  But when they do begin to get a little specific, you can count on all of them talking about tax cuts, as though they are not aware of our National Debt, $18 trillion and counting.

Gun Violence

I propose a response to “gun violence” that is better than anything I have seen out there, but there are hurdles to going along with my “solution.”

First, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  Take away the guns, the firearms, and the perp cannot kill from a distance and cannot kill in large quantities per minute.  Nothing else kills quite so efficiently as firearms.

A Runaway Convention

There are those – like Ben Paine, like myself – who are working to craft and ratify a 28^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood and build a Wall of Separation between big money and government.  There are those – like Ben Paine, like myself – who want to have an Article V Convention write the amendment rather than Congress, in order to get what we want and not a watered-down version with no teeth and no real hope for a better more democratic future.  But there are those who fear that an Article V Convention might degenerate into a “runaway convention” whose consequence would be to undermine all the benefits we have thus far enjoyed under the original U.S. Constitution.

Ben's Picks

I was gonna call it Ben's Books because that alliterates and sounds punchy.  But it is wrong because they are not MY books, they are merely my book recommendations.

And I just thought of it today as I finished reading a very good book.

So what do I mean by "a very good book"?  The subject is interesting and you will feel nourished by learning stuff that is not a waste of your time, stuff that is good for you (protein and not sugar or other worthless carbs).  And the author is so engaging that his book is hard to put down.  VERY important!

So, the book that I just finished reading today is David McCullough's The Wright Brothers.  I have read other books by McCullough, and he can be very good; but he can also be not so good.  It was an effort to read his 1776 even though I am primed for books of our Revolutionary period, especially "popular" books.  Nevertheless, ...  Also, his immediately previous book, The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris, young American artists in Paris in the middle of the 19th century, a subject in which I have little or no interest, was an absolute delight to read and revel in.

Of all the authors who write mostly about the American Revolutionary period, I am an especially big fan of John Ferling, who is always engaging and always hard to put down, despite (because of?) all the facts he puts before your eyes.  Let me particularly recommend Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry that Forged a Nation.

Trump

Sometimes politics as a spectator sport is FUN!  Please note that I write very little about "politics"; I prefer issues to personalities, and politics is all personalities.  So few discuss issues independent of the passions associated with a personality; that is my niche.

Democracy

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

The two most ringing phrases in all of American history are indisputably “We the People of the United States …” from the Preamble to the U S Constitution and “… all men are created equal …” from the Declaration of Independence.  And they both seem to argue for democracy – rule of, by, and for the people.  But every once in a while, a stray Republican, one not running for President, reminds us that democracy is not called for or even mentioned by the U S Constitution, or any other founding document for that matter.  He is right.  By all rights, we are a republic, a nation ruled by laws; but not by Constitutional mandate a democracy.  In addition, none of our Founding Fathers (excepting Thomas Paine himself) desired universal suffrage (suffrage is the form of a democracy, it is the right or privilege of a citizen to vote or otherwise participate in the processes of governing).  Indeed, to a man, they all feared democracy.  They feared the voice of the demos, the herd, the common people.  Consider that all of our Founding Fathers were highly educated and highly successful men.  Their version of “We the People” meant “we and our social peers,” a natural aristocracy even if not an inherited one (as in the old country).  A “real democracy” (in today’s usage) implies universal suffrage, suffrage of the common man.  But no democracy for these demigods.

The War of Northern Aggression

That is what a speaker in the South Carolina House of Representatives called the Civil War: “the War of Northern Aggression.”  I don’t know how ironic he was being, but there it was, one more name for the Civil War, a name that still resonates for some.

Some names for the great conflict include The War Between the States and The Brothers’ War.  There are a dozen or more names that combatants and others have used, some in an attempt to remain “objective,” others in an attempt to assign blame.  And to re-ignite still burning embers.

http://www.examiner.com/article/rick-perry-s-gop-and-the-new-war-of-northern-aggression

The optimal causes, the immediate causes of the war, were two-fold: firing on Fort Sumter was a clear act of war and the Union did not blink.  Secession was the other immediate cause.  Was secession a possible act under the doctrine of states’ rights?  As long as this was being debated, it was an exercise in free speech.  But the Confederate states’ official acts of secession were immediate causes of the war.

Slavery and states’ rights were enduring arguments from the first moments the terms of the Constitution were being argued, nearly 75 years before the outbreak of the Civil War.  So in themselves neither slavery nor states’ rights were operative causes of the War.  But firing on a government fort and the political acts of secession were optimal causes of the war.  Still, slavery was the underlying reason for the argument in the first place, the underlying cause of the war.  The South fired the first shot, the South split apart the Union, the South precipitated the Brothers' War.

But what does “The War of Northern Aggression” tell us?  It tells us what we have long suspected, that the Civil War, and its underlying arguments (slavery, and even states’ rights), are not settled issues among all Americans.  Gridlock in Washington, DC and the partisan passions across America are proof that as a nation we are not one people, one more argument that democracy cannot work in today’s fractured political environment.  <sigh>

The Iran Nuclear Deal

No doubt you are expecting some words of wisdom from me about a critical issue of war and peace, the Iran Nuclear Deal.  Sorry.  No can do.

I am ill-equipped to offer an informed opinion on the question “to sign or not to sign,” as my emphasis in political thought and deed is always domestic, not foreign, policy.

Charleston

What, really, has to be said about the cold-blooded murders at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina by a screwed-up white kid (I say “kid” because 21 years is not always enough to be called a ”man”).

http://www.charismanews.com/us/50183-this-pastor-pulling-no-punches-about-demonic-south-carolina-massacre

Why does it still happen here?  Were not 250 years of slavery enough?  Were not 150 years of Jim Crow enough?  Were not 100 years of lynching enough?  Were not 100 years of segregation enough?  If the history of race relations in this country prove nothing else, it is that whites are surely NOT the superiors of blacks.  By any measure.  Especially morally.

Beautiful -- but Provocative and Shameful

Three governors (and counting) have decided to outlaw the Confederate flag from license plates.  The governor of South Carolina has ordered the removal of Confederate flags from state grounds.  This is proper and long overdue.  Indeed, the flag of the Confederacy should be removed from any and all official Southern displays.  Imagine the Nazi flag being displayed in modern Germany, it would provoke a riot (and if it did not, that would be worse).  The Confederate flag is not merely the flag of the Confederate South, it is the flag of the slave-holding South.  We fought that war, the Union won that war, and while mercy and forgiveness were routinely granted to officers and soldiers who fought for the Confederacy, neither mercy nor forgiveness were offered to the institution of slavery or to white supremacy.

On the other hand, YOU may love the Confederate flag, you may own the Confederate flag, it is probably legal for YOU to display that flag on your own property as surely as it is legal for you display the Nazi flag (this being America and not Germany).  The 1st amendment protects your right to free thought and free speech and free expression.  But it does NOT allow a governing body the same "freedoms."  This is not splitting hairs, as it is legal for you to pray in a public school, but it is not legal for the school authorities to conduct a prayer.  You may discriminate, no governmental body may do the same.

The Irony of Democracy

One of the great ironies of contemporary American life is that the greatest democracy the world has ever known (that would be us, the United States of America) and the land that spends half of its annual tax receipts exporting democracy around the world, is not a democracy itself.  A democracy is a nation-state where the people rule.  All we are is a nation-state where the people VOTE, but the people do not rule.  You don’t need me telling you this, you know it.

This sorry state of affairs is the single reason why I wrote my book and why I write my blog, that we are not a democratic land where the people rule and what we must do to become a true democracy once again (well, that and I like to write and I like seeing my ideas and words in print).

What ARE we then, if not a democracy?  Lawrence Lessig thinks we are Lesterland, a nation-state where the Lesters rule.  Greg Palast thinks we are "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."  Maybe we are an oligarchy, where a few rule the nation-state.  Or a corporatocracy, where corporations rule.  Or a plutocracy, where the rich rule.  Or a kleptocracy, where the thieves rule.  Or fascism where big businesses have taken the reins of democratic power for their own purposes.  All these apply, all except democracy, because the people clearly do NOT rule.

Freedom

What is freedom?  Who is free and who not?

I think that when we think of freedom we must first think of what it means to be without it.  We must think first of freedom from foreign domination: Nazi domination, Soviet domination, pre-Revolutionary British domination.  After that, we must think of forms of physical incarceration: prison, official governmental coercion (house arrest, parole), or even non-governmental confinement (kidnapping).

The Flat Tax, Again

Today's Washington Post's headline reads: Rand Paul the latest GOP presidential contender to catch flat-tax fever.  Now, Rand Paul is no moron, and I like a lot of what he stands for, but the Flat Tax can best be characterized as …  a bad idea (in place of "a bad idea," I had originally used the highly expressive term "moronic" before; but in deference to a friendly reader, I have changed my language, if not my judgment).

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/political-ironing/12/22/the-flat-tax-visualized/

I have an essay in my book, To My Countrymen, which is titled Flat Tax, Fair Tax (pp. 110-113) and it analyzes both tax schemes and finds them … wanting.  The conclusions are simple to state: 1) however much these two tax schemes might reduce taxes, the middle-class ends up paying a bigger slice of the total tax pie than they did before, and the wealthy end up paying a smaller slice of the total tax pie than they did before.  Terrific, just what we need, another re-distribution of wealth … UP!  Then, 2) the more that tax rates and tax collections are reduced, the bigger the deficit (and the National Debt) that results.

Zombies in Congress

What, exactly, is a zombie?  No, really, what is a zombie, not a movie zombie, but a “real” zombie??  A zombie is a dead human being who refuses to be dead.  Just like those guys in Congress with their inability to take the Constitution for an answer.

The (Republican) House yesterday (May 13th, 2015) passed, by a solid 242-184 vote, H.R. 36, The “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”  This bill, among other things, makes it illegal nationally for a physician to perform an abortion on a 20 week old fetus.  The only problem with this bill being made law is: it is illegal!

Putting aside whether the Senate will pass it (the threat of a filibuster will kill it), putting aside whether the President will sign it into law (he has promised a veto), putting these obstacles aside and pretending that it gets passed by the Senate and signed into law by the president, it is illegal because it runs afoul of the Constitution.

Unintended Consequences

As I have an essay in To My Countrymen called by this name, I had thought to name it something else, like "Be Careful What You Wish For…”

But here we are with this stale but tried and true, title.

Imagine that you are an extreme libertarian and do not believe in any government-sponsored safety nets, like welfare, food stamps, CHIP programs, etc.  They don’t exist.  “If you want to eat, you work!” is your motto.

Greenhouse gas benchmark reached

I am not a climate scientist, not even a garden-variety generic scientist, so what I am about to say is all speculative horseshit.

NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) said today (May 6th, 2015): “Global carbon dioxide concentrations surpass 400 parts per million for the first month since measurements began.”

Obergefell v. Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges is the name of the same-sex marriage case heard by SCOTUS today, April 28th, 2015.

On this, the day that the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments about the “right” of Same-Sex Marriage, I thought two new thoughts.  But before I speak them, I want you, my reader, to be crystal clear where I stand.  One, I am 100% with the proponents of the right to same-sex marriage who want to be treated the same as traditional marriage couples in civil law, as it does no harm to anyone to allow them to share this “right” with opposite-sex couples.  And, two, this issue does not seek gay access to religious marriages; churches or congregations may continue to do as they want – let them marry gay couples or let them not marry gay couples – let them have their own internal struggles with this issue, and I am sure that many churches and surely many more congregations will fracture over this “right.”  So be it.  There you have it, FOR same-sex marriage in its CIVIL sense only, and FOR the freedom of religious institutions and religious practitioners to continue to discriminate (is this really a Christian thing to do?) against gays at the same time.  I am not threading the needle, I am NOT having it both ways, but no one is asking for private non-discrimination, only governmental non-discrimination.  If you, dear reader, think I am wrong, prove it; show me with a citation of a legal action to compel a church to officiate and/or to recognize a same-sex marriage.

SETI – The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence

OK, this short blog post is a reality check.  “Are we really alone?”  Is Earth-based humanity the only intelligent species in the whole universe?  OK, we are pretty sure that we will find life – elemental life, single-celled life – pretty nearby and soon, on Mars, on one or more of Jupiter's or Saturn's moons.  But how about intelligent life, more intelligent than us – from whom we might learn SO much that would solve SO many human problems – how about really intelligent life?

A Modest Proposal

The genus Homo appeared on planet Earth about 2.5 million years ago, the species Homo Sapiens appeared roughly 800,000 years ago, and the subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens (double-wise?  Hah!) (that’s US, modern humans) about 200,000 years ago (as I am no paleoanthropologist, I can be excused for mis-stating the dates, but that does not affect my argument).  We modern humans traded hunting and gathering for the domestication of animals and agriculture a mere 12,000 years ago.  The Industrial Revolution (beginning with steam power) began less than 300 years ago, and the wide-spread use of electricity took place over decades from the late 1880’s through the Great Depression (still on-going in many places in the world).  Before that transformative transition, all of your ancestors knew what the Milky Way* was (they could see it, even if they didn't know what it was!) and they could see it every night.  And the stars that they could see with the naked eye!  Not hundreds, not thousands, more like 100,000 - uncountable.  The advent of Cell Phone technology in the 1990’s and of “Smart Phones” (Blackberry, iPhone and Android) in the last fifteen years signified the last nail in the coffin of our being able to differentiate work from play and rest, and our entire dependency on Industry, Electricity and Technology.  When you go on vacation today, even if you spend it on Tahiti; do you really go on vacation, are you really isolated in any real sense from your workaday world?  Even there, a real night sky overhead, do you ever look UP?  What is the difference between you and a robot that mimics you?  Today, we "know" the difference, but the tomorrow when we won't see the difference is not that far in the future.

The Sixth Extinction

“WTF is 'The Sixth Extinction' and why should I care?”

King Ludd is Dead; Long Live King Ludd!

Ned Ludd is alive and well and having a rebirth in Austin Texas, at the SXSW Music Film Interactive festival.  Ned Ludd, of course, is the late 18th century English weaver whose name was immortalized in the word Luddite, someone who is anti-technology, because advances in technology cost jobs.  They are at it again in Austin, Texas, mostly a tech crowd protesting the further advance of technology.

A Strong Dollar

Most Americans are simple-minded.  Well, that is a libel and in addition, it is not true.  How about this?  Most simple-minded Americans are simple-minded.  Well, OK, still a libel even if it is undeniably true, as most (really ALL) simple-minded Germans are simple-minded too.  And Frenchmen, Japanese, Chinese, etc.  Simple-minded people are simple-minded and even if we don’t have a monopoly on simple-mindedness, we have our fair share.

Here is an example of simple-mindedness: economics is just common sense.

OK, how about this economic statement, uttered more than once by Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew: “I have been consistent in saying, as my predecessors have said, that a strong dollar is good for the United States.”  It sure sounds obvious, but is it really true?  Is a strong dollar good for the United States?

A strong dollar IS good for those of us traveling overseas where our dollar buys more stuff than the weaker currencies it can buy more of, but it is bad for Americans working in travel-related firms in the U.S.  A strong dollar IS good for our citizens who shop at Walmart and anywhere else that sells goods manufactured outside our borders, whose currencies are not so strong.  But a strong dollar is bad for American manufacturing as our goods are now more expensive on the foreign market.  And a strong dollar is bad for American labor for the same reason: reduced demand for more expensive American goods overseas.  A strong dollar is also good for creditors, who will be repaid in more valuable dollars than they loaned out; and that same strong dollar is bad for those in debt who now have to pay off their debts with more expensive dollars (so, good for the top, not so good for the bottom).  And, last but hardly least, a strong dollar is bad for our Balance of Payments as that strong dollar will buy more foreign goods than foreign currencies will buy American goods, so more dollars will fly overseas than Euros and Yen will re-patriate here.

So, is a strong dollar good for the United States?  Surely the answer is never a simple “yes” or “no,” the answer is always “it depends on who you are and where you live.”

To My Countrymen

My book, To My Countrymen: The Essential Handbook for Tea Partiers, Occupiers, and Every American Who is Mad as Hell and Isn't Going to Take It Any More, is about the American democracy  that was and what you can do to restore it.  My hope is that you buy it, read it, recommend it to your friends, and take action.  If you and enough Americans follow its plans, the forces that control America today MUST yield to the strength of your passion, your commitment, and your numbers.

Clean Bills, Poison Pills

The American public gets it.  The same American voters who replaced spineless Democrats with fire-breathing Republicans get it.  They are faulting the Republicans – the folks they just voted into majority power in both houses of Congress – for bringing government to its knees: with a shutdown of government, with a threatened default on our debt payments, and with the most recent threat not to fund the Dept. of Homeland Security.  And they are doing so even though they voted for those rascals.  Perhaps the American public really likes gridlock or brinksmanship government, perhaps they prefer do-nothing Congresses, perhaps they prefer confrontational government, it makes good theater, it IS exciting after all.

Putting aside the public’s involvement in government by crisis, there is a common denominator in all these cliff-hanger shutdowns and defaults, and that common thread is called “poison pills.”  A “poison pill” is an amendment to a “clean bill” before Congress that a) has nothing to do with the subject matter of the underlying piece of legislation being debated and voted upon and b) forces members to vote up a measure that they do not support (the poison pill amendment) in order to pass a measure that they do support (the clean bill).  A “clean bill” is, of course, a bill before Congress all of whose parts are on the same topic.   And poison pills are invariably attached to bills that have bipartisan support, like funding the military or the government as a whole.

There is an underlying cynicism at work here because the party that introduces the poison pill amendment knows from past experience that it will be blamed for the shutdown or the default, yet they go ahead anyway.  One has the sense that they believe that the American public will forget by the time the next election cycle rolls around.  And since it has been Republicans who have written all the poison pill amendments lately (yes, sure, the Democrats have done the same thing, just not recently), and they keep getting elected, maybe they are right, maybe we forget by the next election cycle.  Or maybe enough Americans think that there are more important issues than shutting down the government or defaulting on our debts.

In the end, in a democracy the people get what they want.  Or deserve.

No New Taxes

No New Taxes is a hard slogan to run an electoral campaign against.  Walter Mondale discovered that when he was honest enough to declare that new taxes were necessary.  George H W Bush, #41, raised taxes after campaigning long and hard on “read my lips, no new taxes.”  His own party fried him in Texas oil and has not forgiven him to this day.  Even without examples, it is hard to imagine anyone running a campaign asking for a tax hike.

Concealed Carry

I am not against the U.S. Constitution, I am not against the 2^nd amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, I am not against gun ownership in general, but I am solidly against the push to legalize concealed carry in the country at large.

Here’s what I foresee as the result of concealed carry legislation.  All of a sudden, all those law-abiding folks packing concealed firearms will imagine everyone else with a concealed firearm.  Now I realize that that is part of their argument: no nut case will dare to do anything stupid when he could be cut down by anyone carrying a concealed firearm (of course, many if not most of the mass killings in the last fifteen years have resulted in the gun man killing himself, so it wouldn’t stop THAT kind of nut case, would it?).  But here is another way to look at it.  Every concealed carry person will imagine everyone else as carrying, and they will be at the ready, always.  And, inevitably, someone will make a movement that some concealed carry person interprets as threatening and out will come HIS firearm (or out will come THEIR firearms) and someone (or more than someONE) will get shot, by accident.  Imagine the 2012 Aurora theater shooting where 12 innocent people lost their lives (and 70 more were injured), think of all those concealed carry guys reacting swiftly to the lone gun man and everyone aiming at the original gun man, imagine the cross-fire carnage.  Worse yet, imagine YOU reacting to the gun man closest to you and how many guns will be aimed not at the original gun man but at some concealed carry owner trying to do a good deed.

So, here is what I think: let the states experiment with concealed carry, one by one, and let’s revisit the subject at a federal level in ten or so years when we have a track record of what happened where.  OK?

A Citizenship Test

In my book, To My Countrymen, in the last few pages, I write these words: “If you, a native-born American, cannot pass the citizenship test that wanna-be citizens must pass, do you think that you should have the right to vote?”

Gerrymandering

It has occurred to me once or twice since publishing my book – since declaring for all time that “it is done” – that I made a mistake not to include an essay on gerrymandering.  Gerrymandering, as we all know, is the practice of state legislatures to draw Congressional districts in such a way as to maximize their majority party’s hold on Congressional seats, and on state-level representation too.  Gerrymandered states look really really strange, carving out districts one voter at a time.  Jig-saw puzzle pieces look much more regular than gerrymandered districts do.

TPP - Trans Pacific Partnership

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP for short) has been on my mind these past few days and weeks.  It is a “free-trade” agreement that President Obama wants to be part of his legacy.  The reason that I have not written about it before now is that it may be a tempest in a teapot, no big deal.  The immediate problem is that the terms of the agreement are still shrouded in secrecy.  Which may make sense as all its details have not been hammered out yet.  Perhaps it makes no sense to see what an agreement says while it is still being debated and written.  Which means, I guess, that I am not rationally concerned with its secrecy.  That is, as long as what it says is not yet writ in stone.  The U.S. Constitution was a secret until it was ready to be published and ratified.

Nonetheless, the TPP is a real political issue.  Partly because it is secret so far (see above), partly because what has been leaked (and all leaks are “unofficial” and often unreliable) is really really bad, and partly because we DO know that the President wants to “fast track” it when it is ready to be considered by Congress and voted on.  Fast track seems to mean Congress has 90 days in which to debate the agreement and no permission to introduce any amendments.  The no amendment part sounds conspiratorial and downright evil.  But imagine the chaos if Congress amended it: it would have to go back to the trade negotiators who would alter it again and then back to Congress, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.  When the U.S. Constitution was being considered for ratification by the states, no amendments were allowed for the same reason: it would go back and forth between all the states and the Constitutional Convention forever.  In addition, a Yes to ratification did not mean the written Constitution was perfect, but it DID mean that none of it, not one small piece, was a real problem.  Similarly, a Yes to pass TPP will mean that there is nothing in it that does not pass muster.  As to limiting debate to 90 days, that seems long enough to me to debate a bill that won't be bothered by amendments.   So, I guess I have no serious reservations about Fast Track, as 90 days seems slow enough to me.

Oxfam Report

According to a recent Oxfam report (2014 figures): 

The world’s richest 80 (sic, 80!, that’s – like – 1 per every 100 million people) individuals own as much wealth ($1.9 trillion) as the bottom 50% of the entire world’s population (3.6 billion out of 7.2 billion people).

And the world’s richest 1% (of individuals or families, it doesn’t matter) own 50% of the world’s total wealth ($263 trillion) (the top 1% owns half the wealth, $131 trillion).  That leaves the rest of us sharing 50%, right?  Not too shabby, right?

Wrong, maybe pretty shabby.  How much does the 2nd 1% own, and the 3rd 1%, and the 4th 1%?  A conservative extrapolation would yield 20% for the 2nd 1%, an extra 10% for the 3rd 1%, and an extra 5% for the 4th 1%.   So, a conservative guesstimate would suggest that the wealthiest 5% own 85% or more of the world’s total wealth, leaving the bottom 95% to share 15%.  A little shabbier than owning 50% of the total wealth, right?  By the time you get down to the top 10% and the bottom 90%, once again a very conservative estimate would suggest that the top 10% owns at least 95% of the total wealth and the bottom 90% (that’s you and me bunky) owns less than 5% of the total wealth.  Shabbier yet!  And the bottom 50% own significantly less than 1% of the total wealth (this one is not an extrapolation; this is verified by the report).

If you are OK with that – if “that’s the way the cookie crumbles” – well, God bless you and don’t bother reading any more of my crap; it ain’t worth your time.

The rest of you, continue to read my stuff and check out Robert Reich and Thomas Piketty.