Center for Intelligent Debate

Decision 2008: What do we take from this?

2008-08-29T18:08:00.004-04:00

In similar fashion to most of the elaborate, moreover factually based explanations I've written in the past on this blog (which to some observers are nothing more than "far stretches of the truth, conspiratorial and/or meaningless) I expect this commentary to go without response.

While I tend to believe Fox News is far from fair and balanced, I'll admit there is an inherent bias(moreover, liberal media bias) in reporting of all the stories you listed.

In addition to those you listed are ones which continue to claim Obama is secretly a Muslim, and has a love child, notwithstanding several which indicate John McCain is not a "natural US citizen" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen#cite_note-5) and
(http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C06E1DF113BE631A2575AC2A9619C946597D6CF) for more details.

I won't get into such arguments because they detract from my point and that which I believe Obama represents: A 21st century initiator of change to facilitate a movement towards policies, which reflect a 21st century approach to our shared problems.

Will Obama succeed in actualizing all his seemingly lofty policies and goals?

Probably not.

Is it worth a shot in the dark to allow this inexperienced embodiment of the American Dream to lead this country?

I think so.

The question is why?

Being that the modus operandi of American politics has typically been intelligence and educational background let's take a brief analysis of the educational and controversy surrounding the background of the past four presidents and/or candidates for the presidency.

Education

Obama-Graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School

McCain-Graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at Annapolis

GWB-2.75 Undergraduate GPA at Yale

Clinton-Rhodes Scholar

Questionable associations

Obama: Pastor Wright, James Johnson,Willliam Ayres, Tony Rezko, etc.

McCain: Keating Five, Randy Scheunemann, John Hagee, Richard Quinn, Clayton Williams, Palin VP (pick being investigated for the firing of her brother in law; 17 year old daughter is pregnant), etc

GWB: Saudi Royal Family, handling of Iraqi prewar intelligence, Hurricane Katarina, etc.

Clinton: Numerous Scandals (Whitewater, Travelgate, Lewinsky), etc.

Please note the "etc." verbage indicating there is more to be left to the imagination and/or things to be discovered, or things, which have been excluded, being that, in the spirit of human nature, all things are created equally-IMPERFECT. Much like our constitution, human beings (i.e. this includes political candidates and there supporters) are a work in progress, never to actualize perfection in this life. Thus, why we hold politicians to any higher standard while commendable, is humorous at best.

However, given these mixed examples of success and failed presidencies of one particular administration over another, we rely upon our own interpretation, more less social capital to define “success” and “failure”.

Anyone can view the aforementioned commentary as left ward or right ward leaning, resulting from their perception of reality and their individual social capital.

Hence, just because I know Republican x and he acts this way, speaks that way and does z, doesn't mean Republican y is the same. The same applies to Democrat a, who is dramatically different from Democrat b.

As described in Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" an in depth study is provided about what factors relate to voter participation or in some cases the lack thereof.

Due to the increasing consumer guided environment we live, encompassing the advent of the suburbanization of American and a decline in participation in clubs, unions and associations; notwithstanding the onset of the Internet (amongst other factors) we have seen a decline in social capital since the 1950’s.

Putnam also cites Americans' growing distrust in their government. Putnam accepts the possibility that this lack of trust could be attributed to "the long litany of political tragedies and scandals since the 1960s" (see paragraph 13 of the 1995 article), but believes that this explanation is limited when viewing it alongside other "trends in civic engagement of a wider sort" (par. 13).

My point in referencing this book is that it indicates voter participation was on a steady decline (at the time of publication in 1995) due to a lack of social capital in America.

In my opinion the “Perfect Storm” of geopolitical and socio-economic turmoil (both at home and abroad) over the past 8 years has facilitated a shift towards increased voter participation and overall interest in politics in general. Whether it’d been Bill Bixby or Forrest Gump, America is ripe for change. As mentioned by George W. Bush during the 2000 Acceptance Speech:

“Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment. So tonight we vow to our nation. We will seize this moment of American promise. We will use these good times for great goals.”

Being that voter participation is the hallmark of any healthy democracy one must question:

Are the problems America faces self-created (hence the nation of whiners) or a combination of incompetence on all ends of the stick? Moreover, do Americans face problems? (hmmm)
Does voter turnout increase due to the issues or candidacy and personality of particular individuals?
Lastly, how do we fix it?

Eight years ago a young man from Texas ran on the platform of being a unifying force, in stifling the division and dissent, which had plagued American government. In the opinion of some he has succeeded in protecting the homeland, at the expense of helping the people at home. Across party lines no one is short of categorizing the presidency of GWB as a very cumbersome relationship between reality and the perception thereof.

George Walker Bush was a man dedicated to changing the way America worked, to some he succeeded, to others he failed. His own words stand a testament to his ability to actualize what he sought: a return to the American Promise.

”This is a remarkable moment in the life of our nation. Never has the promise of prosperity been so vivid. But times of plenty, like times of crisis, are tests of American character.

Prosperity can be a tool in our hands -- used to build and better our country. Or it can be a drug in our system -- dulling our sense of urgency, of empathy, of duty.

Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment.

So tonight we vow to our nation ...

We will seize this moment of American promise.

We will use these good times for great goals.

We will confront the hard issues -- threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security -- before the challenges of our time become crises for our children.

And we will extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country.

To every man and woman, a chance to succeed. To every child, a chance to learn. To every family, a chance to live with dignity and hope. For eight years, the Clinton/Gore administration has coasted through prosperity America has a strong economy and a surplus. We have the public resources and the public will -- even the bipartisan opportunities -- to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare.

But this administration -- during eight years of increasing need -- did nothing.

They had their moment. They have not led. We will.

Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values -- to show we have grown up before we grow old.

But when the moment for leadership came, this administration did not teach our children, it disillusioned them.

They had their chance. They have not led. We will.

And now they come asking for another chance, another shot.

Our answer?

Not this time.

Not this year..”

I concur….you had your chance and led, in the wrong direction. We will lead, in the right direction….the center to be exact. And now you come asking for another chance, another shot? Our Answer. Not this time. Not this year.

Call him inexperienced, call him questionable, even egotistical. All I can say is Bush’s words sound utterly similar to certain Senator from Illinois and if you can let this administration disillusion you into thinking otherwise I can only say……

For truly everyone is entitled to there own opinion so long as it is based upon fact.

-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

(1927-2003)

Further Thoughts on Media Bias and the Subjective Nature of Reality

2008-08-23T15:43:00.002-04:00

Recently, a commenter with the handle Daddio Dude posted several new entries on an older thread. Here are several excerpts of his thoughts on media bias – which he contends exists in favor of liberal viewpoints:

“The last time we blogged about this topic and I gave many examples of liberal bias and was told the NYT has made some mistakes but doesn't have a pro liberal slant. Well, now we have a story that has been bubbling for months about John Edwards having and affair that has proved true because he has admitted it. Guess what: the NYT has ignored it. Does anyone with one ounce of intellectual honesty think that if there were rumors swirling about Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee having a long running affair and fathering a love child that the NYT would have ignored it? No, they would have ran out of front page space writing about it.”

“Let me throw another log on the 'media bias fire'. I just watched a show on Fox about Muslim Honor Killings. In this documentary a number of examples were given about women being raped, persecuted and even killed by Muslim men because they had done something against Islam. Something horrible like getting a divorce from an abusive person or dating a non-Muslim. Why is it that only Fox would report on such degenerate behavior? I wonder how quick the NYT and MSNBC would be to report on god-awful behavior by Christians or Mormons. Oh wait they just did--and appropriately so--on the Polgamist sect in Texas…

Conservatives-liberals; socialism- capitalism, Muslims-Christians; Duke lacrosse players-black stripper, McCain-Edwards; Scooter Libby-Sandy Berger. Example after example of bias. What will the liberal media do first--go out of business or start reporting objectively? Base upon the circulation trends of the NYT, ratings of MSNBC or bankruptcy of Air America, it looks like they will sink in their quicksand of ideology.”

Previous posts on this blog have contended that reality is largely subjective in nature – that is, determined to a large extent by the inherent pre-conceptions of each subjective perceiver. Under this rubric, an individual with a conservative disposition will be more likely to interpret the world and world events through the lens of a conservative viewpoint. The above comments from Daddio Dude indicate just such a view of the media – though from a perspective that does not acknowledge the subjective underpinnings of the view.

By way of contrast, I’d like to consider the viewpoints of several other individuals or groups – groups holding views other than the mainstream conservatism espoused in Daddio Dude’s comments (I believe we can all agree that the idea of a liberally-biased media is one commonly held by conservatives in America)….

1. Several weeks ago while watching a history channel program on the American Nazi Party, one of the party members profiled opined that the mass media in America is controlled by Jewish interests – and therefore biased against the party’s interests. This is not to lend any credence to the claims of the American Nazis – merely to elide one perspective on media bias.

2. An excerpt from an email sent out by Barack Obama’s presidential campaign:

“This week John McCain's campaign hit new lows with their attacks and distortions.

And all too often, the so-called "referees" in the news media are spending a lot of time repeating his false attacks and very little time holding him accountable…

Here's the latest from McCain and the media:

Just last week, McCain and his party attacked Barack Obama and ridiculed the idea that keeping your car tires inflated is an effective way to improve fuel efficiency and keep down the cost of gasoline. The thing is, everyone from AAA to NASCAR agreed with Barack. McCain finally had to face reality this week and reverse his position. But the media had a good laugh about McCain's petty, misguided stunt and ignored his effort to distort the truth to win a few cheap political points.

Earlier this week, the McCain campaign put out an ad saying that Washington is broken. It's gotten a lot of press so far, but it didn't mention that John McCain spent the last 26 years in Washington -- failing to fix this broken system. He portrays himself as a so-called "maverick" but doesn't want people to know that he has voted 95% of the time in support of George Bush's policies.

Another ad uses scare tactics to claim Barack's tax policy will hurt middle class Americans. Press coverage of the ad repeated McCain's smears, but omitted the fact that Barack's economic plan will cut taxes for 95% of American families. Not to mention that McCain's upper class tax cut plan leaves out more than 100 million middle class families.

The media may not be informing the public very well, but you don't have to sit back and wait for them to start telling the truth about John McCain.”

3. The perspective of perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader. This view focuses on the concentration of media ownership in the United States – 6 global corporations control over half of the media outlets in the U.S. This control encompasses a wide spectrum of media: newspapers, magazines, books, radio and television. Thus, Nader contends that:

“Our democracy is being swamped by the confluence of money, politics and concentrated media. We must reclaim our democracy from the accelerating grip of big-money politics and concentrated corporate media.”

4. The progressively-oriented media watchdog group Media Matters. Founded by conservative-turned-liberal apostate David Brock, Media Matters seeks to “comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Further, Brock has alleged that conservatives have mounted an “interconnected, concerted effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through false accusations of liberal media bias, dishonest and highly-partisan columnists, partisan news organizations and academic studies, and other methods.” In support of such a view, Media Matters has conducted detailed studies of Sunday morning news talk shows and nationwide analyses of editorial viewpoints, with the finding that these media institutions disproportionately air conservative viewpoints as opposed to progressive viewpoints (with “progressive” viewpoints here distinguished from “mainstream” media views).

In sum, these views on media bias, taken together with the view urged in Daddio Dude’s comments, support the notion that any one individual’s view on the media is largely dependent on the subjective pre-conceptions held by that individual….

As further illustration of the subjective nature of reality, I’d like to consider the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno. Bruno posited a Reality consisting of an infinite number of possible universes. As a part of this conception, Bruno argued that perception is by nature relative: “space, time, size, weight, motion, change, events, relationships, and perspectives are always relative to any particular frame of reference.” As James H. Birx of Harvard University writes, for Bruno “from the village of Nola, Mount Vesuvius looked like a barren volcano devoid of life. Yet, from the slopes of Vesuvius, it was Mount Cala that now looked like a lifeless volcano. In fact, both geological formations support life. This experience impressed upon Bruno the relativity of perspectives and the crucial distinction between appearance and reality.” Thus, Bruno’s Reality was free of absolutes – the center of the universe is everywhere.

Intimately related to and arising from Bruno’s conception of Reality is the modern quantum physics theory known as the “many-worlds” interpretation. Under this conception, every possible event that could potentially occur does occur – leading to a world of parallel universes and histories. Basically, anything is possible – and has in fact occurred somewhere, in some universe. To bring it all back home to our initial discussion, the nature of any one individual’s reality thus depends largely upon the subjective universe each of us inhabits. These universes are constructed by our own pre-conceptions and perceptions of the world. To some of us, depending on where we are situated, Mount Vesuvius is a lifeless volcano; to others, the mass media in the U.S. is hopelessly liberally biased.

As has been demonstrated, it is impossible to empirically prove through objective data “Truths” that are largely built upon a series of subjective perceptions. All analyses of bias are necessarily dependent upon and colored by the lens of each subjective observer. One man’s liberally-biased media is another’s corporate-controlled lackey. In the realm of media analysis, all are rightfully entitled to their opinions regarding perceptions of bias – however, none should be comfortable in declaiming universal Truths resulting from their perceptions: there are an infinite number of media universes, and to a large extent, we each live in a Reality of our own creation.

The Normative Approach

2008-08-11T11:51:00.003-04:00

Listening to NPR last week, I caught a story on Camp Inquiry – a summer camp run by the secular humanist group the Center for Inquiry. It is a camp for children ages 7-16 designed to rationally investigate and question everything – for example, approaching biblical-based creationism with a skeptical eye, relying instead on reason and the scientific method. At base, there is nothing objectionable about such an approach – it is important to deal with life’s great questions with an open mind, and the camp also included a focus on morality outside the scope of religion. On the other hand, there was an unnerving sense of certainty in their skepticism in some of the children interviewed. On a meta-level, a sense of skepticism about their skepticism was missing.

From a theological and scientific perspective, it is impossible to prove the existence of God. To be sure, clever philosophers and theologians have offered clever arguments that purport to prove God’s existence – such as the ontological argument (that we can conceive of God means that He must exist). Obviously, such arguments can not be verified empirically through science because the very nature of God, as conceived theologically, is supernatural – beyond human comprehension within nature. Equally true, agnostics and skeptical secular humanists cannot prove empirically that God does not exist – due to that age-old axiom about not being able to prove negatives, among other things. Thus, the certainty of some Camp Inquiry campers in their skepticism – exemplified by the simple statement “God does not exist” – stretches the limits of skepticism beyond “healthy” and into “dogmatic”. At its core, skepticism embodies uncertainty….

After reading Cali’s latest post on Global Warming, I perceived a nexus between the skeptics of Camp Inquiry and the skeptics of Global Warming Theory. In an even larger sense, it is apparent that there are further linkages between the concepts of Global Warming Theory and God. Much like philosophers groping at a proof of the existence of God, climate scientists theorizing on Global Warming cannot prove to a conclusive degree the ultimate Truth of their hypothesis. Likewise, much like the ontological argument, climate scientists can advance convincing empirical data and reach a consensus agreement that Global Warming Theory represents the true present nature of reality. We have seen this point many, many times on this blog.

Similarly, as to God are the secular humanists; so to Global Warming are the skeptical scientists. Whatever limits there may be to the ultimate veracity of their skeptical claims, we cannot wholly dismiss them. Climate scientists, being human, are susceptible to making mistakes; much like philosophers and theologians are unable to conclusively prove the existence of God. Skeptical scientists are well within their prerogatives to point out the possibility of error – healthy skepticism being at the core of scientific inquiry. However, for some there is an uncomfortable certainty in their skepticism – to the point that they fail to treat their own skepticism with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The point that all of these propositions leads to is that Global Warming Theory has taken on many of the properties of a religion. One must look no further than the title of Cali’s recent post – “it has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming” – to see the connection. Likewise, many converts to the theory of Global Warming approach their beliefs with a faith-like missionary zeal – using similar religious language against the skeptics, such as “deniers”, “denialists” and the like. Such an approach is not at all unlike the dogmatic views of the more evangelical-spirited religious folks (I won’t single out any one religion here, since they all have such adherents among their elect). In both cases, the stridency of the True Believers can often undermine the important undertones of their message – indeed, it is arguable that these undertones are more important than the primary message itself.

These undertones are morality and ethics. As hinted at in the Camp Inquiry piece, an important component of the secular humanist approach was a focus on morality. At base, religion is important for society not so much for the content of its theology as for the values and ethics that provide a way to live justly in the world. Many world religions thus share an emphasis on certain values. Judeo-Christian belief and Buddhist tenet alike share a basic respect for life itself; Jesus and Buddha both favored non-violence, pacifism, social justice and the like. Thus, skepticism overly concerned with the ultimate Truth of God’s existence misses out on building bridges between shared moral values that are ultimately more important than arcane questions of theological provenance.

In a similar manner, the debate over Global Warming Theory has devolved into too much of an ill-focused theological-type inquiry. What has been left out of our discussion to date is the normative, values-based aspect: that regardless of the ultimate Truth of Global Warming Theory, it is still ethically desirable to curb global carbon emissions.

From a normative standpoint, our current reliance on non-sustainable, carbon-based energy is terrible for the natural environment and ecosystems. Drilling for oil, mining coal, and digging up tar sands all share deleterious environmental impacts – they disrupt nature and wildlife, destroy ecosystem values, pollute drinking water, and so on and so forth. In addition, our dependence on such energy sources also help empower corrupt regimes and despots. As a human race, we need to come to a fairly radical realization: that we are not masters of the earth, but merely one part of a larger whole. To destroy the larger whole is also to destroy its constituent parts. Thus, from a normative viewpoint, the truly important aspect of Global Warming Theory is not its ultimate veracity – as the skeptic might say, that may or may not mirror reality – instead, it is the chance that it may lead to a re-ordering of basic priorities. Such a re-ordering would diminish the emphasis on destructive consumptive tendencies and change the focus towards a sustainable approach of respect for the natural order of things. To be sure, this will not be a short road to travel – it will require many tough decisions and sacrifices. But, over time, such an approach ought to be seen as the only ethically responsible choice to make. This, my friends, is the ballgame we ought to be watching.

It has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming

2008-08-07T18:03:00.003-04:00

It has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.

In a May issue of Nature, evidence about falling global temperatures forced German climatologists to conclude that the transformation of our planet into a permanent sauna is taking a decade-long hiatus, at least. Then this month came former greenhouse gas alarmist David Evans's article in The Australian, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can't be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.

And I just read an article about how global warming is causing increased worldwide rainfall on USAToday.com. Huh?

Pretty soon, they're gonna be saying global warming causes worldwide temperatures to decrease.

Dude:

for now, I'd like to refer Cali back to my earlier posts On Skepticism (And its Limits) and Redefining the Debate? (in particular, section III of my response). since I can't state it any better now than I could then, I won't try to.

IRONY OF TELLING THE TRUTH...EVEN WHEN ITS A LIE

2008-06-24T18:49:00.007-04:00

It has come time to revisit a very sensitive issue given the current political debate in the House and Senate, respective of the fact the BUSH ADMINISTRATION knowingly misled the American public into justifying an illegal war against the sovereign Iraqi nation (illegal b/c it lack binding authority of the UNSC under Chapter 7, Article 40-1).

I won't go any further than this allegation, despite increasing evidence SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS were directly and/or indirectly involved in the release of CIA operative Valerie Plame name to the press; moreover, THE STATE DEPT, CIA, and PENTAGON's direct involvement in the ILLEGAL TORTURE OF ENEMY COMBATANTS (in violation of the Geneva Convention Articles 3, 17, 87 and 130).

TRUTH

What is truth? As defined by Webster dictionary Truth “is in accordance with fact” or “sincerity in action, character, and utterance”.

We’ve come to view the truth as in accordance of fact, yet in the era of manufacturing consent, we must understand the truth, as interpreted by early 20^th century psychologist William James.

James states, in his definition of the PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH, is

“a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic").”

Hence I must finally concur, to all those who’ve I’ve seemingly tried to convince (i.e. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION KNOWINGLY MISLED THE US INTO THE WAR IN IRAQ) you are correct.

Given James pragmatic theory of truth George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush didn’t mislead the US in to war against Iraq, b/c the ends justified the means.

GHWB-20 words that never mattered

During the September 11^th, 1990 “New World Order” speech by U.S. President George H.W. Bush summed up the reasons with the following remarks:

"Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression."^[18]

The Pentagon claimed that satellite photos showing a buildup of Iraqi forces along the border were the source of this information, but this was later shown to be false when a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times acquired commercial satellite images made at the time in question, which showed nothing but empty desert. ^[19]

Polls showed that upwards of 80% of the American public supported the troop deployment.^[20] The anti-war movement and its “No Blood For Oil” slogan did not achieve the levels of support it would get 12 years later.

Interesting….faulty intelligence was utilized to justify US basing troops in Saudi Arabia (for more information about how the US supported the muhajideen and Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Laden-watch Charlie Wilson’s War).

Upon close examination we notice the basing of US troops on Saudi soil was used in the 1996 fatwa, issued by UBL in calling for jihad against the Zionist and Crusader Alliance:

“At the time when the Ummah has not regained the first Qiblah and the rout of the journey of the Prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), and despite of all of the above, the Saudi regime had stunt the Ummah in the remaining sanctities, the Holy city of Makka and the mosque of the Prophet (Al-Masjid An-Nabawy), by calling the Christians army to defend the regime. The crusaders were permitted to be in the land of the two Holy Places. Not surprisingly though, the King himself wore the cross on his chest. The country was widely opened from the north-to- the south and from east-to-the west for the crusaders. The land was filled with the military bases of the USA and the allies. The regime became unable to keep control without the help of these bases. You know more than any body else about the size, intention and the danger of the presence of the USA military bases in the area. The regime betrayed the Ummah and joined the Kufr, assisting and helping them against the Muslims. It is well known that this is one of the ten "voiders" of Islam, deeds of de-Islamisation. By opening the Arab peninsula to the crusaders the regime disobeyed and acted against what has been enjoined by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), while he was at the bed of his death: (Expel the polytheists out of the Arab Peninsula); (narrated by Al-Bukhari) and: (If I survive, Allah willing, I'll expel the Jews and the Christians out of the Arab Peninsula); saheeh Aljame' As-Sagheer.”

The close relationship the Bush Administration and family has with the House of Saud royal family, not withstanding the now acknowledge oil deals arranged by the US and the Saudis in the aftermath of the 1973 War and subsequent oil crisis (as identified in John Perkins “The Confessions of an Economic Hitman”) is without question.

(i.e. "In 1974 [Treasury Secretary William] Simon negotiated a secret deal so the Saudi central bank could buy U.S. Treasury securities outside of the normal auction. A few years later, Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal cut a secret deal with the Saudis so that OPEC would continue to price oil in dollars. These deals were secret because the United States had promised other industrialized democracies that it would not pursue such unilateral policies." Cf. 103-12.) David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1999

So the real question is why would we go into Iraq? Perhaps its because all 19 highjackers were Saudi and the Saudi government knowingly supports madrasah? Or maybe it was the fact in the race to end US dependency on Middle Eastern oil officials choose to invade the largest reserves in the world, for truly to the victors go the spoils?

But the question at hand is not why we invaded but how the theory of pragmatic truth was used to justify this incursion. Of course no one has come out right and never will admit, ok you got us!!

This is the FIRST ADMINISTRATION TO DESTROY WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENCES AND CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVLEGE AT EVERY TURN. So let’s be rational here.

FEAR AIDS IN MANUFACTURING CONSENT!

It is the same fear the GHW Bush used to occupy Saudi Arabia, and subsequently the same fear manufactured by GW Bush in invading Iraq.

GWB-16 words that we’ll never forget

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."^[2]

This is by and large the main justification for going to war with Iraq. As we discovered the documents were forged, and while 500 tons of yellow cake uranium were found at the nuclear research center of Al—Tuwaitha in Iraq, this claim went largely unreported, was allegedly under the supervision of the UN, YET AND AGAIN ONE MUST QUESTION WHY? Yet this is not the topic of discussion.

SUMMARY

We have seen in both cases how a total of 36 words created two wars. Many questions have been raised and remain unanswered. At face value they are lies, manipulations of the truth and/or at best proven falsehoods. Iraq never sought to dominate Kuwait, nor did they seek uranium from the Africa, b/c they already had 500 tons of low-grade non weapons grade uranium; yet they may have. Truth is b/c the US and UK didn’t cooperate with the IAEA we’ll never know.

In the climate of fear thrust upon us by the WAR ON TERROR, we’ve learned not to challenge the authority or experts. Thus instead of relying upon fundamentally sound truths we become reliant on sound bites, half truths, and pragmatic theories of truth to manufacture consent for reasons beyond the scope of this short prose.

As we have seen and should be understood in the name of preserving and protecting the US and its citizens, you can tell the truth even when you lie in order to justify the means to the ends and that my friend is how the riddle will end…or begin.

One thing is certain. Even if we didn't go to war for oil the fact that the Iraqi government is preparing to sign with Exxon Mobil Corp., (XOM, Fortune 500) Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA), Total SA (TOT), Chevron Corp (CVX, Fortune 500)., BP (BP) and other companies, which will inevitably boost production undermine the OPEC quota (we pray) and lower gas prices (current estimates say only by 50 cent) I guess we can say 4,077k lives were inevitably worth saving 50 cent per gallon.
(I will delay discussion of how the lack of a profit sharing agreement amongst the divergent populace will not only facilitate a civil war, increasing Iranian influence in the region, but furthermore will lead to a wider regional war if and/or when the Israeli's strike the Natanz and Arak facilities.)

The Economic Crossroad

2008-05-07T22:44:00.006-04:00

I believe that the United States is at an economic cross road. The United States has certainly been the most successful country, economically speaking at least, of all time. That is indisputable. But there are real signs that we are losing our edge.

I believe the government and its nearly incomprehensible magnitude of bureaucracy, the likes of which no country on earth has experienced in the past, is primarily responsible.

However, there are certainly other causes as well. Our corporations share some blame. Thirty years ago, when companies like Honda and Toyota were barely a blip on the international market, American companies like Ford and GM failed to respect and learn from this new competition. It is even stranger when you consider the fact that the American automakers had always done this relative to each other. Many of our corporations have become lumbering and bureaucratic and slow to react to changing conditions. And many have become complacent.

And American citizens share some blame as well. We have become less can-do. Less confident. Less optimistic. And lazier.

In a recent survey, citizens of 47 countries were asked whether free trade is a good thing. The citizens in most countries responded yes 85-90% of the time. This number was in the 60% range for American citizens. In fact, we had the 47th lowest “yes” response rate out of 47.

As a result of much of this, we are no longer the center of innovation in several areas in which we should be taking the lead. Brazil is leading the biofuel race. London is overtaking New York as the premier capital market of the world. Microsoft’s most successful laboratory is in Beijing China.

We are being out capitalized at every turn. Sometimes even by dictatorships and communist countries.

The U.S. federal government is the single largest source of the problem. Few citizens are happy with anything the government does. This is really remarkable considering there are Americans with an incredibly wide array of issues that they view important. Yet somehow the government manages to pass legislation that makes no-one happy. Legislation which few people (including the politicians) even understand. It is an era of endless campaigns and special interests.

The federal government is consolidating far too much power. The amount of legislation and decision-making required to run this country is staggering, and would be even if we operated more efficiently. There is no reason for Congress to vote on or even address bridge needs in some county in some state. Things like this are best left to state and local government. A good case can even be made that issues such as education or healthcare should have some federal framework, but that substantial control should reside with state and local government. With 50 states, we will see a variety of solutions to issues like education and healthcare. States can emulate what works and avoid what doesn’t. If they don’t, they will surely see and outflow of people to more “successful” states or counties.

It is generally more that the federal government is slow to react and respond to changing world conditions than specific legislation actually being detrimental. For example, twentyish years ago, we had the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Today we have the second highest. We have not increased our rates; the rest of the world has decreased theirs. It is no wonder that our corporations are outsourcing and creating offshore subsidiaries. They are simply trying to remain competitive and relevant in a global market.

But certain legislation does unfairly harm our corporations. We are hitting our corporations with environmental pollution limits that don’t apply to corporations in other countries. I am not advocating widespread pollution, but the crazy system we have concocted that establishes certain pollution limits and uses the trading and buying and selling of pollution accomplishes relatively little and is expensive for our corporations to comply with and for our federal government to oversee.

Also, some talk about hitting Exxon with a windfall tax. Not only will that cause them to increase prices at the pump further, Exxon only controls 3% of the world oil market. Venezuela is a huge player and a windfall tax by the American government on American companies wouldn’t impact Venezuela at all. Or Saudi Arabia. It would be another handicap on our businesses. And then 10 years from now when Exxon and other oil companies are in the same trouble the airline and automotive industries are today, we will wonder why.

How Real is Reality?

2008-05-01T16:59:00.007-04:00

In David Lynch's film Inland Empire, the actress Laura Dern plays Nikki Grace - herself an actress in a film-within the-film called On High in Blue Tomorrows. to add another layer of confusion, the film-within the-film is itself a remake of an earlier, unfinished Polish film 4-7 - which was based on a Polish-Gypsy folk tale. the character Nikki Grace plays in Blue Tomorrows - Susan Blue - is a woman with a jealous husband who gets involved with a man with a jealous wife. as Nikki loses herself in her film role, the "reality" of Inland Empire begins to mirror the story of the film - Nikki takes up with her co-star, Devon Berk - to the consternation of her jealous husband.

eventually, Nikki becomes totally lost in the world of Blue Tomorrows - which itself includes the parallel story of 4-7. the entire narrative frame is non-linear, frequently jumping back and forth between the similar parallel plots. the effect of such shifting realities on the viewer is confusion - though the parallel stories all recount a similar story, told with different characters in different settings, the frequent narrative jumps create a dream-like atmosphere in which it is impossible to tell which of the narratives represents the "true" reality that seemed to exist at the film's (Inland Empire, that is) beginning. that is to say: the nature of reality itself becomes upended and unclear....

of course, this is all merely a prelude to a question we have touched upon briefly in earlier posts on this blog - is there really such a thing as "objective" reality? or, contrarily, are all perceptions inherently colored by the subjective pre-conceptions of the percipient?

as an example, we could examine Cali's recent claim that Barack Obama is a "far-leftist". in an objective, empirical sense, it seems unlikely that proof of such a claim can be offered - the concept of "far-leftist" in-and-of itself is rooted in the subjective mind of the observer. while one could offer empirical evidence that Obama is the most liberal U.S. senator; or perhaps that he is generally "liberal", these claims would not in themselves also demonstrate with any conviction that Obama is therefore also a "far-leftist". to those beginning with a conservative worldview, Obama may well seem like a "far-leftist" - however, such a reality would be purely subjective - inherently entwined with the conservative pre-conception from which they are viewing Obama.

similarly, one could analyze Cali's perception that the poor in America are unable to afford health care because they spend money on iPods, high-end TVs, and other "luxury" items instead; or the frequent claims by our commenter(s) of liberal media bias in the same light. when one begins from a certain pre-conception - that the poor are poor largely based upon their own actions, for example - anecdotal perceptions of individual behavior will tend to confirm these pre-conceptions, while contradictory perceptions and evidence will go unnoticed.

likewise, claims of media bias will also tend to conform to one's pre-conceptions. if one begins from a viewpoint that the mainstream media has a blatant liberal bias, one will be able to search out and find examples to support this worldview - while shunting aside examples that would call it into question. equally so, an individual beginning with a perception that the mainstream media has a corporatist, profit and sponsorship-centered bias will see their view of the media, colored through their own lens. they will likely find plenty of examples to support their view - but it will still be a view representing only one portion of a wider reality. thus, when analyzing claims of media bias, it seems accurate to claim that there are several different subjective realities that co-exist. any search for an "objective" reality, with respect to media bias, would have to acknowledge that reality is mutable and highly dependent on the pre-conceptions of the percipient - much like the Lynchian reality of Inland Empire....

in philosophy, ontology is the study of conceptions of reality. in her article in the book Lost and Philosophy, Jessica Engelking discusses ontology, as conceived by the author Robert Anton Wilson in the Illuminatus! Trilogy:

"[R]eality, in the commonsense way we speak of our lived experience, is almost entirely self-programmed. This means that the individual plays a large role in determining what things he or she experiences."*

in other words, reality is largely subjective - positing something as "clearly true" establishes no more than one's subjective, pre-conceived worldview. as an example, Engelking analogizes one's worldview to a stencil. this stencil (worldview) consequently shapes how the world appears to the individual. much like a properly constructed stencil does not allow ink where it is not intended to be, a dogmatic worldview keeps out information that does not conform to the individuals pre-conceptions.* this psychological phenomenon, known as confirmation bias, was discussed in an earlier post here. in short, it is the "tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs."

as Engelking mentions, the theory of quantum mechanics, prevalent in theoretical physics, leads to a similar view of reality.* under the quantum view, reality is probabilistic, rather than deterministic. thus, under such a view, there is no objectively certain, experimentally verifiable reality - only a range of probabilities that describe possible outcomes. here again, much like the Lynchian cinematic world, confusion trumps certainty. hard as it is to believe, then, "reality" seems to actually be in flux - "the way the world appears is a product of the mind's imposing a certain interpretation of it."* or, in other words, reality - as perceived by any given individual - is subjective and dependent on that individual's pre-conceptions; colored by the lens through which they view the world.

(*citations taken from "Lost, The Third Policeman, and Guerilla Ontology", by Jessica Engelking, pages 102 - 110 of Lost and Philosophy: The Island Has Its Reasons.)

Cali:

Excellent post. I believe this is why I have argued that in today's global world where a plethora of information is available at our fingertips, "facts" and "evidence" are seemingly losing relevance.

An empirical fact is the distance in miles or kilometers from New York to Los Angeles. Provided all agree on the definition of a mile or kilometer, the distance is indisputable and easily proven.
But, among intelligent individuals, "facts" or "evidence" in a debate on a certain political issue seem nearly unimportant.

I still often use facts or evidence from various studies to support my argument, of course, which I believe is because I was raised in the tradition that one establishes a hypothesis, supports the hypothesis with three or four or more facts or quotes or studies and then concludes. But, as I am an open-minded individual, I have since realized that another equally intelligent individual could find three or four or more facts or quotes or studies that are equally valid that support the opposite viewpoint.

We could argue until we are blue in the face about the perceived biases of some founder or financer of some organization that performed some study. But if the study was well-designed and well-performed and the results are statistically significant, we are likely to make little headway in such an argument. I believe this is at least partly because, as The Dude suggested, facts and evidence resonate differently with different people for a large number of reasons (i.e. our upbringing, our parents values, certain one-time remarkable experiences either positive or negative, etc.). As my esteemed colleague The Dude contended, we don't try to unravel in our mind a study that supports our viewpoints yet as we are reading a study that purports to prove a viewpoint to which we do not espouse, we are forming our counter arguments.

What makes matters even trickier is that the definition of political buzzwords is subject to debate. For example, the definition of liberal or conservative. To The Dude, I am a conservative and to me, he is a liberal. Yet neither of us would likely agree with that contention for to me conservative represents the somewhat radical far right wing of the Republican party and I tend to think I'm a middle of the road Republican, if not a "liberal" Republican. And visa-versa.

So it is no wonder little is ever accomplished during a political debate when opposing sides do not agree on the definitions of words used by both sides and the facts that support certain contentions are contentious themselves.

But that, my friends, is exactly what makes political debates so incredibly interesting. It's a game of chess, not checkers. Any headway that is achieved is a result of many subtle moves.

Mercy Mercy Me: The Ecology Revisited

2008-04-22T21:15:00.004-04:00

Much like just about everything else these days, the issue of environmental conservation has become highly politicized. In modern America, efforts favoring environmentalism are widely regarded as the exclusive province of liberals. Emblematic of this trend, John McCain was the only Republican candidate to respond to the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters environmental questionnaire for 2008 presidential contenders.

Of course, things weren’t always this way. Looking at the term conservation itself, one can see that it shares the same etymology as the term “conservative” – and can be defined as the “act of preserving, guarding, or protecting”. When it comes to “traditional values”, such a definition accurately describes the Conservative agenda.

Historically, such a view has been advanced by Republicans on environmental matters as well. In many ways, President Theodore Roosevelt is largely responsible for initiating the environmental conservation movement in the United States.* By setting aside more land for national parks, nature preserves, national forests and wildlife preserves than all his predecessors combined, Roosevelt essentially brought the environment as an issue into the American consciousness. Roosevelt’s view of conservation entailed better usage, less waste and a long-term perspective. This perspective stands in sharp contrast to current management, under the guise of “wise use” – which urges private ownership of land, extraction for profit over protection and the destruction of environmentalism as an ethos.

(*There may be perhaps no better illustration of how much times have changed than Theodore Roosevelt. If a politician in modern America ran on a platform including environmentalism, distrust of wealthy businessmen and monopolies in business, and universal health care and national health insurance, they would no doubt be termed a “far-left” radical. Roosevelt, of course, was a Republican.)

In the present, almost 40 years since the initial Earth Day in 1970, much progress has been made towards restoring and protecting our natural environment. While I will have much to say about some of the current, negative trends (and, as we have already frequently discussed on this blog, this is to say little about global warming), it is equally important to remember how far we have come. Gone are the days in America when the Cuyahoga River, in Cleveland, Ohio, caught on fire. Under the modern regime of environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act – as administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – we have made incredible progress in reducing air and water pollution and have virtually eliminated acid rain as an issue. Further, it should be noted that much of this administrative regime was enacted by Richard Nixon.

More recent promising developments have included efforts by Wal-Mart – the quintessential “big-box” retailer – to reduce waste in their business operations to zero, move towards using only renewable energy and offering products made in a way that preserves the environment. While cynics may charge that this initiative is motivated by “greenwashing” – i.e., largely a PR effort to cast Wal-Mart in a more favorable light in the eyes of some of its fiercest critics – it is more important to note the larger ramifications of Wal-Mart seeking to appear green. Primarily, Wal-Mart’s actions demonstrate the extent to which environmentalism and conservation, as an ethos, has further edged its way into the American consciousness. In a similar vein, Richard Cizik, Washington spokesman for the National Association of Evangelicals, has urged pro-environmental action under the auspices of a biblical-based “creation care”. Likewise, many of the supposedly more conservative, “religious right” evangelical Christian groups have now come out in favor of serious action to combat global warming. In many ways, the environmental movement in America has never been better off….

James Gustave Speth, dean of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University and author of The Bridge at the End of the World, gives a much more sober assessment of our current environmental situation. In a recent interview on the Diane Rehm show, Speth described a perilous situation – where modern economic growth has totally overwhelmed the capacity of the environmental community to deal with a myriad of ecological threats. Accordingly, Speth noted that we have lost one-half of all the world’s forests; 90% of large ocean fish*; 20% of coral reefs (with another 20% at “threatened” status); one-third of all wetlands and 1/3 of all mangroves. Anywhere from one-quarter to one-third of all plants and animals in the U.S. today are classified as either threatened or endangered. In addition, the U.S. loses 6000 acres per day of open space to development – and 100,000 acres of wetlands per year. Worldwide, we lose an area the size of Nebraska each year to desertification – rendered unfit for agriculture. All while species are going extinct one-thousand times the natural rate.

(*Emblematic of this trend, the Pacific Fishery Management Council recently canceled the entire commercial and recreational Chinook Salmon fishing season in all of California and most of Oregon. The decision was a result of troubling declines [from an estimated 800,000 fish, down to 68,000 in the past 6 years] in Pacific Northwest Salmon populations on the Sacramento River.)

Speth maintains that much of the blame for persistent environmental degradation is attributable to the capitalist economic system. In Speth’s view, the modern American capitalist system has proven very successful at achieving economic growth through the years – but much of this growth has come at a great cost to the natural environment. This is because the growth-maximizing mechanism resists the incorporation of “externalities” such as pollution and environmental degradation. By failing to take account of these factors, Speth argues that much of the economic growth from capitalism is largely illusory – the totality of human well-being has not concomitantly grown alongside traditional economic measures.

While profit-driven, capitalist systems can be more or less environmentally destructive – as demonstrated by modern China compared to the United States - the overall effect has been generally negative. By focusing so much on growth and consumption, our economic system has often failed to recognize the environmental harm that such a view entails. To capitalism, natural resources exist to be exploited for profit – primarily because environmental health is typically viewed as an externality, incapable of monetary valuation. The result of our traditional, capitalist approach is a singular emphasis on brutally efficient resource extraction.* Consequently, we now have a planet whose resources are being extracted at a capacity well beyond natural regeneration; where an increasing percentage of the land is developed and occupied; and where industrial processes routinely emit toxins, wastes and pollutants, often without a second thought.

(*As an illustration, consider the practice of mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia, where explosives are used to literally blast the tops off of mountains to get at coal. Afterwards, the debris is scraped into river valleys, to devastating effect.)

Largely due to a lifetime of conditioning, we are brought up to consume and, as a result, produce waste - all without much consideration as to where the stuff we buy comes from – or where all that waste goes and what harm it might cause. The Human Footprint – a recent National Geographic Channel documentary – emphatically demonstrates our impact on the Earth. For example, as host Elizabeth Vargas writes:

“One of the things that amazed me the most was how much Americans actually throw away. As you will see in the film, we will generate 246 million tons of trash this year alone. We will throw away 11 million tons of glass bottles and jars and 36 billion aluminum cans. And I never knew that packaging alone accounts for 33 percent of the trash we produce. It is amazing to think about what we leave behind in landfills.”

Unfortunately, these facts are but a small part of the overall impact of humanity – not even considering all the artificial chemicals, compounds and processes that go into the production of the waste we leave behind – simply astounding.

The way forward – beyond this admittedly bleak assessment – is nothing short of re-examining the way we live and becoming more conscientious of our environmental impact. From an economic perspective, Speth urges the adoption of a view that better evaluates the cost of environmental degradation. In addition, we need to curb our current consumer-oriented lifestyle of frenetic buying and selling - of production, use and abuse. As Speth mentions, surveys of subjective well-being have found that such a lifestyle has not truly brought us happiness – Americans report discontentment with the frantic pace of their life, and feel that something is missing. Our modern technologies, such as cell phones, computers and the internet, have seemingly connected the citizens of the world to an unprecedented extent – and yet, we remain isolated individuals, often unsure where to go for help (according to the studies cited by Speth).

What we are missing out on is the inherent spiritual connection we all have to the environment. From a different point of view, the Earth, in its entirety, is but one single, living organism – and we, as humans, are but one small component of this greater whole. As the philosopher Bertrand Russell has argued, the universal centrality of humankind was disproved long ago – through the work of the astronomer Copernicus, who discovered that the rest of the universe did not revolve around the Earth. As of now, the Earth is humanity’s only home – but we must do a better job of keeping it tidy. In order to do so, we will need to scale down our “affluenza” – the equating of material wealth with well-being.

Perhaps by living smaller – with the consciousness that we are but one small part of a larger whole (or as George Harrison might say, that “life flows on within you and without you”) – we can achieve greater harmony and happiness. In a practical sense, such thinking is foolish, naïve and unlikely – I can hear the critics responding already. And yet, the prelude to action is thought – as our ecological consciousness grows, what is now a dream can become the new reality. This is our charge, we must accept it - or else risk losing all that we grasp to hold onto.

Wedge Issues

2008-04-18T11:46:00.003-04:00

Barak Obama comes off sounding great when he talks about bringing people from different races and different parties together. And when asked the tough questions (now that the media is finally giving Barak the same level of scrutiny that it has given the other candidates), his response that he does not want to discuss "wedge" issues as they distract and divide us makes him sound like a candidate from the future.

Whether or not Barak actually would like to bring everyone together, I don't think his past relationships and associations will facilitate this. This doesn't mean that Barak, if elected President, should be judged as a failure if he does not accomplish unity. After all, look at the last few Presidents...each had made the country more divided than it was before they took office. But, honestly, how can a far leftist (according to his voting record at least), one who was schooled at the the most elite institutions in this country, one who even many liberals admit would be hard pressed to have a jovial conversation about sports in a bar over a beer with average Americans possibly hope to unite people? McCain is a centrist and has straddled the party lines for years and I don't think even he would have a prayer at uniting this divided country.

With respect to wedge issues, I feel Barak is even more dishonest. I doubt any American wants to hear politicians argue about unimportant divisive issues. But if you really listen closely to Barak, he defines a wedge issue as any issue that calls into question his character through associations and any issue that could potentially make the Democrats lose. It's ok for Barak to bring up guns and God whenever he wants and say "every American deserves healthcare" but there are not issues that are more divisive than those. I really don't understand his lack of consistency. I think he was such a talented orator and was so well schooled, that it took a while for people to see he is just an ordinary run of the mill politician who will use whatever tactics he thinks will help him win.

Dude:

I'd like to examine in detail a few of Cali's contentions. to wit, Cali stated:

"But, honestly, how can a far leftist (according to his voting record at least), one who was schooled at the the most elite institutions in this country, one who even many liberals admit would be hard pressed to have a jovial conversation about sports in a bar over a beer with average Americans possibly hope to unite people? McCain is a centrist and has straddled the party lines for years and I don't think even he would have a prayer at uniting this divided country."

first, I must quarrel with Cali's use of the label "far leftist" in describing Barack Obama's politics. this seems to be part of a general trend - one need only watch Bill O'Reilly for confirmation - in which any degree of mainstream liberal views (and those who hold such views) are deemed "far left". such rhetoric serves the purpose of re-branding reality to reflect a subjective pre-conception that any liberal view is hopelessly radical and out of touch with mainstream America. consequently, such labels only serve to heighten polarization and division.

Cali's assertion of Obama-as-far leftist is based upon the recent National Journal survey of Senatorial voting records, which determined Obama was the most liberal U.S. Senator in 2007. the logical leap between "most liberal Senator of 2007" and "far leftist" is flawed. as discussed in earlier posts on this blog, the findings of the National Journal survey are relative in nature and do not establish how inherently liberal or conservative individual Senators are. to reuse an example from an earlier post, one need only imagine a hypothetical Senate in which all 100 members are Republicans. in this example, one could still examine the voting records of all Senators and determine which was the most liberal. however, it should be fairly obvious that in this scenario, the most liberal Senator would not therefore be a "far leftist". the same reasoning applies to the real U.S. Senate, where Obama being the most liberal Senator of 2007 likewise does not automatically render him a far leftist (this point becomes even clearer when one considers that in 2005 and 2006, Obama placed 16th and 10th most liberal, respectively). while it may be fair to categorize cats such as William Ayers as far left radicals, the case for Obama-as-far leftist requires more proof than guilt-by-association claims and relative rankings amongst Senators.

next, Cali portrays Obama as out of touch with mainstream America because 1) he was educated at elite institutions and 2) he is unable to talk sports over a beer. initially, it is important to note that Obama is running for President of the United States - not drinking buddy for the common man. more importantly, Obama is not alone among the remaining Presidential contenders as being educated at elite institutions: Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale, while John McCain matriculated from the U.S. Naval Academy - an institution so elite that one needs a recommendation from a U.S. congressman to be admitted. furthermore, Obama is also a big sports fan with a passion for basketball. thus, while he may be a horrible bowler, Obama could definitely talk hoops with Joe Fan over a beer and be right at home.

finally, at this point in time, "McCain as centrist" is largely an historical anomaly, rather than a present reality. based upon his hawkish military positions and his just-released economic proposals, McCain seems more like a mainstream fiscal conservative than a true centrist. while in the past McCain was a bee in the bonnet for Republicans - by voting against the Bush tax cuts and taking equivocal positions on social issues - in recent years, he has returned to his more conservative roots. this becomes clear when one considers the policy stances McCain has assumed in the current election.

in conclusion, neither Obama's political relationships, nor his overall espousal of mainstream liberal views foreclose his ability to move America beyond its present divisive politics. the true import of his "bitter/cling" comments was to acknowledge the widespread popular discontent over the performance of our elected officials and to describe some of the ways politicians have manipulated voters in the past. the reality of popular discontent is readily evident in the current approval ratings (or lack thereof) for President Bush and Congress. as John Dickerson opined recently on Slate.com, Obama was not snobbishly critiquing small-town American values, but rather cataloging some of the ways politicians have manipulated economically discontented voters:

"[W]hat Obama seems to have been trying to do is catalog the many ways politicians can play on voters made vulnerable by their economic conditions. They can play on the voters' heartfelt passions (guns and god) or they can appeal to their darker side (xenophobia and racism). Viewed this way, Obama is potentially rescued from a conflation that mixes racism with religion and makes more plausible his explanation that he was trying to talk about favorable aspects of small-town life."

in sum, Obama put forth a meta-discussion of "wedge issues", and the manipulation of such issues by politicians - as opposed to basing his own politics on those same issues. as such, Obama did not publicly discuss his own views on God or guns to evoke an emotional and politically favorable response from voters - he merely recognized the prevalent use of such tactics in the past. this distinction should be apparent, given that Obama's controversial comments were not made at an official campaign event; nor were they made in a Presidential debate - they were made at a private fundraiser, where Obama was discussing how he could win small-town votes. given Obama's demonstrated oratorical skills and his willingness to honestly and directly speak to conservative counter-arguments, I would maintain that Obama remains the most likely presidential candidate to unite Americans of all political persuasions to move beyond the "wedge issues" that have divided us in the past.

Response To The Dude’s Comments On Al Gore

2008-04-11T21:07:00.004-04:00

Here is a quote from the Dude in a recent post regarding Al Gore, among other things:

"one last point, as this post has gone on long enough and its time to get on with my Sunday: I completely agree with Cali that we should hold cats like Al Gore equally as responsible as other wealthy individuals. after watching last week's interview of the Gores on 60 Minutes, I was forced to conclude that much of his jet-setting lifestyle is antithetical to the environmental values he urges Americans to embrace. as such, he does his cause a great disservice - solar panels and carbon offsets notwithstanding - by living in a gargantuan estate and flying all over the world, regardless of the motives underlying his actions. as a wise man once said, "be the change that you want to see in the world." it doesn't seem like Al Gore appreciates this sentiment, and Cali is right to criticize him for it."

I respect that. My opinion on global warming hasn’t really changed. Al Gore could very well be 100% correct. I think there is more dissent out there than he lets on when he likens those who don’t buy into man-made global warming to those who think the earth is flat, but, regardless, I think Al Gore truly believes what he preaches. And beyond global warming, there are plenty of other good reasons to encourage finding alternative sources of energy and reducing worldwide pollution.

Like the Dude said, my main problem with Al Gore (and Warren Buffett and many Democrats) is that it is a bunch of rich people partaking in the spoils of capitalism just as much as their Republican counterparts, yet at the same time telling Republicans about how they are misguided, not doing enough for the poor, not paying enough taxes, etc., etc. etc.

The Democrat cause, in theory, is a worthy one and an honorable one. Helping people that need help, regardless of whether the reason they need help is their own fault or not. That is essentially the traditional Christian mission and something I think many Republicans could buy into. But it is really hard to hear that from rich people who are partaking in the spoils just as much as their Republican counterparts and giving back the same as their Republican counterparts through taxes and charitable donations. Or very often giving back less than their Republican counterparts (see the discussion on Bush’s tax return below vs. the Clinton’s and Obama’s tax returns).

Would Al Gore’s and other wealthy Democrats missions not be better served by scaling down their lifestyles? They don’t have to move into the inner-city or live in a blue collar neighborhood. But what about living in a 3000-5000 sq. foot house in a nice and safe part of town instead of owning several 10,000 sq. foot homes around the country/world? Or what about flying commercial instead of private jets? Our airlines are struggling big time and could use the help. Plus it is better for the environment. Or what about getting their haircut for $50 and donating $350 to the poor each time? I realize that was kind of a cheap shot, but it is also the exact reason for Edward’s downfall if you ask me. Setting an example goes a long, long way.

I think this is the very reason that despite a troubled economy, despite a war that has been mildly successful at best and a disaster at worst, despite more Americans than ever thinking America’s best days are behind us, that McCain is holding his own (or even leading depending on the poll) after roughly 8 years of complete Republican control.

Look at Bush. Now I don’t think Bush has done a very good job as President by and large, but they just released his tax return. He and Laura made around $900k. $150k of which was a book advance for a book Laura wrote with Jenna that Laura donated to some cause. On top of that, they donated another $186k to charity I believe. I should note it is possible the $186k included the $150k, although it didn’t sound like it. Then they paid about $200k in taxes. And all of that without saying anything or making a big deal out of it or telling anyone how much they do for the poor. Imagine if Hillary and Bill donated $20-30M of the $100+M they have made over the past 5 years. Or if Warren Buffet put his money where his mouth is and wrote a check for $10B to the government, or whatever amount he believes he owes, because he has expressly stated he does not believe he pays enough taxes.

Is there plenty wrong with the Republican party? Definitely. I think most honest Republicans think Bush has not done a great job as President, despite having a difficult set of circumstances to deal with. And the Republican Congress didn't accomplish much either. Many Republicans feel that Bush has barely been a Republican, in fact. But that was not the focus of this post.

One side note: I realize that there are many USAToday bloggers that say that Bush and Laura’s tax return doesn’t reflect secret arrangements with Halliburton, hidden oil profits, etc. But I don’t buy that. They are contending that Bush perpetuated income tax fraud, without any evidence at all, let alone persuasive evidence. That isn’t helpful and poisons discussions. Republicans could all get together and make up wild accusations about the Clintons or the Obamas hiding income and telling the world it is certainly true, but offering no proof whatsoever.

Personal Responsibility vs. Mutual Responsibility (cont'd)

2008-04-10T17:11:00.005-04:00

I’ll respond to a few assertions that the Dude has put forth:

"The Institute for Women's Policy Research report found for women who are (as Cali asserts) "hard working, high-school graduates, non-teenage mother type" seeking upward mobility through higher education the vast majority of these single mothers enrolled in school before notifying their case workers because they feared resistance, bureaucratic hurdles and curtailed benefits; 54.3 percent of the women indicated that case workers became more of an impediment to their success than a help."

I’m not sure I fully understand that paragraph, but my whole point is that teenagers should not have children before they go to college. If they choose to, yeah life will be difficult. And I hear you on the whole 5-year lifetime limit on welfare, but hundreds of thousands of kids put themselves through college by taking on loans and working night/weekend/summer jobs. The availability of welfare should have nothing to do with ability to obtain a college degree.

"However given the fact the five-year clock on welfare payments for college-bound recipients does not allow university coursework to count as work activity the author is correct to be concerned about the current welfare system's "work first" emphasis which has forced millions of Americans into unemployment and abject poverty after they exhaust the system's five-year lifetime cap on cash assistance for the needy."

Well, previous to instituting the 5-year clock, there was no limit on welfare payments for anyone and there was just as much (if not more) unemployment and abject poverty, wasn't there?
"on the other hand, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution contains what is known as the Equal Protection Clause : "no state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." as such, the Equal Protection Clause has been seen as an attempt to actualize another premise of the Declaration of Independence - that all men are created equal."

Fair enough. I agree we are all created equal. And you are certainly more familiar with the documents than I, but nowhere can I recall either saying that every American is entitled to equal opportunity or equal outcomes. There were rich people and families back in the late 1700s. Certainly their offspring will have more opportunity in life than the offspring of poor children. They will, by virtue of growing up in a rich home, will understand and acquire the skills and language and ways of the rich world better than a person who grows up in the home of a plumber. They will have their father's or mother's connections so that when they come of age and want to start a business, they will have people they know to contact for advice, funding, etc. How can this be rectified?

"more than fifty years after Brown, de jure segregation is illegal - and yet, our public schools remain de facto segregated and de facto unequal. whether we want to admit it or not, the reality is that wealthy suburban public school districts provide a better education and an unequal opportunity for advancement, as compared to failing inner city schools."

This is as much the fault of the inner cities as it is the government or suburbs. From what I understand, inner city schools receive nearly the same amount of money per child as suburban schools from the government. But surburban schools receive more money from property taxes than inner-city schools. Is that not to be expected? Should the money paid by landowners in New York be spent in Georgia because it is a poorer state? Should the money paid by landowners in the suburbs be spent in the inner-city? Or should it be spent on the cities and children of those paying it? Seems clear to me. Further, parents of the children that go to suburban schools may donate additional money or time for fields trips, extra books, computers for their local schools, but it that their fault? As I have said before, the cities are dangerous and the best teachers do not want to teach there. I really can't blame them. Further, a much larger percentage of an inner city school's budget is spent on security guards, educating about gang violence, metal detectors, helping students from broken homes, removing graffitti, etc. The parents of children in suburban schools pay better attention to their child's education, which means (1) the child is more likely to do well in school and (2) bad teachers or bad practices are identified and dealt with faster. Should inner city schools receive extra money because the lives of inner city residents and students are so chaotic?

Dude:

to answer Cali's final question, "Should inner city schools receive extra money because the lives of inner city residents and students are so chaotic?", yes. if we are indeed serious about wanting to ameliorate the chaos and instability inherent in the lives of the poor in inner cities, I'd maintain that there is no better way to bring about such a transformation than through improving educational opportunities and mentorship. innocent children should not be made to pay the price for their parents' poor decisions - we should strive to provide the same opportunities of advancement and success for all, not just those who won the genetic lottery and were fortunate enough to be born into well-heeled families that can better support them. this is not an idea to be mocked, but rather an aspirational ideal all should support.

accordingly, I'm not really all that interested in what the text of the Constitution has to say about the matter - nor do I care one iota about the prevalent conditions in the 18th century. times have changed, and this is something to be accepted and celebrated, rather than feared. for example, it is decidedly a good thing that the institution of slavery no longer persists, that women and non-landowners can vote, and so on and so forth. likewise, to the extent that the Constitution itself doesn't mandate equality of outcome or opportunity, this does not mean that we must abandon hope for better social outcomes.

lastly, Cali's analysis completely ignores my overarching point - that both the wealthy and the poor alike share a common interest in lessening the chaos and instability of inner city life. as I mentioned before, everyone benefits when the public as a whole is better educated and more capable - some directly, some indirectly. likewise, while society as a whole also shares the blame for current living conditions in the inner cities (including those making poor decisions), simply telling people to shape up and try harder will not in itself bring about the hoped-for transformation - we all need to do our part to provide better opportunities for the disadvantaged. I for one reject elitist notions that a good education is only for the privileged or the ubermensch. as the late Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Through our scientific and technological genius, we have made of this world a neighborhood and yet we have not had the ethical commitment to make of it a brotherhood ... We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools."

Personal Responsibility vs. Mutual Responsibility

2008-04-08T11:54:00.010-04:00

to further clarify my position from the previous post, I'd like to address the following comment and hopefully un-muddy the waters a bit...

"This issue is so frustrating for us conservatives because I don't know of one responsible conservative who is advocating an end to social programs. Most are only trying to keep the rate of the increase down. I have said on more than one occasion, that we need to help people who really need help. Yet, I don't know of a single high-profile liberal who has gone on record in a loud clear voice that chaotic behavior and lifestyle choices are a major part of the problem. The two Democratic candidates have proposed so many new tax payer funded new social programs I can't keep up with them."

to begin with, I wholeheartedly understand and appreciate conservative frustration here: by and large, they are willing to help those who need it - but at the same time, don't want to be taken advantage of by those who haven't earned a helping hand. I can sympathize with such concerns - in a vacuum, its hard to justify aiding those whose own poor choices bring about their need; and this is especially true when the individual offering aid is a responsible, hard-working member of society.

at the same time, we need to recognize that there are other factors at play here. also, to correct a misconception, there are high-profile liberals who have explicity recognized a need for greater personal responsibility. for example, here is Barack Obama's take, as recorded by Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post:

"The framework that tends to be set up in Washington -- which is either the problem is not enough money and not enough government programs, or the problem is a culture of poverty and not enough emphasis on traditional values -- presents a false choice."

"[While more resources are needed,] there is a strong values-and-character component to educational achievement," Obama said. "To deny that is to deny reality, and I don't want to cede that reality to conservatives who use it as an excuse to underfund the schools. . . . Sometimes people think that when we talk about values, that somehow that's making a 'lift yourself up by your own bootstraps' argument and letting the larger society off the hook. That's why I always emphasize that we need both individual responsibility and mutual responsibility."

"[The cultural values of] educational achievement and delayed gratification and intergenerational responsibility and hard work and entrepreneurship" produce success, he said, but "if a child is raised in a disorderly environment with inadequate health care and guns going off late at night, then it's a lot harder to incorporate those values. We as a society can take responsibility for creating conditions in which those cultural attributes are enhanced."

this is precisely the framework my last post was intended to endorse. certainly those leading chaotic lives and making poor choices need to correct their behavior if we are to redress income inequality. equally as true, we all need to recognize that certain persistent social inequalities render such behavior modification less attainable. as I have mentioned in earlier posts, the generally dismal state of affairs in inner city schools is one such limiting factor. in addition, one might also point to conditions such as the greater prevalence of untreated, chronic health problems, like asthma among the poor in inner cities, as an endemic inequity that makes life on the whole more difficult and achievement less likely. yes, there are poor people - just as there are middle-class and upper-class individuals - who are just plain lazy. such individuals lend credence to conservative frustrations. where I part ways with the commenter above - along with Cali - is in my belief that all of us - the responsible and the irresponsible alike - constitute society as a whole. and, as one cohesive society, I believe we bear a mutual responsibility (as well as a personal responsibility) to bring about a more perfect and equal America.

Cali:

I think the real question, which has yet to be answered in any sort of credible way by either or us or anyone else as far as I can tell, is what percentage of those on giveaway programs are the hard-working, high-school graduate, non-teenage mother type who for whatever reason can't pay their bills vs. the high-school dropouts and teenage mothers that have money for bars and iPods and spinner rims but not for food or healthcare.

I actually looked at the U.S. Budget in some detail the other day and was shocked (see below). Notice how how much of our total budget represents expenditures for giveaways or redistributions or whatever term you use. SHOCKING. Notice how much is spent on the military. I want to be safe and have the best military on the planet, but does it REALLY require nearly $550B per year? And can we please pay down the debt so we don't have to waste $250B per year? I find it completely shocking how little actually gets spent on the things the government was intended to accomplish 200+ years ago.

"The President's actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$23.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

I must say this quote from the Dude scares me a little bit:
"I believe we bear a mutual responsibility (as well as a personal responsibility) to bring about a more perfect and equal America."

I believe we should strive for perfection (which is likely defined differently by as many people as there are on this earth), but the call for equality that I hear so often sounds a lot like a call for socialism or communism. Some people are born more intelligent than others, some more ambitious than others and some better at sports than others. How do we make these people equal or achieve equality? How do you define equality?

I don't recall the Constitution saying we have the right of equality or even happiness. I recall we all have the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. If you choose to drop out of highschool or have a child while still a child yourself (by most estimates these two groups alone represent 50+% of inner city teenagers so this is not some tiny group we're talking about), you are choosing not to pursue happiness. Sure, there are exceptions - kids who drop out of highschool because they have to work simply to eat or girls who get pregnant after being raped, but this represents a small minority. Besides, this minority is the people we all agree we should help.

American Dreamer:

In response to Cali:

"I think the real question, which has yet to be answered in any sort of credible way by either or us or anyone else as far as I can tell, is what percentage of those on giveaway programs are the hard-working, high-school graduate, non-teenage mother type who for whatever reason can't pay their bills vs. the high-school dropouts and teenage mothers that have money for bars and iPods and spinner rims but not for food or healthcare."

I provide the following commentary.

According to the Women's News Article entitled "Welfare Clock Should Stop for College Moms"

"In 2005 over 17 million families, including 9.2 million headed by single parents, were enrolled in state-administered programs under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Over 85 percent of the single-parent families were headed by single mothers.”

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2711/

In aggregate terms 7.8 million families (45.8%) are not headed by single mothers vs. 9.2 million (54.2%) which are.

In fact single mothers represent a rapidly growing segment of the U.S. population, increasing from 7.7 million in 1994 to 13.6 million in 2003.

Moreover, only 10 percent of all single mothers currently hold a degree (that’s 1.4 million single mothers of a total 13.6 million in 2003); 62 percent have only a high school education or never graduated. Thus it appears Cali’s assertion is true.

However, upon further analysis we notice a startling trend about the implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and its assurance of social mobility and non-dependency upon tax payer dollars.

The Institute for Women's Policy Research report found for women who are (as Cali asserts) “hard working, high-school graduates, non-teenage mother type” seeking upward mobility through higher education the vast majority of these single mothers enrolled in school before notifying their case workers because they feared resistance, bureaucratic hurdles and curtailed benefits; 54.3 percent of the women indicated that case workers became more of an impediment to their success than a help.

Over 70 percent of the women reported problems finding sufficient study time, while 69.6 percent indicated increased difficulties meeting financial obligations. Balancing the needs of family with the demands and expense of degree programs were cited as the main obstacle.

"Given the five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance, it becomes critically important for welfare participants to engage in activities that will ultimately afford them the opportunity to escape poverty," a report issued Tuesday by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Women's Policy Research concludes. "A college education, and particularly the completion of a four-year degree, provides the best opportunity--especially for women--to acquire good jobs, with good wages and good benefits."

However given the fact the five-year clock on welfare payments for college-bound recipients does not allow university coursework to count as work activity the author is correct to be concerned about the current welfare system's "work first" emphasis which has forced millions of Americans into unemployment and abject poverty after they exhaust the system's five-year lifetime cap on cash assistance for the needy.

I encourage all to read this article because in similar fashion to the painter (who has come to signify the right’s argument against funding social welfare programs) there are millions of responsible painters who despite all things being equal and opportunity abound are being systematically being left behind.

Until people understand the complexity of the system (the PRWORA), as does the distinguished Senator from Illinois, debate will continue to be contained to the diametric of meaningful commentary and/or pragmatic solutions.

Dude:

Reading Cali's comments above - specifically:

"Some people are born more intelligent than others, some more ambitious than others and some better at sports than others. How do we make these people equal or achieve equality? How do you define equality?"

I was reminded of Harrison Bergeron, a short story written by the late, great Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. the story describes a dystopic future society where equality has been achieved by handicapping the most intelligent, athletic, beautiful, etc. members of society down to the level of commoners. this of course is not the view of equality I advocate. no amount of redistribution (I will opt to use this term instead of judgmental terms such as "giveaway" which serve only to poison discussion) will allow me to dunk like Shaq, strike out A-Rod or master particle physics like Stephen Hawking. there will always be members of society who are uniquely gifted, and - in contrast to the world of Harrison Bergeron - we should not stifle them from maximizing their abilities.

a better view of equality focuses moreso on equality of opportunity than equality of outcome. to be sure, part of the focus on equality of opportunity is to expand the ability of individuals - such that outcomes will also be more equal, but through a more indirect means. as the old maxim goes, "from each according to their abilities, to each accroding to their needs."

while this may be nitpicking, I am a lawyer and can't help it - I must also correct Cali on another statement. in fact, the Constitution says more about equality than "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." the latter happens to come from the Declaration of Independence and is not enshrined in the Constitution. on the other hand, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution contains what is known as the Equal Protection Clause: "no state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." as such, the Equal Protection Clause has been seen as an attempt to actualize another premise of the Declaration of Independence - that all men are created equal. more recently, the 14th Amendment was invoked by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education to invalidate racially segregated public education laws that provided unequal eductional opportunities, along racial lines.

why is this important? primarily because it implicitly invalidates Cali's argument that inner city high school dropouts are "choosing" not to pursue "happiness". more than fifty years after Brown, de jure segregation is illegal - and yet, our public schools remain de facto segregated and de facto unequal. whether we want to admit it or not, the reality is that wealthy suburban public school districts provide a better education and an unequal opportunity for advancement, as compared to failing inner city schools. I have made this same point in several earlier posts, but it apparently bears repeating - if we want to demand a greater level of personal responsibilty from the poor folks living in inner cities, then we must provide something that more closely resembles equal facilities and means for advancement. I believe we must be more cognizant of the message that unequal conditions in inner cities sends to folks living there. when faced by the coniditions I have described in earlier posts - when compared to comparable suburban educational and societal conditions - is it any wonder that some are less motivated to work hard? likewise, is it any wonder that 50% drop out of schools that are failing to educate them in the first place? these folks are not simply "choosing" not to pursue happiness - they are being provided an unequal opportunity.

yet, for some reason, it is considered a "scary" idea that we should provide everyone a more equal chance to achieve success. currently, we are being held back, as a society, from achieving our full potential. its like playing a baseball game where one team has three strikes to get a hit and the other only two. moreover, the idea behind public education in the first place was that businesses, corporations, etc. also benefit from universal education, through a more-educated, better motivated workforce. sure, maybe we don't need janitors who expound on Neitzsche - but I do believe we would all benefit if all high-school graduates could read at their actual grade level and be able to perform basic math and the like.

all that said, I'd like to at least commend Cali for consistency, given his equally shocked reaction to the U.S. military budget. going one step further, the $550 Billion figure actually understates total military expenditures by about $200 Billion. as Fred Kaplan has annually reported, the lower figure represents only the Pentagon share of the defense budget; while also leaving out the cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. even looking only at the lower figure (Kaplan uses $515 Billion for FY 2009), the U.S. military budget approaches that of all other nations in the world combined. now THAT is truly shocking, and says something about our misplaced priorities.

equally telling is that much of the defense budget is spent on military hardware of questionable practical utility in fighting counterinsurgencies (as opposed to conventional wars) - or items like missile defense shields that don't actually work. all this while the troops in the field are allegedly lacking in body armor and other basic supplies that can save lives. as the American Dreamer has argued, making war can be profitable for some. it seems to me that we are sorely in need of a direct re-evaluation of just what our society and government ought to be most concerned about.

A Few Thoughts on Polarization and Class Warfare

2008-04-06T11:20:00.006-04:00

While I must respectfully disagree with one commenter's assessment - that Cali's recent post on an anticipated "class war" in America is "spot on" - I will concede that Cali has raised some interesting questions, which I'd like to ponder further...

Part I

to begin with, lets examine Cali's framing of the issue:

"I have been convinced that the plight of poor folks is getting worse and worse by my Democratic friends. Whether it is because rich folks and corporations and GWB and his cronies are keeping them down or whether it is because poor folks have the latest cell phone and iPod and freshly done nails and hair but no healthcare has been the subject of many posts on this blog, so I will try my best to stay on topic."

in actuality, this beginning framework and method of inquiry oversimplifies the matter. Cali seems to be positing a zero-sum approach - either the poor are poor because the man is keeping them down; or because they are irresponsible. Cali then proceeds to largely blame the poor for their situation - suggesting that the poor today don't respect the rich enough and arguing that the rich are at a "breaking point" when it comes to their taxation. in reality, it is very likely that both factors Cali relates are part of the problem at hand - that the poor are getting poorer, relatively speaking.

undoubtedly, some poor folks have made irresponsible decisions that have left them in dire straits. however, in a complementary manner, those born poor have less opportunity - and a steeper hill to climb - when they do work hard to improve their situation, compared to those born rich. is it an impossible task? No - extremely talented, motivated and bright individuals will succeed in life, regardless of their starting point. however, such extraordinary individuals are not the norm - and it is the norm we need to pay attention to here. as such, I'd like to re-cast Cali's conception of the issue - it is both the actions of the rich and the poor, as representatives of the entirety of the American social order, that have caused the poor to get poorer, in relative terms. neither side bears exclusive responsibility and all retain the duty to actually do something to bring about greater equality - and head off the class war that Cali fears is on the way. I am cautiously optimistic that eventually, Americans as a whole will realize that everyone would lose should such a struggle become the reality.

as a corollary, we need to recognize that the poor do not have a monopoly on making irresponsible decisions. to cite one high-profile example, Paris Hilton did not become wealthy through hard work, Yankee ingenuity and plenty of elbow grease. yet because she was fortunate enough to be born into a very wealthy family, she is able to act irresponsibly, contribute little to society, live off of someone else's hard work and escape criticism on this blog. such examples are as much a part of our current reality as the iPod-buying* poor Cali regularly mentions.

(*as an aside, I'm still waiting for Cali to provide one iota of independent evidence demonstrating this is a widespread phenomenon, beyond his constant assertions that it is a problem.)

having re-cast the issue in this light, lets return to Cali's closing thoughts:

"There was a time where the poor were in awe of and respected the rich for inventing and bringing to market products that the masses purchase and find useful, for creating jobs, for making this country the most successful and best country ever to have existed."

perhaps part of the reason times have changed and class conflict has been heightened is that many of the rich no longer become wealthy in the manner Cali describes. nowadays, many have attained wealth by creating and trading complicated mortgage-backed securities, hedge funds and the like; while corporations increase profits by increasingly shipping jobs overseas and to the U.S. south, where wages and benefits are lower - and pressure for improved treatment of workers from trade unions is non-existent. again, this is only part of the current reality - but one that merits attention under the guise of analyzing inter-class tensions.

Part II

now, a few thoughts on polarization. I think we can agree that America has become increasingly polarized in recent years - though I'd be willing to revisit this assumption if anyone wants to argue otherwise. to my eyes, such polarized opinions are impossible to miss. whether it be the wealthy, the corporations, the terrorists, or the Ohio State Buckeyes, they are all evil. all Democrats are weak-kneed traitors to America and all Republicans are cruel, cold-hearted meanies who'd torture their grandma if given the chance. the "do-nothing", far-left Democrats* offer criticism but not solutions; while the cruel Republicans run the country into the ground with wars and tax cuts. such are the "ideas" we are bombarded with anytime we turn on cable tv news programs, listen to AM talk radio, scan the political blogs or, perhaps most of all, read the comments to any story on USAToday.com, CNN.com or the like. alternatively, we can consider the latest tomes from Ann Coulter or Michael Moore, throwing more red meat to their target audiences and further ratcheting up the outrage on all sides.

(*Cali refers to "do-nothing Democrats", probably alluding to Congress. this begs the question: how much should we expect them to do when the President is a Republican who can veto any legislation they pass?)

what then is the genesis of this phenomenon, and how might we curb its effect? I'd argue that the internet itself has played a large role in this ratcheting-up of outrage and tension. by allowing people to talk politics (and providing a forum where all can have their say) in a nameless, faceless manner - where the object of one's ire and rage is unseen - folks are now more willing to focus all their energies on personal, ad hominem attacks. the anonymity of the internet allows us to say things we would never say to an individual's face. so, we are left with "George W. Bush is the devil incarnate", "Hillary is evil and soulless", and "liberals are cowards." such sentiments contribute nothing to the overall level of discourse and serve only to poison debate by leading to retaliatory remarks and retaliation to retaliatory remarks, and so on and so forth. by way of contrast, people are much less likely to be so outraged when talking about issues with their adversaries face-to-face. this points the way towards a possible solution...

don't hate the player, hate the game. instead of focusing arguments on the evil rich, or the irresponsible poor, focus them on substantive ideas. unfortunately, such an approach to political discourse is sorely-lacking in the present environment. rather than discussing policies and ideas, we discuss individuals and personal shortcomings. all sides are guilty when it comes to increasing polarization. but, if we truly want to avoid Cali's prognosticated future class war, we would do well to check the personal anger and tension at the door and argue the debate based upon ideas that offer solutions. in other words, we need to stop looking for reasons to blame the rich or the poor - and instead blame the rich and the poor - then move on from there towards bridging the gap.

Part III

lastly, some miscellaneous thoughts brought to mind by Cali's post...

Cali mentions an article reporting that more than 50% of inner-city high school students fail to graduate. presumably, this is brought up to blame these students for subsequently ending up poor. however, should we really blame them? after all, if one's high school experience is closer to the early scenes in Lean on Me than the typical four years at Cookie-Cutter Suburban High, what good does staying in school actually do? who among us would want to show up for class - let alone achieve excellence - if we attended school in a dilapidated building, using dated textbooks, surrounded by fellow students who didn't care, teachers who are afraid for their physical well-being, etc.?

Cali also criticizes the "do-nothing Democrats" for not having a clue what to do about Iraq. here, the truth is nobody has a good idea what to do - probably because there is no good solution. as Colin Powell has noted, to withdraw too quickly is problematic because of the old maxim "you break it, you buy it." the United States' short-sighted invasion and occupation of Iraq has created a vacuum of power and a humanitarian nightmare - not to mention an al Qaeda problem. we have a responsibility to make this situation better. on the other hand, a 100 year military mission in Iraq is equally unrealistic. like it or not, the costs in dollars and lives of American servicemen under such a scenario would be more than the United States can bear. something surely must be done about Iraq, but none of the ideas floated so far by either political party are the answer.

addressing another of Cali's contentions - that "many “rich” donate time and money in addition to what they pay in taxes to what they deem worthy causes or to their church or their political candidate of choice" - I must first take issue with his inclusion of contributions to political candidates within this framework. such expenditures are totally voluntary and wholly unrelated to any re-distributive scheme - to the extent that the poor are almost never candidates for political office. further, as mentioned in an earlier post on income inequality, charitable donations as a percentage of GDP have decreased since the 1960's. moreover, only a small percentage of overall philanthropy is dedicated to those individuals most affected by income inequality; while the vast majority of religious contributions are used for facilities, operating costs and clergy salaries.

and now, at last, we come to Cali's comments on "big oil". here, Cali is absolutely correct that the hearings were all political theater - but not for the reasons he posits. the reason oil companies were hauled before Congress last week and excoriated was not because they are seen as conservative. rather, the purpose behind the hearings was to drum up public outrage in an election year. as such, the oil companies made an effective target because gasoline prices are rising and, more importantly, the effect of this price increase is felt by most Americans. since most people own cars, and many people drive to work, higher gas prices affect a large number of registered voters. given that the outrage here is fairly widespread, Congress could not resist pandering to said outrage and casting the oil companies as the villains.

as a result, oil company profit margins had little to do with the congressional hearings - the reason for the hearings was the number of people affected by increasing gas prices. by way of comparison, I'd argue that nobody cares about Google's profit margin because the average American doesn't pay Google anything directly - we are able to use Google for searches, Gmail for email and even Blogger for this blog - all for free. likewise, contrary to Cali's frequent bromides, the average American is less affected by Apple's profit margin on iPods than they are by higher prices at the gas pumps. finally, with respect to Microsoft, Cali seemingly has forgotten the antitrust litigation initiated against Microsoft - by the Clinton administration DOJ. perhaps Congress simply determined that Microsoft has eaten enough humble pie for the time being.

next, Cali proffers some stats on oil industry profits, per each gallon of gas (unfortunately, no source for this information was cited):

"I heard that the government makes 40 cents per gallon on gas while the big oil companies make 10 cents per gallon. From the best I can tell, that is true."

my own quick Google search contradicts this view. according to this article, it looks as though Cali's 10 cent per-gallon figure refers to the share that goes to the service station. on the other hand, $2.07 of each gallon (out of a hypothetical $3 gallon) goes to the crude oil producer - i.e. Chevron, BP, Exxon-Mobil, etc. Cali's 40 cent figure for taxes seems right - but here he ignores that 60% of all federal fuel taxes go towards subsidizing the federal share of highway construction. thus, if gasoline taxes were lower, we would likely just see these costs shifted over to more tolls for road maintenance - which is clearly still a cost borne by taxpayers.

to address the main question one last time: why have hearings on oil profits? beyond the obvious political motivations in being seen as an ally of the average American consumer, paying higher prices at the pump, there are also substantive justifications for grilling the oil industry. for one, as addressed in a recent post on this blog related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the industry has frequently acted irresponsibly with respect to the public interest. another manifestation of this irresponsibility may be seen all over South Louisiana, where a maze of dredged canals and flood control measures, constructed to benefit oil and gas pipelines, are a large factor in the erosion of coastal wetlands there. why is this a problem? because the coastal wetlands, among many other useful natural services, provide perhaps the best buffer against storm surges from Gulf of Mexico hurricanes and tropical storms.

finally, we must consider the extent to which American taxpayers subsidize the oil and gas industry. according to Greenpeace estimates, the industry receives somewhere between $15 and $35 billion per year in taxpayer subsidies. is this how free markets operate? by way of comparison, industry analysts who compare governmental policies around the world have concluded the U.S. is more generous than most, "demanding a smaller share of revenues than others that let private companies drill on public lands and in public waters." in addition, U.S. government policy has "externalized" many of the environmental, health and social costs associated with our reliance on gasoline. as such, it is wholly appropriate to explore in greater detail the feasibility of moving beyond a petroleum-based, auto-centric transportation model. in the scheme of this game, the oil companies are neither benighted lords of capitalism, nor the anti-Christ - they are simply one industry that stands to lose if we ponder changes in our modes of transportation.

one last point, as this post has gone on long enough and its time to get on with my Sunday: I completely agree with Cali that we should hold cats like Al Gore equally as responsible as other wealthy individuals. after watching last week's interview of the Gores on 60 Minutes, I was forced to conclude that much of his jet-setting lifestyle is antithetical to the environmental values he urges Americans to embrace. as such, he does his cause a great disservice - solar panels and carbon offsets notwithstanding - by living in a gargantuan estate and flying all over the world, regardless of the motives underlying his actions. as a wise man once said, "be the change that you want to see in the world." it doesn't seem like Al Gore appreciates this sentiment, and Cali is right to criticize him for it.

It Is Coming To a Head

2008-04-04T20:47:00.005-04:00

The American Dreamer and I were talking about this for a while yesterday and are basically in agreement, albeit for different reasons. From the blogs I read and post on, from talking to conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, I am convinced we are headed towards all out class warfare. I don’t know whether it will be in 5 years or 50, but I think it is coming.

I have been convinced that the plight of poor folks is getting worse and worse by my Democratic friends. Whether it is because rich folks and corporations and GWB and his cronies are keeping them down or whether it is because poor folks have the latest cell phone and iPod and freshly done nails and hair but no healthcare has been the subject of many posts on this blog, so I will try my best to stay on topic. The point is that the poor are getting poorer, for whatever reason, and are demanding more and more.

And on the other hand, the “rich” have just about reached their breaking point. Between income tax, state tax, sales tax, property tax, social security and medicare tax, gas tax, toll fees, car registration fees and many other taxes and fees that I have forgotten about or don’t even know about, many “rich” people are paying over 50% of their income in taxes. Even me, I am in the 28% marginal tax bracket…I pay 7.65% social security and medicare tax…California (where I live) has a 9% income tax and an 8% sales tax (sales tax is on every dollar I spend), gas tax is 40 cents per gallon, a trip into San Francisco costs $4 in tolls, car registration is a $100/year, etc. It doesn’t take long to get well over 50%.

On top of that, many “rich” donate time and money in addition to what they pay in taxes to what they deem worthy causes or to their church or their political candidate of choice. And yet, day after day, week after week, month after month, we hear that “rich” people are not doing nearly enough and are leaving our poor brothers and sisters high and dry.

Why don’t the CEOs and owners of Microsoft, Google and Apple (who are far richer than their oil industry counterparts and get much larger bonsuses) have to testify in front of Congress and justify the billions they have made from consumers? I know that the profit margins of oil companies is in the 5-10% range, which is decent, but doesn’t hold a candle to Microsoft’s 29% or Google’s 24% or Apple’s 14%. You tell me, who is price gouging?

Why don’t sports stars get pulled in front of Congress and asked to justify why they deserve $20m per year? Are ticket prices to sports events not skyrocketing faster than gas prices?

How in the world do folks like Jeremiah Wright get a pass? After preaching about the evils of rich folks and materialism and white folks for two decades and blasting Tiger Woods and Oprah for being rich and not giving enough back, Jeremiah is using his parishioner’s money to buy a 10,000 square foot house in a gated community in Tinley Park in a subdivision where, currently, only white folks live. And based on his return to his church last week, his parishioners love him more than ever. Why are they not outraged calling for him to move into a $150k house in a blue-collar neighborhood and use the rest of the money he intends to spend on his dream house to help out the folks he claims to help?

Why does Jeremiah make fun of Tiger Woods, Oprah and Colin Powell for selling out the black community and the whole church applauds in agreement but those folks have done far more for the black community than Jeremiah could ever hope to do? They set lofty goals in life, worked extremely hard and became successful. How is that a slight to the black community? Shouldn't that be an example of what can happen with hard work and perseverance?

How do folks like Al Gore who owns several homes, SUVs, take private jet flights get a pass? And please don’t tell me it is because they buy carbon credits so someone plants a few trees for them or puts a few solar panels for them.

I heard that the government makes 40 cents per gallon on gas while the big oil companies make 10 cents per gallon. From the best I can tell, that is true. So if the price of gas is a big concern, would it not make sense to attack the gas tax rather than the oil companies?

Let's face it, the oil companies are under attack because it is generally a conservative industry and associated with President Bush, who Democrats think is the devil incarnate. I think the do-nothing Democrats don't have a clue what to do about Iraq or any of the other serious and real problems facing this country and want to keep their base happy, so they launch useless investigations into oil companies that I would be willing to bet a pretty penny leads nowhere at all, like most of the investigations of the last year. No new laws result, no-one goes to jail, they just investigate endlessly. At least when the Republicans controlled Congress, dishonest CEOs were getting thrown in jail. More CEOs have been put in jail under Bush than any other President.

The poor in this country are better off than 80% of the people on this planet. We are the first nation in history where our poorest people are the fattest, not the skinniest. I don’t know. I am at a loss to explain all of this. I think the hated “rich” folks see all of this and it just fuels feelings about the poor. Especially when they see articles like USAToday’s article this week showing that more than 50% of kids in most inner-cities don’t even graduate highschool.

There was a time where the poor were in awe of and respected the rich for inventing and bringing to market products that the masses purchase and find useful, for creating jobs, for making this country the most successful and best country ever to have existed. They looked up to them as role models and wanted to learn how they thought and acted so they might have a chance at being as rich and influential. My, how things have changed. Now only rich Democrats are excused and the rest of the rich are to blame.

Someone just shoot me...

2008-04-02T19:01:00.005-04:00

I saw someone post this on USAToday and despite the fact that it confirms my suspicisions, I honestly didn't believe it. So I Googled "Sharon Jasper" and it appears to be true, from the best that I can tell.

These are the people so many in this country say we have a responsibility to help out? Really? Seriously? There are literally millions of people like this in this country, just as there are literally millions who actually work hard and try to contribute to society but just can't make ends meet. I am all for helping the latter in certain ways, but really don't think we should help the former at all. I don't know how giving them things is helping them anyway.

Here are some links:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/jasper.asp
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4035544
http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/12/housing_officials_claim_surplu.html
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/sharon-jasper.htm

Here is the story:

Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 care case "the victim of ever changing public housing policies. Sharon Jasper has spent 57 of her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years.

It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacy down to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, ' I tried it for a year..you know, working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.'

Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system.

'Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors,' says Sharon. 'They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool "that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It's not a plasma because I'm black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump.' 'Do you know why?' She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orlean's city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects.

When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance.

The context of her scathing rebuke was, 'Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!' and 'Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!' Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, 'Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment.'

Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents and states that, 'I might do better out there with one of these tents.' She further lamented her sentiments about her situation,' I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor.

Dude:

after reading the snopes.com link above, it actually appears that much of the "story" presented above is satirical - and therefore not literally true. in reality, only the photo from snopes, and the following quotes - "I might do better out here with one of these tents."; "I might be poor but I don't have to live poor."; and "I will not be treated like a slave..." - are "true". the rest is embellishment, lifted from a blog that also contains "news" pieces such as "Vermont to arrest George Bush and Dick Cheney".

this is not to condone Sharon Jasper's behavior. after all, she receives public assistance and apparently has a nicer tv than I do. it is all too easy to pass judgment on her, equate her with all that is wrong with America, and so on and so forth.

as Cali alludes to, the truly interesting aspect of this story is how it plays upon the pre-conceptions held by some in America, leading them to accept the "story" as wholly true. the use of terms such as "welfare queen" and the overall sense of entitlement and victimization that the satirist uses to characterize Jasper is of the type that inflames and enrages the target audience. for an historical example, we only need look back to Ronald Reagan's appeal to "personal responsibility" conservatives by using that exact same "welfare queen" label in one of his presidential campaigns.

such rhetoric succeeds by playing upon what psychologists refer to as "confirmation bias" - the "tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs." one context in which confirmation bias operates is where an individual has such strong opinions about a given subject that their reading of the evidence regarding the same is subsequently colored towards their point of view. thus, we are often too credulous of stories and accounts that confirm strongly held, pre-existing beliefs - even to the point of missing their satirical undertones.

I'll conclude by reiterating my response to one of our commenters in a recent post: in any sufficiently large social grouping, there are bound to be "free riders". this is as true for small groups of activists as it is for whole societies. notwithstanding the Sharon Jaspers of the world, I will not take the bait and assign judgment and blame based upon my own subjective circumstances. I know nothing of Sharon Jasper's own individual circumstances, beyond the inflammatory rhetoric above. in the end, it is a small price to pay if even one deserving individual (or family) is helped. and even Cali recognizes that the deserving are more numerous than a class of one.

Religion and Cooperation

2008-04-02T11:49:00.003-04:00

There was a recent challenge to demonstrate a successful socialist experiment, which I happened to forget about and was reminded by this recent article in the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875666

Israeli Kibbutz are examples of functional socialism, operating in stable democratic society.
This brings into play religion, which in our secularist society is easy to forget and/or rationale why some have problems with such projects which they deems as conflictual to "self realization" and/or "personal responsibility."

We've Sold Out!

2008-04-01T09:12:00.004-04:00

Sorry to disappoint our legions of loyal readers, but I am compelled to announce that we have accepted an offer of $3.65 Million from the New York Times to purchase this space. in a bold move, the Times will be paying us this exorbitant sum to stop blogging. Again, I apologize, but we all have families to feed and student loans to repay. so long, its been good rapping with you.

Health Care: An Alternative View

2008-03-28T09:14:00.005-04:00

In response to Cali's recent posts on health care, I'd like to further examine some of his assumptions, in order to determine how they stand up to further scrutiny...

Assumption 1

"The main problem with medicare (and the medical industry in general) is how expensive new life-saving treatments and related technology really are."

Alternative View: the "main problem" with health care in the U.S. is the overall way we view health insurance, which causes many people to delay seeking medical attention until their condition is dire. rather than spreading the costs out across all of society, among both the sick and the healthy, the current U.S. system concentrates the cost of health care on the unhealthy.

as Malcom Gladwell noted in an article published by the New Yorker, the current U.S. insurance system is based upon an actuarial model of insurance, driven by an idea called "moral hazard". as Gladwell defines it:

"'Moral hazard' is the term economists use to describe the fact that insurance can change the behavior of the person being insured...It is an attempt to make your use of the health-care system more efficient. Making you responsible for a share of the costs, the argument runs, will reduce moral hazard."

thus, under the "moral hazard" theory, offering individuals greater access to health insurance will lead to inefficient "overuse" of health care services, at a greater cost to society. however, while the idea of "moral hazard" may be useful in many economic contexts, it seems ill-suited to actually realizing cost-savings in health care. in fact, as Gladwell notes, the idea of "wasteful consumption" of medical services is curious at best. for one, people generally go to the doctor "grudgingly, only because [they're] sick". as the Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt views it:

“Moral hazard is overblown...You always hear that the demand for health care is unlimited. This is just not true. People who are very well insured, who are very rich, do you see them check into the hospital because it’s free? Do people really like to go to the doctor? Do they check into the hospital instead of playing golf?”

furthermore, "moral hazard" is inapplicable to health insurance because of the value of preventative care. catching a serious illness early on, before it becomes chronic or serious, can often lead to an overall cost-savings by treating the condition when it is more easily treatable - and possibly preventing a condition from even occurring. as Gladwell noted about his own care:

"I just went to the dermatologist to get moles checked for skin cancer. If I had had to pay a hundred per cent, or even fifty per cent, of the cost of the visit, I might not have gone. Would that have been a wise decision? I have no idea. But if one of those moles really is cancerous, that simple, inexpensive visit could save the health-care system tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention saving me a great deal of heartbreak). The focus on moral hazard suggests that the changes we make in our behavior when we have insurance are nearly always wasteful. Yet, when it comes to health care, many of the things we do only because we have insurance—like getting our moles checked, or getting our teeth cleaned regularly, or getting a mammogram or engaging in other routine preventive care—are anything but wasteful and inefficient. In fact, they are behaviors that could end up saving the health-care system a good deal of money."

as a direct consequence of the U.S. system's focus on "moral hazard", health insurance (like auto insurance) is based upon an actuarial model. under such a model, people who are generally healthy opt for less inclusive, cheaper plans; while those with serious illnesses opt for more expensive plans with greater coverage. or get denied insurance altogether, due to their "pre-existing" conditions. insurers deem them too great a risk to insure, so they are on their own. by taking such a view of health insurance, the U.S. is alone among industrialized nations.

by way of contrast, most other nations maintain a "social insurance" model, which redistributes financial risk between the sick and healthy through insurance. under this view, as Gladwell notes, "the more equally and widely the burdens of illness are shared, the better off the population as a whole is likely to be." under such a system, the healthy 25 year old and the 60 year old with diabetes both pay the same cost for health care. the benefit of this approach is not necessarily "better" coverage, but better peace of mind: the 25 year old in this scenario gets "the security of being insulated against the financial shock of serious illness ." since better health care across the entire socioeconomic spectrum benefits society as a whole through a better preventative approach, arguments that a social insurance approach is "unfair" to the healthy and the wealthy - by forcing them to shoulder a greater burden of costs on behalf of the less healthy - lose some bite. in the long run, we are all better off when society as a whole is healthier.

Assumption 2

"Sure, we might be able to trim some of the costs out if we force insurance companies to become not-for-profits, but their profit-margins really are not much higher than most US industries so there probably isn't much meat there. And if the government takes over, then it will be even worse because you need to throw in an extra 10 or 20% for government bureaucracy."

Alternative View: administrative costs for private sector health care in the U.S. are higher than administrative costs for public sector health care. a well known joint study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Inormation found that administrative costs constitute 31% of total U.S. health care spending. consequently, greater socialization of health care in the U.S. would trim costs further than Cali acknowledges.

Malcolm Gladwell and others have also reported on this aspect of U.S. health care spending. as Gladwell notes:

"The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance."

similarly, Jonathon Cohn of the New Republic also theorizes that:

"Another virtue of more centralized health care is its ability to generate savings by reducing administrative waste. A universal coverage system that significantly streamlined billing (either by creating one common form or simply replacing basic insurance with one, Medicare-like program) and cut down on the need for so many insurance middle-men would leave more resources for actual medical care--and real medical innovation."

in their book "Uninsured in America", Harvard researchers Susan Starr Sered and Rushika Fernandopulle summarize the overall inefficiency of the current U.S. health care system by investigating its impacts on the uninsured. among their findings, as reported by Malcolm Gladwell, are that:

"The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills. Half of the uninsured owe money to hospitals, and a third are being pursued by collection agencies.

Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita."

thus, despite the supposed greater efficiency engendered by the U.S.' actuarial approach to health insurance, the overall societal costs of the U.S. approach actually seem much greater than would be the result under a social insurance approach - as evidenced by the experience of nations with more prevalent socialized medicine. this is particularly true when we consider the costs of such things as personal bankruptcies and preventative care, which are not factored into many assessments of health care costs. not only does the U.S. system fail to make U.S. citizens healthier society-wide - but it does so in a less cost-efficient manner as well.

Assumption 3

"And, consistent with the recent blog post on healthcare, there will be zero incentive to invest millions to develop new procedures if the government takes over healthcare - one need only look at Great Britain or Canada to see that medical breakthroughs in those countries have all but halted since the their governments took over healthcare."

Alternative View: this is certainly Cali's most persuasive point. if a more universalized view of health care in the U.S. would dampen much of the technological innovation the present system provides, then we should definitely pause before rushing to change the system - since promoting innovation may lead to greater overall benefits than expanding care to cover more people while slackening innovation. Jonathon Cohn, for one, thinks Cali may have a point - but only to the extent that increasing coverage through socialization could lessen innovation. while some systems - possibly even Great Britain's, as Cali argued - may dampen innovation, it is also possible to achieve universal coverage and possibly increase innovation - if the system is ordered skillfully. maybe this is expecting too much, but since its certainly possible, it is worth considering.

in analyzing this possibility, it is important to recognize the ways in which past and current innovation under today's U.S. system has been aided by government efforts, as opposed to pure market-based profit incentives. as Jonathon Cohn reported in the New Republic:

"The great breakthroughs in the history of medicine, from the development of the polio vaccine to the identification of cancer-killing agents, did not take place because a for-profit company saw an opportunity and invested heavily in research. They happened because of scientists toiling in academic settings. "The nice thing about people like me in universities is that the great majority are not motivated by profit," says Cynthia Kenyon, a renowned cancer researcher at the University of California at San Francisco. "If we were, we wouldn't be here." And, while the United States may be the world leader in this sort of research, that's probably not--as critics of universal coverage frequently claim--because of our private insurance system. If anything, it's because of the federal government."

as Cohn goes on to note, the largest source of medical research funding in the entire world is the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) - which spent $28 Billion on medical research last year, accounting for one-third of total R & D spending in the U.S. Cohn theorizes that the NIH - which has no parallels in other nations - is the reason why the U.S. leads the world in medical technological breakthroughs. with or without universal health care, the NIH can be a powerful innovative resource.

furthermore, the profit motive is not always the best means to translate technological innovations into practical treatments. this may be because the goal of profit-making enterprises is to make profits - which may or may not coincide with improving overall societal well-being and health. as Cohn notes, within the context of prescription drug development:

"The Nexium story highlights yet another problem with the private sector's approach to innovation. Because the financial incentives reward new treatments--the kind that can win patents--drug- and device-makers generally show little interest in treatments that involve existing products. Yet sometimes finding a new way to use an old remedy is the best way to innovate. As Goozner notes in his book, even as Prilosec and its competitors (like Tagamet) were flying off the drugstore shelves, academic scientists were arguing that it made more sense to treat some patients with a regimen of older drugs--antibiotics?--that could cure ulcers rather than combat their effects. But no drug company was going to make a fortune repackaging old antibiotics. So the industry, having already invested heavily in products like Nexium, basically ignored this possibility."

in the end, according to Cohn, the key is to reduce spending from current levels through greater socialization of care - but not to reduce it to levels seen in nations such as Great Britain. in Cohn's words:

"[W]e would probably still spend more than what even the higher-spending countries in Europe pay. And that should be enough, given that the citizens of those countries are not exactly missing out on cutting-edge medical treatments. France and Switzerland--traditionally the two highest spenders--get the newest cancer drugs to their patients with virtually the same speed as the United States does. And, when it comes to cancer radiation equipment, France actually has more per person than we do."

what overall solution do these alternative views suggest? the ideal system would take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the various current models. while it seems like there are clear disadvantages to the strictly socialized nature of the Canadian and British systems, we have likewise seen that the U.S. system is not without its own flaws. thus, to improve overall societal well-being and health in the U.S., we should implement a system offering universal coverage - but stopping short of full socialization. such an approach would offer government-funded insurance to all who desire it - while at the same time allowing those who prefer their current, private insurance to keep such coverage. under this new model, the U.S. would no longer have to bear the societal costs of 45 million uninsured people - and at the same time, would avoid the long waits of the rigid British and Canadian systems, for those who wish to pay a premium for speedier, more comprehensive care.

Assumption 4

"All lives are not created equal"

Alternative View: all life is equally precious. regardless of an individual's choices and circumstances, we should treat them with compassion and kindness. while it is also certainly true that there will always be suffering and death in the world - and it is beyond America's means to provide health care for the entire world - this in no way means we should blindly accept the status quo. the true extent of human potential has not yet been realized - held back by systemic social, political and economic shortcomings. our goal should always be to provide the greatest level of care possible to the greatest number possible. many nations in Africa, South America and elsewhere have been restrained from progress by corrupt governments and unequal distribution of resources - and are thus unable to provide the same level of societal health care as industrialized nations. but this is not something we should fatalistically accept - it is a condition we should work to change.

by accepting the compassionate view, perhaps we will also recognize that an ipod is only the rough equivalent of 2 months in private health insurance - and that most people don't buy 6 ipods every year. perhaps by lessening our resentment and hostility towards those that make what we deem to be "poor choices" - and extending greater awareness and understanding, we can move beyond a "whats mine is mine" approach to a "whats mine is ours" approach, thereby reducing the level of suffering that is indeed "how life works".

Social Security and Medicare

2008-03-27T18:21:00.008-04:00

As I am sure most of us have heard, social security and medicare are in grave trouble. Almost $53T (that's trillion with a "T") has been promised to currently living Americans in the form of Social Security and Medicare benefits. Medicare will be insolvent in just 11 years (2019) if nothing changes. Social Security a decade or two later.

According to the latest Social Security and Medicare Trustees report, only an immediate 122 percent increase in Medicare taxes and a 26 percent increase in Social Security taxes can prevent (or more accurately, delay) its impact. Those are hefty increases to bear for a citizenry that is already having trouble paying for gas and milk.

Realizing that Americans have become pretty much numb to these kinds of ridiculous sounding numbers and proposals, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said "Without change, rising costs will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues, and threaten America's future prosperity."

Translation: Every single tax dollar that is sent to Washington will be used to pay for just these two programs in the near future. That means no money for schools. Or roads. Or police. Or jails.

The main problem with medicare (and the medical industry in general) is how expensive new life-saving treatments and related technology really are. Complicated surgeries can cost hundreds of thousands each due to the skill set and sophisticated tools that are required. Currently only the rich or those with excellent insurance can afford such life-saving procedures and there is vigorous debate about why only the rich should be able to have their lives extended.

But what is the alternative? People are not going to invest millions of dollars to attempt to develop some new technology or medicine only to give it away to those who need it but can't afford it. And, consistent with the recent blog post on healthcare, there will be zero incentive to invest millions to develop new procedures if the government takes over healthcare - one need only look at Great Britain or Canada to see that medical breakthroughs in those countries have all but halted since the their governments took over healthcare.

Let's face it...it is rare that someone is totally healthy and just drops over dead. Most of us will develop some type of cancer or have heart or brain issues. Treatment can cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even the easiest and cheapest to treat such as breast cancer can cost many tens of thousands between doctor's visits, x-rays and MRIs, chemo, etc. In fact, I was told while blogging by folks from both sides of the aisle that the average person spends 50% of their total lifetime healthcare costs in the last 6 months of their life.

Sure, we might be able to trim some of the costs out if we force insurance companies to become not-for-profits, but their profit-margins really are not much higher than most US industries so there probably isn't much meat there. And if the government takes over, then it will be even worse because you need to throw in an extra 10 or 20% for government bureaucracy.

And further, these new technologies do become affordable for the poor after a few decades when patents expire, competition increases and costs begin to decrease. In the 70s and 80s, only the richest could afford drugs that delay the progression of HIV. Today, the average American with HIV can afford it. In a few decades, the average African will be able to.

This is how life works. All lives are not created equal. Even the folks that say the best medical treatment should be available to all Americans, not just the rich, would never say the same applies to Africans or South Americans because they realize there is no way in hell developed nations (let alone the US) could pay for high quality healthcare for the developing world. So these folks are saying that the lives of Africans or South Americans are worth less than theirs, which makes their argument that their life is worth as much as a rich person's invalid. If all human life is equally valuable, it shouldn't matter whether you are born within the modern-day boundaries of the United States or not.

To me, it is just another example of how many in this country don't want to (or can't) work hard enough to make enough money or get a job with good health insurance to pay for their medical care, but they want (and expect and demand) the same medical care as those that do.

The problem with Social Security is just a numbers game. When it was started, there were 8 people paying in for every one collecting. So if benefits are $16k/year, each person had to pay $2k to support a retired person. Which is not unmanageable. But when the boomers have all retired, we will be one to one meaning for every person paying in, there is a person collected. So the people paying in now have to, in addition to paying for food and their children's education and saving their own retirement, pay $16k for someone they don't even know.

This problem is made worse when you consider half of this country pays essentially no taxes...50% of citizens pay 97% of the taxes. So you have to double the $16k to $32k. So you mean to tell me that I have to pay $32k/year for someone I don't even know that likely put themself in this situation by either (1) not making enough because they didn't acquire the education and skills necessary to support themselves throughout the entirety of their life or (2) not saving for their retirement throughout their entire life because they took vacations and bought iPods and computers and flat-screens?

Since healthcare is back in the news...

2008-03-26T14:02:00.007-04:00

Health expenditures in nationalized systems are kept lower chiefly by price controls and the frank rationing of services. In Canada waiting lines for many medical procedures are legendary. In 2004, lawyers in Quebec filed a class action suit on behalf of 10,000 breast cancer patients who contend they had to wait too long for radio therapy. The story is the much the same for Britain's National Health Service where more than 800,000 patients are waiting for NHS operations.

US life expectancy does lag Britain's (77.7 versus 78.4 years), but Britons are four times more likely to die than Americans while undergoing major surgery. Furthermore, the most seriously ill NHS patients were seven times more likely to die than their American counterparts. Further still, US life expectancy is skewed because of the number of inner-city males that die in their teens and 20s due to gang violence. US life expectancy is skewed because often babies that would be still born in other countries live for a day or two here (long enough to be counted as a birth) and then don't make it. A few hundred thousand males dying in their teens and 20s or a few thousand babies "dying" only 2 days into their life is enough to skew life expectancy considerably. There are many other examples of this...for example, we have the most obese people in the world, the highest number of drug overdoses, etc.

A 2001 poll of Britons found that 40 percent would consider opting for private health care. In a 2004 poll, 51 percent of Canadians said that they would support the creation of a private health care system parallel to the government health care system. The first crack in the Canadian provincial monopolies that banned almost all private healthcare opened last week when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that private health care was a constitutional right of Canadian citizens. And in Britain the NHS is increasingly contracting out to private providers for surgeries, MRI scans, and radiology treatments in orderto cut its monumental waiting lists.

Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff sees health care expenditures rising to perhaps 30 percent of a country's GDP over thenext 50 years. If the US adopts a nationalized health care system, taxes will have to double for pay for it. Rogoff also observes, "[I]fall countries squeezed profits in the health sector the way Europe and Canada do, there would be much less global innovation in medical technology.

Today, the whole world benefits freely from advances in health technology that are driven largely by the allure of the profitable U.S. market. If the United States joins other nations in having more socialized medicine, the current pace of technology improvements might well grind to a halt."What if the United States had nationalized its health care system in1960? That would be the moral equivalent of freezing (or at least drastically slowing) medical innovation at 1960 levels.

The private sector and governments would not now be spending so much more money on health care. There might well have been no organ transplants, no MRIs, no laparoscopic surgery, no cholesterol lowering drugs, hepatitis Cvaccine, no in vitro fertilization, no HIV treatments and so forth. Even Canadians and Britons would not be satisfied with receiving the same quality of medical care that they got 45 years ago.

Everybody pays more to obtain improved pharmaceuticals, imaging technologies, cancer therapies, and surgical techniques. The happy result is that average life expectancy has increased by about eight years since 1960.

The nationalized health care systems extolled by progressives have been living off the innovations developed by the "only country without a universal health care system."

(much of the above from http://www.reason.com/news/show/34979.html)

A Note on Argumentation

2008-03-26T08:46:00.008-04:00

given Cali's recent stance against the use of empirical evidence in our debates, I thought an overview of my perspective might be instructive and helpful, going forward. specifically, Cali stated:

"[S]urely we shouldn't have to launch a full-blown university study everytime we want to debate an issue..."

and

"This is exactly why I didn't want to get bogged down in data. YOU CAN FIND AND MANIPULATE A STORY OR A STUDY TO SUPPORT ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN."

as a byproduct of my training and background, I tend to view argumentation and debate as analagous to presenting/arguing a case in a court of law. as such, in a court of law, a line of argument proferred by defendant's counsel to the effect of "my client is not guilty because I've seen guilty clients before, and this is not one of them. I know this guy, and he just couldn't have committed the crime he's charged with." would obviously not succeed - defendant's counsel would have to present additional testimony, whether it be eyewitness, expert, character, etc. to bolster his conclusion. in our context here, providing sources, data, etc. to back up our claims based on first hand experience is the rough equivalent of witness testimony in a court of law.

getting back to the court of law, when countering the argument (i.e. theory of the case) of the opposing counsel (I'll call him Darrow) a competent lawyer will respond by considering several approaches. one approach is to argue that Darrow's argument is wrong on its own merits - directly contradicting Darrow's theory with an alternative view and offering evidence in support of this view. another approach is to attack the credibility of the evidence/witnesses presented by Darrow. for example, if Darrow is relying on the testimony of the town drunk, Barney Gumbel, who is also known to be a compulsive liar, any competent lawyer will offer these facts as reasons to disregard Gumbel's testimony in support of Darrow's broader theory of the case. unless Darrow can offer a more credible witness than Gumbel, his argument will be substantially weaker and unlikely to persuade the trier of fact (judge or jury).

back to the context of this blog, I view the sources/data/evidence we provide in support of our core arguments akin to witnesses in a court of law. thus, they are an essential part of the argument itself and will be subject to questioning and vetting. likewise, I will try to provide sources and authority in support of any arguments I advance. since such an approach is pretty much how I do things, I will keep at it. don't provide sources, and I will take note of it; provide questionable authority, and I will question it. ultimately, it is up to the (hypothetical at this stage) readers of the blog to act as "trier of fact", deciding for themselves which presentation of the issue has more merit. thus, to address Cali's second quote above, regarding manipulation of data, I'd say its all part of the process of debate. when opposing witnesses in a court of law directly contradict one another on an issue, the trier of fact determines which to believe - as the aforementioned readers here determine which view of the data and agrument they prefer.

of course, I readily acknowledge that not every topic we discuss here will fit into this framework - some arguments have been and will be of a more abstract/theoretical nature, and will be less ably supported by hard, objective data. however, this is not the case when discussing consumer confidence and spending habits, where there is plenty of available economic data one can point to in support of their broader claims.

to be perfectly honest, Cali may well be right that measures of consumer confidence are of limited utility. since consumer confidence also strikes me as kind of a mushy consept in itself, I won't quibble with this part of Cali's conclusion. on the other hand, I do take issue with over-reliance on subjective impressions "that there haven't really been any changes" in spending habits. such a view ignores the substantial limitations of relying solely on one person's observations of conditions - primarily, the limitation of projecting one's own socioeconomic cohorts across the entire universe of economic classes in America. while I'd really like to chase the concepts of perceptual limitations and the nature of reality (as implicated by manipulation of data points), these are topics for another day. in closing, I'll quote Cali once more, as an example of the type of argument that I will always challenge:

"I have heard many a story that the best investors and the best analysts of consumer sentiment often just walk around malls and outlets to gauge whether a particular store or chain is a good investment or whether consumers are generally "feeling good" or not."

who are these authorities appealed to? while I certainly agree it is important and useful to look closely at one's own surroundings, such an approach is by its very nature a limited view of a wider reality.

Cali:

Let me explain how I've come to have that opinion...

Yesterday, for example, the American Dreamer and myself argued for 30 minutes about whether Peter D. Feaver or Daniel Ellsberg is more credible. We threw fact after fact at eachother and got absolutely nowhere. They are both two of the most credentialed political scientists in the world. If debating facts is endless, just like debating the issue is endless because there are endless quality facts, I prefer to debate the issue.

Like healthcare, for example. Every "fact" I cite, you find an equally compelling "counterfact." Short of doing our own full-blown study, who's to say your fact is wrong or mine is right or visa-versa?

Dude:

Cali states:

"Every "fact" I cite, you find an equally compelling "counterfact." Short of doing our own full-blown study, who's to say your fact is wrong or mine is right or visa-versa?"

this take is exactly spot-on - no matter how much we debate, whether it be regarding facts, issues or unicorns, we will likely never reach a determination of Universal Truth. all humans are fallible, so either one or both of us will be all or part right and/or wrong. but that doesn't mean that nothing is learned from the process of considering viewpoints that counter our pre-conceptions. while a third party may decide on their own that one argument is more meritorious than another - or that one set of "facts" is more persuasive - this will still just be some cat's opinion and won't "decide" the issue.

further, while I can understand the frustration in debating Feaver vs. Ellsberg for hours on end, surely there must be some middle way between such an argument, on the one hand - and, on the other hand, simply drawing conclusions out of the raw ether of our pre-conceived, subjective notions, without further outside support. issues are inseperable from the set of facts and data that define them - it is impossible to artificially divide one from the other and ignore one line of thought merely because it is inconvenient. when we realize that everything - issues, facts, data, sources, authority, etc - is a vast interconnected web, we are better able to approach a discussion that reaches toward Reality.

Cali:

All in all, it is hard to fault your argument. If I tried to push a tax-savings strategy without providing any analysis of the tax code or relevant legal cases and instead said "I just feel right about it" I would be laughed out of the room.

I just brought it up because it often seems like when we do research and post cites, we spend much of our time debating what government role(s) a cited person has had, who else was on the same boards as the cited person and how the cited person might be biased, etc. rather than debating the validity of whatever fact or opinion the person was cited for.

To be sure, I am guilty of this too. I just think it is something to be cognizant of.

Consumer Confidence - Part II

2008-03-25T18:49:00.004-04:00

Part I got all messed up somehow so I am continuing here.

Cali:

To be honest, I don't even know what proof exactly I need to provide or if it is even available without a university study. And I am certain that after whatever proof I can drum up is posted, it is my proof that will be debated, not the crux of my argument. But nonetheless, here we go:

The Dow is up nearly 1000 points over the last twoish weeks. From what I've been taught, consumer confidence and the stock market generally are positively corelated. I find it interesting that the market has increased 5-8% over the past two weeks as consumer confidence has been plunging to record lows. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837290?q=.DJIA

Home sales posted their largest increase during February in a year. Why are people out there buying so many homes while their confidence is the lowest it has been in almost four decades? http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2008-03-24-home-sales-february_N.htm

Holiday sales which were predicted to be dismal grew at 2.5%, which is lower than the ten year average of 3.5-4.5%, but far from the huge decline you would expect consumer sentiment was nearly at all-time lows. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/26/ST2007122600797.html

Unemployment is basically at the level today that it was 10 years ago. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

Is this the kind of proof you have in mind? Truthfully, I feel my argument is no better supported now than it was before. I have heard many a story that the best investors and the best analysts of consumer sentiment often just walk around malls and outlets to gauge whether a particular store or chain is a good investment or whether consumers are generally "feeling good" or not. Of course they do research as well, but their budgets are generally much larger than this blog's. I think paying attention to your surroundings and subtle changes in them can be a powerful tool.

SUV sales: I guess it all depends on your time horizon. The American Dreamer's article finds sales declined during February when compared to last year. But even his article states that last Feb was HUGE. Here is another article about how sales in 2007 increased a good deal over 2006. It's a bit outdated maybe, but that's why I posted some stuff looking at a two week time horizon and others looking at a longer horizon.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/20/MNG2NPU9FD1.DTL

This is exactly why I didn't want to get bogged down in data. YOU CAN FIND AND MANIPULATE A STORY OR A STUDY TO SUPPORT ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN.

Consumer Confidence - Is it a meaningful inidicator?

2008-03-25T14:48:00.011-04:00

Consumer confidence at 5-year low as expectations sink

Consumer's expectations about the economy plunged in March to levels not seen since 1973, when Watergate and the Arab oil embargo shook the nation's outlook for the future.

The Conference Board, a private business and research organization, said its expectations index — survey respondents' expectations of business conditions for the next six months — plunged to 47.9 in March, from 58.0 February. The March reading was the lowest since January 1974.
"It's low and has fallen very sharply," says Ken Goldstein, chief economist for the Conference Board.

The survey by the New York-based Conference Board is based on a sample of 5,000 U.S. households.

The overall consumer confidence index fell to 64.5 in March from 76.4 in February. The new reading is a five-year low.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-03-25-consumer-confidence_N.htm

-----------------------------------------------

The above article is taken from USAToday (link posted above).

I have one question for anyone who wants to attempt an answer…how do these economists explain the lines we see at every restaurant on Friday and Saturday nights? Sold out sports arenas? Strong SUV sales? Record salaries for athletes (paid for by ticket and apparel sales, etc.)? Record DVD sales? Record sales of flat screen TVs?

I happen to think people spend their money on these things and want to use taxpayer money for their healthcare, retirement, etc.

Dude:

you have a ways to go if you honestly intend to prove this point. for example, can you provide any objective data or empirical evidence to support "lines at every restaurant on Friday and Saturday nights" (emphasis added)? or record DVD and flat screen sales? granted, I'm pretty sure that flat screen sales today are head and shoulders above 1973, when the Arab oil embargo took place - but I don't think it has anything to do with the idea that taxpayers should fund healthcare.

from there, it would help if you could provide further evidence that the people eating out at restaurants, attending sporting events, etc. are doing so instead of paying for healthcare. until then, I happen to think that, given rising ticket costs to sporting events, those who are filling sports arenas are also paying for their own healthcare (or have employers who do so as part of a generous benefits package). can you offer anything beyond mere speculation that demonstrates sizable numbers of Americans are choosing to spend money on these things - while these same Americans choose not to spend anything on healthcare, retirement, etc.?

and finally, more to the point of the post, what does taxpayer-funded healthcare have to do with the validity of consumer confidence as an indicator?

Cali:

I thought it was an interesting concept. I find it hard to believe that consumer confidence has "plunged to levels not seen since 1973" while seemingly not impacting folk's lives too much. If consumer confidence is so SO low, wouldn't you think it would impact people's spending patterns? I haven't noticed any changes, have you? Granted this is not scientific evidence but surely we shouldn't have to launch a full-blown university study everytime we want to debate an issue.

And while I offer no proof that people are attending sporting events and eating out to the detriment of their own budget, I find it far more likely a conclusion that that which you offer...the people filling arenas and restaurants are in sound financial condition and all purchase (or have through their employer) health insurance. I was at the Golden State Warriors/Seattle Supersonics game the other day, and the attendees seemed to be a microcosm of society at large - there were young and old, business suits and baggy pants, top hats and sideways baseball hats.

Dude:

Cali states:

"I find it hard to believe that consumer confidence has "plunged to levels not seen since 1973" while seemingly not impacting folk's lives too much"

this gets to the crux of our disagreement. Cali claims that shrinking consumer confidence has seemingly not impacted folks' lives too much, but can offer nothing beyond anecdotal evidence to prove the point. and I'm not asking for a University-level research project here, just some data - any whatsoever - demonstrating people's spending habits have not changed, despite the overall lack of consumer confidence. likewise, anecdotes depicting the sartorial splendor of Golden State Warriors crowds say little about how many among the crowd can afford to pay for their own health insurance. surely baggy pants or a sideways hat may just as easily be worn by the bourgeousie as the proletariat, no? for another example, take a gander at Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, seated at courtside. while he may be a certifiable billionaire, notice the visible lack of suit, top hat and monacle.

thus, while it may be true that you and I cannot point to anecdotal evidence of "noticeable changes", it may just be that this is simply because we don't know many people from the socioeconomic class most likely to change its spending habits as a result of a downturn in consumer confidence.

American Dreamer:

Evidence that consumer confidence has shrunk in:

The Automarket

Cali states: Strong SUV sales?

Fact:

http://www.philly.com/philly/classifieds/cars/20080304_U_S__sales_of_big_vehicles_shrink.html

Housing Industry

“Sales of existing homes rose in February for the first time since July as prices posted a record drop from their year-ago level, but economists said it was unlikely the market had reached a bottom. While the rise broke a six-month streak of declining sales, prices continued to slip. The trade group said median prices fell 8.2 percent from their year-ago level to $195,900. It was the biggest year-on-year drop on record dating to 1968.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/BLDFIX/idUSN2432277620080324

Retail Sales

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/news/economy/feb_retailsales/?section=money_news_economy

Cali states: Record DVD sales?
Fact:

"DVD & Magazine sales decreased by 27% to 10.9 million euro due to an
industry wide decrease in DVD sales."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/03-18-2008/0004776049&EDATE=TUE+Mar+18+2008,+09:17+AM

Technical Support Agreements=Economic domination and/or infilitration

2008-03-25T14:37:00.003-04:00

Today we have more information relating to the long-term objectives of the Bush Administration in the Republic of Iraq.

The Declaration of Principles (signed on August 26, 2007) states that the United States and the Iraqi government envision a “relationship of cooperation” that will provide “security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters or airspace.”

Those words — "security assurances" — have led Democrats to charge that the Bush administration is making a long-term military commitment to Iraq. They say such a commitment would turn the planned agreement into a treaty that would have to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

But the senior administration official, who briefed two Politico reporters on the condition that he not be identified by name, said that the “security assurances” phrase “was something we struggled with. It really was.” He said the original Arabic phrase was “translated in kind of an interesting way,” and that a better translation might have been, “We’ll consult.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/14/iraq-arabic/

Of importance to this debate is paragraph 2 which states:

Second: The Economic Sphere

1. Supporting Iraq's development in various economic fields, including its productive capabilities, and aiding its transition to a market economy.

2. Encouraging all parties to abide by their commitments as stipulated in the International Compact with Iraq.

3. Supporting the building of Iraq's economic institutions and infrastructure with the provision of financial and technical assistance to train and develop competencies and capacities of vital Iraqi institutions.

4. Supporting Iraq's further integration into regional and international financial and economic organizations.

5. Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html

The highlighted portions identify what we have come to know and recognize as US geo-strategic interests in Iraqi’s oil production, as outlined in the The Strategic Energy Policy Challenges issued by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/energycfr.pdf

We can begin to understand this as part of a larger strategy seemingly in place prior to September 2001, given the secret nature of the Cheney Energy Task Force meeting of May 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force

Given the fact The Washington Post reported on November 15, 2005 that it had obtained documents detailing how executives from major oil corporations, including Exxon-Mobil Corp., Conoco, Royal Dutch Shell Oil Corp., and the American subsidiary of British Petroleum met with Energy Task Force participants while they were developing national energy policy. Vice President Cheney was reported to have met personally with the Chief Executive Officer of BP (formerly British Petroleum) during the time of the Energy Task Force's activities. In the week prior to this article revealing oil executive involvement, the Chief Executives of Exxon-Mobil and ConocoPhillips told members of the US Senate that they had not participated as part of the Energy Task Force, while the CEO of British Petroleum stated that he did not know. Regardless of whether the executives were under oath, if these statements were knowingly false they may have been illegal, as per the The Fraud and False Statements statute (18 U.S.C. 1001) ^[2]. In response to questions regarding the article, Cheney spokesperson Lea Ann McBride was quoted as saying that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality." ^[3]

We now have conclusive evidence that the goal of the Bush Administration (as stated in the Declaration of Principles Agreement highlighted sections and by the recent announcement in today’s world news)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/24/BU5PVPNP8.DTL and http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Saudi%20Arabia/223142

was to gain US influence in Iraqi Oil production, not endure a humanitarian mission. For as the age old saying goes "To the Victors goes the spoils of War".

These are the undeniable, unbiased facts of what necessitated the War in Iraq.

List of US contractors in Iraq

2008-03-20T19:02:00.013-04:00

I was told the US went to war in Iraq to aid the Iraqi humanitarian mission and thwart Saddam Hussein's development and proliferation of WMD.

In my opinion this was not the case in 1991 nor was it the case in 2003.

Ironically shortly before the millennium the international community had increasingly placed pressure on the Clinton administration to end the sanctions, a movement I was semi-actively involved while studying political science at the University of Michigan.

Some researchers say that over a million Iraqis, disproportionately children, died as a result of the sanctions, ^[6] although other estimates have ranged as low as 170,000 children. ^[4] ^[7] ^[8][9]But it wasn’t merely numbers that spoke to me, it was the personal stories of people like Deana Talal Rabiah and Will Lafi Youmans, who described the desperate state in which Iraqi citizens lived as a result of the sanctions imposed upon them by the US led Coalition operating in the then “no-fly zones”

Moreover it was meeting Denis Halliday who was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level that changed my mind because by the time I met him he'd resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticize the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"^[12] UNICEF announced that 500,000 child deaths have occurred as a result of the sanctions.

So wait a minute you mean we created a humanitarian crisis in Iraq and then went in to fix it for humanitarian reasons? Or is there more at work here?

I was told to provide a list of US companies working and obviously profiting from the war in Iraq to support my claim that we are not simply seeking oil contracts, but military and construction contracts as part of our geo- strategic interest in gaining a foothold in the Middle East to counter the "Persian threat", to gain regional influence to counter and/or end dependency on Saudi Arabia, and lastly to establish a permanent presence in a geo-political strategy reminiscent of the Great Game (in order to thwart terrorist activity, protect Israel and expand our sphere of influence by engaging in democratic nation building); for which I have no problem as an student of political science and an vocal advocate of maintaining US military-economic hegemonic stability.

However, the lies and deceit READ THE FULL REPORT HERE. must end. The right argues well we know we didn’t have correct intelligence, thus how do we solve the problem, well we have to look at the problem from its source, which happens to be the intentional misrepresentation of facts!

The end result is a course of action, which involves a long term military commitment (which is estimated to cost $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist) and Linda Bilmes (Harvard budget expert).

Which unless we raise taxes or cut discretionary funding or gain so economic advantage in the region (via trade agreements, further weapon contracts) will drive our country and economy into ruin! Inevitably ALL AMERICANS REGARDLESS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

In contrast to War supporters on the right, I honestly believe some were and/or are willing to risk 4k more lives and spend hundreds of years to achieve something we never achieved both in the aftermath of WWI, WWII or the Cold War: REGIONAL DOMINANCE OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

The new Pentagon Report (see “READ THE FULL REPORT HERE”) link and Senate Intelligence Report (http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf) are reminiscent of the 1973 Pentagon Papers, identifying the US could not practically win the War in Vietnam. With esteemed PATRIOTS and fellow alumnus of my alma mater Cranbrook Kingwood such as Daniel Ellsburg pointing out yet again how the government might be duping us, how can any rational minded individual not compare the actions and arrogance of this administration to that of Nixon during Watergate?

We need only review the “Masters of War” post to understand the appropriate nature of comparing the Nixon Administration’s handling of Vietnam to the Bush’s Administrations handling of this war.

Nixon's Oval Office tape from June 14 shows H. R. Haldeman describing the situation to Nixon show the depth of deceit not only of this administration but those to control the future as well.

To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing: you can't trust the government; you can't believe what they say; and you can't rely on their judgment. And the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the President wants to do even though it's wrong, and the President can be wrong.”

After Ellsburg released the Pentagon Papers the Nixon Administration did everything it could do to disclaim him (sound anything like the Valerie Plame-Joseph Wilson CIA leak)?

Does Gulf of Tonkin sound like the intelligence reporting used to justify this military campaign?….I’m sorry to those on the right for that accusation I forgot…this is a humanitarian effort backed up by countless UN binding UN Resolutions!

If you review my Obama bin B%&*%!$: Silencing Anti-War Rhetoric, you’ll see what else UNSC Resolution 687 has to say on this subject.

My point is if we are going to go to WAR for geo-strategic reasons just say F----U We’re America! Don’t sugar coat it…Do it like a Man!

And to all those who claim conspiracy well with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush’s links to the Nixon administration and the history of both, I must admit we have the Usual Suspects.

And like that they’re gone………………

FYI: Daniel Ellsburg Bio

Daniel Ellsberg was born in Detroit in 1931. After graduating from Harvard in 1952 with a B.A. Summa cum Laude in Economics, he studied for a year at King's College, Cambridge University, on a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship.

Between 1954 and 1957, Ellsberg spent three years in the U.S. Marine Corps, serving as rifle platoon leader, operations officer, and rifle company commander.

From 1957-59 he was a Junior Fellow in the Society of Fellows, Harvard University. He earned his Ph.D. in Economics at Harvard in 1962 with his thesis, Risk, Ambiguity and Decision.

In 1959, he became a strategic analyst at the RAND Corporation, and consultant to the Department of Defense and the White House, specializing in problems of the command and control of nuclear weapons, nuclear war plans, and crisis decision-making.

He joined the Defense Department in 1964 as Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) John McNaughton, working on Vietnam. He transferred to the State Department in 1965 to serve two years at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, evaluating pacification on the front lines.

On return to the RAND Corporation in 1967, he worked on the Top Secret McNamara study of U.S. Decision-making in Vietnam, 1945-68, which later came to be known as the Pentagon Papers.

Hardly the background of a "conspiracy theorist" or "irrational" man.

Here list of companies profiting from the War in Iraq.

Post-war Contractors Ranked by Total Government Earnings

All federal contracts from 1990 through fiscal year 2002

Contractor	Contract Total
General Electric Company	$43,736,487,000
Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman)	$42,414,198,000
Science Applications International Corp.	$16,194,431,000
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.)	$15,809,649,000
Bechtel Group Inc.	$11,742,537,000
Unisys Corporation	$10,772,003,000
Fluor Corp.	$8,544,917,000
United Defense Industries, L.P.	$7,299,691,000
Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton)	$5,686,006,000
Dell Marketing L.P.	$2,714,952,000
Raytheon Aerospace LLC	$2,697,859,000
Readiness Management Support LC (Johnson Controls Inc.)	$2,537,897,000
Washington Group International	$1,959,847,000
Tetra Tech Inc.	$1,402,050,000
Parsons Corp.	$1,374,780,000
Research Triangle Institute	$1,256,300,000
Anteon International Corporation	$1,177,017,000
Abt Associates Inc.	$907,535,000
American President Lines Ltd.	$789,752,000
BearingPoint Inc.	$539,720,000
Perini Corporation	$516,181,000
Contrack International Inc.	$467,950,000
Chemonics International Inc.	$414,585,000
Force 3	$377,934,000
Development Alternatives Inc.	$362,695,000
Sealift Inc.	$279,141,000
Kroll Inc.	$229,671,000
World Fuel Services Corp.	$186,707,000
Ronco Consulting Corporation	$182,951,000
Dataline Inc.	$167,556,000
Louis Berger Group	$143,216,000
International Resources Group	$130,039,000
TECO Ocean Shipping Co.	$93,726,000
PAE Government Services Inc.	$87,811,000
Creative Associates International Inc.	$87,722,000
Stevedoring Services of America	$86,117,000
Management Systems International	$81,671,000
J & B Truck Repair Service	$65,527,000
EOD Technology Inc.	$56,309,000
Red River Computer Company	$48,871,000
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.	$48,846,000
Military Professional Resources Inc.	$41,714,000
International American Products Inc.	$30,263,000
University of Nebraska at Omaha	$29,403,000
Sodexho Inc.	$23,456,000
Liberty Shipping Group Ltd.	$19,508,000
Intelligent Enterprise Solutions	$18,884,000
Zapata Engineering	$14,514,000
USA Environmental Inc.	$12,152,000
Global Container Lines Ltd.	$11,246,000
Ocean Bulkships Inc.	$11,020,000
Diplomat Freight Services Inc.	$4,155,000
Landstar Express America Inc.	$3,309,000
Native American Industrial Distributors Inc.	$2,635,000
SkyLink Air and Logistic Support (USA) Inc.	$1,076,000
Transfair North America International	$1,038,000
DHS Logistics Company	$666,000
John S. Connor Inc.	$405,000
Nuttall, James S.	$187,000
MZM Inc.	$140,000
EGL Eagle Global Logistics	$137,000
Logenix International L.L.C.	$119,000
Mediterranean Shipping Company	$66,000
Young, Brian	$39,000

This data is derived from the General Services Administration database and covers fiscal years 1990 through 2002.

Campaign Contributions of Post-war Contractors

From 1990 through fiscal year 2002

Contractor	Total Contributions
General Electric Company	$8,843,884
Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman)	$8,517,247
BearingPoint Inc.	$4,949,139
Science Applications International Corp.	$4,704,909
Fluor Corp.	$3,624,173
Bechtel Group Inc.	$3,310,102
Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton)	$2,379,792
American President Lines Ltd.	$2,185,303
Dell Marketing L.P.	$1,774,971
Parsons Corp.	$1,403,508
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.)	$1,218,944
TECO Ocean Shipping Co.	$1,217,587
Washington Group International	$1,185,232
United Defense Industries, L.P.	$1,076,006
Unisys Corporation	$626,239
Readiness Management Support LC (Johnson Controls Inc.)	$464,995
Tetra Tech Inc.	$223,770
Louis Berger Group	$212,456
Liberty Shipping Group Ltd.	$136,560
Perini Corporation	$119,000
Ocean Bulkships Inc.	$95,200
Kroll Inc.	$90,025
Raytheon Aerospace LLC	$89,645
MZM Inc.	$78,751
Sealift Inc.	$77,374
Sodexho Inc.	$25,632
Chemonics International Inc.	$24,350
Landstar Express America Inc.	$21,605
Stevedoring Services of America	$18,675
Abt Associates Inc.	$14,600
Anteon International Corporation	$10,575
Creative Associates International Inc.	$10,300
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.	$9,900
Mediterranean Shipping Company	$9,375
EGL Eagle Global Logistics	$7,660
World Fuel Services Corp.	$7,100
DHS Logistics Company	$5,500
Development Alternatives Inc.	$4,647
International Resources Group	$3,830
PAE Government Services Inc.	$3,000
International American Products Inc.	$2,500
Contrack International Inc.	$2,000
Research Triangle Institute	$1,950
Ronco Consulting Corporation	$1,750
John S. Connor Inc.	$1,750
USA Environmental Inc.	$1,450
Force 3	$1,050
EOD Technology Inc.	$670
University of Nebraska at Omaha	$650
Zapata Engineering	$500
Red River Computer Company	$300
Logenix International L.L.C.	$250

This data is derived from political contributions to the Federal Election Commission from 1990 through mid-year 2003.

Contractor	Value	Value FY02	Agency
Abt Associates Inc. Iraq	$43,818,278		USAID
Advanced Systems Development, Inc. Iraq	$259,958.56		DoD
AECOM Iraq	$21,610,501		DoD
AllWorld Language Consultants Iraq	$4,051,349		DoD
American International Contractors, Inc. Iraq	$1,500,000,000		DoD
American President Lines Ltd. Iraq	$5,000,000		USAID
AOS, Inc. Iraq	$866,988		DoD
Artel Iraq
Atlas Case, Inc. Iraq	$17,243		DoD
Bald Industries Iraq	$35,734		DoD
Bea Mauer, Inc. Iraq	$9,920		DoD
BearingPoint Inc. Iraq	$240,162,668		USAID
Bechtel Group Inc. Iraq	$2,829,833,859		USAID
Blackwater Security Consulting L.L.C. Iraq	$21,331,693		DoD
CACI International Inc. Iraq	$66,221,143.19		Interior
Capital Shredder Corporation Iraq	$11,803		DoD
Cartridge Discounters Iraq	$40,492		DoD
CDW Government, Inc. Iraq	$35,174		DoD
Cellhire USA Iraq	$1,465,983		DoD
CH2M Hill Iraq	$1,528,500,000		DoD
Chugach McKinley, Inc. Iraq	$3,068,407		DoD
Comfort Inn Iraq	$47,324		DoD
Complement, Inc., The Iraq	$3,358		DoD
Contrack International Inc. Iraq	$2,325,000,000		DoD
Creative Associates International Inc. Iraq	$273,539,368		USAID
Dataline Inc. Iraq	$1,028,851.89		DoD
Dell Marketing L.P. Iraq	$513,678.88		DoD
Detection Monitoring Technologies Iraq	$5,584,482		DoD
Development Alternatives Inc. Iraq	$39,523,857		USAID
DHS Logistics Company Iraq	$223,497		DoD
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.) Iraq	$50,000,000		State
Earth Tech, Inc. Iraq	$65,449,155		DoD
EGL Eagle Global Logistics Iraq	$111,000		USAID
EHI Company Iraq	$3,956		DoD
Electric Generator Store, The Iraq	$6,974		DoD
Environmental Chemical Corporation Iraq	$1,475,000,000		DoD
EOD Technology Inc. Iraq	$71,900,000		DoD
Expedited World Cargo Inc. Iraq	$55,004		USAID
Explosive Ordnance Technologies Inc. Iraq	$1,475,000,000		DoD
Export Depot Iraq	$21,182		DoD
Fluor Corp. Iraq	$3,754,964,295		DoD
Force 3 Iraq	$274,651.95		DoD
Foster Wheeler Co. Iraq	$8,416,985		DoD
General Electric Company Iraq	Value Unknown		DoD
Giesecke & Devrient America Iraq	$72,700		DoD
Global Container Lines Ltd. Iraq	$1,850,000		USAID
Global Professional Solutions Iraq	$590,232		DoD
Global Services Iraq	$910,468		DoD
GPS Store, Inc., The Iraq	$19,761		DoD
Hardware Associates Iraq	$4,304		DoD
Harris Corporation Iraq	$165,000,000		DoD
Inglett and Stubbs LLC Iraq	$1,826,974		DoD
Intelligent Enterprise Solutions Iraq	$19,835		DoD
International American Products Inc. Iraq	$628,421,252		DoD
International Global Systems, Inc. Iraq	$157,383.40		DoD
International Resources Group Iraq	$38,000,000		USAID
John S. Connor Inc. Iraq	$34,153		USAID
JSI Inc. Iraq	$3,376		DoD
Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton) Iraq	$10,832,000,000		DoD
Kollsman Inc Iraq
Kroll Inc. Iraq	Value Unknown		USAID
Kropp Holdings Iraq	$11,880,000		DoD
Lab Safety Supply Iraq	$53,379		DoD
Laguna Construction Company, Inc. Iraq	$19,536,683		DoD
LandSea Systems, Inc. Iraq	$47,750		DoD
Landstar Express America Inc. Iraq	$24,396		USAID
Liberty Shipping Group Ltd. Iraq	$7,300,000		USAID
Logenix International L.L.C. Iraq	$29,000		USAID
Louis Berger Group Iraq	$27,671,364		DoD
Lucent Technologies World Services, Inc. Iraq	$75,000,000		DoD
Management Systems International Iraq	$15,116,328		USAID
McNeil Technologies, Inc. Iraq	$716,651		DoD
Mediterranean Shipping Company Iraq	$13,000		USAID
MEI Research Corporation Iraq
Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Iraq	$4,528,328		DoD
Midwest Research Institute Iraq	$1,765,000		DoD
Military Professional Resources Inc. Iraq	$2,608,794.74		DoD
Miscellaneous Foreign Contract Iraq	$3,026,630		DoD
Motorola Inc. Iraq	$15,591,732		DoD
MZM Inc. Iraq	$1,213,632		DoD
NANA Pacific Iraq	$70,000,000		DoD
Native American Industrial Distributors Inc. Iraq	$123,572		DoD
Night Vision Equipment Company Iraq	$153,118		DoD
Ocean Bulkships Inc. Iraq	$5,000,000		USAID
Odebrect-Austin Iraq	$1,500,000,000		DoD
Outfitter Satellite, Inc. Iraq	$33,203		DoD
Parsons Corp. Iraq	$5,286,136,252		DoD
Parsons Energy and Chemicals Group Iraq	$43,361,340		DoD
Perini Corporation Iraq	$2,525,000,000		DoD
Raytheon Technical Services Iraq	$12,412,573		DoD
Readiness Management Support LC (Johnson Controls Inc.) Iraq	$173,965,104		USAID
Red River Computer Company Iraq	$972,592.90		DoD
Research Triangle Institute Iraq	$466,070,508		USAID
Ronco Consulting Corporation Iraq	$12,008,289.60		DoD
S&K Technologies Inc. Iraq	$4,950,384.80		DoD
Science Applications International Corp. Iraq	$159,304,219		DoD
Sealift Inc. Iraq	$4,000,000		USAID
Segovia Inc. Iraq	$320,636		DoD
SETA Corporation Iraq	$3,165,765		DoD
Shaw Group/Shaw E & I Iraq	$3,050,749,910		DoD
Signature Science Iraq	$4,704,464		DoD
Simmonds Precision Products Iraq	$4,412,488		DoD
SkyLink Air and Logistic Support (USA) Inc. Iraq	$27,344,600		USAID
Smith Office Machines Corporation Iraq	$2,961		DoD
SPARCO Iraq	$9,215		DoD
Stanley Baker Hill L.L.C. Iraq	$1,200,000,000		DoD
Stanley Consultants Iraq	$7,709,767		DoD
Staples National Advantage Iraq	$4,194		DoD
Stevedoring Services of America Iraq	$14,318,895		USAID
Structural Engineers Iraq	$1,113,000		DoD
TECO Ocean Shipping Co. Iraq	$7,200,000		USAID
Tetra Tech Inc. Iraq	$1,541,947,671		DoD
Titan Corporation Iraq	$402,000,000		DoD
Total Business Iraq	$4,696		DoD
Transfair North America International Iraq	$19,351		USAID
Triumph Technologies Iraq	$228,924		DoD
Unisys Corporation Iraq	$320,000		DoD
United Defense Industries, L.P. Iraq	$4,500,000		DoD
USA Environmental Inc. Iraq	$1,541,947,671		DoD
Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman) Iraq	$48,074,442		DoD
Ward Transformer Sales & Services Iraq	$115,000		DoD
Washington Group International Iraq	$3,133,078,193		DoD
WECSYS Iraq	$3,040		DoD
Weston Solutions, Inc. Iraq	$16,279,724		DoD
Zapata Engineering Iraq	$1,478,838,958		DoD

Because of inconsistent and, sometimes scarce, information provided by the U.S. government, the amounts in the "contract values" field represent several type of contract payouts. The amount is either what has been paid to date on an existing contract that may extend for several years; or it represents a minimum and maximum value range of the contract; or in some instances it is the only figure provided by the government, and the contract parameters are unclear. All information known about a given contract is included in the individual company profiles. Any information not given about a particular contract could not be ascertained from either the government agency awarding the contract, the company or public sources of information. Contracts for geographical areas that include both Iraq and Afghanistan are listed under Iraq, but individual contracts are explained in the respective company profiles.

IN all fairness to the right, weapons grade material was discovered in Iraq.

"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report. "The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

Well, almost none. The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb. And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions."A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained."

Reporters questioned the lawmakers as to why the Bush administration had not played up the report to boost their case for continued warfare in Iraq.

"The administration has been very clear that they want to look forward," Santorum said. "They felt it was not their role to go back and fight previous discussions."

Interesting perhaps the following evidence presented before the UN Security Council is why.

Here is a list of US corporations that "allegedly" supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991. The list comes, it seems, from the original Iraqi report to the Security Council.

U.S. corporations involved...

A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets (missiles)

1) Honeywell (R,K)

2) Spektra Physics (K)

3) Semetex (R)

4) TI Coating (A,K)

5) UNISYS (A,K)

6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)

7) Tektronix (R,A)

8) Rockwell )(K)

9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)

10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)

11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)

12) Dupont (A)

13) Eastman Kodak (R)

14) American Type Culture Collection (B)

15) Alcolac International (C)

16) Consarc (A)

17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)

18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)

19) Electronic Assiciates (R)

20) International Computer Systems

21) Bechtel (K)

22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)

23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)

24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

Racism...Next Steps

2008-03-20T14:07:00.004-04:00

Cali:

As some on this blog have pointed out, many believe that the source of many of today's problems relative to black folks - and let me make clear that these patterns apply to other races as well - (ie highschool dropout rates, teenage pregnancy, what seems like hate speech in mainstream black churches, gang membership, etc.) can be traced to slavery and the horrible treatment of blacks by whites for much of this nation's history. And no-one can argue that the treatment was not abysmal and I am glad that I didn't have to face god (or a higher being) after a life of being a slave owner.

But do I disagree with this assessment? No. Do I agree? I don't know. I am not a pscyhologist, but I can easily justify in my head how it would be difficult to reconile what you hear from your parents and grandparents and read in your school books with the white race today.

My question for you is are we on the right track? Are things like affirmative action and the apparent messages that often comes out of mainstream black churches helping the cause? Are folks like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton and Lous Farrakhan helping the plight of black folks in this country?

If not, what needs to be done?

Dude:

the fact that Barack Obama is currently the favorite to win the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination - the same party that long ago backed southern slavery in the Civil War - indicates to me that we have indeed come a long way towards racial reconciliation in America. the fact that racial politics may ultimately torpedo his candidacy, in the wake of the Wright affair, indicates that we still have a long way to go.

the badges and incidents of slavery and segregation are still with us today - as evidenced through Wright's poorly-chosen, intemperate and distrustful words and the continuing use of racially divisive strategies by politicians of all stripes for electoral gain. in a previous post, I addressed past GOP uses of these disgusting and divisive practices. in today's Detroit Free Press, Brian Dickerson's article on Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick reminded me that there are other examples of such divisive tactics that I neglected to mention. deeply embattled in a scandal brought on by his own ethical shortcomings, Mayor Kilpatrick has tried to ward off calls for his resignation by resorting to an "us vs. them" mentality and fanning the flames of division - referring to his critics as a "lynch mob". as Dickerson noted, Barack Obama directly repudiated this approach in his speech this week, pointing the way towards moving beyond the status quo of black anger and conservative exploitation:

"That anger is not always productive," Obama noted. "It keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.

"At times," he added, the same anger "had been exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings."

as a further note, contrary to Cali's assertion that cross burnings and acts of racial intimidation are a thing of the past, here is a report from 2005, detailing that there are still an estimated 30-50 cross burning per year throughout the U.S. South. actions such as these - along with the GOP's frequent electoral exploitation of race - only further fuel black anger. it is this cycle that we need to move beyond, in order to consolidate the gains that we have already made. the hope that this may be eminently attainable is the lasting promise of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. my audacious hope is that this promise is not dashed by the racial politics dredged up during the current "Wright" controversy.

The difference between RACISM and PREJUDICE

2008-03-19T14:51:00.004-04:00

I think some Americans have incorrectly intertwined racism with prejudice, which while related are different.

Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being that members of one race consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other races. Racism inherently starts with the assumption that there are taxonomic differences between different groups of people. Without this assumption, prejudices against different peoples would be catagorised as being prejudices related to national or regional origin, religion, occupation, social status or some other distinction.

The word prejudice refers to prejudgment: making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event. The word has commonly been used in certain restricted contexts, particularly in the expression 'racial prejudice'. Initially this referred to making a judgment about a person based on their race, before receiving information relevant to the particular issue on which a judgment was being made; it came, however, to be widely used to refer to any hostile attitude towards people based on their race. Subsequently the word has come to be widely so interpreted in this way in contexts other than those relating to race. The meaning now is frequently "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence".^[1] Race, gender, ethnic, sexual identity, age, and religion have a history of in citing prejudicial behavior.

As we can see racism implies a hierarchical power structure in which one class is subservient or at the will of another. Thus, if a person of a lower strata of society utters a "racist" statement it by definition is more reflective of a prejudice than an actually attempt to subjugate them.

In the case of Rev. Wright, his statements were prejudiced "opinions", with a factual basis. Similarly so were the comments offered by Geraldine Ferraro. There are some who would argue they were racist, I on the other hand find them to be prejudiced opinions, based in part on fact.

As for the commentary of IMUS: He said the Rugers women's basket ball team had tattoos was a bunch of nappy-headed hos.

and Skin heads and KKK there is no factual basis and the only intent is to demonstrate malice.

Just because they have tattoos and play basketball doesn't mean they are nappy head hoes. That's a prejudicial assumption. :)

What A Disappointment…Even For A Republican

2008-03-18T22:25:00.012-04:00

Cali:

Nothing lately has provided me with the same disappointment that I feel when I think of Barak’s church (and pastor) of choice.

I am a Republican and, to be honest, would likely not have voted for Barak, but I nonetheless thought highly of him. I have had many a conversation with folks from both parties in which I spoke highly of his apparent ability to see beyond Republicans and Democrats, blacks and whites, women and men, young and old, etc. I often quoted his speeches where he said things like “we need to turn off the tv and put books in our children’s hands” or “we need to get the dads back in the homes.” I thought that, despite the fact that I disagree with many of Barak’s policy beliefs, I wouldn’t have been that upset if he were elected President simply to see if he could end the partisanship that has defined American politics for a decade. Or end the racism that has defined this country for many decades. I often wished we Republicans had as forward-thinking and passionate and exciting Presidential nominee as Barak.

My…how all that has changed…how phony Barak now seems. I haven’t heard a person as poisonous and racist as Pastor Wright in quite some time. When Barak went on FoxNews on Friday of last week and said he never heard these types of remarks, I thought it highly implausible. Seriously, how can you attend a church for 20 years and call the pastor a good friend of yours and have no idea this is the kind of rhetoric that apparently often comes out of this church? But today (3/18/2008) during a speech, Barak appeared to admit that he did know Wright often made these types of controversial remarks. At least he is finally being honest.

But it really changes nothing. Not long ago, Barak was quoted as saying some to the effect of “If I had a person in my staff who made remarks like what Don Imus said of a women’s college basketball team, they would be immediately removed from my staff and any organization or company employing such a person should feel the same way.” He even went on to say that his daughters looked up to the female collegiate athletes and that a person who makes a statement like Don Imus deserves no second chances. My...how phony Barak now seems. All of the smart money suggests that Barak sat there for 20 years and listened to hundreds of remarks far more poisonous and racist than what Don Imus said, and Barak CHOSE to take his daughters there week after week and even have them baptized by Pastor Wright.

Republican senators have resigned for much less. I feel the only honest thing for Barak to do would be to resign as a United States Senator and give up any hopes of being the President of this great country.

How can we as a country ever expect to move past the race issue when there are folks like Pastor Wright out there…and folks who donate significant money to such people that keeps them in business as Barak claims to have done? What kind of a rolemodel are people like Pastor Wright and the people who attend his church for America’s youth?

Dude:

I must confess that I was out of the country the past week when this story broke, so am still catching up to speed with the ensuing maelstrom. however, after having listened to commentary on Barack Obama's speech on race, having watched several clips of Rev. Wright and his sermons, and having read Cali and the American Dreamer's posts and comments, I will now weigh in.

to begin with, the notion that Obama should resign from the Senate and withdraw from the presidential race because of comments made in the past by the now-retired pastor of his church is absurd. as the American Dreamer has argued, many of Wright's comments do have something of a factual basis. for example, it seems fairly obvious that Obama has in fact had a much more difficult road than Hillary Clinton to achieve the success he already has. truthfully, Obama's life story is the embodiment of the "American Dream" - of the ethic Cali praised in his subsequent post of hard work and turning "grime to gold". the irony of this juxtaposition did not escape notice. (nor should the fact that Rev. Wright is not a candidate for President and has no influence on Obama's political policies)

further, here's a link to Rev. Wright, appearing on Hannity & Colmes. the interesting part to me was not the argument about whether the United Church of Christ's afro-centric focus constituted racism; rather, it was the apparent fact that - in contrast to the "racial hucksters" many have spoken of in the comments section here - Rev. Wright also preaches self-empowerment and personal responsibility. unfortunately, this aspect of his message has apparently been ignored.

while I do think some of the language, phraseology and anger Rev. Wright puts forth is unfortunate - and does little to help solve the persistent racial divide in America - it is also true that his anger resonates from experiences in his own life. as Obama noted in his speech this week (coverage available here), it is not the so-called "racial hucksters" alone who have used race for political purposes. from Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to Ronald Reagan's evocation of "welfare queens" to George H.W. Bush's infamous "Willie Horton" television ad - among many other similar examples - Conservative politicians are equally as guilty of using "divide and conquer" racial tactics to divide the nation and achieve their own political ambitions. perhaps now that Obama has laid out the guilt on all sides bare, bringing the issue to the forefront of public consciousness again, we can actually begin to move forward as a nation, together. as such, Obama's recent actions, far from being a "disappointment", are a heartening sign for the future.

finally, to address Cali's point from the comments section:

I think that's a defeatist argument..."you did something to my ancestors long ago so now I can never be anything."

as Cali alludes to, the institution of slavery is historically removed from the present - along with the ratification of slavery within the U.S. Constitution itself. however, this remove is more apparent than real. while the 13th Amendment legally abolished slavery, it did little to address the "badges and incidents" of slavery. during Rev. Wright's lifetime, the U.S. South was governed under a system of de jure segregation, where African-Americans were second class citizens. subsequently, the civil rights era and Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education eliminated de jure segregation - but have had little power to stop de facto segregation. and so, still today, segregation remains prevalent in America, and equality in school, etc. remains illusory for many. meanwhile, South Carolina still fights for the right to fly the confederate flag over its state capitol (an "historical tradition" that began only in the 1960's, when the civil rights issue emerged)...

thus, one can readily see, this issue is clearly not ancient history - particularly in light of the maelstrom I came home to this week. what the matter most definitively does not prove is that Obama is part of the problem, rather than the best hope for a solution.

CALI:

Do I think Barak believes these things in his heart? No, not really. These comments are in stark contrast to his record and rhetoric, although it is worth pointing out that some of Barak's wife's recent comments seem to parallel what Wright has said. But there is still a small part of me that is left wondering...what does Barak really think of the hate speech spewed by Wright and other black ministers? We know what he thinks about hate speech from white folks (ie Don Imus), but did Obama cringe when he heard Wright say these controversial things or nod his head in agreement?

Do I think he showed extremely poor judgement listening to this garbage for 20 years and donating (by his own account) over $150k to this church? Most definitely. Is it poor enough judgement to disqualify him from being the President of the United States? I will leave that one to the American public.

One of the Dude's quotes that I will take issue with is "for example, it seems fairly obvious that Obama has in fact had a much more difficult road than Hillary Clinton to achieve the success he already has." I would be a rich man if I had a dollar for everytime I heard a white male in corporate American lament about how a less-qualified woman or person of color received a promotion over them. Bonsuses are even often tied to diversity targets (http://www.media-diversity.org/articles_publications/Bonuses%20tied%20to%20diversity%20targets.htm). So tell me, if you are facing a decision where you get a big bonus and a lot of praise for hiring a less-qualifed woman or person of color or get no bonus and no praise for hiring a more qualified white male, what are you going to do? Whatever happened to the best man for the job? It seems as though it is ok to sometimes treat people of different races or sexes differently?

Should we forgive Minister Wright's comments simply because of his upbringing, as the Dude suggests? Should we also, then, forgive KKK members who are raised from birth to hate anyone who is different?

And by Obama's own admission, a lifetime of good work does not excuse one moment of hateful speech - Barak felt that Don Imus should be fired for his "nappy headed ho" remark, despite the children's camp that he ran and other good works in which he was involved.

Like Karl Rove said, if Obama had immediately come out and said "I made a grave judgement of error sitting there and listening to this rhetoric for all of these years. I immediately renounce this church and will never again sit in those pews" he likely would have weathered this storm. That is what he expected of Don Imus...although Barak was not as forgiving as Karl Rove thought the American public would be because Barak did not believe Don Imus should get his NBC job back regardless. Instead, thanks to his confusing response(s) where he condemns Wright's remarks but not the man and calls him a close friend and advisor, Barak's comments are not resonating with the American public and Barak is plummeting in the polls.

Dude:

two quick points:

(1) Cali states:

One of the Dude's quotes that I will take issue with is "for example, it seems fairly obvious that Obama has in fact had a much more difficult road than Hillary Clinton to achieve the success he already has." I would be a rich man if I had a dollar for everytime I heard a white male in corporate American lament about how a less-qualified woman or person of color received a promotion over them

how does this belief have anything to do with my quote? after all - and I know its easy to forget sometimes - but Hillary Clinton is herself a woman, who therefore would have been the beneficiary of these same policies. did Barack Obama benefit from affirmative action? probably at some point in his life he has. but to say that this automatically renders him therefore "less qualified" is not a line of thought I'd like to endorse.

(2) Cali states:

Should we forgive Minister Wright's comments simply because of his upbringing, as the Dude suggests? Should we also, then, forgive KKK members who are raised from birth to hate anyone who is different?

these two questions do not raise the same issues, because there exists a crucial difference between Rev. Wright and the KKK. while I agree with the assessment that KKK members often hate because they are brought up in a culture of hatred, Rev. Wright's circumstances are much different. quite unlike KKK members, Rev. Wright came of age in a culture and society which regarded his race as inferior - as was reflected in the legal institutions of Southern States. given this, I can understand why he would be suspicious of the motives of white Americans - who after all had perpetuated this system of inequality. as the American Dreamer noted in his post, there is a difference between prejudice and racism - the "hate" deemed present in Rev. Wirght's speech is not the functional equivalent of the KKK, so that analogy does not stick.

furthermore, to my knowledge, I don't recall even one accusation that Rev. Wright burned a cross on a white man's front lawn, participated in the lynching of a white man or paraded about in white bed sheets to physically intimidate a white man. there is a difference between words and actions that is sorely missing from this analogy. true enough, some of Rev. Wright's words were repugnant, and I can't condone them - personally, I prefer the maxim of treating your enemies with compassion and tolerance. however, to create a moral equivalence between the KKK and Rev. Wright - the oppressor and the oppressed - does not stand close scrutiny. yes, it is time to move beyond victimization in this country - which I believe Barack Obama himself has, coming from a younger generation that came of age in a more equal (though still imperfect) America. however, we must never forget the history underlying current events - beacuse truly, he who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it.

Cali:

To respond to the Dude's points:

1)Although I admit that I went off topic a bit, was it not you that said Barak has had it harder than Hillary? Other than when I quoted your quote, the word "Hillary" is not even in my most recent post on this topic.

"did Barack Obama benefit from affirmative action? probably at some point in his life he has. but to say that this automatically renders him therefore "less qualified" is not a line of thought I'd like to endorse. " Agreed. we can't fault anyone who succeeds because of affirmative action, but we can certainly ponder the ones that are held back by it. For every single person that affirmative action "helps" it "hurts" another person who has just as much god (or evolution) given right to work hard and succeed in life.

2)Agreed, it is not a great analogy. Nor can any analogy properly explain the story of black folks in America as it is unique.

But although today's KKK members still organize and spew hate, I have not heard of a lynching or cross-burning in quite some time.

A Nation of Whiners

2008-03-18T22:25:00.007-04:00

Cali:

I was watching Glenn Beck today on CNN Headline News and there was a short segment on his show today (3/18/2008) how we (particularly our generation – 20 and 30 somethings) have become a nation of whiners. A nation full of people who feel entitled. A nation of people who make bad or questionable decisions for decades and then decide to get serious and give it a go – and after a year or two or working hard, they look around at their peers who have been working that hard or harder for the last 20 or 30 years at school (grade school, high school, college and often grad school), jobs (often a decade or two of working jobs that provide a valuable and marketable skill set where they don’t use every single sick or personal day every year) and feel cheated when they don’t have the same 401K or future prospects. Amazing.

Can we find exceptions to the above? Meaning people who have worked hard and for whom it hasn’t panned out for one reason or another? Sure, but folks like these are few and far between. The average person who works hard during grade school and highschool and gets As and Bs, who gets into a good college and continues to excel (taking on loans if scholarships or other means of funding are not a viable option), who decides to take it to the next level and attend grad school (again, generally taking on significant debt), who take the job search process seriously and continue this same work ethic in the working world find that success is fairly easy. Folks who drop out of highschool (50% of males in many inner cities), have a child (or two or three) while a teenager, job hop and acquire few marketable skills, etc. find that when they are 30 or 40 many of their highschool peers have achieved much much more. And they feel cheated. Seriously?

To be sure, there are many areas in which the United States has room for improvement to better allow everyone to achieve the “American Dream.” But there is still no country on earth in which social and economic mobility is as real and achievable as the United States. By and large, if you don’t make it, you have no-one to blame but yourself.

If you are a successful person, think about your own situation. Do you feel extremely lucky and feel like someone gave you a chance you didn’t really deserve? Or do you feel like you are where you are today because of the hard work and good choices you have made for decades? I know for me it is the latter. Granted, I had good parents and role models, but many who have the same upbringing never make it. And others who don’t have any help at all and are a product of a dad they never knew and mom they barely knew achieve the American dream. There are literally millions of examples.

70% of the “rich” in this country are self-made, meaning they started out with little to nothing. It could be you. Just work hard and make good choices for decades, not months or years. Frankly I am tired of hearing how healthcare is expensive (and gas…and milk…and education) from people who have nicer clothes than I do and the latest cell phone and iPod. I hear everyday on the USAToday blogs how GWB and evil corporations have forced people into a life of pitifulness. It is really said how we have become a nation or whiners instead of a nation of go-getters who never take no for an answer and make gold from grime.

Dude:

(1) this may be a leap of faith on my part, since Cali never defined what makes a "successful" individual - but I will operate under the assumption that I may be considered, being a law school graduate and sort-of lawyer, as a "successful" individual. as such, Cali posed the question:

Do you feel extremely lucky and feel like someone gave you a chance you didn’t really deserve? Or do you feel like you are where you are today because of the hard work and good choices you have made for decades?

to answer this question, its unequivocably the former - I am extremely lucky and have been the beneficiary of a series of circumstances largely beyond my own control. to begin with, I was brought up by two parents, both of whom are college graduates at least. while we were not rich (particularly within the context of my hometown - which I'll return to shortly), we were comfortable and never had to worry about where the next meal was coming from or affording adequate housing, clothing, etc.

next, I was fortunate enough to attend school in one of the best public school districts around. the schools were all relatively new, they were safe, they were well funded with up-to-date materials and there were plenty of opportunities to take "AP" and "advanced" classes to prepare for a future college education that virtually everyone from our schools would undertake. was it possible to do nothing, achieve and advance? not quite - but I had an enviable head start, an opportunity that left me among the best-situated in America. consequently, I readily acknowledge how fortunate I was to be blessed with these opportunities. if only this were the case for all Americans, I might agree with Cali's conclusions.

now, for a thought experiment, I've tried to imagine how things might have gone differently if instead of growing up in a comfrotable suburb with outstanding public schools, I grew up in inner city Detroit, New Orleans, DC, etc. and attended an inner city public school. first of all, maybe I only have one parent at home. or maybe I live with both parents, but they both work so many hours that they can't really support my schooling to the extent my actual parents could. and, even assuming they were around to support me, chances are they wouldn't be college-educated themselves, so chances are they also wouldn't stress college and beyond as a goal for me - or maybe not even a possibility. as for the public schools themselves, in most major inner city districts, I would have been placed in larger classes, using antiquated materials, with less likelihood of even having the option of taking AP classes (Stand and Deliver is the exception, not the rule). furthermore, chances are good I'd be sitting in crumbling classrooms (some possibly containing asbestos) and I'd be much more likely to be in an unsafe environment with gangs, crime, etc. than in my actual comfrotable suburban high school.

after trying to place myself in that situation, I can't honestly say I'd be in the same place I am today. maybe I would have been able to rise, overcome and achieve anyways. probably not though - I'm like a lot of suburban high schoolers I knew - complacent, able to ride with training wheels or hit a ball from a tee; but probably not able to swim with the sharks. I worked hard enough to get by, but slacked off enough to fall well short of "overachiever" status. I did pretty much what was expected for students at my school and little more.

I can recall news stories immediately following Hurricane Katrina, detailing how many of the evacuees who found themselves in new school districts were struggling to keep up. apparently, most high school students in New Orleans public schools could only read at something like a 4th or 5th grade level. suspecting that most inner city high schools are similarly deficient, and trying to transpose the level of effort I put forth in my comfortable suburban schools to this context, I too may have had a hard time graduating. which makes me all the more grateful for the opportunities I was provided and hesitant to credit all my success to my own efforts, while ignoring the substantial head start I had.

(2) surely personal responsibility too plays a role in achieving "success" - but not to the extent Cali and others would believe. yes, Cali is correct to point out that some with "privileged" backgrounds do not achieve "success". however, I think it is far more difficult for an individual to overcome the types of tough conditions I described above than for one of these "privileged" students to fail for lack of effort.

further, the cause-effect relationship Cali and other commenters on this blog have posited is interesting here. as Cali notes:

Folks who drop out of highschool (50% of males in many inner cities), have a child (or two or three) while a teenager, job hop and acquire few marketable skills, etc. find that when they are 30 or 40 many of their highschool peers have achieved much much more

thus, following this train of thought, it is these personal actions/choices - on a grand scale - that lead to so many inner city students failing to achieve the success of their suburban counterparts. I'd like to posit an alternative interpretation of these choices/actions - that they are the result, not the cause, of these individuals' circumstances. placed in an environment where educational advancement is not the norm; where the infracstructure is crumbling; where the teachers aren't as skilled; where college is the exception, not the rule, it becomes much easier to just give up and do what all your peers are doing already - and often what your mother and/or father have done in the past.

I plan on returning to the personal responsibilty theme in a future post, but for now would like to make clear that I'm not excusing "irresponsible" courses of action here - but rather, interpreting them through another lens.

(3) I'll also go along with the overall premise that we are becoming a nation of whiners, but its also important to note that you'll hear this "whining" from more places than the ones mentioned above. specifically, I'm thinking of complaints from the wealthy about their unfair tax "burdens", which require "relief". this too is part of the mosaic of discontent and outrage crippling America these days.

Setting the Record Straight: A reexamination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (TBA)

2008-03-18T13:59:00.006-04:00

After my initial reaction to be moderate....I'm going just lay it all out for those who don't quite understand why that angry black man said what he did

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the remarks offered by Barak Obama's spiritual advisor, Pastor Jeremiah Wright. To be completely honest I don't agree with Obama's commentary in regards to Pastor Wright's correct analysis of America, yet I understand for his political survival he must concede and admit the Pastor was "wrong" and not representative of his platform of being a unifier, as opposed to a divider.

Just to set the record, I agree with with Geraldine Ferraro's rendering:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

She is absolutely correct if Obama wasn't black, he would have won the Democratic nomination by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yet the fact Obama is an articulate Negro, something of an abnormality in today's society, has many questioning: Who is Obama? and what does he really stand for?

Is he really Obama Hussein Bin Laden, a secret Al Qaeda operative sent to undermine America and supplant Islamic fundamentalism? Is he a articulate black man whom once in office might partake in habits of the past and place our national security in jeopardy? Or is he just a very lucky man who's gift for gab provides no real solutions to the American public disillusioned and weary of not only there future but that of generations to come, thus willing to accept his universalist "hugs and love" campaign?

History will determine whether or not Obama speech validated his claim that this is where perfection begins.

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT's remarks

I think I've been around enough "Americans" to know what really infuriated them the most.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Ironically enough it was Martin Luther King, Jr. who stated in his speech entitled: Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" --1968

"They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent."

He goes on to state:

"Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism. The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State--they are God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America's strayed away, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.

It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on." I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."

Is not Dr. King's judgment, not tone, the same as Rev. Wright's conclusion that inevitably if AMERIKKKA continues its militaristic racist posture as the World's Policeman, the chicken's would come home to roost?

Let us examine Wright's second "incendiary" comment:

• "The government gives them 1. [African Americans] the drugs, 2. builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

And just so there is no question about the factual basis of this I've taken this directly from several sites, which you can determine there bias, because as stated in the good book John 8:32 "you shall know the truth and it shall set you, not make you free!" indicating you have a choice to accept the fact or reject it.

FACT: 1. The Iran-Contra Affair was a political scandal occurring in 1987 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy, and illegally used the proceeds to continue funding anti-Sandinista rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua.^[1] Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.^[2][3] The affair is still shrouded in secrecy. After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.^[4] A week later, however, on November 13, 1986 Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran, but that they were not part of an exchange for hostages.^[5] On March 4, 1987 in a nationally televised address to the nation he took full responsibility and admitted that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."^[6]Letters sent by Oliver North to John Poindexter support this.^[7]

From the 1980s onward, allegations were made that the Contras were being funded through cocaine distribution.

One of the earliest such allegations was contained in a lawsuit filed in 1986 by two journalists represented by the Christic Institute, alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other parties were engaged in criminal acts, including financing the purchase of arms with the proceeds of cocaine sales.^[38] The suit was dismissed; several of the named participants subsequently sued the Christic Institute for libel and won. It is commonly accepted that the Christic Institute's entire suit was false, since all of its "witnesses" denied their alleged involvement with said organization.^{[citation needed]}

Senator John Kerry's 1988 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links, which was released on April 13, 1989, concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems."^[39] The Kerry Committee report further stated that members of the U.S. State Department "who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking...and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers."^[40] Kerry was suspicious of North's connection with Manuel Noriega, Panama's drug baron. According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North had been in contact with Noriega and had met him personally.

The report went on to say that "the Contra drug links included... payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." Houses of the Congress began to raise questions about the drug-related allegations associated with the Contras, causing a review in the spring of 1986 of the allegations by the State Department, in conjunction with the Justice Department and relevant U.S. intelligence agencies.^[41]

Former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent Celerino Castillo alleged that Ilopango Airport in El Salvador was used by Contras for drug trafficking, with full knowledge of the CIA. He further alleged that his investigations were hindered by US government agencies. These allegations were part of an investigation by the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, which however did not find substantial evidence to support Castillo's allegations.^[42] Castillo also testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the same allegations.^[43]

The allegations resurfaced in 1996 when journalist Gary Webb published reports in the San Jose Mercury News,^[44] and later in his book Dark Alliance,^[45] detailing how Contras had distributed crack cocaine into Los Angeles to fund weapons purchases. These reports were initially attacked by various other newspapers, which attempted to debunk the link, citing official reports that apparently cleared the CIA.

The Wall Street Journal reported on January 29, 1997^[46] on activities at the Mena, Arkansas airport allegedly involved then-governor Bill Clinton in a coverup of illegal drug-trading activity. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to state:

At the center of the web of speculation spun around Mena are a few undisputed facts: One of the most successful drug informants in U.S. history, smuggler Barry Seal, based his air operation at Mena. At the height of his career he was importing as much as 1,000 pounds of cocaine per month, and had a personal fortune estimated at more than $50 million. After becoming an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, he worked at least once with the CIA, in a Sandinista drug sting. He was gunned down by Colombian hit men in Baton Rouge, La., in 1986; eight months later, one of his planes—with an Arkansas pilot at the wheel and Eugene Hasenfus in the cargo bay—was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of Contra supplies.

In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report^[47] that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that Oliver North and the NSC were aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the United States Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich also came to similar conclusions.

In 2004, Gary Webb "committed suicide" by shooting himself twice in the head.^[48]

Further allegations indicate that the criminal minded Ricky Ross (African-American) was influential in the distribution of cocaine he received from CIA informant Danilo Blandon, a highly educated and wealthy Nicaraguan drug dealer.

Ross's capture was facilitated by his career-long dealer Oscar Danilo Blandón, who "set-up" Ross. Blandón had close ties with the Contras, and had met with Contra leader Enrique Bermúdez on several occasions. Blandón was the link between the CIA and Contras during the Iran-Contra affair. Gary Webb interviewed Ross several times before breaking the story in 1996. Ross claims that the reason he was unfairly tried initially was because of his involvement in the scandal. Blandón received a 24 month sentence for his drug trafficking charges, and following his release, was hired by the Drug Enforcement Agency where he was salaried at US$42,000. Blandón was not a U.S. Citizen/National, and is the only known foreigner not to be deported following conviction on drug trafficking charges in U.S. History. The INS granted Blandón a green card, despite the criminal convictions, to allow him to work for the DEA. The DEA claims that they no longer employ Blandón, and his whereabouts are unknown.^[2]

Kevin Booth, a documentary film producer, studies the U.S. "War on Drugs" through his film "The Last White Hope," which emphasizes Ross. On the film's latest promo picture, Booth adds the caption: "Free Way Ricky Ross is considered to be the biggest Crack dealer in American History. With zero harassment he was able to gross millions of dollars per day for several years. After Ricky's eventual arrest, he discovered that his supplier had been working for the CIA." It is suspected that he collaborated with the police in order to supplant Ross.^[2]

2. Drug law violators - most of whom are non-violent and many of whom are first time offenders - are the fastest growing segment of incarcerated Americans. In August 2001, the Department of Justice released a report revealing that on December 31, 2000, State prisons were operating between full capacity and 15% above capacity, while Federal prisons were operating at 31% above capacity.(2) The U.S. now incarcerates almost as many people for breaking a drug law as it incarcerated in 1980 for all offenses, and more than Western Europe, with a greater population than the U.S., incarcerates for all offenses.

In absolute numbers, an estimated 251,200 inmates in State prison at yearend 1999 were there as a result of a drug conviction. According to the Bureau of Prisons, as of March 2001, federal drug offenders constituted 56.3% of the total federal prison population.(3)
Between 1990 and 1999, drug offenses represented a 20% increase in the total growth of sentenced prisoners under State jurisdiction. During that same time period, drug offenders were responsible for 60.9% of the federal prison population growth.(4)

How are communities of color affected by drug law enforcement?

While African-Americans constitute 13% of the nation's monthly drug users, they represent 35% of those persons arrested for drug possession, 55% of drug possession convictions, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for drug possession.(7) According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, in no state are black men incarcerated at rates even close to those of white men. In fact, nationwide, black men are incarcerated at 9.6 times the rate of white men.(8)
Under federal legislation enacted in 1986, it takes 1/100 as much crack cocaine as powder cocaine to trigger equal mandatory minimum sentences. In 1995, although American crack users were 52% white and 38% African American, blacks accounted for 88% of those sentenced for crack offenses and whites just 4.1%.(9)
Almost 1.4 million African-American males, or 14% of the adult black male population, are currently disenfranchised as a result of felony convictions. Black men represent more than 36% of the total disenfranchised male population in the U.S., although they make up less than 15% of American males.(10)

Drugs were not widely used or prevalent in communities of color until the cessation of the civil rights movement which by and large inundated these urban settings with drug addicted Vietnam War vets.

So let me get this straight, Rev. Wright, cursed America (namely the government) for bringing drugs into the black community in a scale on par with genocide, creates a criminal justice system which indiscriminately punishes African-Americans at higher rates than blacks, in the name of JUSTICE and somehow this man is a blaring racist? and/or wrong in his judgment of Amerikkka?

Calling an educated black woman a nappy headed hoe if she has nappy hair, while politically incorrect isn't wrong, calling out America for its hypocrisy isn't wrong either.

MLK states in his autobiography " Power is the ability to achieve purpose, power is the ability to affect change, and we need power." Chp. 31 Poor People's Campaign

And by and large African Americans don't have power and when they do it generally comes with the compromise of losing your racial identity (i.e. Condi Rice v. Colin Powell).

In parting I leave you with the following excerpt from MLK:

"Never forget that freedom is not something that is voluntarily given by the oppressor. It is something that must be demanded by the oppressed. Freedom is not some lavish dish that the power structure and the white forces in policy-making positions will voluntarily hand out on a silver platter while the Negro merely furnishes the appetite. If we are going to get equality, if we are going to get adequate wages, we are going to have to struggle for it . . . .

You know Jesus reminded us in a magnificent parable one day that a man went to hell because he didn't see the poor. His name was Dives. And there was a man by the name of Lazarus who came daily to his gate in need of the basic necessities of life and Dives didn't do anything about it. And he ended up going to hell. There is nothing in that parable which says that Dives went to hell because he was rich. Jesus never made a universal indictment against all wealth. It is true that one day a rich young ruler came to Him talking about eternal life and he advised him to sell all, but in that instance Jesus was prescribing individual surgery, not setting forth a universal diagnosis. If you will go on and read that parable in all of its dimensions and its symbolism you will remember that a conversation took place between heaven and hell. And on the other end of that long distance call between heaven and hell was Abraham in heaven talking to Dives in hell. It wasn't a millionaire in hell talking with a poor man in heaven, it was a little millionaire in hell talking with a multimillionaire in heaven. Dives didn't go to hell because he was rich. His wealth was his opportunity to bridge the gulf that separated him from his brother Lazarus. Dives went to hell because lie allowed Lazarus to become invisible. Dives went to hell because he allowed the means by which he lived to outdistance the ends for which lie lived. Dives went to hell because he sought to be a conscientious objector in the war against poverty.

And I come by here to say that America too is going to hell if she doesn't use her wealth. If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God's children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell. I will hear America through her historians, years and generations to come, saying, "We built gigantic buildings to kiss the skies. We built gargantuan bridges to span the seas. Through our space ships we were able to carve highways through the stratosphere. Through our submarines we were able to penetrate oceanic depths." It seems that I can hear the God of the universe saying, "Even though you have done all of that, I was hungry and you fed me not. I was naked and you clothed me not. The children of my sons and daughters were in need of economic security and you didn't provide it for them. And so you cannot enter the kingdom of greatness." This may well be the indictment on America. And that same voice says in Memphis to the mayor, to the power structure, "If you do it unto the least of these of my children you do it unto me .

. . . Having to live under the threat of death every day, sometimes I feel discouraged. Having to take so much abuse and criticism, sometimes from my own people, sometimes I feel discouraged. Having to go to bed so often frustrated with the chilly winds of adversity about to stagger me, sometimes I feel discouraged and feel my work's in vain.

But then the holy spirit revives my soul again. In Gilead, there is balm to make the wounded whole. If we will believe that, we will build a new Memphis. And bring about the day when every valley shall be exalted. Every mountain and hill will be made low. The rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

I believe that Obama's speech close yesterday echo's MLK's sentiment:

"That this is where perfection begins".

Barstool Tax Policy

2008-03-13T14:57:00.004-04:00

I ran across this analogy and think it drives home the point about how unfair our current system of taxation is.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!""Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat more friendly.

Welfare for Billionaires?

2008-02-29T12:43:00.003-05:00

as mentioned briefly in an earlier post, there is a new trend in sports of late: billionaire owners demanding public funding, in the form of increased taxes on local citizens, to build new arenas and stadiums for said billionaire owners. the most recent example is in Seattle, where the public has refused to take the bait and now faces what NBA Commissioner David Stern has described as the "imminent" loss of their team - a team that the city has supported well for 41 years. perhaps even more outrageously, the teams' ownership group, headed by Clay Bennett, one of the wealthiest dudes in the state of Oklahoma, plans to move the team to Oklahoma City, a substantially smaller market (population 1.2 million, versus 3.2 million in Seattle). why Oklahoma City? perhaps because the taxpayers there are ponying up to buy Bennett his stadium. and Seattle is not the only municipality currently held hostage by its home teams' owner - a similar drama is currently playing out in South Florida, regarding the future fate of the Marlins.

on some level, I can understand why having a professional sports team could be beneficial to a city as a whole. however, I can't see how such benefits could possibly justify requiring average citizens to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues to build arenas and stadiums that will primarily serve to benefit billionaire owners. this is especially true when one considers that tax revenues diverted to pay for sports arenas would subsequently not be available to use for more important social services and infrastructure improvements that would serve to benefit those actually in need of redistributive aid. but hey, if you can scam a city to build you a profit-making cash-cow, then f*&% the heck, why not go for it?

Equality and Responsibility in the Divided States of America

2008-02-28T14:05:00.008-05:00

"People born outside the United States make up about 35 percent of California's adult population but account for about 17 percent of the adult prison population, the report by the Public Policy Institute of California showed."

Of course some potential challengers will point to the obvious bias of this study, my only request is identify and prove the alleged bias.

According to the report's authors the findings suggest that long-standing fears of immigration as a threat to public safety are unjustified. The report also noted that U.S.-born adult men are incarcerated at a rate more than 2 1/2 times greater than that of foreign-born men. Thus we should understand we are more likely to be victims of violence perpetrated by Americans than foreigners.

"Our research indicates that limiting immigration, requiring higher educational levels to obtain visas, or spending more money to increase penalties against criminal immigrants will have little impact on public safety," said Kristin Butcher, co-author of the report and associate professor of economics at Wellesley College.

Which brings up the next point in this discussion: Leaving No Child Behind.

This landmark legislation mandates high schools have to raise their graduation rate each year by one-tenth of a percentage point-or not at all if they graduate 82.9% of their seniors. At the current rate it will take the LA Unified School district 376 years to meet current standards, being that its graduation rate is 45%. For a better glimpse at the difficulty facing Americans future workforce we need only look at graduation rates across the country - shown here, from USA Today.

As documented America's educational system is failing to produce the next generation of leaders and skilled laborers to meet the ever changing and challenging global economy.

here, SFGate.com notes some of the reasons why students are dropping out.

Contrary to the dreary renderings demonstrating the nations students are not only falling behind but are largely unmotivated to attend school, about 80 percent of dropouts come from just 20 percent of high schools, according to the California Dropout Research Project, which is releasing a report today of dropout data for the 2005-06 school year.

Of importance to this discourse, in pursuit of leaving no child behind and determining responsibility of this dire state of affairs we now examine two findings:

a. 80% of dropouts come from 20% of high schools-namely in high risk urban areas

b. The top four reasons why students dropped out were stated as "did not like school", "not doing well in school" and "couldn't keep up with school" directly correlate to the last reason identified for students dropping out: Found a job.

Personally I've been blessed and never had to work while in high school or college, unless I wanted some extra cash. I survived off scholarship and grant money for years but over the past few years I've developed a newfound respect for working students, in that I've come to realize its damn near impossible to do well in school, have a job and heaven's forbid have a family; moreover have to support a family.

But some argue through perseverance, dedication and hard work all is obtainable. Being this is Black History Month I offer an analysis of the progress we've made in terms of equality and attainment in American.

The 1968 Kerner Report detailed analysis of the state of urban America dictated we were headed towards two separate and divided societies in America. as reported in the Detroit News:

Recently updated findings were compiled through hearings in Detroit, Newark and Washington, D.C, which all rioted in the 1960s. A final report will be released this year.

It found:

• Some employers still "steer" minority applicants into the worst jobs; real-estate agents send them to less desirable neighborhoods and mortgage lenders accept fewer applications than those from similar whites.

• Unemployment and underemployment were the most important causes of poverty, yet African American unemployment remains twice as high as white unemployment during each of the four decades since 1968. About 37 million Americans live in poverty, while 46 million Americans are without health insurance.

• Educational disparities remain linked to funding. The wealthiest 10 percent of school districts in the U.S. spend nearly 10 times more than the poorest 10 percent.

The report called for the following remedies: boosting the $5.85 an hour an hour minimum wage beyond the $7.25 an hour it's set to increase to in 2009; passing laws to require the Federal Reserve to take action whenever unemployment increases past 4 percent; approving the Employee Free Choice Act to make it easier to form unions; increased job training and college grants for low-income students and make funding for public school districts more equitable.

The results may come as a shock to some -- reflecting a divide in perception that still persists.

The Eisenhower report echoes findings by The News' two-day series published last July that found the white-black gap still persists. Black incomes in Detroit are down since 1970, while they're up for whites. More blacks are going to college than ever before, but nearly twice as many whites are too. The white-black employment gap is the same now as it was in 1960.

"It's kind of telling given all of the bickering and finger-pointing by some that (suggest) Detroit has gotten into the predicament by itself," said the Rev. Horace Sheffield III, Michigan chapter president of the National Action Network.

"It's not new to me, (but) it's something suburbanites want to ignore and say we alone are responsible for the deplorable plight of the city, which is not true."

Responsibility begins at home. Parents should teach their children family planning, financial savings and how to be law abiding citizens. Yet when economic necessity trumps the reality of carrying out the "responsibility" people have to do what they can to survive, I believe Darwin would call this an necessary adaptation by one species to ensure its preservation.

So as we revisit the reasons why students drop out we come to realize it correlates to economic necessity and/or the belief thereof. However, given the socio-economic composition of these areas in question, we've must realize the resounding fact that it is out of necessity.

As witnessed throughout the American experience economic necessity has facilitated many entities and/or institutions which neglect and/or undermine the responsibility of a government to its people:

a. The slaughter of millions of Native Americans and other indigenous people in the name of "Manifest Destiny" and the Monroe Doctrine: basically permeated the dependency relationship the US has with many of its third world and developing state partners.

b. The peculiar institution of slavery in America: In light of an ongoing enlightenment movement declaring the universality of rights, in which African slaves status as "human" was compromised (i.e. the 3/5th's compromise) for the sake of unifying the country to form the US after the Revolutionary War.

I digress, seriously I mean Barack aside life is not better for poor people, a disproportionate percentage of whom are African American. Despite the Civil Right's movement, despite Brown v. the Board, despite Affirmative Action (which historically opened the door more so for white women to enter institutions of higher learning and corporate America, in comparison to minority groups.) Despite working 40+ hours, saving endlessly-things aren't equal.

FACT:
More blacks are going to college than ever before, but nearly twice as many whites are too. The white-black employment gap is the same now as it was in 1960.

How is this possible let alone logical?

I open the floor...

Time For Exxon to Pay Up?

2008-02-27T12:25:00.002-05:00

expounding upon Cali's recent theme of "responsibility" - a theme also sounded out at great length in some of our recent comments - I'd like to extend our consideration of responsiblity to the corporate setting. our topical interest here is the oral argument to be heard today at the United States Supreme Court regarding the ongoing Exxon Valdez litigation punitive damages phase.

amazingly, it has now been 19 years since the Exxon Valdez crashed on Bligh Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, dumping 11 million gallons of Prudhoe crude into the sea and causing catastrophic environmental harm that persists to this day. as Robert Barnes of the Washington Post recently reported, these are the undisputed facts:

"The Exxon Valdez left port late on the evening of March 23, 1989, loaded with 53 million gallons of crude oil. It strayed out of the shipping lane to avoid ice. Hazelwood instructed the third mate on when to make the turn back into the lane, and then left the bridge of the ship, a violation of regulations. Just after midnight, the crewman ran the nearly 1,000-foot tanker aground on the reef, and 11 million gallons of oil oozed into Prince William Sound."

Exxon contends that it should not be compelled to pay punitive damages - because it has already paid $3.4 Billion in compensatory damages for direct clean-up costs related to the spill. however, such a view plainly disregards the fundamental purpose of punitive damages in the legal system and the facts of the case. as such, the purpose of the $2.5 Billion punitive damages award against Exxon is not to subsidize clean-up costs - the purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter outrageous and reckless conduct by Exxon. in this case, then, the plaintiffs demanding a punitive damages award have the burden of demonstrating that the spill went far above and beyond a mere "accident". Joan Biskupic of USA Today highlights the status of the case:

"This lingering chapter revolves around commercial losses of a class of nearly 33,000 commercial fishermen, business operators and landowners, Native Alaskans and municipalities. After an 83-day trial in 1994, a jury found Hazelwood and Exxon reckless. Evidence showed that Hazelwood, who had a record of alcohol-related problems and had been drinking before the incident, left his post on the bridge of the vessel as it faced a difficult turn. The jury awarded $287 million in actual damages and $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut Exxon's $5 billion assessment in half, to $2.5 billion, but upheld the jury's determination that considerable punitive damages were warranted."

or, as SCOTUS blog (the U.S. Supreme Court Blog) describes it:

"The core of the argument on the first issue is keyed to a jury finding in the case. The jury found that the ship’s captain, Joseph Hazelwood, was reckless for his role in the grounding and the resulting oil spill. Then, told in an instruction by the judge that, if it found Hazelwood to be reckless, maritime law required that it also hold Exxon to have been reckless, the jury also returned a recklessness verdict against the company. The jury awarded punitive damages of $5,000 against Hazelwood and $5 billion against Exxon."

to get back to the "reponsibility"theme, here we have a case where Exxon knowingly employed Captain Hazelwood - a man Exxon knew to be a relapsed alcoholic - to pilot a super-tanker loaded with 53 Million gallons of crude oil around a difficult-to-navigate waterway. further, there has been some suggestion that Hazelwood was drunk at the time of the crash:

"[Plaintiffs] also charge that Hazelwood, an alcoholic, was drunk. They argue that he consumed at least five double-vodkas in waterfront bars before boarding the ship. They say Exxon knew that Hazelwood, once treated for his disease, had resumed drinking.

Courts have agreed. "Spilling the oil was an accident, but putting a relapsed alcoholic in charge of a supertanker was not," the appeals court ruled in upholding the punitive damages."

once more, I must raise the question, if we are going to condemn irresponsible actions, isn't this a textbook example? it seems to me that this is precisely the type of conduct that punitive damages are meant to counteract - both in terms of Captain Hazelwood and Exxon - surely it makes sense to hold corporations acocuntable for their employees' outrageous conduct when they had very good reason to know something tragic could occur.

furthermore, to broach a touchy subject, the punitive damage award in this case will not bankrupt Exxon - nor put them out of business. to quote Alaska governor Sarah Palin:

"Every Alaskan life was affected by this," said Palin, elected in 2006. "When I got in here, that was one of the first orders of business: to find out how in the world can this administration speak on behalf of all Alaskans who have been so adversely affected by this spill...

"I'm a capitalist, I'm a conservative Republican, I am pro-development and pro-industry," said Palin, who is herself a former commercial fisherman once party to the suit. "But consider what Exxon has made in terms of profits in all these years. The American judicial system came down with this judgment, and they've appealed and they've appealed and they've appealed."

accordingly, the sum of $2.5 Billion represents about 3 weeks of Exxon's current net profits. on the other hand, we must consider the commerical-fishermen plaintiffs - many of whom have lost businesses as a result of damages from the oil spill; and who face continuing difficulties from residual affects. as SCOTUS blog noted, regarding the plaintiffs:

"the challengers have their own grievances, shared with the Court: About 20 percent of their group has died, hundreds have gone bankrupt, and some 26,000 gallons of oil still remain in the water and in the mud bottom, “impairing fish stocks and marine habitat.”

the inescapable conclusion: that it is high time for Exxon to act responsibly and pay up - while there is still time for some of those most-affected by their egregious misconduct to recover some semblance of the lives they once knew.

McCain vs. New York Times

2008-02-23T13:34:00.002-05:00

Dude:

below are excerpts from an email exchange between the contributors to this blog, re: the John McCain/New York Times dust-up - beginning with an unattributed comment sent to the Times on Friday.

"At what point do you acknowledge you have lost all ability to be fair. Aside from the McCain debacle, how do you explain numerous front page articles on the Scooter Libby situation and scarce mention of Sandy Berger's theft of secret documents? Same with the Duke lacrosse players. You essentially convicted them from the outset and went silent when the case fell apart. I could give you 20 more examples.

Now you bring out from moth balls an eight year old story, dress it up with a sleazy sex angle and two questionable anonymous sources to torpedo someone you just endorsed. If there is an explanation I would sure like to hear it."

Dude:

while i surely won't go as far as [the commentator], it seems like the n.y.t. displayed poor judgment in running with the story - though the timing actually indicates they're not trying to "torpedo" [McCain], given that he's all but locked up the nomination and the general election is more than 6 months away. i think they were trying to raise a fair issue (that [McCain] possibly sometimes ignores his own advice on lobbying/influence [peddling]) - but did so in a shady and misleading way. i've also heard some crazy conspiracy theories thats its actually a ploy to help [Hillary Clinton's campaign] - though i don't really understand that one either.

The American Dreamer:

I think a more careful NYT's would have highlighted McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 S&L Scandal. Although he's taken significant measures to clean up campaign finance reform and the influence of lobbyist[s] in Washington, even his top advisers were weary of his seemingly open relationship with Ms. Iseman. The evidence shows that McCain's voting record [does not reflect undue influence] despite assumptions [to the contrary].

However, I guess I can understand [Conservative] displeasure of having [their] candidate blasted by the liberal New York Times who by and large support [Barack Obama].

Cali:

I will say that I agree that the NYT puts bad news front and centerwhile good news is always buried, rarely corrects a story with thesame force as it was originally put out, etc. There has to be areason why someone or some group calls the NYT out several times ayear but you never hear the same criticisms about the WSJ or USAToday. It's also probably why their readership is falling much faster thanother newspapers...

I think you got it with that last point [American Dreamer].

And I don't even think it is just having our candidate blasted. It is the fact that the story (from what I understand) was essentially completely made up.

Dude:

i think the NYT gets called out more than USA Today because it has (historically) had a much better reputation for journalistic quality - so people are therefore more prone to point out its missteps, wanting to hold it to a higher standard. USAToday has had a reputation as "McPaper", so people probably hold it to a lower standard than NYT or WSJ. the WSJ has a similar reputation as the NYT (for its news pages), and pre-Murdoch, they've probably just had better editors and made better decisions of that nature. another factor may be that their editorial board is staunchly conservative, so conservatives therefore have less reason to question its news coverage than they do [with respect to] the NYT. however, unless you read the print edition of the NYT on a regular basis, i don't see how you can make value judgments on their placement of stories...

[further] to be fair, [McCain]'s former campaign manager was quoted for the story [and conveyed] his concern over the matter. no doubt the story is ALOT more smoke than fire, but i'd say its not quite "completely" made-up.

[for additional perspective, here are links to stories by Slate's Timothy Noah and Jack Shafer. Noah concludes that McCain came out ahead:

"The Times' premature publication of the scandal story—I agree with the general consensus that it fails to demonstrate either that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist or that the lobbyist exercised undue influence on him...

Regardless of whether he had the affair, McCain wins. If he was Vicki Iseman's lover, the Times and New Republic have now discredited the story by failing to produce much in the way of evidence. If he wasn't Vicki Iseman's lover, then he has shamed the press with his righteous indignation. As a bonus, the scandal story has provoked an apparent rapprochement with McCain-haters Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, who hate the Times a lot more."

Shafer defended the Times' publication of the story:

"So far, I've yet to encounter a single critique that faults the article for its portrayal of McCain's eccentric and self-serving ideas about political ethics. McCain thoroughly soiled himself in the "Keating Five" savings and loan scandal in the 1980s, which the article accurately condenses. Although McCain has devoted much of his post-Keating career to the policing of political ethics, the article notes, he's often strayed from the path of righteousness...

The Times reports that the enemy of special interests, money in politics, earmarks, and lobbyists has staffed his presidential campaign with lobbyists and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office. That particular lobbyist, Mark Buse, the paper reports, came to McCain's staff through the revolving door. Before he was a telecommunication industry lobbyist, Buse was the director of McCain's commerce committee staff...

Few Times critics quarrel with the historical part of the article, of course. What gets their dander up are the piece's thinly sourced beginning and conclusion. The story portrays McCain as way too close to lobbyist Iseman and cites unnamed advisers who believe that the relationship was "romantic," although McCain and Iseman deny that specific allegation...

What Applebaum and others miss is that the Times doesn't have to produce photographic evidence of the hot dog meeting the bun to cast suspicion upon the McCain-Iseman intimacies. If McCain were as close to a male lobbyist as he is Iseman, I'd want the Times to report it. That McCain may have voted against the interests of Iseman's clients is no vindication. Her extreme proximity to a self-styled political ethicist is...

Where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire. That the imperfect Times article doesn't expose a raging blaze isn't sufficient cause for condemning it. The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him."]

Cali:

I guess this just proves to me how ridiculous the world of politics and the world of the media has become. Surrounding this story aloneare several conspiracy theories:

1-[the initial commentator's theory] theory that the NYT purposefully made this story up to impact the race versus the story just being a mistake of judgement and extremely poor reporting.

2-The conspiracy that [Dude] heard that Hillary's camp made this story up to somehow help her.

3-The conspiracy theory that the New Republic was somehow able to pressure the NYT (which is only the most influential and widely read newspapers in the world) into running it before they did their homework.

Another thing...I don't know about you guys but I am tried of anonymous sources. No-one even knows if the source exists or not. I think newspapers and all forms of media should have enough integrity to refrain from basing entire news stories on anynomous sources. That practice seems ridiculous to me. Someone's name gets smeared and there is no way to speak to and examine the source of the evidence, if there even is a source.

Dude:

i'd agree that anonymous sources are a tricky issue - its defintely less than fair to not be able to face your accuser (which is actually a fundamental right in the legal system). in this case, the sources' reliability seems questionable - seems to me like it could be disgruntled former employees who want to make [McCain] look bad. however, in some instances, anonymous sources can be valuable - famously, "deep throat" who provided corroboration during watergate. sometimes, staying anonymous can be ok, especially where there's a legitimate fear of reprisal.

and i'd like to re-iterate that i don't think this whole story is made up - it seems to me totally legitimate to look into [McCain]'s ethics, since that has long been a signature issue of his. the main quarrel i have is the inclusion of the anonymously sourced information that hinted at allegations and conclusions that seem hastily drawn. also, i think its fair to say that in the past, [McCain] has benefited from fawning by the media, since unlike most pols, he will actually speak his mind candidly. given this - and that the NYT endorsed him in the primary - i don't think there's a motivation on the part of the NYT to impact the race - if that were the case, they would have held the story until late october.

The American Dreamer:

The point of the media is to make money and if it relies on a credible and/or uncredible source to do so, either way, from a business perspective, its justified.

You honestly thought the media was here to tell us the truth that'd be like believing politicians mean every word they say.

Cali:

if somehow quoting an anynomous story can bring down a known murderer, i would agree that would worth pursuing and reporting. but more often, i think people hide behind "the fear of reprisal" because they really just don't want what they say on the public record...
probably because they know it is half-baked from the start and won't hold up to scrutiny.

i agree that i think it is fair to look into McCain's ethics. just like it is fair to look into Obama's voting record and Fred Thompson's passion for the job. but i don't think it is fair for someone to dig into McCain's ethical record, not find much of anything except that he has a close relationship with a lobbyist (lobbyists after all can be close friends just like campaign managers and staffers and others who you often come into contact with because of your profession) and some rumors about an affair and throw it out on the public wall to see ifit sticks. that seems dishonorable to me.

I wouldn't expect some random person's blog to be a credible source of information. But I would expect an organization like the NYT to do a little research before letting an article like this that could have drastic consequences go to print.

Let me spin it around...why in the world do you read news stories if you think half of them are simply fantasy?

To poke a little fun...even if McCain and the lobbyist were lying and they did have an affair, why should it make the least bit of difference? I thought lying about sexual transgressions (even under oath) is all good?

The American Dreamer:

my logic holds that it be outright impossible to prove the NYT printed the story knowing it was an outright lie. Given Sen. McCain's involvement with the Keating 5 and the fact this is a presidential election I think it would be a easier case for the NYT to prove they acted responsibly but fallibly in the situation.

...In reporting a story which according to [their] sources was accurate and correct....sort of like justifying a war on intelligence that was later proven fallible.

doesn't mean anyone did anything wrong or illegal just the information...changed

Dude:

thats fair enough [Cali] - but i'd suggest you read the story. there's more to it than unsubstantiated hearsay - there were some sources who spoke on the record, including former [McCain] staffers who admitted they were concerned about the appearance of impropriety, as well as [McCain]'s well-chronicled association with the [K]eating 5 during the S & L scandal - i think [the American Dreamer] mentioned this earlier. also, [McCain] has publicly admonished the role of lobbyists in the system, and meanwhile, his campaign is currently run by unpaid lobbyists - which is arguably akin to accepting favors from lobbyists - precisely what [McCain] has long decried. this in itself is a legit story - i don't think it necessarily means there's untoward influence going on, but it gives the appearance of funny business.

Cali:

Yeah, I will definitely check the article out. Like I said, I really don't know much about all of the hulla-bellu.

Who knows, something shady could be going on for all I know. I just think it makes sense to wait until there is proof to put these accusations forth.

For the last 8 years, we have heard story after story about how Bush purposefully lied about WMDs to start the Iraq War only because of his greed for oil and to award big contracts to companies owned by his buddies without allowing fair bids. Yet we don't have one tape recording of Bush's voice saying something that supports any of these. We don't have one email from Bush's email account saying something supporting any of these. We haven't even had one person who supports these allegations come forward...at least none who's credibility withstood even minor scrutiny (of course people like Cindy Sheehan say these things all of the time but everyone knows she's a total loon). Dare I say it...it is all likely completely made up but [has] been repeated so many times, a whole lot of people (maybe even you guys)believe these are true...if for no other reason than it seems like they just have to be true since you've heard it so many times...a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Until something like that happens, it's all speculation and only serves to tear us apart. I could take a list of controversial facts about Bill Clinton with a list of positions he has taken and string together 3 or 4 in an interesting way and probably make a weak case for anything I want to. And if I did it long enough, there would be apercentage of the population that believes it to be true.

Dude:

i don't think any credible news source has ever reported that the Iraq War was for oil or profits, and no proof of it - but again, there was an appearance of impropriety when halliburton, V.P. Cheney's former company, won a no-bid rebuilding project. i mean, even if they were the best crew for the job, even better than the gambino crew, it just *looks* funky. in a legal setting, a lawyer would be ethically barred from forming that kind of relationship.

Cali:

Yeah accountants are banned from those things too. We have to be independent both in fact and appearance. I don't know if pols swear to the same standard or not.

And some situations are a no-win situation. If Halliburton were the best for the job (and I have no clue if they are as I've heard Capone's crew is hella strong) and he didn't award them with the contract, Halliburton would sue the government and everyone would say Bush is incompetent and wasted taxpayer money.