Republicans in the United States Congress claim that they want to reduce the federal deficit.
They applaud President Barrack Obama's proposal to freeze the wages of federal employees for two years. This would save about six billion dollars over the two years. "Long overdue," is the way some of them describe the proposal.
This proposal, if it were to be adopted by the Congress, would freeze the wages of every federal employee, even those making the lowest wages - clerks and secretaries and maintenance people.
At the same time, the Republicans in Congress are determined to give a tax cut to everyone making $250,000 a year or more. I can't be sure, but I'm willing to bet few, if any, federal employees make $250,000 a year from their federal salaries. Frankly, few employees of anyone make that much.
This proposal, if it were to be adopted by the Congress, would increase the federal deficit by about 700 billion dollars over ten years.
So, Republicans, who claim to be concerned about the federal deficit, are willing to hurt the lowest paid federal employees to save six billion, but they're willing to add 700 billion to the deficit to help the richest Americans.
Go figure.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
It's My Property!
"It's my property and I have a right to do what I want with it!"
How often I have heard this sentiment, or one very like it, expressed.
The speaker is usually ranting about wanting less government interference in something. Often he or she is venting about how they want less taxes.
It is, superficially at least, an attractive position. I do, after all, own my property. I did, after all, work hard to gain the ownership of that property, assuming I didn't inherit it or receive it as a gift. Why shouldn't I be able to do what I want with the stuff I worked so hard to own?
Well, two reasons: first, it's illegal. Second, it's immoral.
Now, the illegality of doing whatever you want with your own property can always be changed. It is usually this illegality (the fact that using your own property anyway you want, without any obligation to use it in any particular way, is not permitted by law) that the speaker wishes to have changed. And, if enough of us agree that it should be changed, we can all agree to change it. But, we shouldn't.
Because it is immoral to "do whatever I want with my own property."
In logic, there is a concept called reductio ad absurdum. The idea is that the logic of an idea can be tested by taking the idea to its "logical" conclusion. If, when one does, the idea becomes absurd, then it is, in fact, illogical. For an idea to be logical, it must be logical in all its applications, not just some applications.
The notion that we have the moral right to do whatever we want with our property fails the logical test of reductio ad absurdum.
Imagine that one person has managed to acquire ownership of all the property in the world. All the real estate, all the businesses, all the food, all the water, all the houses, all the streets, all the schools. Everything. And imagine that he has done this perfectly legally. He is just such a skilled businessman that he has managed to acquire all the property in the world by completely legal, legitimate means. He - one person - owns everything.
And further suppose that it was, in fact, the law that a person could do anything they wanted with their own property, including doing nothing at all with it, if that's what they chose.
Would it be morally right for that one person to withhold all property from everyone else in the world, just because he had the legal right to do so? Would it be morally right for him to let everyone else in the world starve to death and die of thirst, just because it was all his and he had the right to do with "his" property what he wanted, and he didn't want to share with anyone?
If the answer is "yes," it is a perfect example of reductio ad absurdum. It cannot possibly be true that it is morally right to let everyone else starve when you own all the property in the world, just because you have the legal right to do it. That conclusion is absurd.
What if just two people owned all the property in the world? Would it be morally right for those two to let everyone else starve - all 6 billion human souls - because it was theirs and they had the right to do what they wanted with it? Clearly not. No reasonable person could think it would be moral for them to let everyone else starve when they had more than they could ever use, just because they had a protectable property right.
How about if three people owned all the property in the world? Or 100? Or 1000? Or what if 1 billion people owned all the property and the remaining 5 billion had nothing? Would it be moral for the 1 billion to let the 5 billion die so that they could exercise their "right" to do whatever they wanted with "their" property? Clearly not.
Well, if it isn't morally right for one person to deprive all the rest of the necessities of life, or 2, or 3, or 100, or 1 billion, then the notion of "its mine and I have the (moral) right to do what I want with it" has been demonstrated to be logically faulty.
In fact, we have demonstrated that, rather than having a moral right to do what you want with your own property, you really have a moral obligation to use your property in a way that benefits others. If you have very little property, than your moral obligation is very small, but if you have a great deal of property, then your moral obligation is very great. In fact, there is a direct proportionality between the amount of property one owns and one's moral obligation to use that property for the benefit of others.
The rich have a moral obligation to use their property for the benefit of the poor.
It is, in fact, the teaching of Jesus.
Now, we can quibble about how that moral obligation is affected by the choices the poor have made, or, more precisely, the choices that the rich think the poor have made. But, no matter how the obligation is affected or modified by individual circumstances, it never goes away. It always exists in some form or another. Remember, our hypothetical man who acquired all the property in the world did it legally, and as a result of his skill as a business man. That means that everyone else must have made really poor choices when they agreed to the business deals that resulted in them losing everything. Even so, we cannot imagine that it is then morally acceptable for him to let everyone else in the world starve, because they made "poor choices." It is still clear that he has some obligation to use his property for the benefit of the rest of the world, who are all starving.
So, once it becomes clear that anyone who owns property has at least some moral obligation to use his property in a way that benefits others, we can have legitimate debate over the extent and nature of that moral obligation. We cannot, however, ever logically claim that "its my property and I have a right to do whatever I want with it."
That's absurd.
How often I have heard this sentiment, or one very like it, expressed.
The speaker is usually ranting about wanting less government interference in something. Often he or she is venting about how they want less taxes.
It is, superficially at least, an attractive position. I do, after all, own my property. I did, after all, work hard to gain the ownership of that property, assuming I didn't inherit it or receive it as a gift. Why shouldn't I be able to do what I want with the stuff I worked so hard to own?
Well, two reasons: first, it's illegal. Second, it's immoral.
Now, the illegality of doing whatever you want with your own property can always be changed. It is usually this illegality (the fact that using your own property anyway you want, without any obligation to use it in any particular way, is not permitted by law) that the speaker wishes to have changed. And, if enough of us agree that it should be changed, we can all agree to change it. But, we shouldn't.
Because it is immoral to "do whatever I want with my own property."
In logic, there is a concept called reductio ad absurdum. The idea is that the logic of an idea can be tested by taking the idea to its "logical" conclusion. If, when one does, the idea becomes absurd, then it is, in fact, illogical. For an idea to be logical, it must be logical in all its applications, not just some applications.
The notion that we have the moral right to do whatever we want with our property fails the logical test of reductio ad absurdum.
Imagine that one person has managed to acquire ownership of all the property in the world. All the real estate, all the businesses, all the food, all the water, all the houses, all the streets, all the schools. Everything. And imagine that he has done this perfectly legally. He is just such a skilled businessman that he has managed to acquire all the property in the world by completely legal, legitimate means. He - one person - owns everything.
And further suppose that it was, in fact, the law that a person could do anything they wanted with their own property, including doing nothing at all with it, if that's what they chose.
Would it be morally right for that one person to withhold all property from everyone else in the world, just because he had the legal right to do so? Would it be morally right for him to let everyone else in the world starve to death and die of thirst, just because it was all his and he had the right to do with "his" property what he wanted, and he didn't want to share with anyone?
If the answer is "yes," it is a perfect example of reductio ad absurdum. It cannot possibly be true that it is morally right to let everyone else starve when you own all the property in the world, just because you have the legal right to do it. That conclusion is absurd.
What if just two people owned all the property in the world? Would it be morally right for those two to let everyone else starve - all 6 billion human souls - because it was theirs and they had the right to do what they wanted with it? Clearly not. No reasonable person could think it would be moral for them to let everyone else starve when they had more than they could ever use, just because they had a protectable property right.
How about if three people owned all the property in the world? Or 100? Or 1000? Or what if 1 billion people owned all the property and the remaining 5 billion had nothing? Would it be moral for the 1 billion to let the 5 billion die so that they could exercise their "right" to do whatever they wanted with "their" property? Clearly not.
Well, if it isn't morally right for one person to deprive all the rest of the necessities of life, or 2, or 3, or 100, or 1 billion, then the notion of "its mine and I have the (moral) right to do what I want with it" has been demonstrated to be logically faulty.
In fact, we have demonstrated that, rather than having a moral right to do what you want with your own property, you really have a moral obligation to use your property in a way that benefits others. If you have very little property, than your moral obligation is very small, but if you have a great deal of property, then your moral obligation is very great. In fact, there is a direct proportionality between the amount of property one owns and one's moral obligation to use that property for the benefit of others.
The rich have a moral obligation to use their property for the benefit of the poor.
It is, in fact, the teaching of Jesus.
Now, we can quibble about how that moral obligation is affected by the choices the poor have made, or, more precisely, the choices that the rich think the poor have made. But, no matter how the obligation is affected or modified by individual circumstances, it never goes away. It always exists in some form or another. Remember, our hypothetical man who acquired all the property in the world did it legally, and as a result of his skill as a business man. That means that everyone else must have made really poor choices when they agreed to the business deals that resulted in them losing everything. Even so, we cannot imagine that it is then morally acceptable for him to let everyone else in the world starve, because they made "poor choices." It is still clear that he has some obligation to use his property for the benefit of the rest of the world, who are all starving.
So, once it becomes clear that anyone who owns property has at least some moral obligation to use his property in a way that benefits others, we can have legitimate debate over the extent and nature of that moral obligation. We cannot, however, ever logically claim that "its my property and I have a right to do whatever I want with it."
That's absurd.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Hypocrisy Alert
As hypocritical behaviors go, this one is relatively minor, but it looms very large because it is the behavior of someone who has made a career from pointing out the hypocrisy of others.
A few weeks ago, it was discovered by NBC News that Keith Olbermann, the host of MSNBC's Countdown, had contributed money to the campaigns of three Democrats. This violated NBC's rule against any of their on-air employees donating to any political campaign without the prior approval of NBC. Mr. Olbermann was suspended for two days for violating the rule.
Mr. Olbermann's response was that he did not know about the rule, he had not attempted to hide the contributions (which seems to be true), and he accepted the judgement of his employer, NBC, through MSNBC.
The stated reason for the rule was that it helped to preserve the objectivity, or at least the appearance of objectivity, among those on NBC who reported the news.
The suspension provoked much internet outrage among fans of Mr. Olbermann.
Most of the discussion revolved around these issues: 1. Whether it made sense to suspend someone for violating a rule he didn't know about. 2. Whether Mr. Olbermann should have known about the rule. 3. Whether the rule itself made sense when applied to someone like Mr. Olbermann, who is clearly partisan anyway, whether he donates to campaigns or not.
However, I think all of the discussion missed the point. The point, the really important point, is that Mr. Olbermann had, prior to his donations to Democratic candidates, repeatedly skewered Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corporation for having donated large sums of money to Republicans in various ways. Mr. Olbermann used this apparently undisputed fact to bolster his argument that Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corporation were merely tools of the Republican Party or, vice versa, that the Republican Party had become a tool of Fox News, since the sums of money donated were so large.
On the other hand, Mr. Olbermann argued that, while he, on Countdown, frequently and openly took positions that were favorable to Democrats and critical of Republicans, it was not because MSNBC was tied to the Democratic Party, but because they were convinced that the positions held by the Democrats were correct and the positions held by the Republicans were incorrect.
The only difference that I can see between the donations made by Rupert Murdoch and the donations made by Keith Olbermann is that Mr. Murdoch's donations were a lot larger.
But, as I've said before, we've now established what they are, and we are merely haggling over price.
I strongly disagree with much of the tone of Mr. Olbermann's program, and very often with his rhetoric and on-screen devices used in making the points he makes. But, I find myself usually in agreement with the points he makes.
But, I can't tolerate hypocrisy. Why, oh why, Mr. Olbermann, did you have to be such a hypocrite? Your integrity was worth so much more than the paltry campaign donations you made. Your integrity was a much more valuable asset to the causes you believe in than any amount of money you could have given to any candidate.
Now, when folks ask me for the difference between Fox News and Countdown, I can no longer say that there is a qualitative difference. I can now only argue that Countdown is not as bad as Fox News.
Mr. Olbermann, I'm not going to make that argument.
Why, oh why, did you have to do it?
A few weeks ago, it was discovered by NBC News that Keith Olbermann, the host of MSNBC's Countdown, had contributed money to the campaigns of three Democrats. This violated NBC's rule against any of their on-air employees donating to any political campaign without the prior approval of NBC. Mr. Olbermann was suspended for two days for violating the rule.
Mr. Olbermann's response was that he did not know about the rule, he had not attempted to hide the contributions (which seems to be true), and he accepted the judgement of his employer, NBC, through MSNBC.
The stated reason for the rule was that it helped to preserve the objectivity, or at least the appearance of objectivity, among those on NBC who reported the news.
The suspension provoked much internet outrage among fans of Mr. Olbermann.
Most of the discussion revolved around these issues: 1. Whether it made sense to suspend someone for violating a rule he didn't know about. 2. Whether Mr. Olbermann should have known about the rule. 3. Whether the rule itself made sense when applied to someone like Mr. Olbermann, who is clearly partisan anyway, whether he donates to campaigns or not.
However, I think all of the discussion missed the point. The point, the really important point, is that Mr. Olbermann had, prior to his donations to Democratic candidates, repeatedly skewered Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corporation for having donated large sums of money to Republicans in various ways. Mr. Olbermann used this apparently undisputed fact to bolster his argument that Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Corporation were merely tools of the Republican Party or, vice versa, that the Republican Party had become a tool of Fox News, since the sums of money donated were so large.
On the other hand, Mr. Olbermann argued that, while he, on Countdown, frequently and openly took positions that were favorable to Democrats and critical of Republicans, it was not because MSNBC was tied to the Democratic Party, but because they were convinced that the positions held by the Democrats were correct and the positions held by the Republicans were incorrect.
The only difference that I can see between the donations made by Rupert Murdoch and the donations made by Keith Olbermann is that Mr. Murdoch's donations were a lot larger.
But, as I've said before, we've now established what they are, and we are merely haggling over price.
I strongly disagree with much of the tone of Mr. Olbermann's program, and very often with his rhetoric and on-screen devices used in making the points he makes. But, I find myself usually in agreement with the points he makes.
But, I can't tolerate hypocrisy. Why, oh why, Mr. Olbermann, did you have to be such a hypocrite? Your integrity was worth so much more than the paltry campaign donations you made. Your integrity was a much more valuable asset to the causes you believe in than any amount of money you could have given to any candidate.
Now, when folks ask me for the difference between Fox News and Countdown, I can no longer say that there is a qualitative difference. I can now only argue that Countdown is not as bad as Fox News.
Mr. Olbermann, I'm not going to make that argument.
Why, oh why, did you have to do it?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Charles Rangel
The honorable thing for United States Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, to do is resign.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Capitalism and a Free Market
Contrary to popular belief, "capitalism" and "free market" are not synonyms.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the capital portion of the capital-labor partnership is owned by individuals, not by the society collectively or by the government.
A free market is, literally, one free of government intervention.
I submit that, rather than being synonyms, or even inextricably intertwined, capitalism and a completely free market are mortal enemies. Anyone who believes in and supports the capitalist economic system of generating new wealth ought to be scared to death of a truely free market.
Capitalism is an amazingly efficient system for creating new wealth. Part of the reason it is so efficient is that it is driven by a powerful engine, fueled by a powerful motivation: greed.
Unfortunately, greed is an emotion that, if not evil in itself, leads to evil outcomes if left unchecked.
In the case of capitalism, it leads to an imbalance in the sharing of the wealth between the capital contributor and the labor contributor. More specifically, it has always lead to more and more of the wealth going to the capital contributor and less and less of it going to the labor contributor.
Whether one is a capital contributor or a labor contributor, one ought to fear this outcome, because it eventually leads to the breakdown of the capitalist system. In the mildest case, it simply results in the labor contributor being less willing to contribute as efficiently as he might do if he were receiving his fair share of the wealth he helped to create. In the most severe case, it leads to revolution, the goal of which is the destruction of the capital contributor, the effect of which is the destruction of the capitalist system.
Unfortunately, as foreseen by the founders of the American republic, humans, left to their own devices, cannot be trusted to self-regulate when the opportunity arises for them to use power for their own benefit. This is not only true of government, it is true of economics.
Therefore, some force must intervene - on behalf of the capitalist system - to keep the fuel that so powerfully and efficiently drives the capitalist engine properly regulated so that the engine does not accelerate out of control and blow all its gaskets.
The obvious force, the only one powerful enough to intervene, is government. The form of this intervention is to regulate the "market." The government cannot leave all economic decisions in the hands of individuals, because they will in almost every case choose to maximize their own benefit, even at the expense of the system that creates that benefit. Therefore, they must be forced, in some cases, to make decisions which benefit the system, at their personal expense, for the benefit of all who stand to gain from a properly balanced, properly functioning system.
The most obvious example of this type of regulation are the system of laws extant in the United States which endeavor to prevent the creation of a monopoly, either vertical or horizontal. Another example, unfortunately not so clear to our policy makers, is the need to prevent banks from engaging in activities that destroy the banks.
History has shown convincingly that the hypothetical "invisible hand" of the market does not, in fact, regulate the economic decisions of those in positions to make them sufficiently to prevent them from destroying the system itself.
Admittedly, the power to regulate the market must be used wisely, and with restraint, just as must any power. Reasonable minds can differ on how such power should be used or how much of such power should be exercised in order to properly regulate the capitalist system for maximum health and efficiency, but one cannot reasonably argue that no regulation of the market is needed to preserve capitalism.
Intervention in the market is an absolute necessity for the survival of the capitalist system. Those who argue in favor of a capitalist system and a completely free market do not have the best interests of any of us at heart, even themselves, or else do not understand the ramifications of the state for which they argue.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the capital portion of the capital-labor partnership is owned by individuals, not by the society collectively or by the government.
A free market is, literally, one free of government intervention.
I submit that, rather than being synonyms, or even inextricably intertwined, capitalism and a completely free market are mortal enemies. Anyone who believes in and supports the capitalist economic system of generating new wealth ought to be scared to death of a truely free market.
Capitalism is an amazingly efficient system for creating new wealth. Part of the reason it is so efficient is that it is driven by a powerful engine, fueled by a powerful motivation: greed.
Unfortunately, greed is an emotion that, if not evil in itself, leads to evil outcomes if left unchecked.
In the case of capitalism, it leads to an imbalance in the sharing of the wealth between the capital contributor and the labor contributor. More specifically, it has always lead to more and more of the wealth going to the capital contributor and less and less of it going to the labor contributor.
Whether one is a capital contributor or a labor contributor, one ought to fear this outcome, because it eventually leads to the breakdown of the capitalist system. In the mildest case, it simply results in the labor contributor being less willing to contribute as efficiently as he might do if he were receiving his fair share of the wealth he helped to create. In the most severe case, it leads to revolution, the goal of which is the destruction of the capital contributor, the effect of which is the destruction of the capitalist system.
Unfortunately, as foreseen by the founders of the American republic, humans, left to their own devices, cannot be trusted to self-regulate when the opportunity arises for them to use power for their own benefit. This is not only true of government, it is true of economics.
Therefore, some force must intervene - on behalf of the capitalist system - to keep the fuel that so powerfully and efficiently drives the capitalist engine properly regulated so that the engine does not accelerate out of control and blow all its gaskets.
The obvious force, the only one powerful enough to intervene, is government. The form of this intervention is to regulate the "market." The government cannot leave all economic decisions in the hands of individuals, because they will in almost every case choose to maximize their own benefit, even at the expense of the system that creates that benefit. Therefore, they must be forced, in some cases, to make decisions which benefit the system, at their personal expense, for the benefit of all who stand to gain from a properly balanced, properly functioning system.
The most obvious example of this type of regulation are the system of laws extant in the United States which endeavor to prevent the creation of a monopoly, either vertical or horizontal. Another example, unfortunately not so clear to our policy makers, is the need to prevent banks from engaging in activities that destroy the banks.
History has shown convincingly that the hypothetical "invisible hand" of the market does not, in fact, regulate the economic decisions of those in positions to make them sufficiently to prevent them from destroying the system itself.
Admittedly, the power to regulate the market must be used wisely, and with restraint, just as must any power. Reasonable minds can differ on how such power should be used or how much of such power should be exercised in order to properly regulate the capitalist system for maximum health and efficiency, but one cannot reasonably argue that no regulation of the market is needed to preserve capitalism.
Intervention in the market is an absolute necessity for the survival of the capitalist system. Those who argue in favor of a capitalist system and a completely free market do not have the best interests of any of us at heart, even themselves, or else do not understand the ramifications of the state for which they argue.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Morality and Capitalism
Contrary to what some may believe, I am a committed capitalist. Capitalism is by far and unquestionably the most efficient system for the creation of wealth ever designed or imagined by the mind of man. I can think of no other economic system that even comes close.
I would be terribly disappointed to see it collapse or be destroyed.
However, we capitalists desperately need to remember that, like any other social system, and a lot more than most social systems, capitalism depends on many delicate balances to function properly. If any of those necessary balances gets skewed in one direction or another, the capitalist system loses efficiency in direct proportion. If any of them gets skewed too far, the capitalist system will cease to function at all.
One of those delicate balances is the sharing of the wealth created among those who helped to create it.
A few observations about wealth are necessary. All of these observations come, directly or indirectly, from Adam Smith's epic work, "The Wealth of Nations."
First, money is not wealth. Money represents a right to acquire wealth, and a right only to the extent that right is supported by the social structure. But, money itself is not wealth. Corn is wealth. Gold is wealth. Iron is wealth. Cars and houses and land and tables and bed linens and even ideas are all wealth, but money is not wealth.
Second, no matter what the wealth may be, no matter what form it takes, it requires two things to create new wealth: capital and labor. Certain kinds of wealth require more labor and less capital to create. Other kinds require more capital and less labor. But, all new wealth is created by a combination of labor applied to capital.
Third, any system can create only a finite amount of new wealth in a given interval of time. This is because the amount of existing capital and available labor in any system is finite, so they can only be combined, even at maximum efficiency, in a way that produces a finite amount of new wealth in a given interval of time.
Take, for example, iron ore. Iron ore is capital. When it is in place in the ground, it is a form of real property, with a certain value - a measure of the wealth it is. When it is removed from the ground, its value - the measure of the wealth it is - increases. But, it cannot be removed from the ground without the application of labor. By applying the labor of mining to the capital of iron ore in the ground, new wealth is created. New capital is not created. There is no more iron ore than there ever was, but the value - the wealth that ore is - increases.
Likewise when the iron ore is smelted and becomes iron. And then when the iron is combined with other elements and becomes steel. Then when the steel is fabricated into automobile parts. Then when those parts are assembled with other elements to become an automobile. Then when the automobile is transported to the dealership. At each of these steps, labor is applied to capital to create new value - new wealth. Remember, no new capital is created, only new wealth.
So, to gain the advantage of the incredibly efficient system for creating new wealth that we call capitalism, we must have both capital and labor. Without capital, labor is merely wasted time. Without labor, the value of capital remains static; no new wealth is created.
The question then becomes, how should we share the new wealth that is created by applying labor to capital? Specifically, how much of that new wealth should become the property of the person who owns the capital, and how much should become the property of the person who contributed the labor?
I have not used the word "should" by accident. The question is, how should we divide the new wealth created by this partnership of the person who supplies the capital and the person who supplies the labor. I submit that this question is a moral question, in addition to being an economic question.
Allow me to elaborate. The options for sharing the new wealth lie along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, the person who contributes the labor gets all the new wealth created and the person who contributes the capital gets none of it. We have a name for this end of the spectrum. It is called communism.
At the other end of the spectrum, the person who contributes the capital gets all the new wealth created and the person who contributes the labor gets none of it. We also have a name for this extreme of the spectrum: slavery.
There may be some who would disagree, but in general, people will recognize that it is immoral to take soemone's capital - his or her property - and give him or her nothing for it. Likewise, people generally understand that it is immoral to take someone's labor and give him or her nothing in exchange for it. So, people will recognize that both ends of the spectrum that illustrates how the new wealth can be shared are immoral.
It follows, therefore, that there is some area in the center of the spectrum - that area where the capital contributor and the labor contributor - both get some of the wealth they jointly create. Now, clearly, people will disagree about where that "moral" range is. Some will argue that it is somewhere closer to the laborer, and others will argue that it is somewhere closer to the capitalist. But, to argue that such a "moral" range for sharing the new wealth does not exist is to ignore the obvious fact that both extremes are immoral, therefore somewhere in the middle there has to be a compromise that is, at the very least, not immoral.
I am convinced that we need to have a clear-eyed discussion about what we think is a moral compromise for the sharing of new wealth created by our incredible economic system. If we don't, we run the risk that one side or the other will decide that what they are getting for their contribution is simply unfair. If, when that happens, the other side has so much of the wealth that they can force the other side to participate at whatever "compromise" they dictate, the result will be the destruction of the system.
We will have, in our greed, destroyed the goose who laid all our golden eggs.
Let us hope we will not be so foolish.
I would be terribly disappointed to see it collapse or be destroyed.
However, we capitalists desperately need to remember that, like any other social system, and a lot more than most social systems, capitalism depends on many delicate balances to function properly. If any of those necessary balances gets skewed in one direction or another, the capitalist system loses efficiency in direct proportion. If any of them gets skewed too far, the capitalist system will cease to function at all.
One of those delicate balances is the sharing of the wealth created among those who helped to create it.
A few observations about wealth are necessary. All of these observations come, directly or indirectly, from Adam Smith's epic work, "The Wealth of Nations."
First, money is not wealth. Money represents a right to acquire wealth, and a right only to the extent that right is supported by the social structure. But, money itself is not wealth. Corn is wealth. Gold is wealth. Iron is wealth. Cars and houses and land and tables and bed linens and even ideas are all wealth, but money is not wealth.
Second, no matter what the wealth may be, no matter what form it takes, it requires two things to create new wealth: capital and labor. Certain kinds of wealth require more labor and less capital to create. Other kinds require more capital and less labor. But, all new wealth is created by a combination of labor applied to capital.
Third, any system can create only a finite amount of new wealth in a given interval of time. This is because the amount of existing capital and available labor in any system is finite, so they can only be combined, even at maximum efficiency, in a way that produces a finite amount of new wealth in a given interval of time.
Take, for example, iron ore. Iron ore is capital. When it is in place in the ground, it is a form of real property, with a certain value - a measure of the wealth it is. When it is removed from the ground, its value - the measure of the wealth it is - increases. But, it cannot be removed from the ground without the application of labor. By applying the labor of mining to the capital of iron ore in the ground, new wealth is created. New capital is not created. There is no more iron ore than there ever was, but the value - the wealth that ore is - increases.
Likewise when the iron ore is smelted and becomes iron. And then when the iron is combined with other elements and becomes steel. Then when the steel is fabricated into automobile parts. Then when those parts are assembled with other elements to become an automobile. Then when the automobile is transported to the dealership. At each of these steps, labor is applied to capital to create new value - new wealth. Remember, no new capital is created, only new wealth.
So, to gain the advantage of the incredibly efficient system for creating new wealth that we call capitalism, we must have both capital and labor. Without capital, labor is merely wasted time. Without labor, the value of capital remains static; no new wealth is created.
The question then becomes, how should we share the new wealth that is created by applying labor to capital? Specifically, how much of that new wealth should become the property of the person who owns the capital, and how much should become the property of the person who contributed the labor?
I have not used the word "should" by accident. The question is, how should we divide the new wealth created by this partnership of the person who supplies the capital and the person who supplies the labor. I submit that this question is a moral question, in addition to being an economic question.
Allow me to elaborate. The options for sharing the new wealth lie along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, the person who contributes the labor gets all the new wealth created and the person who contributes the capital gets none of it. We have a name for this end of the spectrum. It is called communism.
At the other end of the spectrum, the person who contributes the capital gets all the new wealth created and the person who contributes the labor gets none of it. We also have a name for this extreme of the spectrum: slavery.
There may be some who would disagree, but in general, people will recognize that it is immoral to take soemone's capital - his or her property - and give him or her nothing for it. Likewise, people generally understand that it is immoral to take someone's labor and give him or her nothing in exchange for it. So, people will recognize that both ends of the spectrum that illustrates how the new wealth can be shared are immoral.
It follows, therefore, that there is some area in the center of the spectrum - that area where the capital contributor and the labor contributor - both get some of the wealth they jointly create. Now, clearly, people will disagree about where that "moral" range is. Some will argue that it is somewhere closer to the laborer, and others will argue that it is somewhere closer to the capitalist. But, to argue that such a "moral" range for sharing the new wealth does not exist is to ignore the obvious fact that both extremes are immoral, therefore somewhere in the middle there has to be a compromise that is, at the very least, not immoral.
I am convinced that we need to have a clear-eyed discussion about what we think is a moral compromise for the sharing of new wealth created by our incredible economic system. If we don't, we run the risk that one side or the other will decide that what they are getting for their contribution is simply unfair. If, when that happens, the other side has so much of the wealth that they can force the other side to participate at whatever "compromise" they dictate, the result will be the destruction of the system.
We will have, in our greed, destroyed the goose who laid all our golden eggs.
Let us hope we will not be so foolish.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Who? I'm Sorry. Who?
In his book "Fed Up! Our Fight to Save American from Washington," Texas Governor Rick Perry says, "We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food, what windows we can buy for our house, what kind of cars we can drive, what kind of prayers we are allowed to say and where we can say them, what political speech we are allowed to use to elect candidates, what kind of energy we can use, what kind of food we can grow, what doctor we can see, and countless other restrictions on our right to live as we see fit."
The implication is that Washington, or someone in Washington, is telling "us" all these things.
Now, literally, the words don't mean that anyone is telling "us" any of these things. Literally, the words mean that "we," whoever "we" are, are "tired" of being told these things, even if it isn't the reality that we are being told these things. So, literally, Governor Perry escapes being a flat-out liar. On this point, anyway.
But, the implication is clear. Washington, or someone in Washington, is telling "us" all these things.
So, let's examine these things, one by one.
"We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food." Unless "we" are children who must obey our parents, then no one is telling or can tell any of "us" how much salt we can put on our food. We are free to put as much salt on our food as we want. Just take that ol' salt shaker and pour it on, Governor, 'cause nobody can stop you. Feel free to put so much salt on your food that you die of sodium overdose, 'cause you can if you want.
Now, it is true that there are lots of folks telling "us" how much salt is healthy to put on our food. Our doctors. Our health insurance providers. Our employers. Our mothers. Even the U.S. Surgeon General. There are even folks who are telling other people how much salt those other people can put on our food. As in, "It's illegal to put so much salt on someone else's food that they die of sodium overdose." But, frankly, I'm not tired of that. I'm actually okay with that. And, those folks and some others are telling other people that if they do put salt on our food then they at least have to tell us how much salt they put on our food. But, I'm okay with that, too. I don't think anybody else ought to be allowed to put salt on my food and not even tell me how much salt they put on my food.
So, since nobody can tell us or is telling us how much salt we can put on our food, and nobody is trying to do that, what exactly are "we" tired of.
"We are tired of being told what windows we can buy for our house." Who is doing this? No one that I know of. Now, I am aware that governments sometimes give tax breaks or other incentives to those who buy certain kinds of energy-saving windows. And builders are required to install certain kinds of windows in order to follow building and safety codes. But, someone is telling "us" what kind of windows "we" can buy for our house? As far as I know, we are free to buy any kind of windows we can find for sale. So, Governor, go to some demolition site where they're tearing down some old house and buy all those old windows you want. No one will stop you. Even put 'em in your house. As long as you can afford the energy bill from those old windows, have at it. No one can stop you from buying whatever windows you want for your own house. Or even having no windows at all.
"We are tried of being told what kind of cars we can drive." I'm not clear who's doing this, either. In fact, I see old cars and cars of every make and model on the roads almost every day. Go get whatever kind of car you want, and drive it to your heart's content. No one is stopping you. Now, if what you mean is that you are not allowed to let your car get in such terrible repair that it pollutes my air and you still get to drive it around making me sick, well, yeah. People are telling you you can't do that. States, mostly, but some local governments. Maybe even the federal government. You know. Washington. But, I'm not tired of that. I'm really okay with the notion that my elected representatives care enough about my health that they won't let you ruin it by polluting my air. But, what kind of car you can drive? Nope. Nobody's telling you, or "us," that.
"We are tired of being told what kind of prayers we are allowed to say." You gotta be kidding, Governor. Are you really claiming that Washington cares what kind of prayers you say? Last time I checked, I was allowed to say any kind of prayer I felt like saying. No government, Washington or any other, was allowed to say, or was trying to say, I couldn't. That's kind of what that whole separation of church and state thing that at least one tea party candidate couldn't find in the Constitution is all about. No law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Remember? Ah, well, maybe you forgot.
"We are tired of being told where we can say [prayers]." Well, I guess you got me there. It's true. Because of that separation of church and state thing, because the government really can't tell you what kind of prayers you can say, the government doesn't get to force you to go somewhere - like a school for a school child or a courtroom for someone participating in the justice system - and make you listen to prayers selected by the government. Nope, not the ones the government thinks we ought to hear, and not any others. So, yeah, "we" are told that if "we" are part of the government, "we" don't get to say "our" prayers in places that force "our" fellow citizens to listen to them in order to participate in "their" government. Even if it didn't violate that church and state thing, it seems like it might violate the "t'ain't fair" rule, at least. So, yeah, Governor, I admit, you are told where you can say your prayers. No place that interferes with other folks right to listen to whatever prayers they want to listen to and not have to listen to yours if they don't want to.
"We are tired of being told what political speech we can use to elect candidates." Huh? Maybe there's some kind of political speech that doesn't work in electing candidates, but, leately it seems like pretty much anything goes. You should know.
"We are tired of being told what kind of energy we can use." Um ... huh? Again, huh? I admit, I am practically restricted in what kind of energy I use, because I can get electrical power only from the City of Austin, and I don't control how they generate their electrical power. But, last time I checked, they were required by law to let me hook up a solar panel or a wind generator to the grid at my house, and even buy any excess energy that might produce and pay me for it. I can't set a fire that burns down my neighbor's house or pollutes their air, but I can burn wood in my fireplace and candles on my table, if I want. Or, I can do without energy if I want - turn off my lights and my air conditioner and just tough it out in the heat and dark. Who is telling me what energy I can use? Certainly not Washington.
"We are tired of being told what kind of food we can grow." What? I don't have a garden, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I could grow anything in it I wanted to, if I could get it to grow in Texas, except marijuana. I mean, I know some folks put that stuff in brownies, but generally it isn't thought of as food. I don't think. So, who, exactly, is telling me what kind of food I can grow? Certainly no one from Washington, that I know of. Governor, you weren't talking about legalizing home-grown marijuana, were you?
"We are tired of being told what doctor we can see." As far as I know, I can see any doctor I can afford. My insurance company has pretty tight control of what doctors I can afford, but if I were rich, like you, I'm pretty sure I could see any doctor I wanted to see. Certainly, Washington wouldn't stop me. In fact, last time I checked, Washington was trying to expand my options for which doctors I could afford, and you opposed that idea. But, regardless, they sure aren't telling me or anyone else I can't see any doctor I want to see. Where did you get this crazy idea?
Now, the government does say who gets to be a doctor. As in, you have to pass the medical exams to get to be a doctor. But, it's the states that do that, not Washington. And, like some of your other complaints, if that's what's bugging you, I have to say I'm really okay with that. I kind of like the idea that when I go to someone claiming to be a doctor, I've got some reason to assume he or she really knows something about medicine.
But, someone in Washington is telling me which one I can see? Nope. Never happened to me.
So, all in all, the obvious implication of the Governor's little diatribe - the implication that someone is controlling or is trying to control any of these things - is ... well ... ludicrous. (Well, except for that little thing about the government not being able to tell us what prayers we have to listen to in order to participate in our government.)
But, we go on and on telling ourselves and each other these patent falsehoods. They feed what we "feel" is true, and we begin to believe them because they "feel" true. But, they aren't. But, because we believe them to be true, without any basis for that belief, it becomes impossible for us to talk to each other and figure out what really is true. We're all tied up with what we just "feel" must be true.
It's a shame that people are willing to do that to us, but there have always been hucksters and snake oil salesman, people willing to make a buck off other people's credulity. The bigger shame is that we keep letting them do it to us.
When are we going to learn?
The implication is that Washington, or someone in Washington, is telling "us" all these things.
Now, literally, the words don't mean that anyone is telling "us" any of these things. Literally, the words mean that "we," whoever "we" are, are "tired" of being told these things, even if it isn't the reality that we are being told these things. So, literally, Governor Perry escapes being a flat-out liar. On this point, anyway.
But, the implication is clear. Washington, or someone in Washington, is telling "us" all these things.
So, let's examine these things, one by one.
"We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food." Unless "we" are children who must obey our parents, then no one is telling or can tell any of "us" how much salt we can put on our food. We are free to put as much salt on our food as we want. Just take that ol' salt shaker and pour it on, Governor, 'cause nobody can stop you. Feel free to put so much salt on your food that you die of sodium overdose, 'cause you can if you want.
Now, it is true that there are lots of folks telling "us" how much salt is healthy to put on our food. Our doctors. Our health insurance providers. Our employers. Our mothers. Even the U.S. Surgeon General. There are even folks who are telling other people how much salt those other people can put on our food. As in, "It's illegal to put so much salt on someone else's food that they die of sodium overdose." But, frankly, I'm not tired of that. I'm actually okay with that. And, those folks and some others are telling other people that if they do put salt on our food then they at least have to tell us how much salt they put on our food. But, I'm okay with that, too. I don't think anybody else ought to be allowed to put salt on my food and not even tell me how much salt they put on my food.
So, since nobody can tell us or is telling us how much salt we can put on our food, and nobody is trying to do that, what exactly are "we" tired of.
"We are tired of being told what windows we can buy for our house." Who is doing this? No one that I know of. Now, I am aware that governments sometimes give tax breaks or other incentives to those who buy certain kinds of energy-saving windows. And builders are required to install certain kinds of windows in order to follow building and safety codes. But, someone is telling "us" what kind of windows "we" can buy for our house? As far as I know, we are free to buy any kind of windows we can find for sale. So, Governor, go to some demolition site where they're tearing down some old house and buy all those old windows you want. No one will stop you. Even put 'em in your house. As long as you can afford the energy bill from those old windows, have at it. No one can stop you from buying whatever windows you want for your own house. Or even having no windows at all.
"We are tried of being told what kind of cars we can drive." I'm not clear who's doing this, either. In fact, I see old cars and cars of every make and model on the roads almost every day. Go get whatever kind of car you want, and drive it to your heart's content. No one is stopping you. Now, if what you mean is that you are not allowed to let your car get in such terrible repair that it pollutes my air and you still get to drive it around making me sick, well, yeah. People are telling you you can't do that. States, mostly, but some local governments. Maybe even the federal government. You know. Washington. But, I'm not tired of that. I'm really okay with the notion that my elected representatives care enough about my health that they won't let you ruin it by polluting my air. But, what kind of car you can drive? Nope. Nobody's telling you, or "us," that.
"We are tired of being told what kind of prayers we are allowed to say." You gotta be kidding, Governor. Are you really claiming that Washington cares what kind of prayers you say? Last time I checked, I was allowed to say any kind of prayer I felt like saying. No government, Washington or any other, was allowed to say, or was trying to say, I couldn't. That's kind of what that whole separation of church and state thing that at least one tea party candidate couldn't find in the Constitution is all about. No law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Remember? Ah, well, maybe you forgot.
"We are tired of being told where we can say [prayers]." Well, I guess you got me there. It's true. Because of that separation of church and state thing, because the government really can't tell you what kind of prayers you can say, the government doesn't get to force you to go somewhere - like a school for a school child or a courtroom for someone participating in the justice system - and make you listen to prayers selected by the government. Nope, not the ones the government thinks we ought to hear, and not any others. So, yeah, "we" are told that if "we" are part of the government, "we" don't get to say "our" prayers in places that force "our" fellow citizens to listen to them in order to participate in "their" government. Even if it didn't violate that church and state thing, it seems like it might violate the "t'ain't fair" rule, at least. So, yeah, Governor, I admit, you are told where you can say your prayers. No place that interferes with other folks right to listen to whatever prayers they want to listen to and not have to listen to yours if they don't want to.
"We are tired of being told what political speech we can use to elect candidates." Huh? Maybe there's some kind of political speech that doesn't work in electing candidates, but, leately it seems like pretty much anything goes. You should know.
"We are tired of being told what kind of energy we can use." Um ... huh? Again, huh? I admit, I am practically restricted in what kind of energy I use, because I can get electrical power only from the City of Austin, and I don't control how they generate their electrical power. But, last time I checked, they were required by law to let me hook up a solar panel or a wind generator to the grid at my house, and even buy any excess energy that might produce and pay me for it. I can't set a fire that burns down my neighbor's house or pollutes their air, but I can burn wood in my fireplace and candles on my table, if I want. Or, I can do without energy if I want - turn off my lights and my air conditioner and just tough it out in the heat and dark. Who is telling me what energy I can use? Certainly not Washington.
"We are tired of being told what kind of food we can grow." What? I don't have a garden, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I could grow anything in it I wanted to, if I could get it to grow in Texas, except marijuana. I mean, I know some folks put that stuff in brownies, but generally it isn't thought of as food. I don't think. So, who, exactly, is telling me what kind of food I can grow? Certainly no one from Washington, that I know of. Governor, you weren't talking about legalizing home-grown marijuana, were you?
"We are tired of being told what doctor we can see." As far as I know, I can see any doctor I can afford. My insurance company has pretty tight control of what doctors I can afford, but if I were rich, like you, I'm pretty sure I could see any doctor I wanted to see. Certainly, Washington wouldn't stop me. In fact, last time I checked, Washington was trying to expand my options for which doctors I could afford, and you opposed that idea. But, regardless, they sure aren't telling me or anyone else I can't see any doctor I want to see. Where did you get this crazy idea?
Now, the government does say who gets to be a doctor. As in, you have to pass the medical exams to get to be a doctor. But, it's the states that do that, not Washington. And, like some of your other complaints, if that's what's bugging you, I have to say I'm really okay with that. I kind of like the idea that when I go to someone claiming to be a doctor, I've got some reason to assume he or she really knows something about medicine.
But, someone in Washington is telling me which one I can see? Nope. Never happened to me.
So, all in all, the obvious implication of the Governor's little diatribe - the implication that someone is controlling or is trying to control any of these things - is ... well ... ludicrous. (Well, except for that little thing about the government not being able to tell us what prayers we have to listen to in order to participate in our government.)
But, we go on and on telling ourselves and each other these patent falsehoods. They feed what we "feel" is true, and we begin to believe them because they "feel" true. But, they aren't. But, because we believe them to be true, without any basis for that belief, it becomes impossible for us to talk to each other and figure out what really is true. We're all tied up with what we just "feel" must be true.
It's a shame that people are willing to do that to us, but there have always been hucksters and snake oil salesman, people willing to make a buck off other people's credulity. The bigger shame is that we keep letting them do it to us.
When are we going to learn?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Part-Time Senator
This morning I saw Rand Paul, Republican United States Senator-elect from Kentucky, being interviewed on television. He was asked what he planned to do with his medical practice, now that he was about to be a U.S. Senator.
He responded by urging his patients not to go to another doctor, because he was already setting appointments for Mondays and Fridays, when he expected to be back home in Kentucky.
So, that leaves Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to be in Washington.
Rand Paul, along with other tea party candidates, ran for office promising to "change Washington." He, in particular, promised to "take our government back."
Part-time, Dr. Paul? In three days a week, Doctor? You're going to change Washington and take back our government working part time as a U.S. Senator, three days a week?
My clients are Texas county elected officials. I don't know any of them who work part time. The county commissioners do not work part time. In fact, they work way more than 40 hours a week. And for less than the salary of a U.S. Senator. Way less.
Maybe you can change Washington and take back our government only working three days a week, but I'm willing to bet it takes a little more time than that to be a good United States Senator.
But, there may be some who might argue that it's a good thing that Dr. Paul will only be in Washington three days a week instead of full time.
We'll see, I guess.
He responded by urging his patients not to go to another doctor, because he was already setting appointments for Mondays and Fridays, when he expected to be back home in Kentucky.
So, that leaves Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to be in Washington.
Rand Paul, along with other tea party candidates, ran for office promising to "change Washington." He, in particular, promised to "take our government back."
Part-time, Dr. Paul? In three days a week, Doctor? You're going to change Washington and take back our government working part time as a U.S. Senator, three days a week?
My clients are Texas county elected officials. I don't know any of them who work part time. The county commissioners do not work part time. In fact, they work way more than 40 hours a week. And for less than the salary of a U.S. Senator. Way less.
Maybe you can change Washington and take back our government only working three days a week, but I'm willing to bet it takes a little more time than that to be a good United States Senator.
But, there may be some who might argue that it's a good thing that Dr. Paul will only be in Washington three days a week instead of full time.
We'll see, I guess.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Truth Alert
There is an opinion piece in today's Austin American-Statesman entitled "In search of civility," by Jeanne Claire van Ryzin. It is about a speaking tour by Jim Leach, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
It is difficult to tell which parts of the article are Ms. van Ryzin's words, which are quotations from Mr. Leach, and which are paraphrases of Mr. Leach, but in the article are these words: "[W]e had greater tension in the pre-Civil War era and we had greater tension soon after the founding of the republic. After all, Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel with the vice president of the United States. I sometimes describe that as 'a legal act of incivility,' because duels were legal then and fortunately they're not now." [Emphasis added.] I think that is a quotation from Mr. Leach.
In any event, these things are so simple. With the availability of the internet, you don't even have to go to the library to check them, even if you don't remember your basic American history. Why does the American-Statesman continue to publish these obvious falsehoods?
Duels were not legal when Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr fought theirs. In fact, even though they both lived in New York, they rowed across the Hudson River to a dueling grounds in Weehauken, New Jersey, to fight their duel because the law against dueling was being more aggressively enforced in New York at the time, and they were afraid the duel would be stopped by the authorities if held in New York. Mr. Hamilton died the following day of a wound he received at the hand of Mr. Burr, and Mr. Burr was charged with two counts of murder.
It is difficult to tell which parts of the article are Ms. van Ryzin's words, which are quotations from Mr. Leach, and which are paraphrases of Mr. Leach, but in the article are these words: "[W]e had greater tension in the pre-Civil War era and we had greater tension soon after the founding of the republic. After all, Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel with the vice president of the United States. I sometimes describe that as 'a legal act of incivility,' because duels were legal then and fortunately they're not now." [Emphasis added.] I think that is a quotation from Mr. Leach.
In any event, these things are so simple. With the availability of the internet, you don't even have to go to the library to check them, even if you don't remember your basic American history. Why does the American-Statesman continue to publish these obvious falsehoods?
Duels were not legal when Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr fought theirs. In fact, even though they both lived in New York, they rowed across the Hudson River to a dueling grounds in Weehauken, New Jersey, to fight their duel because the law against dueling was being more aggressively enforced in New York at the time, and they were afraid the duel would be stopped by the authorities if held in New York. Mr. Hamilton died the following day of a wound he received at the hand of Mr. Burr, and Mr. Burr was charged with two counts of murder.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Please! Just Tell the Truth!
In today's Austin American-Statesman there is an opinion article entitled "China bashers are passing the buck," by someone whose last name is apparently Hassett and who is director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
I don't know if I agree with the opinions he expresses in the article, and that is not the point of this comment. He may be exactly right in his opinions. The point of this comment is that one of the reasons I can't tell if I agree with him or not, one of the reasons I am not persuaded by his arguments, is that one of the "facts" he states is not true. Because of that, I have to wonder if any of the other "facts" he states are true.
He says, "[W]e [the United States] have ... the second-highest coproate tax rates on earth."
There are lots of facts he asserts which I am too ignorant to even wonder about, but I knew enough to wonder about that. More than wonder, I thought, "That surely isn't true." So, I took a few minutes on the internet to check it out. It turns out, as I suspected, that it isn't true.
The corporate tax rates in the United States range from 15% to 39%. If you look at the highest tax rate - 39% - there are at least six other countries which have higher top corporate tax rates than the United States.
Many countries, however, have fixed corporate tax rates, not a range. If you compare the fixed tax rate of those countries to the average of our range, there are many, many countries with higher corporate tax rates than ours. So many I didn't even bother to count.
Of the countries who do have ranges, like we do, if you compare the low end of our range to the low end of their range, there are at least eight other countries which have higher bottom corporate tax rates than the United States and several others who have the same bottom corporate tax rates as the United States.
My point is not to argue that our U.S. corporate tax rate is either good or bad, set correctly or incorrectly. My point is to argue that, no matter how you slice it, the corporate tax rates in the United States are not the second highest in the world. That statement is simply ... false.
We have to stop telling ourselves things that are not true. By ourselves, I mean both our fellow citizens and, literally, ourselves. The more we tell ourselves something that is not true, the more we begin to believe that it is true. This has to stop, or we're doomed.
We cannot possibly ever agree on solutions or even on the nature of the problem if we are all choosing to believe different things, some of which are just not true. Even things which are obviously not true.
This is particularly galling in the case of this article by Mr. (or Mrs. or Miss, I can't tell which) Hassett because it is published in the Austin American-Statesman, which has a regular feature in which they research statements made by politicians and rank them on whether they are truthful or not. The fact that they would publish something on their opinion page with a statement which five minutes on the internet would show was untrue is, at the risk of being too dramatic, appalling. Utterly appalling!
Stop it! Please!
Just tell the truth!
I don't know if I agree with the opinions he expresses in the article, and that is not the point of this comment. He may be exactly right in his opinions. The point of this comment is that one of the reasons I can't tell if I agree with him or not, one of the reasons I am not persuaded by his arguments, is that one of the "facts" he states is not true. Because of that, I have to wonder if any of the other "facts" he states are true.
He says, "[W]e [the United States] have ... the second-highest coproate tax rates on earth."
There are lots of facts he asserts which I am too ignorant to even wonder about, but I knew enough to wonder about that. More than wonder, I thought, "That surely isn't true." So, I took a few minutes on the internet to check it out. It turns out, as I suspected, that it isn't true.
The corporate tax rates in the United States range from 15% to 39%. If you look at the highest tax rate - 39% - there are at least six other countries which have higher top corporate tax rates than the United States.
Many countries, however, have fixed corporate tax rates, not a range. If you compare the fixed tax rate of those countries to the average of our range, there are many, many countries with higher corporate tax rates than ours. So many I didn't even bother to count.
Of the countries who do have ranges, like we do, if you compare the low end of our range to the low end of their range, there are at least eight other countries which have higher bottom corporate tax rates than the United States and several others who have the same bottom corporate tax rates as the United States.
My point is not to argue that our U.S. corporate tax rate is either good or bad, set correctly or incorrectly. My point is to argue that, no matter how you slice it, the corporate tax rates in the United States are not the second highest in the world. That statement is simply ... false.
We have to stop telling ourselves things that are not true. By ourselves, I mean both our fellow citizens and, literally, ourselves. The more we tell ourselves something that is not true, the more we begin to believe that it is true. This has to stop, or we're doomed.
We cannot possibly ever agree on solutions or even on the nature of the problem if we are all choosing to believe different things, some of which are just not true. Even things which are obviously not true.
This is particularly galling in the case of this article by Mr. (or Mrs. or Miss, I can't tell which) Hassett because it is published in the Austin American-Statesman, which has a regular feature in which they research statements made by politicians and rank them on whether they are truthful or not. The fact that they would publish something on their opinion page with a statement which five minutes on the internet would show was untrue is, at the risk of being too dramatic, appalling. Utterly appalling!
Stop it! Please!
Just tell the truth!
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Compromise
Since yesterday's article about the "enthusiasm gap" related to the issue of compromise, I thought I'd share some of my views on compromise.
One should strive to do good, to accomplish good things. Sometimes that will be easy. Everyone will agree what is good, and how to do it, and everyone pulls together in the same direction in the same way to accomplish the same goal.
Sometimes, though, there is disagreement on what is good and what is not. Even more often, there is disagreement on how to accomplish a shared goal that is mutually agreed to be good.
Often, the assistance or cooperation of someone else, someone who might not be in complete agreement about either the goal or the means, is required to move toward the desired goal. In order to secure that cooperation, it is not only necessary, but appropriate to make certain kinds of compromises.
For example, a husband and wife may agree that they need a new vehicle, a car. One wants a large vehicle that carries many passengers and goods. The other wants a vehicle that gets the very best gas mileage possible and is easy on the environment. So, one wants a big SUV, the other wants a Smart Car. However, one objects that the SUV gets terrible gas mileage. The other objects that the Smart Car isn't large enough and it's not very safe.
So, they compromise and buy a smaller hybrid SUV. Neither gets exactly what they want, but both get something of what they want, and they are both better off than if they had refused to compromise and been stuck with their old car that neither of them liked or wanted.
Some compromises, however, should not be made under any circumstances. Those are the compromises that require the compromiser to become complicit in evil in order to get something they want.
Imagine this scenario: A bank robber takes 40 hostages in a bank. He threatens to kill all the hostages if he doesn't get what he wants. There is no way he will ever be given what he wants.
The hostage negotiator shows up and tries to talk the robber into releasing all of the hostages, but, despite his very best efforts, he cannot convince the robber to release all of the hostages. The best he can do is to convince the robber to give up 20 of the 40 hostages. He is pretty sure if he takes the deal, the other 20 will be killed, but he's also pretty sure if he doesn't take the deal, all 40 will die. In that case, it is entirely appropriate to take the deal. It wasn't the full goal of the negotiator, but at least it saved 20 lives, when without the compromise, all 40 would have been lost.
However, that is very different from this scenario: Same situation, except the best deal the robber will give is "I'll release 20 of the hostages, if you, Mr. Negotiator, will shoot the other 20. Otherwise, I'm gonna shoot all 40."
The hostage negotiator cannot, under any circumstances, take that deal, because it requires him to be complicit in evil. While there is no quantitative difference (20 live and 20 die in both cases), there is a qualitative difference that absolutely prevents the possibility of compromise in the latter case. It is never morally appropriate to agree to do evil to accomplish a perceived good.
That's one of the main reasons why I listed the things I listed in my article yesterday which are "compromises" made by President Obama which he should not have made and should not be making. I believe that many of those things required no compromise at all. He could have done them or stopped doing them, as the case may be, without any cooperation from anyone else at all. He's the president. He could simply decide that they would be done or not be done and it would be so.
However, in many of those cases, he would have to pay a political price and, in some cases, perhaps more important prices of various kinds, to have done or not done particular things on that list. So, I believe, he compromised. For example, he couldn't close Guantanamo without paying a heavy political price, so he kept it open, but drastically lowered the number of prisoners being held there.
The problem is, he's the one holding them there. He didn't agree to take 20 hostages because he couldn't get all 40, knowing that the robber would kill the other 20. He agreed to take 20 hostages and to himself shoot the other hostages.
This is why there is a lack of enthusiasm among liberal or Democratic voters. We are forced to choose between a party that shoots 40 people because it's expedient and a party that shoots only 20 people because it's expedient. We're just haggling over price.
Generally speaking, compromise is absolutely essential to a functioning democracy and a positive good. However, that kind of compromise, the kind that requires the compromiser to become complicit in evil to gain the compromise, will, eventually and certainly, destroy a democratic government.
It simply cannot happen. It cannot be allowed to happen. It is always wrong.
One should strive to do good, to accomplish good things. Sometimes that will be easy. Everyone will agree what is good, and how to do it, and everyone pulls together in the same direction in the same way to accomplish the same goal.
Sometimes, though, there is disagreement on what is good and what is not. Even more often, there is disagreement on how to accomplish a shared goal that is mutually agreed to be good.
Often, the assistance or cooperation of someone else, someone who might not be in complete agreement about either the goal or the means, is required to move toward the desired goal. In order to secure that cooperation, it is not only necessary, but appropriate to make certain kinds of compromises.
For example, a husband and wife may agree that they need a new vehicle, a car. One wants a large vehicle that carries many passengers and goods. The other wants a vehicle that gets the very best gas mileage possible and is easy on the environment. So, one wants a big SUV, the other wants a Smart Car. However, one objects that the SUV gets terrible gas mileage. The other objects that the Smart Car isn't large enough and it's not very safe.
So, they compromise and buy a smaller hybrid SUV. Neither gets exactly what they want, but both get something of what they want, and they are both better off than if they had refused to compromise and been stuck with their old car that neither of them liked or wanted.
Some compromises, however, should not be made under any circumstances. Those are the compromises that require the compromiser to become complicit in evil in order to get something they want.
Imagine this scenario: A bank robber takes 40 hostages in a bank. He threatens to kill all the hostages if he doesn't get what he wants. There is no way he will ever be given what he wants.
The hostage negotiator shows up and tries to talk the robber into releasing all of the hostages, but, despite his very best efforts, he cannot convince the robber to release all of the hostages. The best he can do is to convince the robber to give up 20 of the 40 hostages. He is pretty sure if he takes the deal, the other 20 will be killed, but he's also pretty sure if he doesn't take the deal, all 40 will die. In that case, it is entirely appropriate to take the deal. It wasn't the full goal of the negotiator, but at least it saved 20 lives, when without the compromise, all 40 would have been lost.
However, that is very different from this scenario: Same situation, except the best deal the robber will give is "I'll release 20 of the hostages, if you, Mr. Negotiator, will shoot the other 20. Otherwise, I'm gonna shoot all 40."
The hostage negotiator cannot, under any circumstances, take that deal, because it requires him to be complicit in evil. While there is no quantitative difference (20 live and 20 die in both cases), there is a qualitative difference that absolutely prevents the possibility of compromise in the latter case. It is never morally appropriate to agree to do evil to accomplish a perceived good.
That's one of the main reasons why I listed the things I listed in my article yesterday which are "compromises" made by President Obama which he should not have made and should not be making. I believe that many of those things required no compromise at all. He could have done them or stopped doing them, as the case may be, without any cooperation from anyone else at all. He's the president. He could simply decide that they would be done or not be done and it would be so.
However, in many of those cases, he would have to pay a political price and, in some cases, perhaps more important prices of various kinds, to have done or not done particular things on that list. So, I believe, he compromised. For example, he couldn't close Guantanamo without paying a heavy political price, so he kept it open, but drastically lowered the number of prisoners being held there.
The problem is, he's the one holding them there. He didn't agree to take 20 hostages because he couldn't get all 40, knowing that the robber would kill the other 20. He agreed to take 20 hostages and to himself shoot the other hostages.
This is why there is a lack of enthusiasm among liberal or Democratic voters. We are forced to choose between a party that shoots 40 people because it's expedient and a party that shoots only 20 people because it's expedient. We're just haggling over price.
Generally speaking, compromise is absolutely essential to a functioning democracy and a positive good. However, that kind of compromise, the kind that requires the compromiser to become complicit in evil to gain the compromise, will, eventually and certainly, destroy a democratic government.
It simply cannot happen. It cannot be allowed to happen. It is always wrong.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The "Enthusiasm Gap"
There is much in the news about the "enthusiasm gap" between Republican or conservative or tea party voters on one side and Democratic or liberal voters on the other.
I don't doubt that the gap exists, for I feel it myself. I am a liberal Democratic voter who does not feel very enthusiastic about voting for Democrats in this upcoming election. (I insert here the caveat that my feelings do not apply to all Democrats, but, unfortunately, they do to most Democrats and especially to most at the federal level.)
But, it isn't for any of the reasons that the "pundits" and "talking heads" speculate might be the reason why we liberal Democrats aren't very enthusiastic.
I care about the economy and health care and regulation. I'm not happy with what's been done with the economy and health care and regulation. But, it isn't because I think there's been too much done. It's because I don't think enough has been done in any of those areas. I don't blame the Democrats for that. In fact, by and large, I think the Democrats have been pretty heroic in doing all that they could in the face of Republican intransigence. The Democrats have had to compromise for what they could get, and such compromise is a necessary ingredient of a democratic form of government. While I wish the Republicans had been more cooperative, they weren't and I'm okay with the Democrats on those issues.
The economy and health care and regulation are not what has dampened my enthusiasm.
My enthusiasm is low because the Democrats - and particularly President Obama - have compromised on things that they should not have compromised on and on things they didn't have to compromise on.
Guantanamo is still open and still holding prisoners.
The President has averred that there are some prisoners in Guantanamo who will never be released, even if we can't convict them of anything.
Prisoners in Guantanamo are either being tried or facing trial in military courts which did not exist at the time they committed their alleged "crimes" and for violation of laws which did not exist at the time they committed their alleged "crimes."
The President has either refused or has failed to prohibit the illegal kidnapping of foreign citizens in their own countries, a practice euphemistically and misleadingly referred to as "rendition."
American civilians are killing people in countries with which we are not at war with the imprimatur of the United States government.
The President has avowed that those who committed international crimes in the name of the United States while in the employ of the United States will not be prosecuted for their crimes.
We are still violating the Geneva Conventions.
All of these things are wrong. The President did not have to compromise on any one of these things. The President should not have compromised on any one of these things.
The fact that one or all of these things may not be being done as often or as flagrantly as they were during the Bush administration (assuming that were true) is no defense to the fact that they were wrong to do then and they are wrong to do now.
I am reminded of the story of the man who was having dinner with a lady and asked her if she would go to bed with him for a million pounds. She smiled coquettishly and said, "Well, Sir, I think I would." He then asked her if she would go to bed with him for ten pounds, to which she looked horrified and replied, "Why, Sir! What do you think I am?" He then replied, "Madame, we have already established that. Now we are merely haggling over price."
I am not enthusiastic about voting for Democrats because they have compromised on moral issues, apparently for the sake of political expediency, when they didn't have to and should not have done so. I will hold my nose and vote for the Democrats, because I think they are substantially superior to the Republicans, but I'll have to hold my nose. I'm not enthusiastic.
And I find it somewhat complicated to argue with anyone who says that "all politicians are the same." Actually, they are different, but it seems only in quantity, not in quality. About the best I can say is, "Yes, my politicians are morally reprehensible. They just aren't as morally reprehensible as your politicians."
The Democrats are unlikely to bridge the enthusiasm gap when that's the best argument that can be made for them.
I don't doubt that the gap exists, for I feel it myself. I am a liberal Democratic voter who does not feel very enthusiastic about voting for Democrats in this upcoming election. (I insert here the caveat that my feelings do not apply to all Democrats, but, unfortunately, they do to most Democrats and especially to most at the federal level.)
But, it isn't for any of the reasons that the "pundits" and "talking heads" speculate might be the reason why we liberal Democrats aren't very enthusiastic.
I care about the economy and health care and regulation. I'm not happy with what's been done with the economy and health care and regulation. But, it isn't because I think there's been too much done. It's because I don't think enough has been done in any of those areas. I don't blame the Democrats for that. In fact, by and large, I think the Democrats have been pretty heroic in doing all that they could in the face of Republican intransigence. The Democrats have had to compromise for what they could get, and such compromise is a necessary ingredient of a democratic form of government. While I wish the Republicans had been more cooperative, they weren't and I'm okay with the Democrats on those issues.
The economy and health care and regulation are not what has dampened my enthusiasm.
My enthusiasm is low because the Democrats - and particularly President Obama - have compromised on things that they should not have compromised on and on things they didn't have to compromise on.
Guantanamo is still open and still holding prisoners.
The President has averred that there are some prisoners in Guantanamo who will never be released, even if we can't convict them of anything.
Prisoners in Guantanamo are either being tried or facing trial in military courts which did not exist at the time they committed their alleged "crimes" and for violation of laws which did not exist at the time they committed their alleged "crimes."
The President has either refused or has failed to prohibit the illegal kidnapping of foreign citizens in their own countries, a practice euphemistically and misleadingly referred to as "rendition."
American civilians are killing people in countries with which we are not at war with the imprimatur of the United States government.
The President has avowed that those who committed international crimes in the name of the United States while in the employ of the United States will not be prosecuted for their crimes.
We are still violating the Geneva Conventions.
All of these things are wrong. The President did not have to compromise on any one of these things. The President should not have compromised on any one of these things.
The fact that one or all of these things may not be being done as often or as flagrantly as they were during the Bush administration (assuming that were true) is no defense to the fact that they were wrong to do then and they are wrong to do now.
I am reminded of the story of the man who was having dinner with a lady and asked her if she would go to bed with him for a million pounds. She smiled coquettishly and said, "Well, Sir, I think I would." He then asked her if she would go to bed with him for ten pounds, to which she looked horrified and replied, "Why, Sir! What do you think I am?" He then replied, "Madame, we have already established that. Now we are merely haggling over price."
I am not enthusiastic about voting for Democrats because they have compromised on moral issues, apparently for the sake of political expediency, when they didn't have to and should not have done so. I will hold my nose and vote for the Democrats, because I think they are substantially superior to the Republicans, but I'll have to hold my nose. I'm not enthusiastic.
And I find it somewhat complicated to argue with anyone who says that "all politicians are the same." Actually, they are different, but it seems only in quantity, not in quality. About the best I can say is, "Yes, my politicians are morally reprehensible. They just aren't as morally reprehensible as your politicians."
The Democrats are unlikely to bridge the enthusiasm gap when that's the best argument that can be made for them.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The "Ground Zero" Mosque on "Sacred" Ground
I'm sorry, but there was just too much news today.
Did you know that on September 11, 2001, when terrorists flew planes into the the Twin Towers of the Word Trade Center, there were two mosques in those towers - one in each tower? I didn't know that until today.
One can imagine that some of the American Muslims who died that day in those towers might have been praying in one or both of those mosques at the moment of their deaths.
It is alleged that the "Ground Zero" mosque, as it is so incorrectly called (it is not located on any of the tracts that had destroyed buildings from the attacks), is planned to be built on "sacred" ground. Did you know that, on the same block where the Muslim place of worship is planned, there exist today strip clubs and betting parlors?
Sacred ground, you say? Hmmm.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
Did you know that on September 11, 2001, when terrorists flew planes into the the Twin Towers of the Word Trade Center, there were two mosques in those towers - one in each tower? I didn't know that until today.
One can imagine that some of the American Muslims who died that day in those towers might have been praying in one or both of those mosques at the moment of their deaths.
It is alleged that the "Ground Zero" mosque, as it is so incorrectly called (it is not located on any of the tracts that had destroyed buildings from the attacks), is planned to be built on "sacred" ground. Did you know that, on the same block where the Muslim place of worship is planned, there exist today strip clubs and betting parlors?
Sacred ground, you say? Hmmm.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
The Deficit
Today it was announced that after the first full fiscal year under President Barrack Obama, a Democrat, the deficit in the United States budget is projected to be eight percent lower than it was last year, a budget year in which the budget was written by the administration of President George W. Bush, a Republican.
Those with short memories may have forgotten that when that President Bush took office, after eight years of a Democratic President, the United States budget actually had a surplus, not a deficit. Unless I am mistaken, that surplus disappeared after one year of Republican administration and, for the next eight years of Republican budgets, the deficit got bigger every year.
Now, with a Democratic administration, it has, once again, begun to grow smaller.
Who are the fiscal conservatives?
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypcrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
Those with short memories may have forgotten that when that President Bush took office, after eight years of a Democratic President, the United States budget actually had a surplus, not a deficit. Unless I am mistaken, that surplus disappeared after one year of Republican administration and, for the next eight years of Republican budgets, the deficit got bigger every year.
Now, with a Democratic administration, it has, once again, begun to grow smaller.
Who are the fiscal conservatives?
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypcrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
Rewriting History
In the Austin American-Statesman today, there is an opinion piece entitled "Learn how to get along." I don't know who wrote it. It is about a class on the September 11 attacks taught to the students at the apparently very pluralistic Centreville High School in Virginia.
Among the things said in the article about the events of September 11, 2001, and the days which followed, is this: "America, as a whole, was at its best right after the attacks. Our nation didn't repeat history's atrocities with another callous internment of Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor."
Just because someone says it, does not mean it is true. Just because it is said often, doesn't make it true. That statement, literally, is true: we didn't inter Japanese Americans again.
But, the thing that statement is intended to get the reader to believe is ... well ... false. Because we interned Muslims, and, in some cases, Muslim Americans.
After the September 11 attacks, we arrested hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young Muslim men who were in this country legally and incarcerated them - in prisons - for months without charge and without any probable cause to believe that they had committed any offense against the United States or any of its citizens.
After the September 11 attacks, we arrested at least one American citizen, on American soil, and held him for years - in a military prison - without allowing him any contact with his family or friends or even with a lawyer. While he may have been guilty of something, he was never charged with the offenses of which the government claimed he was guilty which allegedly justified holding an American citizen in solitary confinement without access to a lawyer and without being charged with any crime. When he was finally charged with something - because the courts were at the point of ordering his release if he wasn't charged - the government charged him with some other crime than the ones for which they claimed they were holding him. His name is Jose Padilla. He "happens" to be Muslim. He is an American citizen. There may have been others, but we know about Mr. Padilla.
To say that we did not commit atrocities after the September 11 attacks, to say that we had learned the bitter lesson after interning Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, is ... simply ... false. We did commit atrocities. Things no nation should ever do to people. Things that, had they been done to Americans in any other country would have been immediately and vociferously condemned by our government as blatant human rights violations. We did them.
If we are ever to learn anything by our past mistakes, we must face those mistakes. We cannot rewrite history because it makes us feel good about ourselves. When we do that, we are condemned to do the same horrible, atrocious things, over and over again.
Among the things said in the article about the events of September 11, 2001, and the days which followed, is this: "America, as a whole, was at its best right after the attacks. Our nation didn't repeat history's atrocities with another callous internment of Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor."
Just because someone says it, does not mean it is true. Just because it is said often, doesn't make it true. That statement, literally, is true: we didn't inter Japanese Americans again.
But, the thing that statement is intended to get the reader to believe is ... well ... false. Because we interned Muslims, and, in some cases, Muslim Americans.
After the September 11 attacks, we arrested hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young Muslim men who were in this country legally and incarcerated them - in prisons - for months without charge and without any probable cause to believe that they had committed any offense against the United States or any of its citizens.
After the September 11 attacks, we arrested at least one American citizen, on American soil, and held him for years - in a military prison - without allowing him any contact with his family or friends or even with a lawyer. While he may have been guilty of something, he was never charged with the offenses of which the government claimed he was guilty which allegedly justified holding an American citizen in solitary confinement without access to a lawyer and without being charged with any crime. When he was finally charged with something - because the courts were at the point of ordering his release if he wasn't charged - the government charged him with some other crime than the ones for which they claimed they were holding him. His name is Jose Padilla. He "happens" to be Muslim. He is an American citizen. There may have been others, but we know about Mr. Padilla.
To say that we did not commit atrocities after the September 11 attacks, to say that we had learned the bitter lesson after interning Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, is ... simply ... false. We did commit atrocities. Things no nation should ever do to people. Things that, had they been done to Americans in any other country would have been immediately and vociferously condemned by our government as blatant human rights violations. We did them.
If we are ever to learn anything by our past mistakes, we must face those mistakes. We cannot rewrite history because it makes us feel good about ourselves. When we do that, we are condemned to do the same horrible, atrocious things, over and over again.
Friday, July 30, 2010
When Facts Confirm Prejudices
"Beware the moments when facts seem to confirm prejudices. Such times are traps, when the well-meaning are mislead and the mean-spirited gain confidence." - Arthur Teitelbaum, former official of the Anti-Defamation League
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The Evidence Mounts
At first it was just a trickle, unlike the first gushings of the blown-out well. An employee here. An expert there. A stray former executive or two.
Little whispers, largely mentioned briefly, ignored, and then forgotten.
Now, however, that little trickle has become such a torrent that it can no longer be ignored. Such a torrent that this morning the Austin American-Statesman published an article by Sarah Lyall, Clifford Krauss, and Jad Mouawad headlined "BP's record shows history of boldness and blunders."
The gist of the article is that British Petroleum rose from a moderately-sized oil company to one of the giants of the petroleum industry by taking "bold" risks with safety in order to maximize profits and that, with the explosion of the Deep Water Horizon rig and the accompanying blow out of the well, those risks have finally caught up with them.
The article tells the story (previously unknown to me) of "Thunder Horse, BP's hulking $1 billion oil platform (in the Gulf of Mexico), [which] was listing precariously to one side, looking for all the world as if it were about to sink." Not the Deep Water Horizon rig, but the Thunder Horse rig. In July 2005. After Hurrican Dennis. Because BP installed a valve backwards which caused it to flood during the hurricane. Thankfully, the underwater pipelines at the well which were brittle and full of cracks because of shoddy welding did not break. Thankfully.
The article goes on to point out that the problems with Thunder Horse were not atypical of BP's operations. There was the deadly 2005 explosion at the BP Texas City refinery. Four years later, OSHA inspectors found 700 - seven hundred - safety violations at that plant. OSHA found 62 violations at BP's Ohio refinery. On May 25 of this year - 35 days after the Deep Water Horizon disaster - a power failure led to a 200,000 gallon oil spill at a BP storage tank in Alaska, the third largest spill ever on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. (But, oh! Remember how the former governor of Alaska has told us we can now drill safely, so we should "drill, baby, drill" in our offshore waters and our pristine and fragile ecosystems? Remember that?) This was only the latest of the accidents at BP facilities in Alaska.
According to Tony Hayward, the BP CEO, BP did "the tough stuff that others cannot or choose not to do." Well. Um. Yeah. Perhaps there's a reason why others won't or can't do it.
There are those of us who believe, though we cannot prove, that capitalism unchecked and uncontrolled, driven as it is by the powerful engine of greed, inevitably results in excesses which not only hurt humanity overall, but threaten to destroy the very economic system that created them. Usually, the giants of capitalism, the big international corporations, do their work more or less secretly and anonymously, telling us only what they want us to hear, revealing only what they want us to know, and running mass advertising campaigns to convince us, for example, that BP stands for "beyond petroleum."
Occasionally, though, the curtain gets pulled back, or, more precisely, forcibly ripped back, and we get to see the truth, unvarnished by the "story" that the leaders of the giant corporations want the rest of us to believe.
When that happens, like it is starting to happen with British Petroleum, it seldom does much to convince us skeptics that the "market" really will regulate itself. If it does, all I can say is, "not very well."
Little whispers, largely mentioned briefly, ignored, and then forgotten.
Now, however, that little trickle has become such a torrent that it can no longer be ignored. Such a torrent that this morning the Austin American-Statesman published an article by Sarah Lyall, Clifford Krauss, and Jad Mouawad headlined "BP's record shows history of boldness and blunders."
The gist of the article is that British Petroleum rose from a moderately-sized oil company to one of the giants of the petroleum industry by taking "bold" risks with safety in order to maximize profits and that, with the explosion of the Deep Water Horizon rig and the accompanying blow out of the well, those risks have finally caught up with them.
The article tells the story (previously unknown to me) of "Thunder Horse, BP's hulking $1 billion oil platform (in the Gulf of Mexico), [which] was listing precariously to one side, looking for all the world as if it were about to sink." Not the Deep Water Horizon rig, but the Thunder Horse rig. In July 2005. After Hurrican Dennis. Because BP installed a valve backwards which caused it to flood during the hurricane. Thankfully, the underwater pipelines at the well which were brittle and full of cracks because of shoddy welding did not break. Thankfully.
The article goes on to point out that the problems with Thunder Horse were not atypical of BP's operations. There was the deadly 2005 explosion at the BP Texas City refinery. Four years later, OSHA inspectors found 700 - seven hundred - safety violations at that plant. OSHA found 62 violations at BP's Ohio refinery. On May 25 of this year - 35 days after the Deep Water Horizon disaster - a power failure led to a 200,000 gallon oil spill at a BP storage tank in Alaska, the third largest spill ever on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. (But, oh! Remember how the former governor of Alaska has told us we can now drill safely, so we should "drill, baby, drill" in our offshore waters and our pristine and fragile ecosystems? Remember that?) This was only the latest of the accidents at BP facilities in Alaska.
According to Tony Hayward, the BP CEO, BP did "the tough stuff that others cannot or choose not to do." Well. Um. Yeah. Perhaps there's a reason why others won't or can't do it.
There are those of us who believe, though we cannot prove, that capitalism unchecked and uncontrolled, driven as it is by the powerful engine of greed, inevitably results in excesses which not only hurt humanity overall, but threaten to destroy the very economic system that created them. Usually, the giants of capitalism, the big international corporations, do their work more or less secretly and anonymously, telling us only what they want us to hear, revealing only what they want us to know, and running mass advertising campaigns to convince us, for example, that BP stands for "beyond petroleum."
Occasionally, though, the curtain gets pulled back, or, more precisely, forcibly ripped back, and we get to see the truth, unvarnished by the "story" that the leaders of the giant corporations want the rest of us to believe.
When that happens, like it is starting to happen with British Petroleum, it seldom does much to convince us skeptics that the "market" really will regulate itself. If it does, all I can say is, "not very well."
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
They Stole from the Rest of Us
Those are hard words, but I believe they are true.
An interesting problem has arisen in connection with compensation for those who have lost money as a result of the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Some of them can't document their losses.
Because they did their business in cash.
Specifically, they can't even produce income tax returns showing how much they made.
Think about that for a moment. They can't produce tax returns because they didn't pay taxes on their income.
As it turns out, there seem to be a significant number of businessmen - fishermen, oystermen, shrimpers, some of those who buy their catch. some others - who conducted all or major portions of their business in cash, didn't keep records of their cash transactions, didn't report their incomes to the Internal Revenue Service or the Lousiana or Alabama Departments of Revenue or the Mississippi State Tax Commission, and didn't pay taxes on their incomes. Not just federal taxes, but state taxes, too.
So, those folks - those who didn't pay their taxes - have been getting all the benefits of all the things those taxes pay for - transportation systems, national defense, justice systems, police, fire, and emergency protection. and responses to emergencies - but they haven't been paying for them.
To be clear, those of us who have paid our taxes paid for all those things and those who haven't been paying their taxes didn't pay for them, even though they got the benefits of them. Even more importantly, those of us who have paid our taxes had to pay more than we would have had to pay for those services and infrastructure if everyone else had been paying their share.
So, that fisherman in the Gulf who didn't pay his taxes took money out of my pocket to pay for services he needed and used, but he didn't want to pay for himself. But, honestly, I'm well off. Not rich, but well off. So, I'm not hurt that much. But, he also reached into the pockets and purses of the single moms working at a fast food restaurant trying to support thier kids, the worker at the manufacturing plant that made his boat, the trucker who carried his fish, and many, many other honest folk who paid more taxes than they should have because that fisherman wanted to skip out on his obligations.
He stole from them.
Now, before all the tax protesters out there get up on their soap boxes and start raging against paying taxes in general, that fisherman, or oysterman, or whoever, wasn't a tax protester. He was a cheater. More specifically, he was a thief. He stole money from honest people and put it in his pocket. Just like any thief does.
Now, he wants us to feel sorry for him because he can't document his income so he can be compensated by British Petroleum. The reason he can't document his income is because he was hiding his income so he could steal from the rest of us.
I am outraged at British Petroleum and all the other oil companies and all the other types of companies who are willing to and are allowed to put all of us at risk, and put our world at risk, so they can make more money. I am pretty damned pissed off at all the legislators who have opposed regulations that would have protected the rest of us from those companies' greedy recklessness. I am very upset at the government regulators who did not take seriously their obligation to enforce what paltry regulations we managed to get in place.
And I am terribly, terribly concerned for the honest folk, who have worked hard, played by the rules, and tried to build honest, decent lives for themselves who now will lose what they have worked so hard for, because British Petroleum didn't care as much about them as it cared about making as much money as possible on an oil well.
But, I am not one bit sorry for those cheats and thieves - criminals - who can't document their income now because they've been hiding their income in the past so they could steal from me and from millions of other honest folk.
Not one bit sorry.
An interesting problem has arisen in connection with compensation for those who have lost money as a result of the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Some of them can't document their losses.
Because they did their business in cash.
Specifically, they can't even produce income tax returns showing how much they made.
Think about that for a moment. They can't produce tax returns because they didn't pay taxes on their income.
As it turns out, there seem to be a significant number of businessmen - fishermen, oystermen, shrimpers, some of those who buy their catch. some others - who conducted all or major portions of their business in cash, didn't keep records of their cash transactions, didn't report their incomes to the Internal Revenue Service or the Lousiana or Alabama Departments of Revenue or the Mississippi State Tax Commission, and didn't pay taxes on their incomes. Not just federal taxes, but state taxes, too.
So, those folks - those who didn't pay their taxes - have been getting all the benefits of all the things those taxes pay for - transportation systems, national defense, justice systems, police, fire, and emergency protection. and responses to emergencies - but they haven't been paying for them.
To be clear, those of us who have paid our taxes paid for all those things and those who haven't been paying their taxes didn't pay for them, even though they got the benefits of them. Even more importantly, those of us who have paid our taxes had to pay more than we would have had to pay for those services and infrastructure if everyone else had been paying their share.
So, that fisherman in the Gulf who didn't pay his taxes took money out of my pocket to pay for services he needed and used, but he didn't want to pay for himself. But, honestly, I'm well off. Not rich, but well off. So, I'm not hurt that much. But, he also reached into the pockets and purses of the single moms working at a fast food restaurant trying to support thier kids, the worker at the manufacturing plant that made his boat, the trucker who carried his fish, and many, many other honest folk who paid more taxes than they should have because that fisherman wanted to skip out on his obligations.
He stole from them.
Now, before all the tax protesters out there get up on their soap boxes and start raging against paying taxes in general, that fisherman, or oysterman, or whoever, wasn't a tax protester. He was a cheater. More specifically, he was a thief. He stole money from honest people and put it in his pocket. Just like any thief does.
Now, he wants us to feel sorry for him because he can't document his income so he can be compensated by British Petroleum. The reason he can't document his income is because he was hiding his income so he could steal from the rest of us.
I am outraged at British Petroleum and all the other oil companies and all the other types of companies who are willing to and are allowed to put all of us at risk, and put our world at risk, so they can make more money. I am pretty damned pissed off at all the legislators who have opposed regulations that would have protected the rest of us from those companies' greedy recklessness. I am very upset at the government regulators who did not take seriously their obligation to enforce what paltry regulations we managed to get in place.
And I am terribly, terribly concerned for the honest folk, who have worked hard, played by the rules, and tried to build honest, decent lives for themselves who now will lose what they have worked so hard for, because British Petroleum didn't care as much about them as it cared about making as much money as possible on an oil well.
But, I am not one bit sorry for those cheats and thieves - criminals - who can't document their income now because they've been hiding their income in the past so they could steal from me and from millions of other honest folk.
Not one bit sorry.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
One Last Benjamin Franklin
In his biography, Benjamin Franklin, An American Life, Walter Isaacson wrote a short summation of Dr. Franklin's belief in compromise that I thought was worth passing on.
"[Benjamin Franklin] believed in having the humility to be open to different opinions. For him that was not merely a practical virtue, but a moral one as well. It was based on the tenet, so fundamental to most moral systems, that every individual deserves respect. During the Constitutional Convention, for example, he was willing to compromise some of his beliefs to play a critical role in the conciliation that produced a near-perfect document. It could not have been accomplished if the hall had contained only crusaders who stood on unwavering principle. Compromisers may not make great heroes, but they do make great democracies."
"[Benjamin Franklin] believed in having the humility to be open to different opinions. For him that was not merely a practical virtue, but a moral one as well. It was based on the tenet, so fundamental to most moral systems, that every individual deserves respect. During the Constitutional Convention, for example, he was willing to compromise some of his beliefs to play a critical role in the conciliation that produced a near-perfect document. It could not have been accomplished if the hall had contained only crusaders who stood on unwavering principle. Compromisers may not make great heroes, but they do make great democracies."
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
More Benjamin Franklin
In 1757, Benjamin Franklin narrowly escaped a shipwreck as he neared the English coast. Later, he wrote his wife, Deborah.
"Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint; but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a lighthouse."
"Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint; but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a lighthouse."
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Law of Unintended Consequences
The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiom that warns that an intervention in a complex system invariably creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.
When I was in the 6th or 7th grade, sometime around 1962 or 1963, I began to wonder what happened to all the smoke that came from burning fossil fuels - car exhausts, factory smokestacks, that sort of thing. I knew that smoke was toxic. I mean, after all, I knew that breathing tail pipe emissions could be deadly. It seemed to me like it would just accumulate in the atmosphere until it finally got so thick it would kill us all. It didn't seem like it would go anywhere.
I remember going into the kitchen and asking my mother about it. She said that, yes, it did accumulate in the atmosphere, but the atmosphere was so huge and the amount of smoke was so small that it would never matter. For many years that satisfied my concern.
Of course, she was wrong, but so was just about everyone else. Most of us were looking at it from the perspective of just what was happening at the time, not considering how the population of the planet would grow, and how the burning of fossil fuels would escalate dramatically, and few of us ordinary people imagined that growth and escalation would happen so fast that it would become a major, possibly world-ending issue in our lifetimes. We didn't really think it through and, frankly, it was convenient for us to not think it through. At least, convenient in a short-term sense.
I am concerned now that we may not be thinking through "clean" energy sources all the way to their long-term logical conclusions.
Which brings me back to the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. There is a sum total of all the energy and matter in the universe, and it never gets any bigger. It can change forms, even changing from energy to matter and back again, but it never goes away, and no more ever gets added.
Which is another way of saying that all energy goes somewhere. It doesn't just exist for a time and then go away, wasted or lost if it isn't used. It goes somewhere. And, wherever it goes, it has some effect. If something happens and it doesn't go where it normally goes, the effect doesn't occur. A different one does.
So, let's take solar energy, just to randomly pick an example. When sunlight strikes the desert, the light energy doesn't just dissipate. Some of it gets reflected around as light, but some of it gets converted into heat, both in the air and in the sand. That heat has an effect on the air and the sand. I'm not sure what the heat in the sand does, but it probably adds to the overall heat in the air, among other things.
The heat in the air causes the air to rise. That sucks more air in to take the place of the rising air. That causes wind, not just over the desert, but over the territory at the edges of the desert. That wind itself causes effects, including more wind in other places. But, it also affects the weather patterns, keeping it dry on the desert, but, ultimately, wet in other places.
Now, let's suppose, just for example, that we intercept some of that light energy before it strikes the desert floor, with solar panels, for example, and convert some of that light energy into electical energy. That means, necessarily, that there is less light energy to convert into heat, both in the sand and in the air. Less heat, less wind. (Or maybe we take kinetic energy directly out of the wind with wind turbines, that convert that energy into electrical energy, instead of letting it go wherever it goes and have whatever effect it has now.) Less wind, some change in the weather, somewhere. I'm not at all sure we can figure out what that change will be, or the extent of that change, or whether some tiny little change will snow-ball, like the fluttering of a butterfly's wings that causes a hurricane, or even if we know what changes, besides weather, will occur. But, we do know that some change will occur.
Now, it is tempting to dismiss this line of thought with the comforting idea that there is so much desert (or so much wind) and the number of solar panels (or wind turbines) will be so small that the relative amount of heat energy we will be taking out of the desert (or kinetic energy out of the wind) will be so small that it won't really matter.
That, however, is the thought with which we comforted ourselves for all those years we were pumping smoke into the atmosphere and thinking the atmosphere was so big and the amount of smoke was so small that it wouldn't ever wind up mattering. We were wrong. And we were wrong much sooner than most folks ever imagined we would be.
So, I'm thinking we ought to be thinking about the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy and how it just might interact with the Law of Unintended Consequences as we develop all this "clean" energy instead of learning to live on less energy.
And I wanted to say it. Now.
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiom that warns that an intervention in a complex system invariably creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.
When I was in the 6th or 7th grade, sometime around 1962 or 1963, I began to wonder what happened to all the smoke that came from burning fossil fuels - car exhausts, factory smokestacks, that sort of thing. I knew that smoke was toxic. I mean, after all, I knew that breathing tail pipe emissions could be deadly. It seemed to me like it would just accumulate in the atmosphere until it finally got so thick it would kill us all. It didn't seem like it would go anywhere.
I remember going into the kitchen and asking my mother about it. She said that, yes, it did accumulate in the atmosphere, but the atmosphere was so huge and the amount of smoke was so small that it would never matter. For many years that satisfied my concern.
Of course, she was wrong, but so was just about everyone else. Most of us were looking at it from the perspective of just what was happening at the time, not considering how the population of the planet would grow, and how the burning of fossil fuels would escalate dramatically, and few of us ordinary people imagined that growth and escalation would happen so fast that it would become a major, possibly world-ending issue in our lifetimes. We didn't really think it through and, frankly, it was convenient for us to not think it through. At least, convenient in a short-term sense.
I am concerned now that we may not be thinking through "clean" energy sources all the way to their long-term logical conclusions.
Which brings me back to the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. There is a sum total of all the energy and matter in the universe, and it never gets any bigger. It can change forms, even changing from energy to matter and back again, but it never goes away, and no more ever gets added.
Which is another way of saying that all energy goes somewhere. It doesn't just exist for a time and then go away, wasted or lost if it isn't used. It goes somewhere. And, wherever it goes, it has some effect. If something happens and it doesn't go where it normally goes, the effect doesn't occur. A different one does.
So, let's take solar energy, just to randomly pick an example. When sunlight strikes the desert, the light energy doesn't just dissipate. Some of it gets reflected around as light, but some of it gets converted into heat, both in the air and in the sand. That heat has an effect on the air and the sand. I'm not sure what the heat in the sand does, but it probably adds to the overall heat in the air, among other things.
The heat in the air causes the air to rise. That sucks more air in to take the place of the rising air. That causes wind, not just over the desert, but over the territory at the edges of the desert. That wind itself causes effects, including more wind in other places. But, it also affects the weather patterns, keeping it dry on the desert, but, ultimately, wet in other places.
Now, let's suppose, just for example, that we intercept some of that light energy before it strikes the desert floor, with solar panels, for example, and convert some of that light energy into electical energy. That means, necessarily, that there is less light energy to convert into heat, both in the sand and in the air. Less heat, less wind. (Or maybe we take kinetic energy directly out of the wind with wind turbines, that convert that energy into electrical energy, instead of letting it go wherever it goes and have whatever effect it has now.) Less wind, some change in the weather, somewhere. I'm not at all sure we can figure out what that change will be, or the extent of that change, or whether some tiny little change will snow-ball, like the fluttering of a butterfly's wings that causes a hurricane, or even if we know what changes, besides weather, will occur. But, we do know that some change will occur.
Now, it is tempting to dismiss this line of thought with the comforting idea that there is so much desert (or so much wind) and the number of solar panels (or wind turbines) will be so small that the relative amount of heat energy we will be taking out of the desert (or kinetic energy out of the wind) will be so small that it won't really matter.
That, however, is the thought with which we comforted ourselves for all those years we were pumping smoke into the atmosphere and thinking the atmosphere was so big and the amount of smoke was so small that it wouldn't ever wind up mattering. We were wrong. And we were wrong much sooner than most folks ever imagined we would be.
So, I'm thinking we ought to be thinking about the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy and how it just might interact with the Law of Unintended Consequences as we develop all this "clean" energy instead of learning to live on less energy.
And I wanted to say it. Now.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Hypocrite Alert
I'm sorry. I usually try to limit myself to one article a day, but I have to add this little tid bit.
On June 2, Bobby Jindal wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to lift the federal moratorium on deep water drilling.
The same Bobby Jindal who, on May 24, held a press conference wherein he castigated the federal government for failing to adequately respond to the disaster at the British Petroleum well drilled by the Deep Water Horizon rig.
On May 24, in criticizing the federal response to the British Petroleum disaster, he said, "We're literally talking about defending a way of life down here in Louisiana."
On June 2, in requesting the President to lift the moratorium on drilling more wells like the one in the British Petroleum disaster, he said, "The last thing we need is to enact public policies that will certainly destroy thousands of existing jobs while preventing the creation of thousands more."
Really, Governor? Is that really the last thing we need.
I'm not actually sure what "the last thing we need" would be on my list of last things we needed, but way up close to the top of my list of first things we needed would be for our leaders to stop being hypocrites.
Goodness, don't these folks ever stop? Doesn't anyone ever listen? Do we all have such short memories that they can say anything they want, and change it whenever they want, whenever it suits their interests, and none of us even notice?
Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!
On June 2, Bobby Jindal wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to lift the federal moratorium on deep water drilling.
The same Bobby Jindal who, on May 24, held a press conference wherein he castigated the federal government for failing to adequately respond to the disaster at the British Petroleum well drilled by the Deep Water Horizon rig.
On May 24, in criticizing the federal response to the British Petroleum disaster, he said, "We're literally talking about defending a way of life down here in Louisiana."
On June 2, in requesting the President to lift the moratorium on drilling more wells like the one in the British Petroleum disaster, he said, "The last thing we need is to enact public policies that will certainly destroy thousands of existing jobs while preventing the creation of thousands more."
Really, Governor? Is that really the last thing we need.
I'm not actually sure what "the last thing we need" would be on my list of last things we needed, but way up close to the top of my list of first things we needed would be for our leaders to stop being hypocrites.
Goodness, don't these folks ever stop? Doesn't anyone ever listen? Do we all have such short memories that they can say anything they want, and change it whenever they want, whenever it suits their interests, and none of us even notice?
Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!
Always Behind, Always Blind
In the last few days, the news media has been expressing outrage over the fact that the British Petroleum well that blew out on April 20 has been gushing far more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than British Petroleum said it was (80,000 to 100,000 barrels a day v. the BP claim of 5,000 barrels a day). In fact, British Petroleum claims to be siphoning off three or four times as much oil as it said was gushing out (16,000 to 20,000 barrels a day siphoned off v. the BP claim of 5,000 barrels a day leaking). And still the oil gushes.
And the media is now wringing their collective hands saying, "Oh, my! We just can't trust British Petroleum!" as if this were news.
It is not news. If you examine this blog you will find an entry on May 18 where I commented that independent experts had viewed the video feed of the leaking well and estimated that it was leaking from 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, not the 1,000 to 5,000 barrels a day that British Petroleum was currently admitting. This wasn't some secret that only I knew. It was reported in the news media, once, then forgotten.
Similarly, in the last few days there has been media outrage over the fact that the spill response plan filed by British Petroleum with the Minerals Management Service when they applied for the permit to drill this disastrous well was obviously cut and pasted from some other response plan, not designed specifically for this well or even this region.
The response plan includes information for how British Petroleum will handle walruses and sea otters who are affected by a spill from this well. There aren't any walruses or sea otters in the Gulf of Mexico. Or anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, the plan indicates that, if there is a leak from the well, British Petroleum will call upon the services of an expert who had been dead for years before the plan was filed. It includes telephone numbers for experts they planned to use that are wrong - numbers that have never been right. They include a reference to a website that is defunct, but when it was active it was for some goofy thing in Japan. Not even related to the oil industry.
This also is not news. Weeks ago, Rachel Madow announced on her show that her staff had looked at British Petroleum's spill response plan and found references to walruses. She made a big deal about it. Weeks ago.
This poor reporting, poor investigating, general lack of workmanship, and, in some cases, downright ignorance and stupidity on the part of the media is characteristic. It is reminiscent of the reporting by the media leading up to the war against Iraq.
In that case, when the media began to report that there were not, in fact, any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I found myself screaming at the CNN television screen, "You had the head of the weapons search team on your network saying definitively that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that his team had been there for months, if they'd been there his team would have found them - months before we went to war! And you idiots just dismissed him as some sort of crank! What on earth were you thinking back then?" Obviously, they weren't thinking. They weren't investigating, they weren't analyzing, they weren't even doing a very good job of reporting. They were just repeating.
Then there was the whole "Mr. President, it's a slam dunk" thing. When they started reporting that, I was jumping up from my couch screaming, "You idiots! It was in Bob Woodward's book published a year ago! And you all just yawned! Where were you then? Where are you when we really need you?"
So, don't say I didn't tell you so. 'Cause I did. Pay attention.
And the media is now wringing their collective hands saying, "Oh, my! We just can't trust British Petroleum!" as if this were news.
It is not news. If you examine this blog you will find an entry on May 18 where I commented that independent experts had viewed the video feed of the leaking well and estimated that it was leaking from 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, not the 1,000 to 5,000 barrels a day that British Petroleum was currently admitting. This wasn't some secret that only I knew. It was reported in the news media, once, then forgotten.
Similarly, in the last few days there has been media outrage over the fact that the spill response plan filed by British Petroleum with the Minerals Management Service when they applied for the permit to drill this disastrous well was obviously cut and pasted from some other response plan, not designed specifically for this well or even this region.
The response plan includes information for how British Petroleum will handle walruses and sea otters who are affected by a spill from this well. There aren't any walruses or sea otters in the Gulf of Mexico. Or anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, the plan indicates that, if there is a leak from the well, British Petroleum will call upon the services of an expert who had been dead for years before the plan was filed. It includes telephone numbers for experts they planned to use that are wrong - numbers that have never been right. They include a reference to a website that is defunct, but when it was active it was for some goofy thing in Japan. Not even related to the oil industry.
This also is not news. Weeks ago, Rachel Madow announced on her show that her staff had looked at British Petroleum's spill response plan and found references to walruses. She made a big deal about it. Weeks ago.
This poor reporting, poor investigating, general lack of workmanship, and, in some cases, downright ignorance and stupidity on the part of the media is characteristic. It is reminiscent of the reporting by the media leading up to the war against Iraq.
In that case, when the media began to report that there were not, in fact, any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I found myself screaming at the CNN television screen, "You had the head of the weapons search team on your network saying definitively that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that his team had been there for months, if they'd been there his team would have found them - months before we went to war! And you idiots just dismissed him as some sort of crank! What on earth were you thinking back then?" Obviously, they weren't thinking. They weren't investigating, they weren't analyzing, they weren't even doing a very good job of reporting. They were just repeating.
Then there was the whole "Mr. President, it's a slam dunk" thing. When they started reporting that, I was jumping up from my couch screaming, "You idiots! It was in Bob Woodward's book published a year ago! And you all just yawned! Where were you then? Where are you when we really need you?"
So, don't say I didn't tell you so. 'Cause I did. Pay attention.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
All Men
"'All men,' said Samos, 'and all women, have within themselves despicable elements, cruel things and cowardly things, things vicious, and greedy and selfish, things ugly that we hide from others, and most of all from ourselves.'"
***
"'The human being,' he said, 'is a chaos of cruelties and nobilities, of hatreds and loves, of resentments and respects, of envies and admirations. He contains within himself, in his ferments, much that is base and much that is worthy. These are old truths, but few men truly understand them.'"
John Norman, Raiders of Gor, An E-Reads Edition, page 315
***
"'The human being,' he said, 'is a chaos of cruelties and nobilities, of hatreds and loves, of resentments and respects, of envies and admirations. He contains within himself, in his ferments, much that is base and much that is worthy. These are old truths, but few men truly understand them.'"
John Norman, Raiders of Gor, An E-Reads Edition, page 315
Monday, June 7, 2010
An Honest Question
I am confused. This is not tongue in cheek. I am genuinely confused.
It is about the Israeli navy boarding the Turkish vessel which resulted in nine people on the Turkish vessel being killed.
As I understand the agreed facts, the Turkish vessel was sailing toward Gaza, but still in international waters, when the Israeli navy contacted it and asked it for its destination. The Turkish vessel responded that it was headed for Gaza. Whereupon, the Israeli navy forcibly boarded the vessel, a fight ensued, and nine people on the Turkish vessel were killed. The Israeli navy then took possession of the Turkish vessel and forced it into an Israeli harbor.
I'm not asking about the moral or legal right of Israel to defend itself, or the moral or legal right for it to impose a blockade on Gaza, or the moral or legal right for Israel to board a ship that is in the waters of Israel or the waters of Gaza.
I'm not even asking about Israel's moral right to board a Turkish vessel in international waters after that vessel has admitted it was headed for Gaza, then commandeer the vessel and take its cargo.
I'm asking about the legal right for the Israeli navy to forcibly board a Turkish vessel in international waters.
If I understand the international law of the sea, no nation has the right to board the vessel of another nation in international waters without permission. As I understand that law, if a private vessel or person does it, it's piracy. If a nation does it, it's an act of war.
But, I don't hear anyone saying, "Wherever the moral or ethical chips may fall in this matter, Israel did not have the legal right to board a vessel flying the Turkish flag in international waters." And I don't understand why I don't hear anyone saying that.
What am I missing here?
It is about the Israeli navy boarding the Turkish vessel which resulted in nine people on the Turkish vessel being killed.
As I understand the agreed facts, the Turkish vessel was sailing toward Gaza, but still in international waters, when the Israeli navy contacted it and asked it for its destination. The Turkish vessel responded that it was headed for Gaza. Whereupon, the Israeli navy forcibly boarded the vessel, a fight ensued, and nine people on the Turkish vessel were killed. The Israeli navy then took possession of the Turkish vessel and forced it into an Israeli harbor.
I'm not asking about the moral or legal right of Israel to defend itself, or the moral or legal right for it to impose a blockade on Gaza, or the moral or legal right for Israel to board a ship that is in the waters of Israel or the waters of Gaza.
I'm not even asking about Israel's moral right to board a Turkish vessel in international waters after that vessel has admitted it was headed for Gaza, then commandeer the vessel and take its cargo.
I'm asking about the legal right for the Israeli navy to forcibly board a Turkish vessel in international waters.
If I understand the international law of the sea, no nation has the right to board the vessel of another nation in international waters without permission. As I understand that law, if a private vessel or person does it, it's piracy. If a nation does it, it's an act of war.
But, I don't hear anyone saying, "Wherever the moral or ethical chips may fall in this matter, Israel did not have the legal right to board a vessel flying the Turkish flag in international waters." And I don't understand why I don't hear anyone saying that.
What am I missing here?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
They Did It Again!
Today, in an article in the Austin American-Statesman entitled "Arizona law could chill police work, chiefs say," the author of the article referred to Arizona S.B. 1070 as "... the new Arizona law requiring police to request documents of anyone they detain and have a suspicion that they are in the country illegally."
That is not what the law requires!
Nothing ... nothing ... in Arizona S.B. 1070 says anything about requesting "documents" of anyone! It doesn't require anyone to carry documents. In fact, it doesn't say anything about documents. All this "papers, please" nonsense is exactly that. Nonsense. Arizona S.B. 1070 does not make it a crime or allow anyone to be arrested because they can't prove that they're in the country legally. That simply isn't what it does!
Once again, here's what the law actually says, if anyone is actually interested in what it actually says:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
It requires the police to make a "reasonable attempt, ... when practicable, to determine the immigration status" of a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
They could "request documents," but the law does not requre that they "request documents." All they have to do is make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status. Like the Border Patrol does now.
I was out in Big Bend recently. I was stopped at a Border Patrol check point. I was asked, "Where are you coming from? Where are you going? Are you an American citizen?" Then I was allowed to proceed. The Border Patrol officer who questioned me made a reasonable attempt to determine my immigration status, when he probably didn't even have any reason to suspect that I was in the country illegally. And he didn't ask me for any documents.
Clearly, Arizona S.B. 1070 is a law which can and almost surely will be used to discriminate against people of dark skin color or those with "foreign" accents. It is a bad law.
But, it is a bad law for what it does say and the argument ought to be about what it does say. Let's stop claiming things about the law that simply are not true.
For goodness sake, the bill isn't that long. Someone writing a newspaper article about the bill surely can take the time to at least read it. And if you read that bill and still think it requires police to "request documents," then - I apologize if this is judgemental - but you probably don't have the intelligence necessary to write newspaper articles.
If you claim it requires police to "request documents," when you know that it doesn't, then you're a liar.
That is not what the law requires!
Nothing ... nothing ... in Arizona S.B. 1070 says anything about requesting "documents" of anyone! It doesn't require anyone to carry documents. In fact, it doesn't say anything about documents. All this "papers, please" nonsense is exactly that. Nonsense. Arizona S.B. 1070 does not make it a crime or allow anyone to be arrested because they can't prove that they're in the country legally. That simply isn't what it does!
Once again, here's what the law actually says, if anyone is actually interested in what it actually says:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
It requires the police to make a "reasonable attempt, ... when practicable, to determine the immigration status" of a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
They could "request documents," but the law does not requre that they "request documents." All they have to do is make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status. Like the Border Patrol does now.
I was out in Big Bend recently. I was stopped at a Border Patrol check point. I was asked, "Where are you coming from? Where are you going? Are you an American citizen?" Then I was allowed to proceed. The Border Patrol officer who questioned me made a reasonable attempt to determine my immigration status, when he probably didn't even have any reason to suspect that I was in the country illegally. And he didn't ask me for any documents.
Clearly, Arizona S.B. 1070 is a law which can and almost surely will be used to discriminate against people of dark skin color or those with "foreign" accents. It is a bad law.
But, it is a bad law for what it does say and the argument ought to be about what it does say. Let's stop claiming things about the law that simply are not true.
For goodness sake, the bill isn't that long. Someone writing a newspaper article about the bill surely can take the time to at least read it. And if you read that bill and still think it requires police to "request documents," then - I apologize if this is judgemental - but you probably don't have the intelligence necessary to write newspaper articles.
If you claim it requires police to "request documents," when you know that it doesn't, then you're a liar.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Best Health Care System in the World
I frequently hear acquaintances opine that America has the best health care system in the world. I'm pretty sure I've heard some national elected officials say the same thing, though I cannot quote them. I'm sure enough, in fact, that I'm not going to Google them to get the quotations.
Yesterday the Austin American-Statesman contained an article entitled "Study: U.S. behind in cutting child mortality." It was about estimates of mortality of children younger than five being published yesterday in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
Some really good news. Two decades ago, 11.9 million children died per year worldwide. This year, only 7.7 million children will die. An improvement in 20 years of over 35%.
The news about the United States' record in the same area - the record of "the best health care system in the world"? Not so good as that.
Twenty years ago, the United States ranked 29th among the nations of the world in child mortality. Not all that good, in my opinion. One wonders why "the best health care system in the world" would not be first in that ranking. But, whatever the reason, it has gotten worse. Today, the United States ranks 42nd among the nations of the world in child mortality. To make that clear, 41 nations in the world have a smaller percentage of their children dying each year than we do.
Much of Europe is ahead of us on that list. Better than us. Chile is ahead of us. The United Arab Emirates* is ahead of us. Cuba is ahead of us on that list. A smaller percentage of Cuban children die each year than American children. Last time I checked, Cuba really did have socialized medicine.
Singapore tops the list. Ahead of us. Better than us. In 1990, Serbia and Malaysia lost more of their children than we did. Now they lose less. Serbia and Malaysia save more of their children than we do.
Now, to be fair, the United States has cut its rate of child mortality in the last 20 years. Our rate of child mortality did decline 42 percent. About the same rate of decline as Angola, Sierra Leone, and Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, for crying out loud. We're doing as well as Kazakhstan!
The study was done by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. That's Washington State, by the way, not Washington, D.C. The author of the study is Christopher Murray, who directs the institute.
Mr. Murray says, "There are an awful lot of people who think we have the best medical system in the world. The data is so contrary to that."
The data. What a concept. The data. Not the myth, not the bravado, not the jingoism. The data.
Just in case you were wondering: "Rather than being tied to race, the data suggest broader problems with the nation's poorly planned health care system, experts say."
So, be against health care reform in the United States if you want to. But, don't try convincing me it's because we already have "the best health care system in the world." Because, we don't. And if you say it when you know it's not true, it's a lie.
In the words of that famous Republican, Leigh Anne Touhy, in "The Blind Side," "Don't you dare lie to me."
*According to Wikipedia, "Standards of health care are considered to be generally high in the United Arab Emirates, resulting from increased government spending during strong economic years. ... Health care currently is free ... for UAE citizens."
Yesterday the Austin American-Statesman contained an article entitled "Study: U.S. behind in cutting child mortality." It was about estimates of mortality of children younger than five being published yesterday in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
Some really good news. Two decades ago, 11.9 million children died per year worldwide. This year, only 7.7 million children will die. An improvement in 20 years of over 35%.
The news about the United States' record in the same area - the record of "the best health care system in the world"? Not so good as that.
Twenty years ago, the United States ranked 29th among the nations of the world in child mortality. Not all that good, in my opinion. One wonders why "the best health care system in the world" would not be first in that ranking. But, whatever the reason, it has gotten worse. Today, the United States ranks 42nd among the nations of the world in child mortality. To make that clear, 41 nations in the world have a smaller percentage of their children dying each year than we do.
Much of Europe is ahead of us on that list. Better than us. Chile is ahead of us. The United Arab Emirates* is ahead of us. Cuba is ahead of us on that list. A smaller percentage of Cuban children die each year than American children. Last time I checked, Cuba really did have socialized medicine.
Singapore tops the list. Ahead of us. Better than us. In 1990, Serbia and Malaysia lost more of their children than we did. Now they lose less. Serbia and Malaysia save more of their children than we do.
Now, to be fair, the United States has cut its rate of child mortality in the last 20 years. Our rate of child mortality did decline 42 percent. About the same rate of decline as Angola, Sierra Leone, and Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, for crying out loud. We're doing as well as Kazakhstan!
The study was done by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. That's Washington State, by the way, not Washington, D.C. The author of the study is Christopher Murray, who directs the institute.
Mr. Murray says, "There are an awful lot of people who think we have the best medical system in the world. The data is so contrary to that."
The data. What a concept. The data. Not the myth, not the bravado, not the jingoism. The data.
Just in case you were wondering: "Rather than being tied to race, the data suggest broader problems with the nation's poorly planned health care system, experts say."
So, be against health care reform in the United States if you want to. But, don't try convincing me it's because we already have "the best health care system in the world." Because, we don't. And if you say it when you know it's not true, it's a lie.
In the words of that famous Republican, Leigh Anne Touhy, in "The Blind Side," "Don't you dare lie to me."
*According to Wikipedia, "Standards of health care are considered to be generally high in the United Arab Emirates, resulting from increased government spending during strong economic years. ... Health care currently is free ... for UAE citizens."
Monday, May 24, 2010
Bobby Jindal, Hypocrite
When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican, delivered the Republican Party's response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address on February 24, 2009, here are a few of the things he said:
"The strength of America is not found in our government."
"To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump -- and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation, increase energy efficiency, increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, increase our use of nuclear power and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home." [Emphasis added.]
"Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you -- the American people."
"We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government."
Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal, of the party whose candidates for President and Vice President in the last U.S. presidential election campaigned on the slogan, "Drill, baby, drill!" Bobby Jindal, of the party of "less government." Bobby Jindal, whose most recent Vice Presidential candidate recently said in a speech in his state of Louisiana, that we did not need more studies, we needed more drilling.
That Bobby Jindal.
Today, he held a press conference, together with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. In that press conference he eloquently described the desperate circumstances in which his fellow Louisianans find themselves along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico because British Petroleum's Deep Water Horizon drill, baby, drill oil rig exploded, caught on fire, capsized, and began to leak - at least 5,000 barrels of oil a day, possibly as much as 100,000 barrels of oil a day. That oil is now coming ashore in Louisiana, killing wildlife and destroying the marshes and wetlands on which uncounted numbers of animal species and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people depend for their livelihoods.
"We're literally talking about defending a way of life down here in Louisiana,'' Governor Jindal said. Yes, Governor, a way of life, but much, much more is now at stake because of the "drill, baby, drill" greed endorsed by the Republican Party.
But, all that is obvious. What was surprising was where Governor Jindal put the blame. He expressed his opinion that the response - by the federal government - had been inadequate. He listed a long list of things, "resources," he called them, that he, as governor had asked the federal government to provide to help Louisiana fight the effects of "drill, baby, drill." He then listed the really paltry list of the things he had asked for that he had, as of today, received.
Clearly, his premise was that the federal government had failed to provide the resources the people of his state needed to fight the results of his party's energy solution.
But, this was the same Governor Jindal who said that the strength of America was not found in our government, that what we needed was "more drilling for oil and gas," that his party did not place their hope in the federal government, and that Americans should not increase their dependence on the federal government.
Yet, when disaster strikes - disaster which was, in fact, inevitable if we pursued the Republicans' policy of "drill, baby, drill" - Governor Less-Dependence-on-Washington Jindal turns to ... Washington. And, when the federal government can't respond with everything he is depending on the federal government to provide to help the people of his state, he blames ... the federal government.
Look, Governor, either we depend on the federal government to do things we cannot do individually - and we give the federal government the resources necessary to do those things, i.e., tax revenue - or we don't whine and complain when the federal government doesn't have the resources needed to do things we cannot do individually.
You can't have it both ways. You can't strip the federal government of the resources to do the things the American people need it to do, then complain when it doesn't have the resources to do the things the American people need it to do.
And, when a smart man like you does exactly that, and does it for political reasons, that's called ... hypocrisy.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth.
"Woe unto you, Bobby Jindal! Hypocrite!"
"The strength of America is not found in our government."
"To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump -- and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation, increase energy efficiency, increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, increase our use of nuclear power and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home." [Emphasis added.]
"Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you -- the American people."
"We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government."
Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal, of the party whose candidates for President and Vice President in the last U.S. presidential election campaigned on the slogan, "Drill, baby, drill!" Bobby Jindal, of the party of "less government." Bobby Jindal, whose most recent Vice Presidential candidate recently said in a speech in his state of Louisiana, that we did not need more studies, we needed more drilling.
That Bobby Jindal.
Today, he held a press conference, together with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. In that press conference he eloquently described the desperate circumstances in which his fellow Louisianans find themselves along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico because British Petroleum's Deep Water Horizon drill, baby, drill oil rig exploded, caught on fire, capsized, and began to leak - at least 5,000 barrels of oil a day, possibly as much as 100,000 barrels of oil a day. That oil is now coming ashore in Louisiana, killing wildlife and destroying the marshes and wetlands on which uncounted numbers of animal species and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people depend for their livelihoods.
"We're literally talking about defending a way of life down here in Louisiana,'' Governor Jindal said. Yes, Governor, a way of life, but much, much more is now at stake because of the "drill, baby, drill" greed endorsed by the Republican Party.
But, all that is obvious. What was surprising was where Governor Jindal put the blame. He expressed his opinion that the response - by the federal government - had been inadequate. He listed a long list of things, "resources," he called them, that he, as governor had asked the federal government to provide to help Louisiana fight the effects of "drill, baby, drill." He then listed the really paltry list of the things he had asked for that he had, as of today, received.
Clearly, his premise was that the federal government had failed to provide the resources the people of his state needed to fight the results of his party's energy solution.
But, this was the same Governor Jindal who said that the strength of America was not found in our government, that what we needed was "more drilling for oil and gas," that his party did not place their hope in the federal government, and that Americans should not increase their dependence on the federal government.
Yet, when disaster strikes - disaster which was, in fact, inevitable if we pursued the Republicans' policy of "drill, baby, drill" - Governor Less-Dependence-on-Washington Jindal turns to ... Washington. And, when the federal government can't respond with everything he is depending on the federal government to provide to help the people of his state, he blames ... the federal government.
Look, Governor, either we depend on the federal government to do things we cannot do individually - and we give the federal government the resources necessary to do those things, i.e., tax revenue - or we don't whine and complain when the federal government doesn't have the resources needed to do things we cannot do individually.
You can't have it both ways. You can't strip the federal government of the resources to do the things the American people need it to do, then complain when it doesn't have the resources to do the things the American people need it to do.
And, when a smart man like you does exactly that, and does it for political reasons, that's called ... hypocrisy.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth.
"Woe unto you, Bobby Jindal! Hypocrite!"
Friday, May 21, 2010
This Is What I'm Talking About
In an earlier article, I argued that we ... and by "we" I mean all us Americans ... need to be honest about what Arizona Senate Bill 1070 says. I posted a link to the actual bill. It's not that hard to find and not that long to read. Anyone writing a news article about the bill should, at the very least, have read the actual bill.
This morning, in the Austin American-Statesman, there is an article entitled "Mexican president's address to Congress spotlights divide." In that article Mr. David Lightman, the reporter, writes:
"Calderon offered blistering comments about the Arizona law, which would require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Mr. Lightman, I cannot tell if you are lying or just misinformed, but that is not what the law requires. It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Here's what the law actually says, and it is different from what Mr. Lightman claims it says. Significantly different.
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
[Emphasis added.]
(I have quoted the law in all capital letters, not because I'm shouting, but because that's the way the bill is actually written.)
Read it, Mr. Lightman! It does not "require law enforcement officers to [do anything with regard to] people they stop for other reasons." It only requires law enforcement officers to do something regarding someone "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." That is a far cry from requiring them to do something when they stop people "for other reasons."
It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status" of anyone. It requires them, under the circumstances previously described, to "make a reasonable attempt ... when practicable" to determine a person's immigration status. That means, sometimes, at least, they won't have to even try to determine a person's immigration status, because it won't be practicable. And they never have to even try to determine their immigration status - they don't have to even check their immigration status - just because they stop them "for other reasons."
When you say that, Mr. Lightman, it just isn't true.
And the law very definitely, very unequivically, does not require a law enforcement officer to arrest someone either because they are illegally in the country or because they don't have papeers to prove they are in the country. (I know Mr. Lightman didn't say that, but so many of us are!) Can a law enforcement officer make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? Yes, definitely. Are they required by Arizona S.B. 1070 to make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? No, definitely not.
We have to stop lying to ourselves and others about this law. It is a bad law. I firmly believe it is a bad law. But, the truth about the law is enough to make me believe it is a bad law without telling myself or anyone else a bunch of lies about what it does!
I get really, really frustrated when my adversaries on the right lie about things. For instance, everytime I hear Dick Cheney say that Iraq had some connection to the September 11th attacks, when I am confident that he knows it's a lie, it infuriates me. For instance, when I hear someone (and I still hear people say it) say that there is a requirement for "death panels" in the recently passed health care reform bill, it infuriates me. That's a lie! Flat out. Unvarnished.
But, because people who ought to be trustworthy said those things, there are gullible folks who believe them to be true. Now those gullible folks join the mass of people who cannot possibly make well-reasoned, well-informed choices about important issues facing our republic, because they believe things that simply aren't true! Which, I fear, may be exactly the goal of people who keep telling these whoppers, whether they be on the right or the left.
We have to stop lying! We can not continue to exist as a democratic republic if we keep telling ourselves a bunch of lies!
Stop it! Now! All of you!
This morning, in the Austin American-Statesman, there is an article entitled "Mexican president's address to Congress spotlights divide." In that article Mr. David Lightman, the reporter, writes:
"Calderon offered blistering comments about the Arizona law, which would require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Mr. Lightman, I cannot tell if you are lying or just misinformed, but that is not what the law requires. It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Here's what the law actually says, and it is different from what Mr. Lightman claims it says. Significantly different.
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
[Emphasis added.]
(I have quoted the law in all capital letters, not because I'm shouting, but because that's the way the bill is actually written.)
Read it, Mr. Lightman! It does not "require law enforcement officers to [do anything with regard to] people they stop for other reasons." It only requires law enforcement officers to do something regarding someone "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." That is a far cry from requiring them to do something when they stop people "for other reasons."
It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status" of anyone. It requires them, under the circumstances previously described, to "make a reasonable attempt ... when practicable" to determine a person's immigration status. That means, sometimes, at least, they won't have to even try to determine a person's immigration status, because it won't be practicable. And they never have to even try to determine their immigration status - they don't have to even check their immigration status - just because they stop them "for other reasons."
When you say that, Mr. Lightman, it just isn't true.
And the law very definitely, very unequivically, does not require a law enforcement officer to arrest someone either because they are illegally in the country or because they don't have papeers to prove they are in the country. (I know Mr. Lightman didn't say that, but so many of us are!) Can a law enforcement officer make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? Yes, definitely. Are they required by Arizona S.B. 1070 to make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? No, definitely not.
We have to stop lying to ourselves and others about this law. It is a bad law. I firmly believe it is a bad law. But, the truth about the law is enough to make me believe it is a bad law without telling myself or anyone else a bunch of lies about what it does!
I get really, really frustrated when my adversaries on the right lie about things. For instance, everytime I hear Dick Cheney say that Iraq had some connection to the September 11th attacks, when I am confident that he knows it's a lie, it infuriates me. For instance, when I hear someone (and I still hear people say it) say that there is a requirement for "death panels" in the recently passed health care reform bill, it infuriates me. That's a lie! Flat out. Unvarnished.
But, because people who ought to be trustworthy said those things, there are gullible folks who believe them to be true. Now those gullible folks join the mass of people who cannot possibly make well-reasoned, well-informed choices about important issues facing our republic, because they believe things that simply aren't true! Which, I fear, may be exactly the goal of people who keep telling these whoppers, whether they be on the right or the left.
We have to stop lying! We can not continue to exist as a democratic republic if we keep telling ourselves a bunch of lies!
Stop it! Now! All of you!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
"One-fifth of the oil captured"
I hate to have to keep coming back to this, but it is important to keep the issue at the forefront, and to continue to highlight the duplicity of British Petroleum.
You remember their well that has been leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico?
Well, they made some progress. A couple of days ago, they managed to insert a smaller pipe into the broken well pipe and then use a collar around the smaller pipe to seal it off inside the larger one. There was a hose that lead from the smaller pipe to an oil tanker on the surface. Neither British Petroleum nor the U.S. government ever thought or claimed that this would solve the leak, but if it worked, it would at least reduce the amount of oil escaping into the ocean.
Unfortunately, two of their remotely controlled submarines collided and knocked the smaller pipe loose. Yesterday, they finally got the smaller pipe working again.
So, British Petroleum announced that, while it wasn't a solution, and they were still working, they were now siphoning off one-fifth - twenty percent - of the oil that was leaking. They still needed to try the same procedure with two other leaks, and the real solution - drilling a slant well that would intersect with the damaged pipe - was, of course, still months away. August, to be precise. It is May now.
One-fifth of the oil? Well, that assertion was based on the fact that with this siphon pipe they were siphoning off 1,000 barrels of oil a day, and the claim that the well was leaking only - only - 5,000 barrels a day.
However, independent scientists, studying the underwater video they have of the oil gushing out of the broken well pipe, have come to the conclusion that the well is not leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day, but something between 25,000 to possibly as much as 80,000 barrels of oil a day!
That, however, didn't seem possible. This is because, when you look at the oil slick(s) on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, there just isnt' that much oil. So, how could it be that the well is actually leaking 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, not 5,000 like British Petroleum claimed?
Explanation: Scientiest have discovered several sub-surface oil plumes. One is about ten miles - yes, miles - long and three miles wide and 300 feet deep. That's where the difference between 5,000 and 25,000 to 80,000 is - below the surface.
Why isn't the oil in these plumes rising to the surface, like oil normally does? Scientists think it is because of the chemical dispersant that British Petroleum is spraying into the stream of leaking oil almost a mile below the surface. That dispersant is causing the oil to float below the surface, instead of rising to the top.
Why is this a problem? Because the combination of the oil and the dispersant is sucking the oxygen out of the ocean water. The water around the underwater plumes already has 30% less oxygen than normal.
If the oxygen levels fall too low, sea life canot survive in the areas. This is called a "dead zone," for obvious reasons. This spill could create huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.
So, British Petroleum is not only polluting the environment on the surface, and along the coast, it is polluting the environment far below the surface, in ways that the ocean life may never recover from. On the surface, it looks like the oil slick(s) are now moving toward the Florida keys - and the fragile, beautiful coral reefs there.
Meanwhile, there is another rig, just like the Deep Water Horizon that drilled this well, exploded, burned, and capsized, drilling another well even farther out and even deeper down. If something happens there, it will be even harder to fix than the mess British Petroleum has caused currently. And ... one of the employees from that well says the rig has not been fully inspected for safety and does not have any "as-built" plans. So, if something goes wrong, no one will actually know exactly how the rig is built when they go in to try to fix it.
When will it ever end? Not until we insist that it ends. Not until we stop shouting, "drill, baby, drill!"
You remember their well that has been leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico?
Well, they made some progress. A couple of days ago, they managed to insert a smaller pipe into the broken well pipe and then use a collar around the smaller pipe to seal it off inside the larger one. There was a hose that lead from the smaller pipe to an oil tanker on the surface. Neither British Petroleum nor the U.S. government ever thought or claimed that this would solve the leak, but if it worked, it would at least reduce the amount of oil escaping into the ocean.
Unfortunately, two of their remotely controlled submarines collided and knocked the smaller pipe loose. Yesterday, they finally got the smaller pipe working again.
So, British Petroleum announced that, while it wasn't a solution, and they were still working, they were now siphoning off one-fifth - twenty percent - of the oil that was leaking. They still needed to try the same procedure with two other leaks, and the real solution - drilling a slant well that would intersect with the damaged pipe - was, of course, still months away. August, to be precise. It is May now.
One-fifth of the oil? Well, that assertion was based on the fact that with this siphon pipe they were siphoning off 1,000 barrels of oil a day, and the claim that the well was leaking only - only - 5,000 barrels a day.
However, independent scientists, studying the underwater video they have of the oil gushing out of the broken well pipe, have come to the conclusion that the well is not leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day, but something between 25,000 to possibly as much as 80,000 barrels of oil a day!
That, however, didn't seem possible. This is because, when you look at the oil slick(s) on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, there just isnt' that much oil. So, how could it be that the well is actually leaking 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, not 5,000 like British Petroleum claimed?
Explanation: Scientiest have discovered several sub-surface oil plumes. One is about ten miles - yes, miles - long and three miles wide and 300 feet deep. That's where the difference between 5,000 and 25,000 to 80,000 is - below the surface.
Why isn't the oil in these plumes rising to the surface, like oil normally does? Scientists think it is because of the chemical dispersant that British Petroleum is spraying into the stream of leaking oil almost a mile below the surface. That dispersant is causing the oil to float below the surface, instead of rising to the top.
Why is this a problem? Because the combination of the oil and the dispersant is sucking the oxygen out of the ocean water. The water around the underwater plumes already has 30% less oxygen than normal.
If the oxygen levels fall too low, sea life canot survive in the areas. This is called a "dead zone," for obvious reasons. This spill could create huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.
So, British Petroleum is not only polluting the environment on the surface, and along the coast, it is polluting the environment far below the surface, in ways that the ocean life may never recover from. On the surface, it looks like the oil slick(s) are now moving toward the Florida keys - and the fragile, beautiful coral reefs there.
Meanwhile, there is another rig, just like the Deep Water Horizon that drilled this well, exploded, burned, and capsized, drilling another well even farther out and even deeper down. If something happens there, it will be even harder to fix than the mess British Petroleum has caused currently. And ... one of the employees from that well says the rig has not been fully inspected for safety and does not have any "as-built" plans. So, if something goes wrong, no one will actually know exactly how the rig is built when they go in to try to fix it.
When will it ever end? Not until we insist that it ends. Not until we stop shouting, "drill, baby, drill!"
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Compromise
When the delegates to the convention that produced the United States Constitution arrived, many of them didn't want a new constitution at all. In fact, some of the states' delegations had orders from their state legislatures to oppose a new constitution and support only amending the Articles of Confederation.
Of those who did want a new constitution, many came with their own ideas of what sort of constitution we ought to have, and what ought to be in it.
I've been doing a lot of reading about that time period in history, and several of the men who attended the convention. Unless I've missed something, as far as I can tell, no delegate got everything they wanted in the new constitution. Far from believing they had produced one of the seminal documents of democratic history, most, if not all, of the delegates left the convention greatly, but privately, displeased about the final product. Many harbored great reservations about whether a republic based on the new constitution had any chance of success. Many of their private letters expose this pretty intense level of dissatisfaction.
Yet, they all signed it, at least all of them who remained at the convention to the end.
As far as I can tell, none of the ideas Benjamin Franklin proposed at the convention actually made it into the final version, though I may have missed something. None the less, Dr. Franklin wrote this about the new constitution:
"I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present; but sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgement and pay more respect to the judgement of others.
"Most men, indeed as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a dedication, tells the Pope that the only difference between our two churches in their opinion of the certainty of their doctrine is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But, though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a little dispute with her sister said: 'I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults - if they are such - because I think a general government necessary for us. ... I doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly, can a perfect production be expected?
"It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best."
"[O]ur enemies are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded ... ."
Friends, we must once again adopt Ben Franklin's spirit of humble compromise if we expect our republic to continue. Really, we must.
Of those who did want a new constitution, many came with their own ideas of what sort of constitution we ought to have, and what ought to be in it.
I've been doing a lot of reading about that time period in history, and several of the men who attended the convention. Unless I've missed something, as far as I can tell, no delegate got everything they wanted in the new constitution. Far from believing they had produced one of the seminal documents of democratic history, most, if not all, of the delegates left the convention greatly, but privately, displeased about the final product. Many harbored great reservations about whether a republic based on the new constitution had any chance of success. Many of their private letters expose this pretty intense level of dissatisfaction.
Yet, they all signed it, at least all of them who remained at the convention to the end.
As far as I can tell, none of the ideas Benjamin Franklin proposed at the convention actually made it into the final version, though I may have missed something. None the less, Dr. Franklin wrote this about the new constitution:
"I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present; but sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgement and pay more respect to the judgement of others.
"Most men, indeed as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a dedication, tells the Pope that the only difference between our two churches in their opinion of the certainty of their doctrine is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But, though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a little dispute with her sister said: 'I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults - if they are such - because I think a general government necessary for us. ... I doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly, can a perfect production be expected?
"It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best."
"[O]ur enemies are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded ... ."
Friends, we must once again adopt Ben Franklin's spirit of humble compromise if we expect our republic to continue. Really, we must.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)