The not-so-slow erosion of freedom continues. It appears that governments - and particularly police officers - consider that We, The People, are the problem. They forget that the authors of the U.S. Constitution firmly believed that the power of government is conditional on the consent of the government.
"Unt ve have vays of making you do the zings ve vant you to do" is UnAmerican - conjuring up images of a police state.
An article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette describes the ugly reality of modern day police attitudes to citizens http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08246/908652-85.stm The topic of the article is the issuance of nearly two hundred citations, by Pittsburgh police in the past twenty months, for the crimes of disorderly conduct relating to swearing, making profane gestures, or just generally acting like a jerk.
While rudeness and bad manners should be decried, it is an abuse of power to consider such actions and words to be criminal offenses. Decisions of the courts are quite clear that that the First Amendment protects speech - albeit not absolutely - up until the level that such speech becomes "fighting words".
While my concern for free speech may seem excessive, it is worth remembering these thoughts (although no written record of the exact words exists) from Pastor Martin Niemoller, referring in 1946 to the Nazi dictatorship:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Freedom is precious and we must constantly be on guard for assaults on our liberty. Those who would take it away from us, whether out of malice or simply for their own convenience, will succeed most easily if they remove it one tiny slice at a time.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Senator McCain and Governor Palin
Senator McCain has selected, as his Vice Presidential running mate, a socially intolerant and religiously extreme Governor who doesn't seem to understand that the First Amendment requires that Church and State be separate. While her selection has energized the conservative (perhaps better described as extreme right wing) base of the Republican party, it is likely to turn off many of the Independents and old style Republicans that Senator McCain also needs to win.
I am one.
I had hoped, this year, that I would be able to vote FOR a candidate and believed that Senator McCain would be that candidate. I regret to say that his selection of Governor Palin, around whom there is also the smell of trimming - on earmarks among other things, hypocrisy, and abuse of power, has removed me from the ranks of enthusiastic supporters of Senator McCain.
I still believe that Senator Obama is unqualified and that his likely policies - as much as we have seen them - will harm our country. While I almost certainly will vote against him, staying home on Election Day is no longer totally out of the question.
I am one.
I had hoped, this year, that I would be able to vote FOR a candidate and believed that Senator McCain would be that candidate. I regret to say that his selection of Governor Palin, around whom there is also the smell of trimming - on earmarks among other things, hypocrisy, and abuse of power, has removed me from the ranks of enthusiastic supporters of Senator McCain.
I still believe that Senator Obama is unqualified and that his likely policies - as much as we have seen them - will harm our country. While I almost certainly will vote against him, staying home on Election Day is no longer totally out of the question.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Labor Day
As most of us enjoy a day off from paid work, let us remember the words of country singer Tom T. Hall listing the things that will keep most guys happy for a while:
Faster horses,
Younger women,
Older whiskey,
And more money.
As an average guy, I am not too sure what women want but the appeal of more money is certainly sexless.
Faster horses,
Younger women,
Older whiskey,
And more money.
As an average guy, I am not too sure what women want but the appeal of more money is certainly sexless.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
More on bicycles as transportation.
There is an article in today's Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com about commuting by bicycle.
While the article is quite long, it can be summarized quite simply: bicycle lanes and secure parking are two of the keys to getting commuters out of their cars and onto bicycles. Bicycle lanes, as opposed to bicycle "trails", separate bicyclists from pedestrians and runners as well as from cars, buses and trucks. By reducing speed and weight differences, safety is greatly enhanced.
Unfortunately, in the USA, few cities have made a serious effort to make commuting by bicycle safe and attractive. Admittedly, dedicated bicycle lanes and secure parking are not cheap but the potential savings, in terms of reduced traffic congestion and pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions), seem to make this a worthwhile investment.
In addition to the public infrastructure investment, help will be needed from employers. Secure parking is a part of it but employees are simply not going to commute by bicycle if, having arrived hot and sweaty, they must spend the rest of the day in significant discomfort. Their colleagues may find the smell somewhat distressing too! Showers and locker rooms will have to be provided to compensate for the high heat and humidity of summers in most of the USA but the return on investment from a reduction in employer paid parking will offset much, if not all, of this cost.
Given the cost of gasoline, and the time wasted in rush hour traffic, a serious effort to encourage commuting by bicycle is a worthwhile component of a rational transportation plan that combines private vehicles with public transportation.
Read the full article here: http://tinyurl.com/5j2n67
While the article is quite long, it can be summarized quite simply: bicycle lanes and secure parking are two of the keys to getting commuters out of their cars and onto bicycles. Bicycle lanes, as opposed to bicycle "trails", separate bicyclists from pedestrians and runners as well as from cars, buses and trucks. By reducing speed and weight differences, safety is greatly enhanced.
Unfortunately, in the USA, few cities have made a serious effort to make commuting by bicycle safe and attractive. Admittedly, dedicated bicycle lanes and secure parking are not cheap but the potential savings, in terms of reduced traffic congestion and pollution (including greenhouse gas emissions), seem to make this a worthwhile investment.
In addition to the public infrastructure investment, help will be needed from employers. Secure parking is a part of it but employees are simply not going to commute by bicycle if, having arrived hot and sweaty, they must spend the rest of the day in significant discomfort. Their colleagues may find the smell somewhat distressing too! Showers and locker rooms will have to be provided to compensate for the high heat and humidity of summers in most of the USA but the return on investment from a reduction in employer paid parking will offset much, if not all, of this cost.
Given the cost of gasoline, and the time wasted in rush hour traffic, a serious effort to encourage commuting by bicycle is a worthwhile component of a rational transportation plan that combines private vehicles with public transportation.
Read the full article here: http://tinyurl.com/5j2n67
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Senator McCain picks a running mate
Senator McCain has announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is his choice to be the Republican Party's Vice Presidential nominee.
If his selection is designed to energize the so-called Christian Right and help him get elected, it may be good news for him. Unfortunately, it smells like very bad news for our country.
Here is the good news about Governor Palin. She is a Governor and former Mayor which means that she has executive experience. Criticizing her for limited time in office is hypocritical since, compared to the Democratic Party ticket, she is the expert.
More good news is that she has shown herself willing to challenge vested interests and entrenched bureaucracies. In general, she has succeeded. She has also been willing to stand up to major corporations.
In the neutral column is the fact that she is an Evangelical Christian with some fairly antediluvian positions on social issues. I consider myself to be a Goldwater Republican, which includes social tolerance - as well as a strong defense and fiscal conservatism, but I am willing to respect, and debate, other views.
Also in the neutral column is that Senator McCain's selection of a woman as his running mate could be described as 'too clever by half'. More so, when her experience does not compared to that of, say, Christine Todd Whitman who served two terms as Governor of New Jersey and, also, as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. To be fair, however, the only executive position held by Margaret Thatcher prior to becoming Prime Minister was that of Secretary of Education.
There are, however, two negatives: one relatively minor and the other of major proportions. The minor problem involves some unproven allegations of corruptly attempting to influence the Alaskan State Police to fire her brother-in-law who is involved in an unpleasant custody dispute with Governor Palin's sister.
While relatively trivial, since no firing took place, the incident speaks poorly of the competence of those in Senator McCain's campaign who are responsible for vetting candidates for selection as running mate.
The major problem is that Governor Palin is a creationist and supports the teaching of creationism in public schools.
The first issue is that 'Creationism' is a religious doctrine. While some may consider the First Amendment to the Constitution to be irrelevant, obsolete and quaint when it comes to religious matters, it states: "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Given the clarity of those words, how can teaching 'Creationism' in public schools be anything other than unconstitutional.
Even more importantly, Governor Palin's believes in a concept that is supported by no evidence. It is impossible to claim, at least with a straight face, that "revealed truth", written in Hebrew by a great poet then translated into beautiful 17th century English poetry in the King James Bible, qualifies as evidence. Further, creationism is contradicted by a vast body of evidence, developed by geologists, astronomers, physicists, biologists and other scientists, so her position suggests that she is in the grip of an irrational delusion that, not so incidentally, is only supported by a minority of the Christian communion.
The Pope, a serious Christian scholar, accepts evolution even if most American Evangelicals do not.
The implication of creationism is that the loving God of the New Testament has deliberately perpetrated a grotesque hoax on everyone. One of Albert Einstein's observations is worth considering: "God is subtle but He is not malicious."
Since Creationists reject science - although perhaps not the technologies, such as electricity and the internal combustion engine, made possible by science - what then of the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey as well as the sciences of cosmology, astronomy, evolutionary biology and ecology? Should we fear for the future of publicly funded scientific research - one of the foundations of our prosperity - if Senator McCain were to die or become disabled in office and she becomes President?
My support for Senator McCain has been greatly lessened by his selection of a religious extremist and his implicit endorsement of her beliefs. One small hope is that, if Senator McCain is elected, the office of the Vice President will - in the words of John Nance Garner (Vice President from 1933 - 1941) - once again become: "not worth a bucket of warm piss."
I wish Senator McCain long life and very good health!
If his selection is designed to energize the so-called Christian Right and help him get elected, it may be good news for him. Unfortunately, it smells like very bad news for our country.
Here is the good news about Governor Palin. She is a Governor and former Mayor which means that she has executive experience. Criticizing her for limited time in office is hypocritical since, compared to the Democratic Party ticket, she is the expert.
More good news is that she has shown herself willing to challenge vested interests and entrenched bureaucracies. In general, she has succeeded. She has also been willing to stand up to major corporations.
In the neutral column is the fact that she is an Evangelical Christian with some fairly antediluvian positions on social issues. I consider myself to be a Goldwater Republican, which includes social tolerance - as well as a strong defense and fiscal conservatism, but I am willing to respect, and debate, other views.
Also in the neutral column is that Senator McCain's selection of a woman as his running mate could be described as 'too clever by half'. More so, when her experience does not compared to that of, say, Christine Todd Whitman who served two terms as Governor of New Jersey and, also, as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. To be fair, however, the only executive position held by Margaret Thatcher prior to becoming Prime Minister was that of Secretary of Education.
There are, however, two negatives: one relatively minor and the other of major proportions. The minor problem involves some unproven allegations of corruptly attempting to influence the Alaskan State Police to fire her brother-in-law who is involved in an unpleasant custody dispute with Governor Palin's sister.
While relatively trivial, since no firing took place, the incident speaks poorly of the competence of those in Senator McCain's campaign who are responsible for vetting candidates for selection as running mate.
The major problem is that Governor Palin is a creationist and supports the teaching of creationism in public schools.
The first issue is that 'Creationism' is a religious doctrine. While some may consider the First Amendment to the Constitution to be irrelevant, obsolete and quaint when it comes to religious matters, it states: "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Given the clarity of those words, how can teaching 'Creationism' in public schools be anything other than unconstitutional.
Even more importantly, Governor Palin's believes in a concept that is supported by no evidence. It is impossible to claim, at least with a straight face, that "revealed truth", written in Hebrew by a great poet then translated into beautiful 17th century English poetry in the King James Bible, qualifies as evidence. Further, creationism is contradicted by a vast body of evidence, developed by geologists, astronomers, physicists, biologists and other scientists, so her position suggests that she is in the grip of an irrational delusion that, not so incidentally, is only supported by a minority of the Christian communion.
The Pope, a serious Christian scholar, accepts evolution even if most American Evangelicals do not.
The implication of creationism is that the loving God of the New Testament has deliberately perpetrated a grotesque hoax on everyone. One of Albert Einstein's observations is worth considering: "God is subtle but He is not malicious."
Since Creationists reject science - although perhaps not the technologies, such as electricity and the internal combustion engine, made possible by science - what then of the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey as well as the sciences of cosmology, astronomy, evolutionary biology and ecology? Should we fear for the future of publicly funded scientific research - one of the foundations of our prosperity - if Senator McCain were to die or become disabled in office and she becomes President?
My support for Senator McCain has been greatly lessened by his selection of a religious extremist and his implicit endorsement of her beliefs. One small hope is that, if Senator McCain is elected, the office of the Vice President will - in the words of John Nance Garner (Vice President from 1933 - 1941) - once again become: "not worth a bucket of warm piss."
I wish Senator McCain long life and very good health!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Senator Obama's acceptance speech.
Referring to Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican Party nominee for President, Senator Obama, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Party Convention last night, said:
"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make big elections about small things."
What am I missing here? Senator McCain has a substantial legislative record and a proven ability to work with members of the other party. Sherlock Holmes - even with his highest powered magnifying glass - would be hard pressed to find much of a record in Senator Obama's political career.
Then, pandering shamelessly to the irresponsible:
"More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit-card bills you can't afford to pay and tuition that is beyond your reach."
Whose fault is that? For most - admittedly not all but certainly the great majority - the fault lies with those for whom spending is a priority rather than the old fashioned virtues of earning and saving.
Further compounding the hypocrisy, he went on to say:
"These challenges are not all of government's making, but the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed presidency of George W. Bush."
There is little doubt that George W. Bush has been one of the worst Presidents in the history of our country. The "broken politics of Washington", however, involves both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - and, last time I looked, Senator Obama is a member of the Democratic Party which controls both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make big elections about small things."
What am I missing here? Senator McCain has a substantial legislative record and a proven ability to work with members of the other party. Sherlock Holmes - even with his highest powered magnifying glass - would be hard pressed to find much of a record in Senator Obama's political career.
Then, pandering shamelessly to the irresponsible:
"More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit-card bills you can't afford to pay and tuition that is beyond your reach."
Whose fault is that? For most - admittedly not all but certainly the great majority - the fault lies with those for whom spending is a priority rather than the old fashioned virtues of earning and saving.
Further compounding the hypocrisy, he went on to say:
"These challenges are not all of government's making, but the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed presidency of George W. Bush."
There is little doubt that George W. Bush has been one of the worst Presidents in the history of our country. The "broken politics of Washington", however, involves both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - and, last time I looked, Senator Obama is a member of the Democratic Party which controls both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
On being disabled.
Although I am considered disabled (I am a double leg amputee) I have not yet written about disability issues. The reason is that this blog is about issues rather than about me.
I raise the subject, now, because the way that our society treats too many disabled people is just plain wrong. More importantly, there are many members of the military who are returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hellholes, with wounds that will result in lifelong disabilities. The assumption that, because they are disabled, they can no longer contribute is grotesquely wrong.
The result of our ill treatment of disabled people, too often, is a monumental waste of talent and energy which, to quote Talleyrand, "... is worse than a crime, it is a mistake."
Meanwhile, my readers are entitled to know how I view myself as a person with disabilities.
Being disabled is:
I raise the subject, now, because the way that our society treats too many disabled people is just plain wrong. More importantly, there are many members of the military who are returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hellholes, with wounds that will result in lifelong disabilities. The assumption that, because they are disabled, they can no longer contribute is grotesquely wrong.
The result of our ill treatment of disabled people, too often, is a monumental waste of talent and energy which, to quote Talleyrand, "... is worse than a crime, it is a mistake."
Meanwhile, my readers are entitled to know how I view myself as a person with disabilities.
Being disabled is:
- always hard work,
- usually time consuming,
- often painful, and
- frequently expensive.
The choices are 'get used to it' or 'give up and complain'. With a lot of help from friends - both able-bodied and disabled - I chose the former.
Enough said.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Obama and Biden. Warning - hypocrites at work!
After Senator Biden's remarks during his very brief Presidential campaign, Senator Obama's choice of him as Vice Presidential nominee must leave more than a few of us speechless.
The video should be required viewing:
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8
As usual, in the long running contest between ambition and honesty, ambition wins again.
The video should be required viewing:
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8
As usual, in the long running contest between ambition and honesty, ambition wins again.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Senator Obama wants the rich to pay their fair share of taxes!
Senator Obama wants the rich to pay their fair share of taxes and, if elected, intends to make sure that they do. Given the likelihood of increased Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, we should expect some serious tax increases if he becomes President.
I, too, think that the rich (I am not one of them although I am "comfortable") should pay their fair share. By any standards, except the Orwellian beliefs of those who believe that citizens work for the government rather than the government deriving its [limited] powers from the consent of the people, that fair share is considerably less than they are paying now.
The first problem with Senator Obama's plan is his definition of rich. A couple making $250,000 per year (or a single person making $200,000) can be very comfortable in Arkansas or North Dakota, but may be quite stretched - particularly with kids of College age - in the New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Washington DC metropolitan areas.
The second problem is the corruption of language: the term rich, at least to someone like myself who is of a certain age, refers to assets not income. A person or family with $10 million in assets could reasonably be considered "rich" but below that is somewhere between well off and poor.
These first two problems are, however, irrelevant except to point out the intellectual dishonesty of the argument being made by Senator Obama.
The real issue is the definition of fair share. Certainly it sounds reasonable, but we have a tax system that is manifestly unfair. To say "the more you make, the more you pay" is fair but "the more you make, the higher the percentage of your income that you pay" doesn't seem to meet any reasonable test of fairness.
Then, to further consider "fair share", we must look at income distribution and the payment of income taxes.
According to a study by the Cato Institute http://www.cato.org the top 1% received 16% of all income in 2004. They paid, however, nearly 40% of all income taxes -- the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71 % of the taxes. Somewhere there is a gross inequity that will only be exacerbated by Senator Obama's plans. That 90% of the population only pays 29% of all income taxes can not be equitable either.
It is also worth noting that the total tax burden imposed by the Federal Government comes to a little under 18% of the National Income but the top rate of income tax is 35%. Those numbers clearly indicate that someone is paying far more than his fair share!
Senator OBama believes that the top rate of income tax should be raised to 39.6% as it was during the Clinton Administration. His attitude reminds me of a very ugly remark by Denis Healy (British Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labor Government) in 1978: "It will squeeze the rich until the pips squeak".
Is it what he thinks he can get away with cramming down our throats? Is it the politics of jealousy which used to be so rare in America? Senator Obama, with his message of hope, should do much better.
If we are to have a true democracy, the burden of paying for our government must be fairly - that means much more evenly - spread. A single rate of income tax is fair ("the more you make the more you pay") with no deductions for favored groups. The only acceptable exception to a true flat tax might be an exemption equal to the poverty line income.
Admittedly the Charitable and Mortgage Interest deductions can not be abolished overnight: they will have to be phased out to avoid major economic disruptions but, with some political courage, that can be achieved. It is likely, however, that it will be necessary to create the political will through swift kicks, administered by the people, to the rear ends of recalcitrant politicians.
Ayn Rand - a ferociously right wing and Libertarian author - writing in her most famous novel Atlas Shrugged, described what happened when the leaders of industry effectively went on strike. The consequences were an economic meltdown - and it could happen in real life. It certainly did in England - an economic basket case in the 1960s and 1970s where no senior managers bothered to work hard and few entrepreneurs existed - because the top tax rate, on even the not very highly paid, was 83% on earned income with an additional 15% surcharge on investment income.
The difference between those rates and confiscation is hard to distinguish. George Harrison of The Beatles put it well in the song Taxman:
Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
We haven't got there yet but we could: the famous Kennedy tax cut reduced the top marginal rate of income tax to only (only?) 70%!
One of the major causes of the American Revolution was the perceived unfairness of taxes levied on the 13 colonies - and their citizens - by an autocratic and uncontrollable government, located 3,000 miles away and not in the slightest answerable to the people. Our government, in Washington DC, is equally isolated from the real world for much of the year, and certainly appears uncontrollable and verging on autocratic.
We don't have to start a new American Revolution, but we should reject all politicians who believe that success - even the modest success of Senator Obama's so-called rich - should be punished.
I, too, think that the rich (I am not one of them although I am "comfortable") should pay their fair share. By any standards, except the Orwellian beliefs of those who believe that citizens work for the government rather than the government deriving its [limited] powers from the consent of the people, that fair share is considerably less than they are paying now.
The first problem with Senator Obama's plan is his definition of rich. A couple making $250,000 per year (or a single person making $200,000) can be very comfortable in Arkansas or North Dakota, but may be quite stretched - particularly with kids of College age - in the New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Washington DC metropolitan areas.
The second problem is the corruption of language: the term rich, at least to someone like myself who is of a certain age, refers to assets not income. A person or family with $10 million in assets could reasonably be considered "rich" but below that is somewhere between well off and poor.
These first two problems are, however, irrelevant except to point out the intellectual dishonesty of the argument being made by Senator Obama.
The real issue is the definition of fair share. Certainly it sounds reasonable, but we have a tax system that is manifestly unfair. To say "the more you make, the more you pay" is fair but "the more you make, the higher the percentage of your income that you pay" doesn't seem to meet any reasonable test of fairness.
Then, to further consider "fair share", we must look at income distribution and the payment of income taxes.
According to a study by the Cato Institute http://www.cato.org the top 1% received 16% of all income in 2004. They paid, however, nearly 40% of all income taxes -- the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71 % of the taxes. Somewhere there is a gross inequity that will only be exacerbated by Senator Obama's plans. That 90% of the population only pays 29% of all income taxes can not be equitable either.
It is also worth noting that the total tax burden imposed by the Federal Government comes to a little under 18% of the National Income but the top rate of income tax is 35%. Those numbers clearly indicate that someone is paying far more than his fair share!
Senator OBama believes that the top rate of income tax should be raised to 39.6% as it was during the Clinton Administration. His attitude reminds me of a very ugly remark by Denis Healy (British Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labor Government) in 1978: "It will squeeze the rich until the pips squeak".
Is it what he thinks he can get away with cramming down our throats? Is it the politics of jealousy which used to be so rare in America? Senator Obama, with his message of hope, should do much better.
If we are to have a true democracy, the burden of paying for our government must be fairly - that means much more evenly - spread. A single rate of income tax is fair ("the more you make the more you pay") with no deductions for favored groups. The only acceptable exception to a true flat tax might be an exemption equal to the poverty line income.
Admittedly the Charitable and Mortgage Interest deductions can not be abolished overnight: they will have to be phased out to avoid major economic disruptions but, with some political courage, that can be achieved. It is likely, however, that it will be necessary to create the political will through swift kicks, administered by the people, to the rear ends of recalcitrant politicians.
Ayn Rand - a ferociously right wing and Libertarian author - writing in her most famous novel Atlas Shrugged, described what happened when the leaders of industry effectively went on strike. The consequences were an economic meltdown - and it could happen in real life. It certainly did in England - an economic basket case in the 1960s and 1970s where no senior managers bothered to work hard and few entrepreneurs existed - because the top tax rate, on even the not very highly paid, was 83% on earned income with an additional 15% surcharge on investment income.
The difference between those rates and confiscation is hard to distinguish. George Harrison of The Beatles put it well in the song Taxman:
Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
We haven't got there yet but we could: the famous Kennedy tax cut reduced the top marginal rate of income tax to only (only?) 70%!
One of the major causes of the American Revolution was the perceived unfairness of taxes levied on the 13 colonies - and their citizens - by an autocratic and uncontrollable government, located 3,000 miles away and not in the slightest answerable to the people. Our government, in Washington DC, is equally isolated from the real world for much of the year, and certainly appears uncontrollable and verging on autocratic.
We don't have to start a new American Revolution, but we should reject all politicians who believe that success - even the modest success of Senator Obama's so-called rich - should be punished.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Obama and Biden
A successful President is one who is able to assemble, lead, and inspire a team that can achieve his vision. Leadership and inspiration, while necessary, are not sufficient; experience in the management of a large and slow moving enterprise is also critical.
Of course, it is useful to have a vision - and the last President of the United States to have one was Ronald Reagan. His vision included winning the Cold War and reducing tax rates from the confiscatory levels - only modestly reduced by the 1964 Kennedy Tax Cut which took effect after his 1963 death - that had been introduced during World War II.
President Reagan achieved both of these objectives - not least because he had all the necessary personal talents.
I don't see that sort of ability in Senator Obama. He has never held a job where he had to run anything. Nor does he have any significant foreign policy expertise. Given that we live in a world which is as unsettled (and as dangerous) as at any time in the past twenty five years, such experience is essential. He has moved to shore up his foreign policy failings by announcing that he has selected Senator Joe Biden as his choice to be the democratic Party's Vice Presidential nominee. Given the changes in the real - as opposed to Constitutional - powers of the Vice President over the past 16 years, the choice of a running mate should matter greatly to all American citizens.
Senator Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 at the age of 29. He reached the Constitutionally required minimum age of 30 before he took office in January 1973. His time in the Senate has been marked by competent, albeit not particularly distinguished, service as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and, also, of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Neither of these posts has required the ability to run a large enterprise - nor have they equipped him with the tools to understand and help the President develop and implement domestic and economic policy.
Foreign policy expertise is readily available for hire. Former Secretaries of State are a dime a dozen, as are Ambassadors to the UN - some of whom are actually knowledgeable and competent, while there are many National Security Advisors and their Deputies who would be happy to return to government. In addition, since the Congress generally leaves foreign policy to the Executive Branch, a former Senator turned Vice President - no matter how distinguished - is of only marginal use in this area.
Notwithstanding the availability of foreign policy talent, the boss still needs the ability and knowledge to set the direction. Senator Obama is not that person.
In addition, many of Senator Obama's problems will be in the areas of domestic (social) and economic policy. The economy is going through a difficult period at the moment and public opinion is whining (former Senator Phil Gramm made a valid point) that a recession - sorely needed to wring out the economic imbalances caused by too many years of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Bubblespan's cheap money policies - should not be allowed to occur. We should well remember that, without the recession of 1981 - 1982, an 18 year period of growth with low inflation, and only one short recession, would likely not have occurred.
If, as predicted, we see an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House, and a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we can expect some highly populist - and idiotic - legislation that will involve handing out money, that the government does not have or will have to raise in new taxes, to all sorts of noisy but undeserving characters. Expect, too, unfunded mandates to be imposed on States and Municipalities as well as employers. If so, then those of us who have lived within our means will be the ones to suffer.
We can also expect some class warfare style tax increases, on the grounds that the rich should 'pay their fair share'. Such tax increases are unlikely to improve the state of the economy but more on that another day.
Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Biden has any great knowledge of domestic and economic policy. Even highly competent hired hands, whether Treasury Secretaries or Domestic Policy Advisors, rarely have an office in the West Wing and the ability to drop in on the President to give their advice and opinions when it really matters. Expect a White House whose ignorance of economic policy is dangerous to our well being.
President Obama has made his choice. Unfortunately, while it may be the right choice to get him elected, he could have made few worse choices when it comes to governing our great nation.
Of course, it is useful to have a vision - and the last President of the United States to have one was Ronald Reagan. His vision included winning the Cold War and reducing tax rates from the confiscatory levels - only modestly reduced by the 1964 Kennedy Tax Cut which took effect after his 1963 death - that had been introduced during World War II.
President Reagan achieved both of these objectives - not least because he had all the necessary personal talents.
I don't see that sort of ability in Senator Obama. He has never held a job where he had to run anything. Nor does he have any significant foreign policy expertise. Given that we live in a world which is as unsettled (and as dangerous) as at any time in the past twenty five years, such experience is essential. He has moved to shore up his foreign policy failings by announcing that he has selected Senator Joe Biden as his choice to be the democratic Party's Vice Presidential nominee. Given the changes in the real - as opposed to Constitutional - powers of the Vice President over the past 16 years, the choice of a running mate should matter greatly to all American citizens.
Senator Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 at the age of 29. He reached the Constitutionally required minimum age of 30 before he took office in January 1973. His time in the Senate has been marked by competent, albeit not particularly distinguished, service as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and, also, of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Neither of these posts has required the ability to run a large enterprise - nor have they equipped him with the tools to understand and help the President develop and implement domestic and economic policy.
Foreign policy expertise is readily available for hire. Former Secretaries of State are a dime a dozen, as are Ambassadors to the UN - some of whom are actually knowledgeable and competent, while there are many National Security Advisors and their Deputies who would be happy to return to government. In addition, since the Congress generally leaves foreign policy to the Executive Branch, a former Senator turned Vice President - no matter how distinguished - is of only marginal use in this area.
Notwithstanding the availability of foreign policy talent, the boss still needs the ability and knowledge to set the direction. Senator Obama is not that person.
In addition, many of Senator Obama's problems will be in the areas of domestic (social) and economic policy. The economy is going through a difficult period at the moment and public opinion is whining (former Senator Phil Gramm made a valid point) that a recession - sorely needed to wring out the economic imbalances caused by too many years of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Bubblespan's cheap money policies - should not be allowed to occur. We should well remember that, without the recession of 1981 - 1982, an 18 year period of growth with low inflation, and only one short recession, would likely not have occurred.
If, as predicted, we see an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House, and a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we can expect some highly populist - and idiotic - legislation that will involve handing out money, that the government does not have or will have to raise in new taxes, to all sorts of noisy but undeserving characters. Expect, too, unfunded mandates to be imposed on States and Municipalities as well as employers. If so, then those of us who have lived within our means will be the ones to suffer.
We can also expect some class warfare style tax increases, on the grounds that the rich should 'pay their fair share'. Such tax increases are unlikely to improve the state of the economy but more on that another day.
Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Biden has any great knowledge of domestic and economic policy. Even highly competent hired hands, whether Treasury Secretaries or Domestic Policy Advisors, rarely have an office in the West Wing and the ability to drop in on the President to give their advice and opinions when it really matters. Expect a White House whose ignorance of economic policy is dangerous to our well being.
President Obama has made his choice. Unfortunately, while it may be the right choice to get him elected, he could have made few worse choices when it comes to governing our great nation.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Obama's Dilemma
The problem with being elected President of the Untied States is that you then have to do the job. For that, experience helps - a lot.
During the past twelve years, two Vice Presidents (Gore and Cheney) have become extremely powerful figures because they were able to fill significant gaps in their Presidents' experience.
Senator Obama's experience is vanishingly close to zero in two critical areas.
First, he has never had a job where he had to run anything. The jobs of Community Organizer, Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, State Legislator and United States Senator are hardly positions requiring management skills and talent. Second, his foreign policy knowledge is lacking. Although he has been the Chair of the European Sub-Committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he is not known for any major legislative or oversight achievements.
The gaps in his resume, then, lead to speculation in the press about possible running mates. Senator Joe Biden and former Senator Sam Nunn are the most frequently mentioned Vice Presidential candidates who can shore up his foreign policy weaknesses. Several State Governors have been mentioned to help him supplement his lack of executive experience.
The problem is that neither Senator Nunn nor Senator Biden have ever run anything. Nor do any of the much touted Governors have any significant foreign policy experience.
The missing player - rarely mentioned as a possible Vice President but eminently qualified - is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. His executive experience also includes service as Secretary of Energy in the Clinton administration and he has foreign policy credentials as Ambassador to the United Nations as well as legislative experience as a Congressman. Then, given that he is of Hispanic descent (through his mother), his selection would seem to be not only obvious but might well attract some non-traditional voters to Obama's cause.
We shall see next week at the Democratic Party Convention beginning on Sunday August 24.
During the past twelve years, two Vice Presidents (Gore and Cheney) have become extremely powerful figures because they were able to fill significant gaps in their Presidents' experience.
Senator Obama's experience is vanishingly close to zero in two critical areas.
First, he has never had a job where he had to run anything. The jobs of Community Organizer, Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, State Legislator and United States Senator are hardly positions requiring management skills and talent. Second, his foreign policy knowledge is lacking. Although he has been the Chair of the European Sub-Committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he is not known for any major legislative or oversight achievements.
The gaps in his resume, then, lead to speculation in the press about possible running mates. Senator Joe Biden and former Senator Sam Nunn are the most frequently mentioned Vice Presidential candidates who can shore up his foreign policy weaknesses. Several State Governors have been mentioned to help him supplement his lack of executive experience.
The problem is that neither Senator Nunn nor Senator Biden have ever run anything. Nor do any of the much touted Governors have any significant foreign policy experience.
The missing player - rarely mentioned as a possible Vice President but eminently qualified - is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. His executive experience also includes service as Secretary of Energy in the Clinton administration and he has foreign policy credentials as Ambassador to the United Nations as well as legislative experience as a Congressman. Then, given that he is of Hispanic descent (through his mother), his selection would seem to be not only obvious but might well attract some non-traditional voters to Obama's cause.
We shall see next week at the Democratic Party Convention beginning on Sunday August 24.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Bicycles as transport rather than as toys.
From the age of eight until the age of nineteen, a bicycle was my primary means of transport. As a result of that experience, I am quite willing to "share the road". I spent those years in England where, at quitting time, it was not unusual for the factory gates to open and allow two thousand workers on bicycles to depart.
Learning to drive in England (early 1960s) involved looking out for bicycles - there were a lot of them - as an automatic part of the process. Riding a bicycle then, also involved strict obedience to traffic laws: lack of such obedience involved swift punishment, usually by parents (it's amazing how they found out so quickly but that was village life) and occasionally by police.
As an aside, my last encounter with the constabulary involved being dragged off to court and convicted of: riding a bicycle with no lights (it was 11 p.m.), riding a bicycle with no brakes, drunk in charge of a bicycle, and conduct liable to be hazardous to other road users (riding drunkenly with my hands in my pockets - but it was a cold night).
In the USA, the situation is really ugly. As a result of high (at least by our standards) fuel prices, there are now more bicycles on the road - or the same number of bicycles making more trips - and the danger increases by the day.
Too many automobile drivers entirely lack situational awareness when it comes to bicycles. Worse, many seem think that it is their right and duty to scare the living daylights out of any bicyclist who is unwise enough to ride at, according to the driver, a ridiculously slow speed.
On the other side of the argument, too many bicyclists seem to believe that traffic laws do not apply to them. They run red lights and stop signs while weaving through traffic without the least consideration of the only law that really matters which is the Gross Tonnage Rule. That you actually have right of way is little consolation when you are on the wrong end of a collision between 5,000 lbs of pickup truck travelling at 45 mph (in a 35 mph zone) and 200 lbs of bicycle and rider travelling at 12 mph.
While bicyclists are entitled to their share of the road, they should remember that the despised drivers of automobiles are the ones who, through registration fees, fuel taxes, and other levies, actually pay for the construction and upkeep of the roads. They should also remember that speed differentials are intrinsically dangerous and that riding at 15 mph on a road posted for 35 mph is a risky activity. Unfortunately, there seems to be a culture among bicyclists that riding on a bike path is a low status activity although, curiously, riding on the sidewalk and scaring the living daylights out of pedestrians is OK.
Aggressive driving is a general problem not just limited to virtual assaults on bicyclists. Bicyclists, however, could seize some of the moral high ground if they were more willing to obey the law and, when possible, take the bike path rather than insisting on their rights to the road.
Perhaps I am old fashioned in hoping for a return of good manners and consideration but it would be nice if both sides of the argument would contribute. Instead we must suffer aggressive drivers and suicidal bicyclists - all of whom consider a middle finger salute to be a normal form of greeting when they meet.
Learning to drive in England (early 1960s) involved looking out for bicycles - there were a lot of them - as an automatic part of the process. Riding a bicycle then, also involved strict obedience to traffic laws: lack of such obedience involved swift punishment, usually by parents (it's amazing how they found out so quickly but that was village life) and occasionally by police.
As an aside, my last encounter with the constabulary involved being dragged off to court and convicted of: riding a bicycle with no lights (it was 11 p.m.), riding a bicycle with no brakes, drunk in charge of a bicycle, and conduct liable to be hazardous to other road users (riding drunkenly with my hands in my pockets - but it was a cold night).
In the USA, the situation is really ugly. As a result of high (at least by our standards) fuel prices, there are now more bicycles on the road - or the same number of bicycles making more trips - and the danger increases by the day.
Too many automobile drivers entirely lack situational awareness when it comes to bicycles. Worse, many seem think that it is their right and duty to scare the living daylights out of any bicyclist who is unwise enough to ride at, according to the driver, a ridiculously slow speed.
On the other side of the argument, too many bicyclists seem to believe that traffic laws do not apply to them. They run red lights and stop signs while weaving through traffic without the least consideration of the only law that really matters which is the Gross Tonnage Rule. That you actually have right of way is little consolation when you are on the wrong end of a collision between 5,000 lbs of pickup truck travelling at 45 mph (in a 35 mph zone) and 200 lbs of bicycle and rider travelling at 12 mph.
While bicyclists are entitled to their share of the road, they should remember that the despised drivers of automobiles are the ones who, through registration fees, fuel taxes, and other levies, actually pay for the construction and upkeep of the roads. They should also remember that speed differentials are intrinsically dangerous and that riding at 15 mph on a road posted for 35 mph is a risky activity. Unfortunately, there seems to be a culture among bicyclists that riding on a bike path is a low status activity although, curiously, riding on the sidewalk and scaring the living daylights out of pedestrians is OK.
Aggressive driving is a general problem not just limited to virtual assaults on bicyclists. Bicyclists, however, could seize some of the moral high ground if they were more willing to obey the law and, when possible, take the bike path rather than insisting on their rights to the road.
Perhaps I am old fashioned in hoping for a return of good manners and consideration but it would be nice if both sides of the argument would contribute. Instead we must suffer aggressive drivers and suicidal bicyclists - all of whom consider a middle finger salute to be a normal form of greeting when they meet.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Empires - and their collapse
It is my contention that it takes between 100 and 150 years for the political fallout to settle after the collapse of an Empire. If I am right, that would explain many things about the disorder in the World
We are not yet 100 years from the collapse of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires following the Great War. The turmoil in the Middle East and the Balkans strongly suggests that the aftereffects still linger.
Next to collapse was the British Empire - beginning with the partition of India in 1948. The death of the British Empire took place in relatively slow motion, unlike the sudden demise of previous Empires, but the consequences are still being felt in many African countries (Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria and others), Myanmar (Burma for the traditionalists), India, Pakistan, and several Pacific island nations.
The situation in the Middle East is further exacerbated by the collapse of the [minor] French Lebanon and Syria) and British (Egypt, Palestine, Iraq) Empires which attempted to fill the vacuum during the period between the two World Wars.
Now we have the collapse of the Russian Empire which, as seen in Georgia, will cause ructions throughout the Caucasus and is likely to cause problems in other countries that are former members of the Soviet Union. Since almost all of the countries that are attempting to assert their independence from Russia are significant oil and gas producers, countries through which critical oil and gas pipelines pass, or members of NATO, we must expect that there will be interesting events in the near future and for years to come.
Unfortunately, we have little military ability to influence the outcome and a great need for Russia's assistance in dealing with Iran and North Korea. Instead of bellicose and grandiose posturing, the Bush administration should heed Theodore Roosevelt's adage: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Our stick urgently needs to be strengthened and enlarged; speaking softly can be done immediately.
We are not yet 100 years from the collapse of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires following the Great War. The turmoil in the Middle East and the Balkans strongly suggests that the aftereffects still linger.
Next to collapse was the British Empire - beginning with the partition of India in 1948. The death of the British Empire took place in relatively slow motion, unlike the sudden demise of previous Empires, but the consequences are still being felt in many African countries (Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria and others), Myanmar (Burma for the traditionalists), India, Pakistan, and several Pacific island nations.
The situation in the Middle East is further exacerbated by the collapse of the [minor] French Lebanon and Syria) and British (Egypt, Palestine, Iraq) Empires which attempted to fill the vacuum during the period between the two World Wars.
Now we have the collapse of the Russian Empire which, as seen in Georgia, will cause ructions throughout the Caucasus and is likely to cause problems in other countries that are former members of the Soviet Union. Since almost all of the countries that are attempting to assert their independence from Russia are significant oil and gas producers, countries through which critical oil and gas pipelines pass, or members of NATO, we must expect that there will be interesting events in the near future and for years to come.
Unfortunately, we have little military ability to influence the outcome and a great need for Russia's assistance in dealing with Iran and North Korea. Instead of bellicose and grandiose posturing, the Bush administration should heed Theodore Roosevelt's adage: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Our stick urgently needs to be strengthened and enlarged; speaking softly can be done immediately.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Zero Tolerance
One of the worst ideas in recent history is the concept of zero tolerance.
Zero tolerance, when applied to minor crimes and vandalism, has some merit although tagging a rowdy kid with a criminal record may well wreck his future entirely.
In a zero tolerance world, I am not sure that I would have graduated from High School but, if I did, my teenage years would have included a lengthy detour through the criminal justice system.
A belt, applied to a naked rear end by a father, is now considered to be child abuse but has saved quite a few unruly kids from contact with the courts. The bruises on my rear end (Malacca canes and sneakers) have long ago faded but I still remember the lessons taught by them. I didn't like it at the time but now recognize the value.
In the military, the zero tolerance culture results in really poor promotion prospects for those found responsible for mistakes and errors - even by subordinates. That results in Majors doing Captain's jobs and Captains doing Lieutenant's jobs, and so on down the chain of command, lest a subordinate's mistake penalize the supervisor. The same problem exists in many businesses.
The big problem is that most people learn best from their mistakes. Without mistakes, there is little personal growth and minimal innovation.
The zero tolerance culture needs to be opposed and there are two really powerful statements that, if said sincerely and accepted by the boss, will contribute mightily to the greater good. They are:
“I don’t know but I will find out” and “I’m sorry. I was wrong; it won't happen again"
Both of these statements are a sign of strength - not weakness - and they need to be said and accepted more often.
Zero tolerance, when applied to minor crimes and vandalism, has some merit although tagging a rowdy kid with a criminal record may well wreck his future entirely.
In a zero tolerance world, I am not sure that I would have graduated from High School but, if I did, my teenage years would have included a lengthy detour through the criminal justice system.
A belt, applied to a naked rear end by a father, is now considered to be child abuse but has saved quite a few unruly kids from contact with the courts. The bruises on my rear end (Malacca canes and sneakers) have long ago faded but I still remember the lessons taught by them. I didn't like it at the time but now recognize the value.
In the military, the zero tolerance culture results in really poor promotion prospects for those found responsible for mistakes and errors - even by subordinates. That results in Majors doing Captain's jobs and Captains doing Lieutenant's jobs, and so on down the chain of command, lest a subordinate's mistake penalize the supervisor. The same problem exists in many businesses.
The big problem is that most people learn best from their mistakes. Without mistakes, there is little personal growth and minimal innovation.
The zero tolerance culture needs to be opposed and there are two really powerful statements that, if said sincerely and accepted by the boss, will contribute mightily to the greater good. They are:
“I don’t know but I will find out” and “I’m sorry. I was wrong; it won't happen again"
Both of these statements are a sign of strength - not weakness - and they need to be said and accepted more often.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Are we alone in the Universe?
Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke - the man who, in 1948, first conceived of the communications satellite - addressed the question of whether we are alone in the Universe. In the book Visions : How Science Will Revolutionize the Twenty-First Century (1999) by Michio Kaku, he is quoted as saying:
Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
I agree.
Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
I agree.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Russian foreign policy and the invasion of Georgia
Russian Foreign Policy has not changed for five hundred years. Its three critical issues are year round warm water ports, control of the "near abroad", and preventing any single power from dominating Europe.
With respect to the near abroad, Russian objectives include the need for a buffer that, at worst, is friendly and, at best, is totally controlled. In the Soviet era, the expansion of the almost totally controlled "near abroad" provided one of the most substantial buffers ever experienced by Russia.
NATO's purpose, according to Churchill's military adviser Lord Ismay, was to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.
During the Cold War, Russia's "near abroad" provided reasonably adequate defense from any ground based threat that NATO might pose. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the liberation of almost all of the countries that comprise the "near abroad", Russia believes that its security is threatened by the fact that a substantial portion of the "near abroad" includes countries that are now NATO members or, like Ukraine and Georgia, are potential candidates for NATO membership.
The current purpose of NATO is unclear and it is not easy for the Russians to regard it as anything other than a threat. It looks suspiciously like the dominant power controlling Europe that Russia wants to avoid at all costs.
Russia is not being entirely irrational here. During the Soviet era, St. Petersburg was 1,200 miles from the nearest NATO territory: now it is only 60 miles.
That brings us to Georgia - a NATO wannabe - which, last week, indulged in an ill-judged and provocative invasion of a breakaway province that is under Russian protection. With America overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO is in no position to do anything serious. No one, then, should be surprised that Russia has slapped down a tiresome and uncooperative member of the "near abroad".
The Russian message is clear - and aimed at other members of the near abroad: understand that any commitments on the part of America and NATO are largely worthless. We (Russia) are the regional power; your recognition of of our power and your prompt acquiescence to our desires, as well as compliance with our instructions, is expected.
With respect to the near abroad, Russian objectives include the need for a buffer that, at worst, is friendly and, at best, is totally controlled. In the Soviet era, the expansion of the almost totally controlled "near abroad" provided one of the most substantial buffers ever experienced by Russia.
NATO's purpose, according to Churchill's military adviser Lord Ismay, was to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.
During the Cold War, Russia's "near abroad" provided reasonably adequate defense from any ground based threat that NATO might pose. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the liberation of almost all of the countries that comprise the "near abroad", Russia believes that its security is threatened by the fact that a substantial portion of the "near abroad" includes countries that are now NATO members or, like Ukraine and Georgia, are potential candidates for NATO membership.
The current purpose of NATO is unclear and it is not easy for the Russians to regard it as anything other than a threat. It looks suspiciously like the dominant power controlling Europe that Russia wants to avoid at all costs.
Russia is not being entirely irrational here. During the Soviet era, St. Petersburg was 1,200 miles from the nearest NATO territory: now it is only 60 miles.
That brings us to Georgia - a NATO wannabe - which, last week, indulged in an ill-judged and provocative invasion of a breakaway province that is under Russian protection. With America overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO is in no position to do anything serious. No one, then, should be surprised that Russia has slapped down a tiresome and uncooperative member of the "near abroad".
The Russian message is clear - and aimed at other members of the near abroad: understand that any commitments on the part of America and NATO are largely worthless. We (Russia) are the regional power; your recognition of of our power and your prompt acquiescence to our desires, as well as compliance with our instructions, is expected.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Oil Prices and Speculators
The mainly Liberal Democrats who are excoriating speculators for the high price of oil are notorious for their diligence in the search for scapegoats rather than solutions.
While it is possible to explain the movement in oil prices, from under $70 per barrel at the end of September 2007 to over $113 today, as the market's belated reaction to the reality of supply and demand, it is hard to see the recent price spike - from $110 in early May to $146 in July and, within a month, back to $113 - as anything other than speculative froth. Supply and demand simply do not change that rapidly in the real world - absent an earth shaking event such as a [new and major] war or natural disaster.
Speculators generally perform a useful function. They provide liquidity to markets - allowing both producers and buyers to take out insurance on prices. That service, however, comes at the cost of speculative excess. The result is that prices consistently overshoot - on both the high and low sides - before settling down to the level dictated by supply and demand.
Although the cost of speculative excess is particularly noticeable, the services provided by speculators are valuable enough that we should be cautious in our attempts to regulate them. Chastising them is certainly useful - thank you Liberal Democrats.
Ill considered - even well considered - regulation, however, is likely to run up against one of the guiding principles of the Universe: The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Caution should be our watchword but the almost irresistible need for politicians to be seen to be doing something is a danger. If we are lucky, the election year urge to leave Washington in order to ensure re-election will keep then from hasty action. If we are not lucky, that same imperative will result in poorly crafted legislation which will only result in further economic dysfunction.
While it is possible to explain the movement in oil prices, from under $70 per barrel at the end of September 2007 to over $113 today, as the market's belated reaction to the reality of supply and demand, it is hard to see the recent price spike - from $110 in early May to $146 in July and, within a month, back to $113 - as anything other than speculative froth. Supply and demand simply do not change that rapidly in the real world - absent an earth shaking event such as a [new and major] war or natural disaster.
Speculators generally perform a useful function. They provide liquidity to markets - allowing both producers and buyers to take out insurance on prices. That service, however, comes at the cost of speculative excess. The result is that prices consistently overshoot - on both the high and low sides - before settling down to the level dictated by supply and demand.
Although the cost of speculative excess is particularly noticeable, the services provided by speculators are valuable enough that we should be cautious in our attempts to regulate them. Chastising them is certainly useful - thank you Liberal Democrats.
Ill considered - even well considered - regulation, however, is likely to run up against one of the guiding principles of the Universe: The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Caution should be our watchword but the almost irresistible need for politicians to be seen to be doing something is a danger. If we are lucky, the election year urge to leave Washington in order to ensure re-election will keep then from hasty action. If we are not lucky, that same imperative will result in poorly crafted legislation which will only result in further economic dysfunction.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Immigration - Legal and Illegal
The situation with respect to immigration - both legal and illegal - across the USA-Mexican border could, perhaps be described in these terms:
"A slow motion, generally non-violent, re-run of the war of 1846 - 1848. This time, however, Mexico is winning."
While the nativists are appalled, we may well not lose. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the flood of poor and uneducated immigrants - few of whom spoke English - generated many of the same sentiments and prejudices. Our country benefited greatly then from this influx and, even though politically incorrect multi-culturism will slow down the process, I believe that this new group of immigrants will become the great Americans of tomorrow.
For those with doubts, please re-read these words, written by Emma Lazarus and engraved on the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
"A slow motion, generally non-violent, re-run of the war of 1846 - 1848. This time, however, Mexico is winning."
While the nativists are appalled, we may well not lose. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the flood of poor and uneducated immigrants - few of whom spoke English - generated many of the same sentiments and prejudices. Our country benefited greatly then from this influx and, even though politically incorrect multi-culturism will slow down the process, I believe that this new group of immigrants will become the great Americans of tomorrow.
For those with doubts, please re-read these words, written by Emma Lazarus and engraved on the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Wasting Water - A Lesson from Europe
Clean, potable, water is no longer - even in the USA - a commodity that is in such great abundance that we need take no care over the amount that we use.
One of the most wasteful uses of drinkable water is flushing toilets.
We could recycle "grey" (shower, dishwasher, laundry etc.) water for flushing but that is difficult and inconvenient. As a result, only die-hard environmentalists are willing to make such efforts.
In an attempt to address this waste of water, the Federal Government (National Energy Policy Act of 1995) has mandated that all newly sold toilets shall use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush. By comparison, toilets in the 1950s used as much as 7 gallons per flush although, by the 1980s, design improvements had reduced that to 3.5 gallons.
There are a couple of major problems here. The first is that, even with a carefully designed system, multiple flushes - as many as three and sometimes more - are often required to get the task completed. Second, even when the system does work, the severely reduced water flow tends to create significantly increased risk of blockages in the drain from the house to the main sewer. There are quite a few studies showing that the anticipated water savings are simply not being realised and that homeowners and renters are highly dissatisfied with the performance of these devices.
In Europe, however, water saving toilets have a simpler system with two separate flush buttons. One provides a low quantity flush for circumstance when there is little in the way of waste material to be disposed of. The other button provides a full scale, old fashioned, effective flush when it is needed.
Although the European system does not have the potential to save as much water as a high-tech American low flow toilet - and it relies on the user to select the appropriate flush quantity - it works better while saving more water in the long run and keeping the customers happy.
Sadly, this situation is just another example of the best - at least the theoretical best - being the enemy of the good. The Department of Defense, as well as other advocates of the best at any cost, almost always finds that the so-called best comes with cost overruns, is delivered late, and doesn't actually work very well.
One of the most wasteful uses of drinkable water is flushing toilets.
We could recycle "grey" (shower, dishwasher, laundry etc.) water for flushing but that is difficult and inconvenient. As a result, only die-hard environmentalists are willing to make such efforts.
In an attempt to address this waste of water, the Federal Government (National Energy Policy Act of 1995) has mandated that all newly sold toilets shall use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush. By comparison, toilets in the 1950s used as much as 7 gallons per flush although, by the 1980s, design improvements had reduced that to 3.5 gallons.
There are a couple of major problems here. The first is that, even with a carefully designed system, multiple flushes - as many as three and sometimes more - are often required to get the task completed. Second, even when the system does work, the severely reduced water flow tends to create significantly increased risk of blockages in the drain from the house to the main sewer. There are quite a few studies showing that the anticipated water savings are simply not being realised and that homeowners and renters are highly dissatisfied with the performance of these devices.
In Europe, however, water saving toilets have a simpler system with two separate flush buttons. One provides a low quantity flush for circumstance when there is little in the way of waste material to be disposed of. The other button provides a full scale, old fashioned, effective flush when it is needed.
Although the European system does not have the potential to save as much water as a high-tech American low flow toilet - and it relies on the user to select the appropriate flush quantity - it works better while saving more water in the long run and keeping the customers happy.
Sadly, this situation is just another example of the best - at least the theoretical best - being the enemy of the good. The Department of Defense, as well as other advocates of the best at any cost, almost always finds that the so-called best comes with cost overruns, is delivered late, and doesn't actually work very well.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Gas Prices - High is Relative
If you think that gas prices are high, at around $4.00 per gallon, consider the situation in England.
The price of regular gas in London is 1.19 but that is in British Pounds per liter.
Since a British Pound buys $2.00, and there are about 3.785 liters per gallon, the actual price of a gallon (U.S.) of gas is about $9.01.
There are very few mini-vans on the road and, in three days in London, I saw exactly one SUV. People think quite hard about what they drive and how far they go.
Although it would still be nice to pay less than $2.00 per gallon, we should be grateful - not whiners - that we are only paying $4.00.
I will send a report from Sweden next week.
The price of regular gas in London is 1.19 but that is in British Pounds per liter.
Since a British Pound buys $2.00, and there are about 3.785 liters per gallon, the actual price of a gallon (U.S.) of gas is about $9.01.
There are very few mini-vans on the road and, in three days in London, I saw exactly one SUV. People think quite hard about what they drive and how far they go.
Although it would still be nice to pay less than $2.00 per gallon, we should be grateful - not whiners - that we are only paying $4.00.
I will send a report from Sweden next week.
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Evolution of Language - Gay
The meaning of words is capable of radical changes.
As a teenager in the 1960s, I more than once remember my mother, as I was headed out ot a party, telling me to have a "gay time" or asking on my return if I had had a "gay time".
She was not making a reference to my sexual orientation which, for the benefit of those who may be confused, is straight. In those days - really not so long ago - the term "gay" meant, among other things, happy, carefree, and lighthearted.
Now the term is used, almost exclusively, to refer to homosexuals and references to such periods as the Gay Nineties (1890s) are more and more likely to be misinterpreted by those whose knowledge of history is lacking.
It's a pity that a delightful and useful word was hijacked by a pressure group but, on the other hand, it is perhaps fair to allow gays a shorthand term to replace some of the uglier epithets that used to be common.
As a teenager in the 1960s, I more than once remember my mother, as I was headed out ot a party, telling me to have a "gay time" or asking on my return if I had had a "gay time".
She was not making a reference to my sexual orientation which, for the benefit of those who may be confused, is straight. In those days - really not so long ago - the term "gay" meant, among other things, happy, carefree, and lighthearted.
Now the term is used, almost exclusively, to refer to homosexuals and references to such periods as the Gay Nineties (1890s) are more and more likely to be misinterpreted by those whose knowledge of history is lacking.
It's a pity that a delightful and useful word was hijacked by a pressure group but, on the other hand, it is perhaps fair to allow gays a shorthand term to replace some of the uglier epithets that used to be common.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Ugly
When I become Dictator of the World, there will be a very substantial 'Ugly Tax'.
The Ugly Tax will apply to ugly boats (particularly), ugly cars - specially those that look like blobs on wheels, ugly houses, and ugly buildings of all sorts. Particularly offensive are lines that do not flow. Ugly clothes will be taxed too but not ugly people since they are not able to control their appearance and I would not wish to be a shill for the plastic surgery trade.
Starving artists will be hired as part time tax assessors but they will need to be careful lest their own work be classified as "ugly" too!
To be serious, it is really sad that there are so many designers and architects who are desperately trying to be original but lack the talent to provide something that is both useful and pleasing to the eye. Perhaps they should take into consideration this quote from Tom Stoppard in his play 'Artist Descending a Staircase':
Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
The Ugly Tax will apply to ugly boats (particularly), ugly cars - specially those that look like blobs on wheels, ugly houses, and ugly buildings of all sorts. Particularly offensive are lines that do not flow. Ugly clothes will be taxed too but not ugly people since they are not able to control their appearance and I would not wish to be a shill for the plastic surgery trade.
Starving artists will be hired as part time tax assessors but they will need to be careful lest their own work be classified as "ugly" too!
To be serious, it is really sad that there are so many designers and architects who are desperately trying to be original but lack the talent to provide something that is both useful and pleasing to the eye. Perhaps they should take into consideration this quote from Tom Stoppard in his play 'Artist Descending a Staircase':
Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
How dumb can a company get?
I own a 2006 Plymouth Town and Country mini-van which came with a factory installed GPS navigation system.
So far, so good.
Since the maps provided are, as a result of age and incomplete surveys, less than totally accurate, I recently called Mopar (Chrysler's parts division) to order an update. Being told that an update was available, I asked the price. $199 was the response.
My first thought was that these people must have got a D- in economics 101. My second thought was that it is not a surprise that Chrysler (www.chrysler.com) is in deep financial trouble in spite of - or perhaps because of - being owned by a well known private equity group (Cerberus Capital www.cerberuscapital.com) which employs many very bright, very well paid, people.
Since all of the costs to update the maps had been incurred prior to my telephone call and the marginal cost to send me the disk is about $2.00 plus shipping, for which I would have been charged, their price can only be described as an attempt to "rip off the rubes." I am not too bright but I am not that stupid and I can manage with slightly out of date maps. I am also old enough to be able to read a map (MapQuest www.mapquest.com works just fine) so I can get by without sending Mopar $199.
Had they asked for $30, I would have paid for the convenience but, as it is, Mopar/Chrysler doesn't have any of my money and, worse for them, they have an annoyed customer on their hands.
I doubt that I will ever buy another of their products.
So far, so good.
Since the maps provided are, as a result of age and incomplete surveys, less than totally accurate, I recently called Mopar (Chrysler's parts division) to order an update. Being told that an update was available, I asked the price. $199 was the response.
My first thought was that these people must have got a D- in economics 101. My second thought was that it is not a surprise that Chrysler (www.chrysler.com) is in deep financial trouble in spite of - or perhaps because of - being owned by a well known private equity group (Cerberus Capital www.cerberuscapital.com) which employs many very bright, very well paid, people.
Since all of the costs to update the maps had been incurred prior to my telephone call and the marginal cost to send me the disk is about $2.00 plus shipping, for which I would have been charged, their price can only be described as an attempt to "rip off the rubes." I am not too bright but I am not that stupid and I can manage with slightly out of date maps. I am also old enough to be able to read a map (MapQuest www.mapquest.com works just fine) so I can get by without sending Mopar $199.
Had they asked for $30, I would have paid for the convenience but, as it is, Mopar/Chrysler doesn't have any of my money and, worse for them, they have an annoyed customer on their hands.
I doubt that I will ever buy another of their products.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Layoffs or Buyouts?
Well managed companies are able to identify which of their employees are stars, which are decently good enough, and which are really not up to the standard required.
Jack Welch, when he was CEO of General Electric, was famous for a ruthless application of this process: employees were categorized as top 20%, middle 70%, and bottom 10%. His prescription was to fire the bottom 10% which is harsh but effective.
Poorly managed companies are often overstaffed and react to the presence of idle or unqualified employees by hiring more people. Lack of knowledge - and cowardice - prevents them from removing those who are not earning their keep.
As much to avoid making hard decisions as for any other reason, these companies often resort to "buyouts". That is, they offer substantial incentives, in cash or additional retirement benefits, to those who will leave voluntarily.
It is not hard to predict who will take the buyouts!
Those who are competent and who believe that they can get a comparable job elsewhere, will leap at the chance to leave with a significant payoff. Those whose skills and work ethic are marginal will, conversely, seize the opportunity to remain - and continue to contribute little.
As bad as a buyout is the "across the board layoff" which takes no account of the tasks facing the company or in which departments and subsidiaries the star employees can be found. It isn't always as bad, initially, as a buyout because it is cheaper and, also, some of the poor performers will be removed. On the other hand, the effect on morale is often devastating.
It is a cliche that good management is necessary to keep a company profitable and healthy. Unfortunately, good management is about dealing honestly with people and that requires courage - something that is often in short supply - particularly when addressing poor performance. The stars must be rewarded, the adequately ordinary must be developed, and the poor performers must be removed after a reasonable, although not lengthy, effort to bring them up to speed.
It is not easy to find courageous managers.
So, when you hear of a company engaging in buyouts, across the board layoffs, and other actions that indicate lack of courage, sell your shares because the company simply does not have competent management in place to flourish in the long term.
Jack Welch, when he was CEO of General Electric, was famous for a ruthless application of this process: employees were categorized as top 20%, middle 70%, and bottom 10%. His prescription was to fire the bottom 10% which is harsh but effective.
Poorly managed companies are often overstaffed and react to the presence of idle or unqualified employees by hiring more people. Lack of knowledge - and cowardice - prevents them from removing those who are not earning their keep.
As much to avoid making hard decisions as for any other reason, these companies often resort to "buyouts". That is, they offer substantial incentives, in cash or additional retirement benefits, to those who will leave voluntarily.
It is not hard to predict who will take the buyouts!
Those who are competent and who believe that they can get a comparable job elsewhere, will leap at the chance to leave with a significant payoff. Those whose skills and work ethic are marginal will, conversely, seize the opportunity to remain - and continue to contribute little.
As bad as a buyout is the "across the board layoff" which takes no account of the tasks facing the company or in which departments and subsidiaries the star employees can be found. It isn't always as bad, initially, as a buyout because it is cheaper and, also, some of the poor performers will be removed. On the other hand, the effect on morale is often devastating.
It is a cliche that good management is necessary to keep a company profitable and healthy. Unfortunately, good management is about dealing honestly with people and that requires courage - something that is often in short supply - particularly when addressing poor performance. The stars must be rewarded, the adequately ordinary must be developed, and the poor performers must be removed after a reasonable, although not lengthy, effort to bring them up to speed.
It is not easy to find courageous managers.
So, when you hear of a company engaging in buyouts, across the board layoffs, and other actions that indicate lack of courage, sell your shares because the company simply does not have competent management in place to flourish in the long term.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
It's a start...
As of October 1, Blue Cross Blue Shield - after years of tolerating, and paying for, too much really poor quality medical care - will join the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services in denying payment to hospitals that commit nine preventable medical errors.
The medical errors in CMS’ policy include objects left in a body after surgery, air embolism following surgery, blood incompatibility, equipment-associated infections, advanced pressure sores and hospital-acquired injuries, including falls and burns. In addition to those six, the Blues added three others: surgery on the wrong patient, surgery on the wrong body part, and wrong surgery.
That's a start and is likely to reduce the number of preventable errors. On the other hand, the National Quality Forum, a Washington-based coalition of employers and health care organizations, has actually identified twenty eight preventable medical errors. The sooner that all insurers decline to pay - for all of these errors - the better quality care we are likely to receive.
Delay is fatal. Why not cover all twenty eight errors immediately?
The medical errors in CMS’ policy include objects left in a body after surgery, air embolism following surgery, blood incompatibility, equipment-associated infections, advanced pressure sores and hospital-acquired injuries, including falls and burns. In addition to those six, the Blues added three others: surgery on the wrong patient, surgery on the wrong body part, and wrong surgery.
That's a start and is likely to reduce the number of preventable errors. On the other hand, the National Quality Forum, a Washington-based coalition of employers and health care organizations, has actually identified twenty eight preventable medical errors. The sooner that all insurers decline to pay - for all of these errors - the better quality care we are likely to receive.
Delay is fatal. Why not cover all twenty eight errors immediately?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Presidential Election 2008
Every now and then the presumptive candidates of the Republican and Democratic Parties take a break from hurling accusations of "flip-flopping" at each other.
During these breaks, they indulge in what can only be described as a competitive "pander fest" whereby each describes the multitude of goodies that will be distributed to favored groups by a beneficent Federal Government. What is entirely missing is any discussion of the hard choices that need to be made in the next four years: energy, education, health care financing, Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure, rogue states, the Middle East etc.
The fault is ours. We have allowed ourselves to become indulgent and selfish whiners to whom much must be given and from whom little may be asked. Addressing another generation, John F. Kennedy, in his Inaugural Address, made this oft quoted, but rarely acted on, statement:
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.
JFK demanded that we recognize the duties that complement our rights and the obligations that accompany our privileges. We will not long remain a great country if "gimmee, gimmee" replaces e pluribus unum as our national motto.
For those who think that government should be an endless cornucopia of benefits - whether earned or not - Thomas Jefferson also offers some valuable advice:
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
During these breaks, they indulge in what can only be described as a competitive "pander fest" whereby each describes the multitude of goodies that will be distributed to favored groups by a beneficent Federal Government. What is entirely missing is any discussion of the hard choices that need to be made in the next four years: energy, education, health care financing, Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure, rogue states, the Middle East etc.
The fault is ours. We have allowed ourselves to become indulgent and selfish whiners to whom much must be given and from whom little may be asked. Addressing another generation, John F. Kennedy, in his Inaugural Address, made this oft quoted, but rarely acted on, statement:
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.
JFK demanded that we recognize the duties that complement our rights and the obligations that accompany our privileges. We will not long remain a great country if "gimmee, gimmee" replaces e pluribus unum as our national motto.
For those who think that government should be an endless cornucopia of benefits - whether earned or not - Thomas Jefferson also offers some valuable advice:
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Rules for Life
An e-mail, attributing these 'Rules for Life' to Bill Gates, has been circulating for the last ten years. Snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/language/document/liferule.asp is quite clear about the correct attribution and history: it is a much edited and condensed version of an Op-Ed article written by Charles J. Sykes in the San Diego Union Tribune on September 19, 1996
As a summary of what you need to do to survive life without grossly inflated expectations, however, it is excellent and deserves to be republished frequently.
Rule 1 : Life is not fair - get used to it!
Rule 2 : The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3 : You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4 : If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5 : Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
As a summary of what you need to do to survive life without grossly inflated expectations, however, it is excellent and deserves to be republished frequently.
Rule 1 : Life is not fair - get used to it!
Rule 2 : The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3 : You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4 : If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5 : Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Wikipedia
A "Google" search on almost any topic will likely, in the top five results, return a reference to a Wikipedia article.
So far, so good.
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can post or edit articles - with almost complete anonymity - so there is no way of knowing whether the information is accurate or complete. Too many of the articles that I have reviewed lean far towards the trivial and many appear to be pushing a particular point of view.
Most users, unfortunately, accept what is written with little critical scrutiny. As a result, Wikipedia now has the potential to disseminate lies, misinformation, and propaganda in a way that few other media channels can.
Perhaps I am an old fogey but I consider that anonymously provided information should always be regarded with caution - if not suspicion. In addition, the wise words of one of my former clients come to mind: "you don't always get what you pay for but you rarely get more!"
So far, so good.
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can post or edit articles - with almost complete anonymity - so there is no way of knowing whether the information is accurate or complete. Too many of the articles that I have reviewed lean far towards the trivial and many appear to be pushing a particular point of view.
Most users, unfortunately, accept what is written with little critical scrutiny. As a result, Wikipedia now has the potential to disseminate lies, misinformation, and propaganda in a way that few other media channels can.
Perhaps I am an old fogey but I consider that anonymously provided information should always be regarded with caution - if not suspicion. In addition, the wise words of one of my former clients come to mind: "you don't always get what you pay for but you rarely get more!"
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
Today is July 4th when Americans celebrate the Declaration of Independence. Five years later the Revolutionary War effectively ended with the surrender of Earl Cornwallis's army on October 19, 1781 at Yorktown. The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.
Now, as then, we seem to have an overweening government that has forgotten that it works for the citizens (and seems not to recognize that quaint phrase "WE THE PEOPLE..." which begins the United States Constitution) and a Chief Executive who shows signs of thinking himself a reincarnation of H.M. King George III.
Just as a reminder, then, to King George Worthless Bush XLIII, together with his minions Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales and others (that's a slogan but irresistible!), here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
Now, as then, we seem to have an overweening government that has forgotten that it works for the citizens (and seems not to recognize that quaint phrase "WE THE PEOPLE..." which begins the United States Constitution) and a Chief Executive who shows signs of thinking himself a reincarnation of H.M. King George III.
Just as a reminder, then, to King George Worthless Bush XLIII, together with his minions Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales and others (that's a slogan but irresistible!), here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Where are our scientists and engineers?
In a column, published on June 26 in the Washington Post http://tinyurl.com/4gxmlt , George F. Will laments the fact that there are too few H1B visas to allow foreign born scientists and engineers to remain in the USA after they have received PhD degrees from American Universities.
He misses the point. As Mr. Will writes:
"Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born."
The real question is why Americans are unwilling to study these subjects.
Admittedly these disciplines are hard but surely there are many who, with the appropriate encouragement, would be willing to tackle the job. The 1958 National Defense Education Act, passed shortly after the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite (Sputnik), helped a generation of American scientists and engineers with their education costs.
Now that the costs of higher education have escalated to such a level that few students or families can afford it without incurring an almost crippling load of debt, there is an urgent need for change.
Rather than treating all college students as equally worthy of [insufficient] financial assistance, perhaps it is time to discriminate in favor of those Americans who study the hard subjects. We need scientists and engineers - more than lawyers, bureaucrats, hedge fund managers and speculators, or designers of really ugly cars, boats, and buildings - to ensure the continued creation of wealth in our country.
He misses the point. As Mr. Will writes:
"Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born."
The real question is why Americans are unwilling to study these subjects.
Admittedly these disciplines are hard but surely there are many who, with the appropriate encouragement, would be willing to tackle the job. The 1958 National Defense Education Act, passed shortly after the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite (Sputnik), helped a generation of American scientists and engineers with their education costs.
Now that the costs of higher education have escalated to such a level that few students or families can afford it without incurring an almost crippling load of debt, there is an urgent need for change.
Rather than treating all college students as equally worthy of [insufficient] financial assistance, perhaps it is time to discriminate in favor of those Americans who study the hard subjects. We need scientists and engineers - more than lawyers, bureaucrats, hedge fund managers and speculators, or designers of really ugly cars, boats, and buildings - to ensure the continued creation of wealth in our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
