Today there was a letter from the Census Bureau in my mailbox.
This is what it said:
Dear Resident:
About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail.
When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly.
Go to 2010Census.gov for help completing your 2010 Census form when it arrives.
It would be nice to know why my tax money if being wasted in this manner. Somebody spent time to write this rubbish and, also, translate it into Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Russian. Then there is the cost of paper, envelope, and postage to send instructions that are not only idiotically obvious but could perfectly well have been included with the form itself.
The Census Bureau would seem to move in mysterious ways but does not have the excuse of cabin fever - after too many snow days - to occupy itself with such stupid and pointless activities.
Add one more head scratcher to the list!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
A Challenge to the Tea Party Movement
Most reasonable people agree that the United States Government is now too large and intrudes too deeply into our lives. Worse, like a shiftless rich kid with a large trust fund, it spends far more than it takes in.
President Obama's budget proposal for 2011 includes spending of over $3.8 trillion and receipts of less than $2.6 trillion leaving a deficit of over $1.2 trillion. The Congress will not change this much. A few tens, maybe even hundreds, of millions, perhaps a billion somewhere, will be cut but it is unlikely that many programs will be eliminated.
The real issue is that outlays for Defense, Veterans Benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other health spending, and Interest on the National Debt will consume more than all of the taxes paid by America's long suffering citizens and companies. Everything else will be paid for by borrowing.
The challenge, then, to the Tea Party Movement is this:
Which programs should be eliminated?
Which others should be cut - and by how much?
If that does not eliminate the deficit, what taxes should be raised?
In considering this challenge, the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse counts but not for much. A really effective program (they are often touted but rarely successful) might save as much as $100 billion, much from Medicare, but no more. Similarly, eliminating the Departments of Energy and Education will not solve the problem: their respective budgets are $31.2 billion and $71.5 billion. The savings from these three items, at $202.7 billion, while useful, pale against the $1.2 trillion deficit.
The time has come for constructive proposals: shouts of 'NO, NO, NO MORE' just aren't good enough.
America needs solutions. If the Tea Party Movement has none, then the words of William Shakespeare will be applicable:
"… a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
(Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5)
Enough said.
President Obama's budget proposal for 2011 includes spending of over $3.8 trillion and receipts of less than $2.6 trillion leaving a deficit of over $1.2 trillion. The Congress will not change this much. A few tens, maybe even hundreds, of millions, perhaps a billion somewhere, will be cut but it is unlikely that many programs will be eliminated.
The real issue is that outlays for Defense, Veterans Benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other health spending, and Interest on the National Debt will consume more than all of the taxes paid by America's long suffering citizens and companies. Everything else will be paid for by borrowing.
The challenge, then, to the Tea Party Movement is this:
Which programs should be eliminated?
Which others should be cut - and by how much?
If that does not eliminate the deficit, what taxes should be raised?
In considering this challenge, the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse counts but not for much. A really effective program (they are often touted but rarely successful) might save as much as $100 billion, much from Medicare, but no more. Similarly, eliminating the Departments of Energy and Education will not solve the problem: their respective budgets are $31.2 billion and $71.5 billion. The savings from these three items, at $202.7 billion, while useful, pale against the $1.2 trillion deficit.
The time has come for constructive proposals: shouts of 'NO, NO, NO MORE' just aren't good enough.
America needs solutions. If the Tea Party Movement has none, then the words of William Shakespeare will be applicable:
"… a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
(Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5)
Enough said.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Exploring
America's national myth (this is not a criticism - every country has one and ours is worthy) is that of the Frontier. Unfortunately, since the space shuttle Challenger exploded and broke apart in 1986, every President and Congress has shied away from the expense and risks of leaving Low Earth Orbit.
President George W. Bush came closest, but not close enough, to returning us to space. He spoke fine words about a pernament station on the Moon, as well as about a mission to Mars, but failed to ask for sufficient funds to get the job properly started, let alone done. Now President Obama has abandoned any idea of serious space exploration for a decade - probably much more.
Speaking to the Winter Meeting of the American Astronomical Society on January 5, 2010 in Washington DC, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden (a former Astronaut) said:
"If you told me back in in 1980 as a young astronaut candidate that we wouldn't be back on the moon today, I would have told you that you were smoking dope. Let me say that again: if you'd told me that we wouldn't be back on the moon today, I would have told you that you were smoking some bad stuff.
I thought I was going up on the shuttle and coming back to train to go to the moon. We became risk averse after the space shuttle Challenger, and we have not recovered from that. We're going to drop satellites into the ocean periodically. Human mistakes are going to happen. we don't want to plan for this: we want to work to avoid this.
But we can't be afraid. We need to take risks to move forward."
Space exploration is a driver of technology, meets our emotional need to explore the frontier, provides good jobs at home and, not coincidentally, inspires the young to take up well paying careers in science and technology.
Let's go to the Moon and to Mars. Starting now!
President George W. Bush came closest, but not close enough, to returning us to space. He spoke fine words about a pernament station on the Moon, as well as about a mission to Mars, but failed to ask for sufficient funds to get the job properly started, let alone done. Now President Obama has abandoned any idea of serious space exploration for a decade - probably much more.
Speaking to the Winter Meeting of the American Astronomical Society on January 5, 2010 in Washington DC, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden (a former Astronaut) said:
"If you told me back in in 1980 as a young astronaut candidate that we wouldn't be back on the moon today, I would have told you that you were smoking dope. Let me say that again: if you'd told me that we wouldn't be back on the moon today, I would have told you that you were smoking some bad stuff.
I thought I was going up on the shuttle and coming back to train to go to the moon. We became risk averse after the space shuttle Challenger, and we have not recovered from that. We're going to drop satellites into the ocean periodically. Human mistakes are going to happen. we don't want to plan for this: we want to work to avoid this.
But we can't be afraid. We need to take risks to move forward."
Space exploration is a driver of technology, meets our emotional need to explore the frontier, provides good jobs at home and, not coincidentally, inspires the young to take up well paying careers in science and technology.
Let's go to the Moon and to Mars. Starting now!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Civil Service Pay
Given the current state of the US economy, most employees in the private sector, excepting most investment bankers, consider themselves lucky if they still have their jobs. Pay increases and bonuses are rare, freezes are common, and outright cuts - sometimes just (just?) unpaid furloughs - are more frequent than anyone cares to think about.
The USA's financial situation is serious - really serious. On September 30, 2010, at the end of FY 2010, the Federal Government will have spent more than it has taken in during all but six of the past fifty three years. The exceptions are 1960, 1969 and, under the stewardship of [the wicked] President Bill Clinton, pushed by a Republican Congress, 1998 - 2001.
Unfortunately, neither the President nor the Congress appears to be taking the situation seriously.
Compare this to both Ireland and, under extreme pressure from Germany and many other members of the Euro zone, even Greece. Their governments have dared to cut entitlements including old age pensions, other normally sacrosanct government spending and, most significantly, Civil Service pay. There have been strikes but these governments appear willing to resist.
The British are in the midst of an election campaign so nothing will happen until after election day. No one, however, doubts that tax increases and swingeing cuts in public spending - including civil service pay - will take place after the new government takes office.
What is happening here? The answer is not much and, in the Federal Government, the most heavily unionized sector of the economy, the idea of cutting pay is considered laughable. Even when, for lack of an Appropriations Bill during the Clinton years, the government was shut down, no one lost a dime of pay even though no work was done.
We could, more or less, afford such an indulgence then but no more. Now, the idea that civil servants (servants?) should enjoy an annual cost of living increase plus scheduled step increases every two or three years, plus so-called performance bonuses (for refraining, perhaps, from catching what used to be called a 'social disease'?) is laughable.
So if, as in other countries, Federal employee pay were to be cut and if civil servants were to engage in an illegal strike, the actions of President Ronald Reagan in 1981, faced with a strike by air traffic controllers, are instructive. The President simply said: "you have forty eight hours to return to work. If you do not, your resignation has been accepted."
There is an old joke that goes like this:
Two businessmen were walking past a large government office building. One turned to the other and said: "I wonder how many people work in that building?"
The second looked at the building and responded: "about half."
The world would hardly come to an end if half of all Federal employees were no longer preying on taxpayers' wallets.
The USA's financial situation is serious - really serious. On September 30, 2010, at the end of FY 2010, the Federal Government will have spent more than it has taken in during all but six of the past fifty three years. The exceptions are 1960, 1969 and, under the stewardship of [the wicked] President Bill Clinton, pushed by a Republican Congress, 1998 - 2001.
Unfortunately, neither the President nor the Congress appears to be taking the situation seriously.
Compare this to both Ireland and, under extreme pressure from Germany and many other members of the Euro zone, even Greece. Their governments have dared to cut entitlements including old age pensions, other normally sacrosanct government spending and, most significantly, Civil Service pay. There have been strikes but these governments appear willing to resist.
The British are in the midst of an election campaign so nothing will happen until after election day. No one, however, doubts that tax increases and swingeing cuts in public spending - including civil service pay - will take place after the new government takes office.
What is happening here? The answer is not much and, in the Federal Government, the most heavily unionized sector of the economy, the idea of cutting pay is considered laughable. Even when, for lack of an Appropriations Bill during the Clinton years, the government was shut down, no one lost a dime of pay even though no work was done.
We could, more or less, afford such an indulgence then but no more. Now, the idea that civil servants (servants?) should enjoy an annual cost of living increase plus scheduled step increases every two or three years, plus so-called performance bonuses (for refraining, perhaps, from catching what used to be called a 'social disease'?) is laughable.
So if, as in other countries, Federal employee pay were to be cut and if civil servants were to engage in an illegal strike, the actions of President Ronald Reagan in 1981, faced with a strike by air traffic controllers, are instructive. The President simply said: "you have forty eight hours to return to work. If you do not, your resignation has been accepted."
There is an old joke that goes like this:
Two businessmen were walking past a large government office building. One turned to the other and said: "I wonder how many people work in that building?"
The second looked at the building and responded: "about half."
The world would hardly come to an end if half of all Federal employees were no longer preying on taxpayers' wallets.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Computer Aided...
The diagnosis of many medical problems is relatively simple since most patients present with common ailments. There are, however, frequent situations where reaching an accurate conclusion is not easy. Hence the batteries of expensive tests that are prescribed.
The acronym CAD generally refers to a tool used by engineers and stands for 'Computer Aided Design'. The same letters could well refer to a 'Computer Aided Diagnosis' tool used by physicians. In fact, Computer Aided Diagnosis does exist but is limited to the interpretation of x-ray images.
Few would dispute that the corpus of medical knowledge has grown so large that no physician or surgeon can retain it all in memory. Why, then, do we not see computers, in examining rooms, programmed to search a database of symptoms and able to suggest potential diagnoses together with the tests required for confirmation?
Can it be that doctors are so arrogant that they believe that they can remember everything? Or are they so insecure that they believe that their patients would lose confidence in them if they were to be seen consulting a database?
The medical profession's resistance to the use of information technology ("IT") is only very slowly being overcome. Part of that is the conservative nature of most doctors. A greater obstacle, however, is the fact that doctors do not receive any payment for the high costs of adopting IT and, even worse from the perspective of a practice manager, less intervention is likely to lead to lower revenue.
There is little doubt that we would get better quality medicine, at lower cost, if doctors were to use modern information technology: electronic records that are accessible to every one of a patient's doctors, together with computer aided diagnosis, would be a useful beginning. Unfortunately, the perverse financial incentives that dominate the American health care system will ensure that nothing happens soon.
The acronym CAD generally refers to a tool used by engineers and stands for 'Computer Aided Design'. The same letters could well refer to a 'Computer Aided Diagnosis' tool used by physicians. In fact, Computer Aided Diagnosis does exist but is limited to the interpretation of x-ray images.
Few would dispute that the corpus of medical knowledge has grown so large that no physician or surgeon can retain it all in memory. Why, then, do we not see computers, in examining rooms, programmed to search a database of symptoms and able to suggest potential diagnoses together with the tests required for confirmation?
Can it be that doctors are so arrogant that they believe that they can remember everything? Or are they so insecure that they believe that their patients would lose confidence in them if they were to be seen consulting a database?
The medical profession's resistance to the use of information technology ("IT") is only very slowly being overcome. Part of that is the conservative nature of most doctors. A greater obstacle, however, is the fact that doctors do not receive any payment for the high costs of adopting IT and, even worse from the perspective of a practice manager, less intervention is likely to lead to lower revenue.
There is little doubt that we would get better quality medicine, at lower cost, if doctors were to use modern information technology: electronic records that are accessible to every one of a patient's doctors, together with computer aided diagnosis, would be a useful beginning. Unfortunately, the perverse financial incentives that dominate the American health care system will ensure that nothing happens soon.
Friday, February 26, 2010
A Hostage Problem (2)
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has done a very politically incorrect thing. She actually dared to mention the 800 pound pink gorilla that is sitting in the middle of the living room.
Yesterday, she described the USA's budget deficit, and our overall level of indebtedness, as a 'Security Problem'. She also pounded another nail into the coffin of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's rapidly declining reputation.
While beating up on Mr. Bubblespan may be satisfying, it is a bit of a cheap show. Secretary Clinton, however, speaks serious and important truth about the deficit and our debt. That part of our national debt which is held by other, not always friendly, countries is a hostage which might well be used to coerce us into actions that we do not wish to take.
We can only hope that President Obama and the Congress are not only paying attention but that they will actually do something.
For an example of what was done by the USA to the British, who were in similar straits in 1956, see my post from February 10, 2010:
http://noslogans.blogspot.com/2010/02/hostage-problem.html
Secretary Clinton, keep up the good work.
Yesterday, she described the USA's budget deficit, and our overall level of indebtedness, as a 'Security Problem'. She also pounded another nail into the coffin of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's rapidly declining reputation.
While beating up on Mr. Bubblespan may be satisfying, it is a bit of a cheap show. Secretary Clinton, however, speaks serious and important truth about the deficit and our debt. That part of our national debt which is held by other, not always friendly, countries is a hostage which might well be used to coerce us into actions that we do not wish to take.
We can only hope that President Obama and the Congress are not only paying attention but that they will actually do something.
For an example of what was done by the USA to the British, who were in similar straits in 1956, see my post from February 10, 2010:
http://noslogans.blogspot.com/2010/02/hostage-problem.html
Secretary Clinton, keep up the good work.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Politicians and Health Care Reform
American health care, including the way that we pay for, is badly broken.
Start with doctors, who are terrified of being sued, and reimbursements to doctors, and hospitals, that are based on the perverse principle that the more they do to you the more they get paid. Then include makers of pharmaceuticals and medical devices whose second largest expenditure, after development, is marketing.
The result, inevitably, is expensive over treatment.
While payment for results, rather than activity, would rapidly improve quality and reduce cost, there are many powerful vested interests to oppose it. Such a system is possible but overcoming the vested interests, and their allies in Congress, will require determination and patience.
Next, consider for-profit, and so-called non-profit, insurance companies whose administrative costs are monstrous and who seem to care little about controlling costs by improving quality. They do, however, spend vast sums of money to avoid covering people with pre-existing conditions or, if forced to, they charge outrageously high rates. Finally, stir into this noxious mix patients who take the position that "something must be done" even when there is no effective treatment or when the cure, as the old saying goes, is worse than the disease.
President Obama abandoned his responsibility to lead by providing little or no guidance to Congress as it spent the past twelve months attempting to produce a health care reform bill. What was created fails to solve the real problems of quality and cost while the goal of universal coverage is only partially met at great expense.
Faced with united Republican Party opposition, neither of the monstrosities created in the House and Senate has become law. That is the good news. The bad news is that the Democrats have done little to involve Republicans in the creation of a solution and Republicans, while capable of blocking Democratic proposals, have done nothing constructive.
President Ronald Reagan understood that it was possible to compromise without abandoning one's principles. Sadly, it seems that the current generation of politicians, regardless of party, prefers to play to an audience of extreme left and right wing activists rather than making the, admittedly difficult, compromises that lead to solutions.
Have they forgotten that they work for the People? Or have they so much contempt for us that their only objectives are re-election and the maintenance of their privileged lifestyles without actually having to do any serious work?
At the next election, politicians of both parties should keep in mind Abraham Lincoln's words:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Then Senator Obama, during his Presidential campaign, offered us 'Change'. To the extent that many of our elected officials chose to retire or are defeated in November, such 'Change' would be more than welcome!
Start with doctors, who are terrified of being sued, and reimbursements to doctors, and hospitals, that are based on the perverse principle that the more they do to you the more they get paid. Then include makers of pharmaceuticals and medical devices whose second largest expenditure, after development, is marketing.
The result, inevitably, is expensive over treatment.
While payment for results, rather than activity, would rapidly improve quality and reduce cost, there are many powerful vested interests to oppose it. Such a system is possible but overcoming the vested interests, and their allies in Congress, will require determination and patience.
Next, consider for-profit, and so-called non-profit, insurance companies whose administrative costs are monstrous and who seem to care little about controlling costs by improving quality. They do, however, spend vast sums of money to avoid covering people with pre-existing conditions or, if forced to, they charge outrageously high rates. Finally, stir into this noxious mix patients who take the position that "something must be done" even when there is no effective treatment or when the cure, as the old saying goes, is worse than the disease.
President Obama abandoned his responsibility to lead by providing little or no guidance to Congress as it spent the past twelve months attempting to produce a health care reform bill. What was created fails to solve the real problems of quality and cost while the goal of universal coverage is only partially met at great expense.
Faced with united Republican Party opposition, neither of the monstrosities created in the House and Senate has become law. That is the good news. The bad news is that the Democrats have done little to involve Republicans in the creation of a solution and Republicans, while capable of blocking Democratic proposals, have done nothing constructive.
President Ronald Reagan understood that it was possible to compromise without abandoning one's principles. Sadly, it seems that the current generation of politicians, regardless of party, prefers to play to an audience of extreme left and right wing activists rather than making the, admittedly difficult, compromises that lead to solutions.
Have they forgotten that they work for the People? Or have they so much contempt for us that their only objectives are re-election and the maintenance of their privileged lifestyles without actually having to do any serious work?
At the next election, politicians of both parties should keep in mind Abraham Lincoln's words:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Then Senator Obama, during his Presidential campaign, offered us 'Change'. To the extent that many of our elected officials chose to retire or are defeated in November, such 'Change' would be more than welcome!
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Corruption of Language (6)
National Public Radio (www.npr.org) can normally be relied upon for thoughtful opinions - even if you don't agree with then - and in depth reporting. When NPR's news programs detour into trivia, the reports are often clever and entertaining.
Yesterday, however, much was made of the fact that, at the Winter Olympics on Wednesday, the USA "beat its own record for Gold Medals in a single day". It is one thing to care about the total number of medals won during the Games and, perhaps, the number of medals won 'yesterday', but who cares about a meaningless record such as the number of medals won in a single day.
One of George Orwell's warnings is applicable:
"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
This report, although minor, is yet another example of the corruption of language leading to foolish and worthless thought. Incidentally, adding to the zero (negative?) information value of the report, only four Gold Medals will be awarded today so there is no possibility that the USA can again beat its own meaningless record.
NPR can, and should do better!
Yesterday, however, much was made of the fact that, at the Winter Olympics on Wednesday, the USA "beat its own record for Gold Medals in a single day". It is one thing to care about the total number of medals won during the Games and, perhaps, the number of medals won 'yesterday', but who cares about a meaningless record such as the number of medals won in a single day.
One of George Orwell's warnings is applicable:
"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
This report, although minor, is yet another example of the corruption of language leading to foolish and worthless thought. Incidentally, adding to the zero (negative?) information value of the report, only four Gold Medals will be awarded today so there is no possibility that the USA can again beat its own meaningless record.
NPR can, and should do better!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Academic Tenure
There is very little to be said for guaranteed job security. Typically, organizations such as Federal, State, and Local governments, as well as certain highly unionized industries provide a very high degree of job security unrelated to performance. As a consequence, they suffer from low productivity and poor quality work.
A reasonable exception to the pure rule of demanding performance in return for continued employment is the practice of granting academic tenure to university professors who spend a significant part of their time engaged in research.
New ideas, whether in the humanities or the physical and social sciences, are frequently unpopular because they challenge authority and conventional wisdom. Absent tenure, or some other form of job security, there will be instances when researchers are fired for their opinions and conclusions, avoid controversial topics, or engage in self censorship. While offering a high level of job security risks paying for poor or no performance, the cost is reasonable compared to the dangers of intimidation and the avoidance of controversial topics.
Providing job security to those engaged in research is one thing but is almost impossible to make a coherent and logical case for granting tenure to teachers of children in Grades K - 12. These teachers do little or no research so there is little risk of adverse action arising from unpopular ideas and, since there is almost no risk of that they will be fired for failure to perform, their performance is all too often less than adequate.
While too many School Districts have ineffective, and sometimes outright unfair, systems for evaluating teachers, that is not the point. What is needed is the development of reasonably fair and effective systems for evaluating teachers, and the prompt removal of those who do not measure up to the required standard. Such systems are not easy to develop but Unions know that unreasonable demands for a perfect system will ensure that nothing changes.
The current system merely ensures that raw union power is used for the benefit of poorly qualified teachers.
Meanwhile, our children suffer and that is wrong if not immoral.
A reasonable exception to the pure rule of demanding performance in return for continued employment is the practice of granting academic tenure to university professors who spend a significant part of their time engaged in research.
New ideas, whether in the humanities or the physical and social sciences, are frequently unpopular because they challenge authority and conventional wisdom. Absent tenure, or some other form of job security, there will be instances when researchers are fired for their opinions and conclusions, avoid controversial topics, or engage in self censorship. While offering a high level of job security risks paying for poor or no performance, the cost is reasonable compared to the dangers of intimidation and the avoidance of controversial topics.
Providing job security to those engaged in research is one thing but is almost impossible to make a coherent and logical case for granting tenure to teachers of children in Grades K - 12. These teachers do little or no research so there is little risk of adverse action arising from unpopular ideas and, since there is almost no risk of that they will be fired for failure to perform, their performance is all too often less than adequate.
While too many School Districts have ineffective, and sometimes outright unfair, systems for evaluating teachers, that is not the point. What is needed is the development of reasonably fair and effective systems for evaluating teachers, and the prompt removal of those who do not measure up to the required standard. Such systems are not easy to develop but Unions know that unreasonable demands for a perfect system will ensure that nothing changes.
The current system merely ensures that raw union power is used for the benefit of poorly qualified teachers.
Meanwhile, our children suffer and that is wrong if not immoral.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
A Lesson from Toyota's Travails
The problems now being experienced by Toyota - braking problems on hybrids and sudden acceleration on many other models - may be mechanical, electrical or software related. Purely mechanical problems are often relatively simple to solve. Electrical problems, however, are often intermittent and difficult to diagnose while software problems are an order of magnitude harder to find.
These thoughts, written by James Arnheim, are applicable to system design:
"Engineering: the art and science of molding materials we do not fully understand; into shapes we cannot precisely analyze; to resist forces we cannot accurately predict..."
Although he was discussing mechanical and structural engineering, Mr. Arnheim's remarks are also applicable to the design and writing of software. As an example of the difficulty of creating complex systems, defects in the various iterations of Microsoft's Windows(R) operating systems demonstrate the size of the task. It is close to impossible to create massive software structures that do not contain unpredictable and largely impossible to find errors - at least when the requirement of economic viability is applied to the testing process.
The aggravations and pain, imposed by bugs in Windows, are trivial compared to the defects that are will certainly be present in other, yet to be written, applications that will control critical processes such as, among other things, air traffic control, the electrical grid and the safe operation of our personal vehicles.
Automated systems have provided much convenience. They have also made major improvements in the quality of our lives: some appear to have even become essential. The potential dangers from unanticipated defects, however, may threaten our entire standard of living even if not our existence.
There is not much an average citizen can do except to become as little dependent as possible on any technology. The Amish - a uniquely American religious group that shuns technology - epitomize this lack of dependence. Most of us, without much thought, simply consider the risks and rewards of most technologies to be acceptable and the Amish way of life to be far too primitive for our tastes and our comfort.
Since technology is often a Faustian bargain, we should, but probably will not, evaluate the risk - reward proposition very carefully. But no matter how careful we are, no one should be surprised to find that the fundamental principle by which the Universe operates (the Law of Unintended Consequences) takes precedence over all others.
There just ain't no such thing as a free lunch. No matter how much we may wish it were so.
These thoughts, written by James Arnheim, are applicable to system design:
"Engineering: the art and science of molding materials we do not fully understand; into shapes we cannot precisely analyze; to resist forces we cannot accurately predict..."
Although he was discussing mechanical and structural engineering, Mr. Arnheim's remarks are also applicable to the design and writing of software. As an example of the difficulty of creating complex systems, defects in the various iterations of Microsoft's Windows(R) operating systems demonstrate the size of the task. It is close to impossible to create massive software structures that do not contain unpredictable and largely impossible to find errors - at least when the requirement of economic viability is applied to the testing process.
The aggravations and pain, imposed by bugs in Windows, are trivial compared to the defects that are will certainly be present in other, yet to be written, applications that will control critical processes such as, among other things, air traffic control, the electrical grid and the safe operation of our personal vehicles.
Automated systems have provided much convenience. They have also made major improvements in the quality of our lives: some appear to have even become essential. The potential dangers from unanticipated defects, however, may threaten our entire standard of living even if not our existence.
There is not much an average citizen can do except to become as little dependent as possible on any technology. The Amish - a uniquely American religious group that shuns technology - epitomize this lack of dependence. Most of us, without much thought, simply consider the risks and rewards of most technologies to be acceptable and the Amish way of life to be far too primitive for our tastes and our comfort.
Since technology is often a Faustian bargain, we should, but probably will not, evaluate the risk - reward proposition very carefully. But no matter how careful we are, no one should be surprised to find that the fundamental principle by which the Universe operates (the Law of Unintended Consequences) takes precedence over all others.
There just ain't no such thing as a free lunch. No matter how much we may wish it were so.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
A Hostage Problem
On July 26, 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser, responding to the British and American refusal to finance the proposed Aswan High Dam, nationalized the Suez Canal. On October 29, 1956, the United Kingdom and France, supported by Israel, invaded and, after heavy fighting in both Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula, seized the Canal.
So far, so good. The problem, however, was that the United States had not been consulted and did not approve.
The USA had two major levers.
The first was oil. Following an oil embargo on Britain and France by Saudi Arabia, the United States - then an oil exporting nation - refused to make up the difference. That was uncomfortable but not irresistible.
The second lever was a credible threat to bankrupt the United Kingdom. The United States held a massive position in British bonds as a result of the financing of World War II and funds transferred under the Marshall Plan.
President Eisenhower ordered Treasury Secretary George Humphrey to prepare to sell the bonds. The threat was real and, according to British Chancellor of the Exchequer Harold Macmillan's advice to Prime Minister Anthony Eden, British gold and foreign exchange reserves were insufficient to sustain the enormous devaluation of the pound that would result. The consequence would be an inability to import the food and fuel necessary to support the nation through the coming winter.
Eisenhower's proposition was really simple: we own so much of your debt that we can bankrupt you unless you do as we say.
The British had no choice but to capitulate and the French, with insufficient forces in Egypt to operate on their own, were also forced into a hasty and humiliating departure.
What will be our response if the Chinese, who hold hostage too much of our too large national debt, decide to use Eisenhower's tactic over, say, Taiwan?
If we wish to control our own destiny, then we must get our budget deficit and national debt under control. Starting tomorrow is not too soon.
So far, so good. The problem, however, was that the United States had not been consulted and did not approve.
The USA had two major levers.
The first was oil. Following an oil embargo on Britain and France by Saudi Arabia, the United States - then an oil exporting nation - refused to make up the difference. That was uncomfortable but not irresistible.
The second lever was a credible threat to bankrupt the United Kingdom. The United States held a massive position in British bonds as a result of the financing of World War II and funds transferred under the Marshall Plan.
President Eisenhower ordered Treasury Secretary George Humphrey to prepare to sell the bonds. The threat was real and, according to British Chancellor of the Exchequer Harold Macmillan's advice to Prime Minister Anthony Eden, British gold and foreign exchange reserves were insufficient to sustain the enormous devaluation of the pound that would result. The consequence would be an inability to import the food and fuel necessary to support the nation through the coming winter.
Eisenhower's proposition was really simple: we own so much of your debt that we can bankrupt you unless you do as we say.
The British had no choice but to capitulate and the French, with insufficient forces in Egypt to operate on their own, were also forced into a hasty and humiliating departure.
What will be our response if the Chinese, who hold hostage too much of our too large national debt, decide to use Eisenhower's tactic over, say, Taiwan?
If we wish to control our own destiny, then we must get our budget deficit and national debt under control. Starting tomorrow is not too soon.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Be Careful What You Say
The General Post Office, at 33rd Street and 8th Avenue in New York City, was opened in 1914. On the building, in large easy to read letters, is engraved the following:
Neither snow nor rain not heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
Today, in the Washington DC metropolitan area, we are in the middle of a major snowstorm with 20 - 30 inches expected before it ends and the United States Post Office has suspended service for at least today. Given the circumstances, this is quite reasonable.
Although there is no actual legal requirement to provide service regardless of conditions, nor is the statement above the motto of the USPO - it has none, organizations are frequently evaluated on their ability to live up to what is believed to be, rather than actually is, their culture and mission. Since the USPO is neither particularly efficient, nor in good financial health, its reputation will be further tarnished when today's performance is matched with public belief as stated on that historic building.
So, be careful what you say: it is guaranteed to come back and haunt you.
Neither snow nor rain not heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
Today, in the Washington DC metropolitan area, we are in the middle of a major snowstorm with 20 - 30 inches expected before it ends and the United States Post Office has suspended service for at least today. Given the circumstances, this is quite reasonable.
Although there is no actual legal requirement to provide service regardless of conditions, nor is the statement above the motto of the USPO - it has none, organizations are frequently evaluated on their ability to live up to what is believed to be, rather than actually is, their culture and mission. Since the USPO is neither particularly efficient, nor in good financial health, its reputation will be further tarnished when today's performance is matched with public belief as stated on that historic building.
So, be careful what you say: it is guaranteed to come back and haunt you.
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Corruption of Language (5)
The top business news this morning is that the unemployment rate dropped from 10% of the workforce in December to 9.7% in January. That is supposed to be good news.
Reading a little further, however, provides the information that 20,000 jobs were lost in January. So how, if there are fewer jobs, can the unemployment rate drop?
For those who understand third grade arithmetic, calculating the unemployment rate is simple. Count the number of people who say that they are unemployed, divide by the total workforce, and express it as a percentage. That is the Unemployment Rate. Although easy to calculate, it is a seriously misleading number.
To get to the next level of understanding, consider something that former President Bill Clinton might have said: "it depends what the definition of unemployed is." A person who does not have a job but is so discouraged that he or she didn't look for a job last month, or was ill and didn't look for a job either, is neither counted as unemployed nor as a part of the workforce. So, even if the Unemployment Rate drops - as it did this month - it can be because the labor force dropped faster than the increase in the number of unemployed.
Entirely ignored in the headlines are the many people who are working part-time but only because they can not find a full time job. The really important number includes not just the unemployed but also the discouraged and the underemployed. By all reports, that number is above 16% but, because it is downplayed or omitted in the government press releases, is a story that too many journalists neglect to report.
Our government corrupts the language in order to better control us and to provide job security for politicians. The press and other media are, or should be, our shield against government manipulation. If, as too often seems to be the case, the media are lazy and incompetent, then these words, uttered by Abraham Lincoln, may no longer be true:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
If we value our liberty, we must continually challenge the government to speak the truth.
Enough said.
Reading a little further, however, provides the information that 20,000 jobs were lost in January. So how, if there are fewer jobs, can the unemployment rate drop?
For those who understand third grade arithmetic, calculating the unemployment rate is simple. Count the number of people who say that they are unemployed, divide by the total workforce, and express it as a percentage. That is the Unemployment Rate. Although easy to calculate, it is a seriously misleading number.
To get to the next level of understanding, consider something that former President Bill Clinton might have said: "it depends what the definition of unemployed is." A person who does not have a job but is so discouraged that he or she didn't look for a job last month, or was ill and didn't look for a job either, is neither counted as unemployed nor as a part of the workforce. So, even if the Unemployment Rate drops - as it did this month - it can be because the labor force dropped faster than the increase in the number of unemployed.
Entirely ignored in the headlines are the many people who are working part-time but only because they can not find a full time job. The really important number includes not just the unemployed but also the discouraged and the underemployed. By all reports, that number is above 16% but, because it is downplayed or omitted in the government press releases, is a story that too many journalists neglect to report.
Our government corrupts the language in order to better control us and to provide job security for politicians. The press and other media are, or should be, our shield against government manipulation. If, as too often seems to be the case, the media are lazy and incompetent, then these words, uttered by Abraham Lincoln, may no longer be true:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
If we value our liberty, we must continually challenge the government to speak the truth.
Enough said.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Fiscal Crisis
It used to be that describing Democrats as addicted to 'taxing and spending' was an accurate epithet. Then the Republicans, obsessed with low taxes but seeing the electoral benefits of spending, became the party of 'borrow and spend'. Now Democrats, using a variety of dubious excuses, are copying Republicans.
On February 2, President Obama sent the FY2011 budget message to Congress. A common characteristic of the President's message, and almost all of the media reports, is to minimize the really serious situation into which we have put ourselves. The President, living in fantasy land, promises to freeze - not cut - $477 billion in discretionary spending. He also seems to think that the budget deficit can be cut in half by 2013 when the real need is for a budget surplus to repay debt.
The overall spending request is $3.833 trillion dollars but that is matched by only $2.576 in taxes leaving a deficit of $1.266 trillion. All of these numbers look pretty small - as they are intended to do - until a little elementary analysis is performed.
First, what is a trillion anyway. A trillion is a thousand billions or a million millions. So, line up a million millionaires and take away all of their money. That raises an extra trillion dollars in tax but still does not eliminate the deficit.
Perhaps, then, we should consider punishing those at the other end of the financial spectrum. Take 17.6 million full time workers, each making the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 per hour and working 2080 hours (40 hours per week for 52 weeks) each year. Confiscate all of their earnings and that will eliminate the remaining $266 billion of the deficit.
Next, consider the overall numbers: the Federal Government is planning to spend nearly 48% more than it takes in. Were a fairly average family, earning - for example - $67,500 a year to spend $100,000, it would soon be in deep financial trouble. That is where the United States is now.
Third, think about how the money is being spent. The really big items are Defense $749.5 billion (19.55%) and Veterans Benefits $124.5 billion (3.25%), Interest on the National Debt $250 billion (6.52%), Social Security $721.5 billion (18.82%) and Medicare $497 billion (12.97%).
The total of these five line items consumes more than all of the taxes to be raised so everything else to be spent, including $400 billion for Medicaid and other Health Spending, must be borrowed.
What then is the solution? Given the aging of the population, Social Security payments are projected to grow and grow and grow. In addition, given the rate at which health care costs (quantity and price) are increasing, it will not take long, unless radical action is taken, for a major crisis to occur in that sector alone. Other transfer payments - Medicaid, Food Stamps, Farm Subsidies and the like - are not likely to be reduced.
The time is soon coming when it will no longer be possible to use today's tactic of irresponsible borrowing to unload the problem onto our children and grandchildren. Growing our way out of the problem just won't happen either. We have to face the ugly reality of major spending cuts in our favorite programs and, without a doubt, tax increases.
And even if we were able to inflict the pain on succeeding generations, we take a major strategic risk by allowing China to own so much of our debt.
Will there be action in time. Only if we, the People, demand it. Unfortunately, a majority of voters are takers from, rather than contributors to, the public treasury. They can be relied upon to make their voices heard in favor of more spending. Most of those who are contributors will be equally vocal in favor of lower taxes.
If politicians, responding to the noise, are unable to see beyond re-election, then a disaster is inevitable. Whether the disaster is Weimar Republic style inflation, just a major reduction in national income and welfare, tyranny, or all of these is not yet certain. What is certain is that we need to act now to minimize the danger.
Do elected politicians have the courage to act? Do they have the will to risk the wrath of the electorate because they have done the right thing?
I doubt it but it would be a pleasant surprise if they did.
On February 2, President Obama sent the FY2011 budget message to Congress. A common characteristic of the President's message, and almost all of the media reports, is to minimize the really serious situation into which we have put ourselves. The President, living in fantasy land, promises to freeze - not cut - $477 billion in discretionary spending. He also seems to think that the budget deficit can be cut in half by 2013 when the real need is for a budget surplus to repay debt.
The overall spending request is $3.833 trillion dollars but that is matched by only $2.576 in taxes leaving a deficit of $1.266 trillion. All of these numbers look pretty small - as they are intended to do - until a little elementary analysis is performed.
First, what is a trillion anyway. A trillion is a thousand billions or a million millions. So, line up a million millionaires and take away all of their money. That raises an extra trillion dollars in tax but still does not eliminate the deficit.
Perhaps, then, we should consider punishing those at the other end of the financial spectrum. Take 17.6 million full time workers, each making the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 per hour and working 2080 hours (40 hours per week for 52 weeks) each year. Confiscate all of their earnings and that will eliminate the remaining $266 billion of the deficit.
Next, consider the overall numbers: the Federal Government is planning to spend nearly 48% more than it takes in. Were a fairly average family, earning - for example - $67,500 a year to spend $100,000, it would soon be in deep financial trouble. That is where the United States is now.
Third, think about how the money is being spent. The really big items are Defense $749.5 billion (19.55%) and Veterans Benefits $124.5 billion (3.25%), Interest on the National Debt $250 billion (6.52%), Social Security $721.5 billion (18.82%) and Medicare $497 billion (12.97%).
The total of these five line items consumes more than all of the taxes to be raised so everything else to be spent, including $400 billion for Medicaid and other Health Spending, must be borrowed.
What then is the solution? Given the aging of the population, Social Security payments are projected to grow and grow and grow. In addition, given the rate at which health care costs (quantity and price) are increasing, it will not take long, unless radical action is taken, for a major crisis to occur in that sector alone. Other transfer payments - Medicaid, Food Stamps, Farm Subsidies and the like - are not likely to be reduced.
The time is soon coming when it will no longer be possible to use today's tactic of irresponsible borrowing to unload the problem onto our children and grandchildren. Growing our way out of the problem just won't happen either. We have to face the ugly reality of major spending cuts in our favorite programs and, without a doubt, tax increases.
And even if we were able to inflict the pain on succeeding generations, we take a major strategic risk by allowing China to own so much of our debt.
Will there be action in time. Only if we, the People, demand it. Unfortunately, a majority of voters are takers from, rather than contributors to, the public treasury. They can be relied upon to make their voices heard in favor of more spending. Most of those who are contributors will be equally vocal in favor of lower taxes.
If politicians, responding to the noise, are unable to see beyond re-election, then a disaster is inevitable. Whether the disaster is Weimar Republic style inflation, just a major reduction in national income and welfare, tyranny, or all of these is not yet certain. What is certain is that we need to act now to minimize the danger.
Do elected politicians have the courage to act? Do they have the will to risk the wrath of the electorate because they have done the right thing?
I doubt it but it would be a pleasant surprise if they did.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
The prospect of having openly gay persons serve in the military is sending shivers up the spines of right wing nuts and other bigots.
The Dutch, admittedly somewhat peculiar in that they have a unionized military, report no adverse effects from permitting openly gay citizens to serve. Nor have the Canadian and British forces suffered from their tolerance. The hard right might want to start by explaining how the United States is so different.
On a purely practical level, they should consider the current difficulties faced by the services as they attempt to recruit sufficient qualified volunteers. Given the general reluctance of most Americans to serve, excluding an entire class of citizens seems unwise.
Your correspondent is cheerfully straight, with no desire even to experiment, but knows many gay people. None of them appear to be subhuman, disgusting or, as Leviticus would have it, abominations . They deserve neither ostracism nor to be prohibited from serving their country.
More important, perhaps, are the words of the late Senator Barry Goldwater - a Conservative Republican icon - who said: "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight."
There is much to be said for tolerance.
The Dutch, admittedly somewhat peculiar in that they have a unionized military, report no adverse effects from permitting openly gay citizens to serve. Nor have the Canadian and British forces suffered from their tolerance. The hard right might want to start by explaining how the United States is so different.
On a purely practical level, they should consider the current difficulties faced by the services as they attempt to recruit sufficient qualified volunteers. Given the general reluctance of most Americans to serve, excluding an entire class of citizens seems unwise.
Your correspondent is cheerfully straight, with no desire even to experiment, but knows many gay people. None of them appear to be subhuman, disgusting or, as Leviticus would have it, abominations . They deserve neither ostracism nor to be prohibited from serving their country.
More important, perhaps, are the words of the late Senator Barry Goldwater - a Conservative Republican icon - who said: "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight."
There is much to be said for tolerance.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Short Term Thinking
President Obama yesterday submitted his budget proposal for 2011 to Congress. Included in the package was the effective cancellation of any plans for a return to the Moon or a mission to Mars in the foreseeable future.
It would be an understatement to describe this as short sighted.
One of the valuable functions of government is to cover the costs of critical activities that are unlikely to yield profits in the time frame which, of necessity, governs for-profit corporations. Basic research and development, as well as exploration are the two of the most important activities that are deserving of substantial taxpayer funding. Both have proven themselves, over the long term, to be of enormous benefit to our nation and the world.
Thomas Jefferson, while President, funded the Lewis and Clark expedition that was the first step to opening the American West. Much later, the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, following the embarrassment caused by the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in 1957, began to fund space programs that drove the state of the art in, among many other things, the miniaturization of electronics, in computing, and in the understanding of our planet's climate and weather.
There can be little doubt that knowledge of science, technology, electronics and mathematics (STEM) is critical to the long term health and growth of any economy. Where better to provide good jobs in those fields than in a space program?
A generation of scientists and engineers, assisted by funding from the 1958 National Defense Education Act, were inspired by the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. Lamenting the current lack of interest in STEM is not helpful but inspiration will encourage young men and women to enter these fields rather than becoming lawyers and financial traders whose contribution to the greater good is now marginal - if not negative.
Then there is the question of the continued existence of the human race. Sooner or later, there will be another natural disaster, similar to the asteroid strike that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, that will render the Earth uninhabitable before that occurs. The needed skills are not easy to acquire but we must start now because Arks are not built overnight.
The time is long past for thoughtful citizens to force our government to reset its priorities: much less in the way of transfer payments and much more true investment. If our elected politicians will not act, then Oliver Cromwell's order, addressing the Rump Parliament in April 1653, is entirely applicable:
"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
It would be an understatement to describe this as short sighted.
One of the valuable functions of government is to cover the costs of critical activities that are unlikely to yield profits in the time frame which, of necessity, governs for-profit corporations. Basic research and development, as well as exploration are the two of the most important activities that are deserving of substantial taxpayer funding. Both have proven themselves, over the long term, to be of enormous benefit to our nation and the world.
Thomas Jefferson, while President, funded the Lewis and Clark expedition that was the first step to opening the American West. Much later, the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, following the embarrassment caused by the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in 1957, began to fund space programs that drove the state of the art in, among many other things, the miniaturization of electronics, in computing, and in the understanding of our planet's climate and weather.
There can be little doubt that knowledge of science, technology, electronics and mathematics (STEM) is critical to the long term health and growth of any economy. Where better to provide good jobs in those fields than in a space program?
A generation of scientists and engineers, assisted by funding from the 1958 National Defense Education Act, were inspired by the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. Lamenting the current lack of interest in STEM is not helpful but inspiration will encourage young men and women to enter these fields rather than becoming lawyers and financial traders whose contribution to the greater good is now marginal - if not negative.
Then there is the question of the continued existence of the human race. Sooner or later, there will be another natural disaster, similar to the asteroid strike that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, that will render the Earth uninhabitable before that occurs. The needed skills are not easy to acquire but we must start now because Arks are not built overnight.
The time is long past for thoughtful citizens to force our government to reset its priorities: much less in the way of transfer payments and much more true investment. If our elected politicians will not act, then Oliver Cromwell's order, addressing the Rump Parliament in April 1653, is entirely applicable:
"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Unfettered Second Amendment Rights
Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton, both players with the Washington Wizards of the National Basketball League, have been suspended without pay for the rest of the season. Between them they will lose millions of dollars in pay.
The reason for the suspension is that they brought hand guns to work and were, apparently, using them to threaten each other as a result of a petty argument over a gambling debt. Their activities broke both Washington DC law and NBA rules and they are being duly punished.
There is no indication that these weapons were obtained illegally and, fortunately, no one was shot in this incident. The real issue, however, is that there are far too many people, some mentally disturbed, some overly aggressive, and others who are simply evil, with access to to lethal weapons.
The questions, then, for the Second Amendment absolutists are simple.
How do they propose to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of people who are unfit to own them? Or are they comfortable with making the entire USA a free fire zone?
The reason for the suspension is that they brought hand guns to work and were, apparently, using them to threaten each other as a result of a petty argument over a gambling debt. Their activities broke both Washington DC law and NBA rules and they are being duly punished.
There is no indication that these weapons were obtained illegally and, fortunately, no one was shot in this incident. The real issue, however, is that there are far too many people, some mentally disturbed, some overly aggressive, and others who are simply evil, with access to to lethal weapons.
The questions, then, for the Second Amendment absolutists are simple.
How do they propose to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of people who are unfit to own them? Or are they comfortable with making the entire USA a free fire zone?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
State of the Union Address
Last night, President Obama used a great many words - seventy one minutes worth - to say remarkably little.
The details are unimportant but the lack of leadership is appalling. Unfortunately for our nation, the President continues to peddle the entitlement mentality: in particular, the proposition that the government's primary purpose is to give things to the bulk of the population while punishing those who are currently out of favor. Simultaneously, he expresses the Democratic Party's long held love of jobs and hatred of employers - except perhaps for so-called 'Small Business' which, more often than not, pays badly while providing little in the way of security or benefits.
The most distracting part of the whole affair was the behavior of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who, seated behind the President, jumped up and down, clapping her hands, like a six year old child with ADHD whose prescription for Ritalin had run out a week earlier. In addition, if Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr was really caught mouthing his dissent over the President's disagreement with a recent Supreme Court decision, then he is either rude or stupid. The latter is arguably worse: he should have known that there would be skilled lip readers in the audience and had the self-discipline to keep his mouth shut.
It is only reasonable to expect our leaders to look and act as if they are serious: part of that is to treat us as adults who are part of the solution rather than as the beneficiaries of unearned largesse to be bestowed by a benevolent (?) government. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and, apparently, Justice Alito must be given a failing grade for that task.
It is far past the time for our leaders to choose between leading and pandering. If they pick leadership, they may deserve re-election: if not, it will be time to call Hercules to reprise his starring role in 'Cleaning the Augean Stables'.
If there is no change in the attitudes of those who believe that they rule - rather than serve, our approach must be to vote against every incumbent regardless of party. While the election of 2008 was a start, the Democratic Party failed to understand the message. Perhaps, if we are lucky, they will learn a lesson from the most significant event of last week when, for the first time in forty years, the citizens of Massachusetts elected a Republican Senator.
President Obama did mention a 'deficit of trust in government'. Give him credit for understanding part of the problem but the true test of his Presidency will be whether he is capable of acting rather than merely spewing hot air.
The details are unimportant but the lack of leadership is appalling. Unfortunately for our nation, the President continues to peddle the entitlement mentality: in particular, the proposition that the government's primary purpose is to give things to the bulk of the population while punishing those who are currently out of favor. Simultaneously, he expresses the Democratic Party's long held love of jobs and hatred of employers - except perhaps for so-called 'Small Business' which, more often than not, pays badly while providing little in the way of security or benefits.
The most distracting part of the whole affair was the behavior of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who, seated behind the President, jumped up and down, clapping her hands, like a six year old child with ADHD whose prescription for Ritalin had run out a week earlier. In addition, if Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr was really caught mouthing his dissent over the President's disagreement with a recent Supreme Court decision, then he is either rude or stupid. The latter is arguably worse: he should have known that there would be skilled lip readers in the audience and had the self-discipline to keep his mouth shut.
It is only reasonable to expect our leaders to look and act as if they are serious: part of that is to treat us as adults who are part of the solution rather than as the beneficiaries of unearned largesse to be bestowed by a benevolent (?) government. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and, apparently, Justice Alito must be given a failing grade for that task.
It is far past the time for our leaders to choose between leading and pandering. If they pick leadership, they may deserve re-election: if not, it will be time to call Hercules to reprise his starring role in 'Cleaning the Augean Stables'.
If there is no change in the attitudes of those who believe that they rule - rather than serve, our approach must be to vote against every incumbent regardless of party. While the election of 2008 was a start, the Democratic Party failed to understand the message. Perhaps, if we are lucky, they will learn a lesson from the most significant event of last week when, for the first time in forty years, the citizens of Massachusetts elected a Republican Senator.
President Obama did mention a 'deficit of trust in government'. Give him credit for understanding part of the problem but the true test of his Presidency will be whether he is capable of acting rather than merely spewing hot air.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The State of the Union...
... isn't very good.
There is little need to elaborate here except to note that we are in dire economic straits and, unless the entitlement mentality is addressed, are not likely to escape for many years.
President Obama will give the State of the Union Address to a Joint Session of the Congress this evening. If he is wise, and a true leader, he will ask that we return to the American Way as it used to be: hard work, self reliance, and a willingness to buckle down and get on with the job without the excessive partisan squabbling of today.
That includes silencing Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who are, arguably, two of the greatest threats faced by our great nation.
Since, in many - not all - ways, President Obama's own biography epitomizes the virtues that we should practice, he would not, unusually for a politician, be asking us to 'do as I say, not do as I do'.
President Kennedy said it well: "ask not what your country can do for you; ask, rather, what you can do for your country."
Enough said.
There is little need to elaborate here except to note that we are in dire economic straits and, unless the entitlement mentality is addressed, are not likely to escape for many years.
President Obama will give the State of the Union Address to a Joint Session of the Congress this evening. If he is wise, and a true leader, he will ask that we return to the American Way as it used to be: hard work, self reliance, and a willingness to buckle down and get on with the job without the excessive partisan squabbling of today.
That includes silencing Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who are, arguably, two of the greatest threats faced by our great nation.
Since, in many - not all - ways, President Obama's own biography epitomizes the virtues that we should practice, he would not, unusually for a politician, be asking us to 'do as I say, not do as I do'.
President Kennedy said it well: "ask not what your country can do for you; ask, rather, what you can do for your country."
Enough said.
Monday, January 25, 2010
American Political Dynasties
Beau Biden, currently Attorney General of the State of Delaware and son of Vice President Joe Biden, has announced that he will not run for the Senate seat vacated by his father when he was sworn in as Vice President.
Good.
Whatever the younger Mr. Biden's skills, we held a revolution some two hundred and thirty plus years ago. Among the results, as written in our Constitution, was the removal of Kings, aristocrats, and other hereditary rulers, from our government.
Sadly, it did not take long for the first father and son combination to occupy a major political office: President John Adams (1779 - 1801) and his son President John Quincy Adams (1825 - 1829). At least they were both elected rather than the younger inheriting his father's position.
Even so, political dynasties are far from desirable. When given the opportunity, we should always vote against a close relative of any office holder - specially one who, like the Vice President, had been a senator for thirty six years.
We have had more than enough of the Biden family but at least the citizens of Delaware will be spared the task of voting against the younger member.
That will make the world a slightly better place.
Good.
Whatever the younger Mr. Biden's skills, we held a revolution some two hundred and thirty plus years ago. Among the results, as written in our Constitution, was the removal of Kings, aristocrats, and other hereditary rulers, from our government.
Sadly, it did not take long for the first father and son combination to occupy a major political office: President John Adams (1779 - 1801) and his son President John Quincy Adams (1825 - 1829). At least they were both elected rather than the younger inheriting his father's position.
Even so, political dynasties are far from desirable. When given the opportunity, we should always vote against a close relative of any office holder - specially one who, like the Vice President, had been a senator for thirty six years.
We have had more than enough of the Biden family but at least the citizens of Delaware will be spared the task of voting against the younger member.
That will make the world a slightly better place.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Stock Market Insanity or Manipulation.
As measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 index, the American stock market has dropped by over five per cent in the past eight days.
According to news stories, the reasons include bank regulation as proposed by President Obama, the possibility that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will not be confirmed for a second term in office, and an order to reduce or stop lending issued by the Chinese government to its nation's banks.
In a rational world, all of these would have a positive influence on the market: a safer banking system, that does not need so much taxpayer support, would materially improve the long term health of our economy while the Chinese government now seems to be aware - and is acting on its awareness - of the danger of an incipient asset price bubble. The possibility that the Bubblemeister's Apprentice (Bernanke who succeeded Bubblemeister Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve) will be removed, and the rising influence of former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, should hearten those who fear an uncontrolled inflation resulting from the grossly promiscuous creation of money in the recent past.
If the market was responding to the news, then insanity was afoot. On the other hand a different explanation makes the reaction look rational. Since stocks are over priced for current economic conditions, and a new bubble is clearly growing, speculators suddenly realized the truth - at least for a week - and began to sell like crazy while spreading lies and misinformation to disguise their motives.
Our nation, and perhaps much of the world, is on a narrow path between the economic equivalent of Scylla and Charybdis. The dangers are a rerun of the Great Depression or a Weimar Republic (Zimbabwean if you prefer) inflation. We can only hope that government - particularly the Congress and the Federal Reserve - can refrain from making things worse.
Beware the Wall Street shills, whose job it is to peddle mindless optimism, because it isn't going to be different this time.
According to news stories, the reasons include bank regulation as proposed by President Obama, the possibility that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will not be confirmed for a second term in office, and an order to reduce or stop lending issued by the Chinese government to its nation's banks.
In a rational world, all of these would have a positive influence on the market: a safer banking system, that does not need so much taxpayer support, would materially improve the long term health of our economy while the Chinese government now seems to be aware - and is acting on its awareness - of the danger of an incipient asset price bubble. The possibility that the Bubblemeister's Apprentice (Bernanke who succeeded Bubblemeister Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve) will be removed, and the rising influence of former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, should hearten those who fear an uncontrolled inflation resulting from the grossly promiscuous creation of money in the recent past.
If the market was responding to the news, then insanity was afoot. On the other hand a different explanation makes the reaction look rational. Since stocks are over priced for current economic conditions, and a new bubble is clearly growing, speculators suddenly realized the truth - at least for a week - and began to sell like crazy while spreading lies and misinformation to disguise their motives.
Our nation, and perhaps much of the world, is on a narrow path between the economic equivalent of Scylla and Charybdis. The dangers are a rerun of the Great Depression or a Weimar Republic (Zimbabwean if you prefer) inflation. We can only hope that government - particularly the Congress and the Federal Reserve - can refrain from making things worse.
Beware the Wall Street shills, whose job it is to peddle mindless optimism, because it isn't going to be different this time.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Where Next for Our Nation?
It is more likely than not that the current economic crisis is far from over. Assuming that is so, the critical question is what, if anything, the government should do - other than stay out of the way.
However, before we demand spending, subsidies and lawmaking, we would do well to consider these thoughtful words spoken by President Theodore Roosevelt:
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."
The essential characteristics of America are those of hard work, self reliance, and earned rewards. When we demand that government take actions that are properly our responsibility, we risk our liberty. Thomas Jefferson, most presciently, warned of the problem:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground."
We should also keep in mind the ten most frightening words - according to President Ronald Reagan - in the English language:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Enough said.
However, before we demand spending, subsidies and lawmaking, we would do well to consider these thoughtful words spoken by President Theodore Roosevelt:
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."
The essential characteristics of America are those of hard work, self reliance, and earned rewards. When we demand that government take actions that are properly our responsibility, we risk our liberty. Thomas Jefferson, most presciently, warned of the problem:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground."
We should also keep in mind the ten most frightening words - according to President Ronald Reagan - in the English language:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Enough said.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Massachussetts Voters do the Democratic Party a Favor
The voters of Massachusetts did the nation, and quite likely the Democratic Party, a major favor on Tuesday by electing State Senator Scott Brown (R) to represent them for the balance of the late Senator Kennedy's term in the United States Senate.
The arrival of an additional Republican ends the Democratic Party's filibuster proof majority and suggests that the so-called health care reform bill will now not pass. To describe the current bill, as passed by the Senate, as an abomination is an understatement while the version passed by the House of Representatives is even worse.
The current health care system is broken and dysfunctional, but, sadly, no bill at all would be better than the likely outcome were the House and Senate Bills to be reconciled and passed.
President Obama, recognizing the political realities, has called upon the Congress to refrain from forcing through a bill before Senator-elect Brown is seated. That is good. He has also requested a scaled down bill containing the provisions that are generally agreed upon. There the President misses the point.
What is needed is to restart the process and produce legislation that is acceptable to both parties and to the nation as a whole. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has taken that position and he is a man who has proven that he can work across the aisle.
Let Senator McCain, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), and others of like mind, set about drafting a health care bill that includes real reform including cost containment and provisions to create a fair and honest insurance market that has much lower administrative and marketing costs than now.
Tort reform would be desirable but your correspondent, having long ago ceased to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, does not expect any such thing from a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party.
To return to the proposition that the Democratic Party will benefit, here are the likely electoral consequences:
The arrival of an additional Republican ends the Democratic Party's filibuster proof majority and suggests that the so-called health care reform bill will now not pass. To describe the current bill, as passed by the Senate, as an abomination is an understatement while the version passed by the House of Representatives is even worse.
The current health care system is broken and dysfunctional, but, sadly, no bill at all would be better than the likely outcome were the House and Senate Bills to be reconciled and passed.
President Obama, recognizing the political realities, has called upon the Congress to refrain from forcing through a bill before Senator-elect Brown is seated. That is good. He has also requested a scaled down bill containing the provisions that are generally agreed upon. There the President misses the point.
What is needed is to restart the process and produce legislation that is acceptable to both parties and to the nation as a whole. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has taken that position and he is a man who has proven that he can work across the aisle.
Let Senator McCain, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), and others of like mind, set about drafting a health care bill that includes real reform including cost containment and provisions to create a fair and honest insurance market that has much lower administrative and marketing costs than now.
Tort reform would be desirable but your correspondent, having long ago ceased to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, does not expect any such thing from a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party.
To return to the proposition that the Democratic Party will benefit, here are the likely electoral consequences:
- If they pass a wildly unpopular bill, based on their current work, their punishment will be severe.
- If there is no health care bill, they will be castigated for achieving nothing (see the 1948 elections) and lose seats but not as many as by passing a bad bill.
- If they pass a scaled down bill, they will lose still fewer seats.
- If they pass a bi-partisan bill that includes true reform or, if not yet passed, are making significant progress, then their losses will be no more than are generally expected during a mid-term election.
For the last outcome to occur, however, President Obama must lead rather than leave the decisions to the Congress. He will also have to defeat - or, at minimum, marginalize - two great threats to a successful Presidency: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Both of these persons are small minded and ideologically extreme which gives them an unsurpassed ability to damage our country. Their early retirement - or defeat at the polls - would make the world a slightly - perhaps significantly - better place.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Ugly Cars
Both France and Japan are countries whose cultures prize beauty, elegance, and style.
So how can a Japanese automobile manufacturer (Nissan), whose Chief Executive Officer (Carlos Ghosn) is a Frenchman, manage to create such strikingly ugly cars? The Nissan Murano, Quest and Pathfinder are all regrettable examples.
While Nissan arguably produces more ugly models than any other company, the competition is close behind.
If I were Dictator of the World, there would be a very substantial ugly car tax.
Enough said!
So how can a Japanese automobile manufacturer (Nissan), whose Chief Executive Officer (Carlos Ghosn) is a Frenchman, manage to create such strikingly ugly cars? The Nissan Murano, Quest and Pathfinder are all regrettable examples.
While Nissan arguably produces more ugly models than any other company, the competition is close behind.
If I were Dictator of the World, there would be a very substantial ugly car tax.
Enough said!
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Politicians and the Tax Code
The Internal Revenue Service has announced that it will register and regulate all paid tax preparers who are not attorney's, CPAs or Enrolled Agents.
The IRS misses the point.
However, since its job is to enforce rather than reform the tax laws, it does not have the authority to solve the underlying problem. If the tax code was not so complicated, many more of us would be willing to prepare our own tax returns. Instead, we engage experts, at significant expense, to ensure that we neither overpay our taxes nor incur serious penalties just because we misunderstood the law.
The sole objective of any tax law should be to collect the money that is needed to operate the government. It should be done in as fair, efficient, transparent, and simple a manner as possible. Admittedly, achieving all of those objectives simultaneously is not easy but the economic impact of even partial success would be massively positive.
Congress, unfortunately but perhaps predictably, has invented a system that rewards special interest groups, attempts to dictate personal and economic behavior, and manages to create a myriad of perverse incentives while wasting vast amounts of taxpayers' time and money. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, a collaboration between a conservative President Reagan and two very liberal legislators - Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) and Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ), was a good start but a generation of politicians, of both parties, has largely returned the law to its previous dysfunctional state.
Are the Congress and the President listening to those who believe in real reform?
I doubt it.
Today's politicians should keep in mind, however, that unfair and unreasonable taxes, imposed by an arrogant and unaccountable ruler, were a major cause of the American Revolution. We don't yet need another revolution but we can start by electing politicians who are more interested in the good of our country than in social engineering or the welfare of the special interests that own them.
The IRS misses the point.
However, since its job is to enforce rather than reform the tax laws, it does not have the authority to solve the underlying problem. If the tax code was not so complicated, many more of us would be willing to prepare our own tax returns. Instead, we engage experts, at significant expense, to ensure that we neither overpay our taxes nor incur serious penalties just because we misunderstood the law.
The sole objective of any tax law should be to collect the money that is needed to operate the government. It should be done in as fair, efficient, transparent, and simple a manner as possible. Admittedly, achieving all of those objectives simultaneously is not easy but the economic impact of even partial success would be massively positive.
Congress, unfortunately but perhaps predictably, has invented a system that rewards special interest groups, attempts to dictate personal and economic behavior, and manages to create a myriad of perverse incentives while wasting vast amounts of taxpayers' time and money. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, a collaboration between a conservative President Reagan and two very liberal legislators - Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) and Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ), was a good start but a generation of politicians, of both parties, has largely returned the law to its previous dysfunctional state.
Are the Congress and the President listening to those who believe in real reform?
I doubt it.
Today's politicians should keep in mind, however, that unfair and unreasonable taxes, imposed by an arrogant and unaccountable ruler, were a major cause of the American Revolution. We don't yet need another revolution but we can start by electing politicians who are more interested in the good of our country than in social engineering or the welfare of the special interests that own them.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Tiger Woods and Brit Hume
Brit Hume, a semi-retired journalist, has generated a great deal of fuss over his remarks urging Tiger Woods to accept the forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.
If Mr. Hume had really cared about Mr. Woods, rather than about generating publicity for himself, he would made his comments directly and privately to Mr. Woods. If he doesn't know Mr. Woods personally, then he should have minded his own business.
Sadly, this seems to be just another example of a professed Christian acting in a grotesquely arrogant manner. Perhaps the world would be a slightly better place if Mr. Hume were to heed the words of Jesus of Nazareth in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:5): "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth."
If his Christian faith is one which, like that of many fundamentalists, relies more on the Old Testament than the Gospels, he may wish to consult Psalm 37:11: "But the meek shall inherit the earth and shall delight themselves in an abundance of peace."
Enough said.
If Mr. Hume had really cared about Mr. Woods, rather than about generating publicity for himself, he would made his comments directly and privately to Mr. Woods. If he doesn't know Mr. Woods personally, then he should have minded his own business.
Sadly, this seems to be just another example of a professed Christian acting in a grotesquely arrogant manner. Perhaps the world would be a slightly better place if Mr. Hume were to heed the words of Jesus of Nazareth in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:5): "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth."
If his Christian faith is one which, like that of many fundamentalists, relies more on the Old Testament than the Gospels, he may wish to consult Psalm 37:11: "But the meek shall inherit the earth and shall delight themselves in an abundance of peace."
Enough said.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Retiring U.S. Senators - Democrats
Four Democratic Senators have announced that they will retire this year. If we are lucky, there will be more and, if we are luckier yet, some incumbents will be defeated in November.
Two, Roland Burris (D-IL) and Ted Kaufman (D-DE), were appointed to replace Senators Obama and Biden, respectively, after their election as President and Vice-President. That it was not possible to hold a special election in November of 2009 - or even earlier - seems to be a major flaw in American democracy but at least the voters will be allowed (allowed?) to choose their Senators this year.
The other two are Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT).
On his retirement, Senator Dodd will have spent thirty year in the Senate without distinguishing himself in any particular manner. As Ranking [minority] Member of the Senate Banking Committee, he proved to be either stupid, or unethical, by accepting special treatment from Countrywide Financial Corporation. It is worth noting that Countrywide was shortly thereafter bought by Bank of America (with government guarantees) just before it would have collapsed. His achievements can only be described as minimal.
Senator Dorgan's record is equally undistinguished. The only thing in his favor is that twelve years service in the House of Representatives and another eighteen years in the Senate have been largely, other than bouncing checks at the House of Representatives Bank, free of scandal.
That there should be such a thing as a thirty year career as a professional politician (of either party) is a national disgrace. The Founding Fathers saw politics as a limited period of time to serve their country, rather than themselves, and so should we.
In my not-so-humble opinion, there is value in experience but there are also 'Best Used Before' dates. We would be well served by a constitutional amendment restricting the total length of service in the Congress of the United States.
Few Senators and Representatives have made any significant contributions to our nation after eighteen years in office. Although there are some exceptions, they can be, or could have been, replaced. Eighteen years is a reasonable time. We might have missed the legislative achievements of Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) but we would have been spared the pork barrel appropriations committed by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVA) who has well served himself and his State, but not necessarily our nation, for over fifty years.
Meanwhile, good riddance to the four who have announced their retirement. They have all outstayed their welcome.
Two, Roland Burris (D-IL) and Ted Kaufman (D-DE), were appointed to replace Senators Obama and Biden, respectively, after their election as President and Vice-President. That it was not possible to hold a special election in November of 2009 - or even earlier - seems to be a major flaw in American democracy but at least the voters will be allowed (allowed?) to choose their Senators this year.
The other two are Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT).
On his retirement, Senator Dodd will have spent thirty year in the Senate without distinguishing himself in any particular manner. As Ranking [minority] Member of the Senate Banking Committee, he proved to be either stupid, or unethical, by accepting special treatment from Countrywide Financial Corporation. It is worth noting that Countrywide was shortly thereafter bought by Bank of America (with government guarantees) just before it would have collapsed. His achievements can only be described as minimal.
Senator Dorgan's record is equally undistinguished. The only thing in his favor is that twelve years service in the House of Representatives and another eighteen years in the Senate have been largely, other than bouncing checks at the House of Representatives Bank, free of scandal.
That there should be such a thing as a thirty year career as a professional politician (of either party) is a national disgrace. The Founding Fathers saw politics as a limited period of time to serve their country, rather than themselves, and so should we.
In my not-so-humble opinion, there is value in experience but there are also 'Best Used Before' dates. We would be well served by a constitutional amendment restricting the total length of service in the Congress of the United States.
Few Senators and Representatives have made any significant contributions to our nation after eighteen years in office. Although there are some exceptions, they can be, or could have been, replaced. Eighteen years is a reasonable time. We might have missed the legislative achievements of Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) but we would have been spared the pork barrel appropriations committed by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVA) who has well served himself and his State, but not necessarily our nation, for over fifty years.
Meanwhile, good riddance to the four who have announced their retirement. They have all outstayed their welcome.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Christmas Bomb Plot
Start with the simplest of propositions: only Muslims are members of al-Qaeda.
That doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists, but it does imply that an eighty year old Scottish grandmother, travelling with her six year old granddaughter, is unlikely to be much of a threat. Why then, should she be wanded and patted down when the metal detector reacts to her replacement hip?
The answer is political correctness which, at the very least, is a gross detriment to effective airline security. Not all profiling is bad and a rational system will help ensure that the screeners are looking in the more likely places.
President Obama has taken a tiny step in the right direction. He has ordered that, as of today, anyone traveling from, or through, nations regarded as state sponsors of terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria) will be required to go through enhanced screening. That includes full-body pat downs, carry-on luggage searches, full-body scanning, and explosive detection devices.
Citizens and residents of, as well as transit passengers from, other countries, all of which are known to harbor terrorists and all of which have majority Muslim populations, will also face enhanced screening. The listed countries are Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen. A curious omission is Indonesia - a nation with a largely Muslim population and a history of terrorist attacks on Westerners and places that they frequent.
This is one small step in the right direction, for which the President should be commended. Unfortunately, he is being hotly criticized by an unholy alliance comprised of the American Civil Liberties Union (and its followers) and extreme right wing privacy advocates.
All for a tiny step in the right direction.
Much more can, and must, be done. Although it would inconvenience me, travellers with their own wheelchairs and prosthetic limbs (particularly if young and Muslim) should be screened very thoroughly. While I do get the pat down, it is incomplete and ineffective. At the same time, compliance with politically correct procedures forbids the screeners to ask me to remove my legs so they can be x-rayed or otherwise examined for contraband.
Must we wait until a wheelchair cushion, or a prosthetic leg, explodes on board before we act on the lessons that can easily be learned from Frederick Forsyth's novel 'Day of the Jackal'?
That doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists, but it does imply that an eighty year old Scottish grandmother, travelling with her six year old granddaughter, is unlikely to be much of a threat. Why then, should she be wanded and patted down when the metal detector reacts to her replacement hip?
The answer is political correctness which, at the very least, is a gross detriment to effective airline security. Not all profiling is bad and a rational system will help ensure that the screeners are looking in the more likely places.
President Obama has taken a tiny step in the right direction. He has ordered that, as of today, anyone traveling from, or through, nations regarded as state sponsors of terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria) will be required to go through enhanced screening. That includes full-body pat downs, carry-on luggage searches, full-body scanning, and explosive detection devices.
Citizens and residents of, as well as transit passengers from, other countries, all of which are known to harbor terrorists and all of which have majority Muslim populations, will also face enhanced screening. The listed countries are Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen. A curious omission is Indonesia - a nation with a largely Muslim population and a history of terrorist attacks on Westerners and places that they frequent.
This is one small step in the right direction, for which the President should be commended. Unfortunately, he is being hotly criticized by an unholy alliance comprised of the American Civil Liberties Union (and its followers) and extreme right wing privacy advocates.
All for a tiny step in the right direction.
Much more can, and must, be done. Although it would inconvenience me, travellers with their own wheelchairs and prosthetic limbs (particularly if young and Muslim) should be screened very thoroughly. While I do get the pat down, it is incomplete and ineffective. At the same time, compliance with politically correct procedures forbids the screeners to ask me to remove my legs so they can be x-rayed or otherwise examined for contraband.
Must we wait until a wheelchair cushion, or a prosthetic leg, explodes on board before we act on the lessons that can easily be learned from Frederick Forsyth's novel 'Day of the Jackal'?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Predictions
Now is the time when journalists, investment advisers, economists, politicians and other charlatans, expect us to listen respectfully to their predictions for the coming year. The reality is that many of their predictions will never come to pass and much of what does will be trivial.
Before setting pen to paper, or approaching a microphone, members of the commentariat should remind themselves of a saying attributed to the great Yogi Berra:
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
Enough said.
Before setting pen to paper, or approaching a microphone, members of the commentariat should remind themselves of a saying attributed to the great Yogi Berra:
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
Enough said.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Resolutions
Today, New Year's Day, is the traditional time for resolutions that are intended to make each of us a better person.
Unfortunately, all too many of these are excessively ambitious and soon abandoned. The result is that nothing changes. The key may well be modesty: eat a little less rather than try to lose twenty pounds, walk a little more rather than go to the gym every day. Turning off the telephone for an hour or two, every now and then, is a major stress reliever.
The BIG ONE - quitting smoking - is an all or nothing affair but ignore improved health - an amorphous concept - and focus on the money to be saved.
If we all made quite modest lifestyle changes, the impact on America's health care bills and, probably, our happiness would be significant.
Enough of the lecture. Enjoy 2010.
Unfortunately, all too many of these are excessively ambitious and soon abandoned. The result is that nothing changes. The key may well be modesty: eat a little less rather than try to lose twenty pounds, walk a little more rather than go to the gym every day. Turning off the telephone for an hour or two, every now and then, is a major stress reliever.
The BIG ONE - quitting smoking - is an all or nothing affair but ignore improved health - an amorphous concept - and focus on the money to be saved.
If we all made quite modest lifestyle changes, the impact on America's health care bills and, probably, our happiness would be significant.
Enough of the lecture. Enjoy 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
