California Governor
The latest poll shows the approval rating for Arnold Schwarzenegger is down to an all time low of 22%, the same as Gray Davis had when he was recalled. Gee, and Arnold has such potential. I remember that he said he would bring a business approach to State government, would eliminate all that rampant waste, fraud, and abuse, and then balance the budget without raising taxes. Well, the current State budget is $20 billion short of balancing, the same amount as last year, but not to worry. Republican candidate for governor Meg Whitman, former head of EBay, is promising to bring a business approach to government, eliminate all that waste, fraud, and abuse, and balance the budget without raising taxes. Thank goodness we have a Republican candidate for governor bringing fresh ideas to State government!
How Many Times Are You Going To Nuke 'em?
The Obama administion has announced plans to reduce the US nuclear arsenal from a little over 5,000 warhead to only a little over 3,000 warheads, a reduction of about 40%. There go the Democrats again, putting American security at risk. Now instead of being able to destroy the world 25 times over, we will be able to destroy the world only 15 times over. Actually, I am being "conservative." It may be going from 50 times to 30 times since Carl Sagan and a group of scientists calculated that as little as 100 thermonuclear bombs going off could bring about nuclear winter. Remember nuclear winter? Enough nuclear bombs exploding and cities destroyed and the ash, dust, and soot could cover the whole earth, drop temperatures to where it was year around winter for maybe a decade, destroying civilization and much of humanity. But, hey on the good side, this is one way to combat global warming that conservatives could support--bomb (insert your favorite enemy here) back to the stone age and combat global warming at the same time.
The administration also announced that they will increase the amount spent on "modernizing" our nuclear arsenal. That is, they will make sure that those old bombs are replaced or checked for reliability to make sure that they explode when we set out to destroy the world. Considering that the whole point of nuclear weapons is to never drop them, but only use them as a deterrent, I think a little uncertainty about their reliability would be a good thing. A President might be a little more hesitant about launching a nuclear strike if he or she wasn't sure they would work.
Debt Relief Is On The Way
The congressional Republicans have announced plans to find $20 billion in deficit reduction. Thank goodness for their expertise. After all, Bush increased the total US deficit less than two times compared to Reagan's almost three times. Of course, as covered in my last post, Senator John Kyl said deficits don't matter when cutting taxes for the rich. In 2005 the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of the tax cuts to be over $500 billion FOR THAT YEAR ALONE. Oh, and when asked why the Republicans didn't do anything about the deficit when they passed the Medicare drug benefit about half a dozen years ago (adding about $640 billion to the debt over 10 years), Republican Senator Orrin Hatch admitted that they didn't think about those things back then. Of course they made history by being the first legislature anywhere to actually cut taxes during a war. That War in Iraq has added $1 trillion to the deficit and it is still going up daily, albeit much slower now. Thanks to veteran disability payments and other such associated costs, the final bill has been estimated to be between $2 and $3 trillion. But when searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction, money is no object, right?
So, send your ideas for debt reduction to your favorite Republican. Here are a couple of suggestions. In addition to doing away with the Bush tax cuts, how about "re-sizing" the military, to use an au courant term from the world of business. The Defense Department budget has doubled in the last 10 years (we now spend as much as the rest of the world COMBINED). Seeing as how al Qaida is our only real enemy now, I have the following questions. How many submarines and carrier task forces does it take to maintain naval superiority? How many jet fighters will it take to maintain air superiority over al Qaida? How many tanks will it take to defeat them? How many overseas bases? With about 40,000 Marines on Okinawa, I'm sure that island is safe, but is that where they are needed? Since conservatives insist that it must be a "war" against terrorism and not just police action, these are important questions they need to address.
Friday, July 16, 2010
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNEMPLOYED
You can't fool us any longer. We are on to your sleazy game. You are on unemployment just to get the benefits for not working. The jobs are there, you just don't want them! You are a bunch of lazy, dependent good-for- nothings. Many of you will become hobos, because you don't want to work and unemployment payments only encourage your sloth. To pay you reprobates will only increase the deficit without any benefit. So, get off your ass and get a job!
And how do we know the above is true? Why the Republicans have told us so. From the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, the gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania, and from Senator John Kyl of Arizona, just to name a few. And just so you know how important deficits are, John Kyl will set you straight. When asked about the effect on the deficit of the extension of the Bush tax cuts (which he favors), Kyl said that we shouldn't find another revenue source for the lost revenue. Deficits matter only when cutting spending, not when cutting revenue. This, by the way, is in line with the Grover Norquist philosophy: reduce the revenue for the government so that spending has to be curtailed, except for the Defense Department, of course. So gather your pitchforks and torches and demand we cut off spending for the unemployed while cutting taxes for the rich. I'm sure that's fair.
And how do we know the above is true? Why the Republicans have told us so. From the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, the gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania, and from Senator John Kyl of Arizona, just to name a few. And just so you know how important deficits are, John Kyl will set you straight. When asked about the effect on the deficit of the extension of the Bush tax cuts (which he favors), Kyl said that we shouldn't find another revenue source for the lost revenue. Deficits matter only when cutting spending, not when cutting revenue. This, by the way, is in line with the Grover Norquist philosophy: reduce the revenue for the government so that spending has to be curtailed, except for the Defense Department, of course. So gather your pitchforks and torches and demand we cut off spending for the unemployed while cutting taxes for the rich. I'm sure that's fair.
Monday, July 12, 2010
COACHES, MANAGERS, AND THE CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY
The recent death of former football coach Don Coryell, following the death of Coach John Wooden by only a few weeks got me to thinking about what it was that made them successful. Here is a quote from a letter to the editor in the LA Times from Donn Dufford who knew Coach Coryell well. "Like John Wooden , Coach Coryell coached winning teams and was innovative. But what I learned from Don was how to deal with people. He treated each of his players, and everyone he came in contact with, with the utmost respect. He gave you 100% of his attention and was genuinely concerned about your success, on and off the field. He made you feel special and important and vital to the team's success."
When you read about Coach Wooden you see the same sort of traits. His former players say that he wasn't just teaching them basketball, but life lessons. One of Coach Wooden's keys to success is relationships. He has said that friendships are among the most important things in a person's life. He emphasized the achievement of the team above that of the individual, but focused on treating individuals with respect and valued their contributions.
Coach Bear Bryant was a very successful football coach, mostly at the University of Alabama. I read where he criticized his players only when they won. When they lost, he took the blame, saying that he had not done a good enough job of preparing the team for the game. Like all other successful c0oaches he let the individuals know that they were valued and respected.
There is a lot of social science research which shows that this is the best way to achieve success with an organization. Management studies have labeled different approaches as Theory X, Theory Y, and Theory Z. In short, what works best is not top down management, but management which includes and values the contributions of employees and seeks their input. Such organizations have better morale, lower turn over, and higher achievement. Furthermore, once basic salary needs are met, it has been shown that valuing and rewarding employee input is a better motivator than increased salary.
And yet, what do we see in modern American society? Quite the opposite. In the modern corporation the bean counters have won. Employees are treated as cost units, the fewer the better. Rather than being seen as an asset, they are considered a liability. So, what we see all too often is a top down management which uses a slash and burn approach to eliminate employees in order to cut costs to the bone, rather than asking for their ideas to innovate and look for efficiencies. When positions aren't eliminated, then they are outsourced to some place where the employee makes one fifth or one tenth the salary, in large part because the host country has no labor laws or environmental protection. This is the foundation of the conservative obeisance to the free market.
Modern day conservatism is the ultimate expression of what I consider to be an anti-human philosophy. President Hoover reportedly remarked during the depths of the Great Depression that all the the men selling apples on the street was a sign that people were starting their own businesses and recovery was just around the corner. Modern conservatives are just as out of touch. We now have conservative Republicans saying that unemployment insurance encourages unemployment and that people are unemployed because they are dependent and lazy. They don't bother to explain how everyone is supposed to get a ;job when there is an average of five applicants for every job opening. Funny, too, how so many of these same people were busy working and then just left in order to take a drastic cut in income and risk losing their homes, medical insurance, and other assets.
Modern day conservatives seem to be totally lacking in empathy and consumed with personal wealth. Unlike the coaches I mentioned above, they have no concern for the value of others or the success of the organization (in this case, economy and country), as long as they get theirs. About a year or two ago I had some on line correspondence with a conservative about economic issues and I was struck by his overwhelming use of "I messages." Everything was about how much "I" accomplished, how much "I" earned, how much "I" deserved, etc., etc. Folks, if you haven't learned by now that you can't take it with you, you are beyond hope. Who is remembered more, the one who does all he can for himself, or the one who does all he can for others? Modern conservatives only care about themselves.
If you have any doubts, study some recent history. The case study of Saipan is instructive. I first heard about it maybe ten or twelve years ago because of a two part report by Brian Ross of ABC News. I believe it was on the show 20-20. There is a very detailed account in Chapter 9 of The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. Saipan is an American territory in the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. Conservatives hailed it as a laboratory of liberty, a sign that pro-business policies are pro-people policies, a place to seek answers for the rest of America's family (Congressman Brian Bilbray of San Diego County). What brought about these conservative accolades? Unlimited immigration where the immigrants could be bound by contract to a particular employer and couldn't even change jobs without permission, these so-called "guest workers" could be deported for the slightest offense (like objecting to pay or conditions or trying to organize), lax or no enforcement of labor laws and employees could be restricted to barracks by employers, and a low minimum wage. There were other factors, but these are most important and give you an idea of what conditions were like. Thanks to Republican Congressman Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the extension of US labor laws to Saipan was stymied for about a decade until Democrats finally got control of Congress.
What was the result of the above policies? Employees were enticed to work "in America". They were mostly poor women from Asia. They had to work in sweatshop conditions (mostly in the garment industry which used the "Made in America" tag) and some were forced into prostitution and, if they got pregnant, forced to have abortions. They were forbidden to leave their barracks except to go to work and any complaints or problems were met with deportation. Thanks to free market conditions, wages were driven so low for the guest workers that the hourly pay for domestic workers went as low as 64 cents an hour so that people on relief (the natives) could afford to have maids. And rich businessmen controlled the local government. In 2006 Tom DeLay told the Houston Chronicle that we should emulate Saipan and set up a program "where particular companies can bring Mexican workers in," and pay them, "whatever wage the market will bear." (Frank, pp. 229-30)
Since the Gingrich revolution in 1995 the GOP has been captured and run by extreme ideologues such as Howard Phillips and Grover Norquist. Their sole aim is to destroy as much government as possible and let the free market (read huge corporations) control the country. As Norquist famously said, he wants to shrink government so much that you can drown it in a bathtub. As John Dean points out in his book, Broken Government, the Republicans aren't interested in governing, but only want to exercise power in order to enrich their big business friends If they can't do that, they want to stop liberals from doing any good (see p. 23; this was written in 2006). I think the last conservative Republican (who make up about 90% of the party) to be actually concerned about solving problems, was Jack Kemp, who died a few years ago and lost his influence after 1996. We have seen the triumph of anti-human conservatism over the Republican Party. Unfortunately, because of the excellence of Frank Luntz, a political p.r. man, extraordinare, and a compliant, corporation controlled media, the Republicans have managed to control a lot of the political dialog and con a large segment of the American people.
I recommend both the Frank book and John Dean's book, plus Dean's Conservatives Without a Conscience for excellent analyses of modern conservatism. Because they approach the topic from different angles, Frank and Dean are complementary and not duplicative. Finally, I wish to quote from Dean's Broken Government. The following quote, pp. 200-201, is from a former colleague of Dean's who also worked in the Nixon White House and who has a son now working in the Federal government and thus wished to maintain anonymity to protect his son from retaliation (this book was written while Bush was still in power). "Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican Party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican because they are dangerous, dishonest, and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there's not a dime's worth of difference in the parties, that is no longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from the government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."
When you read about Coach Wooden you see the same sort of traits. His former players say that he wasn't just teaching them basketball, but life lessons. One of Coach Wooden's keys to success is relationships. He has said that friendships are among the most important things in a person's life. He emphasized the achievement of the team above that of the individual, but focused on treating individuals with respect and valued their contributions.
Coach Bear Bryant was a very successful football coach, mostly at the University of Alabama. I read where he criticized his players only when they won. When they lost, he took the blame, saying that he had not done a good enough job of preparing the team for the game. Like all other successful c0oaches he let the individuals know that they were valued and respected.
There is a lot of social science research which shows that this is the best way to achieve success with an organization. Management studies have labeled different approaches as Theory X, Theory Y, and Theory Z. In short, what works best is not top down management, but management which includes and values the contributions of employees and seeks their input. Such organizations have better morale, lower turn over, and higher achievement. Furthermore, once basic salary needs are met, it has been shown that valuing and rewarding employee input is a better motivator than increased salary.
And yet, what do we see in modern American society? Quite the opposite. In the modern corporation the bean counters have won. Employees are treated as cost units, the fewer the better. Rather than being seen as an asset, they are considered a liability. So, what we see all too often is a top down management which uses a slash and burn approach to eliminate employees in order to cut costs to the bone, rather than asking for their ideas to innovate and look for efficiencies. When positions aren't eliminated, then they are outsourced to some place where the employee makes one fifth or one tenth the salary, in large part because the host country has no labor laws or environmental protection. This is the foundation of the conservative obeisance to the free market.
Modern day conservatism is the ultimate expression of what I consider to be an anti-human philosophy. President Hoover reportedly remarked during the depths of the Great Depression that all the the men selling apples on the street was a sign that people were starting their own businesses and recovery was just around the corner. Modern conservatives are just as out of touch. We now have conservative Republicans saying that unemployment insurance encourages unemployment and that people are unemployed because they are dependent and lazy. They don't bother to explain how everyone is supposed to get a ;job when there is an average of five applicants for every job opening. Funny, too, how so many of these same people were busy working and then just left in order to take a drastic cut in income and risk losing their homes, medical insurance, and other assets.
Modern day conservatives seem to be totally lacking in empathy and consumed with personal wealth. Unlike the coaches I mentioned above, they have no concern for the value of others or the success of the organization (in this case, economy and country), as long as they get theirs. About a year or two ago I had some on line correspondence with a conservative about economic issues and I was struck by his overwhelming use of "I messages." Everything was about how much "I" accomplished, how much "I" earned, how much "I" deserved, etc., etc. Folks, if you haven't learned by now that you can't take it with you, you are beyond hope. Who is remembered more, the one who does all he can for himself, or the one who does all he can for others? Modern conservatives only care about themselves.
If you have any doubts, study some recent history. The case study of Saipan is instructive. I first heard about it maybe ten or twelve years ago because of a two part report by Brian Ross of ABC News. I believe it was on the show 20-20. There is a very detailed account in Chapter 9 of The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. Saipan is an American territory in the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. Conservatives hailed it as a laboratory of liberty, a sign that pro-business policies are pro-people policies, a place to seek answers for the rest of America's family (Congressman Brian Bilbray of San Diego County). What brought about these conservative accolades? Unlimited immigration where the immigrants could be bound by contract to a particular employer and couldn't even change jobs without permission, these so-called "guest workers" could be deported for the slightest offense (like objecting to pay or conditions or trying to organize), lax or no enforcement of labor laws and employees could be restricted to barracks by employers, and a low minimum wage. There were other factors, but these are most important and give you an idea of what conditions were like. Thanks to Republican Congressman Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the extension of US labor laws to Saipan was stymied for about a decade until Democrats finally got control of Congress.
What was the result of the above policies? Employees were enticed to work "in America". They were mostly poor women from Asia. They had to work in sweatshop conditions (mostly in the garment industry which used the "Made in America" tag) and some were forced into prostitution and, if they got pregnant, forced to have abortions. They were forbidden to leave their barracks except to go to work and any complaints or problems were met with deportation. Thanks to free market conditions, wages were driven so low for the guest workers that the hourly pay for domestic workers went as low as 64 cents an hour so that people on relief (the natives) could afford to have maids. And rich businessmen controlled the local government. In 2006 Tom DeLay told the Houston Chronicle that we should emulate Saipan and set up a program "where particular companies can bring Mexican workers in," and pay them, "whatever wage the market will bear." (Frank, pp. 229-30)
Since the Gingrich revolution in 1995 the GOP has been captured and run by extreme ideologues such as Howard Phillips and Grover Norquist. Their sole aim is to destroy as much government as possible and let the free market (read huge corporations) control the country. As Norquist famously said, he wants to shrink government so much that you can drown it in a bathtub. As John Dean points out in his book, Broken Government, the Republicans aren't interested in governing, but only want to exercise power in order to enrich their big business friends If they can't do that, they want to stop liberals from doing any good (see p. 23; this was written in 2006). I think the last conservative Republican (who make up about 90% of the party) to be actually concerned about solving problems, was Jack Kemp, who died a few years ago and lost his influence after 1996. We have seen the triumph of anti-human conservatism over the Republican Party. Unfortunately, because of the excellence of Frank Luntz, a political p.r. man, extraordinare, and a compliant, corporation controlled media, the Republicans have managed to control a lot of the political dialog and con a large segment of the American people.
I recommend both the Frank book and John Dean's book, plus Dean's Conservatives Without a Conscience for excellent analyses of modern conservatism. Because they approach the topic from different angles, Frank and Dean are complementary and not duplicative. Finally, I wish to quote from Dean's Broken Government. The following quote, pp. 200-201, is from a former colleague of Dean's who also worked in the Nixon White House and who has a son now working in the Federal government and thus wished to maintain anonymity to protect his son from retaliation (this book was written while Bush was still in power). "Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican Party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican because they are dangerous, dishonest, and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there's not a dime's worth of difference in the parties, that is no longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from the government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
THE WORLD CUP
I happen to be a huge soccer fan and the World Cup starts Friday, June 11 and lasts a month. I may not do any posts during that time. And although no one may care, here are some predictions.
Mexico will defeat South Africa in the opening game and will finish first or second in its group and advance to the Round of 16. It may win one game after that, but probably no more because of its deficiencies in defending set plays. When it runs into a physical European team it will probably lose.
The US will lose to England 2-1, but will put a scare into the English. The US will have trouble with Slovenia, but win a close game, beat Algeria and go on to the next round. Like Mexico it may win one more game, but probably no more than that because of some defensive weaknesses which will be exposed by a more skillful team. If, however, the US meets Mexico (a possibility in the quarterfinals), the US should prevail.
I believe that Brazil will win it all because I like their defense and their coach. Spain looks scary good, but I don't think their defense is as good as Brazil's and they will probably come in second or third, depending on when and if they play Brazil. My dark horse is Holland, if they get Arjen Robben back from injury. Argentina has a wealth of talent, but Maradonna seems a terrible coach so I suspect they will be disorganized and under perform. England may get as far as the semifinals, but more likely will fall in the quarters because their best defender is out injured and their goal keeping is not first rate. Italy looks too old and Germany seems to be lacking attacking talent this time. Of those two, Italy may get farther because they always seem to manage to put together a tight defense.
Mexico will defeat South Africa in the opening game and will finish first or second in its group and advance to the Round of 16. It may win one game after that, but probably no more because of its deficiencies in defending set plays. When it runs into a physical European team it will probably lose.
The US will lose to England 2-1, but will put a scare into the English. The US will have trouble with Slovenia, but win a close game, beat Algeria and go on to the next round. Like Mexico it may win one more game, but probably no more than that because of some defensive weaknesses which will be exposed by a more skillful team. If, however, the US meets Mexico (a possibility in the quarterfinals), the US should prevail.
I believe that Brazil will win it all because I like their defense and their coach. Spain looks scary good, but I don't think their defense is as good as Brazil's and they will probably come in second or third, depending on when and if they play Brazil. My dark horse is Holland, if they get Arjen Robben back from injury. Argentina has a wealth of talent, but Maradonna seems a terrible coach so I suspect they will be disorganized and under perform. England may get as far as the semifinals, but more likely will fall in the quarters because their best defender is out injured and their goal keeping is not first rate. Italy looks too old and Germany seems to be lacking attacking talent this time. Of those two, Italy may get farther because they always seem to manage to put together a tight defense.
RATING OBAMA--FOREIGN POLICY
I forgot to include Obama's foreign policy in my previous post on critiquing his performance. I would rate his foreign policy as A- or A. After the Bush presidency, Obama is a true breath of fresh air. He chose just the right tack on the upheaval in Iran and policy vis-a-vis Iran since then. I think he should be removing troops out of Iraq quicker, but that is a minor quibble. He is probably doing the best that can be done in the Israel/Palestine problem. The Netanyahu government seems unmovable and domestic support for Israel is mostly irrational and unyielding. His latest approach on the Israeli blockade of Gaza is probably the best and only approach. It will take some time to revise US foreign policy in this area and bring about any real change. We may not see anything concrete until, hopefully, a second Obama term. We may need a change in Israel's government before any progress can be made.
As I mentioned in my earlier post on rating, too many people voice opinions without knowing what they are talking about. Thus, I have refrained from forming any conclusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan for several reasons. First, the situations may be intractable. As long as Karzai is in charge in Afghanistan, real progress may be very difficult or impossible, yet we cannot force him out; that would be worse. Pakistan is also difficult because of political instability and the fragility of the current government. Second, it is so hard to know what the facts on the ground truly are. I don't know if anyone really knows with precision where the various parties stand in relative strength. Last year I saw a couple of discussions about Pakistan with two different panels on separate occasions. Both panels had three commentators with extensive background and knowledge of Pakistan. The two panels reached pretty much opposite conclusions. One said that Pakistan is so westernized that it will be securely in the western camp for the future and will develop both economically and politically.. The other panel saw a nation in danger of disintegration and adoption of radical Islam. We have a Pakistani friend who recently visited Pakistan and I asked him his opinion. He was kind of in the middle. I still am not sure what to think.
The good news is that General McChrystal, in charge of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, seems to really understand the problem. Whether that and 60,000 more troops will be enough to overcome the Taliban and mis-government by Karzai is an open question. I think that Obama is right to put a timetable on the operation. We can't afford these foreign misadventures any more. Whatever the situation in Pakistan, Obama has gotten more cooperation from Pakistan and the Pakistani military than Bush ever did. This has resulted in real progress against al-Qaida. Obama has also correctly recognized the importance of resolving the Kashmir question between India and Pakistan. Until there is peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan military's effort towards its militants will be somewhat half-hearted. Although he may not be able to solve the problem, at least he recognizes it and is working on it, something that escaped the Bush administration. Also, unlike the Bush administration, Obama recognizes that terrorism is a political problem requiring a political solution, it is not a strictly military problem.
Finally, let me add something that seems to escape the Obama critics. Obama has restored diplomacy to its rightful place in American foreign policy. Diplomacy does not bring results over night, or even within a year, especially after 8 years of alienating both friends and neutrals. And yet we already have seen positive signs. As Churchill once said, it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war. Military force rarely goes smoothly and almost always brings about unanticipated adverse consequences. Whatever diplomacy's failings, it should be the first resort and force the last resort.
As I mentioned in my earlier post on rating, too many people voice opinions without knowing what they are talking about. Thus, I have refrained from forming any conclusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan for several reasons. First, the situations may be intractable. As long as Karzai is in charge in Afghanistan, real progress may be very difficult or impossible, yet we cannot force him out; that would be worse. Pakistan is also difficult because of political instability and the fragility of the current government. Second, it is so hard to know what the facts on the ground truly are. I don't know if anyone really knows with precision where the various parties stand in relative strength. Last year I saw a couple of discussions about Pakistan with two different panels on separate occasions. Both panels had three commentators with extensive background and knowledge of Pakistan. The two panels reached pretty much opposite conclusions. One said that Pakistan is so westernized that it will be securely in the western camp for the future and will develop both economically and politically.. The other panel saw a nation in danger of disintegration and adoption of radical Islam. We have a Pakistani friend who recently visited Pakistan and I asked him his opinion. He was kind of in the middle. I still am not sure what to think.
The good news is that General McChrystal, in charge of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, seems to really understand the problem. Whether that and 60,000 more troops will be enough to overcome the Taliban and mis-government by Karzai is an open question. I think that Obama is right to put a timetable on the operation. We can't afford these foreign misadventures any more. Whatever the situation in Pakistan, Obama has gotten more cooperation from Pakistan and the Pakistani military than Bush ever did. This has resulted in real progress against al-Qaida. Obama has also correctly recognized the importance of resolving the Kashmir question between India and Pakistan. Until there is peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan military's effort towards its militants will be somewhat half-hearted. Although he may not be able to solve the problem, at least he recognizes it and is working on it, something that escaped the Bush administration. Also, unlike the Bush administration, Obama recognizes that terrorism is a political problem requiring a political solution, it is not a strictly military problem.
Finally, let me add something that seems to escape the Obama critics. Obama has restored diplomacy to its rightful place in American foreign policy. Diplomacy does not bring results over night, or even within a year, especially after 8 years of alienating both friends and neutrals. And yet we already have seen positive signs. As Churchill once said, it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war. Military force rarely goes smoothly and almost always brings about unanticipated adverse consequences. Whatever diplomacy's failings, it should be the first resort and force the last resort.
2009 AWARDS
Jeanne Kirkpatrick Award
Last year I began giving out two awards that I have long had in mind and almost forgot this year, so I'm a little late with these. As a reminder, the Jeanne Kirkpatrick award is given to someone who says something so stupid that he or she should immediately lose all credibility. I also give this award to those who should know better, but don't. Jeanne Kirkpatrick had a Phd. in Political Science and was US Ambassador to the UN, among other things. She thought the US should support Argentina, not England, in the Falklands War, gaining immediate infamy.
This year I give the award not to any individual, but a group of individuals--the Chicago School of economists. These well educated dunderheads continue to maintain that markets will self-regulate and need no government regulation. The support a completely libertarian philosphy and, as part of that philosophy, believe that people make rational economic decisions, on the basis of what is best for them economically. Thus, with their philosophy, bubbles are impossible because they are irrational. A recent special on PBS showed social science experiments where people behaved very irrationally, paying more than $20 for a $20 bill, for example, at an auction. When faced with the results of these experiments, the economists simply refused to believe them and just kept repeating this philosophical tenants like some religious chant. Of course there are hundreds of years of economic history which also invalidates their beliefs, starting with the Dutch tulip bubble of about 400+ years ago. But, let's not have facts get in the way of our beliefs.
The Bull Connor Award
This award is named after the sheriff in Alabama who so mistreated civil rights marchers in the early 1960's, that he probably did more to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anyone. In other words, he screwed up so badly that he got the exact opposite outcome from what he intended.
I am giving this year's award to The Tea Party. This group of neanderthals is both extreme and extremely ignorant. Although we have not yet seen the fruits of their labors, I predict that they will succeed in driving the Republican Party so far to the right that they will alienate the vast majority of independents, greatly reducing Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. The winner of the Republican Party primary in Nevada for US Senate to oppose Harry Reid is so ridiculous that Reid now has gone from being in real trouble to most likely victorious. This woman is against social security, fluoridation, thinks we should reduce regulations on oil drilling (what oil spill?), and so on. You have to be out of your mind to support these kind of policies.
Last year I began giving out two awards that I have long had in mind and almost forgot this year, so I'm a little late with these. As a reminder, the Jeanne Kirkpatrick award is given to someone who says something so stupid that he or she should immediately lose all credibility. I also give this award to those who should know better, but don't. Jeanne Kirkpatrick had a Phd. in Political Science and was US Ambassador to the UN, among other things. She thought the US should support Argentina, not England, in the Falklands War, gaining immediate infamy.
This year I give the award not to any individual, but a group of individuals--the Chicago School of economists. These well educated dunderheads continue to maintain that markets will self-regulate and need no government regulation. The support a completely libertarian philosphy and, as part of that philosophy, believe that people make rational economic decisions, on the basis of what is best for them economically. Thus, with their philosophy, bubbles are impossible because they are irrational. A recent special on PBS showed social science experiments where people behaved very irrationally, paying more than $20 for a $20 bill, for example, at an auction. When faced with the results of these experiments, the economists simply refused to believe them and just kept repeating this philosophical tenants like some religious chant. Of course there are hundreds of years of economic history which also invalidates their beliefs, starting with the Dutch tulip bubble of about 400+ years ago. But, let's not have facts get in the way of our beliefs.
The Bull Connor Award
This award is named after the sheriff in Alabama who so mistreated civil rights marchers in the early 1960's, that he probably did more to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anyone. In other words, he screwed up so badly that he got the exact opposite outcome from what he intended.
I am giving this year's award to The Tea Party. This group of neanderthals is both extreme and extremely ignorant. Although we have not yet seen the fruits of their labors, I predict that they will succeed in driving the Republican Party so far to the right that they will alienate the vast majority of independents, greatly reducing Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. The winner of the Republican Party primary in Nevada for US Senate to oppose Harry Reid is so ridiculous that Reid now has gone from being in real trouble to most likely victorious. This woman is against social security, fluoridation, thinks we should reduce regulations on oil drilling (what oil spill?), and so on. You have to be out of your mind to support these kind of policies.
ECONOMIC DANGERS
I suppose to protect myself I should say that I am not a financial adviser and the following is not financial advice. I have become concerned with recent economic developments. So-called deficit hawks, which seem to include most blue dog Democrats, seem to be in the ascendancy. An attempt to fund unemployment benefit payments and COBRA subsidies is floundering in the House, as is an attempt to provide states with $23 billion so that hundreds of thousands of teachers will not be laid off. The jobs /unemployment report for May included the information that 22,000 jobs were lost in that month in state and local government. In fact, because state and local governments have to have balanced budgets, they have cut back their spending by $150 to $200 billion over the last year or so. In addition, in Europe we see the same sort of attitude expressing itself in some countries, especially Germany and England. The result may very well to strangle the economic recovery, or at least slow it way down. You might be as well off putting your money under the mattress right now as investing it somewhere.
Don't be misled by those who gravely warn of the dangers of the deficit and looming inflation. The Great Depression provides the perfect social science laboratory for what government policies to follow and what not to do. Under Hoover, before the Crash, the unemployment rate was estimated at 3%. After the crash Hoover insisted on balanced budgets, was strongly opposed to any government relief efforts (there was no unemployment insurance then, or food stamps, or anything on the Federal level, a few states tried to do something, but they quickly ran out of money). The result was that by March, 1933, when FDR assumed the presidency, the unemployment rate was an estimated 25% and the GDP had fallen about 40%. Under FDR unemployment fell and GDP rose every year, except one. That year was 1937, the only year that FDR ran a balanced budget. As soon as he balanced the budget the unemployment rate went up and the GDP fell. When he resumed deficit spending, the economy rose again.
I remember reading that a wag once said that if you teach a parrot how to say "supply and demand", you have created another economist. However, modern day conservative economists seem to believe that the key phrase should be supply and investment. They pretty much ignore the demand side of the equation. In a severe recession the demand side needs to be pumped up by government spending. The historical record is clear on this.
The famous economist John Maynard Keynes was once accused of flip flopping. He replied something like this. "When I get new information that calls into question my previous theories and/or conclusions, I re-evaluate those theories and conclusions and revise them on the basis of the new information when called for. What do you do?" What conservatives do is close their eyes and pretend the new information doesn't exist. So we get conservatives saying the stimulus bill didn't work, despite the fact that before the bill we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month. After the bill was passed job losses declined every month until January, 2010 when we had the first job gains in about two years. We have had job gains every month since then. Yet this is somehow "not working."
We need to keep deficit spending until there has been a major improvement in unemployment. Please write your congress person, your newspaper, internet news site, etc. to support continued government spending. The best way to balance the budget is to put people back to work, reduce defense spending, and re-institute a truly progressive income tax.
Don't be misled by those who gravely warn of the dangers of the deficit and looming inflation. The Great Depression provides the perfect social science laboratory for what government policies to follow and what not to do. Under Hoover, before the Crash, the unemployment rate was estimated at 3%. After the crash Hoover insisted on balanced budgets, was strongly opposed to any government relief efforts (there was no unemployment insurance then, or food stamps, or anything on the Federal level, a few states tried to do something, but they quickly ran out of money). The result was that by March, 1933, when FDR assumed the presidency, the unemployment rate was an estimated 25% and the GDP had fallen about 40%. Under FDR unemployment fell and GDP rose every year, except one. That year was 1937, the only year that FDR ran a balanced budget. As soon as he balanced the budget the unemployment rate went up and the GDP fell. When he resumed deficit spending, the economy rose again.
I remember reading that a wag once said that if you teach a parrot how to say "supply and demand", you have created another economist. However, modern day conservative economists seem to believe that the key phrase should be supply and investment. They pretty much ignore the demand side of the equation. In a severe recession the demand side needs to be pumped up by government spending. The historical record is clear on this.
The famous economist John Maynard Keynes was once accused of flip flopping. He replied something like this. "When I get new information that calls into question my previous theories and/or conclusions, I re-evaluate those theories and conclusions and revise them on the basis of the new information when called for. What do you do?" What conservatives do is close their eyes and pretend the new information doesn't exist. So we get conservatives saying the stimulus bill didn't work, despite the fact that before the bill we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month. After the bill was passed job losses declined every month until January, 2010 when we had the first job gains in about two years. We have had job gains every month since then. Yet this is somehow "not working."
We need to keep deficit spending until there has been a major improvement in unemployment. Please write your congress person, your newspaper, internet news site, etc. to support continued government spending. The best way to balance the budget is to put people back to work, reduce defense spending, and re-institute a truly progressive income tax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)