A week ago a bank in the building my wife works in posted a sign "We will be closed for the winter holiday". Now their sign reads, "We will be closed for New Year's Day". If naming Christmas is unacceptable in today's multicultural world then why is New Years acceptable? It is not the Chinese new year nor the Jewish new year nor the Islamic new year. They all have their own calendars and numbering systems.
Until recently we expressed the date as AD for "amno domini" which is Latin for "year of our lord" based on a calculation of when Christ was born. Dates less than zero were "BC" for Before Christ. This has been relabeled "common era" so tomorrow night we will celebrate the start of 2012 CE.
The modern calendar has a lot of the same heritage as Christmas. The date for each came from Roman holidays. It and the Catholic Church are the two main Roman institutions continuing in the modern world. The current calendar was created by Pope Gregory XIII. Because it was seen as a Catholic calendar it was not adopted for centuries by protestant countries (England adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 18th century, Russia and Greece in the 20th century).
The Gregorian calendar is the most accurate in general use which is why it is the unofficial standard for the world but it is still tied to Christianity and Europe. You would think that it would be just as culturally insensitive as Christmas which is celebrated in many non-Christian countries (China and Japan to name two).
Maybe I shouldn't be pointing this out. I could start a war on New Years.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Waiting for Reagan
Republicans still seem to be waiting for the next Reagan to appear. It isn't going to happen this election. Politicians like Reagan appear rarely - once in one or two generations and it takes far more than wanting to be Reagan to actually accomplish it. Barack Obama proved this. He expected to be a transitional president like Reagan or FDR. At best he has been an LBJ, creating an expensive new entitlement while polarizing the country.
If there is a new Reagan on the horizon he is probably a first-term governor of a large state. I can think of a half-dozen likely candidates but none of them have the experience or accomplishments for a presidential run. That is 4-8 years off.
In the meantime, I'd like to point out how hard it might be to recognize the next Reagan. The original one did not have a cake-walk to the White House.
California was a bit of a national joke while Reagan was governor. The idea of an actor running a state seemed preposterous. He was not really taken seriously until he bought airtime and addressed the nation during his run in 1976. He lost. The party was not going to force a sitting president out of office, even if he was unelected (Ford became Vice-President after Agnew resigned and President after Nixon resigned. 1976 was his first time on a national ballot). The high point for Reagan came at the Republican convention when he was nominated. A few minutes were set aside for a demonstration by his supporters. It exceeded the time allotted by an hour. Reagan's supporters were dedicated even if his candidacy was doomed.
Reagan's 1976 run caused some hard feelings. Ford dying believing that he would have won the election if Reagan had supported him.
While Reagan did win the nomination in 1980, George H. W. Bush made him work for it. Many Republicans worried that Reagan was too conservative and preferred the more moderate Bush. Plus the Ford supporters were still angry about 1976.
Polls taken during the Summer showed that voters were dissatisfied with both candidates. A theoretical challenger polled higher than either Reagan or Carter. John Anderson took advantage of that and ran as an independent. Anderson was the last liberal Republican and hoped to capture the dissatisfied voters. He probably did not affect the election - even if everyone who voted for Anderson had voted for Carter, Reagan still would have won.
The final polls before the election showed Reagan and Carter tied with a large block still undecided. Voters were still dissatisfied with both candidates. Several political cartoons that ran the day of the election showed the voters flipping coins to decide who to vote for.
It turned out that most of the undecided voters broke for Reagan. This was unusual. Undecideds usually break for the incumbent. Reagan always had a large percentage of closet voters - people who would not admit to voting for him, even to a stranger taking a poll.
Reagan had deep coattails and the Republicans took the Senate. This did not last. The economy entered a double-dip recession and unemployment hit a post-depression high. In 1982 the Democrats ran against Reagan and made huge gains in Congress and in state governments. The only Republican to challenge an incumbent Democrat and win was John Kasich and he was aided by redistricting.
The reason we remember Reagan so fondly is that he was able to work with a Democrat-controlled Congress and still pass a conservative agenda. Also, unlike the current recovery, the recovery in 1983 was robust. Unemployment was still high in 1984 but it was dropping fast and people felt good about their country and its future. Reagan also realigned the electoral map. The south went from being a stronghold for conservative Democrats to one for Republicans. Reagan was not able to reverse the growth of government but he slowed it.
None of the current group of candidates is likely to be able to match Reagan's successes. Even Reagan could not. There are no tools left to use. Taxes have already been cut, interest rates lowered and the deficit run up to unsustainable levels. Massive deregulation might help but it is hard to believe that Romney or Gingrich would want to shrink government enough to help and Ron Paul has no chance of winning (or getting anything passed if he won).
That leaves that group of governors. Several are charismatic and dedicated to reshaping government. One of them might be able to take up where Reagan left off. But they need a success on the state level to run on.
In the meantime we need to settle for the most electable candidate to prevent the Obama administration from permanently messing up the economy.
If there is a new Reagan on the horizon he is probably a first-term governor of a large state. I can think of a half-dozen likely candidates but none of them have the experience or accomplishments for a presidential run. That is 4-8 years off.
In the meantime, I'd like to point out how hard it might be to recognize the next Reagan. The original one did not have a cake-walk to the White House.
California was a bit of a national joke while Reagan was governor. The idea of an actor running a state seemed preposterous. He was not really taken seriously until he bought airtime and addressed the nation during his run in 1976. He lost. The party was not going to force a sitting president out of office, even if he was unelected (Ford became Vice-President after Agnew resigned and President after Nixon resigned. 1976 was his first time on a national ballot). The high point for Reagan came at the Republican convention when he was nominated. A few minutes were set aside for a demonstration by his supporters. It exceeded the time allotted by an hour. Reagan's supporters were dedicated even if his candidacy was doomed.
Reagan's 1976 run caused some hard feelings. Ford dying believing that he would have won the election if Reagan had supported him.
While Reagan did win the nomination in 1980, George H. W. Bush made him work for it. Many Republicans worried that Reagan was too conservative and preferred the more moderate Bush. Plus the Ford supporters were still angry about 1976.
Polls taken during the Summer showed that voters were dissatisfied with both candidates. A theoretical challenger polled higher than either Reagan or Carter. John Anderson took advantage of that and ran as an independent. Anderson was the last liberal Republican and hoped to capture the dissatisfied voters. He probably did not affect the election - even if everyone who voted for Anderson had voted for Carter, Reagan still would have won.
The final polls before the election showed Reagan and Carter tied with a large block still undecided. Voters were still dissatisfied with both candidates. Several political cartoons that ran the day of the election showed the voters flipping coins to decide who to vote for.
It turned out that most of the undecided voters broke for Reagan. This was unusual. Undecideds usually break for the incumbent. Reagan always had a large percentage of closet voters - people who would not admit to voting for him, even to a stranger taking a poll.
Reagan had deep coattails and the Republicans took the Senate. This did not last. The economy entered a double-dip recession and unemployment hit a post-depression high. In 1982 the Democrats ran against Reagan and made huge gains in Congress and in state governments. The only Republican to challenge an incumbent Democrat and win was John Kasich and he was aided by redistricting.
The reason we remember Reagan so fondly is that he was able to work with a Democrat-controlled Congress and still pass a conservative agenda. Also, unlike the current recovery, the recovery in 1983 was robust. Unemployment was still high in 1984 but it was dropping fast and people felt good about their country and its future. Reagan also realigned the electoral map. The south went from being a stronghold for conservative Democrats to one for Republicans. Reagan was not able to reverse the growth of government but he slowed it.
None of the current group of candidates is likely to be able to match Reagan's successes. Even Reagan could not. There are no tools left to use. Taxes have already been cut, interest rates lowered and the deficit run up to unsustainable levels. Massive deregulation might help but it is hard to believe that Romney or Gingrich would want to shrink government enough to help and Ron Paul has no chance of winning (or getting anything passed if he won).
That leaves that group of governors. Several are charismatic and dedicated to reshaping government. One of them might be able to take up where Reagan left off. But they need a success on the state level to run on.
In the meantime we need to settle for the most electable candidate to prevent the Obama administration from permanently messing up the economy.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Our Non-functional Congress
The mess surrounding the payroll tax cut (technically a Social Security tax holiday) shows once and for all that Congress is dysfunctional. The Democrats' great triumph was to kick the can down the road - and not very far. The extension that was passes was just long enough for Congress to go on break and start bickering again. A two month extension will not stimulate the economy. Neither will a ten month extension beyond that. The amount of the cut (around $20/week) is too small to do any real stimulating.
The tax cut was originally sold as an economic stimulus but the economy continued to languish so it should have been allowed to expire. Yes, that would have raised taxes on most workers but consider the consequences of continuing it. This tax funds Social Security. Cutting it turned a small surplus into a deficit. The country cannot stop writing Social Security checks so the Treasury has to make up the difference by borrowing so this tax cut adds to the deficit.
The Democrats' solution to this was to make up the difference by taxing millionaires. That would probably be the first step in turning Social Security from a self-funded entitlement (albeit, one with a demographic time bomb) into an income transfer from the rich to the elderly.
There is the source of the deadlocks. The Democrats want to reshape tax policy to redistribute income. The Republicans simply want to raise the money needed to run government. The Democrats see the growing divide between the rich and poor as a problem that needs an immediate solution. The Republicans see government policy as an impediment to growth which will benefit everyone.
In addition to genuine disagreements about the role of government, the Democrats have decided that the path to success at the polls is to allow the Republicans to offer solutions for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Once the Republicans' plans are on the table, the Democrats can pretend that there is no problem and accuse the Republicans of trying to end these programs. The Democrats' insistence that the Republicans are trying to end Medicare was labeled the "Lie of the year" by Politifact. Politifact points out that the Democrats would be on solid ground if they said that the Republicans were trying to privatize Medicare. Instead, the Democrats use the description "end", accompanied by video of a Republican literally throwing an old woman over a cliff.
According to the book Confidence Men, the Obama administration began health care reform with the intention of controlling costs. After switching their focus to insurance reform, their plan for controlling costs evolved. It now consists of doing nothing as long as possible in the hope that the eventual imminent disaster will break the deadlock.
So, how did we end up at this point?
Congress has always been divided but for most of the 20th century both parties had liberal and conservative members.That changed in the late 1970s. Ronald Reagan established a new Republican coalition of conservatives, Christian fundamentalists (including anti-abortion activists), and libertarians. The party ejected liberals and welcomed conservative Democrats, especially ones from the south who felt that the Democratic Party had left them behind.
The Democrats controlled the House for generations. With the retirement of Speaker Tip O'Neall, the Democrats began using parliamentary tricks to stop Republicans from offering amendments. This lead to a more confrontational Republican party. Newt Gingrich won the position of Minority Whip by promising to be more aggressive. He lived up to this, going so far as to undercut President George H. W. Bush's tax compromise (to this day, Bush still thinks of Gingrich as a "bomb thrower").
In 1992 the Democrats won the Presidency and both houses of Congress. New Democratic members of the House were asked to swear that they would not work with the Republicans. Two years later the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress with Newt as Speaker.
While President Clinton took the "third way" as a moderate, the liberal wing of the Democrats fumed. Enough of them defected to Ralph Nader's 3rd party run in 2000 to elect George W. Bush.
Just as Clinton was a center-left Democrat, Bush was a center-right Republican. The Left fumed over such things as the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. The fact that the Democrats did nothing to end these when they retook Congress in 2006 just made the Left more angry.
Just as eight years of Clinton's center-left policies revitalized the far left, eight years of Bush's center-right (plus a couple of months of Obama's far left government) revitalized the far right. Moderates from both parties have been targeted by their own party. The most prominent of these was Joe Lieberman whose lifetime voting records was 90% liberal but was pro-Iraq war.
Which brings us to today. Neither party allows moderates to chair powerful committees. Thanks to Gingrich, the Republicans are against any tax increases. The Democrats are against any changes that do not raise the tax rate paid by the rich. During the Super-committee meetings the Republicans offered a package that would have lowered the marginal tax rates while eliminating deductions with the result of raising revenue. The Democrats rejected this and anything else that did not include $1 trillion in new taxes on the rich.
Neither side has any room left for negotiation and, with an election approaching, each is afraid of making any serious proposals.
So, where does that leave us? At best, Congress will be deadlocked until the next election. Possibly one side of the other will win big enough to crush the opposition. The other possibility is that a less-polarizing Republican will win and be able to work with the Democrats. President Obama has already shown that he has no desire to work with the Republicans so a status-quo election would result in 2-4 more years of deadlock while the country's financial problems continue to grow.
The tax cut was originally sold as an economic stimulus but the economy continued to languish so it should have been allowed to expire. Yes, that would have raised taxes on most workers but consider the consequences of continuing it. This tax funds Social Security. Cutting it turned a small surplus into a deficit. The country cannot stop writing Social Security checks so the Treasury has to make up the difference by borrowing so this tax cut adds to the deficit.
The Democrats' solution to this was to make up the difference by taxing millionaires. That would probably be the first step in turning Social Security from a self-funded entitlement (albeit, one with a demographic time bomb) into an income transfer from the rich to the elderly.
There is the source of the deadlocks. The Democrats want to reshape tax policy to redistribute income. The Republicans simply want to raise the money needed to run government. The Democrats see the growing divide between the rich and poor as a problem that needs an immediate solution. The Republicans see government policy as an impediment to growth which will benefit everyone.
In addition to genuine disagreements about the role of government, the Democrats have decided that the path to success at the polls is to allow the Republicans to offer solutions for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Once the Republicans' plans are on the table, the Democrats can pretend that there is no problem and accuse the Republicans of trying to end these programs. The Democrats' insistence that the Republicans are trying to end Medicare was labeled the "Lie of the year" by Politifact. Politifact points out that the Democrats would be on solid ground if they said that the Republicans were trying to privatize Medicare. Instead, the Democrats use the description "end", accompanied by video of a Republican literally throwing an old woman over a cliff.
According to the book Confidence Men, the Obama administration began health care reform with the intention of controlling costs. After switching their focus to insurance reform, their plan for controlling costs evolved. It now consists of doing nothing as long as possible in the hope that the eventual imminent disaster will break the deadlock.
So, how did we end up at this point?
Congress has always been divided but for most of the 20th century both parties had liberal and conservative members.That changed in the late 1970s. Ronald Reagan established a new Republican coalition of conservatives, Christian fundamentalists (including anti-abortion activists), and libertarians. The party ejected liberals and welcomed conservative Democrats, especially ones from the south who felt that the Democratic Party had left them behind.
The Democrats controlled the House for generations. With the retirement of Speaker Tip O'Neall, the Democrats began using parliamentary tricks to stop Republicans from offering amendments. This lead to a more confrontational Republican party. Newt Gingrich won the position of Minority Whip by promising to be more aggressive. He lived up to this, going so far as to undercut President George H. W. Bush's tax compromise (to this day, Bush still thinks of Gingrich as a "bomb thrower").
In 1992 the Democrats won the Presidency and both houses of Congress. New Democratic members of the House were asked to swear that they would not work with the Republicans. Two years later the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress with Newt as Speaker.
While President Clinton took the "third way" as a moderate, the liberal wing of the Democrats fumed. Enough of them defected to Ralph Nader's 3rd party run in 2000 to elect George W. Bush.
Just as Clinton was a center-left Democrat, Bush was a center-right Republican. The Left fumed over such things as the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. The fact that the Democrats did nothing to end these when they retook Congress in 2006 just made the Left more angry.
Just as eight years of Clinton's center-left policies revitalized the far left, eight years of Bush's center-right (plus a couple of months of Obama's far left government) revitalized the far right. Moderates from both parties have been targeted by their own party. The most prominent of these was Joe Lieberman whose lifetime voting records was 90% liberal but was pro-Iraq war.
Which brings us to today. Neither party allows moderates to chair powerful committees. Thanks to Gingrich, the Republicans are against any tax increases. The Democrats are against any changes that do not raise the tax rate paid by the rich. During the Super-committee meetings the Republicans offered a package that would have lowered the marginal tax rates while eliminating deductions with the result of raising revenue. The Democrats rejected this and anything else that did not include $1 trillion in new taxes on the rich.
Neither side has any room left for negotiation and, with an election approaching, each is afraid of making any serious proposals.
So, where does that leave us? At best, Congress will be deadlocked until the next election. Possibly one side of the other will win big enough to crush the opposition. The other possibility is that a less-polarizing Republican will win and be able to work with the Democrats. President Obama has already shown that he has no desire to work with the Republicans so a status-quo election would result in 2-4 more years of deadlock while the country's financial problems continue to grow.
Friday, December 23, 2011
The Economics of Scrooge
Slate recently published an article entitled "What I like about Scrooge" by Steven E. Landsburg. It offers up various of Scrooge's pre-redemption traits as admirable and worthy of emulation. If this article is to be believed, the spirits of Christmas did Scrooge and the world a disservice by reforming Scrooge. He was a better man as a miser.
Landsburg lays out his case:
We can see from this that Landsburg views the world as a zero-sum system. There is a fixed amount of everything and the only way that anyone can have more is if someone else has less. He expands on this:
All of this puts Landsburg at odds with leading economic theory. The whole idea of economic stimulus is that money, once earned, is spent again. The speed that people earn and spend money determines economic growth. When this slows then the economy contracts causing a recession or a depression. For the last four years, economic policy has been centered on encouraging people to spend more money. Economists devote their careers to calculating how to get the most benefit from spending. While they disagree on how money should be spent, they are unanimous that taking money out of circulation is the worst thing that can happen.
Landsburg even gives examples of this. His hypothetical coal miner could have made more money if Scrooge expanded the market. Instead he either has to look for alternate sources of income or just live without (which Landsburg would probably applaud). One wonders if Landsburg would appreciate the freedom of selling fewer articles?
Ironically, Scrooge's income depends on people behaving differently than Scrooge himself. Dickens never specifies what Scrooge does. He is often portrayed as a money lender but Dickens describes his business as being in a warehouse and Scrooge is familiar with the exchanges. Possibly he is a speculator, buying and selling commodities for a profit. Regardless, his income depends on demand for something - money, commodities, etc.
It should also be pointed out that Scrooge's behavior goes beyond simple miserliness. If Scrooge was solely interested in money then he would never pass up a free meal at his nephew's expense. A better explanation is that Scrooge was punishing himself for choices made in his youth. It was only after facing those choices and the eventual resolution that he comes out of his shell and becomes a friend to his nephew and employee.
So why did Landsburg write such an article? Possibly he is a devoted follower of Al Gore and sincerely wants everyone to live like Scrooge in an effort to conserve the planet's resources (a sacrifice that Gore himself is unwilling to make). More likely this was just an attempt to fit Slate's format of justifying counter-intuitive titles.
Merry Christmas
Landsburg lays out his case:
Here's what I like about Ebenezer Scrooge: His meager lodgings were dark because darkness is cheap, and barely heated because coal is not free. His dinner was gruel, which he prepared himself. Scrooge paid no man to wait on him.
Scrooge has been called ungenerous. I say that's a bum rap. What could be more generous than keeping your lamps unlit and your plate unfilled, leaving more fuel for others to burn and more food for others to eat? Who is a more benevolent neighbor than the man who employs no servants, freeing them to wait on someone else?
We can see from this that Landsburg views the world as a zero-sum system. There is a fixed amount of everything and the only way that anyone can have more is if someone else has less. He expands on this:
Oh, it might be slightly more complicated than that. Maybe when Scrooge demands less coal for his fire, less coal ends up being mined. But that's fine, too. Instead of digging coal for Scrooge, some would-be miner is now free to perform some other service for himself or someone else.
{...} In this whole world, there is nobody more generous than the miser—the man who could deplete the world's resources but chooses not to. The only difference between miserliness and philanthropy is that the philanthropist serves a favored few while the miser spreads his largess far and wide.
All of this puts Landsburg at odds with leading economic theory. The whole idea of economic stimulus is that money, once earned, is spent again. The speed that people earn and spend money determines economic growth. When this slows then the economy contracts causing a recession or a depression. For the last four years, economic policy has been centered on encouraging people to spend more money. Economists devote their careers to calculating how to get the most benefit from spending. While they disagree on how money should be spent, they are unanimous that taking money out of circulation is the worst thing that can happen.
Landsburg even gives examples of this. His hypothetical coal miner could have made more money if Scrooge expanded the market. Instead he either has to look for alternate sources of income or just live without (which Landsburg would probably applaud). One wonders if Landsburg would appreciate the freedom of selling fewer articles?
Ironically, Scrooge's income depends on people behaving differently than Scrooge himself. Dickens never specifies what Scrooge does. He is often portrayed as a money lender but Dickens describes his business as being in a warehouse and Scrooge is familiar with the exchanges. Possibly he is a speculator, buying and selling commodities for a profit. Regardless, his income depends on demand for something - money, commodities, etc.
It should also be pointed out that Scrooge's behavior goes beyond simple miserliness. If Scrooge was solely interested in money then he would never pass up a free meal at his nephew's expense. A better explanation is that Scrooge was punishing himself for choices made in his youth. It was only after facing those choices and the eventual resolution that he comes out of his shell and becomes a friend to his nephew and employee.
So why did Landsburg write such an article? Possibly he is a devoted follower of Al Gore and sincerely wants everyone to live like Scrooge in an effort to conserve the planet's resources (a sacrifice that Gore himself is unwilling to make). More likely this was just an attempt to fit Slate's format of justifying counter-intuitive titles.
Merry Christmas
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
War on Christmas or on Christians?
A few years ago many (most) large retailers stopped using the word "Christmas". Instead they simply suggested that you might want to buy presents for some unnamed occasion. Even Christmas trees were relabeled "holiday trees" or "family trees". A search for Christmas merchandise on Walmart's web site helpfully corrected suggested "did you mean Holiday?". This was labeled the War on Christmas and pressure was put on retailers to go back to referring to December 25th as Christmas instead of the Winter Holiday.
This year I have seen a number of people on the left insist that there never was a war on Christmas. It was all an invention by Fox News. People who avoided the word "Christmas" only did it out of sensitivity to the many non-Christians among us who might feel oppressed by hearing the name of an important Christian holiday.
In prior years some of the more honest on the left have said that they have no problem with Christians celebrating Christmas as long as they do it in their own homes.
A recent column by Linda Chavez put this in perspective. Strangely, the column had nothing to do with Christmas. It was about the reaction to football player Tim Tebow who is known for praying in public. Chavez quotes Connecticut Rabbi Joshua Hammerman who wrote in Jewish Week:
I had forgotten that the left thinks like this.
Here is the background on Hammerman's column. Sometime in the last few decades a group of intellectuals decided that Christianity is an intolerant and destructive religion and, if left unchecked, it will inevitably lead to another Holocaust. Accordingly, public expressions of Christianity must be suppressed. Further, politicians with strong religious beliefs are to be feared.
Once you know that the left thinks this way then the war on Christmas and the attacks on Tebow are easily understood.
The strange thing about this belief is how strongly it is rooted in the left's consciousness. It colors their views of everything else.
The TV show All American Muslims is an example. This shows on TLC and is designed to convince Americans that Muslims are just like everyone else. Since a show about normal people doing normal things is boring, the ratings for the show are dismal. Sponsors have dropped the show which has caused an uproar from the left (which does not watch the show, either).
But here's the thing - world-wide, there is much more violence being done in the name of Islam than Christ but it is ingrained into the left that only Christianity is violent. That world-view leaves them unable to see anyone else as violent or intolerant. Any attempts to point out flaws in Islam or elsewhere are taken as examples of Christian intolerance.
Which leaves us with a group that actually is trying to suppress any public mention of Christianity including Christmas. Right now they are failing so their fallback solution is to insist that this was never more than an invention by Fox News. But every now and then someone lets their real feeling slip in public.
This year I have seen a number of people on the left insist that there never was a war on Christmas. It was all an invention by Fox News. People who avoided the word "Christmas" only did it out of sensitivity to the many non-Christians among us who might feel oppressed by hearing the name of an important Christian holiday.
In prior years some of the more honest on the left have said that they have no problem with Christians celebrating Christmas as long as they do it in their own homes.
A recent column by Linda Chavez put this in perspective. Strangely, the column had nothing to do with Christmas. It was about the reaction to football player Tim Tebow who is known for praying in public. Chavez quotes Connecticut Rabbi Joshua Hammerman who wrote in Jewish Week:
If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants.
I had forgotten that the left thinks like this.
Here is the background on Hammerman's column. Sometime in the last few decades a group of intellectuals decided that Christianity is an intolerant and destructive religion and, if left unchecked, it will inevitably lead to another Holocaust. Accordingly, public expressions of Christianity must be suppressed. Further, politicians with strong religious beliefs are to be feared.
Once you know that the left thinks this way then the war on Christmas and the attacks on Tebow are easily understood.
The strange thing about this belief is how strongly it is rooted in the left's consciousness. It colors their views of everything else.
The TV show All American Muslims is an example. This shows on TLC and is designed to convince Americans that Muslims are just like everyone else. Since a show about normal people doing normal things is boring, the ratings for the show are dismal. Sponsors have dropped the show which has caused an uproar from the left (which does not watch the show, either).
But here's the thing - world-wide, there is much more violence being done in the name of Islam than Christ but it is ingrained into the left that only Christianity is violent. That world-view leaves them unable to see anyone else as violent or intolerant. Any attempts to point out flaws in Islam or elsewhere are taken as examples of Christian intolerance.
Which leaves us with a group that actually is trying to suppress any public mention of Christianity including Christmas. Right now they are failing so their fallback solution is to insist that this was never more than an invention by Fox News. But every now and then someone lets their real feeling slip in public.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Energy
A big recent political issue has been the XP pipeline. If this is ever approved, it will bring oil from Canadian tar sands to Texas for refining. Environmentalists have made several objections to the pipeline but most of them are hollow. The most commonly heard objection is the consequences of a leak. What is not mentioned is how many pipelines already carry crude oil and refined gasoline across the country. This would be one of many and would not represent a new hazard.
The real objection comes from James Hansen of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the father of global warming theory. His followers want to keep this resource untapped forever. This will not happen. Canada has made it clear that China will take the oil if we do not.
The arguments in favor of the pipeline are that it will create jobs and that it would reduce the US's reliance on oil from dictatorships. Some supporters have taken to calling the pipeline "ethical oil".
All that is needed to start work is an ok from the White House.
Rather than offend either constituency, President Obama has put the decision off until after the election. This allows him to convince both camps that he will eventually side with them.
The House of Representatives has talked about forcing the issue by tying the approval to an extension in the Social Security Payroll Tax cuts. President Obama has indicated that he would veto such a bill. This gives you a clear idea of the President's priorities.
A similar controversy has erupted around fracking (injecting water and chemicals at high pressure into a well to increase production). This has been used for decades in shallow gas and oil wells. New technology makes it possible to drill into deposits far deeper than before. When combined with fracking, this opens up huge quantities of gas and oil.
Again, the main arguments against fracking are weak, especially since it is not new. Few people admit it but the real objection is, again, to ever recovering a hydrocarbon-based fuel and is driven by fears of global warming.
The White House has stayed out of this controversy but many Democrats have jumped on board with calls for an indefinite moratorium on fracking.
During his run in 2008, Obama said that he wanted to see energy prices increase. The easiest way of doing this is to cut the US off from domestic (or near-domestic) sources of energy. Imported energy is always more expensive.
But Obama has an election to win so he can't come out and say this. But, he and the Democratic leadership cannot hide their actions. If allowed, America will resume being an exporter of gas and refined oil (but still an importer of crude oil). The Democratic leadership is trying to keep this from happening.
The real objection comes from James Hansen of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the father of global warming theory. His followers want to keep this resource untapped forever. This will not happen. Canada has made it clear that China will take the oil if we do not.
The arguments in favor of the pipeline are that it will create jobs and that it would reduce the US's reliance on oil from dictatorships. Some supporters have taken to calling the pipeline "ethical oil".
All that is needed to start work is an ok from the White House.
Rather than offend either constituency, President Obama has put the decision off until after the election. This allows him to convince both camps that he will eventually side with them.
The House of Representatives has talked about forcing the issue by tying the approval to an extension in the Social Security Payroll Tax cuts. President Obama has indicated that he would veto such a bill. This gives you a clear idea of the President's priorities.
A similar controversy has erupted around fracking (injecting water and chemicals at high pressure into a well to increase production). This has been used for decades in shallow gas and oil wells. New technology makes it possible to drill into deposits far deeper than before. When combined with fracking, this opens up huge quantities of gas and oil.
Again, the main arguments against fracking are weak, especially since it is not new. Few people admit it but the real objection is, again, to ever recovering a hydrocarbon-based fuel and is driven by fears of global warming.
The White House has stayed out of this controversy but many Democrats have jumped on board with calls for an indefinite moratorium on fracking.
During his run in 2008, Obama said that he wanted to see energy prices increase. The easiest way of doing this is to cut the US off from domestic (or near-domestic) sources of energy. Imported energy is always more expensive.
But Obama has an election to win so he can't come out and say this. But, he and the Democratic leadership cannot hide their actions. If allowed, America will resume being an exporter of gas and refined oil (but still an importer of crude oil). The Democratic leadership is trying to keep this from happening.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Pearl Harbor 70 years later
Pearl Harbor changed my life. In fact, without it I would never have been born.
My father was the son of a Missouri farmer living in St. Lewis when the attack happened. He enlisted the next day and volunteered to be a fighter pilot. In the US military, you had to be an officer to be a pilot so they sent the pilot volunteers to college for an intensive degree program. My father was sent to Macalester in Minnesota. While he was there he met my mother who was also a student there.
As the war progressed, the Army (The Air Force was still the Army Air Corps) decided that it had more pilots than it needed. My father's medical status was reevaluated according to new standards and he was transferred out of pilot training and sent to California to be trained as a radio operator and waist gunner. My mother accompanied him and they were married there.
My father survived the war without injury despite a close call when his plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire and had to ditch at an emergency air strip.
After the war, my father used the GI Bill to finish the degree he started in the military and to become a physician. He wanted to practice in a small city and saw an advertizement for Zanesville, Ohio in a medical journal. It was just what he was looking for and they moved there in 1952. I was born a couple of years later.
So, a chain of events that began with the bombing of Pearl Harbor led to my birth.
I am not unique in this. The entire Baby Boom generation is a result of the disruption of WWII that began with Pearl Harbor. The war and the GI Bill probably did more than any other event to change America from an agrarian nation to an urban one.
It is hard to say what the world would be like if the Japanese had not attacked 70 years ago. FDR wanted to enter the war against Hitler but most of the nation was strongly isolationist. Japan was the closer enemy but Hitler was the greater threat. If Japan had not attacked us when it did, we might have entered the war too late. We might have ended up with a Europe dominated by Germany and the USSR or even just the USSR.
Considering the alternatives, Japan might have done us a favor by forcing us into the war. Not that this excuses the attack. It was an act of incomprehensible savagery and because of Pearl Harbor, the US embraced the war instead of being dragged into it.
My father was the son of a Missouri farmer living in St. Lewis when the attack happened. He enlisted the next day and volunteered to be a fighter pilot. In the US military, you had to be an officer to be a pilot so they sent the pilot volunteers to college for an intensive degree program. My father was sent to Macalester in Minnesota. While he was there he met my mother who was also a student there.
As the war progressed, the Army (The Air Force was still the Army Air Corps) decided that it had more pilots than it needed. My father's medical status was reevaluated according to new standards and he was transferred out of pilot training and sent to California to be trained as a radio operator and waist gunner. My mother accompanied him and they were married there.
My father survived the war without injury despite a close call when his plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire and had to ditch at an emergency air strip.
After the war, my father used the GI Bill to finish the degree he started in the military and to become a physician. He wanted to practice in a small city and saw an advertizement for Zanesville, Ohio in a medical journal. It was just what he was looking for and they moved there in 1952. I was born a couple of years later.
So, a chain of events that began with the bombing of Pearl Harbor led to my birth.
I am not unique in this. The entire Baby Boom generation is a result of the disruption of WWII that began with Pearl Harbor. The war and the GI Bill probably did more than any other event to change America from an agrarian nation to an urban one.
It is hard to say what the world would be like if the Japanese had not attacked 70 years ago. FDR wanted to enter the war against Hitler but most of the nation was strongly isolationist. Japan was the closer enemy but Hitler was the greater threat. If Japan had not attacked us when it did, we might have entered the war too late. We might have ended up with a Europe dominated by Germany and the USSR or even just the USSR.
Considering the alternatives, Japan might have done us a favor by forcing us into the war. Not that this excuses the attack. It was an act of incomprehensible savagery and because of Pearl Harbor, the US embraced the war instead of being dragged into it.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Obama and Social Security
President Obama is trying to make incremental changes in Social Security that will eventually change it in fundamental ways. It started last year in the deal over extending the Bush tax cuts. Part of the deal included a cut in the "payroll tax". This is the term that the Obama administration uses for the tax that funds Social Security.
FDR's grand bargain worked like this - everyone who works pays into Social Security* and everyone can collect when they retire based on what they paid into the system. This gives the impression that Social Security is a retirement account which accounts for a lot of its popularity. Retirees feel that they earned their benefits by paying into the system their entire working life.
Social Security is actually a pay as you go system. For most of its existence it has run a surplus which is immediately lent to the general fund at interest and spent. Demographics say that soon, Social Security will start running a deficit and have to redeem the loans. Eventually it will run out of money and only be able to cover 70-some percent of its expenses.
By cutting the payroll tax, Obama pushed Social Security into deficit years early. It has survived the year by redeeming its loans (known as special bonds).
The payroll tax cut has not helped the economy much. Like the Making Work Pay Act, it's effect on the average paycheck is small enough to go unnoticed. Regardless, the Obama administration is making two efforts. One is to extend the tax cut and offset it with a surcharge on the rich (this time defined as people making at least $1,000,000 instead of $200,000). The other effort is the jobs bill. This would provide further cuts to Social Security and would cut the employer's share as well. This did not name any off-setting taxes but the bill calls for a tax increase on the wealthy.
If Obama is reelected and especially if he gets a Democratic majority in Congress then I expect to see this trend continue - shifting Social Security taxes from lower-wage workers to the rich. The reason for this is that many liberals consider the Social Security tax to be regressive. It is the same rate for everyone and it is only paid on the first $200,000. Anyone who makes more that that amount will pay a smaller portion of his income in Social Security taxes.
The outcome of this will be to remake Social Security into an income transfer system taking money from the rich and giving it to retirees. It will break FDR's grand bargain. The good news for conservatives is that this will make Social Security easier to reform. The current argument that "I paid into it so I earned my benefits," will be eliminated as it is turned into welfare for the elderly.
A change of this magnitude should be openly discussed instead of hidden behind the euphemism "payroll tax cuts".
* Note - under FDR's original system a lot of people including government and farm did not pay into the system. It was later expanded to include almost everyone although government workers still have their own retirement systems.
FDR's grand bargain worked like this - everyone who works pays into Social Security* and everyone can collect when they retire based on what they paid into the system. This gives the impression that Social Security is a retirement account which accounts for a lot of its popularity. Retirees feel that they earned their benefits by paying into the system their entire working life.
Social Security is actually a pay as you go system. For most of its existence it has run a surplus which is immediately lent to the general fund at interest and spent. Demographics say that soon, Social Security will start running a deficit and have to redeem the loans. Eventually it will run out of money and only be able to cover 70-some percent of its expenses.
By cutting the payroll tax, Obama pushed Social Security into deficit years early. It has survived the year by redeeming its loans (known as special bonds).
The payroll tax cut has not helped the economy much. Like the Making Work Pay Act, it's effect on the average paycheck is small enough to go unnoticed. Regardless, the Obama administration is making two efforts. One is to extend the tax cut and offset it with a surcharge on the rich (this time defined as people making at least $1,000,000 instead of $200,000). The other effort is the jobs bill. This would provide further cuts to Social Security and would cut the employer's share as well. This did not name any off-setting taxes but the bill calls for a tax increase on the wealthy.
If Obama is reelected and especially if he gets a Democratic majority in Congress then I expect to see this trend continue - shifting Social Security taxes from lower-wage workers to the rich. The reason for this is that many liberals consider the Social Security tax to be regressive. It is the same rate for everyone and it is only paid on the first $200,000. Anyone who makes more that that amount will pay a smaller portion of his income in Social Security taxes.
The outcome of this will be to remake Social Security into an income transfer system taking money from the rich and giving it to retirees. It will break FDR's grand bargain. The good news for conservatives is that this will make Social Security easier to reform. The current argument that "I paid into it so I earned my benefits," will be eliminated as it is turned into welfare for the elderly.
A change of this magnitude should be openly discussed instead of hidden behind the euphemism "payroll tax cuts".
* Note - under FDR's original system a lot of people including government and farm did not pay into the system. It was later expanded to include almost everyone although government workers still have their own retirement systems.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Newt? Really?
I never took Gingrich's candidacy seriously. Why should I? Some of his top staff members quit because they felt that he was not taking his campaign seriously. But he suddenly vaulted to near-front-runner status as the current anti-Romney.
What are you thinking, people?
Newt's main qualification is that he was speaker of the house for a while. He wasn't particularly successful and was forced out by his fellow Republicans. While he was speaker the government shut down twice. The rumor at the time was that Newt shut down government because he wasn't given special seating on Air Force One. This was false but the fact that the Clinton administration managed to tar him with it shows how easily he can be out-maneuvered.
Newt has so much baggage that he needs a porter. Romney switched positions on abortion. Newt switched on nearly everything. He supported a federal mandate on health care while Obama was still a community organizer. He made a joint statement with Nancy Pelosi about the hazards of global warming.
Newt's personal life makes Bill Clinton look like a boy scout. Clinton strayed repeatedly but he never left his wife. If Edwards and Cain have been disqualified from running because of their affairs, how can anyone support Newt? Electing him brings back the possibility of a new presidential affair. A lot of social conservatives will stay home or vote for Obama rather than endorse Newt's infidelities.
Newt has worse baggage. He has earned millions as a lobbyist for recipients of federal bailouts.
Newt describes himself as a historian although he left academia rather than publish original research. That makes him a guy who got a history degree by reading the books published by actual historians.
Newt has a long history of shooting from the hip. This often gets him into trouble. It would be better if he was not in a position of importance.
What are you thinking, people?
Newt's main qualification is that he was speaker of the house for a while. He wasn't particularly successful and was forced out by his fellow Republicans. While he was speaker the government shut down twice. The rumor at the time was that Newt shut down government because he wasn't given special seating on Air Force One. This was false but the fact that the Clinton administration managed to tar him with it shows how easily he can be out-maneuvered.
Newt has so much baggage that he needs a porter. Romney switched positions on abortion. Newt switched on nearly everything. He supported a federal mandate on health care while Obama was still a community organizer. He made a joint statement with Nancy Pelosi about the hazards of global warming.
Newt's personal life makes Bill Clinton look like a boy scout. Clinton strayed repeatedly but he never left his wife. If Edwards and Cain have been disqualified from running because of their affairs, how can anyone support Newt? Electing him brings back the possibility of a new presidential affair. A lot of social conservatives will stay home or vote for Obama rather than endorse Newt's infidelities.
Newt has worse baggage. He has earned millions as a lobbyist for recipients of federal bailouts.
Newt describes himself as a historian although he left academia rather than publish original research. That makes him a guy who got a history degree by reading the books published by actual historians.
Newt has a long history of shooting from the hip. This often gets him into trouble. It would be better if he was not in a position of importance.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Climategate 2
A new set of emails from climatologists has been released. Like the Climategate emails from two years ago, there are no smoking guns but there is confirmation of what many skeptics believe. I admit that I have not dug through the archives so I am only going from the nuggets that others have found. From those, it is possible to make some conclusions:
1) The scientists who advocate action to stop global warming are sincere in their beliefs. They really do believe that catastrophic warming is going on.
2) They are under a lot of pressure from politicians who want simple yes-or-no answers. Politicians are trying to sell the public on drastic change that will affect the lives of everyone. They need to be able to say confidently, "The consequences of not taking action are worse than the actions needed to stop climate change."
3) The actual science is not as sure as the climatologists are claiming. Data sets that don't match expectations are dropped and figures are massaged. Some of this is because of political pressure and some of it is because they are true believers. If results come up "wrong" then there must be something wrong with the readings, not the underlying data. I remember doing the same thing in high school physics but we knew that our test equipment was unreliable.
4) The system as it currently exists prods scientists into being true believers. True believers find it easy to get grants. This makes it profitable to be a true believer. At the same time, there is some worry about what will happen if they are wrong.
5) The true believers questions the motives of skeptics. There is one email speculating on "undiscovered ties" between a noted skeptic and big oil. To the true believers, the truth is so obvious that skeptics must be ignoring it for money.
6) Because #5, climatologists are very reluctant to allow outside review of their work. Both sets of climategate emails contain discussions on how to get around Freedom of Information requests. Many climatologists refuse to let people they consider paid hit men to review their work. There is probably a large amount of defensiveness, also since they know that they have fudged some of their figures.
In summary, we have an insular group who know that they are exaggerating their findings and refuse to let their work be reviewed.
1) The scientists who advocate action to stop global warming are sincere in their beliefs. They really do believe that catastrophic warming is going on.
2) They are under a lot of pressure from politicians who want simple yes-or-no answers. Politicians are trying to sell the public on drastic change that will affect the lives of everyone. They need to be able to say confidently, "The consequences of not taking action are worse than the actions needed to stop climate change."
3) The actual science is not as sure as the climatologists are claiming. Data sets that don't match expectations are dropped and figures are massaged. Some of this is because of political pressure and some of it is because they are true believers. If results come up "wrong" then there must be something wrong with the readings, not the underlying data. I remember doing the same thing in high school physics but we knew that our test equipment was unreliable.
4) The system as it currently exists prods scientists into being true believers. True believers find it easy to get grants. This makes it profitable to be a true believer. At the same time, there is some worry about what will happen if they are wrong.
5) The true believers questions the motives of skeptics. There is one email speculating on "undiscovered ties" between a noted skeptic and big oil. To the true believers, the truth is so obvious that skeptics must be ignoring it for money.
6) Because #5, climatologists are very reluctant to allow outside review of their work. Both sets of climategate emails contain discussions on how to get around Freedom of Information requests. Many climatologists refuse to let people they consider paid hit men to review their work. There is probably a large amount of defensiveness, also since they know that they have fudged some of their figures.
In summary, we have an insular group who know that they are exaggerating their findings and refuse to let their work be reviewed.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Super-committee failure - who won?
As part of last Summer's debt ceiling extension bill, a super-committee was supposed to identify $1.3 trillion in deficit reductions by Thanksgiving. They didn't.
A lot of finger-pointing is going on about which side is to blame. The Democrats insist that the Republicans were trying to use the super-committee as a way to cut taxes. Republicans respond by pointing out that they made a serious offer which included $300 billion in new taxes. Democrats rejected this as too small. They also objected because it would have locked most of the Bush tax cuts in place permanently. The Democrats' best offer was for $1 trillion in tax increases accompanied by $1 trillion in spending cuts and $300 billion in new stimulus spending. The two sides started making progress a couple of weeks ago then collapsed after details were leaked.
So, who won?
Progressives are sure that they have. In fact, they are pretty unanimous in declaring victory. The reason for this was that, at times, the super-committee had talked about "going big" and fixing out of control entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid). The automatic cuts triggered by the super-committee's failure will leave those programs untouched.
President Obama also seems to be a winner. He kept the committee at arm's length. His main contribution was a sternly worded statement that they needed to produce some results and a threat to veto anything that didn't include tax increases. By keeping his distance, Obama wanted to look like the grown-up when compared with Congress's squabbling children.
The failure also helps Obama's message. He is already saying that the failure is due to too many Republicans in Congress who are unwilling to compromise. What he really means is that there are too many Republicans in Congress. We will be hearing that message for the next 11.5 months.
This is part of a larger pattern of avoidance for political gain. Everyone knows that the deficit and the entitlements are major problems but the Democrats refuse to address them. It has been a year since Paul Ryan issued the Republican suggestion for reforming Medicare. The Democrats promised a counter-proposal but never issued one. Instead they ran ads showing Paul Ryan shoving a grandmother over a cliff.
The Democrats know that no matter what reforms they suggest, a large number of people will see decreased benefits. Rather than risk losing the support of those people, the Democrats prefer to ignore the problems and criticize the Republican efforts to be responsible.
The failure of the budget deal means automatic cuts but those will not happen until after the next election. Most parts of Obamacare will not go into effect until the next election. The XP Pipeline decision has been put off until after the next election.
So, the winners are the people who want to put off tackling real problems as long as possible
A lot of finger-pointing is going on about which side is to blame. The Democrats insist that the Republicans were trying to use the super-committee as a way to cut taxes. Republicans respond by pointing out that they made a serious offer which included $300 billion in new taxes. Democrats rejected this as too small. They also objected because it would have locked most of the Bush tax cuts in place permanently. The Democrats' best offer was for $1 trillion in tax increases accompanied by $1 trillion in spending cuts and $300 billion in new stimulus spending. The two sides started making progress a couple of weeks ago then collapsed after details were leaked.
So, who won?
Progressives are sure that they have. In fact, they are pretty unanimous in declaring victory. The reason for this was that, at times, the super-committee had talked about "going big" and fixing out of control entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid). The automatic cuts triggered by the super-committee's failure will leave those programs untouched.
President Obama also seems to be a winner. He kept the committee at arm's length. His main contribution was a sternly worded statement that they needed to produce some results and a threat to veto anything that didn't include tax increases. By keeping his distance, Obama wanted to look like the grown-up when compared with Congress's squabbling children.
The failure also helps Obama's message. He is already saying that the failure is due to too many Republicans in Congress who are unwilling to compromise. What he really means is that there are too many Republicans in Congress. We will be hearing that message for the next 11.5 months.
This is part of a larger pattern of avoidance for political gain. Everyone knows that the deficit and the entitlements are major problems but the Democrats refuse to address them. It has been a year since Paul Ryan issued the Republican suggestion for reforming Medicare. The Democrats promised a counter-proposal but never issued one. Instead they ran ads showing Paul Ryan shoving a grandmother over a cliff.
The Democrats know that no matter what reforms they suggest, a large number of people will see decreased benefits. Rather than risk losing the support of those people, the Democrats prefer to ignore the problems and criticize the Republican efforts to be responsible.
The failure of the budget deal means automatic cuts but those will not happen until after the next election. Most parts of Obamacare will not go into effect until the next election. The XP Pipeline decision has been put off until after the next election.
So, the winners are the people who want to put off tackling real problems as long as possible
Thursday, November 17, 2011
So long to the Occupation
OWS overstayed their welcome by a few weeks. A month ago they were getting good press. The liberal commentators loved it. "OWS is twice as popular as the Tea Party" they bragged. But the mainstream press got tired of writing about the 99%. Then came a few weeks of stories about violence and filth. Public opinion changed.
A month ago the Occupiers were new while the Tea Party was more than two and a half years old. Remember that the Tea Party was fairly popular its first year. OWS's popularity fell off much faster. A recent poll asked: Do you have a higher opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Tea Party movement? That's not a good basis for a new party to match the Tea Party.
And that assumes that a real organization could be built on the OWS. There are inherent problems with that. One is that many of them believe that having leaders is wrong because everyone's views are equally valid. That is also why they use the jazz hands (known as up-sparkles) instead of cheering or applauding. Cheers and applause might drown out someone.
Another problem is that the basis of the OWS is that the government has been hopelessly corrupted by the 1%. The 99% are powerless so forming a political party is a waste of time.
Of course, some Occupiers are trying to create a party which has started a split in the movement, weakening it further.
The various Occupiers should have broken camp when asked. That way they could have kept up their narrative. Instead they resisted and tarnished their movement.
"Somehow, we lost the high ground, we lost the narrative," said Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters which organized the OWS. "Tactically, the moment was right to declare victory, have a big global party and come back swinging next spring."
OWS overplayed it cards. Conservatives should breath a sign of relief that the movement is pulling itself down.
A month ago the Occupiers were new while the Tea Party was more than two and a half years old. Remember that the Tea Party was fairly popular its first year. OWS's popularity fell off much faster. A recent poll asked: Do you have a higher opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Tea Party movement?
Occupy: 37% (-3)
Tea Party: 43% (+3)
And that assumes that a real organization could be built on the OWS. There are inherent problems with that. One is that many of them believe that having leaders is wrong because everyone's views are equally valid. That is also why they use the jazz hands (known as up-sparkles) instead of cheering or applauding. Cheers and applause might drown out someone.
Another problem is that the basis of the OWS is that the government has been hopelessly corrupted by the 1%. The 99% are powerless so forming a political party is a waste of time.
Of course, some Occupiers are trying to create a party which has started a split in the movement, weakening it further.
The various Occupiers should have broken camp when asked. That way they could have kept up their narrative. Instead they resisted and tarnished their movement.
"Somehow, we lost the high ground, we lost the narrative," said Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters which organized the OWS. "Tactically, the moment was right to declare victory, have a big global party and come back swinging next spring."
OWS overplayed it cards. Conservatives should breath a sign of relief that the movement is pulling itself down.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The End of the Occupation
Earl Tuesday morning New York police broke up the OWS camp. Other camps have been broken up in the last few days. Michael Moore sees this as a coordinated action, possibly overseen by President Obama himself. I see it as the natural course of events.
Two factors converged to end the camps. The first was the increasing violence and health risk of the camps. In New York they had an ailment known as "Zuccotti cough". Drug-resistant tuberculosis is becoming associated with the camps, caught from the homeless who moved in with them. Drug use is common. The camps are becoming known for rapes and body counts. With all of this going on, it is hard for a mayor to condone the camps.
The second factor is that all of these problems made the mainstream news. Most sites began lumping all of the OWS coverage into a daily roundup that was seldom sympathetic to the movement. Without public support the camps were vulnerable.
Keep in mind that there is no free speech issue here. Someone cannot take public land and insist that the land it forfeit in the interests of free speech. The Occupiers planned on making their camps as permanent as possible. The light, nylon tents were to be replaced with heavier military tents for the winter. Possibly by spring they would be building solid structures.
Also, camping in public spaces is not a recognized part of speech. It was invented for this event. The Occupiers can still assemble in the parks, the just cannot camp.
Two factors converged to end the camps. The first was the increasing violence and health risk of the camps. In New York they had an ailment known as "Zuccotti cough". Drug-resistant tuberculosis is becoming associated with the camps, caught from the homeless who moved in with them. Drug use is common. The camps are becoming known for rapes and body counts. With all of this going on, it is hard for a mayor to condone the camps.
The second factor is that all of these problems made the mainstream news. Most sites began lumping all of the OWS coverage into a daily roundup that was seldom sympathetic to the movement. Without public support the camps were vulnerable.
Keep in mind that there is no free speech issue here. Someone cannot take public land and insist that the land it forfeit in the interests of free speech. The Occupiers planned on making their camps as permanent as possible. The light, nylon tents were to be replaced with heavier military tents for the winter. Possibly by spring they would be building solid structures.
Also, camping in public spaces is not a recognized part of speech. It was invented for this event. The Occupiers can still assemble in the parks, the just cannot camp.
Friday, November 11, 2011
OWS's biggest victim
The Occupy Wall Street movement has been protesting for a couple of months now. Their message (the main one) is that the government is controlled by the richest 1%. They also spent a lot of time complaining about student debt and capitalism. So, who have the hurt the worst? President Barack Obama.
The damage done to Obama is on several levels. OWS has gotten a lot of press. At first it was completely favorable and the movement had a high approval rating in the polls. At that point President Obama, Vice-President Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats gave OWS their approval. As time has gone on, the various Occupiers have had violent confrontations with the police and their approval rating has dropped. It is too late for the Democrats to disown them. The movement is still popular with the far left crowd and any politician distancing himself from OWS will offend them. But the swing voters will react the opposite way. A politician who approved of the Occupiers will be tarnished in their eyes.
Obama has been engaging in mild class warfare since his inauguration but OWS has stolen his thunder on that. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich by 4%. OWS wants to confiscate their money. This may help Obama with the moderates but it still makes him look weak.
Currently, when Obama isn't in Europe insulting the heads of France or Israel, Obama is on the campaign trail running against the rich. He is trying desperately to get his jobs bill passed. The trouble is that the press is bored with this and quit giving it any coverage. Instead the are covering the Occupiers. The worst thing that can happen to a politician is to be ignored, especially when that politician is on the campaign trail. This is where OWS hurts Obama the most.
The one thing that could hurt Obama even more is if OWS starts protesting politicians along with the Wall Street. OWS hates the bailouts and crony capitalism that defines the Obama economic team. The OWS is convinced that the government is being run for the benefit of the 1% and Obama is the head of the government. At some point they might decide that he is a big part of the problem.
The damage done to Obama is on several levels. OWS has gotten a lot of press. At first it was completely favorable and the movement had a high approval rating in the polls. At that point President Obama, Vice-President Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats gave OWS their approval. As time has gone on, the various Occupiers have had violent confrontations with the police and their approval rating has dropped. It is too late for the Democrats to disown them. The movement is still popular with the far left crowd and any politician distancing himself from OWS will offend them. But the swing voters will react the opposite way. A politician who approved of the Occupiers will be tarnished in their eyes.
Obama has been engaging in mild class warfare since his inauguration but OWS has stolen his thunder on that. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich by 4%. OWS wants to confiscate their money. This may help Obama with the moderates but it still makes him look weak.
Currently, when Obama isn't in Europe insulting the heads of France or Israel, Obama is on the campaign trail running against the rich. He is trying desperately to get his jobs bill passed. The trouble is that the press is bored with this and quit giving it any coverage. Instead the are covering the Occupiers. The worst thing that can happen to a politician is to be ignored, especially when that politician is on the campaign trail. This is where OWS hurts Obama the most.
The one thing that could hurt Obama even more is if OWS starts protesting politicians along with the Wall Street. OWS hates the bailouts and crony capitalism that defines the Obama economic team. The OWS is convinced that the government is being run for the benefit of the 1% and Obama is the head of the government. At some point they might decide that he is a big part of the problem.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Culture Wars 2011
Getting an early start on the culture wars...
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker sent out a press release about the lighting of the annual Christmas Tree. This has the easily offended in an uproar. It seems that Walker is the first governor since 1985 to call a decorated evergreen a "Christmas Tree" instead of a "holiday tree".
To put this in perspective, this week also had news reports about the National Christmas Tree starting its journey to the White House where President Obama will light it.
So, Walker is playing to an extremist theocratic base and Obama is not, even though both are lighting official Christmas Trees. Obama is the 5th US president to light a Christmas Tree since Wisconsin decided that the term was too inflammatory.
I don't know about Wisconsin, but Ohio started calling its tree a holiday tree after the KKK sued to be allowed to erect a cross on the statehouse grounds. Being the KKK, it was not a religious cross. Instead it was white with epithets on it. That should have been enough to disqualify it. Instead Ohio dropped all references to Christmas. Apparently they believe that no one will realize that it is a Christmas Tree if we call it a holiday tree. It had nothing to do with other religions.
I am sure that some religious minorities will be offended by Walker's action, not because he did anything wrong but because they have been told that they should be offended. Here is an example:
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker sent out a press release about the lighting of the annual Christmas Tree. This has the easily offended in an uproar. It seems that Walker is the first governor since 1985 to call a decorated evergreen a "Christmas Tree" instead of a "holiday tree".
To put this in perspective, this week also had news reports about the National Christmas Tree starting its journey to the White House where President Obama will light it.
So, Walker is playing to an extremist theocratic base and Obama is not, even though both are lighting official Christmas Trees. Obama is the 5th US president to light a Christmas Tree since Wisconsin decided that the term was too inflammatory.
I don't know about Wisconsin, but Ohio started calling its tree a holiday tree after the KKK sued to be allowed to erect a cross on the statehouse grounds. Being the KKK, it was not a religious cross. Instead it was white with epithets on it. That should have been enough to disqualify it. Instead Ohio dropped all references to Christmas. Apparently they believe that no one will realize that it is a Christmas Tree if we call it a holiday tree. It had nothing to do with other religions.
I am sure that some religious minorities will be offended by Walker's action, not because he did anything wrong but because they have been told that they should be offended. Here is an example:
The Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation has opposed the term Christmas tree, saying it offends nonreligious people and amounts to a government endorsement of Christianity.The president of that group, Annie Laurie Gaylor, called Walker's decision rude and insensitive to non-Christians.
"The reason that it was turned into a holiday tree was to avoid this connotation that the governor chooses one religion over another," she said. "It's essentially a discourtesy by the governor to announce that. He intends that to be a slight and a snub to non-Christians, otherwise he would not do it."
The vast majority of America celebrates Christmas. A greater number of people celebrate Christmas than are Christians. No other religion decorates a tree in December. At the same time, decorated trees are not part of Christian doctrine. For Gaylor to say that it is alright to erect a Christmas Tree as long as we call it something else and that giving it its proper name endorses Christianity is hypocritical and downright silly.
Since people seems to accept Obama using the term, I can only assume that this is faux outrage by people who suffer from Walker Derangement Syndrome.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Occupy and the Libertarians
Hard-core Libertarians tended to hate President Bush. This is not surprising since he was a big-government Republican. He waged two wars, increased the rate of spending, passed a Medicare drug benefit, and the Patriot Act. Many Libertarians saw McCain as worse than Bush and decided that Obama was the lesser of two evils. They hoped that Obama was a pragmatic centrist who only talked liberal while winning the nomination. They figured that they could make common cause with the Democrats over social issues. They even came up with a name for this fusion: Liberaltarians.
That didn't work out so well. Obama continued Bush's war strategies, increased spending beyond Bush's records, passed his own expansion of health care, and renewed the Patriot Act. It turned out that the Democrats looked down their noses at Libertarians, even when they had issues in common.
These Libertarians are at it again. Now they are suggesting making common cause with the Occupy movement. They reason that both groups are against bail-outs and crony capitalism. The disconnect is the proposed solutions. Libertarians see this as an example of a government grown too powerful and would try to cut it back. The Occupiers want an expanded government and an end to capitalism. Trying to reconcile the two movements is impossible. They may start at the same place but they are diametrically opposed on what to o about it.
The real issue here is Libertarians who want to be cool. In 2008, it was cool to support Obama so they invented reasons to do so. Now the Occupiers seem cool so they want to hang out with them. It appears that just being a Libertarian isn't enough. At the same time, the Tea Party isn't cool enough for them. The same people who want to embrace an anti-capitalism movement sneer at a grass-roots, limited government movement.
Enough is enough. It is ok to stop being a Libertarian. Go ahead and convert. But don't try to convince us that you are still a Libertarian. Any Libertarian who hangs out with the Occupiers is a Libertarian In Name Only.
That didn't work out so well. Obama continued Bush's war strategies, increased spending beyond Bush's records, passed his own expansion of health care, and renewed the Patriot Act. It turned out that the Democrats looked down their noses at Libertarians, even when they had issues in common.
These Libertarians are at it again. Now they are suggesting making common cause with the Occupy movement. They reason that both groups are against bail-outs and crony capitalism. The disconnect is the proposed solutions. Libertarians see this as an example of a government grown too powerful and would try to cut it back. The Occupiers want an expanded government and an end to capitalism. Trying to reconcile the two movements is impossible. They may start at the same place but they are diametrically opposed on what to o about it.
The real issue here is Libertarians who want to be cool. In 2008, it was cool to support Obama so they invented reasons to do so. Now the Occupiers seem cool so they want to hang out with them. It appears that just being a Libertarian isn't enough. At the same time, the Tea Party isn't cool enough for them. The same people who want to embrace an anti-capitalism movement sneer at a grass-roots, limited government movement.
Enough is enough. It is ok to stop being a Libertarian. Go ahead and convert. But don't try to convince us that you are still a Libertarian. Any Libertarian who hangs out with the Occupiers is a Libertarian In Name Only.
Monday, November 07, 2011
The Strange World of Robert Reich
When the Greek Prime Minister announced a referendum on the debt plan, Robert Reich cheered. What matter if the world economy crashed? At least the people would get a say. And the evil bankers who were going to forgive 50% of the Greek debt would be foiled from their dastardly plot. He then went on to complain about the American bailouts and the TARP. His complaint was that Bush, and later Obama, said that it had to be paid and Congress voted the money. The people had no say.
Reich ignores that fact that there is no provision for a referendum in the Constitution. Funny thing about that since he swore to uphold the Constitution when he was sworn in as Secretary of Labor under the Clinton administration.
But that's small potatoes compared to his recent explanation for the Great Recession. Most people see it as a result of the housing bubble bursting and taking a couple of trillion of national wealth with it. But in Reich's version the problem is that the rich have stolen all of our money so that there is nothing left for the rest of us to spend.
He also strongly opposes any attempt at introducing fiscal sanity, anywhere. The Greeks borrowed so much money that they cannot make interest payments on the loans. Spain is close to that point and the US will be there in less than a decade at current trends. The rich just don't have enough money to make up the difference. The only serious solution to this is to cut spending.
Reich does not see this. He sees the need for more government redistribution and spending. He even marched with the Oakland occupiers as they closed down one of the nation's busiest ports - an action sure to hurt the average worker.
Reich ignores that fact that there is no provision for a referendum in the Constitution. Funny thing about that since he swore to uphold the Constitution when he was sworn in as Secretary of Labor under the Clinton administration.
But that's small potatoes compared to his recent explanation for the Great Recession. Most people see it as a result of the housing bubble bursting and taking a couple of trillion of national wealth with it. But in Reich's version the problem is that the rich have stolen all of our money so that there is nothing left for the rest of us to spend.
He also strongly opposes any attempt at introducing fiscal sanity, anywhere. The Greeks borrowed so much money that they cannot make interest payments on the loans. Spain is close to that point and the US will be there in less than a decade at current trends. The rich just don't have enough money to make up the difference. The only serious solution to this is to cut spending.
Reich does not see this. He sees the need for more government redistribution and spending. He even marched with the Oakland occupiers as they closed down one of the nation's busiest ports - an action sure to hurt the average worker.
Friday, November 04, 2011
OWS and the WTO Riots
When the Occupy Wall Street protest began it was fairly popular. It had a strong message with the "I am the 99%" campaign. It looked quirky with the human microphones, jazz hands, communal dining and charging stations.
Things took a darker turn with the Oakland protests. The movement closed down the nation's fifth largest port. The protest quickly degenerated into a riot. Even Men's Warehouse which had a sign in their window announcing their support for the movement had their window broken and anti-capitalism graffiti scrawled on their building.
OWS is beginning to look like the protest movement of 1999-2001. This started in Seattle in 1999 when the World Trade Organization met there. At least 40,000 anti-globalism and anti-capitalism protestors showed up and trashed the city. Over the next year and a half meetings of the WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the G8 were met with similar protests. The leaders of the movement made it clear that they were against these entities and intended to trash any city that allowed them to meet.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought this movement to an end.
Now the seem to be back in a new form. OWS has its own set of issues but there is a strong overlap with the Seattle issues. Both are protests against world trade and capitalism with environmental and pro-union groups thrown in. In the wake of the 2007 economic crisis and bail-outs, OWS has different priorities but that is inevitable after a decade.
Public support for OWS has fallen. When they started they were twice as popular as the Tea Party. To put this in perspective, when the Tea Party was that new it had similar poll numbers but it took a couple of years for these to drop. In New York, public support for OWS is down to 44% with 50% wanting the government to end the protests now.
If OWS continues to degenerate into violence then it will totally discredit itself before it has time to become a political force.
Things took a darker turn with the Oakland protests. The movement closed down the nation's fifth largest port. The protest quickly degenerated into a riot. Even Men's Warehouse which had a sign in their window announcing their support for the movement had their window broken and anti-capitalism graffiti scrawled on their building.
OWS is beginning to look like the protest movement of 1999-2001. This started in Seattle in 1999 when the World Trade Organization met there. At least 40,000 anti-globalism and anti-capitalism protestors showed up and trashed the city. Over the next year and a half meetings of the WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the G8 were met with similar protests. The leaders of the movement made it clear that they were against these entities and intended to trash any city that allowed them to meet.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought this movement to an end.
Now the seem to be back in a new form. OWS has its own set of issues but there is a strong overlap with the Seattle issues. Both are protests against world trade and capitalism with environmental and pro-union groups thrown in. In the wake of the 2007 economic crisis and bail-outs, OWS has different priorities but that is inevitable after a decade.
Public support for OWS has fallen. When they started they were twice as popular as the Tea Party. To put this in perspective, when the Tea Party was that new it had similar poll numbers but it took a couple of years for these to drop. In New York, public support for OWS is down to 44% with 50% wanting the government to end the protests now.
If OWS continues to degenerate into violence then it will totally discredit itself before it has time to become a political force.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
OWS and the Homeless
The Occupy movement is having to come to terms with the homeless. The Occupy camps is a draw for the homeless with free food and the promise of less crime than normal homeless camps (there have been reports of theft and violent crime including rape at the Occupy camps). At the same time, the homeless add numbers to the camps which is important as winter approaches.
But, there are problems. The homeless are not part of the movement. They are just opportunists. They may add numbers but they dilute the message. If the homeless begin to outnumber the Occupiers then the movement will lose credibility.
Many homeless have mental problems or engage in substance abuse (which is why they are homeless in the first place). They may also be contributing to crime in the camps, especially theft.
There is a poor fit between the Occupiers and the homeless. The Occupiers may not be the 1% but, with their smart phones and other gear, they are not in the bottom 50%, either. At minimum, they aspire to be in the top 10%.
There is also a disconnect between the protesters goals and the homeless. OWS is all about income redistribution but they do not seem ready to redistribute their own wealth to those with nothing. This is a dilemma. Any attempt at pushing the homeless out of the camps makes a mockery of their redistributionist demands. "Tax the rich and give it to us!" is not an inspiring message.
But, there are problems. The homeless are not part of the movement. They are just opportunists. They may add numbers but they dilute the message. If the homeless begin to outnumber the Occupiers then the movement will lose credibility.
Many homeless have mental problems or engage in substance abuse (which is why they are homeless in the first place). They may also be contributing to crime in the camps, especially theft.
There is a poor fit between the Occupiers and the homeless. The Occupiers may not be the 1% but, with their smart phones and other gear, they are not in the bottom 50%, either. At minimum, they aspire to be in the top 10%.
There is also a disconnect between the protesters goals and the homeless. OWS is all about income redistribution but they do not seem ready to redistribute their own wealth to those with nothing. This is a dilemma. Any attempt at pushing the homeless out of the camps makes a mockery of their redistributionist demands. "Tax the rich and give it to us!" is not an inspiring message.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Cain and the Sexually Threatening Black Male
Twenty years ago Clarence Thomas seemed headed for certain confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. Anti-abortion activists were upset since they were certain that Roe v Wade would be appealed and Thomas would vote to overturn it. Something had to be done to stop his confirmation.
Acting on behalf of the NOW and other women's groups, Senators Kennedy and Metzenbaum leaked secret testimony from the judiciary panel. It seemed that a former employee of Thomas's had made accusations of sexual harassment. The committee had dismissed them. There was no corroborative evidence and the employee had felt comfortable enough working with Thomas to follow him to a different job. Never the less, the accusations were leaked and, in an unprecedented action, the witness was brought back to testify before the entire Senate (an the nation on TV). When Thomas's turn came he called it a "high tech lynching".
Thomas was qualified to be on the court so this was an attempt to "Bork" him. The term comes from a prior confirmation battle. As with Thomas, the goal was to keep a qualified candidate off of the bench because of his expected vote on abortion. In Robert Bork's case, he was unfairly portrayed as being outside the mainstream.
Thomas was a victim of a decades old stereotype that black men should be feared because they have a stronger sex drive. In the racist South, black men were often lynched on the slightest hint that they might have touched a white woman.
Nearly a decade later, President Clinton had sex with a young intern in the White House. Conservatives wanted to know where the outrage was? Feminists admitted that the outrage over Thomas had all been show. One feminist leader was quoted as sayign that she would be willing to give oral sex to Clinton for keeping abortion legal.
But, the Thomas accusations dramatically changed the definition of sexual harassment. Previously it meant a supervisor pressuring a subordinate for sex using threats of being fired or offers of promotion. After the Thomas confirmation, it meant anything that could make an employee uncomfortable. Some women complained about men engaging in locker-room behavior in their presence. Other women complained about men stopping this behavior when the women got close. There was no clear-cut standard for behavior.
That is the period that Herman Cain is accused of harassing women. The fact that the restaurant association he worked for paid settlements means little. With a complete lack of standards, accusations were impossible to fight. All accusations were treated as valid. The only standard was that a woman felt uncomfortable. The fact that she filed a complaint was proof that she felt uncomfortable. It appears that in Cain's case, the complaints were filed and settled without him even being aware.
Which brings us back to the image of the sexually threatening black male being used against a conservative. If this sort of accusation had been brought against Barack Obama, the accusers would have been labeled racists. As with Clarence Thomas, the goal is not to enlighten, it is to disqualify by any means.
Acting on behalf of the NOW and other women's groups, Senators Kennedy and Metzenbaum leaked secret testimony from the judiciary panel. It seemed that a former employee of Thomas's had made accusations of sexual harassment. The committee had dismissed them. There was no corroborative evidence and the employee had felt comfortable enough working with Thomas to follow him to a different job. Never the less, the accusations were leaked and, in an unprecedented action, the witness was brought back to testify before the entire Senate (an the nation on TV). When Thomas's turn came he called it a "high tech lynching".
Thomas was qualified to be on the court so this was an attempt to "Bork" him. The term comes from a prior confirmation battle. As with Thomas, the goal was to keep a qualified candidate off of the bench because of his expected vote on abortion. In Robert Bork's case, he was unfairly portrayed as being outside the mainstream.
Thomas was a victim of a decades old stereotype that black men should be feared because they have a stronger sex drive. In the racist South, black men were often lynched on the slightest hint that they might have touched a white woman.
Nearly a decade later, President Clinton had sex with a young intern in the White House. Conservatives wanted to know where the outrage was? Feminists admitted that the outrage over Thomas had all been show. One feminist leader was quoted as sayign that she would be willing to give oral sex to Clinton for keeping abortion legal.
But, the Thomas accusations dramatically changed the definition of sexual harassment. Previously it meant a supervisor pressuring a subordinate for sex using threats of being fired or offers of promotion. After the Thomas confirmation, it meant anything that could make an employee uncomfortable. Some women complained about men engaging in locker-room behavior in their presence. Other women complained about men stopping this behavior when the women got close. There was no clear-cut standard for behavior.
That is the period that Herman Cain is accused of harassing women. The fact that the restaurant association he worked for paid settlements means little. With a complete lack of standards, accusations were impossible to fight. All accusations were treated as valid. The only standard was that a woman felt uncomfortable. The fact that she filed a complaint was proof that she felt uncomfortable. It appears that in Cain's case, the complaints were filed and settled without him even being aware.
Which brings us back to the image of the sexually threatening black male being used against a conservative. If this sort of accusation had been brought against Barack Obama, the accusers would have been labeled racists. As with Clarence Thomas, the goal is not to enlighten, it is to disqualify by any means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)