tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9264904263643646252024-03-04T20:17:16.075-08:00FatherBrainFrank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-47529735588918238372012-10-14T19:02:00.002-07:002012-10-28T11:00:45.641-07:00Will America Become Detroit, Part 6: The World Police Turn in Their Badges<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4dMtVE_T_BPey4MLYaqWo1HH5aR2rfHfaKi0Fe7LL6ea50kYdK3114XNJwcJ5_8Cs_mmTgadbwsJSxjT1gUE_9s8KK3FQidLVgj4-1vwp6TU_SlM_7VJM9CQ-O3WgrekaWUZcETMCmoQ/s1600/team-america.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="We Put the "F" Back in "Freedom"" border="0" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4dMtVE_T_BPey4MLYaqWo1HH5aR2rfHfaKi0Fe7LL6ea50kYdK3114XNJwcJ5_8Cs_mmTgadbwsJSxjT1gUE_9s8KK3FQidLVgj4-1vwp6TU_SlM_7VJM9CQ-O3WgrekaWUZcETMCmoQ/s320/team-america.jpeg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Beware of entangling allances"</i><br />
-Pres. George Washington</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"A Policeman's Lot Is Not A Happy One"</i><br />
- From "The Pirates of Penzance" by Gilbert and Sullivan</blockquote>
Now that U.S. presidential nominees are decided by primaries, the party conventions have become pointless, predictable bores. They are little more than rallies disguised as deliberative bodies. Both conventions are so scripted that the few moments that stand out are those where some participant tosses down the script and improvises. One of those moments this year came from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMhecMQkU9M">Senator Rand Paul's Republican convention speech</a>. At a convention where military one-upmanship was the coin of the day, Sen. Paul made the case that to balance our budget, "Republicans must acknowledge that not every dollar spent on the military is necessary or well spent". This is a brave admission; even Democrats such as <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77380.html">Leon Panetta</a> argue that even the recent slowing of military spending increases threaten our security. Although Sen. Paul's views on military spending are in the minority, soon the debt crisis will bring these views into the mainstream. When we absolutely must make the hard choices, it will soon come to light that much of our military spending has nothing to do with defending our nation, and some of our military efforts actually damage our security.<br />
<h4>
Defending Everyone Against Everyone Else</h4>
The 2012 U.S. military budget accounts for <a href="http://www.ask.com/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures">41% of all military spending done on this planet</a>. Our military spending is more than that of Russia, China and our NATO allies combined. Why does it cost so much to defend a nation surrounded by two oceans, and bordered by two very friendly neighbors? The answer is that much of the U.S. defense budget goes to defending other nations. America maintains<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-natio"> 900 military bases in 130 countries</a>. Our nation has <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/deployment-of-us-forces-in-europe">119,000 troops in Europe, 37,000 in South Korea, and 45,000 in Japan</a>. There 44 American military bases in Germany alone. The average American taxpayer pays more for these bases than the average German taxpayer does.<br />
<br />
A large part of why the U.S. defense spending is so high is that it includes a huge ersatz foreign aid program where we take on the defense duties of many of our allies. This is a great deal for the countries we defend: their tax burden is lessened, this in turn gives them a competitive advantage over us, and fewer of their young people are asked to sacrifice their lives. But is this a good deal for us? And if not, how did we end up in this situation?<br />
<h4>
The Diplomatic Equivalents of the Helium Reserve</h4>
We are all aware of Department of Defense programs that were continued far beyond any practical purpose. The <a href="http://www.history.com/videos/modern-marvels-bush-dome-helium-reserve">National Helium Reserve</a>, originally set up to make sure we had helium for our dirigibles, continued until 2007. The <a href="http://www.uscavalry.org/photos/historical-images.html">horse mounted cavalry</a> was maintained as late as 1942. And don't forget the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/20/john-stossel-republicans-really-cut-spending-time/">Mohair subsidies</a> ooriginally enacted during WWI guarantee enough wool for soldiers uniforms. These subsidies continued until recent years, in spite of the fact that no uniforms have been made from mohair for more than half a century.<br />
<br />
The State Department has its own share of programs that go on far past the time where their original rationale made any sense. The prime example of this is NATO, started in 1949 to help European nations rebuilding after the devastation of WWII to defend themselves against the Soviet bloc. This treaty was originally intended as a temporary measure, to help out until these nations could defend themselves. Dwight Eisenhower, as NATO Supreme Commander said that <a href="http://hotforeignaffairs.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/what-is-nato">“if in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.”</a> As a perfect illustration of the Reagan maxim that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program, NATO is still going strong after more than six decades, long after all the member nations have recovered from WWII, and even long after the Soviet threat has disappeared into history.<br />
<br />
A similar situation exists in South Korea. After the end of the Korean war, one could make the case that it was in America's best interest to help our war-torn ally defend herself against communist aggression. But more than half a century later, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-economic-legacy-of-kim-jong-il/2011/12/19/gIQA4osP4O_blog.html">South Korea now has a GDP 20 times the GDP of North Korea</a>. If South Korea cannot defend herself now, when will she be able to do so?<br />
<h4>
When Defense Works Against Security</h4>
It is bad enough that American taxpayers are forced to pay for defend nations other than their own. What makes matters worse is what the CIA calls <a href="http://mises.org/daily/2588">blowback</a>, where the unintended consequences of American military ventures actually worsen our security. Major security failures such as 9/11 were retaliations for U.S. wars fought on foreign soil.<br />
<br />
What Rand Paul said about defense spending may be controversial in 2012, but as the debt crisis comes to a head and every tax dollar needs to be accounted for, Paul's call for a closer look at defense spending will become more mainstream. Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution points out the need to provide for the common defense. But this meant the defense of the United States, not that of the world. It is time to end our role as world policeman, and concentrate on protecting our own citizens.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-85866193367744894162012-09-09T17:07:00.000-07:002012-09-09T17:07:31.307-07:00Will America Become Detroit, Part 5: Debt Will End Corporate Welfare as We Know It<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKerJIK3DhcasrcdJs4_GHQbXePZIeDDYxvjf3pGvX9FdZbA_EGa3C06My_2q2nUHBkKD5P9Bm43RkhKZz-zhlE2V15BgEBoc73HDdc4vMw-s8JdgnVRr7llaA3ObdCjBpKuTM6YBqoCY/s1600/farm-subsidies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="That's how we're gonna keep 'em down on the farm" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKerJIK3DhcasrcdJs4_GHQbXePZIeDDYxvjf3pGvX9FdZbA_EGa3C06My_2q2nUHBkKD5P9Bm43RkhKZz-zhlE2V15BgEBoc73HDdc4vMw-s8JdgnVRr7llaA3ObdCjBpKuTM6YBqoCY/s1600/farm-subsidies.jpg" title="" /></a></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."</i><br />
- "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."</i><br />
- Frederic Bastiat</blockquote>
The coining of a new word, or the re-introduction of a long dormant word, can often advance our understanding of important issues. A prime example is the word <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corporatism">"corporatism"</a> that pervades much of current political discourse to derisively describe economic policies designed around the needs of the present leading corporations. A prime example of corporatism is the bank bailouts of 2008, a bi-partisan policy that eventually were condemned by both the <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-rallies-against-the-wall-street-bailo">Tea Party</a> and the <a href="http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-next-big-bank-bailout-one-more-reason-to-occup/">Occupy Wall Street</a> movements.<br />
<h4>
Real Capitalism Versus Crony Capitalism </h4>
Before this word gained popularity, many ascribed the attributes of corporatism to free market economics. This is rather ironic: the eighteenth century term for the corporatist ideology is mercantilism. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, strongly refutes the tenants of mercantilism in his opus <a href="http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf">"An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"</a>. In a true free market, the government does not show favoritism to the elite corporations. It is the consumer, not the state, that picks winners and losers in a free market economy. Corporatism is not only a highly unfair public policy, it is also poor economic policy. A company favored by corporatism is shielded from competitive pressures, and hence does not make the improvements that the unprotected companies would. Competition has given us the iPhone and Android cell phone technology. Corporatism has given Bangladesh a typewriter industry that survived until <a href="http://www.businesslist.com.bd/company/969/The_Bangladesh_Typewriter_Traders_Ltd">this decade</a>.<br />
<h4>
Corporate Welfare: Supported by Many, Liked by No One</h4>
The most outrageous form of corporatism is corporate welfare, where the government actually subsidizes particular businesses. This practice is denounced across the political spectrum, which raises the question as to why it is so prevalent. The problem is that welfare is in the eye of the beholder. Voters often fail to see that aid to the industries that they work in as welfare, and will cast their votes to save that aid.<br />
<br />
A prime example of this is our agriculture subsidies, a program that protects farmers' income with price supports that keep domestic food prices artificially high. Our agricultural policy keeps U.S. sugar prices at twice the world level. As a result, candies such as <a href="http://life-savers.com/">Life-Savers </a>are no longer made in this country. The high sugar prices have also forced American soft drink manufacturers to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mexican-Coca-Cola-Drink-12-Ounce/product-reviews/B001SAWZOK">use high fructose corn syrup</a> in place of sugar. The politically connected farm lobby have also pushed ethanol usage, a real boon for corn farmers but an expensive burden both at the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/corn-for-food-not-fuel.html">pump</a> and at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/opinion/mcdonald-corn-ethanol/index.html">grocery store</a>. Ethanol is not even good for the environment; producing ethanol uses more fossil fuel than it replaces, which is why <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572404575634753486416076.html">Al Gore no longer endorses it</a>. The only advantage to the ethanol program is that it makes farming more profitable.<br />
<br />
Why, in a democracy, do these programs that benefit a few at the expense of the many stay alive for so long? The problem is that we do not directly vote on issues like this; instead, we vote for representatives, who will be voting on many issues. When choosing a representative, voters tend to focus on the few issues that are most important to them. Although most voters believe (correctly) that they would benefit from eliminating corporate welfare, very few voters have that as their top issue. The top issue for most voters is aid for their own industry, i.e. what is clearly corporate welfare to anyone outside that industry. This is why corporate welfare constantly wins elections, in spite of its unpopularity.<br />
<h4>
Putting Corporate Welfare on the Table</h4>
In the battle over corporate welfare, the debt crisis could be a game changer. The federal spend approximately <a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget">$100 billion per year</a> on corporate welfare, which is more than what it spent on welfare for individuals. When the nation's debt is called, these expenditures has to be on the table. We simply cannot afford to maintain all of these corporate welfare programs. At that point, how can one make a politically viable pitch for saving <i>any</i> of these programs?<br />
<br />
In short, the debt crisis will force a type of welfare reform for corporations, similar to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. Proponents for the 1996 welfare reform act argued that recipients are better served by being transitioned to some form of self reliance when possible. Soon, it will be widely recognized that this same principle applies to corporations: they should not be dependent on the government.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-68471230877138474372012-08-21T20:38:00.000-07:002012-10-24T19:08:29.683-07:00Will America Become Detroit, Part 4: The End of the Victimless Crime Spree<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiVTlAA4phoq1JiH8576MUA8SUwwMC3QBcMLWquxfwK9Nd2yogTM-Mo94ChIvuUWczPJFmN4ke3ljXZrNZWokRik_3ChG0ESUDRILW1VZDlqiVgz-1UMzd4BZxy6mLtlFiLfZnJt54cno/s1600/drugswar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiVTlAA4phoq1JiH8576MUA8SUwwMC3QBcMLWquxfwK9Nd2yogTM-Mo94ChIvuUWczPJFmN4ke3ljXZrNZWokRik_3ChG0ESUDRILW1VZDlqiVgz-1UMzd4BZxy6mLtlFiLfZnJt54cno/s400/drugswar.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."</i><br />
- William F. Buckley, Jr.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Oh what a delight to<br />Be given the right to<br />Be care free and gay once again"</i><br />
- From "Cocktails for Two" by by Arthur Johnston and Sam Coslow</blockquote>
Some of humanity's greatest advances emerged from severe crises. As bad as the looming U.S. debt crisis is, it will force badly needed reforms in our criminal code. This nation devotes and a tremendous amount of resources prosecuting victimless crimes, especially the war on drugs. This relentless pursuit of adults engaging in consensual behavior is <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2012/04/19/lets-be-blunt-its-time-to-end-the-drug-war/">wasteful</a>, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535114271444981.html">ineffective</a>, and frequently violates our <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/22/ron-paul-war-on-drugs-undermines-civil-liberties/">civil liberties</a>. But this particular form of government overreach will almost certainly end, and it will do for a rather mundane reason: the state simply won't have the funds to continue.<br />
<h4>
Prohibition Repeal as the Ultimate Rent Party</h4>
There is a historical precedent for the immanent demise of most victimless crimes. Consider the Volstead act, commonly known as <a href="http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition">prohibition</a>. This forerunner of the war on drugs banned intoxicating alcoholic beverages. Even though the failures of this act became apparent soon after the act's passage in 1919, it was not <a href="http://www.repealday.org/">repealed until 1933</a>. What happened in 1933 that finally did in the Volstead act?<br />
<br />
In part, prohibition was ended by the great depression. At a time when the economic downturn was drying up tax revenue, governments were saddled with the substantial costs of enforcing prohibition. Moreover, keeping bars and liquor closed also closed off a badly needed source of tax revenue. When it became clear that prohibition could only be continued by asking an impoverished public to tighten their belts still further, the prohibition repeal effort passed overwhelmingly. <br />
<h4>
The Volstead Act on Crack</h4>
If 1930's depression era America found prohibition too dear a luxury, then twenty-first century debt crisis America will almost certainly reject its even more expensive offshoot, the war on drugs. Essentially, the war on drugs is the Volstead Act on Crack. Consider these expenses:<br />
<h4>
Jail House Rock</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/US_incarceration_rate_timeline.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/US_incarceration_rate_timeline.gif" width="297" /></a></div>
Key element of the war on drugs is harsh minimum sentences for drug offenses and extremely aggressive enforcement. Since President Nixon kicked off the war on drugs in 1971, American incarceration rates have more than quadrupled. We now hold the dubious distinction of having the <a href="http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal">highest incarceration rate in the world</a>. We have more prisoners than all of China, which has four times our general population. We jail a larger portion of our black population than did Apartheid era South Africa.<br />
<br />
The costs of all these prisoners is straining state budgets.<br />
California pays <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/02/09/Runaway-Prison-Costs-Thrash-State-Budgets.aspx">$45,563 a year</a> to keep a man in prison, so now the Golden state spends more on jails than it does on universities. And that does not even could the loss of tax revenue from taking these prisoners out of the economy. Longitudinal studies show an even greater expense: those serving lengthy drug sentences are less likely to ever become a productive member of society.<br />
<br />
In the past, the mantra of the drug warrior has been that it is important to "send a message" to users of illicit drugs. But as states such as California and Michigan face the threat of default, they are bound to ask if we could please send this message via Western Union.<br />
<h4>
Putting the War into "The War on Drugs"</h4>
The war on drugs quickly took up a large portion of law enforcement efforts at all levels. It even has its own enforcement agency, the <a href="http://www.justice.gov/dea/">DEA</a>, which has spend $536 billion on drug enforcement since its inception in 1973. (See the suitable tacky<a href="http://www.apifederal.com/dea/"> DEA museum gift shop</a>). But victimless crimes are notoriously hard to enforce. When this effort fell short, harsher tactics such as SWAT teams and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7u91A3KGQ">no-knock raids</a> were tried. Some police departments have even <a href="http://freekeene.com/2012/01/28/bearcat/">acquired military equipment from the DOD</a>. When they called it the "War on Drugs", they were not kidding!<br />
<br />
Like most wars, this one has had plenty of collateral damage. There have been raids on the wrong house that have resulted in innocent people or even <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27fPqQctVXc">pets getting shot</a>. To be fair, raids on real drug dealers are highly dangerous operations, so police are bound to make mistakes in these high stress situations. But this is a danger of our own making. The day prohibition was repealed, the bootlegger gangs went out of business, and with their demise, there was a marked decrease in gang violence. Drug decriminalization would likely have the same effect, saving us both money and lives. <br />
<h4>
Too Poor to Keep Screwing Up</h4>
Due to budget constraints, Detroit has had to make cuts in its police force. In order to protect themselves, some of this city's citizens have formed a citizen's group called <a href="http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/04/030412-news-detroit-mayhem-1-2/">Detroit 300</a> that patrols the streets that Detroit's finest used to patrol. Not surprisingly, all the crimes that Detroit 300 deal with are crimes with victims: rape, robbery, assult, murder, etc. They are not chasing down dope smokers. When hard choices have to be made, enforcing victimless crimes is the first thing to go.<br />
<br />
As the nation's debt crisis comes to a head, we will forced to take the same approach as Detroit 300. There are many better reasons to end the war on drugs, but it will definitely end for one reason: we cannot afford it. Lack of funds will force our government to do the right thing.<br />
<br />
Speaking of victimless crimes, check out the documentary <a href="http://www.victimlesscrimespree.com/">Derrick J's Victimless Crime Spree</a>, where one activist gets into an amazing amount of legal trouble for peaceably protesting his local public officials. Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-1099284729967178672012-08-19T11:14:00.001-07:002012-08-19T11:19:00.528-07:00Will America Become Detroit, Part 3: Paul Ryan, Rambo, and J. Alfred Prufrock<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8pkCW615Urm8YcW-ZvhzV4UYK9ZXXMHL5suEA_SfhF0w2TEU2Z33WRZdsPr17Wnw5zANb1flUnK13fMJYmVMDfiC7BPcjqaoPiV4OuOgGwXIAySsxk2z7O2x5sen54Qvt5uxlt0N93ds/s1600/Caricature-PaulRyan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8pkCW615Urm8YcW-ZvhzV4UYK9ZXXMHL5suEA_SfhF0w2TEU2Z33WRZdsPr17Wnw5zANb1flUnK13fMJYmVMDfiC7BPcjqaoPiV4OuOgGwXIAySsxk2z7O2x5sen54Qvt5uxlt0N93ds/s200/Caricature-PaulRyan.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"We fail far more often by timidity than by over-daring."</i><br />
- Ray Stannard Baker</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Do I dare eat a peach?"</i><br />
- From "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by T. S. Eliot</blockquote>
The most controversial deficit reduction plan was put forward by Wisconsin Representative and Vice Presidential candidate <a href="http://paulryan.house.gov/">Paul Ryan</a>. In 2008, he introduced <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6110">H. R. 6110</a>, entitled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008", as a plan to balance the budget and create jobs. This proposal has garnered both high praise and scathing condemnation.<br />
<ul>
<li>Democratic co-chair of President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform called the Ryan plan <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbzpuqWo6yU">“sensible, serious . . , and honest”.</a></li>
<li>In April at an Associated Press Luncheon, President Obama denounced Ryan's plan as <a href="http://thehill.com/video/administration/219731-obama-paul-ryans-budget-nothing-but-thinly-veiled-social-darwinism">"nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism." </a></li>
<li>New York Times columnist David Brooks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1">wrote</a> "Today, Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee,
is scheduled to release the most comprehensive and most courageous
budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes"</li>
<li>Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have blasted the Ryan plan, <a href="http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/04/23/paul_ryan_in_the_catholic_weeds_106475.html">writing</a> that it fails to meet a basic moral test.</li>
</ul>
As is often the case, the truth lies between the extremes. Paul Ryan's plan would not produce a future ripped from the pages of <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/olivertwist01dickrich#page/n7/mode/2up">Oliver Twist</a>. On the other hand, the plan would also not succeed in its primary mission of eliminating the deficit. The reason why the Ryan proposal would fail is that, contrary to what both his supporters and critics contend, this plan is actually too timid to be effective. Contrary to popular rhetoric, the senator who is likened to Rambo is much closer to J. Alfred Prufrock. <br />
<h4>
Bill Clinton, Social Darwinist?</h4>
One of the more popular attacks on the Ryan plan is that it would cut spending much too quickly, threatening our fragile economic recovery. President Obama even went so far as to call the plan a <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/obama_04-03.html">"prescription for decline"</a>. Everyone agrees that spending cuts are inevitable, but Obama asserts that these cuts must be done more gradually to preserve both the safety net for the poor and this nation's greatness.<br />
<br />
This argument focuses its line of attack on the notion that Ryan's plan spends considerably less than recent federal budgets, a major talking point for the plan's proponents. So how does the Ryan plan compare to federal spending levels, or for that matter, how does it compare to Obama's proposal? An analysis of the <a href="http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Projected-spending-ryan-obama-analysis-pdf.pdf">numbers</a> shows how Washington's definition of a cut differs from the rest of the nation: the only sense in which Ryan's budget for the next 10 years can be considered a "cut" is in the sense that spending will not increase a fast as politicians originally planned:<br />
<ul>
<li>Even after adjusting for inflation, Ryan's plan for the each of the next ten years would be 46% higher than Bill Clinton's last budget; and</li>
<li>In this 10 year period Ryan plan spends only 5% less than Obama's proposed budget.</li>
</ul>
If Paul Ryan is a Social Darwinist, wouldn't that make Bill Clinton one as well? And if we are to believe that the Ryan plan would put us on the path to decline, why should we have any confidence in a plan that only differs from the Ryan by only 5%?<br />
<h4>
Voting for the Party That Will Throw Granny Off a Cliff</h4>
The most contentious issue with the Ryan Plan is the entitlement program reforms. As an alternative to the current defined benefit program, Ryan proposed block granting the program, and an opt-out for younger people who wish to vest in private retirement plans instead of Social Security and Medicare. <br />
<br />
The imminent debt crisis has finally forced a senator to touch the "third rail" of American politics. And predictably, his opponents have played upon the public's fear of changes in these popular programs. The Agenda Project produced an infamous <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U">ad</a> depicting Paul Ryan throwing an old woman off a cliff. The Romney campaign responded by producing its own <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCsRsMUA5Y">ad</a>, attacking Obama's plans to divert Medicare "savings" to pay for Obamacare. So which party will really preserve Medicare as we know it?<br />
<br />
The honest answer is neither party: no matter who wins the elections here and in the next few decades, our entitlement programs as we know them will come to an end, period. These programs are completely and utterly unsustainable. As early as 2008, the trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare place their unfunded liability (that is, what they are obligated to pay out minus anticipated revenue) at <a href="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/11/TheFinancialMessintheUSandEurope">$101 trillion</a>. Given that our annual GDP is around $14 trillion, this is a hole that even a 100% tax rate cannot fill. A health care economist put the Medicare situation in far stronger language (warning: possibly NSFW) <a href="http://healthcare-economist.com/2012/05/21/medicare-trustees-report-were-fucked/">here</a>. <br />
<br />
Ryan's plan is probably insufficient to fix the entitlement crisis, but it is better than the current administrations' <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_f20ZDBj5k">non-plan</a>. In reality, the most likely outcome for the entitlement programs is that they will become means tested. But saying that is not politically popular (ask Ron Paul and Gary Johnson), so the two major party candidates will continue to argue over which one will push granny off the cliff.<br />
<h4>
Watching the Glaciers Speed By</h4>
For all the hoopla about the rapidity of the Paul Ryan's cuts, what is amazing is how agonizingly slow this plan is in terms of solving the debt crisis. <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22085">CBO projections</a> show that the plan won't even produce a balanced budget until 2040. Even this is based on optimistic assumptions, such as that no other national crises will arise in the next 28 years, and that congress will remain committed to this plan for nearly three decades. Part of the problem is that Senator Ryan has his own sacred cows: he leaves the budgets for defense and the war on terror untouched. Given the severity of the debt problem, everything should be on the table. The Pentagon and the Office of Homeland Security both have a lot of waste that could be eliminated. <br />
<br />
To really fix the debt crisis, what is needed is a plan far more bold than the Ryan plan. But since Washington views this plan as reckless, what will actually be implemented is something weaker, and therefore even more inadequate, than the Ryan plan. This is the strongest evidence yet that no serious remedy will be attempted until it is too late, i.e. in financial terms, America will become Detroit.<br />
<br />
What we are facing is nothing short of default of our nation. Granted, the consequences of this will be terrible: treasury bonds are frequently purchased because of their reputation for stability. Many who are depending on these bonds, including some who were dependent on them for their retirement, will be devastated. But there will be a few upsides to this crisis, as will be detailed in the next installments.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-17817479629849832312012-07-15T10:54:00.000-07:002012-07-15T18:34:13.339-07:00Will America Become Detroit, Part 2: Popular Solutions That Are Bound to Fail<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6oCpKOcGTFYJO3f2vPHZToPRkHw6dhX3xMhZDXQZlgkyC-PsmEk5VUwCmdYuCZMpK99GSXfhnMGWHm-ct3O0raUxxwP-eeggwFBUbVwqqexppboWeMDvm5byBRAHMugsuhTurQw6QH78/s1600/WileE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6oCpKOcGTFYJO3f2vPHZToPRkHw6dhX3xMhZDXQZlgkyC-PsmEk5VUwCmdYuCZMpK99GSXfhnMGWHm-ct3O0raUxxwP-eeggwFBUbVwqqexppboWeMDvm5byBRAHMugsuhTurQw6QH78/s320/WileE.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="huge"><i>"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."</i></span><span class="huge"><br />- H. L. Mencken</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back."</i><br />
- Charlie Brown, from <i>Peanuts</i> by Charles M. Schulz</blockquote>
The U.S. government debt crisis has garnered enough attention that pundits from across the political spectrum have weighed in on the issue by proposed solutions that are pleasing to their core constituencies. As we look at these proposals, it is easy to see why they are crowd pleasers, but they all have one serious defect: they won't solve the problem.<br />
<h2>
Don't Worry, Be Happy: S&P Says We're OK</h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqpytT499FD0F6vUo_m7jYJVQsadLvKvs7Q54Htz9F5K-PaOqT3avzeAVsU0ytVnPnrkwg8Rq9aMlq_iKb4LyskHnyK5h-WPjui5ieAz8TgytM4ghuEGFDheLkjEbJlfoOXsOrDvpgWV4/s1600/coyote+cliff.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqpytT499FD0F6vUo_m7jYJVQsadLvKvs7Q54Htz9F5K-PaOqT3avzeAVsU0ytVnPnrkwg8Rq9aMlq_iKb4LyskHnyK5h-WPjui5ieAz8TgytM4ghuEGFDheLkjEbJlfoOXsOrDvpgWV4/s1600/coyote+cliff.jpg" /></a></div>
One popular solution to America's debt crisis is to contend that the problem does not really exist. CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria summarized this point of view as "America is not Greece". Debt crisis skeptics content that America is prosperous, competitive, and has a high bond rating, hence she should have no problem borrowing money at reasonable rates for the foreseeable future. <br />
<br />
The problem with debt crisis denial should have become clear with the financial crisis of 4 years ago: bond ratings, along with other measures of credit worthiness, can change blindingly fast. Standard & Poor's <a href="http://www.alacrastore.com/research/s-and-p-credit-research-Lehman_Brothers_Financial_Products_And_Lehman_Brothers_Derivatives_Product_Ratings_Affirmed-670933">rated
Lehman Brothers AAA 72 hours before they filed for bankruptcy</a>. And as late as December of 2009, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-02/moody-s-downgrade-puts-greece-in-debt-rating-hall-of-shame-alongside-cuba.html">Moody's rated Greek bonds a high A</a>, only to drop that rating to Junk level in the following months. So three years ago, we could have argued that "Greece is not Greece"!<br />
<br />
The ratings from firms such Moody's, Fitch, and S&P are merely numerical measures of human trust in the institutions being rated, hence they can change just as quickly as our emotions change. If creditors change their opinion of American credit worthiness, the ratings may change even faster than they did for Lehman Brothers and Greece, due to one disquieting fact in the back of investors' minds: the U.S. government is too big to be bailed out by anyone.<br />
<br />
Denial of the debt problem is a temporarily comforting, but ultimately dangerous, solution. One needs to look at the Motor City to see how it plays out. America may not be Greece, but it may very well be Detroit.<br />
<h2>
Eat the Rich!</h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCz19zkXvJ03Elfy5H4FUMqhVRrf1-JJMPdPe5jOqltXUvgKweIxPaMwSCjdGPZsQY49vm3mxZaFeHY4wQe8o7fgeVz7AulmlU2Zd11CP8sTvl0MNfkwVyto_kGZns0_gmf3L_pZVaFT0/s1600/7273634.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCz19zkXvJ03Elfy5H4FUMqhVRrf1-JJMPdPe5jOqltXUvgKweIxPaMwSCjdGPZsQY49vm3mxZaFeHY4wQe8o7fgeVz7AulmlU2Zd11CP8sTvl0MNfkwVyto_kGZns0_gmf3L_pZVaFT0/s1600/7273634.jpg" /></a></div>
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/03/06/michael_moore_america_not_broke/singleton/">Michael Moore</a>, among others, want us to balance the budget by raising taxes on the rich. This method has tremendous appeal, for everyone assumes that "rich" means "people who make more money than me". Wouldn't it be great if the debt could be paid off purely by stereotypical <a href="http://www.gilligansisle.com/thurston.html">Thurston Howell III</a> millionaires who need only sacrifice a few yachts and mansions?<br />
<br />
Michael Moore's "Eat the Rich" solution plays well, but would it actually fix the problem? Michael Moore doesn't run the numbers, but Veronique De Rugy at George Mason university has. Her study of historical U.S. revenue data, from 1930 to 2010, shows that the government has generally has been<a href="http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/historical-revenue-path-plus-top-marginal-rates-analysis.pdf"> unable to raise more than 19% of the GDP in taxes</a>. The few times we have been able to raise 20% of the GDP in taxes has been a few years at the peaks of boom cycles. This data include the Halcyon days of the 1950's, when the highest federal tax bracket was over 90%. In short, our government is already raising close to the maximal amount of money it can raise, no matter what we do with rates.<br />
<br />
Upping the tax rates on the highest earners can have some rather nasty negative consequences. The rich are not all Thurston Howell III clones; they also include some of the world's best developers and entrepreneurs. Excessive taxes might encourage these people to move elsewhere, and the economic activity that they would generate will move with them. This happened in 1960's Britain, where 95% tax rates caused the "brain drain", where the best British minds went overseas to protect their wealth. The "brain drain" phenomenon even inspired a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqK97av7I3s">Beatles song</a>.<br />
<br />
Well, desperate times call for desperate measures. Maybe we need to be even tougher on the rich than America was in the 1950's or Britain was in the 1960's in order to raise the money we need. Again, this scenario does not hold up once you run the numbers. Fellow blogger <a href="http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html">iowahawk</a> computes what we could raise by the most extreme "Eat the Rich" tax schemes, including taxing 100% of all income above $250K, confiscation all the wealth of America's richest families, and all the profits of our largest companies; he finds that even these most extreme measures will just barely cover this year's budget, with no hope of covering next year's.<br />
When you do the math, it turns out that the only way we could possibly maintain our current level of spending would be to tax the middle class so much that they would be forced to lower their standard of living. Don't hold your breath waiting for a politician to tell you that.<br />
<h2>
Next Time</h2>
In the next FatherBrain post, we look at the controversial Paul Ryan plan (I think Sen. Ryan had his first name legally changed to "controversial"). The usual complaint is that this plan cuts spending too sharply. This post will make the case that the real problem with the Ryan plan is that it does not cut enough.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-153437053899546562012-07-12T20:37:00.000-07:002012-07-14T12:24:58.713-07:00Will America Become Detroit?<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8GkWcndMvFNlL-hYW7dCuXr41MqcIPAZiMwI04j8kWno9JMf8QPu3Ce2610jbekpOLf7-s-W4zl21WRmF_JY2Mh7XSXRhI8G3Ib2_6356spJi4x2DC03kKaCiCwnIbw-0vNS0YwHGmhM/s1600/7163550272_5992a30385.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8GkWcndMvFNlL-hYW7dCuXr41MqcIPAZiMwI04j8kWno9JMf8QPu3Ce2610jbekpOLf7-s-W4zl21WRmF_JY2Mh7XSXRhI8G3Ib2_6356spJi4x2DC03kKaCiCwnIbw-0vNS0YwHGmhM/s400/7163550272_5992a30385.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"</i><br />
- Hamlet Act 1, scene 3</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"You load sixteen tons, what do you get</i><i><br />Another day older and deeper in debt</i><i><br />Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go</i><i></i><i><br /></i><i>I owe my soul to the company store"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"><br />- From "Sixteen Tons" by Merle Travis</span></i></blockquote>
<div>
Detroit News editorial writer <span class="byline">Shikha Dalmia has written a <a href="http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/28/062812-opinions-column-detroit-disaster-dalmia-1-2">sobering op-ed</a> about my former home town's financial crisis. Detroit's leaders seem to be in a state of denial about the severity of the problem. This Op-Ed argues that bankruptcy may be the best option for Detroit, since it would force the changes needed to get the city's debt under control.</span><br />
<span class="byline"></span><br />
<span class="byline">It is sad to see what has happened to this once great city, but it is hardly surprising. The city has been spending far beyond either current or projected revenue for many years now. Bowing to political pressure, the city council has been kicking the can down the road for as long as possible. But now, they have run out of road.</span><br />
<span class="byline"></span><br />
<span class="byline">But those from other </span><span class="byline">American </span><span class="byline">cities should neither scorn nor pity the city of Detroit. The nation as a whole are following the same trajectory that Detroit followed years ago. So what prevents our country from meeting the same fate as this tragic city? Neither party has offered a serious plan for getting government debt under control. We hear a lot about climate change denialism, but this nation's undoing may well turn out to be deficit denialism.</span><br />
<h2>
<span class="byline">Wait a Minute! Didn't We Fix This in the 90's?</span></h2>
<span class="byline">As late as the last years of the Clinton administration, our government was not running up the deficit. Today, a third of all federal spending is borrowed. How did this our nation go so far wrong in the last 12 years? To answer this question, let us compare <a href="http://fatherbrain.blogspot.com/2011/07/solving-budget-crisis-through-theft.html">the year 2000 budget to this year's budget</a>. Adjusting for inflation (2012 dollars) and population growth,</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span class="byline">In 2000, the government took in $2.5 trillion dollars and spent $2.0 trillion; and</span></li>
<li><span class="byline">In 2012, our nation will take in $2.4 trillion dollars and spend $3.8 trillion. </span></li>
</ul>
<span class="byline">Revenue is down from 2000, but given how much weaker the economy is now, what is really surprising is that the revenue is not down even further. Spending, o</span><span class="byline">n the other hand, </span><span class="byline">has gone out of control. Even after adjusting for population and inflation, spending has nearly doubled. </span><span class="byline">If our government spent at year 2000 levels, we</span><span class="byline"> would <i>still</i> have a budget surplus.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="byline">In short, the problem is spending, not revenue. But spending cuts are more popular in the abstract than they are in practice, hence neither major party has put out serious proposals for reigning in the red ink. </span><br />
<h2>
<span class="byline">Is Our Situation That Bad? No, It's Even Worse!</span></h2>
<span class="byline">As <a href="http://www.usdebtclock.org/">the national debt clock</a> so vividly displays, the U.S. federal deficit is rapidly approaching $16 trillion. But as stunning as that figure is, it is only a small part of our shared indebtedness. This figure does not include the unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The unfunded liabilities of these two programs dwarf the $16 trillion figure. The <a href="http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2012.pdf">2012 Medicare trustees report</a> estimates a shortfall of $27 trillion, and the <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2012/tr2012.pdf">2012 Social Security trustees report</a> places its unfunded liability at $8.6 trillion. And these trustees reports estimates are on the conservative side!</span><br />
<span class="byline"></span><br />
<span class="byline">Another debt problem that U.S. governments, at all levels, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2009/01/12/the-next-catastrophe">have woefully underfunded their pension plans</a>.We have seen the trouble this creates in California, Wisconsin, New Jersey, as well as Detroit. As the baby boom start retiring in droves, this problem will trigger more municipal bankruptcies. And the feds will not have the money to bail them out.</span><br />
<h2>
<span class="byline">The Lighter Side of Default</span></h2>
We have general agreement that our current spending is unsustainable. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to identify the debt crisis as the greatest threat to our nation's future. My next post will look at both party's (wholly inadequate) proposed solutions. But at this point, it is safe to say that, irrespective of who wins in November, this crisis will be dealt with the same way it was in Detroit: at the very last minute, using desperate measures. But cheer up: the impending U.S. default may be very painful in the short run, but it will force some very positive changes in our governance. Follow up posts will explain why the coming storm will be followed by brighter days. Watch this space.</div>Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-32760380630765150382012-01-15T05:29:00.000-08:002012-02-05T17:08:44.621-08:00Speaking for the Left-Handed Majority<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDWzM1XQ_rMIhDFW6G-UGusOOWuUwg9Uz7b6HJtC6nbLiIIFKJCjSk-Mky15mPJcKvfEnGIdtcynfkViBnvMBdjVlhBy_a9XIK83kW7eLYc3t80u4aarKJmvDbPhwPWImtMMqlZ9K7sIQ/s1600/leftorium_400.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDWzM1XQ_rMIhDFW6G-UGusOOWuUwg9Uz7b6HJtC6nbLiIIFKJCjSk-Mky15mPJcKvfEnGIdtcynfkViBnvMBdjVlhBy_a9XIK83kW7eLYc3t80u4aarKJmvDbPhwPWImtMMqlZ9K7sIQ/s400/leftorium_400.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5697934151858557202" border="0" /></a><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>"But when you do your giving, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"<br />- Matthew 6:3</blockquote><blockquote>"Some people are right-handed. Some people are left-handed. There are other people who are able to use both hands with equal ease. Such people are called Handbidextrous."<br />- Sally Brown in "Peanuts" by Charles M. Schulz</blockquote> Of all the traits that evolution bestowed on humans, our dexterity is one of the most valuable. Yes, human intelligence and communication are quite essential to our species success, allowing us to create thoughts that can be shared widely and passed down through generations. But we would not be able to readily turn those thoughts into tools without the imposable thumb. Due to the value of our dexterity, one of the more important differences between humans is handedness. The majority of humans primarily use their right hands, and this is reflected throughout our culture and technology. The vast majority of languages are written from left to right. In most countries, traffic travels on the right side of the road, drivers are seated on left, and hence the gear shift is operated with the driver's right hand. Most desks, computer mice, scissors and watches are designed for the right handed. Most cameras are ridiculously right-handed.<br /><br />The left-handed live in a world not designed for them, and yet many of them become quite accomplished:<br /><ul><li>Southpaws that have excelled in the arts include Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Toulouse Lautrec, and M.C. Escher;<br /></li><li>The music world has benefited from left-handed artists such as Beethoven, Prokofiev, Mozart, Cole Porter, Judy Garland, David Bowie, and the two surviving Beatles;<br /></li><li>Scientists Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Albert Schweitzer, and Alan Turing were left handed; and<br /></li><li>U.S. Presidents Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all won elections from a largely right-handed electorate.</li></ul>So what percentage of the population is left-handed? This is a hard question, complicated by factors such as how to count the ambidextrous or those who have trained themselves to use the other hand. Depending on how you them, 10% to 20% of the population is left-handed. But in a more general sense, one could make the case that the vast majority of us are left handed. Each individual has some characteristics that differs from the majority, and these differences often have the downside of making it hard for said individual to "fit in". In this sense, virtually all of us are all left-handed.<br /><br />The simple concept of the left-handed majority provides a pragmatic justification for tolerance. Every time you accommodate someone else's differences, you strengthen the <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm">social contract</a> and hence advance acceptance of your own differences.<br /><br />I am an unlikely spokesman for the left-handed majority. For one thing, I am right-handed. I am also a white heterosexual male and married with two offspring. On the other hand (pardon the expression), I am a member of a political minority (<a href="http://www.libertarianism.org">libertarians</a>) and a religious minority (<a href="http://www.uua.org">Unitarian-Universalism</a>). This may seem like an odd combination. There is the common perception that libertarians are just conservatives who smoke marijuana. There is also the perception and that Unitarian-Universalist churches are the last refuge for Woodstock hippies. So how can an ersatz conservative join a <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=granola">granola</a> church?<br /><br />In part, I would answer this question by pointing out that these common perceptions are wrong. For the record, I am not a conservative, and the last time I smoked marijuana was back when disco music was not retro. But for the most part, I am a member of both these organizations due to some common themes. Libertarianism emphasizes freedom as the core political value of modern society. Unitarian-Universalists promote freedom of thought as a core religious value. Moreover, both groups celebrate our individuality, libertarians in the political sphere, Unitarian-Universalists in the religious realm. This is why I am a libertarian Unitarian-Universalist: I am doing it for the left-handed majority.<br /><br />Update: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Unitarian-Universalist-for-Ron-Paul/332065726812358">check this Facebook page</a> for more libertarian Unitarian-Universalists.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-8858574736914496102012-01-01T14:53:00.000-08:002012-02-19T10:57:32.400-08:00Hitchens and Kim Jong-il prove: "Screw 'em If They Can't Take a Joke!"<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja2VfPJ91sZ_sQgpH4LPWJrZsXSXYgWLUWF6VxHK8thKsFlQKHHpoA_slbVO8Bb_lF51RHsw4M2k3nQ0UnPavm2u-ITafV10d_utg-Fd9hOe5cO2y_F5ItQTXm_kQ8jwaW9oKpLrGQI4M/s1600/team_america_kji-168x220.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 168px; height: 220px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja2VfPJ91sZ_sQgpH4LPWJrZsXSXYgWLUWF6VxHK8thKsFlQKHHpoA_slbVO8Bb_lF51RHsw4M2k3nQ0UnPavm2u-ITafV10d_utg-Fd9hOe5cO2y_F5ItQTXm_kQ8jwaW9oKpLrGQI4M/s400/team_america_kji-168x220.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5692816171385188882" border="0" /></a><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote></blockquote>"<span style="font-size:85%;">And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />- Matthew 23:12<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >"Be a clown, be a clown,</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >All the world loves a clown</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Be a poor silly ass</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >And you'll always travel first-class"</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />- From "Be A Clown", lyrics by Cole Porter</span><br /></blockquote><br />The year 2011 ended with two notable celebrity deaths:<br /><ol><li>British-American journalist and gadfly <a href="http://www.hitchenszone.com/">Christopher Hitchens</a> died of pneumonia on December 15; and</li><li>Kim Jong-il, the man who held the title of North Korean Supreme Leader (along with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kim_Jong-il%27s_titles">many other titles</a>) died of a heart attack on December 17.</li></ol>To put the lives of these men in perspective, I correct a theory of Hitchens, and apply this corrected theory to the late "Beloved Leader" of North Korea. Hitchens placed the blame for much of the world's evils on religion, but a closer examination reveals that the blame more accurately belongs to the ancient vice of vanity.<br /><br />For centuries, religious leaders have attacked atheism as promoting unethical behavior. These leaders argued that without the reward of Heaven or the threat of Hell, what incentive is there for an atheist to behave morally? Hitchens, along with many atheists authors, have correctly pointed out that this argument is erroneous and unfair. There are many good reasons for practicing morality besides the afterlife, and there are many atheists who lead ethical lives. Hitchens is right on this point, but then he advanced his own variant on this attack. As he said in a <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/christopher-hitchens-our-three-hour-debate/">debate with Mark Roberts</a>:<br /><blockquote>"There’s a great deal of wickedness that’s attributable purely to religious belief. Morally normal people wouldn’t do these things if they didn’t think God was desiring them to do so."</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>So instead of arguing that ethics require a belief in God, Hitchens argues that one should <span style="font-weight: bold;">not </span>believe in order to live an ethical life. Hitchens' position has many of the same mistakes as the anti-atheist position he attacked. There are plenty of rationalizations for bad behavior besides the "God made me do it" excuse. Moreover, some of the greatest moral outrages of the twentieth century (the <a href="http://gulaghistory.org/">Soviet Gulags</a>, the <a href="http://www.chinese-memorial.org/">Cultural Revolution</a>, the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrMAvy_Aoak">East German Stasi</a>) were carried out by Marxists who opposed religion.<br /><br />Hitchens frequently encountered the issue of Marxist immorality in debates, and he had a novel response to this issue. He argued that the Soviet, Maoist, and North Korean regimes, in spite of their official atheist positions, were really religions! Christopher posits that the founding members of these failed states are viewed as gods or prophets, and hence these Marxist atrocities are yet more examples of holy terror. Now granted, some communist states have rituals that are reminiscent of cult religions, such as the Soviet's extraordinary efforts to <a href="http://www.artukraine.com/old/historical/lenin_makeover.htm">preserve Lenin's body</a>. But the square peg of communism simply does not fit into the round hole of religion, at least as how Hitchens and Marx defined it. Consider Engals' eulogy for Marx, taught in all the major communist countries: "On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think." Such a statement makes it clear that Engals did not believe that Marx had an afterlife. Now if the communists are going to accept anyone as god, they would certainly regard Karl Marx as divine. And if they were to do so, they must conclude that their god is dead!<br /><br />Christopher Hitchens is not here to defend his theory that religion is the root of most of the world's atrocities, but we can do the next best thing by fixing this theory's flaws. The real common factor to the most repressive states is a belief that their leadership is incapable of error, and therefore should be exempt for criticism. Now if your state's leadership is claiming to be God's exclusive agent on planet Earth, fostering this belief is that much easier. But as the cults of Fidel Castro and Kim Jung-il demonstrate, one can obtain such blind devotion without religion.<br /><br />What these repressive regimes really lack is humility, that is, a good-natured admission that they have faults, just like the rest of us. In other words, they lack a sense of humor. Consider Kim Jung-il. He has read many a somber, scholarly criticisms of his rule. As an avid film buff, he has seen dramas and action pictures with North Korean villains. But there is only one Western work that so offended Kim Jung-il that he had North Korean embassies request that the work be banned: the film <a href="http://www.teamamerica.com/">"Team America: World Police"</a>, the marionette picture made by the creators of <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">"South Park"</a>. He realized that other critiques would do him no lasting harm, but that anyone who laughs at the Kim Jung-il puppet is unlikely to accept the real Kim as an infallible ruler. For similar reasons, Adolph Hitler was distressed by the Chaplin film <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJOuoyoMhj8">"The Great Dictator"</a>. One wonders what Hitler would have thought of the many YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSYk8ofhYFY">"Downfall"</a> videos.<br /><br />For this reason, we should be grateful for the current trend where our politicians appear on comedy shows, such as Jay Leno. There are now several shows (<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/">"The Daily Show"</a>, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/red-eye/index.html">"Red Eye"</a>) that combine politics and humor. Political humor does more than provide us with some much needed laughs; it helps us keep our leaders in perspective, and by doing so, it protects our freedom.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-88550582899367864832011-10-15T14:08:00.000-07:002011-10-15T21:44:19.440-07:00Occupy Boston Versus What Occupies Mayor Menino's Soul<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQfeNiNx3p0w3dqpHX0t9sMErfCs3_EKbOrCix1ckmzsF4xycKGbUGoBGx4LJ9DC_KV97Szu9C7Ve2u2xX9m5U8_jPCuDcU5qgJrJkLbywyaxdIgqA9jKsWQ-tFemgwKn_vh-Ce1JJGj8/s1600/4d57c3_Menino1_03142009.jpg"><img style="float:center; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 315px; height: 275px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQfeNiNx3p0w3dqpHX0t9sMErfCs3_EKbOrCix1ckmzsF4xycKGbUGoBGx4LJ9DC_KV97Szu9C7Ve2u2xX9m5U8_jPCuDcU5qgJrJkLbywyaxdIgqA9jKsWQ-tFemgwKn_vh-Ce1JJGj8/s400/4d57c3_Menino1_03142009.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5663835629287102130" border="0" /></a><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"Men at some time are masters of their fates:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But in ourselves, that we are underlings."</span><br />- From "The Life and Death of Julies Caesar", Act I Scene II</span><br /></blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"Take a step outside yourself<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">Then you turn around</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Take a look at who you are</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It's pretty scary"</span><br />- From "Turn Around" (1980) lyrics by Mark Mothersbaugh and Gerald Casale</span></blockquote>The "Occupy Wall Street" movement has spread to many big cities, including Boston. Recently Boston Mayor Thomas Menino <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/10/15/occupy_boston_protesters_unfazed_by_police_costs">has ordered the arrests of "Occupy Boston" protesters</a>. On the surface, the Mayor has some valid charges: the protest was spilling over onto the Rose Kennedy Greenway, in violation of zoning rules. The protests have disrupted commercial activity. In particular, a lucrative food festival was cancelled because the protesters had taken over the space where the event would have taken place. Yes, we have the irony that an event that would have provided a lot of temp jobs was cancelled so that people could protest unemployment.<br /><br />But cry no tears for the his honor the Mayor. The blame for the current lawlessness goes beyond the young people he is arresting. The true cause of the "Occupy Boston" controversy can best be explained by the following facts about Massachusetts politics:<br /><ol><li>Massachusetts is basically a one-party state, so much so that almost all elections are considered over after the Democratic primary;</li><li>This lack of any political challenge has created unusually powerful and long tenured public officials; and</li><li>Perhaps because of facts 1 and 2, the commonwealth of Massachusetts has suffered more than her fair share of government corruption (the last three House Speakers <a href="http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/a_tale_of_3_speakers_--_salvat.html">are all convicted felons</a>).</li></ol>Mayor Menino is the archetypical Massachusetts politician. First elected in 1993, Menino has rarely encountered more than token opposition in subsequent elections. He is popular for taking a no-holds-barred approach to the challenges of the office, often at the expense of our constitutional rights.<br /><br />In 2005, there was a popular line of tee shirts emblazoned with the words "Stop Snitchen'". Menino condemned these shirts as discouraging cooperation with the police. When some Boston stores wanted to sell these shirts, the Mayor vowed to <a href="http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/05133511.asp">send officers into the stores to seize the shirts</a>. Menino was advised that such a seizure would raise free speech issues, so he tried another tact. City inspectors discovered (who knew?) that the clothing stores that wanted to carry the shirts (and only those stores) had code violations. And once the orders for "Stop Snitchen'" shirts were cancelled, the inspectors found that these stores were up to code after all! Score 1 for Mayor Menino, 0 for the first amendment.<br /><br />In January of 2007, the Mayor was rightly concerned that after an AFC playoff game, Patriot fans might engage in violence. The Mayor felt that TV news coverage of sports bars might inflame the fans. Lesser men might have urged TV newscasters to be cautious, but not our Honor the Mayor. With all the boldness of a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg">honey badger</a>, he told the Boston bar and tavern owners, a group that is even more under the city's thumb than clothing stores, <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/20/police_boost_forces_to_stop_unruly_fans">to not allow TV crews into their establishments</a>. With the fear of losing their precious liquor licenses, TV journalists were shut out of Boston bars. So much for an independent fourth estate; <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMQjKiaDTg">it's good to be the king</a>.<br /><br />When the Tea Party demonstration (the recent one, not the 1773 party) took place in Boston, the Mayor insisted that they needed permits and that they need to pay a substantial fee to cover expenses that Boston might incur. The idea that we have to get permits and pay fees in order to exercise our constitutional right to assemble is problematic, but there is an even more disturbing aspect to the Boston protest permit and fees system. Before "Occupy Boston", Mayor Menino enthused over the ideas that the protestors would be advancing. So unlike the Tea Party, <a href="http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1007occupys_pass_steams_tea_party_city_state_ok_with_lack_of_permits/srvc=home">no permits or fees were required of the Occupy Boston organizers</a>. Civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate, founder of the campus free speech organization <a href="http://thefire.org/">F.I.R.E.</a>, is appalled that these fees and red tape are applied at the whims of the Mayor, even though he sympathizes with "Occupy Boston". This is not about protecting city finances: in police overtime alone, "Occupy Boston" has far exceeded all expenses related to the Tea Party event. This is about directing the city's finances to the political causes that the Mayor favors. These arbitrary fees and permits represent a new low in the abuse of power, even by Bay State standards.<br /><br />So even after giving the "Occupy Boston" people a pass, his honor the Mayor is miffed that the demonstrators circumvent or ignore the laws that they don't like. Sorry Mayor, you do not have my sympathy. If you want Bostonians to show more respect for the law, you should model that behavior by showing some respect for the most important set of laws for our government officials: the U.S. constitution. The constitution asserts that all of us, as part of our basic nature, have certain inalienable rights, including the right to free speech and to assemble. Mayor Menino, could your persistent violations of the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment be viewed by the young men and women protesting that the law is not worth taking seriously? If the Mayor were to ask the arrested protestors where they learned to disrespect the law, they could justifiably respond with the 1980's Ad line, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Elr5K2Vuo">"I learned it from watching you!"</a>.<br /><br />For the lighter side of Thomas Menino, check out the <a href="http://www.mumblesmenino.us/">Official Mumbles Menino</a> web site. The mayor speeches are filled with many inadvertent malaprops, spoonerisms, and novel phrasing, so the news commentators that cover them often have to do double duty as cryptographers. It appears that he has as much trouble with his own speech as he has with others. The "Mumbles Menino" site includes the funniest and / or most WTF Menino utterances.<br /><br />On the heavier side of Tom Menino, in recent years he has suffered from significant weight gain. Imagine an overweight autocratic leader who speaks in a way that many people find hard to understand. That image seems familiar; I think I remember where I've seen it:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtEOkVxh-1LCBn4qt_gMqol_QL1zFxH0oEvZY1zR8f90t0mjVRwDBYkzmHJFM7WG1KEt4pPjK9kUuWnmSVPIncf58xbrpm0MBb2W50-E9ktsqZoAe-RoAUML5BW3et2F5oJpTmf9g2iWQ/s1600/149882-jabba_hutt.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 295px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtEOkVxh-1LCBn4qt_gMqol_QL1zFxH0oEvZY1zR8f90t0mjVRwDBYkzmHJFM7WG1KEt4pPjK9kUuWnmSVPIncf58xbrpm0MBb2W50-E9ktsqZoAe-RoAUML5BW3et2F5oJpTmf9g2iWQ/s400/149882-jabba_hutt.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5663940816928203106" border="0" /></a>Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-48560900622536878412011-09-18T19:57:00.000-07:002011-10-07T17:35:07.274-07:00The New Industrial State is Not Too Big to Fail<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/IBM-360-1964-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img src="http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/IBM-360-1964-2.jpg" height="228" width="320" border="0" /></a></div><br /><blockquote style="font-family:inherit;"><span style="font-size:small;"><i style="font-family: inherit;">"There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after."</i></span><br />- Ecclesiastes 1:12</blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;"><i style="font-family: inherit;">"Your castles may tumble (that's fate after all)<br />Life's really funny that way<br />No use to grumble, smile as they fall<br />Weren't you king for a day?"</i></span><br />- From "Wrap Your Troubles in Dreams" (1931), lyrics by Ted Koehler and Billy Moll</blockquote><br />The news coverage of Steve Jobs' retirement from Apple predictably discussed his greatest successes: the <a href="http://www.apple.com/imac">iMac</a>, the <a href="http://www.apple.com/ipod">iPod</a>, the <a href="http://www.apple.com/iphone">iPhone</a>, and the <a href="http://www.apple.com/ipad">iPad</a>. But many articles about this event also covered his failed projects: the <a href="http://www.cracked.com/article/120_the-5-most-ridiculously-awful-computers-ever-made_p2">Apple III</a>, the <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/286886/7-steve-jobs-products-that-failed/1">Apple Lisa</a>, and the <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/286886/7-steve-jobs-products-that-failed/2">NeXT</a> workstation. This is commendable, for Jobs' clunkers are an important part of the story. We learn more from failure than we do from success. If Jobs did not learn from his blunders, he might never have come up with the iPhone.<br /><br />There is a failed project that can teach us a lot about our current financial crisis: the book <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=XZrPDWYDKOYC&q=%22New+Industrial+State%22&dq=%22New+Industrial+State%22&hl=en&ei=yGd2Tp_hCuXs0gGo4LS3DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg">"The New Industrial State"</a> by famed economist <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Galbraith.html">John Kenneth Galbraith</a>, based on a lecture series broadcast by the BBC. The main theme of this book is that the large corporations are no longer subject to market forces. Galbraith contends that the big industry leaders can use a combination of leverage, advertizing, and consolidation to squash any competitor that threatens them. The book focuses on several large corporations that J.K. Galbraith contends will always dominate their industry.<br /><br />So what's the problem with this book? Well, it was first published in 1967, and as fans of <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/mad-men">Mad Men</a> can tell you, the markets have changed quite a lot since the 1960's. Back then, <a href="http://www.gm.com/">General Motors</a> made more than half of the cars sold in the U.S., as well as a significant share of some foreign markets. So naturally "The New Industrial State" assures us that GM is one of the companies that need <b>not</b> worry about competition. When it comes to computers, whether we are talking about hardware or software, the book asserts that the one company that matters will always be <a href="http://www.ibm.com/">IBM</a>. And what about retail? Remember, 1967 is before <a href="http://www.walmart.com/">Walmart</a> or even <a href="http://www.kmart.com/">Kmart</a> made it big, so the book's examples of the forever dominant retailers are <a href="http://www.sears.com/">Sears</a> (currently on the ropes) and Montgomery Ward (went bankrupt in 2000, although recently revived as an <a href="http://www.wards.com/">online store</a>). These 1960's corporate giants lost their market dominance to new companies whose innovations won over the customers. The history of the last few decades provides the definitive rebuttal to "The New Industrial State": even the largest corporations must remain competitive to stay alive.<br /><br />The basic premise of "The New Industrial State" is widely believed today. If only I had a dime for each prediction that the internet will no longer be a venue of free speech because soon one company will take over the internet. Funny thing is, the company that is predicted to take over the internet keeps changing: Netscape, Microsoft, AOL, Google, and Facebook have all been projected to be our future on-line overlord. In 5 years, there will probably be some company not in this list that will be viewed as the future emperor of the internet.<br /><br />Some very important insights in our current economy can be learned from the failure of "The New Industrial State".<br /><ul><li>There is no corporation that is "Too Big to Fail". When a corporation falters, there are plenty of other companies that will pick up the slack. In the 1970's, <a href="http://www.aptea.com/">A&P</a> went from the largest grocery chain in the country to a chain that operated in a handful of east coast states. The closures of all those A&P stores did not cause mass starvation, for these closures were matched by openings of other grocery stores.</li><li>The 2008 bailouts of failed large corporations were therefore unnecessary and counterproductive. At a time when the federal government could ill afford it, taxpayer dollars were wasted to reward poor corporate decisions at the expense of those companies that served their customers better.</li><li>The government should not be in the business of picking market leaders. Keep in mind that John Kenneth Galbraith was an award winning economist who advised presidents FDR and JFK. If Galbraith could not predict which companies would prevail, what chance do we have that our current experts can safely invest our tax dollars in future winning companies? This is the sort of hubris that lead to the <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63795.html">Solyndra</a> debacle.</li></ul>Like the Apple III, "The New Industrial State" is a flawed work, but we can learn a lot from its errors. One wonders if the president's economic team understand where Galbraith went wrong, so that they can avoid repeating his mistakes.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-3727277949236205012011-07-24T05:45:00.001-07:002012-07-12T20:37:48.030-07:00Solving the Budget Crisis Through Theft<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiriqpv1Ltnf2QBhHgzI9qxn6-dzYM68j5Gf0OWibgmiM8oz4VREEqdwoZUkpJF-q5vtOGJGrxIYeAFHmjip-B9sPK3dk04Ely3XRtF95dPlr5VQ1VYyhKMHFTpV0HZfIrZQmmuvHbbvw/s1600/2011+federal+budget+illustration.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5633229444912718130" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiriqpv1Ltnf2QBhHgzI9qxn6-dzYM68j5Gf0OWibgmiM8oz4VREEqdwoZUkpJF-q5vtOGJGrxIYeAFHmjip-B9sPK3dk04Ely3XRtF95dPlr5VQ1VYyhKMHFTpV0HZfIrZQmmuvHbbvw/s400/2011+federal+budget+illustration.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 285px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 400px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"If you steal from one author, it's plagiarism. If you steal from two, it's research."</span><br />- John Burke</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"Plagiarize</span><span style="font-style: italic;">Let no one else's work evade your eyes</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Remember why the good Lord made your eyes</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">So don't shade your eyes</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Only be sure always to call it please 'research'"</span><br />- From "Lobachevsky" by Tom Lehrer.</span></blockquote>
The federal budget fight has been unusually acrimonious. On July 14, <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/513d4936-ad6c-11e0-bc4f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1T29xc2aZ">Obama walked out</a> of the budget talks. On July 22, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us/politics/23fiscal.html?pagewanted=all">Boehner walked out</a> of the budget talks. And throughout these talks, <a href="http://declaration2011.com/">the American public has been walking out</a> from both parties, and for good reason: neither party has been serious about tackling the debt crisis. Sure, both sides crow about how they have proposed drastic cuts, but these spending proposals are "cuts" only in a sense that is accepted no where else than Washington. What they mean by cuts is that they propose spending less than <span style="font-style: italic;">projected</span> 2011 spending. Neither the "Cut, Cap, and Trade" proposal nor the president's most recent proposal would reduce 2011 spending to less than the previous year, even after adjusting last year's spending for inflation and population growth. The Republicans have been reluctant to really address the looming <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/22/no-healthy-deals">entitlement crisis</a>. Congressional Democrats are even worse on this issue, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58585.html">threatening to block any entitlement program changes</a>, while hypocritically complaining that the Republicans are too inflexible about taxes.<br />
<br />
We need not worry the August 2 deadline, however. For starters, the default deadline is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwm6H-t1ozQ">bogus</a> anyways: the government need not default nor miss sending Social Security checks if the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2. But now that both sides have propped up this phony crisis, they will have to save face by coming up with some compromise before the "deadline". The bigger problem is that the compromise that the president and congress will likely fall far short of what is needed to reassure the rating services such as <a href="http://www.standardandpoors.com/">Standard and Poor's</a>. They want to see <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/the-american-debt-sp-paints-a-grotesque-picture.html">creditable deficit reduction</a> if U.S. government bonds are to retain their AAA ratings. If U.S. bonds are downgraded,<br />
<ol>
<li>Bond holders will be hurt; and</li>
<li>The costs of U.S. borrowing will balloon.</li>
</ol>
So we may dodge the August 2 bullet, only to be hit with the S&P bond downgrade.<br />
<br />
Dramatic action is required to prevent our bond rating dropping to AA. We need a deficit reduction plan, and fast. One effective approach would be to find a previous successful budget, and steal it. In short, we can solve our money problem by theft - not of money, but ideas.<br />
<br />
I propose that the 2011 budget be based on the U.S. budget from 2000, one of the last budgets assembled before the 2 recent spendthrift administrations. This budget covered the basic government functions while spending <span style="font-style: italic;">less</span> than the revenues collected. This budget was put together by a Democratic president working with a Republican congress - if they could do it, why can't we? When you adjust the 2000 budget for inflation and population growth, it comes out to $1,965,999 million. This would allow us to meet the S&P deficit reduction limits without taking the perilous action of raising taxes in a troubled economy. So one simple approach would be to adopt the 2000 budget, adjusted for inflation and population growth. This is the one sequel that we would all welcome.<br />
<br />
Critics will immediately point out how the world has changed since 2000. We are now fighting 3 simultaneous wars, we have a slew of new agencies that have cropped up to fight the "War on Terror", a bunch of new Czars, not to mention ambitious new programs such as designing and building a whole new rail system. How could the 2000 budget cover these programs that did not exist 10 years ago? To this argument, I would reply that a large part of the reason we are in this mess is that we adopted expensive new programs without figuring out how to pay for them. We simply cannot afford all of them, so we need to prioritize. Given that we almost certainly cannot do both, should we engage in nation building in 3 middle east countries, or should we rebuild our own nation? Do we really need all these agencies that we were able to get along without for two centuries, and if so, could we pay for them by making cuts elsewhere in the 2000 prototype budget? If we really need the TSA, could we pay for it by eliminating the Import-Export bank or by cutting farm subsidies paid to millionaire farmers?<br />
<br />
Real budget reform is possible. In fact, it is inevitable: the only real question is whether we fix the budget ourselves now or let our creditors decide how to fix it in the future. With the 200 budget austerity program, we can avoid default, avoid a credit downgrade, pay down the deficit, revive the economy, and then we can <a href="http://allmusic.com/album/1999-r15770">party like it's 1999</a>.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-50691484248155149732011-07-17T05:16:00.000-07:002011-07-17T07:08:25.907-07:00Should Someone Take the Fall for the Central Falls Pension Mess?<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwEOFL4hUuw1SRTcIYE9Xcgj_-b9eJN_nvcZ4HmoZCTm0Nqt_U-USXxa8A4LjAges3VbS6X5BvIJviQOy9TfdT5QQcmdg_ZY_tUF1ALgTYK2yzEZ26kxFK65x5WI21IBKKEABz6OYSGuU/s1600/central_falls_considers_bankruptcy.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 382px; height: 287px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwEOFL4hUuw1SRTcIYE9Xcgj_-b9eJN_nvcZ4HmoZCTm0Nqt_U-USXxa8A4LjAges3VbS6X5BvIJviQOy9TfdT5QQcmdg_ZY_tUF1ALgTYK2yzEZ26kxFK65x5WI21IBKKEABz6OYSGuU/s1600/central_falls_considers_bankruptcy.jpg" alt="Prices slashed! Everything must go!" border="0" /></a><br /></div><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."</span><br />- George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman" (1903)<br /></blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"With great power comes great responsibility."</span><br />- Stan Lee / Steve Ditko / David Koepp, "Spiderman" (2002)</blockquote>Many state and local governments are burdened with <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/11/the-truth-about-the-state-pens">unfunded pension liabilities</a>. Recently it was revealed that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/business/central-falls-ri-faces-bankruptcy-over-pension-promises.html?pagewanted=all">Central Falls, Rhode Island</a>, a small, impoverished city, has a pension obligation of $80 million. This is more than the city could possibly pay, so Central Falls is looking into filing for municipal bankruptcy. The backup plan is to go into receivership.<br /><br />I wonder if this rash of municipal pension problems is caused in part because there is no one individual who is legally liable when a municipality makes pension agreements that are not fully funded. Private company officials have done the "perp walk" for not funding their pension obligations. But who will go to jail for Central Falls' pension promises that cannot be met? The mayor? City councilors? The city's union contract negotiators? And who, if anybody, should go to jail for the California pension mess?<br /><br />Please contribute your thoughts: who, if anyone, should be held liable if a municipality does not properly fund its pension obligations? And if we do not hold any one person liable, what is the best way to prevent future pension crises? Feel free to also discuss the mothers of all unfunded liabilities, social security and medicare.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-28583034071228403932011-06-30T07:55:00.000-07:002011-07-18T07:43:42.401-07:00The Great Fall of China<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5142i8RmtT_F8nFdlBt8hyi65dmyqKQ331bkNOmAq0d9a3wjDwxEeTmky49Qc0zfNVUBKO9Y8R2spxxVzfVjO4a9zaUyn5d7cJGdo2aljf2Ei_73VqMyvFlJSTiOR_gsKUf4atOxtVN4/s1600/China-bubble.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 167px; height: 96px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5142i8RmtT_F8nFdlBt8hyi65dmyqKQ331bkNOmAq0d9a3wjDwxEeTmky49Qc0zfNVUBKO9Y8R2spxxVzfVjO4a9zaUyn5d7cJGdo2aljf2Ei_73VqMyvFlJSTiOR_gsKUf4atOxtVN4/s200/China-bubble.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5624027329110859810" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm."</span><br />- F. A. Hayek</blockquote><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"></blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Yeah, the harder they come,<br />The harder they'll fall<br />One and all"<br /></span>- "The Harder They Come" by Jimmy Cliff.</blockquote>The U.S. economy may have "recovered" according to some criteria formulated in D.C., but for most American citizens, this is the weakest economy they have seen in quite a while. The last time that unemployment was hovering around 9% for this long <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/12/heritage-employment-report-little-cause-for-thanksgiving-in-november-jobs-report">was before WWII</a>. Over 2.7 million Americans live in a home with a mortgage <a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/06/millions-of-homeowners-have-not-made-mortgage-payments-in-years.html">that has not been paid in more than a year</a>. The U.S. debt crisis has become <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13806383">a concern for the IMF</a>.<br /><br />The financial reports from Europe are also rather grim. The one country that seems to be avoiding the downturn is China. China benefits from a steadily growing GDP and now has a substantial middle class. But all is not well for the Chinese economy. An Australian news report indicates that <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/601007/n/China-s-Ghost-Cities">China has a serious real estate bubble</a>, and when it bursts, the impact could dwarf the 2008 U.S. recession.<br /><br />China has a mixed economy, and the communists still control the real estate sector. Anticipating a rapidly rising upper middle class, the communists built vast cities of luxury apartment buildings. These apartment buildings are going up faster (<span style="font-weight: bold;">much</span> faster) than the ranks of Chinese yuppies who are supposed to be renting them. There are new towns where the apartment occupancy rate is 25%. The government doesn't provide statistics, but it is estimated that China has 64 million empty apartments.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6EyPx2QIaR5k5s1-DFsebCobQ_XiyFTvVL4axye__T8V6Pw1O3XpEa_6rSfQZcInt7jWPU42QF0ebPS2WFfr7_o5doKs7XtKsk27vxBBI1dge7zvXdTqNtqD8DGQCfqG7lQ8AskclEZ8/s1600/200px-NewSouthChinaMall-Court.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6EyPx2QIaR5k5s1-DFsebCobQ_XiyFTvVL4axye__T8V6Pw1O3XpEa_6rSfQZcInt7jWPU42QF0ebPS2WFfr7_o5doKs7XtKsk27vxBBI1dge7zvXdTqNtqD8DGQCfqG7lQ8AskclEZ8/s200/200px-NewSouthChinaMall-Court.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5626677249130995698" border="0" /></a>Even more amazing is the story of the New South China Mall, the largest shopping mall in the world. This impressively designed mall is more than twice the size of the Mall of America. The mall, however, lacks two essential ingredients for a successful shopping center: merchants and customers. Since opening their doors in 2005, the occupancy rate has never risen much above 1%. The New South China Mall was basically born as a dead mall.<br /><br />So how will this Chinese real estate bubble play out? Anyone who has lived in the U.S in 2008 knows the script. The building owners cannot keep tossing their money into these pits forever, and will have to figure out some way to recoup some of their investment. Undoubtedly, they will have to dramatically slash rents in order to get something for their empty spaces. This will drive down the value of real estate, and therefore any fund based on property values. This devaluation weakens the economy, which creates further downward pressure on rents, therefore making the real estate crisis even worse. The situation is like the 2008 American housing market, but China's bubble is much bigger. And when this bubble bursts, it will be felt across the globe.<br /><br />The impact of a Chinese bubble burst would have a mostly negative impact on European and American markets, delaying any possible recovery. But there is some good news that could come out of a Chinese market crash.<br /><ul><li>A real estate market crash will greatly reduce the prestige and power of the Chinese communist elites. It may even bring an end to one party rule.<br /></li><li>The economic success of China has been used to advocate authoritarian measures in the west. On "Meet the Press", New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman asked wistfully "<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/24/thomas-l-friedman-wants-us-to">What if we could just be China for a day</a>" so that we could pass measures he likes without having to go through our messy democratic process. The failure of the Chinese command economy would end this sort of totalitarian nonsense.</li><li>The crash would teach the nations of the world a valuable lesson, namely to avoid what Nobel prize winning economist F. A. Hayek called "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669">The Fatal Conceit</a>", that is, the belief that "man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes." In the wake of China's failure to create prosperity on command, governments might take a more flexible, decentralized, market-based approach to decision making.</li></ul>So hard times may be with us for a bit longer, but we will eventually come out of this both wiser and more prosperous. Unfettered by bureaucracy, humans always work out some ingenious methods to create wealth. As Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch put it in their excellent new book "<a href="http://declaration2011.com/">The Declaration of Independents</a>", we'll see a "future so bright, we gotta wear shades."Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-88667536951513481822011-05-14T14:00:00.001-07:002011-10-16T07:08:46.940-07:00Warring Tribes Join Forces To Fight Smut!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwOLaMu_bcHXbKXhIVjTRuO30sfiKioyExRagZHEE0yl2LHGbtZRx2MANpUWrNNOGbFb4x288sy-9QpdUQfDjyEkryTkEGhQAJH-LsFwfBU41BFiuiRh2BgRpy7TNgrd02oP5pdY3j00g/s1600/tribal+battle+against+smut+3.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 129px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwOLaMu_bcHXbKXhIVjTRuO30sfiKioyExRagZHEE0yl2LHGbtZRx2MANpUWrNNOGbFb4x288sy-9QpdUQfDjyEkryTkEGhQAJH-LsFwfBU41BFiuiRh2BgRpy7TNgrd02oP5pdY3j00g/s200/tribal+battle+against+smut+3.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5607010968108563858" border="0" /></a><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >"Pornography is now considered as addictive as drugs"</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Katie: The internet is really really great,</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Trekkie Monster: For porn!</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Katie: I've got a fast connect, so I don't have to wait!</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Trekkie Monster: For porn!</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">- From "The Internet </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Is For Porn" by Robert Lopez and Jeff Marx</span><br /></blockquote>It is hard to think of a time when pornography was <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> in the news. When the navy seals found Bin Laden, they found a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386856/Osama-Bin-Ladens-stash-X-rated-pornography-squalid-lair.html?ito=feeds-newsxml">stash of pornography</a> in his lair. Several weeks ago, Sen. Orrin Hatch sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding <a href="http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=3ff92407-58e0-4c78-85d2-516062dbefac&ContentType_id=7e038728-1b18-46f4-bfa9-f4148be94d19&Group_id=e5b4c6c5-4877-493d-897b-d8ddac1a9a3e">more obscenity prosecutions</a>. Going back to the 1980's, Ronald Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese created a <a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3468303125.html">Commission on Pornography</a>. A presidential commission on pornography was assembled in the late 1960's, but when this commission recommended legalization, then President Richard M. Nixon <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2759#axzz1MRhdtCC1">rejected the commission's findings</a>. In the mid-sixties, financier Charles Keating (a man who later had his own <a href="http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/slbib9.html">ethics issues</a>) bankrolled an <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/Perversi1965">anti-pornography drive</a>.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyZUJfZiNraKOGDbLGITORS-hO20goVipKgnYKnGqUYMffX7WMG-GDqAo0UGRXHR_WlGL9rLwAeqdYLTBuNYT4gxTulstK1TX8bvktqfG35JkSeKmGLoDYvR9WunVauDkAbBGB6KA2ez4/s1600/tribal+battle+against+smut+3.png"><br /></a>The most interesting anti-smut movement in my lifetime was the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920580,00.html">Women Against Pornography</a> group formed in the late 1970's. Before this group was formed, most of the support for obscenity laws came from conservative religious groups. These early Christian right groups used to argue that pornography should not be given first amendment protection because it subconsciously alters the mind, causing both addiction and a host of anti-social behaviors. Reverends Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell etc. asserted that if pornography were legal, we would see a dramatic increase in rape, adultery, divorce, teen pregnancy and wife beating.<br /><br />I was in college in the 1970's, and there was strong support for civil liberties and free speech on the campuses of that era. That ended with the arrival of Women Against Pornography, a group founded to advance the work of feminist authors <a href="http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin">Andrea Dworkin</a> and <a href="http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/MacKinnon.html">Catharine McKinnon</a>. Dworkin and McKinnon argued that smutty books, magazines and films, and even publications as innocuous as <a href="http://www.playboy.com/">Playboy</a> were a crime against women. What I found remarkable about this group's arguments on the porn issue was how close it was to the case made by the religious right. These feminists said that pornography had special mind-altering properties, that pornography is like an addictive drug, and that it causes a plague of social ills. Attending one of their rallies, I felt like I was hearing Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell dressed up in drag (sorry for that rather unpleasant imagery). To be fair, the anti-porn feminists did come up with one argument not previously made by the religious right: they argued that porn convinces men that women are only good for sex, and hence porn consumers will not accept females in professional positions. I didn't find this argument convincing, but at least it was original.<br /><br />Amazingly enough, this group had a profound impact on college campuses. I was astounded with how many students and professors did a 180 degree turn on obscenity laws, and doing so on the basis of arguments that were soundly rejected a few years ago. It was not as though everyone had just discovered the genius of Pat Robertson. So what happened to the ideals, such as free speech, civil liberties, and sexual freedom, that we used to share? This experience demonstrated an important principle. Although most people think that their political / social / religious views are shaped by their ideals, what really shapes their views is group identity, also known as <a href="http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Tribalism">tribalism</a>. They feel the pressure to conform with the prevailing opinion of the social group that they are members of. The Women Against Pornography story is really about one tribe (feminists) joining forces with an enemy tribe (the religious right) in order to fight a common enemy, smut peddlers. And as a committed civil libertarian, I found it appalling that this would be the issue that brought these sides together.<br /><br />Fortunately, Women Against Pornography disbanded in the late 1980's, so now only the social conservatives carry on the battle against smut. The right has lost a lot of its enthusiasm over this issue: if <a href="http://pjorourke.com/">P. J. O'Rourke</a> and <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/red-eye/index.html">Greg Gutfeld</a> got together to discuss porn, they'd probably end up talking about where to find the really good stuff. But frankly, this issue was settled in the 1990's with the invention of the internet. The internet made pornography more available than ever. If there was anything to the right (or left) case against porn, then the rise of the on-line community would have been accompanied by large increases in rapes, divorces, teen pregnancies, etc. But as this <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/07/sen-orrin-hatch-demands-more-p">Hit and Run post</a> pointed out, all of these social ills have actually lessened since 1991.<br /><br />To this, I would add that the internet also disproved the theory that porn consumers could not accept that women can be good for something besides sex. Since web browsing hit the big time, women have been swelling the ranks of many professions. And as a man, I am happy to report that the popularity of the Chippendales has not produced a hoard of women who think that men are only good for the full monty.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-37181999438847100452011-03-22T15:33:00.000-07:002011-04-11T16:44:51.759-07:00When Will We See War Declared the Right Way?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSfWYQG0vDU-dS7EJWV-eB67js3E2yV47M2y-lqtczVKSCIqX8EuyFZ3Oo3ySHIA_gumAfRKwlvC2d7gp68VA5WGOTqMuvmXo5RMJf5M3JK3plVT1i3nex447Z4eGthgMrj_vNltE2oCc/s1600/Half+Shot+Shooters.jpg"><img alt="Did Obama get advice from THESE guys?" style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSfWYQG0vDU-dS7EJWV-eB67js3E2yV47M2y-lqtczVKSCIqX8EuyFZ3Oo3ySHIA_gumAfRKwlvC2d7gp68VA5WGOTqMuvmXo5RMJf5M3JK3plVT1i3nex447Z4eGthgMrj_vNltE2oCc/s200/Half+Shot+Shooters.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5587036766252447090" border="0" /></a><blockquote>"The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"<br />- Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution<br /><br />"Then it’s war!<br />Freedonia’s going to war!<br />Each native son will grab a gun.<br />And run away to war!"<br />- From "The Country's Goin' to War" by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby;</blockquote>Pundits have criticized the U.S. bombing of Libya for its ill timing, its lack of planning, and for the fuzzy end goals. As serious as these issues are, there is an even bigger problem with this military action: is it constitutional? According to <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8">section 8 of the constitution</a>, the power to declare war resides with congress. The decision to set up a no-fly zone was made without a vote in the house or the senate, or even consulting with most Senators and Representatives for that matter.<br /><br />Does the President have the constitutional power to do this? Voices as disparate as <a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304882">Rep. Dennis Kucinich</a> (D-OH) and <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/22/ron_paul_agrees_obamas_libya_adventure_is_impeachable_offense.html">Rep. Ron Paul</a> (R-TX) agree that this action is clearly a violation of Obama's oath to uphold the constitution. In fact, some feel that this is an impeachable offense. One former Senator and presidential candidate said in 2007, that if then President George Bush unilaterally took military action against Iran, <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/11/30/4429881-more-on-biden-and-the-i-word#comments">he would move to impeach him</a>. That candidate was Sen. Joe Biden, our current Vice President.<br /><br />In December 2007, the <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/question2">Boston Globe</a> asked the Presidential candidates<br /><blockquote>"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"</blockquote>Candidate Barack Obama's response started with<br /><blockquote>"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."</blockquote>Absolutely correct, candidate Obama! Now can you please impart this constitutional expertise to President Obama?<br /><br />To be fair, section 8 of the constitution has been ignored for many administrations. The last American war officially declared by congress was before the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war">Korean war</a>! The U.S. has not fought a war as proscribe by the constitution in my lifetime, and I fear that I might not live to see a constitutionally declared war. But previous presidents have at least had some sort of congressional vote to approve wars that did not involve a threat to the nation. Obama has crossed a new threshold with the Libyan no-fly zone.<br /><br />Instead of waiting for congressional approval, our President acted on the approval of two other bodies: the United Nation and the Arab League. This is troubling for reasons other than the fact that these bodies have zero congressional authority: neither of these bodies are elected by U.S. citizens. War can impact U.S. foreign relations for generations. The cost of American wars is born by U.S. taxpayers. Our wars also kill many of the our best young people. Given the burden on U.S. citizens, shouldn't war decisions be made by a body elected by these citizens?<br /><br />The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought, in part, to bring democracy to those countries. But who's fighting to bring democracy to America?Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-37591403635610759942011-03-11T15:14:00.001-08:002012-03-01T10:05:33.494-08:00The Machinery of Egyptian Freedom<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3059/3063566547_2a11aa6178.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 437px; height: 369px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3059/3063566547_2a11aa6178.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><blockquote>"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”<br />- John 8:31-32</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>"Harmony and understanding<br />Sympathy and trust abounding<br />No more falsehoods or derisions<br />Golden living dreams of visions<br />Mystic crystals revelations<br />And the mind's true liberation<br />Aquarius...<br />Aquarius!”<br />- From "Age of Aquarius" by James Rado, Gerome Ragni and Galt Macdermot<br /></blockquote>Hosni Mubarak's brutal repression of protesters proved to virtually everyone <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down">except Vice President Joe Biden</a> that he was a dictator. And like many dictators before him (Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Idi Amin, Bébé Doc, Ferdinand Marcos, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Augusto Pinochet and Mobutu Sese Seko, just to name a few), his own people forced his exit from power. But there is something extraordinary about the overthrow of Mubarak: he was forced out with very little real or threatened violence. In contrast to their government, the Egyptian protesters were astonishingly peaceful.<br /><br />How did the protesters prevail without engaging in thuggery? The answer may be found in the 1973 book <a href="http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf">"The Machinery of Freedom"</a> by <a href="http://www.daviddfriedman.com/">David Friedman</a> (son of economist and Nobel prize winner <a href="http://www.edchoice.org/">Milton Friedman</a>). In this book, David Friedman makes the case for a much smaller government, replacing most forms of state coercion with voluntary arrangements. I learned a lot from this book, even though I do not subscribe to Friedman's rather extreme form of libertarianism. "The Machinery of Freedom" forces the reader to reflect on the assumptions we often make about the need for government power. No wonder that this book made Australia's Institute of Public Affairs list of 20 books that you must read before you die.<br /><br />Two chapters of this book are quite apropos to the current middle east revolts. In "Revolution <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> the Hell of It", Friedman rejects violent revolution as a tactic to produce a libertarian state. Violence is counterproductive violation of libertarian principles. The final chapter, "How to Get There From Here", proposes a peaceful alternative to revolution: undermining the state's legitimacy. Even in the worst dictatorships, government power derives mostly from the majority of the population believing in the legitimacy of their leadership. They may dislike their leaders, but they think that only the current leaders can run their country, and that without these leaders, their nation would descend into chaos. As the <a href="http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm">Milgram experiments</a> demonstrated, the pressure of group conformity can reinforce such a viewpoint. Friedman felt that an overbearing state could be reigned in through a combination of education and demonstration, convincing citizens that they can run their country without sacrificing their freedoms. As Lennon and McCartney wrote in the song "Revolution", <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78">"You better free your mind instead"</a>.<br /><br />Is this recipe for peaceful overthrow of a tyrannical state too optimistic? I certainly thought so when first read this book. But consider what happened in Egypt. In a very short period, Mubarak's legitimacy vaporized. <span class="text14"><span><a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4023867,00.html">Shahira Amin</a>, o</span></span>ne of Nile TV' most popular journalists, abruptly quit because her network would only present government propaganda, a violation of her journalistic principles. In the days before Mubarak stepped down, there were a sizable number of policemen that refused to take action against the protesters. So somehow, the Egyptians pulled off Friedman's Utopian vision of how to end government repression.<br /><br />I doubt that this kind of revolt could have happened in 1973. What made it possible today is a technical breakthrough: social networking. Earlier this year, an <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/egypt-police-brutality-documented-blogger-wael-abbas-now/story?id=12831672">Egyptian blogger</a> posted a video of police rape and torture of dissidents. And as Mubarak supporters learned, once a video hits the internet, it never disappears. This video, along with unrest in Tunisia, became popular Facebook topics. Opponents of Mubarak saw that they were not alone in their concerns. Facebook also turned out to be an excellent organizing tool. Recognizing the threat, the government tried cutting off internet access (is that the reason why there is talk in Washington about an internet kill switch?), but the dissidents found ways around this, including going back to dial-up access to foreign internet providers. So remember folks, don't throw away those 56K modems!<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh55SIStql9g9anclyXSnmm-BS48HwvXM5YuliyNzDSNIraPnF9-wcBQX_yai-3XLE80AiEP2R2rlXTzr-O4BusJHvcYajJeK0YpbkDM3bVgBKzCNqrMz4WcykmF2A51u2tYKG7QdZ85ac/s1600/obama.mubarak.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 87px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh55SIStql9g9anclyXSnmm-BS48HwvXM5YuliyNzDSNIraPnF9-wcBQX_yai-3XLE80AiEP2R2rlXTzr-O4BusJHvcYajJeK0YpbkDM3bVgBKzCNqrMz4WcykmF2A51u2tYKG7QdZ85ac/s200/obama.mubarak.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5584823667057787874" border="0" /></a>From the start of the Mubarak regime until shortly before his downfall, the various U.S. administrations have been solidly behind him. For that reason, it is hard to find an Egyptian protester with a positive word for an American Politician. There is an American, however, who is spoken of quite highly by these protesters: Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook. If anybody gets a Nobel Peace Prize for the handling of the Egyptian crisis, it should be Zuckerberg, but unfortunately it will probably go to some politician instead. But history will remember that Facebook was a very important part in the Egyptian machinery of freedom.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-70322821055285606562011-03-05T15:20:00.000-08:002011-03-18T14:49:39.919-07:00Crossing the Board Game / Electronic Game Divide<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.purplepawn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Monopoly-Live.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 386px; height: 289px;" src="http://www.purplepawn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Monopoly-Live.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else."</span><br />- Albert Einstein<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />"I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly."</span><br />- Steven Wright</blockquote><br />Video games have dominated the entertainment industry for the last few decades. The video games' older analog equivalent, the board game, has lost favor during this period. The number of board games sold last year was down 10% from the year before. In an attempt to reverse this decline, Hasbro will be releasing hybrid electronic / board games this fall. The first of these will be <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20033996-1.html">"Monopoly Live"</a>, followed by <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGBaHcrdzRk">"Battleship Live"</a>.<br /><br />The Monopoly Live board has a battery powered computer control tower at its center that guides the players through the game. Hasbro contends that this tower's guidance allows a new player to start playing right away without having to first study the rules. The tower provides the following services:<br /><ul><li>It takes on the thankless job of banker;</li><li>It computes taxes and mortgage fees;</li><li>It rolls the dice;<br /></li><li>It reads the Chance and Community Chest cards (with appropriate sound effects);</li><li>It manages the money electronically (players have ATM cards); and<br /></li><li>It runs additional games events such as auctions, horse races and tax audits.</li></ul>A demo of Monopoly Live can be seen <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlUfMBnSRHI">here</a>.<br /><br />Needless to say, there are purists who object to this merger of traditional gaming and electronics, defending the superiority of analog-based fun. Now I don't dispute that traditional board games can be a lot of fun. When I was a child, video games had not been invented, so my family had fun with classic board games Operation, Mousetrap, Monopoly, Life, Clue, Checkers, Chinese Checkers, and Bridge-It, as well as sadly forgotten games such as Careers and Masterpiece.<br /><br />But even with these fond memories for the traditional board games, I do not reject the Live board game concept. First of all, the golden age of board games is overrated. When studying the history of a cultural phenomena, such as shopping malls, comic books, network TV, and even retro video games, one often ends up romanticizing the past. One tends to remember the successes and forget the failures. As one who lived through that era, I can vouch that for every classic board game, there were dozens of dull, uncreative games that were not worth playing once. Most of the worst board games were TV or movie tie-in games (The same thing could be said about video games). Our neighbors had a "Dick Tracy" game that was so bad, the only way we managed to have fun with it was to figure out how we could make a good game out of the game board and pieces. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Note</span>: if anyone knows of a ROM hacker who has succeeded in making a good video game out of a bad one, please tell us about it in the comments.<br /><br />These "Live" games will not be the first time that electronics have promoted a board game. Two classic strategy games, Chess and Go, are probably more popular now than any time in history, thanks to the fact that one can play virtually any opponent on the planet in real time, using an internet connection. Computers almost certainly saved the game <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversi">Othello</a> from extinction. Othello is a much older game than most people realize: it was originally published as Reversi in nineteenth century England. For many decades after its invention, Reversi was known only to a small but enthusiastic group of strategy game enthusiasts. It was not until a PC version of the game, under the name Othello, that the game finally attracted a large following. There are Othello leagues in many nations, as well as <a href="http://www.worldothellofederation.com/">international competitions</a>. I doubt if you would be able to buy an Othello set at most game stores if it were not for the PC game.<br /><br />Computers have made our work life much easier. Since the invention of the Monopoly game, file cabinets have been replaced by databases, typewriters have been replaced with word processors, checks have been replaced with electronic transfers, and postage meters have been replaced with E-mail. All of these changes allow us to do a better job with less effort. But if electronics can make our work life easier, why not use this same technology to make our gaming easier, especially since gaming is supposed to be a <span style="font-style: italic;">recreational</span> activity?<br /><br />Finally, keep in mind that the point of a board game, or any game for that matter, is to have fun, and these Live games look like they'll be a blast. I'm hoping they are working on a "Clue Live" where the tower gives voice to a detective that sounds like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001651">Basil Rathbone</a>.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-43518800358321944562011-02-20T16:15:00.000-08:002011-02-28T03:25:01.762-08:00Texas School Children: Give Choice a Chance<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSSiNm-AB5j65FVGsNPAiQjFgVPOaSBzLX36tv9zjoLSXbQCpVXg22J6ci-R5atxowR06mRjEMzOTtIXsGSTX6UbatIbPjaJtCJHRNkyiGDdEuDgZTFFWeemmSgP61JOdkx2c1FGbmaoc/s1600/schoolchoicesign.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSSiNm-AB5j65FVGsNPAiQjFgVPOaSBzLX36tv9zjoLSXbQCpVXg22J6ci-R5atxowR06mRjEMzOTtIXsGSTX6UbatIbPjaJtCJHRNkyiGDdEuDgZTFFWeemmSgP61JOdkx2c1FGbmaoc/s200/schoolchoicesign.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5576708468727798306" border="0" /></a><blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power."</span><br />- John Adams</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Teach, your children well</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Their father's hell</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Did slowly go by</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">And feed them on your dreams</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The one they pick's</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The one you'll know by.</span><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><br />- From "Teach Your Children" by Graham Nash.</blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">In this third and final post on the Texas school districts that <a href="http://fatherbrain.blogspot.com/2011/02/texas-school-children-another-brick-in.html">discipline students using the legal system</a>, I would like to focus on one incident from the <a href="http://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ticketing_booklet_web.pdf">Texas Appleseed report</a> that exposes the root of many of the problems with American public education:</span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"A 17-year-old girl with autism became frustrated [in class]. The teacher who best understood how to manage her behaviors was off work that day. The substitute did not know how to respond and accidentally escalated the situation by talking loudly and getting close to the student. The young lady left the classroom without permission, cursed and then sat in the hallway rocking back and forth to calm herself. When the assistant principal heard what happened, he asked a police officer to write a citation for Disruption of Class. The young lady’s single, low-income mother came to the school to talk to the vice principal, explaining that her daughter did not have full control of her behavior and was not able to understand the citation. She also explained she could not pay for citations. The vice principal told the mom that if she did not want her daughter to get more citations, she should withdraw the daughter from school because she was old enough to drop out."</span></blockquote></div><blockquote></blockquote>As the father of an autistic son, I find this incident especially appalling. One's first impression is to blame the vice principle for this injustice, but the problem goes beyond this one employee. True, the vice principle did not act in the student's best interest, but he did act in the school's best interest. But why does the school's best interest <span style="font-style: italic;">differ</span> from those of the students? This perverse incentive system is a result of the lack of choice on the part of the student.<br /><br />In most circumstances, most American public school students have no choice as to which school to attend. Moreover, school financing is generally based on the number of school aged children in the district, not on how many students actually attend the school. The school's budget is not negatively affected by their students switching to private education or home schooling.<br /><br />We can empower student's families with a change to the way we finance public schools. Instead of allocating education money to the schools, we could these funds to the child, with additional public funds provided for students with special educational needs. The family would then choose which public school their child would attend, and then that school would receive the funding for educating that child. School that attracts more students would receive more financing, schools that loses students would be forced to tighten their belts. Under such a system, could you imagine a vice principle recommending that a student drop out?<br /><br />Would the Texas system of legal fines for school offenses such a cursing, talking back and skipping classes be adapted in a school choice system? As we have seen, this system has been particularly harsh with racial minorities and the handicapped. These students would undoubtedly exercise their choice for a school that takes a more humane approach to discipline. No family would be forced to endure the Texas ticketing system.<br /><br />School choice is not just an academic theory. It is practiced in Belgium, France, Sweden, Chile, Ontario, and New Zealand. The countries where choice has been tried get better student test results than American public schools, and get those results at lower cost. This is the unsurprising consequence of families choosing the schools that works best for their children.<br /><br />When we buy a product like breakfast cereal or a laptop, we insist on having a choice between several providers in order to get the best product. And yet we settle for no choice in a much more important matter: the education of our next generation. Our children deserve better; they deserve a choice.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">One final note: my autistic son Jonathan has his own <a href="http://buddyboy600-disneysmarsupilami.blogspot.com/">blog</a>, as well as his own <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/BuddyBoy600alt">YouTube account</a>. He may be constrained by his condition, but that never stops Jonathan from making the most of what he can accomplish. This is what I admire most about him. </span>Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-7286638454624105952011-02-18T14:13:00.000-08:002011-02-22T18:31:39.676-08:00Texas School Children: Flex Your Rights!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50414_79003419966_6821714_n.jpg"></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.congressforkids.net/images/unclesam_workbegins.gif"><img style="float: center; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 289px; height: 300px;" src="http://www.congressforkids.net/images/unclesam_workbegins.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><blockquote><br />"<span style="font-style: italic;">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."</span><br />- Amendment 4 to the U.S. Constitution</blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"In 1787 I'm told</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Our founding fathers did agree<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">To write a list of principles</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">For keepin' people free"</span><br />- From "Preamble", written by Lynn Ahrens for "Schoolhouse Rock"</blockquote>This site's previous post discussed how some Texas school districts are now enforcing <a href="http://fatherbrain.blogspot.com/2011/02/texas-school-children-another-brick-in.html">discipline using the criminal justice system</a>. As noted in the Texas Appleseed <a href="http://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ticketing_booklet_web.pdf">report</a>, this overly severe form of punishment poses a burden on poor families, is unfair to racial minorities, and adds to the already considerable challenges facing handicapped students. Is there any bright side to this criminalization of student behavior?<br /><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 174px; height: 153px;" src="http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50414_79003419966_6821714_n.jpg" alt="" border="0" /><br />Yes there is. The ticketing of Texas students gives us an ideal platform to teach our children the importance of the U.S. constitution. Sadly, most adult Americans are <a href="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/08/IgnoranceReignsSupreme.htm">quite ignorant of the workings of our democracy</a>, especially our constitution. Civil libertarian Steven Silverman was shocked to discover how often people would unknowingly waive their constitutional rights, so in 2002 he founded the non-profit educational organization <a href="http://www.flexyourrights.org/">Flex Your Rights</a> to educate the public on their constitutional protections. Flex Your Rights produced the video <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA">BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters</a>, which I heartily recommend.<br /><br />Our schools have been doing a poor job of teaching the constitution. I would recommend that we work with the Flex Your Rights folks to develop a course on the constitution for Texas students. If the Texas school systems refuse to teach the constitution, perhaps Texan libertarians could present constitution lessons outside of school system (think of it as a Texan version of <a href="http://joindumbledoresarmy.warnerbros.com/">Dumbledore's Army</a>). Armed with the Flex Your Rights curriculum, Texan students could both protect themselves from the excesses of the ticketing system and learn a valuable civics lesson in the process.<br /><br />For example, the Appleseed report tells of a girl who was given a $200 ticket when a school officer searched her purse and found a cigarette butt. Had she known about the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4">fourth amendment</a>, she would have known that the search could almost certainly be prevented if she politely but clearly told the officer "I do not consent to a search of my purse". Unless the officer has a warrant for searching her purse, any search of her purse would be illegal, the cigarette butt could not be admitted as evidence in court, and the school officer could be be held liable for the illegal search.<br /><br />The most effective learning technique is to learn by doing. Imagine what students would learn about civics by actually applying the Flex Your Rights curriculum for their own protection. This whole affair could have one really positive effect: a generation of Texas students with a full appreciation of our founding documents.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-32529131780239006952011-02-16T14:19:00.000-08:002011-03-11T15:12:14.364-08:00Texas School Children: Another Brick in the Wall<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwN2kqk8VouyFUlCM6EKZ2FxlVph7FTu1kzduXm0EehN5l9Mo5uOcbg9XARwieSifeN6uelmryTftcQ5PpOSq7tvcwhMXmlXuasHwrrfulHHP1nBpTqz-OYM-NndZvAljsyShC1SRmQvI/s1600/brick-in-the-wall1267.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 146px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwN2kqk8VouyFUlCM6EKZ2FxlVph7FTu1kzduXm0EehN5l9Mo5uOcbg9XARwieSifeN6uelmryTftcQ5PpOSq7tvcwhMXmlXuasHwrrfulHHP1nBpTqz-OYM-NndZvAljsyShC1SRmQvI/s200/brick-in-the-wall1267.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5574416169696334754" border="0" /></a><br /><!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><i></i><blockquote><i>"I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: 'The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that's fair.' In these words he epitomized the history of the human race."</i><br />- From "Education and the Social Order" by Bertrand Russell</blockquote> <blockquote><i>"When we grew up and went to school, there were certain teachers who would hurt the children anyway they could</i><br /><i>by pouring their derision upon anything we did</i><br /><i>exposing every weakness however carefully hidden by the kids."</i><br />- From "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw">Another Brick in the Wall</a>" by Pink Floyd.</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Bullying is major problem in many of our schools. Sometimes, the worst bullies are the grown-ups. A case in point is a novel form of discipline now practiced in several Texas school systems, including Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas. Instead of detention to punish misbehaving students, the school system is using the criminal justice system. A student who disobeys a school rule <a href="http://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ticketing_booklet_web.pdf">is given a ticket</a> that his or her family has to pay. Last year, more than 275,000 Texas juveniles were ticketed for such offenses as disrupting class, disorderly conduct or curfew violations (i.e. leaving campus without permission). These tickets are not cheap; when school officials searched a girl's purse and found a cigarette butt, she got a ticket for $200! Some troubled students can rack up several tickets, placing a substantial financial burden on their family.<br /><br />These tickets have to be taken seriously. These violations are class C misdemeanors, which is serious enough to show up on a criminal record. Of course, a Texas child's criminal record should be wiped clean of these offenses once he or she turns 18, but due to the sheer volume of these tickets, this often isn't done. It gives a whole new meaning to the term "permanent record", doesn't it? Moreover, once a student turns 17, he / she can be arrested for failure to pay the ticket. This actually happened to a 17 year old student from Hidalgo county last year.<br /><br />The public interest group <a href="http://www.texasappleseed.net/">Texas Appleseed</a> has studied the ticketing of students. Among their findings were:</p> <ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="">tickets were given to children as young as six;</li><li class="MsoNormal" style="">racial minorities receive a disproportionate number of tickets; and</li><li class="MsoNormal" style="">a student is much more likely to get a ticket if he / she has a disability.</li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal">What is especially appalling about this ticketing is that frequently no allowances are made for when a misbehavior might be <i>caused</i> by a disability. Tickets for using profanity have been given to students suffering from Tourette Syndrome! The Appleseed <a href="http://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ticketing_booklet_web.pdf">report</a> has a particularly callous citation of an autistic girl. In the interest of full disclosure, I have an autistic son who has his own <a href="http://buddyboy600-disneysmarsupilami.blogspot.com/">blog</a>, making this sort of abuse even more disturbing to me.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">All in all, this ticketing system recalls the protest song "Another Brick in the Wall" from Pink Floyd's 1979 Rock opera "The Wall". This song condemns the British school system of enforcing mindless conformity by humiliating any student that deviates from the norm. What better anthem is there for school systems that punishes students for the crime of being born with a disability?</p><p class="MsoNormal">So what should be done to stop this legal harassment of Texas children? I have two proposals that I will present in follow-ups to this post. Stay tuned.</p><p class="MsoNormal">A bonus video: here's a version of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsoTPBOP3A4">"Another Brick in the Wall"</a> that might be more appropriate for Texas.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p>Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-8411532601083127032011-02-05T12:00:00.000-08:002011-02-09T16:55:05.962-08:00Coffin Nails and Death Chic<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaD5LzaQ8UNu6rriERpr0f7AxN_ASOJmWLx6iLg5XRmIi35ajz_eqXqANrFHulXjQ7d-wV6jmVZOfpNv8BXYS3kinrbJLEDlAqBqrQFed9jC459Mow6tv6VhVxBdG4k5Ze6UFy2ydomLU/s1600/full_1289414843SmokingWarningLabels.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 251px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaD5LzaQ8UNu6rriERpr0f7AxN_ASOJmWLx6iLg5XRmIi35ajz_eqXqANrFHulXjQ7d-wV6jmVZOfpNv8BXYS3kinrbJLEDlAqBqrQFed9jC459Mow6tv6VhVxBdG4k5Ze6UFy2ydomLU/s200/full_1289414843SmokingWarningLabels.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5570301499790062114" border="0" /></a><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"God's finger touched him, and he slept."</span><br />- Alfred Tennyson</blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"So do the dead, through the lights<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">The surfin' dead, oooh make it tight<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">The livin' dead now baby lose their heads</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Now baby, doin' the dead"</span><br />- From "Surfin' Dead" by the Cramps.</blockquote>On June 22, the Tobacco Control Act will require that cigarette packages carry larger, more visible warning labels. The FDA has <a href="http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/default.htm">proposed a set of new warnings</a>, which will cover at least 50% of the cigarette pack's display area and portray the negative consequences of smoking in a rather graphic, shocking fashion.<br /><br />The new labels have been challenged as a violation of property or free speech rights. I object to these labels for an entirely different reason: they are likely to backfire and make cigarettes <span style="font-style: italic;">more</span> appealing. Given that humanity's greatest fear, it may seem surprising that anything can be made more appealing by associating it with the dirt nap. But the "Death Chic" phenomenon is very real, so these warning labels could make cancer sticks hip again.<br /><br />To illustrate this point, consider the health crisis second only to smoking: the obesity epidemic. Certainly the owner of a grill would avoid any warnings that eating fatty foods like hamburgers could lead to heart ailments, right? Well, you'd think so, but think again. The <a href="http://www.heartattackgrill.com/">Heart Attack Grill</a> in Chandler Arizona makes it quite clear that its food is bad for you. It's not just the grill's name or its slogan ("Taste Worth Dying For"): the waitresses are dressed as nurses. The burgers come in three sizes: single bypass, double bypass, and quadruple bypass. Your order is identified by a hospital tag. And in spite of all these warnings, the grill has a large following. Fans from across the globe post to their Facebook page asking when a Heart Attack Grill will open in their country.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF58_wIcrpJtk_VrUN_CAaio8Am9rreTV4Lcp5IbST_MsWYCGfH2gfUHlpag8ZFa7L6xqC3a56JBHJrWVITCCuAKOnXBCKnVmenRl80PNflOMUe9Xkso0Ot4nvxyUWc9_grXOaoaYkPmg/s1600/Slash-Black-Death-Vodka.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 277px; height: 205px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF58_wIcrpJtk_VrUN_CAaio8Am9rreTV4Lcp5IbST_MsWYCGfH2gfUHlpag8ZFa7L6xqC3a56JBHJrWVITCCuAKOnXBCKnVmenRl80PNflOMUe9Xkso0Ot4nvxyUWc9_grXOaoaYkPmg/s200/Slash-Black-Death-Vodka.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5570393375454850386" border="0" /></a>And what about that other addictive vice, alcohol? In the 90's, one of hottest vodka brands was "Black Death". Here is a bottle of Black Death in its promotional packaging; as you can see, the distillers have all the chutzpah of the Heart Attack Grill. Eventually, this product was forced off the market, but not by low sales. The regulators at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were horrified by the product, and were even more horrified when the product was a hit. Unlike in the U.K., U.S. regulators never allowed the sale of "Black Death" vodka in its special dark glass, skull-shaped bottle.<br /><br />In the popular arts, death sells everything from Heavy Metal rock, horror films, and even a <a href="http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/billymandy/index.html">cartoon series</a>. So why are so many people attracted to embodiments of our greatest fear? Human behavior is rather complex, but there may be some simple explanations for death chic. Because death is so scary, facing death is a way of coming across as being totally bad-ass. Also, some of our current public heath campaigns have become so shrill that they come across as nagging. To many people, the campaign against obesity has definitely crossed into nagging territory, hence the popularity of the Heart Attack Cafe. It is a way of raising a pudgy middle finger to all the health experts who pester us about what we should eat.<br /><br />So how do we avoid giving cigarettes an aura of death chic? First of all, don't use king size warning labels. The 50% size labels are the visual equivalent of shouting, and experience on internet forums indicates that shouting is frequently less effective than understatement. And forget the melodramatic "this product will kill you and every one you love for seven generations" messages. The warnings that are more likely to scare off potential smokers would basically say that buying this product makes you a real schmuck. Here are my recommended warnings:<br /><ul><li>Bought some cigarettes? Good luck finding a place where you can smoke them.</li><li>Warning: This product will force you to periodically leave your friends to smoke alone in the rain.</li><li>Warning: If you use this product, every cent you spent on cologne and teeth whiteners will be wasted.</li><li>Warning: If you buy this, you'll be paying way too much tax.</li><li>Warning: Being seen with this product will get you labeled as a creepy loser.</li></ul>And finally, if we could get away with it, the most effective warning label of all would be:<br /><ul><li>Warning: The surgeon general has determined that smoking dramatically decreases your chances of getting laid.</li></ul>After all, any Madison Avenue executive will tell you that sex sells, even more than death.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-72099652336499515792011-01-28T08:19:00.000-08:002011-02-03T08:50:24.917-08:00The Defeat of Anti-Tea Party Paranoia<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://calitreview.com/images/george_tooker_subway.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 500px; height: 251px;" src="http://calitreview.com/images/george_tooker_subway.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me"</span><br />- Psalms 23:4</blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"I'm not afraid (I'm not afraid) to take a stand (to take a stand)</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Everybody (everybody) come take my hand (come take my hand)"</span><br />- "Not Afraid" by Eminem.</blockquote>In reaction to a major man-made tragedy, a frightened public will frequently lash out at some group associated with the perpetrator, victimizing many innocent citizens in the process. When an anarchist assassinated president McKinley, there was a mass arrest of anarchists, including those who rejected violence in any form. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we had a similar round-up of Japanese Americans. McCarthyism is another example: anger over Soviet infiltration of the State Department led to a backlash over anyone connected with the Communists, even if that connection was tangential or decades old. One decade ago, American Muslims suffered from the rage over the 9/11 attacks.<br /><br />As tragic as the shooting Rep. Gabriel Gifford shooting was, we should be grateful that there was not a major retaliation against some group loosely associated with suspect Jared Loughner. Certainly there was an attempt to tar the Tea Party movement with this crime, but fortunately that effort failed.<br /><br />The effort started with Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's assessment that Loughner was motivated by the Tea Party and talk radio. This assessment came out before he had any time to investigate, and this lack of investigation showed. Jared Loughner has a significant web footprint, and a quick web search would have shown that Loughner was no Tea Partier. For example, on his YouTube account, he lists the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books. In one of his videos, he gleefully shows an American flag burning. Does this sound like the work of a Glenn Beck fan?<br /><br />The worst example anti-Tea Party paranoia I've seen is <a href="http://www.page2live.com/2011/01/18/palm-beach-folks-of-giffords-doc-supported-tea-partier-christine-odonnell/?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss">a Palm Beach post article by Jose Lambiet</a> where he seriously argues against praising the neurosurgeon who saved Rep. Gifford's life in the hours after her shooting. Why doesn't this doctor deserve our praise? Because, says Lambiet, his parents donated money to Tea Party candidates! This is absurd on multiple levels. First of all, he is holding the children responsible for the actions of their parents; one wonders if he would chastise JFK because his father was a bootlegger. But even if the good doctor had donated money to a Tea Party candidate, so what? The tea Party members running for office are obviously trying to change the system through non-violent means. They may well be wrong on many of their political views, but they are still within their rights to express those views.<br /><br />Fortunately, quick action by some of our leaders nipped this anti-tea party parania in the bud. Credit for this should go first and foremost to President Barack Obama, who stated within days of the shooting that it would be unfair to blame the Tea Party for the actions of this madman. Rachel Maddow also spoke against using this incident to attack the Tea Party, in spite of her disagreements with them. Conservative activist <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6CIZdORYSM">Lee Doren praised Rachel Maddow</a> for her stance on this matter.<br /><br />What makes Obama and Maddow's comments so helpful is that both were known for their opposition to the Tea Party, so the public knew that these calls for restraint are based on principle. That may well have staved off a major round of anti-Tea Party paranoia.<br /><br />I'm not sure if this had any effect on the debate, but you should check out long time progressive activist and frequent candidate <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/progressive-libertarianism-the-exciting-political-dynamic-ralph-nader/">Ralph Nader's comments on the Tea Party</a>. Unlike most on the left, he is excited by the election of Tea Party members, because they will actually be allies of the progressives on some important issues. That's right, Lee Doren praised Rachel Maddow and Ralph Nader praised the Tea Party; we better check to see if Hell has any winter snow alerts. <blockquote></blockquote><img src="file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/lhotaf/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/george_tooker_subway.jpg" alt="" />Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-63208762402600207512010-12-31T08:11:00.000-08:002011-01-30T15:24:41.293-08:00Why the Fairness Doctrine is Unfair to the Left<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/free-speech1.jpg?w=450&h=483"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 428px; height: 460px;" src="http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/free-speech1.jpg?w=450&h=483" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."</span><br />- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 04 March 1801</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><span style="font-style: italic;">So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> There's only you and me and we just disagree.</span><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><br />- From "We Just Disagree" by Billy Dean<br /></blockquote>The absolute worst laws are passed as a quick response to a crisis. In a heightened sense of urgency, lawmakers are willing to pass some extreme, simplistic solution whose faults become apparent only after the crisis has passed. The 9/11 attacks gave us the PATRIOT act and the TSA, and our civil liberties have suffered ever since. In 2008, the housing bust was addressed with two complex, obscenely expensive and hastily composed programs, the stimulus package and TARP. These programs did not prevent a severe economic downturn, and will be paid for by generations born long after this crisis has passes.<br /><br />Which brings us to the latest crisis: the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others. The instant analysis of the shooter's motivation was that it was a product of a harsh political environment. This has lead two Democratic representatives, Rep. Jim Clyburn (SC) and Rep. Bob Brady (PA), to propose reinstating the <a href="http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3ief59b53cf621e16369792d159141d362?imw=Y">fairness doctrine</a>. This FCC policy, first instated in 1949 and dropped in 1987, required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance in way that the FCC board finds to be honest and balanced. Supporters argue that a revived fairness doctrine would keep Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly off the air, resulting in a more civil political discourse.<br /><br />Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and the fairness doctrine will remain dead. The history of this doctrine indicates that it leads to ersatz censorship, and that it is especially unfair to the left. The problem with the fairness doctrine is that FCC officials of the current administration determines what is "honest and balanced" coverage, and inevitably their definition of balance reflects the administrations' point of view. The temptation to abuse this doctrine is hard to resist; <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=yNj0mPk6AH0C&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=%22fairness+doctrine%22+%22Arthur+Larson%22&source=bl&ots=vcbLr2ErLA&sig=76wIdyCZ3MLpyfM9hQ3JIoDcqJs&hl=en&ei=0dMtTa3MGoT78AaoidGJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22fairness%20doctrine%22%20%22Arthur%20Larson%22&f=false">Arthur Larson</a>, a Democratic official from the JFK / LBJ years, admitted to using the doctrine to suppress right wing broadcasters. Larson regretted this censorious use of the FCC, especially after Richard Nixon used the fairness doctrine to suppress his critics. Shows such as <a href="http://www.tv.com/search.php?type=11&stype=all&tag=search%3Bfrontdoor&qs=smothers+brothers&stype=program">"The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour"</a> and the TV documentary <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408170/">"The Selling of the Pentagon"</a> came under FCC scrutiny for their perceived left tilt. The liberal publications of that time (e.g. <a href="http://www.thenation.com/">The Nation</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramparts_%28magazine%29">Ramparts</a>) decried the fairness doctrine on free speech grounds.<br /><br />The democrats may control the FCC for now, but political fortunes can change on a dime. Remember back in 2004, when the Democratic party was given up for dead? In 2008, a mere 4 years later, political pundits declared that the Republicans would be a political minority for at least a generation. Then came the 2010 elections, and the tables turned once again. Who knows which side will control the FCC in 2013? Keep in mind that an FCC with the power to boot Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly off the air also has the power to silence Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow.<br /><br />The fairness doctrine unfairly favors the status quo over the agents of change. Liberal support for this doctrine is therefore self defeating. We should not use this crisis to weaken our first amendment protections.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-87511523873281181622010-11-14T12:33:00.000-08:002011-02-16T06:33:29.464-08:00Defending Keith Olbermann and Media Bias<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsWNGX2Ir6NYTWsRdG1Ahd_ccl3tJNdZ9zEIAmR7Gx-7m-2UvtThCMKoUkSZ5FbS6nUb4a7l7FB6xGEjVFpSBxsT-MuixfSslPI9W_Fo_TPCF-cr3NEDLGleZd2uOh9GA2PucdSDzuu7o/s1600/Keith-Olbermann-Van-Gogh.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 162px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsWNGX2Ir6NYTWsRdG1Ahd_ccl3tJNdZ9zEIAmR7Gx-7m-2UvtThCMKoUkSZ5FbS6nUb4a7l7FB6xGEjVFpSBxsT-MuixfSslPI9W_Fo_TPCF-cr3NEDLGleZd2uOh9GA2PucdSDzuu7o/s200/Keith-Olbermann-Van-Gogh.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5539508596623106050" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"He would certainly rebuke you if you secretly showed partiality!"</span><br />- Job 13:10</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Think of what you're saying.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">You can get it wrong and still you think that it's all right.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Think of what I'm saying,</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />We can work it out and get it straight, or say good night."</span><br />- from "We Can Work It Out" by Lennon and McCartney<br /></blockquote>MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann was recently given a two day suspension for donating money to three democratic congressional campaigns. His NBC contract stipulates that he would not engage in such partisan activities with notifying the president of NBC news, and obtaining this president's approval. NBC requires this of all of their news staff in order to maintain their "journalistic impartiality".<br /><br />I may be the worst person in the world to defend Olbermann. I find that like all too many cable news hosts, Olbermann frequently goes on sophomoric and tiresome rants. His attacks on <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/19/olbermann_scott_brown_is_a_racist_teabagging_ex-nude_model.html">Scott Brown</a>, <a href="http://vodpod.com/watch/2909971-the-daily-show-special-comment-keith-olbermanns-name-calling">Michelle Malkin</a>, and <a href="http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm">Bill O'Reilly</a> were so over-the-top that they generated sympathy for his targets.<br /><br />So why shouldn't NBC take punitive measures against Olbermann for violating his contract? Basically, because this contract requirement of impartiality, even in his off-air activities, makes no sense in the current media world, for at least three reasons.<br /><ol><li>Olbermann does not does not host a show like the NBC nightly news where he is expected to be impartial. He hosts the video equivalent of a newspaper Op-Ed piece, where he is expected to give his opinion. How can he give his opinion and be impartial at the same time?</li><li>It is questionable whether journalistic impartiality is a realistic goal. A <a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/%7Ejmshapir/bias.pdf">study</a> published in the Journal of Political Economy finds a slant in many 'balanced' news reports, due to the nature of the news business.<br /></li><li>When the national TV market was an oligopoly of three major networks, impartiality was a major concern. But with the explosion of news outlets on TV and the internet, we have a much better way to get both sides of a story. We can watch both a true liberal and a true conservative present their case. This is a vast improvement over having a single new anchor present his or her sincere point of view, and then for balance, present some alternative that he or she does not really believe in.</li></ol>Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, and Glenn Beck may all say things that you disagree with. Certainly they have said things that I object to. But their contributions to the public dialog allows viewers to more clearly see issues from both sides of the left-right divide.<br /><br />Speaking of the left-right divide, I heartily recommend the web site <a href="http://bloggingheads.tv/">Blogging Heads TV</a>. This site has videos of bloggers from differing sides debate each other over a web cam. You will be pleased to see how polite these bloggers are. They have mastered the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable. Another pleasant surprise is how often they come to agreement!<br /><br />Before leaving, I should point out one point on which I emphatically agree with Keith Olbermann: his brave stance on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdWu6SmN3Y">Anwar al-Awlaki</a>. And for those who would like to take a break from serious discussion, here is a lighter side of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvVJTaRw6aQ">Olbermann</a>.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-926490426364364625.post-7567824667361569012010-10-19T17:24:00.001-07:002010-10-25T06:33:34.826-07:00Government Greed<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLNfNz_Qw8Jp0YwcA08Pq-nE6FEtiLHUhEMPOgF-PMnvtitFGa6fk0fiADcrtRtUkq3v4tJ-2JTok-62Jq1FscSUmc4r9LUNtIRfJDguDD7zpSIMLInzXJ3QgidzGOXxuD6TD_onuMQD4/s1600/felons.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 213px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLNfNz_Qw8Jp0YwcA08Pq-nE6FEtiLHUhEMPOgF-PMnvtitFGa6fk0fiADcrtRtUkq3v4tJ-2JTok-62Jq1FscSUmc4r9LUNtIRfJDguDD7zpSIMLInzXJ3QgidzGOXxuD6TD_onuMQD4/s200/felons.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5529918781362150386" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">"Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions."</span><br />- Luke 12:15<span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />Money, so they say<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">Is the root of all evil today</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But if you ask for a rise<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">It's no surprise<br />That they're</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">giving none away"</span><br />- From "Money" by Roger Waters<blockquote></blockquote>In many an economic debate, you will find one participant who feels that all our troubles can be boiled down to one word: greed. You've heard this argument before: greed is what drives the profit motive, the basis of free market economies, and that this dependence on one of the seven deadly sins accounts for all our society's ills, including oil spills, stock market crashes, and lousy "Star Wars" sequels. If I had a dime for every time someone given this one word diagnosis, I'd be, well, a successful capitalist.<br /><br />This one word critique of free market economics is quite emotionally satisfying, but it does not hold up to scrutiny for a number of reasons. The world economic environment is extremely complex, and one word diagnoses generally do not apply to systems more complicated than a food processor. The greed critique of the private sector also seems to make the assumption that, in the absence of profits, people behave in a less greedy fashion. But a number of recent news stories confirm that the public sector succumbs to greed at least as often as the private sector.<br /><br />For example, many cities and towns use special cameras to ticket drivers who run red lights. These are there for our safety, or so we are told. But multiple studies have recently shown that <a href="http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies">red light cameras actually increases accidents</a>. When drivers spot the cameras, they frequently slam on the brakes, and this causes more accidents than are prevented by the cameras. In fact, a Dutch city has discovered that they can decrease accidents by a re-design of their roads that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html">does not use traffic lights at all</a>. So how many cities have dropped the red light cameras in light of these studies? Whenever this question is posed to city officials, it is amazing how quickly the topic is changed from safety to how could we possibly replace the lost ticket revenue. So are these cameras used because of safety, or because of greed?<br /><br />Consider the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101022/us_nm/us_california_bell_payscandal_4">recent pay scandal in Bell, California</a>, a small, lower middle working class suburb of Los Angeles. The median family income in Bell is only $30,504, but the city residents pay some of the highest property tax rates in the country. When city officials insisted that these taxes needed to be raised even further to keep the city solvent, investigative reporters looked from the L. A. Times looked into city finances. They found that Bell was dramatically overpaying its officials. The Bell police chief earned 33% more than the police chief of Los Angeles. The city manager's base salary was $800,000, almost twice as much as what we pay the president of the United States, and bonuses and other benefits raised his total compensation for last year to $1.5 million dollars. To the poor, over-taxed families of Bell, this looks like greed.<br /><br />Another case to ponder: in 1992, Massachusetts passed a ballot initiative to increase tobacco taxes, and to use the additional revenue for tobacco prevention programs. Starting in 1993, the state had created an effective anti-smoking ad campaign. The most popular of these ads featured the saga of <a href="http://www.tobaccofreewomenandgirls.org/laffin.html">Pam Laffin</a>, a young woman who was dying of emphysema. The ads traced her various diagnoses, her vain attempt to get a lung transplant, and finally her death that left her two young daughters without a mother. The ads had quite an impact: the number of smokers in the state dropped off faster than the national average. And yet, this successful ad campaign dropped less than a decade later.<br /><br />Now why did the state drop a program that was actually helping smokers quit? Too expensive, of course. Forget the promise to voters that the tobacco tax money would go to tobacco prevention, the legislators decided that they had better uses for the money. Don't worry that the tobacco tax is highly regressive, for smokers are a politically unpopular group. When tobacco companies benefit from the unhealthful addiction of smokers, we call that greed. So when the state over-taxes these same smokers, why isn't that greed?<br /><br />These and other examples of government avarice show that the public sector effort to eliminate greed is about as successful as the Puritan effort to eliminate lust. It's not clear if , greed is an integral part of human nature. It is not an issue of whether <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291">"Greed is good"</a>, the main point is that "Greed <span style="font-weight: bold;">is</span>". One virtue of free markets is that they harness greed to some positive ends. For all the moral posturing, It was greed that propelled the tremendous improvements in our PC's (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law">Moore's Law</a>), in our cars, and in our home entertainment (from LP's to CD's to MP3's, from VHS to DVD to Blue Ray).<br /><br />So the next time you hear someone sanctimoniously boiling down a complex issue to one word ("Greed"), feel free to accuse him of one of the other deadly sins: sloth.Frank J. Lhotahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17291615789196184771noreply@blogger.com0