To Pay Taxes, Or Not To Pay ...

There is no doubt in my mind that more Americans should be paying Federal Income Taxes.  The operative word in that sentence is "should."  There is a damn good reason why the word isn't "can" without severe economic consequences.  It has everything to do with how the economic pie is carved up and what the reality of Taxes, in general, is in this model of economic dysfunction.

The first thing to address is what those non-Fed paying are paying and one my move out of Oregon has emphasized to me.  Most Americans pay sales tax and depending on the model in operation in a State, just how much the low and middle income pay for their State's operation.  This mess of a tax seems to range from about 5% to 7+% and though what is subject varies, food groceries are mostly out, every day needs are hit along with the more major purchases like vehicles and this hits a much larger share of income for low and lower middle income groups than anybody else.  There is an unholy mix of sales tax along with State income taxes and most of them are pretty damn regressive.

If you take a wage or salary anything up to $110,000 is subject to a tax of about 14% and there is no deduction on that (that rate can easily revert to the 15.3% rate).  You can go ahead and consider Mitt's published rate of about 14% on his millions of income.  Unless you're a church or favored Corporation you pay property tax and whether you own, "own", or rent you're paying these.  There are, of course, all kinds of specific taxes and fees like gas taxes and maybe the most insidious and nasty where tip receiving employees have their minimum wage slashed.

If you look at wages and salary that have been flat or falling versus inflation over the past 30 years you begin to get a sense of the impact of Federal Income Tax.  But that is really only a small part of what is going and talking about a symptom wealth distribution and, yup, taxes.  In 2007 the top 1% had 43% of the financial wealth in the US compared to the lowest 80% at 7% of the wealth.  Take into consideration that conditions have severely worsened since then.  There are structural reasons for this and there are policy and tax reasons for this.  I believe you can make the case that the structural reasons have much more to do with policy and tax policy than world conditions and even if they do not they are huge contributors.

It is frequently asserted that economics is not a zero sum game, as though this somehow mitigates conditions and quite basically ignores that at any given moment economics is exactly a zero sum game.  At any given moment there is exactly so much wealth within the system and how that wealth is distributed has everything to do with whether or not people earn money and spend that money and get taxed on those earnings.  If 80% of the population is competing for 7% of the wealth the system produces  they are going to take small portions and have small portions of a system that supports us all.

I really don't care what economic model one hews to from communism to unfettered libertarian capitalism the simple fact is that wealth is produced and protected by the infrastructure and various agencies.  These systems must be paid for, somehow, money has got to be put into creating and maintaining them.  If not enough people can afford or are willing to pay the piper the thing falls apart.  If you cut the share in wealth of the general population they cannot afford to support those essentials and if you allow the small percentage of the population to refuse the thing is broken.  The reason you have inability and the ability to refuse is all about the share of wealth.  If you concentrate sufficient wealth at the top you give them the ability to keep it that way and refuse responsibility through application of minor amounts of that wealth to the political system.

It has taken decades to get to this point and trying to do something real about it in a sudden manner, even if possible, would have undesirable consequences to the economy.  Forcing wealth back down into the general population will take time even if it is seriously addressed.  The problem is the the will to do it will take an awful lot work and time - the thinking that has led to this mess has been inculcated over decades and become some perverted common sense.  Waiting for politicians is simply foolish, they will react to common sentiment not common sense and worse yet - that sentiment has to overcome the political advantages of wealth.  Yeah, I think most Americans should pay taxes and that involves being able to pay them and that means that the real Takers in the economy have to give up quite a lot.  A hell of a lot which is just chump change in their world.  So don't hold your breath or any stupid like that...

By the way, if you're not in the top 1% or even better 0.1% you're getting hammered by percentage of income paid in taxes compared to them.  Absolutely hammered.

Really Mr Rather? Paul Ryan Isn't Who You Thought He Was?

I watched with a certain amount of disbelief as Dan Rather blurted out something I considered rather unobservant on Rachel Maddow's 9/10 Show... words to the effect that he was astonished that Paul Ryan has done so poorly in television and other interviews.  Rachel in a rather nice way tuned Dan up.  She pointed out to him some of what I'm about to go off on.

Paul Ryan is exactly as much of an intellect as you could expect from someone who takes Ayn Rand seriously once out of puberty... or high school, anyhow.  This ought to be a starting point for anyone talking about Ryan's abilities.  Ayn Rand's writings are about stoking the testosterone fueled imaginings of superiority over 'the other' - the ones who don't run things and just do.  You are aware of 'just do' - they cook your food, they build your house, they clean your house or others houses, they don't get the big bucks and they don't get their pictures in the 'nice' magazines.  Worker bees.  Not one goddam cent the Ayn Rand Superiors have is generated by their own sweat and blood - some pissant worker bee makes the things and gets them their income and those folks are disposable, they are "the takers."  They're takers because they make the shit and buy the shit and want to get paid something for it and they're not grateful to the great men who'd as soon they starved while they work.  If they don't work thanks to the decisions of their betters then they can just starve, or if they can't work because they got dealt a real shitty hand - they should have found a better dealer - like running mate Mitt did.  It is a simplistic world where force and influence are all that matters and where the only consequences are when the truly great are inconvenienced - only a very limited intellect would be impressed.  That is for starters.

Paul Ryan has "shone" within the simplified world of the conservative media and amongst his similarly minded and within a pissant CD in the same state where Michelle Bachman has prospered in a similar venue.  Results are quite understandably different when the surroundings aren't composed of his friends and sycophants and include people who are willing to look at a record and analyze talking points policy.  Wanting something to be so does not make a four hour plus marathon into a sub-three hour one and it does not make the fevered imaginings of Ayn into workable policy and it doesn't make ideology into goddam mathematics.  The real rules of the world say that you can't make money in to match money out without actually doing it - ideology be damned.  The real world says that you can't make rape into several other things without really pissing off anyone who gives a damn about women and after you've tried to do it you don't get to claim it is all a misunderstanding.  Some people pay attention to these things and will question it outside Janesville WI and the GOP House Caucus. 

Why the hell Dan Rather is surprised that a pip-squeak ideologue doesn't do well when challenged on his bullshit is way beyond me.  Paul Ryan's ideas have been in full view for some time and they've not been misrepresented and they stink in practical terms.  To put it simply - they are in practice stupid, if ideologically sound.  Paul Ryan has to deny that a vote for Sequestration was a vote for Sequestration and do it in front of people who say, "What the hell?"  This is from the Party that accused John Kerry of flip-flopping for voting differently on two different variations of a Bill.  Paul says he did it to force a better deal... he voted for what he voted for outcomes be damned and wants to pass that off as principled action.  Yes, he thought he was playing hostage taker just as those GOPers thought the rest of their Debt Ceiling hostage taking was a good idea - real world outcomes be damned.

The unexplainable doesn't get explained by Paul Ryan and Dan Rather is surprised.  When you try to do things that make no damned sense at all it is real hard to make it sensible, or even make sensible responses to questions about them.  The measure of an intellect is not the ability to parrot stupidity and pass it off as policy, the measure of intellect is an ability to face reality and do a somewhat good job of matching your desires to it and working within its constraints.  Buying the idiotic punditry that making stupid policy involves nerve and out-of-the-box-thinking is asking to be disappointed or astonished that its object can't live up to its billing.  An actual intellect knows how to adapt and innovate and improvise in the face of conditions, not hew to wishful thinking that things will just work because it wants them to.

Paul Ryan is a chimera of the right and the teabaggers, not anything more and his resolute stupidity is going to cost the GOPers for uplifting it into something is doesn't in the least resemble.  And yes, they deserve anything they get for it... and if the electorate buys into it, well hell, then we'll get what we as a nation deserve and too bad for those who knew better...  

Sure, It's Fun Laughing At The GOPers...

I know a lot of my readers (using the words 'a lot' is hyperbole) get some real fun out of what the GOP has to offer this time around. They're so easy to mock and so full of s**t on a regular basis that...

Here's the thing about that; this has something to say about the state of the nation that isn't in the least reassuring. There are two Parties in this country and one of them is producing what the GOP is. What that means to the "other" party is yet to be seen. Running against lunatics/multiple choicers leaves that "other" party with a hell of a lot of options to be ... stupidly almost GOP. How will the Democrats read the public? Will they read the election as really being between Right and Righter? They have done that previously.

The most open question today is whether the electorate can understand that fiddling around at the margins of the system is inadequate and that the failure to recover falls on the heads of those fiddlers and the total obstructionists. There is discontent, how deep and how reflective it is I can't begin to measure. If the "Middle" is still stuck on the "fiddle around" with the status quo position we are going to see candidates and policies that reflect that and the same failures. Politicians aren't generally known as risk takers and expecting them to move more than marginally from the status quo isn't reasonable if the "Middle" hasn't already been there for some time.

I don't think the Democrats generally are so stupid as to not realize that being the Party of the GOP's previous decade or so isn't going to address what's wrong with the nation. That particular intellectual "accomplishment" doesn't mean spit in regard to what policies they'll advocate or support. I'm not ignoring the percentage of Democratic legislators that would do something, I'm flatly aware of what the outcomes are.

OWS may mean something, but in regard to actual useful policy it won't mean anything unless that "Middle" is truly pissed off. I don't have polite words for the outlook of that group other than status quo at all costs. Accurate adjectives involve swearing and words like ... nah, not gonna go there. If that's where you stand - I have no appologies to make.

No, I'm not in the least optimistic.

Our Ally Pakistan

There really does seem to be some serious confusion about terms like ally. This term is applied to other governments and as such it is important to remember that other governments have their own interests. Being an ally does not mean that a country's government is the same as or a blind follower of its ally. It also is not a static relationship.

Questions can certainly be raised as the the level of alliance and whether it is in our interest to continue. "Our interest" is key wording and that follows through to the other side of an alliance. I'm not in a position to analyze all the levels of our alliance with Pakistan but there are a couple aspects that certainly are public - like the fact that we are also allied with India who isn't Pakistan's friend. I'm pretty sure Pakistan understands the limits of alliance and that the Obama Administration understands the limits - it is a lot less clear who else does.

I'm not making a case that our government doesn't need to take a good look at our relationship with Pakistan on a continuing basis or that OBL's location shouldn't be troubling. I am trying to make clear that people need to understand that each government has its own interests and that alliances don't automatically trump those. As some of our other alliances past and present show - we're willing to overlook quite a bit in the service to some of our interests. I could point to Mubarak's Egypt until recently.

The Nuclear Power Solution

The news coming out of Japan is ugly and scary in regard to nuclear power. I'm willing to give on the arguement that that siting would address much of what's gone wrong in Japan. In this nation it isn't all that difficult to avoid tsunamis. It isn't exactly easy to stay away from fault lines and some of the quiet ones pack a real wallop when they do let loose. It does seem that the problems in Japan are due to flooding rather than shaking and that much is reassuring - to an extent.

The issue of safety is still real, one of the real expenses of a nuke plant is just that - not the actually very expensive nature of getting power that way. Take out safety issues and it still is expensive. Since the cost of failure is so high safety simply can't be taken out.

Waste is a lot bigger issue than just the question of what to do with the expended fuel rods, everything that has had anything to do with those rods becomes waste that has to be disposed of in a real serious manner. It sure isn't a case of just digging a hole and dropping the stuff into it.

Even with the threat of radioactive clouds removed; I don't see how nuclear power is a good or important part of our power sources.

Secrecy And Outcomes

Recently it has come to light that the Obama Admin. can't immediately review the cases of inmates of Guantanamo because the records don't exist in one place or possibly completely at all. You can certainly make the case that incompetence existed throughout the BushCo, but that misses the mark. The mess that exists in this case is entirely too broad to lay on the incompetence of the worker bees. This thing is a mess because it is secret.

Secret means you can't talk about it and you can't communicate freely about it and nobody except those on board know enough to critique what you're doing. Beyond that, there is the issue that nobody can press for progress or even ask what progress there is because nobody knows anything about it. You can talk in broad terms about "the public right to know" and surely be right, but that abstract notion won't get you far. Secrecy means disasters are buried, it means that bad behavior is buried, it means that performance cannot be measured. That lack of accountability means that things are going to go south, quickly and badly, and not be addressed for quite some time. If it were common knowledge that a large portion of those held were entirely innocent of terrorism, how long would the public have held still for it?

The problem with hidden programs is that as they go south they not only continue to go there, the consequences pile up and thanks to secrecy there's no way through the labyrinth to sort out what the problem is or where it started. Even once you get into it, there are so many layers of secrecy and agencies and policies that you never know what it is that you do know. Because GWB was responsible for creating the most secretive administration in history he certainly gets the blame for what has gone wrong beneath that layer, but that doesn't address solving the mess. I certainly blame GWB for putting Albie in the AG seat, but what the hell actually went wrong over there is still not known. It isn't known because the questions to answer that can't be asked because it is all so secret. It makes a difference to the health of this nation to be able to sort out such things.

It is not in the interest of the nation for the plans for the Stealth Bomber or nuclear weapons to be available for general consumption. What the President or anybody discusses with their lawyer ought to be bound by the same outlines, but that has not squat to do with what some damn lobbyist wants or what some political group wants. If the government is involved and it doesn't involve something that'll get us killed we need to know. It isn't that Joe Damn Schmoe on Ordinary Street either cares or has much to say about it, it is the simple fact that there are knowledgeable and intelligent alternatives available outside "those in the know." Operating with one set of opinions or knowledge leads to continuation of action rather than modification or correction. This leads to unacceptable results and no program can contain all possible information. Even when people know something has gone wrong and have resigned, they are constrained from doing anything about it - legally constrained.

It is hard enough to quit a job over principle that you care about and supports your family, it is even tougher to risk adding to that burden by going to jail for principle. It is pretty easy to sit in you house and say, "I'd go to jail," but that certainly could mean losing your home, your family's economic security as well as your freedom. Tough to do. There has to be a penalty for harming the security of the nation and that means secrecy laws must have teeth. The fact that they must have teeth also means that they must be meaningful in their application. Gadflies can be irritating, they can even be obstructive, but they are not - in the end - of the consequence that unbridled action brings.

Much of what ails this country today is the outcome of ignorance. It is not only within government that proper questions didn't get asked, much of what went wrong in the investment banking industry happened because those questions didn't get asked by government but especially within the companies themselves. Over the last eight years society has built a high degree of tolerance for or even respect for the keeping of secrets. A mindset of, "I don't need to know or to ask," has grown larger than it ever was. How can the Risk Management Officer in a multi-billion dollar business not know what is going on?

Yes, I support open government, but I support it for more than just a principle. I support it because the outcomes are bad, bad all of us. It doesn't just propagate bad government and bad policies, it teaches a very dangerous lesson to the public. Under the best possible circumstances the public in general is too busy trying to manage living to pay close attention to much else, teaching them that this is the way to conduct a society by setting a "Know-nothing" governmental policy aggravates that to untenable proportions.

You have got to ask questions. You have got to be allowed to and to get answers.

Mr Joe Goes To Washington

John McCain has run a "Joe The Pumber Campaign," some sort of appeal to the people most screwed by the Republican ideology of rewarding wealth. Now, he's promising to take Joe to Washington DC with him. I'm not completely confident about this, but I'm pretty sure that there is somebody on staff to take care of toilet problems at the White House. Otherwise I'm mystified by Joe's role in a McCain/Palin administration. Is this going to be another Bush style appointment, "heck of a job Brownie," sort of thing?

There is something desperate about this kind of thing. It reeks of the stupidity of having no ideas for average Americans. Bear DNA is a campaign theme, "not sure if it is a criminal issue or a paternity issue," as though DNA is simply a CSI tool. "Fruit flies" are an issue, in virtually the same breath as "special needs children" when their use is one of the most important tools in the kit for finding genetic markers. This is the campaign of 'up with anti-science,' an appeal to those who fear it, who fear that which looks anything like it is out of their grasp. Considering a man and dinosaur VP candidate it makes sense, science threatens such nonsense.

When I ran in the Democratic Primary I told one of my construction crew that I'd take him with me if I won. I told him that because he made sure I never had an opportunity to start thinking I was real special, I'd take him along in that role as office gopher (go fer). That was a not for publication offer, I saw it to my own benefit to have someone close by who was more than willing to give his employer shit anytime he started getting a big head. My benefit in regard to a constituency's benegit, not as a political campaign tool. Well, it may have gotten me his vote...

Holding up Joe as a political icon of policy is the magnification of the ignorant into a role they are totally unsuited. I have nothing against Joe, as a plumber. I work in the trades and many of my friends are tradesmen and Republicans. Most of them also seem to be brighter than Joe. Joe is Sarah Palin in a smaller role, a non-entity held up as a policy voice. It isn't a requirement that a candidate be an expert in all the fields affected by their aspirations, the experts are hired help, but it is totally important that a candidate demonstrates sufficient grasp to be able to set a direction on the basis of facts. Is there a real mandate for somebody like Sarah Palin to set the agenda for science? Joe to set the foreign policy or economic policy directions?

That bunch will get a lot of votes and you have to ask yourself why that is s0?

Bitter Partisanship

There's a mantra going around the elections and media that bitter partisanship has caused us endless difficulties. Candidates or erstwhile candidates accuse all concerned of putting partisanship before public good. I would be one of the first to admit that partisanship started getting real bitter in the 90s, Gingritch followed by Tommy DeLay elevated nastiness to ordinary business where Democrats were concerned. Following George II's election we had the elevation of Rovian politics, everywhere all the time, especially in previously off limits sections of government.

The Clinton tax bill that began progress on balancing the Federal budget went, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has been turned into a sub-section of the RNC, civil liberties including Habeas Corpus have been abridged, there has been a near constant effort to marginalize gays, overthrow choice in abortion, and religion openly government funded. Draconian economic measures have been instituted, Unions hamstrung, and wages crushed by out and in sourcing. Political opponents of the war branded traitors and weak on terror. A constant drumbeat of fear has been maintained, voters summarily disenfranchised, elections cast into doubt. This is on one side of the equation, the Republican side. The Democratic congressional caucus is universally derided as spineless, by friend and foe.

And so, we're treated to the spectacle of a billionaire authoritarian mayor and bunch of whiners getting together to play at a third party on the basis of bitter partisanship. A Democratic Presidential candidate talks about bitter partisanship. The, for god's sake, media parrots this nonsense, the people who rolled over for BushCo on the run up to the war in Iraq, who became that Administration's propaganda mouthpiece in fear of the traitor label, who as victims of the bitter nasty rhetoric of the Republican Party now repeat this garbage.

Yes, there has been Democratic opposition to racist theocratic nut case Federal appointments, some. Yes, a Gay Marriage Amendment to the Constitution was blocked. We're nearing the end of the list of "bitter partisanship" accomplishments of the Democrats. Take a look at the voting record of the proponents of a "cure" for this bitter partisanship. In many cases they've enabled the strangulation of the Bill of Rights and other basic law and voted for the economic destruction of the worker. They propose that they have a solution?

You will excuse the heck out of me if I don't buy in. If you voted for the Military Commissions Act or the Patriot Act or the FISA Repair Act as a Democrat or even moderate Republican you deserve the scorn of every American citizen. If you voted for the Bankruptcy Bill or the Credit Reform Act you deserve the scorn of every worker. If you voted for the Bush Tax Bill you deserve the scorn of everyone not a multi-millionaire. In fact if you weren't strongly in opposition over the last twenty years you have no right to the (D) after your name, if you did not fight tooth and nail for the ordinary American and helped crush his rights and his economic standing you deserve scorn and rude treatment. Perhaps you do not understand that a foot on the neck is an act of war. The class war the Republicans deride and engage in at every opportunity.

Sure, it was nice when Congressmen could have floor debates and then have dinner and drinks and friendly relations, that gets pretty tough to do when your opponent is calling you a traitor, an enemy enabler, and other nasty names - in public, with the complete encouragement of their Party, their Administration, and their media lackeys. When the hand reached across the aisle contains a poison pin you get reluctant to take it. Does anybody remember the Nuclear Option when that Party was trying to ram through the most offensive possible candidates for appointments? Opposition to this is bitter partisanship?

Bitter partisanship would involve trying to jail or hang these people - or just shoot them down like foaming curs - but that isn't what's happened. They've not been censored or impeached or otherwise really interfered with. A publication that prints an ad with "Betrayus" in it is censored in Congress, the Vice-President is free to swear at and denigrate as traitors his opposition. Every Congressional investigation that touches on blatantly illegal or unethical behavior is blocked by Executive Principle and doesn't go to Federal Court or the Sargent At Arms marshals, nope, it just languishes - politely.

You proponents of the phrase bitter partisanship must mean something by bipartisanship more along the lines of just give the Republicans whatever they want. You do not mean find a middle way, the middle way is what is repeatedly attacked by the other side. They will not accept middle, they will accept only what they want; despite the overwhelming majority of Americans not wanting it. The Ben-gay bunch out in Oklahoma can shove their idea of bipartisan sideways some place. The rightwing neocon-theo-nut agenda is not the middle, it doesn't even look at the middle and the left not going along isn't bitter partisanship, it is only sense in operation. If the Democratic Party was holding out for my lefty vision you could call it serious partisanship of a Democratic nature, but even I'm not doing that.

I am astonished and disappointed that the Voter seems to be falling for this garbage, that their memory is so short that they give this even passing thought, much less a vote. There are a handful of Democratic legislators in Washington DC that are worth spit, it would be worth the time of the Voter to take a look and see who stands for exactly what. If you vote for or against someone based on gender or race or religion or ancestry rather than where they stand in this mess, you've engaged in truly stupid behavior and you deserve the results the rest of us have to live with.

New York Times and Mexican Trucks

The DOT gave permission to a Mexican trucking company last week to begin hauling freight in the US under a pilot program that will allow about 500 trucks from 100 Mexican carriers. Environmental and safety regulations that apply to American trucks would supposedly apply to Mexican trucks. The US House has already voted to cut of funding for the program.

The NYT Editorial states they suspect that the Teamsters oppose this program to "stave off the competition" and that the Sierra Club doesn't trust BushCo to enforce environmental laws. This opposition increases costs to companies and consumers; and tells Mexico that when it comes to free trade the US only likes it one way. The long haul fleet is much more modern than the critic's caricatures. Congress should allow Mexican trucks through.

Would it surprise you that I might have some disagreement with this editorial? Every industry that has insourced labor from Mexico has shown falling wages, is it any wonder that the Teamsters would oppose this move? If the Teamsters do not oppose this move with the full force available to a union, they have lost their minds. The Teamsters have the membership numbers to throw down the threat of a strike to break this one, assuming it's not an empty threat. The Sierra Club doesn't trust BushCo? They must read papers and listen to the news. Companies and consumers pay, that's odd, labor is generally paid for, you might think China and poison goods would be a hint about paying. The long haul fleet is modern, and is going to be checked? I don't think it's a great idea to run foreign nationals from one of the most corrupt nations in the world up and down our highways in 60,000 pound trucks. In fact, I believe we've already imported more than enough Mexican labor, there might be something to be said for US labor not being Mexico's number one source of income. Maybe something like this makes it real clear that NYT's Editorial Board is salaried and pretty much completely disconnected from working Americans. If you don't see the potential to get bitten by this, you may have that in common with them. I suppose it would be unfair to mention the Mexican truck that blew up and killed at least 37 people, since this "pilot" program wouldn't allow hazardous loads...sure, pilot and then? When exactly does BushCo get stopped from crushing labor for the benefit of the plutocrats?

Who CAN We Talk To ?

Nancy Pelosi leads a delegation to talk to Assad in Syria and the White House blows a gasket all over the media and particularly the right noise machine. Evil countries cannot be talked to by the USA. Evil is one of those words that gets tossed around in politics, it's a sort of generic for us not liking what they are doing. I'm not defending what they do, but I really prefer more specific words.

The White House says they will not talk to Syria. They say it is because they support terrorists and interfere in other countries. I wonder exactly what talking or not talking has to do with that? If we're not to talk to them there must be something about talking to them that somehow benefits them or what they do. Talking to a country recognizes that it exists, um, they exist whether we talk to them or not. I suppose the stance could be taken that it somehow legitimizes them; they belong to the UN, their leaders do actually run the places, in fact they run the places in ways we don't like. I think they're already legitimate and what they do is a fact (or purported fact) so not talking to them doesn't make it not happen. If talking to them is supposed to create an aura of power for them the problem with that idea is that they already have the power to do the things we don't like and they know it and so do their people. These are some of the rationales for not talking that I've been able to come up with and I've actually tried to come up with some that aren't strawmen; but I ain't having any luck. As far as I can tell, not talking to these people makes all our stances regarding them postures. The Prez can pose for the cameras being tough guy, well heck, we already know he can wear a flight suit, "clear" brush, use Old West terminology, and movie lines like, "bring it on." So what?

If I object to my neighbor storing garbage, making a stink, and drawing pests complaining to my wife and friends will have no more effect than stomping my feet and moaning. I could actually go next door and tell him that it stinks and is drawing pests and I don't like it. Blowing up his house is not a good option, persuading him that there is mutual benefit available is a better approach. Syria is not run by a lunatic, there are reasons they do what they do. If there are reasons and we know them and understand them we have an idea of how to approach them with another path. You can't know something by guessing, you get answers by asking and, yes, you have to know how to ask. Trying to understand something is not the same as approving, it is in fact a strategic advantage to know what your opponent is thinking and why.

The world is a dangerous place, bad intelligence and guessing are the tools of failure in an arena where failure is not a good thing. Talking to your friends is nice, they say nice things and sometimes you make nice deals, talking to your enemies or opponents is critical, while you may not make nice deals you get the opportunity to not make real stupid mistakes (Iraq) and possibly make trade-offs. You might find that what is a major issue to your opponent involves what is to you a minor inconvenience, this isn't blind optimism, it has factually been shown throughout history. The problem is that during stare downs the rhetoric frequently obscures the actual issues and stupidity ensues.

Well, stupidity has ensued enough times under this administration, you'd think they'd have figured something out by now, but noooooo.

The Welcome Mat

Maybe someone will explain to me just exactly how this (New Haven Welcomes a Booming Population of Immigrants, Legal or Not ) will reduce the numbers of people coming to the US illegally. Now, or at any time in the future. Let's just assume for a second, for the sake of argument, that we solve the illegal alien problem by an instant amnesty. Hurry down to the local PD & register and you're good, as of today. Nobody after today is good. There's the nice, nice solution.

New Haven makes it clear that the numbers of immigrants make it imperative that they be nice, so what is going to happen in another 5 years? Will the numbers again make it imperative to be nice? Why would anybody who wants to come on in, not come on in? You certainly are not going to suggest that the stuff won't need picked, houses won't be built, or are you?

Now, splitting the differences 12 million/30 million, you've already added 17 million illegal workers to the labor pool and gotten today's suppression of wages, what is going to happen when you add another 7-10 million to the bottom of the wage pool? Then, just for giggles, toss in the outsourced job losses, although as wages plummet it might slow. It will stop happening when there's no difference between 3rd world wages and our own. I'd rather pull them up, than us rush down, but that apparently is racist xenophobia. Ah hell, throw out the welcome mat, those of us old enough to remember labor as an honest way to support a family will all be dead soon, anyhow. It does pay to remember that when the worker bees ain't got any money to spend, your jobs become superfluous also.

I'd really like to go one week without this issue getting rammed in my face...

More Cigarette Tax

This would be a great time to tell you what a great idea additional tax on cigarettes for children's health care is ... not. Health care for children is a great idea, over due, as is some form of universal health care. Not just great ideas, wonderfully, stupendously, awesomely great ideas. Paying for them with additional cigarette taxes is errant nonsense. These are Oregonian's children, not cigarette smokers' children. On a pack of Camel straights @ $5.00 the tax is 24% of the cost, that's not the tax rate which is 31% and that is on top of the federal taxes. I mention Camel straights because I smoke 1/2 pack/day of them.

I make no claim that cigarettes aren't bad for your health, they absolutely are. There are some real basic problems with some of the claims, but that's small change. It cannot be shown that those costs are not recovered over time, there certainly are some issues about aging vs not that get lost. Even that is not the point. The point is that cigarette smoking has not squat to do with child health care. Yes, you can impose that tax by vote on a minority that hasn't enough votes to challenge it, because you can do something does not make it right or reasonable. It might not bother anybody that most smokers make less than the median income, but it sure seems an odd way to be progressive.

People make "fairness" claims about the social and health costs posed by cigarette smokers, as though voluntary choices like that only include smoking. Maybe those advocates would be well paid to take a look at the consumption of alcohol when they bring up those kinds of costs. It does pose a bit of a problem for the cigarette agenda, smoking pales in comparison. The single greatest hit in those costs is ... alcohol. Yes, there's an elephant in the living room and nobody notices. As far as personal health goes try on liver damage, brain cell death, nerve damage, esophagus and stomach damage, lowered immune system, circulatory damage, and pregnancy issues, then move onto mental health issues, including verbal and emotional components, neglect, irresponsible behaviors . From there add in car crashes, falls, assaults, lost work days. Then go take a look at the prison system and find how many crimes were committed under the influence. This stuff is advertised on TV and in magazines and its use is glorified, yes, in front of children. What works for alcohol is much better lobbying and advertising and a much larger constituency.

*Further disclosure* I don't drink, I haven't for almost 19 years, I do know something about it.

Do I want to duck responsibility for my smoking habit? No. I've smoked for over 35 years, though, and I'm healthier than the majority of the population and you'd better be in outstanding condition if you want to keep up with me. Since I can't afford to retire you don't need to worry about taking care of me in old age, besides I like my work.

If we're going to take on progressive ideas and institute policies on those ideas, let's do that exactly, do progressive things in a progressive manner. I'm sorry Gov. K. this idea sucks, but I voted for you and still would.

Blue Oregon is having a nice argument and they even have a poll. I don't like the idea over there either.

Ideological Purity

David Sirota writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that there is a real problem with people in power not owning what they said about the Iraq War, this is certainly true. He holds John Edwards up as an example of how it should be done - I made a mistake and I regret it. He goes on to note that there definitely is a massive case of CYA going on. This is where it gets sticky, why is this going on?

We all know why the President of the US would state that he never said, "Stay the course." It's politically stupid to do it, but he does have the semantic dodge of what course he was talking about, Nostradamus works well in that respect. There is however the matter of pundits and other pols who beat the warm drum enthusiastically. It is now a generally unpopular stand to take and those who take it publicly will be held to account for that stance. There is such a thing as Conservatism that isn't about god, gays, and guns; I don't subscribe to the philosophy but one of its tenets is military adventures aren't to be done. That used to be a Republican deal, but ideological purity requirements of the past decade silenced that. The political price to be paid for opposing the Iraq adventure on philosophical grounds outweighed principle. You weren't pure in the Bush ideology.

The responsibility for this falls on Parties and voters. Politicians can count. If philosophy loses to Party line the fault is not solely the Party's. This notion of ideological purity driving political discourse is harmful to Parties and to national policy and Republicans are not the only guilty party. There are, of course, issues that in voter's mind's trump ideology. Joe Lieberman is an example, his stance on Iraq cost him the Democratic Primary despite the rest of his political stances. There does, however, remain a blindness to policy and reasoning due to ideology. I will make a personal argument in this arena, I am intimately familiar with it and thus competent. During the Democratic Primary for OR 02 CD I set up policy statements and my reasoning for them, The Oregonian took those and attributed "the most conservative" of the candidates to me. As far as I can tell, there were 3 policies that contributed to that, strong support of the 2nd Amendment, opposition to illegal hiring/illegal immigration, and a stance that one size fits all environmental regulations is doomed. Now I'd be real surprised to find that conservatives exactly agree with my rationales for those stands, they are in fact based on hard left politics. Anybody that hasn't gotten the idea that I regard the 2nd as the final block against people like BushCo hasn't paid attention - and yes, I regard that bunch as exactly that dangerous. Sounds left to me. Illegal hiring crushes labor - I oppose fervently any actions to debase labor, and I don't mean just organized labor and in the 1920's that would've gotten me arrested. I'll fight the establishment of, enhancement of, and enabling of a plutocracy in this country tooth and nail and serfs are a part of that. That's damn left. Environmental policies that are created with the one size fits all philosophy are doomed, public backlash will occur and the very people you need to be partners become enemies. I want success in that arena, long term meaningful success. Left again. That is not the measure that was taken of me as a candidate. I failed the ideological purity test on the surface. Drivng drag cars fails completely.

Reasoning and motive become buried under simplistic labels, the fact that racist xenophobic nutcases oppose illegal immigration has nothing to do with the matter as far as the health and well being of labor is concerned. It certainly is not progressive politics to oppose something on the basis of race, neither is it progressive to participate in the oppression of labor. Pay attention. The fact that the NRA seems to have fallen in bed with some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party has exactly not one thing to do with owning firearms. The fact that Sen Chuck Schumer (D) sees a difference between interfering with the 2nd and interfering with the 1st does not make it progressive to do so, it is in fact absolutely oppressive to restrict liberty. It is not reasoning to ignore contradictions in the name of ideology, it is the pursuit of ideological purity that you've been told exists.

Do the Hillary Clintons pass ideological muster? Certainly on name alone, debate ceases if the surname and (D) becomes all important. The question really should fall on the balance of policy statements, their reasoning and their motives. The timing of her opposition (post mid-term) to Iraq is suspect in my eyes, her stances on gun control have shown no reasoning in light of the Constitution, in point of fact I find her very nearly the most poll driven pol I've seen. I cannot find a single iota of respect for labor in any of her stances beyond the minimum wage and that has yet to play out. Do I find Hillary's ideological purity in question? Not really, I have no idea what her ideology is by definition of action. I don't care if it doesn't look ideologically pure, I care about the outcomes and the reasons for them. Ideological purity is all about appearances and those who'll pass its muster should be deeply suspect. If you've 'stuck your foot in it' apologize for it, state why you were wrong then and why you're right now, people will take the measure of that and make an informed decision. If you're right, stand up for it, the heck with how pure it looks.

How to Win in Today's Media

If you're curious how being a commentator on the run up to the Iraq war and being wrong, or right, works out for you, Radar has just the thing for you. Don't expect to be encouraged.

A Bad Day

Friday night CBS showed some choices for a future news story, one of which would be about some women who attend every Arlington National Cemetery Funeral. My throat got kind of tight and I told my wife that I couldn't do that, after just a couple I'd lose my mind. As I went on to tell her that every time I've heard Governor Kulongoski talk about attending the funerals of Oregonians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan I could see it tearing him up, my throat continued to close up and finally my eyes got all wet. I realized that I was crying. No, not the sobbing kind, water running from my eyes kind.

I'm so tired of our young people getting hurt and killed for this President's little Iraq adventure, so tired I'm finally past words and into tears. For god's sake.

My son Nick goes to Oregon National Guard boot camp next week, that weighs on me some, but it is the shared disaster of those harmed by Iraq that is tearing me up. I would have considerably less reaction to me being in their position, I've gotten to have an awful lot of what life has to offer and I'm on the back side of the game. The back side of the game makes it pretty safe to say that, I'm outside the limits of age, but being safe only actually makes me feel worse about it. I'd make the trade to keep one kid from being there.

All I can see is more years of this, George W Bush is not going to wake up one morning and say, "oops," Congress is not going to de-fund the troops, what is going to happen is another election and that Inaugural Day is two years away. How many soldier's family and friends tears away is that? How many nightmares, how many broken marriages, how many broken bodies and minds and hearts away is that? A lot of Bad Days.

The Decider as The Unifier

I've heard several news casts describe the President as being very alone or lonely with his escalation policy. That's not quite accurate, there are about 150,000 soldiers who'll be "with" him on this one. He won't be "with" them, he's demonstrated, quite awhile previously, he knows how to take advantage of a war and not get involved.

When Gallup looked at the question from a couple different angles, the Decider didn't seem to have a lot of company. Previous to the speech when confronted with several choices including escalation, only 12% chose it, asked as an established policy question 36% were good with the idea. As an established policy 61% opposed escalation (they named it surge, I won't use words for what they don't mean), this means the country has once again become unified, not quite as unified as post 9/11 but gaining. I believe 36% is just a little short of the Republican registration which means partisanship is dead. Ill. Ah hell, still alive and kicking for 1/3 of those polled. Darn. I really was starting to have hopes that sense and humanity might trump when I saw the 12% number.

But look at it this way, the Decider has gotten nearly 2/3 of those polled to agree about something regarding national policy and foreign affairs. That's darn near a stellar performance. Where can he go from there, even more agreement?

Playing Tapes In My Head

Awhile ago somebody told me that I put a great deal of energy into playing tapes in my head, creating scenarios and seeing how they work out. I had to think about that. Not about whether I do it, whether I should take that as a negative aspect of my thought process. I do it.

I have a pretty analytical personality, I take things apart and put them together, I like big complicated puzzles like building fast cars, I have a need to know how I will react to situations and what outcomes I can get along with, and I very much need to know where my thinking leads. I do not believe that what I feel necessarily reflects reality nor leads to good results.

So, I play tapes. I start with a situation and run it forward in time, then I go back and throw in a modification and run it again, and repeat... I plug in what real information I have and what easily extrapolated information I have and run it. I do this with the full knowledge that humans are not predictable except generally and in fairly large groupings and with the complete understanding that I can easily be full of "stuff." I do have a pretty broad range of personal experience, a good backgrounding in history, and an observant personality so I do a fair job with the predictive tapes. I don't claim some kind of clairvoyance, I get things generally right often enough to have some trust in my tapes. The more they range out from myself and my personal experience the more grains of salt I take them with.

I drag race, this involves a powerful car, high rates of acceleration, and high speeds - there is some risk involved. Primarily the risks involve parts failures or track conditions, these unpredictable variables can cause catastrophic outcomes if they're not dealt with correctly and immediately. Since that is the case and they cannot practiced it is important to know what they mean and what the remedies are and that coolness of behavior can be counted on. I am comfortable with my pastime because I know from practical experience how I react to unexpected dangerous situations and I know what the remedies are and I know what the safety rules are. I have run the tapes and I can get along with the outcomes.

When it comes to political issues or policy issues I try to do the same sort of thing. My success seems to vary pretty much along expected lines, the less information I have the more poorly I do, the less I have to intuit the more success. People are always a matter of extrapolation and a certain amount of intuiting, more information makes extrapolation more accurate and makes the intuitive leap smaller. Intuitive thinking is an odd thing, there seems to be a space between facts that can be bridged pretty accurately and I have no certainty how that happens. I've read enough theories on the matter and the closest to an idea I have is that there is actual information or an unconscious synthesis of information in existence that isn't recognized at the point of the leap. Regardless of the whys, the ability to intuit and to evaluate emotional content of issues and behaviors makes running these tapes unlike running a computer simulation, incomplete data does not result in garbage.

I'm not trying to make outrageous claims or inflate the value of my thinking, I'm trying to explain how I get to where I get with my writings here.

I Know We're the Base, But...

Yippee, Democrats! Yahooo, the House! Weehaaa, the Senate! Governorships, State Houses, Wow! Well that's nice and all but there's quite a bit it doesn't mean.

In comparison to the other industrialized democratic governments in the world the USA is quite a bit right of center, even when it thinks it's being liberal, which it doesn't. The USA thinks it's being centrist or slightly right of center, it's not when compared to, say, our 200th Birthday - 1976, it's a lot right. Previously I mentioned that the Independent/NA voters that pushed us over the top simply fired their guys, they don't like us, they won't help us (we're both the same), and they're just looking for an excuse to go back - you just know the Republicans have learned a lesson. (cough, cough, choke) A lot of the candidates that won would be Republicans if the Republicans weren't loons. And believe it, the Herd has been culled, those wimpy "moderate" Republicans (RINOs) got replaced with Democrats (Dinos???). Yep, this is a mandate to kill for...

On to some realism, there aren't the votes to override vetoes, so George II is still pulling those strings. If you have some idea he and his cronies have suddenly gotten the message, you're reading a different book. Condi Rice is no less intellectually and historically challenged and certainly not less lickspittle and think about it, she may be the best of the bunch.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are "left" according to media and Republicans. If left means gun control, then Nancy is. I don't know when else Harry could've been called left. I'm not trying to insult these people, they do actually say some center left things, but they're not left. Getting out of Iraq isn't Left, opposing it wasn't Left. Gun Control isn't Left, it's just a different version of GWB's security nonsense. (spelled screw the Constitution & the People)

National Health Care, an end to Plutocracy, Taxation according to benefit, fair and even and legal labor markets, an end to Union busting, fair and even access to government contracts, de-centralization of media - ie breaking conglomerates, breaking monopolies, public access through low power, re-banning foreign ownership (see ya Rupert), free trade on an even playing field, FICA cap removed, foreign based corporations banned from Federal & State contracts, all law-abiding citizens have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, now that stuff starts to sound a little left, well, it's not happening for quite some time. It is utter nonsense that that stuff is left wing loon talk, but there you are.

So, Base, what's to be done? Well first we don't kill our allies and we do the hard work of persuading people that we're sensible people with good ideas. That also means getting "D" where that "I" is, no kidding, we need those folks so we need to prove to them that we're not just a different spelling of the other guy. Then there are the "0" folks, the other half of the electorate, the ones that just don't vote. This is the huge hole in the whole process and a lot of them are our natural allies. I used to think they just didn't care, on reflection I think they're disgusted, I think they let large numbers dissuade them (doesn't count), and I think nobody has realistically reached out to them. We just got a whacking amount of free publicity, how about we make some use of it before it wears off. OK, have a party, pat each other on the back, it's been awhile, but just this weekend, then let's get out there. Hey, Howard Dean, good job on the 50 State deal, but now let's really do some work.

GOD

I've been thinking. What do I have to say about government and religion? The whole discussion ought to center around two things:

Religion in Government - People have a moral and philosophical framework that frequently includes religion, expecting them to not take that into government with them is foolish, they will. I would be horrified by the prospect, while some seem to lose some of that framework once there, it would be bad to send sociopaths to govern.

Government in Religion - This is an exceptionally dangerous idea, it is very bad for religion and the non-religious. There are a bunch of religions, even narrowly speaking of Christianity, there are a bunch. Each sect is supposed to be able to practice their religion freely and openly. This idea becomes very dubious when government gets involved. Government cannot do anything within a religious framework without destructive consequences, it will interfere. It cannot help it, it is a device for applying power and that is what it does. Money from government will have strings attached, it must because government has a desired end for that spent money. When the government gets involved in prayer it must interfere, it cannot satisfy all sects so it will satisfy what it can, those left out are marginalized and those included are defined. This does not expand religious freedom, it constrains it.

Government is about social order and the enforcement of conditions required to maintain it. This is an entirely pragmatic exercise of force, it may masquerade as moral, it isn't. Morality involves choice or free will, the government does not offer such, it offers consequences. Moral people ought to be able to pass good laws that allow people as much freedom of choice as possible while constraining the outrages that people sometimes commit on each other. This is something entirely different than enforcing morality. There is a contradiction in terms in the concept of moral law, holy books may set out terms of moral laws, but a government cannot do it, it has recourse only to coercion to accomplish such a thing, if you see the words moral and law conjoined, beware.

If this seems anti-religion you haven't paid attention, many people are greatly inproved by their religions and get comfort and support in their daily lives from them. This is a very good thing, something precious enough to not allow the cudgel of government to interfere with.