Or: What's Wrong With This Picture?
This morning, NPR aired an interview between its chief legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, and US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. There was a major disconnect during the course of their conversation that I wish Ms. Totenberg had explored with the frequently testy Associate Justice.
Scalia is the poster boy for "strict construction," meaning that in his opinion, if it was good enough for the Founders in 1789, it's good enough for us today. For him, as he says flat out, our Constitution is a "dead document." He did not disagree when Ms. Totenberg asked him if putting people in stocks in the town square would pass Constitutional muster today, for example.
Yet in his own life, he has acknowledged that the tenor of modern times ("the Space Age," as he noted his father would call it) has caused him to alter his judicial reticence to speaking in public, giving interviews, and the like.
Of course, he still won't speak directly about specific cases the Court is considering; he will express his opinion on prior Court rulings and specific Court opinions, by himself or his fellows, whether they agree or disagree.
If the times have changed so much that he has to modify his public behavior as a Justice, why haven't the times also changed so much that how we read the Constitution itself hasn't changed?
Those of you (if there is anyone out there, that is) who know me know that I have a bit of contempt for so-called "strict constructionists." They claim that they oppose only "judicial activism," but in fact, it's only "judicial activism" when they disagree with the results of a particular ruling. All judges and justices interpret documents, all the time. It's inherent in the nature of the job. So those who claim to believe in strict construction are hypocrites.
I hate to see real intellect go to waste, in that way or in any other. Scalia has real intellect--and a wicked wit, for which I confess to having a sneaking admiration. His often blunt opinions are refreshing to read, even when I disagree with him.
You know, when you think about it, I react the same way to religious fundamentalists the same way I do to strict constructionists, and for the same reasons. They all completely ignore Shakespeare's wisdom: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Monday, April 28, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Ernestine Lives!
You remember Lily Tomlin's Ernestine, do you not? She was one of Lily's first major hit characters, way back from (ah, I do so hate showing my age) Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In. One of Ernestine's best observations was, "We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to."
Despite the truth of that statement, I objected to the court-ordered break-up of the Bell System in the mid-1980s. I abhor trusts, but I also recognize the everyday reality that a telephone is in essence a utility; thus, it should be run as a quasi-monopoly, but for the public good, not for private profit.
Not that my long-standing objections ever mattered, but the FCC of late has by inaction allowed most of the Bell companies to re-merge . . . not for the public good, however and alas, but for private exorbitant profits.
The latest "ferinstance": AT&T has stripped the last vestige of "service" from the concept of "customer service." Should you decide you'd like to pay your AT&T bill in person (maybe you're in the mall and you know the bill is coming due and you decide, spur-of-the-moment, to walk in to the AT&T store to pay, just to have one less thing to do later), AT&T is going to charge you an extra $2.00. Yup. You read that right. You have to pay more for AT&T to take your money from you in person.
As if that weren't bad enough, AT&T defends this extra charge on the grounds that the time of AT&T reps is valuable, thus you should pay more for taking up that time.
I must be old-fashioned. That strikes me as being exactly backwards. AT&T should be giving you a discount for paying in person and early/on time, not discouraging you from providing it with revenues. What do these AT&T reps have to do that's more valuable to AT&T than literally bringing in the money that pays for (among other things) their salaries? I just can't fathom it.
Well, that's not entirely true. I can fathom it just fine. I just do not care at all for what I fathom, which is AT&T is going to ding you for every single thing at every chance it gets, just like every other business in the world, rather than being willing to accept that some things are just part of its expenses of doing business in the first place.
The Irish are correct: there's many a dry eye at a moneylender's funeral.
Despite the truth of that statement, I objected to the court-ordered break-up of the Bell System in the mid-1980s. I abhor trusts, but I also recognize the everyday reality that a telephone is in essence a utility; thus, it should be run as a quasi-monopoly, but for the public good, not for private profit.
Not that my long-standing objections ever mattered, but the FCC of late has by inaction allowed most of the Bell companies to re-merge . . . not for the public good, however and alas, but for private exorbitant profits.
The latest "ferinstance": AT&T has stripped the last vestige of "service" from the concept of "customer service." Should you decide you'd like to pay your AT&T bill in person (maybe you're in the mall and you know the bill is coming due and you decide, spur-of-the-moment, to walk in to the AT&T store to pay, just to have one less thing to do later), AT&T is going to charge you an extra $2.00. Yup. You read that right. You have to pay more for AT&T to take your money from you in person.
As if that weren't bad enough, AT&T defends this extra charge on the grounds that the time of AT&T reps is valuable, thus you should pay more for taking up that time.
I must be old-fashioned. That strikes me as being exactly backwards. AT&T should be giving you a discount for paying in person and early/on time, not discouraging you from providing it with revenues. What do these AT&T reps have to do that's more valuable to AT&T than literally bringing in the money that pays for (among other things) their salaries? I just can't fathom it.
Well, that's not entirely true. I can fathom it just fine. I just do not care at all for what I fathom, which is AT&T is going to ding you for every single thing at every chance it gets, just like every other business in the world, rather than being willing to accept that some things are just part of its expenses of doing business in the first place.
The Irish are correct: there's many a dry eye at a moneylender's funeral.
Friday, April 25, 2008
If You Vote For McCain, You Deserve What You Get
Let me get this straight: Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, says the government will never again fail Americans the way the the Bush administration did after Hurricane Katrina. He also says the government cannot help you, really. The entire point of his "It's Time for Action" tour thus seems to be "it's time for YOU to take action, because I'm not going to." Just more of the same crap that's been spewing from the White House for the past eight years. So where is this change he's claiming he's going to bring to Washington?
Oh, I get it--it's like "compassionate conservatism!" "We really do feel sorry for you while we're screwing you over, but since you brought your troubles on yourself, you have no one to blame but yourself, and it's not our job to help you."
He also says we need to have "a conversation" about whether to rebuild New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward or tear it down . . . where has he been the last 3 years?!?
And then he says he doesn't remember saying that. (1) When you're 71 and running for President, "I don't remember" is NOT a good thing to be saying. (2) If he's saying that just because he doesn't want to admit what he did say, how does he think he can get away with it? Hasn't he heard of things like YouTube? And the nightly news? And Countdown?
I used to think McCain was the best of a bad bunch of candidates for the GOP nomination. Now I'm not so sure. I'll give him this: he knows how to say one thing but do another just as well as does Sen. Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, the press isn't challenging him on his crap any more than they have challenged Sen. Clinton on hers. We are in serious trouble here, people!
I propose we start a "Draft John Edwards" movement at the Democratic Party's National convention.
Oh, I get it--it's like "compassionate conservatism!" "We really do feel sorry for you while we're screwing you over, but since you brought your troubles on yourself, you have no one to blame but yourself, and it's not our job to help you."
He also says we need to have "a conversation" about whether to rebuild New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward or tear it down . . . where has he been the last 3 years?!?
And then he says he doesn't remember saying that. (1) When you're 71 and running for President, "I don't remember" is NOT a good thing to be saying. (2) If he's saying that just because he doesn't want to admit what he did say, how does he think he can get away with it? Hasn't he heard of things like YouTube? And the nightly news? And Countdown?
I used to think McCain was the best of a bad bunch of candidates for the GOP nomination. Now I'm not so sure. I'll give him this: he knows how to say one thing but do another just as well as does Sen. Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, the press isn't challenging him on his crap any more than they have challenged Sen. Clinton on hers. We are in serious trouble here, people!
I propose we start a "Draft John Edwards" movement at the Democratic Party's National convention.
Riddle Me This
What do the following people and characters have in common?
Capt. James T. Kirk -- "I want answers, Mister!"
"We need more power!"
Scarlett O'Hara -- "After all, tomorrow is another day."
Mick Jagger -- "I can't get no satisfaction."
Freddie Mercury -- "I want it all, and I want it now!"
Hamlet -- "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or by opposing, end them . . ."
The Bud Lite madness guy -- "Dude!"
Igor (from Young Frankenstein) -- "It could be worse. It could be raining."
Indiana Jones -- "It's not the years, kid--it's the mileage."
I'll give you a hint: think diamonds.
Capt. James T. Kirk -- "I want answers, Mister!"
"We need more power!"
Scarlett O'Hara -- "After all, tomorrow is another day."
Mick Jagger -- "I can't get no satisfaction."
Freddie Mercury -- "I want it all, and I want it now!"
Hamlet -- "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or by opposing, end them . . ."
The Bud Lite madness guy -- "Dude!"
Igor (from Young Frankenstein) -- "It could be worse. It could be raining."
Indiana Jones -- "It's not the years, kid--it's the mileage."
I'll give you a hint: think diamonds.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Turn, Turn, Turn
Or "Spin, Spin, Spin." Better yet, as Bill Cosby once said (in a completely different context), "You go around in a circle for five minutes, and then puke."
As much as I enjoy watching and discussing politics, I am officially sick to my stomach. Not so much with the Pennsylvania primary, but with the political and media spins on same. How can a 10-point win be a "big" win for Hillary Clinton when she very recently held a nearly 30-point lead over Barack Obama in the Keystone State? Looks more like a squeaker that Clinton won largely because rural PA voters were less afraid of a woman running for president than they were of a black man running for president. I extrapolate this by comparing what PA voters told pollsters to the exceedingly vituperative letters to the editor I've read of late in the Omaha World-Herald. The similarities are alarming. They are positively vicious in their expressed hatred of Obama--which they state in terms of the press not adequately chastising Obama for his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racially-inflammatory sermons. They claim the media are giving Obama a free ride, which is diametrically opposed to what I see when I examine TV, radio, and printed press coverage.
At least in part, this is America's traditional anti-intellectualism mucking up the voting in a big way. [The Founders expected people to make rational, informed decisions. Of course, they didn't expect the rise of political parties . . . nor did they expect people like me to be voting. Their vision of the electorate was of educated, land-owning, white men.--Ed.] Obama has run into the same problem Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and John Kerrey had--and a problem I still have--which is believing in the basic intelligence of the American voter. They were willing to speak sometimes unpleasant truths about America and then-current events, and they were running against people who in Carter's case, was the genial grandpa reassuring us everything was OK (Reagan), and in Gore's and Kerrey's case was a morally conservative good buddy (Dubya). The typical voter much preferred "sweetness and light" to reality, judging from the actual election returns. [I have previously addressed the issue of Dubya's stealing the 2000 election by fraud in Florida--while I believe that to be true, I also maintain that had Al Gore won his own home state of Tennessee, Florida would have been rendered irrelevant, and what Dubya's minions did there would not have put Dubya in office.--Ed.]
I remember voters actually saying they were voting against Kerrey because he was too brainy and thus they didn't trust him.
UGH!
I'll give Clinton this: when she's on her game, she understands how low a candidate needs to go to win. What really fries me in all this is that I saw part of her interview on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann late last week, and she was rational and sensible, and actually had excellent proposals for dealing with some of the policy issues about which Olbermann asked. But I just don't trust her anymore, and I still think I may have to boycott the election if it's her vs. McCain in November.
I also am still steamed about her illogic in claiming that since Obama can't seem to beat her in the big swing states, Obama wouldn't win them in November, either. That's simply not true. That's apples and oranges. Maybe Obama is a bit less popular than Clinton in those places in the primaries--it's irrelevant to how Obama would do against McCain in the general election were Obama the Democratic Party candidate. Clinton knows better, I'm sure. But "win at any cost or take everyone down in a truly Pyrrhic victory" seems to be her guiding principle at this point.
Furthermore, why isn't the press confronting Clinton with her real problem in terms of electability? I know I am repeating myself, but since no one else is saying this, I am going to continue saying it: McCain can recast himself as a Dubya clone all he wants. Among the really rabid right wing of the GOP(i.e., in places like Nebraska), however, he will never be trusted. Republicans around here would rather not vote at all than have to vote for him--unless Hillary Clinton is running against him. In that case, they will break records just to come out to vote against her. She says she's been in the public eye so long that the GOP can't touch her, as all her baggage is already "out there," but she's ignoring the lightning rod her very self has on those opposed to her politically. Why aren't the media confronting her about that?
As much as I enjoy watching and discussing politics, I am officially sick to my stomach. Not so much with the Pennsylvania primary, but with the political and media spins on same. How can a 10-point win be a "big" win for Hillary Clinton when she very recently held a nearly 30-point lead over Barack Obama in the Keystone State? Looks more like a squeaker that Clinton won largely because rural PA voters were less afraid of a woman running for president than they were of a black man running for president. I extrapolate this by comparing what PA voters told pollsters to the exceedingly vituperative letters to the editor I've read of late in the Omaha World-Herald. The similarities are alarming. They are positively vicious in their expressed hatred of Obama--which they state in terms of the press not adequately chastising Obama for his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racially-inflammatory sermons. They claim the media are giving Obama a free ride, which is diametrically opposed to what I see when I examine TV, radio, and printed press coverage.
At least in part, this is America's traditional anti-intellectualism mucking up the voting in a big way. [The Founders expected people to make rational, informed decisions. Of course, they didn't expect the rise of political parties . . . nor did they expect people like me to be voting. Their vision of the electorate was of educated, land-owning, white men.--Ed.] Obama has run into the same problem Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and John Kerrey had--and a problem I still have--which is believing in the basic intelligence of the American voter. They were willing to speak sometimes unpleasant truths about America and then-current events, and they were running against people who in Carter's case, was the genial grandpa reassuring us everything was OK (Reagan), and in Gore's and Kerrey's case was a morally conservative good buddy (Dubya). The typical voter much preferred "sweetness and light" to reality, judging from the actual election returns. [I have previously addressed the issue of Dubya's stealing the 2000 election by fraud in Florida--while I believe that to be true, I also maintain that had Al Gore won his own home state of Tennessee, Florida would have been rendered irrelevant, and what Dubya's minions did there would not have put Dubya in office.--Ed.]
I remember voters actually saying they were voting against Kerrey because he was too brainy and thus they didn't trust him.
UGH!
I'll give Clinton this: when she's on her game, she understands how low a candidate needs to go to win. What really fries me in all this is that I saw part of her interview on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann late last week, and she was rational and sensible, and actually had excellent proposals for dealing with some of the policy issues about which Olbermann asked. But I just don't trust her anymore, and I still think I may have to boycott the election if it's her vs. McCain in November.
I also am still steamed about her illogic in claiming that since Obama can't seem to beat her in the big swing states, Obama wouldn't win them in November, either. That's simply not true. That's apples and oranges. Maybe Obama is a bit less popular than Clinton in those places in the primaries--it's irrelevant to how Obama would do against McCain in the general election were Obama the Democratic Party candidate. Clinton knows better, I'm sure. But "win at any cost or take everyone down in a truly Pyrrhic victory" seems to be her guiding principle at this point.
Furthermore, why isn't the press confronting Clinton with her real problem in terms of electability? I know I am repeating myself, but since no one else is saying this, I am going to continue saying it: McCain can recast himself as a Dubya clone all he wants. Among the really rabid right wing of the GOP(i.e., in places like Nebraska), however, he will never be trusted. Republicans around here would rather not vote at all than have to vote for him--unless Hillary Clinton is running against him. In that case, they will break records just to come out to vote against her. She says she's been in the public eye so long that the GOP can't touch her, as all her baggage is already "out there," but she's ignoring the lightning rod her very self has on those opposed to her politically. Why aren't the media confronting her about that?
Monday, April 21, 2008
OK, I Admit It . . .
Even the most logical and intelligent people can be really dumb at times. Yes, even me. Those of you who have some knowledge of my one marriage are free to say, "Especially [me]!"
A man named William Poundstone has written a book called Gaming The Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair. A key point for Mr. Poundstone is that Abraham Lincoln was one of the biggest beneficiaries of a glitch in our system whereby a spoiler (modern example: Ralph Nader in 2000) gets enough votes to throw victory to someone other than the candidate who actually won the majority of the popular vote.
He's correct . . . but so what? In Lincoln's case, the entire nation ultimately benefited from "the spoiler effect," and I for one don't think it's a shame that Lincoln took office. I doubt the United States would be here at all today if Lincoln had not been "selected" (since Mr. Poundstone asserts he wasn't truly "elected").
Mr. Poundstone cites as his chief support the economist Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which claims that our entire election system is "fundamentally flawed on a mathematical level" (as quoted from the anonymous History Book Club reviewer's synopsis).
What we have here is a failure to communicate (apologies to Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke). What a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees! Mr. Arrow and Mr. Poundstone may very well be correct, but again, I say, "So what?" Without this "flaw," Lincoln never would have taken office. Yes, with it, you also run the risk of what happened in 2000, but you still have the chance to get another Lincoln. So let the system be. It has in general served us well. Besides, I can't think of anything else that would eliminate the "flaws" in the present system without in turn producing massive flaws of its own. Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences!
I must ask however: if we do tend to get the government we deserve, why did our nineteenth century forebears get Lincoln while we got Dubya? I have a hypothesis about that, too [big surprise--Ed.]. I blame a lot of our current troubles on my fellow Baby Boomers. We did just about everything wrong that we could do wrong.
We raised our kids to be our friends, not our children . . . as they in turn have done with their children, leading to a country populated by a bunch of selfish, narcissistic brats instead of civil and responsible grown-ups.
We got so hung up on having our cake and eating it, too, that we have neglected basic things like our transportation infrastructure in favor of wasting gargantuan sums of money we don't have on stupid adventures like the war in Iraq.
We embraced the concept of individuality and self-empowerment so much that we've lost the art of political compromise and of giving a little to get more. Compromise is the essence of the genius of the American Constitution. Throw that out, and you eviscerate what makes America "America."
We have allowed the pro-religious-fundamentalist, anti-intelligence (note that I did not say "anti-intellectual") crowd to poison our children's minds and pollute our schools with a load of crap about "intelligent design" while at the same time demanding that our schools produce the finest and most-forward-thinking scientists in the world in order to maintain our position as the world leader in everything--without spending money to give our schools the tools they need to accomplish this goal. There's your real Impossibility Theorem!
We have been so consumed by our guilt about the way we treated the draftees who returned from Vietnam that we no longer question our country's use of military force. That's not "America." We don't strike first. Ever. [Except when Dubya says it's OK to do so, that is.--Sarcastic Ed.]
I also blame a lot of it on lawyers--and I can say this because I am one (a truth I don't usually admit in polite company). Why do you think I quit practicing as soon as I could? People file the craziest lawsuits nearly every day, "cases" I'd never consider taking on because they are absurd on their faces. The less ethical amongst us have twisted their ethical obligation to represent their clients "zealously" (as per the Canon of Legal Ethics) into the idea of suing everyone for everything. Economic cost-benefit analysis ensures the ones being sued will pay at least something just to make the suits against them go away. Lawyers call this "nuisance value." I call it abhorrent.
But then again, that's the end-game logic of basing our entire ethos on a free market economy. The only criterion is money. Nothing else matters. For my part, I will never stop speaking out against it. There are much higher and more important social values we can impart to our succeeding generations than the veneration of greed. You know, weird and antique things like fairness, equity, doing the right thing just because it's the right thing to do . . .
Or not. I just saw a letter to the editor in the Omaha World-Herald suggesting that we pay organ donors. The writer's motivation is good, it seems--making an apparently practical suggestion to ease the crisis in organ donation, where the need for donated organs is about 100 times greater than the number of organs available for donation. Reading that letter, however, made me want to hurl. Chunks. Paying for organs is wrong on a literally visceral level. The writer didn't even suggest who should do the paying. I daresay no one will accept a government-sponsored payment system. That leaves the private sector. If you shift the system from the basis of filling the direst need first to satisfying the needs of those with the ability to pay the most, you're eventually going to wind up with auctions of people in permanent vegetative states. What was that you were saying about the sanctity of life?
A man named William Poundstone has written a book called Gaming The Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair. A key point for Mr. Poundstone is that Abraham Lincoln was one of the biggest beneficiaries of a glitch in our system whereby a spoiler (modern example: Ralph Nader in 2000) gets enough votes to throw victory to someone other than the candidate who actually won the majority of the popular vote.
He's correct . . . but so what? In Lincoln's case, the entire nation ultimately benefited from "the spoiler effect," and I for one don't think it's a shame that Lincoln took office. I doubt the United States would be here at all today if Lincoln had not been "selected" (since Mr. Poundstone asserts he wasn't truly "elected").
Mr. Poundstone cites as his chief support the economist Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which claims that our entire election system is "fundamentally flawed on a mathematical level" (as quoted from the anonymous History Book Club reviewer's synopsis).
What we have here is a failure to communicate (apologies to Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke). What a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees! Mr. Arrow and Mr. Poundstone may very well be correct, but again, I say, "So what?" Without this "flaw," Lincoln never would have taken office. Yes, with it, you also run the risk of what happened in 2000, but you still have the chance to get another Lincoln. So let the system be. It has in general served us well. Besides, I can't think of anything else that would eliminate the "flaws" in the present system without in turn producing massive flaws of its own. Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences!
I must ask however: if we do tend to get the government we deserve, why did our nineteenth century forebears get Lincoln while we got Dubya? I have a hypothesis about that, too [big surprise--Ed.]. I blame a lot of our current troubles on my fellow Baby Boomers. We did just about everything wrong that we could do wrong.
We raised our kids to be our friends, not our children . . . as they in turn have done with their children, leading to a country populated by a bunch of selfish, narcissistic brats instead of civil and responsible grown-ups.
We got so hung up on having our cake and eating it, too, that we have neglected basic things like our transportation infrastructure in favor of wasting gargantuan sums of money we don't have on stupid adventures like the war in Iraq.
We embraced the concept of individuality and self-empowerment so much that we've lost the art of political compromise and of giving a little to get more. Compromise is the essence of the genius of the American Constitution. Throw that out, and you eviscerate what makes America "America."
We have allowed the pro-religious-fundamentalist, anti-intelligence (note that I did not say "anti-intellectual") crowd to poison our children's minds and pollute our schools with a load of crap about "intelligent design" while at the same time demanding that our schools produce the finest and most-forward-thinking scientists in the world in order to maintain our position as the world leader in everything--without spending money to give our schools the tools they need to accomplish this goal. There's your real Impossibility Theorem!
We have been so consumed by our guilt about the way we treated the draftees who returned from Vietnam that we no longer question our country's use of military force. That's not "America." We don't strike first. Ever. [Except when Dubya says it's OK to do so, that is.--Sarcastic Ed.]
I also blame a lot of it on lawyers--and I can say this because I am one (a truth I don't usually admit in polite company). Why do you think I quit practicing as soon as I could? People file the craziest lawsuits nearly every day, "cases" I'd never consider taking on because they are absurd on their faces. The less ethical amongst us have twisted their ethical obligation to represent their clients "zealously" (as per the Canon of Legal Ethics) into the idea of suing everyone for everything. Economic cost-benefit analysis ensures the ones being sued will pay at least something just to make the suits against them go away. Lawyers call this "nuisance value." I call it abhorrent.
But then again, that's the end-game logic of basing our entire ethos on a free market economy. The only criterion is money. Nothing else matters. For my part, I will never stop speaking out against it. There are much higher and more important social values we can impart to our succeeding generations than the veneration of greed. You know, weird and antique things like fairness, equity, doing the right thing just because it's the right thing to do . . .
Or not. I just saw a letter to the editor in the Omaha World-Herald suggesting that we pay organ donors. The writer's motivation is good, it seems--making an apparently practical suggestion to ease the crisis in organ donation, where the need for donated organs is about 100 times greater than the number of organs available for donation. Reading that letter, however, made me want to hurl. Chunks. Paying for organs is wrong on a literally visceral level. The writer didn't even suggest who should do the paying. I daresay no one will accept a government-sponsored payment system. That leaves the private sector. If you shift the system from the basis of filling the direst need first to satisfying the needs of those with the ability to pay the most, you're eventually going to wind up with auctions of people in permanent vegetative states. What was that you were saying about the sanctity of life?
Friday, April 18, 2008
Irony Of Ironies
An audio tape has been released. It plays what her staff has confirmed is Hillary Clinton's voice attacking MoveOn.org during one of her fund-raisers, claiming it is almost solely responsible for how poorly she has shown in the various state caucuses this primary season. As you may know, MoveOn.org was started to support Pres. Bill Clinton when the GOP was impeaching him (its name at that time was CensureAndMoveOn.org).
So Hillary could play King Lear. "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child."
And John McCain today released HIS tax returns last for the last two years, but not his wife's . . . except for their mutual charitable contributions. Well, she does run her family's Budweiser distributorship, and is worth a high seven figures. I wonder if McCain thinks this makes plausible his attacking Barack Obama for being "elitist." It doesn't. We all know McCain comes from privilege and is wealthy in his own right.
I love politics and I love my country, but the tenor and course of this primary season is making me want to puke. Don't know how I'm going to last until November.
Will Shakespeare said it best: "A pox on both your houses!" And to think, I used to LIKE irony.
So Hillary could play King Lear. "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child."
And John McCain today released HIS tax returns last for the last two years, but not his wife's . . . except for their mutual charitable contributions. Well, she does run her family's Budweiser distributorship, and is worth a high seven figures. I wonder if McCain thinks this makes plausible his attacking Barack Obama for being "elitist." It doesn't. We all know McCain comes from privilege and is wealthy in his own right.
I love politics and I love my country, but the tenor and course of this primary season is making me want to puke. Don't know how I'm going to last until November.
Will Shakespeare said it best: "A pox on both your houses!" And to think, I used to LIKE irony.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
What's Wrong With McCain's Picture?
Sen. John McCain, putative GOP presidential nominee, says the best way to keep down health care costs is to increasingly privatize health care. I say that is ludicrous on its face, and here's why:
"Privatization" equals "for profit." "For profit" equals "make as much more money as possible than you spend," which in turn equals "sell more, cut costs, or (the usual course) some combination of both."
"Selling more" equals one or a combination of any or all of the following: get more people to buy what you are selling; sell things that no one else sells; create follow-on and/or add-on purchases to increase the amount brought in from each and every sale; reduce the costs of producing or providing what you sell without reducing the price you charge for same; maintaining the costs of producing or providing what you sell while increasing the price you charge for same.
"Cut costs" equals one or a combination of any or all of the following: buy cheaper materials and supplies; reduce the amount of staff while producing the same amount of product or providing the same quantity of service; reduce spending on investments (such as new research equipment); reduce spending on advertising; reduce spending on research; reduce regular repeating expenses (such as telephone bills).
Companies in the health care business have no incentive to cut costs in any way--cheaper materials and supplies mean a less successful image (and to be successful, especially in getting investors to invest, is to look successful); a certain level of staff is required to support research and development of new products (the real source of lucrative profits . . . consider the creation of Viagra, for example); if you want to have the biggest share of the market in the sales of new products, you need the most up-to-date equipment to support your research and development of same; advertising boosts consumer demand for your products, even though consumers cannot buy prescription medications, for example, without a doctor's OK via prescription; spending less on research means losing out in the race to develop new products; regular repeating expenses, like telephone bills, tend to be inflexible and thus not subject to much reduction.
So most companies are going to focus their primary efforts to increase sales on selling more. This in turn increases the need to spend for advertising (people can't get what you're selling if they don't know about it); increases the need to spend for research (so you can corner an entire market by selling things no one else has); requires developing entire lines of related products and and services to increase add-on or follow-up sales (projecting the idea that none of the products will work as well alone as they will in consort); reducing what's in each package as you sell less product/service for the same amount as you did before the reduction. Hey, it happens every day in every area (look at the size of paper towel rolls if you don't believe me).
Thus selling more often increases the pressure NOT to cut costs. Which means the company, to be successful in its goal to maximize the return on investment its owners/shareholders get, must get more money from its customers . . . and that's you and me, Bunky . . . and that is the opposite of keeping our expenses down.
If McCain really wanted to cut health care costs for all Americans, he'd give them the benefit of the same system he gets through his military and legislative service. Why the people who get the most advantage from what is truly socialized medicine want to deny it to the rest of us is beyond me. At least until I remember my mantra: them what has, gets. The rest of us gets screwed.
"Privatization" equals "for profit." "For profit" equals "make as much more money as possible than you spend," which in turn equals "sell more, cut costs, or (the usual course) some combination of both."
"Selling more" equals one or a combination of any or all of the following: get more people to buy what you are selling; sell things that no one else sells; create follow-on and/or add-on purchases to increase the amount brought in from each and every sale; reduce the costs of producing or providing what you sell without reducing the price you charge for same; maintaining the costs of producing or providing what you sell while increasing the price you charge for same.
"Cut costs" equals one or a combination of any or all of the following: buy cheaper materials and supplies; reduce the amount of staff while producing the same amount of product or providing the same quantity of service; reduce spending on investments (such as new research equipment); reduce spending on advertising; reduce spending on research; reduce regular repeating expenses (such as telephone bills).
Companies in the health care business have no incentive to cut costs in any way--cheaper materials and supplies mean a less successful image (and to be successful, especially in getting investors to invest, is to look successful); a certain level of staff is required to support research and development of new products (the real source of lucrative profits . . . consider the creation of Viagra, for example); if you want to have the biggest share of the market in the sales of new products, you need the most up-to-date equipment to support your research and development of same; advertising boosts consumer demand for your products, even though consumers cannot buy prescription medications, for example, without a doctor's OK via prescription; spending less on research means losing out in the race to develop new products; regular repeating expenses, like telephone bills, tend to be inflexible and thus not subject to much reduction.
So most companies are going to focus their primary efforts to increase sales on selling more. This in turn increases the need to spend for advertising (people can't get what you're selling if they don't know about it); increases the need to spend for research (so you can corner an entire market by selling things no one else has); requires developing entire lines of related products and and services to increase add-on or follow-up sales (projecting the idea that none of the products will work as well alone as they will in consort); reducing what's in each package as you sell less product/service for the same amount as you did before the reduction. Hey, it happens every day in every area (look at the size of paper towel rolls if you don't believe me).
Thus selling more often increases the pressure NOT to cut costs. Which means the company, to be successful in its goal to maximize the return on investment its owners/shareholders get, must get more money from its customers . . . and that's you and me, Bunky . . . and that is the opposite of keeping our expenses down.
If McCain really wanted to cut health care costs for all Americans, he'd give them the benefit of the same system he gets through his military and legislative service. Why the people who get the most advantage from what is truly socialized medicine want to deny it to the rest of us is beyond me. At least until I remember my mantra: them what has, gets. The rest of us gets screwed.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Split, Splat, Fahey's Takin' The 'Blatt
As I predicted back in 2006 when it first came to light, Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey is pushing hard for the city to abandon Rosenblatt Stadium and build a new facility downtown, to seal his legacy and shore up the monied interests who are at present redeveloping "NoDo" (that's "North Downtown" to you and me) for their own economic benefit.
He is doing this, he says, because the total cost of re-renovating Rosenblatt is nearly identical to that of building new, and that therefore in the long run, building new is a better financial deal. He also claims this will ensure that Omaha can negotiate a 20-year contract to continue to hold the College World Series in Omaha, to the city's long-term financial and economic benefit.
I cannot quarrel with the facts and figures. I can quarrel with some of his assumptions and with some of the things he ignored in making this decision.
I am not opposed to a new ballpark per se. Rosenblatt is a wonderful place, but it does need more than mere renovation can feasibly provide. What I am opposed to is moving the stadium from the Rosenblatt site. Backers of the new stadium say that it will be more attractive and will give a view of Omaha's skyline [such as it is--Ed.] and will create synergy between the downtown hotels, the Qwest Center, and even the Old Market, by putting more entertainment options within walking distance of one another.
(1) Why would anyone prefer a view of Omaha's skyline to the wonderful, expansive, tree-filled vistas (and the Zoo) one sees from Rosenblatt?
(2) Why would anyone prefer to watch a ballgame in the middle of summer from a down-at-river-level concrete sauna to being up on a hill where the wonderful breezes make even the most humid day at the ballpark not just bearable, but enjoyable?
(3) Why would anyone enjoy playing a game in a ballpark where the pitching orientation is turned to show off that Omaha skyline when the players will suffer problems from the afternoon sun they wouldn't have if the field were oriented in the traditional direction?
(4) What's to guarantee that the NCAA won't just say "we don't do long-term contracts anymore--it's nice that you went to all the trouble, but all we're going to give you is another 5-year extension"? Fahey has been promising that a new stadium will guarantee Omaha keeps the College World Series for another 20 years. What's he going to say if and when this turns out not to be true? If I were the NCAA, I wouldn't care how long the CWS has been in Omaha--under current conditions, I wouldn't sign a long-term committment to play in ANY single location.
As I predicted in 2006, it's already a done deal, however, even if all the problems I note materialize. If an entirely new stadium is a "must have," I'd prefer to see Rosenblatt razed and the new stadium erected on the Rosenblatt site. But that's already been taken off the table. The Mayor says we'd lose the CWS for the year or more it would take to do that, and once we lose it, it's never coming back. But he and his study committee didn't show any facts or figures or statements from the NCAA to bolster that. It's just another assumption on the Mayor's part.
And now the Omaha Royals, Triple A farm team of the Kansas City Royals, may not stay--either in an Omaha-abandoned Rosenblatt or in the new stadium. I wonder, especially now that the big league Royals are winning again, if we can afford to lose the Omaha Royals forever for the sake of getting the two-week influx the CWS brings.
Even more, I wonder if the citizens of Omaha will support the CWS in a new stadium they way they always have at Rosenblatt. For the first two or three years, everyone will be enchanted by the new facility, I think. We all like our shiny new toys. Once "Reality" sets in about (1) the humidity with no breeze, (2) the afternoon sun problems due to the field facing the wrong way, and (3) the hassle of the locals having to drive to NoDo and pay $10 (or more) to park per game, however, I suspect that disenchantment with Fahey's Folly will grow . . . and the NCAA may move the CWS elsewhere due to lack of fan support. Indianapolis and Oklahoma City, to name just two, would love that.
In that case, we'd be out something like $140 million, the CWS, and the Omaha Royals. Talk about an economic disaster for the city and the entire metro area!
He is doing this, he says, because the total cost of re-renovating Rosenblatt is nearly identical to that of building new, and that therefore in the long run, building new is a better financial deal. He also claims this will ensure that Omaha can negotiate a 20-year contract to continue to hold the College World Series in Omaha, to the city's long-term financial and economic benefit.
I cannot quarrel with the facts and figures. I can quarrel with some of his assumptions and with some of the things he ignored in making this decision.
I am not opposed to a new ballpark per se. Rosenblatt is a wonderful place, but it does need more than mere renovation can feasibly provide. What I am opposed to is moving the stadium from the Rosenblatt site. Backers of the new stadium say that it will be more attractive and will give a view of Omaha's skyline [such as it is--Ed.] and will create synergy between the downtown hotels, the Qwest Center, and even the Old Market, by putting more entertainment options within walking distance of one another.
(1) Why would anyone prefer a view of Omaha's skyline to the wonderful, expansive, tree-filled vistas (and the Zoo) one sees from Rosenblatt?
(2) Why would anyone prefer to watch a ballgame in the middle of summer from a down-at-river-level concrete sauna to being up on a hill where the wonderful breezes make even the most humid day at the ballpark not just bearable, but enjoyable?
(3) Why would anyone enjoy playing a game in a ballpark where the pitching orientation is turned to show off that Omaha skyline when the players will suffer problems from the afternoon sun they wouldn't have if the field were oriented in the traditional direction?
(4) What's to guarantee that the NCAA won't just say "we don't do long-term contracts anymore--it's nice that you went to all the trouble, but all we're going to give you is another 5-year extension"? Fahey has been promising that a new stadium will guarantee Omaha keeps the College World Series for another 20 years. What's he going to say if and when this turns out not to be true? If I were the NCAA, I wouldn't care how long the CWS has been in Omaha--under current conditions, I wouldn't sign a long-term committment to play in ANY single location.
As I predicted in 2006, it's already a done deal, however, even if all the problems I note materialize. If an entirely new stadium is a "must have," I'd prefer to see Rosenblatt razed and the new stadium erected on the Rosenblatt site. But that's already been taken off the table. The Mayor says we'd lose the CWS for the year or more it would take to do that, and once we lose it, it's never coming back. But he and his study committee didn't show any facts or figures or statements from the NCAA to bolster that. It's just another assumption on the Mayor's part.
And now the Omaha Royals, Triple A farm team of the Kansas City Royals, may not stay--either in an Omaha-abandoned Rosenblatt or in the new stadium. I wonder, especially now that the big league Royals are winning again, if we can afford to lose the Omaha Royals forever for the sake of getting the two-week influx the CWS brings.
Even more, I wonder if the citizens of Omaha will support the CWS in a new stadium they way they always have at Rosenblatt. For the first two or three years, everyone will be enchanted by the new facility, I think. We all like our shiny new toys. Once "Reality" sets in about (1) the humidity with no breeze, (2) the afternoon sun problems due to the field facing the wrong way, and (3) the hassle of the locals having to drive to NoDo and pay $10 (or more) to park per game, however, I suspect that disenchantment with Fahey's Folly will grow . . . and the NCAA may move the CWS elsewhere due to lack of fan support. Indianapolis and Oklahoma City, to name just two, would love that.
In that case, we'd be out something like $140 million, the CWS, and the Omaha Royals. Talk about an economic disaster for the city and the entire metro area!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
It's Getting Hot In Here
I heard a story on NPR this morning that gave me fits. One Kristen Byrnes, a 15-year-old, has (with the help of, and probably at the behest of her step-father, Mike Carson) amassed a huge amount of data and published a blog expressing skepticism about global warming. Normally, I am all for skepticism (it is one of my fundamental tools in trade), but in this case methinks it's being misapplied.
After I heard the article, I went to the NPR web site and read the transcript, just to make sure I hadn't misheard anything, forgotten anything, or myself misinterpreted something. As far as I can tell, I haven't.
So what's my issue? Miss Byrnes (and her step-father, and/or the reporter--and if it's the reporter's imprecision that caused my complaint, I apologize to Miss Byrnes and Mr. Carson) made an error in logic. She has framed the argument in terms of whether humans are causing global warming, and has decided due to all the climatological statistics she's accumulated that we are not--that the changes in temperature of late are just part of a normal long-term change in the Earth's climate cycle. She also cites the fact that people who commented on her blog in disagreement eventually gave up, implying that they were overcome by the soundness of her arguments. I, on the other hand, think those people finally realized Mark Twain's wisdom when he advised, "Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Not to say that Miss Byrnes and her step-father are pigs. Far from it. It is to say that they are so invested in their own beliefs that they cannot even entertain the thought that they are the ones in error.
No one with any education about the difference between weather and climate says humans are causing global warming. The issue is whether human behavior since the Industrial Revolution increases the pace and degree of global warming--perhaps to a dangerously irreversible level.
This is not a subtle difference. It's the crux of the entire argument. I don't care how many facts and figures Miss Byrnes has amassed. Nothing in the historical climate record can answer the question definitively, as data demonstrating the impact of human pollution exist for only the past couple of hundred years . . . an eye blink on the climatological scale. It is not illogical, however, to infer from the data showing the volume of pollutants that we have pumped into the atmosphere in the last 200+ years that we are messing with the natural, pre-industrial patterns of climate change, which will have long-term, detrimental effects on the planet.
********************
Yet another bit of spectacularly bad logic also was displayed recently on NPR, this time by Geraldo Rivera. He said people who opposed illegal immigration were wrong, for two reasons: (1) immigrants are assimilating, just as every other immigrant in US history has during past waves of immigration; (2) opposing immigration was racist, as it came down to supporting a wall across the Mexican-US border.
Well. I know Geraldo Rivera is no intellectual heavyweight, and I do appreciate it when he takes idiots like Bill O'Reilly to task, but he's wrong in this case.
(1) Pardon the anachronism I'm about to present, but it's the most efficient way to make my point. In no prior wave of immigration did we ever get phone messages that said "for English, press 1; for Irish, press 2; for German, press 3." If the Hispanic immigrants really are assimilating, and at a similar pace to their chronological (if not ethnic) forebears, why are all telephone voice mails suddenly requiring us to choose English or Spanish?
(2) I do not oppose immigration per se, and I do oppose a wall (mostly because walls don't work in cases like this). What I oppose is illegal immigration. Without some semblance of law and order, society cannot function. When society stops functioning, everyone suffers, no matter how they came to the US. We have to stop illegal immigration. In the meantime, those who want the benefits of living in the USA must also comply with the rules of living in the USA. To quote Robert A. Heinlein: "TANSTAAFL." [That's "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." --Ed.]
After I heard the article, I went to the NPR web site and read the transcript, just to make sure I hadn't misheard anything, forgotten anything, or myself misinterpreted something. As far as I can tell, I haven't.
So what's my issue? Miss Byrnes (and her step-father, and/or the reporter--and if it's the reporter's imprecision that caused my complaint, I apologize to Miss Byrnes and Mr. Carson) made an error in logic. She has framed the argument in terms of whether humans are causing global warming, and has decided due to all the climatological statistics she's accumulated that we are not--that the changes in temperature of late are just part of a normal long-term change in the Earth's climate cycle. She also cites the fact that people who commented on her blog in disagreement eventually gave up, implying that they were overcome by the soundness of her arguments. I, on the other hand, think those people finally realized Mark Twain's wisdom when he advised, "Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Not to say that Miss Byrnes and her step-father are pigs. Far from it. It is to say that they are so invested in their own beliefs that they cannot even entertain the thought that they are the ones in error.
No one with any education about the difference between weather and climate says humans are causing global warming. The issue is whether human behavior since the Industrial Revolution increases the pace and degree of global warming--perhaps to a dangerously irreversible level.
This is not a subtle difference. It's the crux of the entire argument. I don't care how many facts and figures Miss Byrnes has amassed. Nothing in the historical climate record can answer the question definitively, as data demonstrating the impact of human pollution exist for only the past couple of hundred years . . . an eye blink on the climatological scale. It is not illogical, however, to infer from the data showing the volume of pollutants that we have pumped into the atmosphere in the last 200+ years that we are messing with the natural, pre-industrial patterns of climate change, which will have long-term, detrimental effects on the planet.
********************
Yet another bit of spectacularly bad logic also was displayed recently on NPR, this time by Geraldo Rivera. He said people who opposed illegal immigration were wrong, for two reasons: (1) immigrants are assimilating, just as every other immigrant in US history has during past waves of immigration; (2) opposing immigration was racist, as it came down to supporting a wall across the Mexican-US border.
Well. I know Geraldo Rivera is no intellectual heavyweight, and I do appreciate it when he takes idiots like Bill O'Reilly to task, but he's wrong in this case.
(1) Pardon the anachronism I'm about to present, but it's the most efficient way to make my point. In no prior wave of immigration did we ever get phone messages that said "for English, press 1; for Irish, press 2; for German, press 3." If the Hispanic immigrants really are assimilating, and at a similar pace to their chronological (if not ethnic) forebears, why are all telephone voice mails suddenly requiring us to choose English or Spanish?
(2) I do not oppose immigration per se, and I do oppose a wall (mostly because walls don't work in cases like this). What I oppose is illegal immigration. Without some semblance of law and order, society cannot function. When society stops functioning, everyone suffers, no matter how they came to the US. We have to stop illegal immigration. In the meantime, those who want the benefits of living in the USA must also comply with the rules of living in the USA. To quote Robert A. Heinlein: "TANSTAAFL." [That's "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." --Ed.]
Who's Zoomin' Whom?
(with apologies to Aretha Franklin)
My disappointment in and dissatisfaction with Hillary Rodham Clinton increases daily of late. Not only does she misinterpret what Barack Obama said about small-town, blue-collar Americans, by doing so she is demonstrating the very contempt for people's intelligence of which she accuses him.
He was not putting down small-town, blue-collar Americans by saying many were bitter and were holding on to their religion or their guns because they feel powerless and like no one is listening to them or their concerns. He was identifying their concerns and exhibiting a fine understanding of the distressed state of much of America today. If you doubt me, please read What's The Matter With Kansas?. It's an excellent exploration and explanation of why people persist in voting against their own economic best interests and how resentful they feel that no one in power is paying any attention to them or their concerns. It's also a clear indictment of how and why the GOP has twisted "family values" voting to its own advantage while at the same time screwing over the blue-collar base of its support on economic issues.
Anyway, by saying Obama was putting down small-town, blue-collar Americans, Sen. Clinton is (1) giving the GOP's dirty work for it, which serves neither the Democratic Party nor the country well; (2) showing contempt for the basic intelligence of the American people by presuming that they cannot detect her playing fast and loose with the facts. [Not that that's a unique position for her, given what she said about her experiences in Bosnia in the 1990s.--Ed.] What's worse, if she believes what she's spewing about Obama's being out of touch and lacking respect for blue collar Americans, she's not as smart as she thinks she is.
The only way she can win the Democratic Party nomination is to convince enough of the so-called super delegates to vote for her . . . which, if she does so, will smack of party bosses overriding the will of the people. Furthermore, she's wrong when she says only she can beat McCain in November. Just because she beat Obama in several big state primaries doesn't mean Obama, too, couldn't beat McCain in those states in the fall election. Besides, ask any rabid GOP supporters around here [and let's face it--Nebraska is just about the reddest of the red states.--Ed.]. They'd love for Hillary to be the Democratic Party nominee. The support for John McCain amongst the GOP out here is shaky at best--but with Hillary at the head of the Democratic ticket, the Republicans here will vote in record numbers just to vote AGAINST her.
Lest you think this is merely the whining of an aggrieved Obama supporter, let me disabuse you of that notion. I was all for John Edwards and am still in a funk about his run for the candidacy having ended.
Hillary Rodham Clinton's smarmy tactics and outright lies have caused me to consider not voting in November. It would be the first election (primary, special, or general) that I'll have missed. That breaks my heart. Voting is our fundamental civic duty--if for no other reason that that participating is the thing that gives us the right to complain. But I cannot in good conscience vote for her on the Democratic ticket, and I will not vote for McCain. His policy positions are not nearly as centrist as he wants people to think. Among other things, he's perfectly content to spend us into oblivion to keep us in Iraq forever, "if that's what it takes." He also thinks we should bail out the mortgage companies which got themselves into deep doo-doo by lending too much to sub-prime borrowers. But the borrowers have no one to blame but themselves, in his estimation, so they can just suffer foreclosure and the other consequences of their actions. In other words, he'll always vote with monied interests over the interests of individuals.
Also, lest anybody think McCain's military service career gives him insight into the plight of "the common people," think again! He is the son and grandson of Navy Admirals--just about the crustiest of the upper crust in our entire military system. He has no clue about the needs or concerns of the average service grunt. This is not to disparage his service--nor his status as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. It's just to remind everyone that there's more in the picture than one period of time in the late 1960s.
We may not have to worry about November yet, but it's getting late. As a far greater talent than me once noticed, "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy flight."
My disappointment in and dissatisfaction with Hillary Rodham Clinton increases daily of late. Not only does she misinterpret what Barack Obama said about small-town, blue-collar Americans, by doing so she is demonstrating the very contempt for people's intelligence of which she accuses him.
He was not putting down small-town, blue-collar Americans by saying many were bitter and were holding on to their religion or their guns because they feel powerless and like no one is listening to them or their concerns. He was identifying their concerns and exhibiting a fine understanding of the distressed state of much of America today. If you doubt me, please read What's The Matter With Kansas?. It's an excellent exploration and explanation of why people persist in voting against their own economic best interests and how resentful they feel that no one in power is paying any attention to them or their concerns. It's also a clear indictment of how and why the GOP has twisted "family values" voting to its own advantage while at the same time screwing over the blue-collar base of its support on economic issues.
Anyway, by saying Obama was putting down small-town, blue-collar Americans, Sen. Clinton is (1) giving the GOP's dirty work for it, which serves neither the Democratic Party nor the country well; (2) showing contempt for the basic intelligence of the American people by presuming that they cannot detect her playing fast and loose with the facts. [Not that that's a unique position for her, given what she said about her experiences in Bosnia in the 1990s.--Ed.] What's worse, if she believes what she's spewing about Obama's being out of touch and lacking respect for blue collar Americans, she's not as smart as she thinks she is.
The only way she can win the Democratic Party nomination is to convince enough of the so-called super delegates to vote for her . . . which, if she does so, will smack of party bosses overriding the will of the people. Furthermore, she's wrong when she says only she can beat McCain in November. Just because she beat Obama in several big state primaries doesn't mean Obama, too, couldn't beat McCain in those states in the fall election. Besides, ask any rabid GOP supporters around here [and let's face it--Nebraska is just about the reddest of the red states.--Ed.]. They'd love for Hillary to be the Democratic Party nominee. The support for John McCain amongst the GOP out here is shaky at best--but with Hillary at the head of the Democratic ticket, the Republicans here will vote in record numbers just to vote AGAINST her.
Lest you think this is merely the whining of an aggrieved Obama supporter, let me disabuse you of that notion. I was all for John Edwards and am still in a funk about his run for the candidacy having ended.
Hillary Rodham Clinton's smarmy tactics and outright lies have caused me to consider not voting in November. It would be the first election (primary, special, or general) that I'll have missed. That breaks my heart. Voting is our fundamental civic duty--if for no other reason that that participating is the thing that gives us the right to complain. But I cannot in good conscience vote for her on the Democratic ticket, and I will not vote for McCain. His policy positions are not nearly as centrist as he wants people to think. Among other things, he's perfectly content to spend us into oblivion to keep us in Iraq forever, "if that's what it takes." He also thinks we should bail out the mortgage companies which got themselves into deep doo-doo by lending too much to sub-prime borrowers. But the borrowers have no one to blame but themselves, in his estimation, so they can just suffer foreclosure and the other consequences of their actions. In other words, he'll always vote with monied interests over the interests of individuals.
Also, lest anybody think McCain's military service career gives him insight into the plight of "the common people," think again! He is the son and grandson of Navy Admirals--just about the crustiest of the upper crust in our entire military system. He has no clue about the needs or concerns of the average service grunt. This is not to disparage his service--nor his status as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. It's just to remind everyone that there's more in the picture than one period of time in the late 1960s.
We may not have to worry about November yet, but it's getting late. As a far greater talent than me once noticed, "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy flight."
Monday, April 14, 2008
Fly Me To The Moon?
Actually, were I needing to fly via American Airlines, I should be saying "fly me to anywhere."
Last week's days upon days of American Airlines flight cancellations certainly was a debacle. I wonder if American will change its slogan to "We know why you don't fly"--or "We know why you fly--NOT!"
American Airlines, however, is not solely to blame for the mess it created. The Federal Aviation Administration bears most of the responsibility. However, my pointing a finger at the FAA is not for the same reason others want you to do likewise.
According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the FAA had determined as far back as 2003 that the electrical wiring bundles near the main wheel well of all MD-80s needed to be checked--indeed, the FAA suspected problems as early as 2001. However, no directive to inspect for or correct the potential problem was made till 2006, and even then, the FAA gave the airlines another year-and-a-half to comply!
The rabid free-marketeers will tell you that this shows the stupidity of government regulations, but they are wrong. The real problem here is putting people who do not believe in government in charge of running the government. Such people have NO incentive to make government work. They have EVERY incentive to make government fail, and in the most spectacular ways possible. When people stop believing in government's ability to help them, they'll stop relying on the government, and the government will eventually go away.
At such time, the free-marketeers can run their money-making schemes any way they want, and the rest of us will have no recourse when we are injured by their doing so.
You want another example? How about FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina? Maybe Dubya knew exactly what he was saying when he said, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." Maybe he was praising him for messing up FEMA to the point that FEMA could be made to go away forever. Thus the relatively paltry sums spent on running FEMA could be diverted into the Iraq War effort, or more likely, into the pockets of Dubya's buddies in the construction industry.
Nah. I can't give Dubya credit for that much intelligence. Dick Cheney, however . . .
In any event, the lesson is that if you allow people who don't like government to run the government, you've put the fox in charge of the hen house. So don't be surprised when you run out of eggs, let alone chicken dinners.
Last week's days upon days of American Airlines flight cancellations certainly was a debacle. I wonder if American will change its slogan to "We know why you don't fly"--or "We know why you fly--NOT!"
American Airlines, however, is not solely to blame for the mess it created. The Federal Aviation Administration bears most of the responsibility. However, my pointing a finger at the FAA is not for the same reason others want you to do likewise.
According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the FAA had determined as far back as 2003 that the electrical wiring bundles near the main wheel well of all MD-80s needed to be checked--indeed, the FAA suspected problems as early as 2001. However, no directive to inspect for or correct the potential problem was made till 2006, and even then, the FAA gave the airlines another year-and-a-half to comply!
The rabid free-marketeers will tell you that this shows the stupidity of government regulations, but they are wrong. The real problem here is putting people who do not believe in government in charge of running the government. Such people have NO incentive to make government work. They have EVERY incentive to make government fail, and in the most spectacular ways possible. When people stop believing in government's ability to help them, they'll stop relying on the government, and the government will eventually go away.
At such time, the free-marketeers can run their money-making schemes any way they want, and the rest of us will have no recourse when we are injured by their doing so.
You want another example? How about FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina? Maybe Dubya knew exactly what he was saying when he said, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." Maybe he was praising him for messing up FEMA to the point that FEMA could be made to go away forever. Thus the relatively paltry sums spent on running FEMA could be diverted into the Iraq War effort, or more likely, into the pockets of Dubya's buddies in the construction industry.
Nah. I can't give Dubya credit for that much intelligence. Dick Cheney, however . . .
In any event, the lesson is that if you allow people who don't like government to run the government, you've put the fox in charge of the hen house. So don't be surprised when you run out of eggs, let alone chicken dinners.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
So I'm Not Mr. Kotter
Welcome me back anyway!
I wound up in the hospital last summer, shortly after my last posting . . . and my recovery has taken much longer than I ever expected. Then again, I'm already living on borrowed time. When my lung disease was first diagnosed, I was told I'd be dead in 10 years . . . and that would have been July, 1988.
At least, I think I'm still alive. My ex-husband sent me a rather snarky email in February (after 15 months of utter silence, including NOT paying the total correct support amount he was ordered to pay under the court's order in our divorce) noting that I've been at death's door so long people are starting to confuse me with the decorative statuary.
I tried to be civil and reminded him that he had no one to blame but himself, as the crummy way he'd treated me got my Irish up, and thus I was prepared to outlive him if I had to do it on will power and one nerve.
I wish I'd said the first thing that popped into my head, to wit: "After 15 months, that's the best you can come up with? You'd better have an EKG and an EEG, for if your heart and the rest of your brain have atrophied the way your wit has, you're the one who's dead and who doesn't know it."
This is why I'd never be a great trial lawyer. I have the instinct for the killer comment, but I have too much self-editing going on in my head to use said instinct to its best advantage. Oh, well. I should not be unhappy that I am not a shark, now, should I?
Anyway, a lot of other things have happened in the last 10 months. I have many opinions to share, but I'm not going to try to catch up all at once. I just don't have the stamina. But I will make one or two pertinent observations for now, and return (I hope on a more regular basis) with more in-depth comments every day or two.
Pertinent observation the first: I don't care what anyone claims--the fundamental, underlying motivation of anyone touting a real free market economy is greed. Look what happens every time we de-regulate financial institutions. Their only obligation is to maximize the return for their investors (i.e., make as much money as possible for them, which is as good a definition of greed as I've ever seen). So they take more and more risks as regulations get looser and more non-existent . . . and the end result is the current sub-prime lending crisis.
When are we ever really going to learn the lesson of 1929? Regulate or crash. Maybe we never will learn, as those who have the most money can afford to ride out crashes (indeed, they make money off of other people's misery, as they can scoop up property cheaply when others have no choice but to sell), and the rest of us are so desperate to taste even a sliver of the American Dream pie that we buy into things we shouldn't because we really can't afford them.
That's sad. If we regulate and keep regulating, maybe individual profits are not as big as those seeking them want, but everyone gets to participate in relative safety.
Observation the second: Every time I hear more war news out of the Middle East, I am reaffirmed in my hypothesis that ending the Cold War was not necessarily a good idea. (A) While the Cold War was on, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the so-called superpowers kept an uneasy truce which kept our risk of being annihilated relatively low. The USSR, like it or hate it, kept the lid on all the extremist crap coming out of its allied countries in the Middle East, at its own expense, both in terms of money and manpower. (C) Now that the Cold War is over, Russia is reverting to its traditional suspicion and paranoia regarding the West, so we have the beginnings of another Cold War in fact if not in name.
Why, then, did we spend all the money we spent to take down the USSR? After all is said and done, the only thing we accomplished was to ramp up our own debt. Not only is the tension with Russia re-elevated, now we're the ones trying to keep the lid on the terrorists and extremists--at the expense of our own economy and --more importantly--our own young military men and women. This is foolishness. Utter foolishness.
More soon!
I wound up in the hospital last summer, shortly after my last posting . . . and my recovery has taken much longer than I ever expected. Then again, I'm already living on borrowed time. When my lung disease was first diagnosed, I was told I'd be dead in 10 years . . . and that would have been July, 1988.
At least, I think I'm still alive. My ex-husband sent me a rather snarky email in February (after 15 months of utter silence, including NOT paying the total correct support amount he was ordered to pay under the court's order in our divorce) noting that I've been at death's door so long people are starting to confuse me with the decorative statuary.
I tried to be civil and reminded him that he had no one to blame but himself, as the crummy way he'd treated me got my Irish up, and thus I was prepared to outlive him if I had to do it on will power and one nerve.
I wish I'd said the first thing that popped into my head, to wit: "After 15 months, that's the best you can come up with? You'd better have an EKG and an EEG, for if your heart and the rest of your brain have atrophied the way your wit has, you're the one who's dead and who doesn't know it."
This is why I'd never be a great trial lawyer. I have the instinct for the killer comment, but I have too much self-editing going on in my head to use said instinct to its best advantage. Oh, well. I should not be unhappy that I am not a shark, now, should I?
Anyway, a lot of other things have happened in the last 10 months. I have many opinions to share, but I'm not going to try to catch up all at once. I just don't have the stamina. But I will make one or two pertinent observations for now, and return (I hope on a more regular basis) with more in-depth comments every day or two.
Pertinent observation the first: I don't care what anyone claims--the fundamental, underlying motivation of anyone touting a real free market economy is greed. Look what happens every time we de-regulate financial institutions. Their only obligation is to maximize the return for their investors (i.e., make as much money as possible for them, which is as good a definition of greed as I've ever seen). So they take more and more risks as regulations get looser and more non-existent . . . and the end result is the current sub-prime lending crisis.
When are we ever really going to learn the lesson of 1929? Regulate or crash. Maybe we never will learn, as those who have the most money can afford to ride out crashes (indeed, they make money off of other people's misery, as they can scoop up property cheaply when others have no choice but to sell), and the rest of us are so desperate to taste even a sliver of the American Dream pie that we buy into things we shouldn't because we really can't afford them.
That's sad. If we regulate and keep regulating, maybe individual profits are not as big as those seeking them want, but everyone gets to participate in relative safety.
Observation the second: Every time I hear more war news out of the Middle East, I am reaffirmed in my hypothesis that ending the Cold War was not necessarily a good idea. (A) While the Cold War was on, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the so-called superpowers kept an uneasy truce which kept our risk of being annihilated relatively low. The USSR, like it or hate it, kept the lid on all the extremist crap coming out of its allied countries in the Middle East, at its own expense, both in terms of money and manpower. (C) Now that the Cold War is over, Russia is reverting to its traditional suspicion and paranoia regarding the West, so we have the beginnings of another Cold War in fact if not in name.
Why, then, did we spend all the money we spent to take down the USSR? After all is said and done, the only thing we accomplished was to ramp up our own debt. Not only is the tension with Russia re-elevated, now we're the ones trying to keep the lid on the terrorists and extremists--at the expense of our own economy and --more importantly--our own young military men and women. This is foolishness. Utter foolishness.
More soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)