REBLOG: The Heart of the Matter: Don't Worry, US Imperialism is Cost-Free

Even though I'm trying to get back to more original content here, I still think there are things running around the blog-o-sphere that my readers should see.

Such is the case with Barry Eisler's most recent offering on Muslim Blowback, framed as the Cost of current U.S. Imperialism.  The simple, and historical truth is that imperialism anywhere in the world is met with resistance of one sort or another.  We asw this in Afghanistan in the 1980's, when the Mujahadin effectively destroyed the Soviet Union by bankrupting them in a decade long war (where have we aseen that play out recently?).  We see it ongoing in Israel, where European guilt at the horros of the holocaust have enabled 7 decades fo repression of Palestinians.  We saw it in the collapes of the Spanish and British Empires.  We even see it in the narrative portions of Christianity, where Jesus teachings and ministry are too often (and too unfortunately IMHO) cast as a rebellious response to the Roman Empire.

Now Eisler joins the long running commentary of Glenn Greenwald and others (including me) on the notion that occupying the Middle East has enormous and unintended consequences and costs.

You can read more at The Heart of the Matter: Don't Worry, US Imperialism is Cost-Free

An Open Letter to Conservatives

Dear Pennsylvania Citizen,

Thanks for writing.  We Liberals are stereotyped to be a literate bunch, and we greatly appreciate the time you took to put your thoughts on paper (virtual though it may be). Like you and your friends, we share a concern about how our children will grow up; like you we have favorite sports teams (mine is the LSU Tigers); like you food consumes an inordinate amount of our discussion time with friends.

And we do not hate you.

Let me say that again - we do not hate you, or your  family family, or your  business.  In fact, we'd like to hold companies like the one you describe as a model of what we wish other companies were.  The problem is that, in many cases, companies are NOT as responsible or as employee conscious as your are - and they often seem to have shareholders and corporate boards.  That you pay enough in wages (and I presume in benefits) to keep unions away is a good thing, but many American employers both keep unions away, and pay less then living wages with few or no benefits.  We liberals don't think this purpose-full impoverishment of the labor force is an economically sound approach, and so we ask government to intervene because markets writ large or small do not intervene themselves.

We do not hate you.

I too was raised Presbyterian - my paternal Grandfather and all three of my mother's younger brothers pastor in that Protestant tradition.  I too believe faith in God is a significant help to every one, and I lament the too often human derived and enforced schisms that exist between Christians, to say nothing of the wider schisms between peoples of all faiths.  It is my deep faith, and my strong adherence to God's calling, that propels me to seek societal intervention for all our less fortunate - including those without health insurance.

I am not happy with the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare's" actual name) because I think it leaves too much economic power over healthcare in the hands of for profit insurers, who are in the business of returning profits to shareholders, not delivering healthcare to every American.  Considering that healthcare bills owed are now one of the top factors in personal bankruptcy in the country, I cannot sit idly by while the market solution - which denied insurance to 35 Million fellow citizens - plods on.  In the end, if everyone has insurance, healthcare will be less costly, and less cost means more money for your company to invest in its own growth and security.  That said, let me reiterate that the market solution left 35+ Million Americans out of the system all together - and thus drove up costs significantly because they had to use emergency rooms for normal health services.  The markets wouldn't fix the problem, so the individual mandate (which as a Republican idea a decade ago)  was the solution our nation fashioned.

I do not hate you.

After the Newtown shooting in December 2012 I hoped and prayed - both for the victims, and for the Nation that we would perhaps finally be able to have a rational discussion about gun violence and gun ownership - and responsibility.  Sadly, we aren't doing that, and my side of the aisle is as easy to blame as yours is because we keep trying to ban weapons based on their looks.  As a gun owner and shooting sports enthusiast (and an urban dweller) I had hopes for universal background checks - a sensible solution that is neither liberal or conservative - but saw that too fail in a hail storm of lies about what the legislation actually did.  And yes, they were lies.  The federal legislation did not seize weapons; it didn't prevent or require background checks on family or friend sales or transfers, and it prohibited the development of a national registry or ownership database.  A specific group of people promulgated those lies, and I believe they should be held accountable.

I do not hate you.

I don't hate anyone.  I dislike, disagree with, and often am enraged by those whom you elect in your Party.  I am disgusted at their unwillingness to do any good thing with our current President (you may recall Sen. Mitch McConnell saying in 2011 that the Republican's #1 objective politically was unseating President Obama).  I am saddened that they refuse to listen to their own sensible leaders, like Sen. Marco Rubio, who is tackling undocumented immigration with approaches that can be built upon to bring dignity and consistency to all who come to our shores - but who is seeing his own Party begin to destroy his approach because it doesn't stick it to people and lIberals here first.  I'm angry that federal civil servants - all of whom are dedicated to helping and serving citizens like you and my are constantly derided to score political points.  and I am bewildered at the call for a "return to the Constitution" by a Party that has sough to hamstring it implementation when that implementation applies to people of color, women, and anyone not white, male, or upperclass. 

I do not hate you.

You are a dignified, proud human being.  No one who can claim those adjectives deserves hatred. And everyone ought to claim those adjectives.  But I will not stand for the solutions to today's problems that your purported Republican leaders support because they assault that dignity at every turn.  As a Liberal I do not believe government has every solution, but I do believe that history has shown us many times where government must craft a solution because markets will not.  And I will continue to call you, my fellow American, out for the words and conduct of your Party and your politicians (just as I do my own on this blog), since ultimately they have no power unless you elect them and send them to Washington.

I do not respect your choice to fictionalize your identity in order to create this conversation.  That was trolling of the worst kind, and while I am willing to debate your arguments on the merits, your choice to shield your real experience from me in that debate is a sure sign that you are not sure your argument could prevail.  It's also one of a series of common tactics I see daily from Republican political operatives.  Lying is lying - and it makes it impossible for us to trust or believe that we can have a substantive debate because we can't be sure who we're really debating with.

The Supreme Court and Government Surveillence - Whose precedent takes precedent?

So here’s one of those pesky questions of legal consistency the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to sort out regularly: Can the Obama Administration get a lawsuit quashed on, essentially, lack of standing due to lack of harm grounds, after getting enjoined from putting the NDAA indefinite detention provisions in effect for esentially the same assertion? What’s the catch you say? Well the federal judge who ruled on the NDAA case specifically cited the plaintiffs fears of indefinite detention as probable cause for success on the merits, and enjoined the NDAA until the action could proceed and be completed. Given that this action before the Supreme Court is essentially on the same question – albeit under a different piece of federal legislation – will they respect the District Court’s precedent, or will they throw more turmoil into the air to try and acquiesce to the Surveillance State?

Seems to me the NDAA injunction gives the Supreme’s an out to let the surveillance lawsuit proceed – if they have the stones to tell the DoJ enough’s enough.

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs assert that § 1021 already has impacted their associational and expressive activities–and would continue to impact them, and that § 1021 is vague to such an extent that it provokes fear that certain of their associational and expressive activities could subject them to indefinite or prolonged military detention.

Mr. Obama fails to restore civil lilberties

Glenn Greenwald is right - and it makes me sick. For A Democrat to do this . . . .

Presidential Power - How do we help the President succeed?

So now that Mr. Obama has thrown down the gauntlet, how are we the People going to respond?

Can we all DEMAND some change now?

Listening to Michael Steele, newly minted Republican National Committee Chair on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolous, I started having really bad 1980’s flashbacks. As the interview unfolded, it became clear why all the House Republicans and many of the Senate Republicans were so opposed to the Democratic stimulus bill then in the Senate for debate. Here’s the exchange that really got me going, from the ABC website transcript (emphasis mine):


“ STEPHANOPOULOS: He suggests that you and Republican Party leaders here in Washington are on the wrong side of the biggest issue, jobs.

STEELE: Well, no -- you know, with all due respect to the governor, I understand where he's coming from. Having been a state official, I know what it means to get those dollars when you're in tight times. But you've got to look at the entire package. You've got to look at what's going to create sustainable jobs. What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's a job.

STEELE: No, it's not a job. A job is something that -- that a business owner creates. It's going to be long term. What he's creating...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So a job doesn't count if it's a government job?
(CROSSTALK)

STEELE: Hold on. No, let me -- let me -- let me finish. That is a contract. It ends at a certain point, George. You know that. These road projects that we're talking about have an end point. As a small-business owner, I'm looking to grow my business, expand my business. I want to reach further. I want to be international. I want to be national. It's a whole different perspective on how you create a job versus how you create work. And I'm -- either way, the bottom line is...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I guess I don't really understand that distinction.

STEELE: Well, the difference -- the distinction is this. If a government -- if you've got a government contract that is a fixed period of time, it goes away. The work may go away. That's -- there's no guarantee that that -- that there's going to be more work when you're done in that job.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, but we've seen millions and millions of jobs going away in the private sector just in the last year.

STEELE: But they come -- yes, they -- and they come back, though, George. That's the point. When they go -- they've gone away before, and they come back. And the point is that the small-business owners take the risks. They're the ones that are out there in the morning putting that second mortgage on the house, taking the risks that are necessary so that they can employ your -- your kids and my kids and future generations. That's sustainable, long-term growth. Otherwise, then why do we need the small-business community? Why don't we all just get a government job and call it a day? “


What’s so remarkable here is that Mr. Steele has all but admitted that, in spite of the current economic state, including the recent loss of over 500,000 jobs in a single month, the Republican Party still believes that the government can not create jobs. It can only make work. So, opposition to the stimulus, even sweetened as it is with a variety of tax cuts, incentives and reductions, is all about sticking to a deeply held political and economic principle, no matter what the facts on the ground or the truth in evidence.

I'd love to see MR. Steele, who is no moderate, try to make that distinction to a family now living in a homeless shelter because they have lost their house to foreclosure after loosing their jobs inthe last year. He'd fail miserably, since to many unemployeed, the distinction is meaningless. Sure, as my colleague Mike at the Big Stick points out, it would be better to have high demand for high skilled labor created by the stimulus package. It would be ideal. We're way past ideal.

So why are Republicans clinging so tightly to this line of reasoning? Several thoughts come to mind. First, the Republican Party is still a Social Darwinist, supply side economics, monetarist policy party. They firmly believe that markets can indeed solve economic crises, and that market failures of any type should not ever be addressed through government action – which is welfare in their world view. Second, any economic action taken by government must be directed at businesses, not workers, because it is businesses that create jobs, and supply. And finally, Republicans still believe in supply side economics, no matter what the evidence of the last 30 years shows.

The biggest problem with this world view, however, is that if we follow their reasoning we’ll spend an aweful lot of time, and money (yours and mine incidentally) trying to fix what is now a demand side problem with supply side glue. As unemployment continues to rise, and the economy continues to contract, demand drops like a stone. President Obama said as much last night in his first Prime Time press conference:


“Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier today in Indiana, you said something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis without action that we would be unable to reverse.
Can you talk about what you know or what you're hearing that would lead you to say that our recession might be permanent when others in our history have not? And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language like that?

Obama: No, no, no, no. I think that what I've said is what other economists have said across the political spectrum, which is that, if you delay acting on an economy of this severity, then you potentially create a negative spiral that becomes much more difficult for us to get out of.
We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s, where they did not act boldly and swiftly enough and, as a consequence, they suffered what was called the lost decade, where essentially, for the entire '90s, they did not see any significant economic growth.
So what I'm trying to underscore is what the people in Elkhart already understand, that this is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill recession. We are going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
We've lost now 3.6 million jobs, but what's perhaps even more disturbing is that almost half of that job loss has taken place over the last three months, which means that the problems are accelerating instead of getting better.
Now, what I said in Elkhart today is what I repeat this evening, which is, I'm absolutely confident that we can solve this problem, but it's going to require us to take some significant, important steps.
Step number one: We have to pass an economic recovery and reinvestment plan. And we've made progress. There was a vote this evening that moved the process forward in the Senate. We already have a House bill that's passed. I'm hoping, over the next several days, that the House and the Senate can reconcile their differences and get that bill on my desk.
There have been criticisms from a bunch of different directions about this bill, so let me just address a few of them.
Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR [President Roosevelt] was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.
Most economists almost unanimously recognize that, even if philosophically you're -- you're wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now -- what started on Wall Street, goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can't get credit, they start paring back their investment, they start laying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending -- that, when you have that situation, that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy.
We stand to lose about $1 trillion worth of demand this year and another trillion next year. And what that means is you've got this gaping hole in the economy.
That's why the figure that we initially came up with of approximately $800 billion was put forward. That wasn't just some random number that I plucked out of -- out of a hat. That was Republican and Democratic, conservative and liberal economists that I spoke to who indicated that, given the magnitude of the crisis and the fact that it's happening worldwide, it's important for us to have a bill of sufficient size and scope that we can save or create 4 million jobs.
That still means that you're going to have some net job loss, but at least we can start slowing the trend and moving it in the right direction.
Now, the recovery and reinvestment package is not the only thing we have to do. It's one leg of the stool. We are still going to have to make sure that we are attracting private capital, get the credit markets flowing again, because that's the lifeblood of the economy.
And so tomorrow my treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will be announcing some very clear and specific plans for how we are going to start loosening up credit once again.
And that means having some transparency and oversight in the system. It means that we correct some of the mistakes with TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] that were made earlier, the lack of consistency, the lack of clarity, in terms of how the program was going to move forward.
It means that we condition taxpayer dollars that are being provided to banks on them showing some restraint when it comes to executive compensation, not using the money to charter corporate jets when they're not necessary.
It means that we focus on housing and how are we going to help homeowners that are suffering foreclosure or homeowners who are still making their mortgage payments, but are seeing their property values decline.
So there are going to be a whole range of approaches that we have to take for dealing with the economy. My bottom line is to make sure that we are saving or creating 4 million jobs, we are making sure that the financial system is working again, that homeowners are getting some relief.
And I'm happy to get good ideas from across the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested, and they have failed. And that's what part of the election in November was all about.”


Stop and think about that for a second. $ 1 Trillion in DEMAND lost each year for two years. DEMAND. How do you stem that with supply side approaches like tax cuts? How does a machinery reinvestment tax credit address this? And what good would a two year payroll tax holiday (that’s Social Security, Medi-care and Medi-cade, BTW) do to increase DEMAND? The only way I know of to increase demand is this – put people to work, and make sure they can work for long periods of time. Get the credit markets flowing again (Hello TARP, the people are still waiting) so people can borrow again, and then let them DEMAND so that supply can again be ramped up.

Of course, to make Republicans happy, we’ll probably have to use another term besides DEMAND to describe our position. It sounds too personal, too much like something an individual might control, rather then a business. And we’ll especially have to make sure we don’t “make work” while we do it.

The Obama Inauguration

The Inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th Presdient is now over. The parade is winding down, and the balls will soon start. I watched both from the warmth of the living room of some of my friends - I wasn't about to brave the chaos and cold downtown. I'm home now, and have managed to download copies of Mr. Obama's speech, as well as some of the other speeches from today. I'm going to work on another post, witj much more detail, on how I see the Inauguration.

For now, we should all be grateful that we live in a Nation where power can be handed over so easily and so often. It does, cliche' though it is, show the world how great our nation can be.

Let's do right by the United States

Quoth Glenn Greenwald :

"It's critical that Obama -- and the rest of the political establishment -- hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like the ones he suggested on Sunday. This dynamic prevails with all political issues. Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side the wins -- period."

Now, if we could just get the rest of the country to actually take up this responsibility, then the Change We Need will be come the Change We Get. Freedom is not, afterall, free, and we have to fight for it. Otherwise, the authoritarians win, and we the people loose. Again.

It's the End of Year as we know it - and liberals feel fine?

As you know if you read the teaser below, you know that I'm closing out the year in a bit of a stew. Seems that, while I am supposed to be all atwitter about Mr. Obama's election (especially with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate), I am still uneasy. You see, Mr. Obama, for all his change, is still a centerist politician. he's not a traditional liberal Democrat. Which begs the question - does America really need a liberal antidote to ultra right (or even moderate) Conservatives? And if we do, how to we make it a reality?

The "common wisdom" in DC is that we don't. After all, these supposedly learned persons will say, the Nation began to move Right with Nixon. We swung farther that way with Reagan and Bush I. Clinton was no real liberal, and Bush II just took the pendulum too far. Mr. Obama, they will close, is just setting things back. He'll regulate business (but only just so much); he'll keep the bank bailout in place (and with few requirements of those banks); he'll get the economy going again with big infrastructure spending which will also be good for business.

But will it be good for workers? Will you and I - getting up each day, going to work, paying taxes, playing with our kids - will we really benefit from Mr. Obama's Change We Can Believe In?

Cynical? Perhaps. But as a liberal who has wandered about in the political wasteland, I think I am entitled to a little cynacism. And, as a true liberal, I am skeptical that Mr. Obama, even with a Democratic majority, will infact get us back to a more liberal country. You see, he has a lot to do - restoring the rights eliminated by the Patriot Act; closing Guantanimo Bay; repealing all the last minute Bush II evnironmental and health roll-backs; and then there is the minor issue of keeping the economy from collapsing further. its a tall order.

I look forward to seeing what he accomplishes.

Let's go to the numbers!

Over at More Grumbine Science colleague Robert G. has an excellent discussion of precision in data, and how it can often be driven too far. This is an especailly prescient thing for us scientists types to pay attention to in an election season, especially sinmce we get bombarded more an dmore by "figures" and "numbers" that purport to tell us somethign about this or that candidate.

Excess precision, and manipulation of statistics, gets all the more interesting when you read Darrell Huff's How to Lie With Statistics. I owe Robert a huge Hat Tip for that one as well, though if you blow by his first paragraph, you'll probably miss the reference.

After reading the little tome, and surviving a graduate minor in statistics along the way to my M.S., I have to admit taht I'm having a lot of fun with statistics this campaign. I leave it to others to dig into the facts - I just don't have that kind of time. INstead, I'm focusing on looking hard at the analyses of the numbers, and making sure that when I hear inaccuracies bandied about, I correct them. I also strive to tell folks why a number i sincorrect, becuase I'm firmly convinced that too few Americans are sophisticated enough to figure out the methodological twists themselves. Of course, having said that, I'm sure I'll be accused of being a liberal elitist.

Take, for instance, the often repeated and analysed claim that Sen. Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times. By now, many outlets have noted that the vote tally actually consisted of 23 votes against tax cuts, 7 votes to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations, and 17 other votes were on 7 bills, mostly to amend them in one way or another. Bottom line - yes tehre wer e94 votes, but no, they don't add up to 94 seperate actions to raise taxes.

How is this lying with statistics you ask? Well, for starters, we are never told what the universe of Sen. Obama's votes is. Lookign it up through Google, we find that since taking office, the Senator has had the chance to vote on 1299 actions befor ethe Senate. He has, interestingly, missed 314 of those. That percentage, interestingly, didn;t get very big until Q2 of 2007 - once the Presidentail campaign began in earnest. So even if we looked at the "94" votes as separate legislative actions (which they are not), they would only be 7.23% of Sen. Obama's record. Worse yet, fo the 94 votes in question, 24.5 % were against tax cuts, which means that 1/4 of the time Sen. Obama was being . . . . wait for it . . . . . a Democrat who believes in taxing people for the services they enjoy from the federal government. How sad that Republicans, supposedly the "Conservative" arm of our political system, still think that forcing people to pay fo rthe services they are provided makes you a "tax and spend" liberal.

My point in all this is that modern campaigns are amazing whizzing machines at chruning out numerical assaults on opponents. Sure, out of context, 94 votes to "raise taxes" wounds bad. But when you get into the numbers, and you do some further testing, they tend to break down. Sort of like Huff's story about the "average Yale Man" making $27,000. huff's point - which Ithink you should read in his book, is that without knowing whether "average" refers to the mean, the median, or the mode, you can't really tell what that $27,000 actually means. Sounds a lot like the numbers game the campaigns are playing, and getting away with.

The end of Democratic Dreams?

So Puerto Rico has held its primary. The dead, finally, is done. The delegates can now be counted, the wrangling ended, and the Democrats can get down to the business of getting back into the White House while consolidating their hold on Congress.

Or can they? While Clinton and Obama were busy gutting each other for votes in a state without a real vote in Congress (much like the nation's capitol I might add), the Democratic rules committee was busy trying to deal with Michigan and Florida. In case you missed it, when the Democrats set out their schedule for primary races this year, Michigan and Florida, which have a significant number of electoral votes, went ahead and held their primaries outside of the Official Sanctioned order. For that transgression, they were told their votes wouldn't count in selecting the Democratic nominee.

Or won't they? You see, the Democrats are always consistent on one thing - inclusion to the point of dysfunction. When Sen. Clinton discovered that her ascendancy in the party would likely by blocked by Sen. Obama, she pulled the specter of disenfranchised voter out into the media, effectively shaming the Rules Committee into both seating and partially counting the delegates from Florida and Michigan.

I have two problems with this decision. First, as a parent, I learned long ago that discipline is best enforced with consistency and no negotiation. Basically, if you punish a kid for any reason, you don't back down. That's how they learn limits. BY allowing Florida and Michigan to be partially vote, the Democrats are undercutting their own authority. Who, realistically will listen to them the next time? All you need is a Presidential Hopeful with a big ego, and you too can disregard the national plan of your party. Never mind the hog tying of the party during the Spring and early summer months, when Republicans remained on the stage largely unchecked or questioned.

My second problem grows form the circumstances of the first - the claim that voters were disenfranchised by not counting Michigan and Florida. Since those states leaders chose not to follow the schedule, it should be up to the citizens of each state to determine if they were disenfranchised, and deal with the officials accordingly in the next election cycle. National Democratic Party officials don't need to wade into that swamp. But they did, because they couldn't stand the thought of having to tell Florida and Michigan voters that primaries are just internal decision processes. The only real disenfranchisement would have come if their votes had never been counted in the general election.

So what should Democrats do now? Well that's a tough one. Neither candidate has a convincing enough lead to claim a party mandate, yet one will eventually have to be picked to lead the fall charge. Perhaps the best we can hope for is the party saying that they didn't hide behind closed doors to deal with tough decisions. Perhaps that will be enough to convince voters that a Democratic President will be better then the Republican alternative.

Presidential Qualifications

Much has been written lately about the "qualifications" of Sen.'s John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. All three campaigns, as well as any number of newspapers, tv pundits,and blogs have all taken to discussing the supposed qualifications that a President needs. Experience keeps being raised to the top - as in Sen. X has all the experience needed to be President of the United States.



Problem is, no one who hasn't been President has the qualifications to be President. Think about it. None of the Senators still running has ever negotiated a treaty with a foreign power. None of them has run a major corporation, with the federal government having around 3 million employees world wide. And none has yet to receive the now infamous 3AM phone call. NONE.



Let that sink in. The only folks who have done this, in terms that the President has to deal with, is a current or former President. First Lady doesn't count. Senior Senator and POW doesn't count. Nope, when it comes to experience, none of them has it. What they do have is life experience, beliefs, and integrity. So what we have to do is look long and hard at what they offer, cross that against the issues facing us personally and as a nation, and make the best guess we can as to who will lead us. But if you think that this race can be decided based on who has the experience to be President, you need to rethink that notion.