A Speculative Fiction

Sunday, August 24, 2008

moral realism

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Moral Foundations Theory

Moral Foundations Theory was created to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that five innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The foundations are:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.
3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundaiton underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Much of our present research involves applying the theory to political "cultures" such as those of liberals and conservatives. The current American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying almost exclusively on the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations; conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all five foundations, including Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. You can find out your own moral foundations profile at www.YourMorals.org.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

liberal/conservative

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Brad Delong: Draft: To Spend Is to Tax

We economists have a scenario that we call "current policy plus Bush tax cuts." It is made up of (i) the laws currently in force in the United States of America, plus (ii) the assumption that the defense, veterans, and other spending currently appropriated year-by-year by the congress remains the same as a share of GDP, plus (iii) the assumption that the tax breaks like the R&D credit and the regular pruning-back of the Alternative Minimum Tax that are voted for year by year by overwhelming congressional majorities continue to be enacted year-by-year, plus (iv) the assumption that the tax cuts George W. Bush proposed in 2001 and 2003 but made time-limited and set to expire early next decade are renewed. This "current policy plus Bush tax cuts" scenario has the federal government taxing about 20% of GDP over the next seventy-five years. It has the federal government forecast to spend 28% of GDP on average over the next seventy-five years. This is the fiscal gap.

A number of policies could be enacted to eliminate this fiscal gap. Simply doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts expire as current law requires them to do would reduce the fiscal gap from 8 percent to 6 percent of GDP. Raising Social Security taxes or cutting back future Social Security benefits by the about 1/7 needed to get the Social Security system back into projected 75-year balance would further reduce the fiscal gap from 6 percent of GDP to 5 percent of GDP. Returning military spending to its late-1990s share of GDP--not fighting wars in Iraq, et cetera--would reduce the fiscal gap from 5% to 3.5% of GDP. And eliminating "excess" cost growth in the government health care programs Medicare and Medicaid--allowing Medicare and Medicaid spending per eligible beneficiary to grow only as fast as the rate of growth of income in the economy as a whole--would bring the federal government into projected balance.

I believe that when we Americans look deep into ourselves and ask us what we want our government--because it is our government: it is our agent to do what we want with our money just as the guy in Florida we hire to keep grandma's one bedroom condo in repair is our agent--to do, we conclude the following:

We want to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
We want to close the 75-year Social Security gap, half by raising the limit on earnings taxed by Social Security so that the upper middle class and the rich pay more for Social Security and half by reducing the rate of growth of benefits at retirement.
We want to stop sending our soldiers--the best-trained and best-equipped high tech armed forces in the world--abroad to be military police in countries riven by sectarian conflict where they do not speak the language--and so return defense spending to its late-1990s share of GDP.
We want to reduce but not eliminate the "excess" cost growth in Medicare and Medicaid: we believe our doctors, nurses, and druggists will learn how to do wonderful things over the next two generations, and we do not want those wonderful things in the way of medicine applied only to the rich but to the poor and old as well.
Whether or not we decide to do (1) through (4) above, we want to raise taxes to cover whatever of the long-run fiscal gap remains, and so bring the federal budget back into balance over the long run.
Note that (5) is not optional. As the late Milton Friedman liked to put it: to spend is to tax. If the government buys things, it must get the money to buy them from somewhere. It can get the money from three places. It can tax. It can borrow--but then the borrowing has to be repaid with interest, and the more is borrowed the higher the interest and the worse the value the taxpayers ultimately get for their money when they are taxed to repay the borrowing. Or it can print the money and so inflate the currency--but that too is a tax, and an especially unfair, painful, and destructive one, as lots and lots of people victimized by inflation find their wealth doesn't buy what it used to and what they expected.

We can argue over whether (1) through (4) is what we want to do--that is what politics is about. But whatever we decide to do with (1) through (4), (5) is not optional--not, that is, if we want to continue to have a rich country in the long run. And the politicians who have told you that (5) is optional from Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush to Robert Dole to George W. Bush and now John McCain are not your friends, or America's friends.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

don't make McCain bitch slap you Obama...

So far McCain has accused Obama of treason... attacked him for inspiring people to participate in the process... and played the race card time and time again (how many more ad's will we see Obama next to a white women? How many more... "Obama is playing the race card" statements?)

So NOW he's going to throw down? Sigh... John McCain is a Gigolo according to Rush Limbaugh... and he spends more on servants than the value of the average Americans house...

Its a subtle "John McCain is tough as shit" which Republicans want to believe. But how tough is a man that doesn't want to protect those who need help... who need an economy that can empower them to rise up the economic ladder. How tough is it to scoff at the idea of getting kids health care? How tough are the Republicans that they will pass on the other side of the road when they see a man beaten and bloodied?

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

getting people truly innvolved in politics and policy...

Citizen Jay comments:

People tend to place greater priority upon entertainment than serious matters. If you wish to bestow a message upon the masses, you must teach in a way in which they will be receptive to your message. People will be not only listen to your message if presented in an accessible manner, they will seek additional information.

Thats very true.

I am not the greatest in making sure I frame things in a way where people will be receptive. I'm not always accessible--I lean on hyperbole and cynicism too much.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Saturday, August 23, 2008

The McCain is rich as fuck and doesn't know a thing about your life angle...

via Paul Krugman A very good jeer

So the Obama campaign is going all out on the issue of McCain’s multiple houses. Isn’t that kind of stupid? Yes, it is — and it was also necessary.
Two key points.

First, Republicans always — always — campaign by portraying the Democratic candidate as an out-of-touch elitist, while their guy is a man of the people. Al Gore grew up in a penthouse apartment! (In a shabby residence hotel, but never mind.) John Kerry windsurfs! Meanwhile, George Bush vacations at his ranch (bought as a prop for the 2000 campaign — and he doesn’t ride horses — but somehow that never got brought up.)
Protesting that the candidate is really a wonderful guy doesn’t work. Stupid as it may seem, counterattack is the only option. If the Gore campaign had gone after the fakeness of the Bush ranch, or the cronyism that made Bush rich, the world would be a different place today.

Second, the Obama campaign needed to turn things around fast. Yes, the polls still show a tight race with maybe a slight edge. But a narrative was starting to emerge, of McCain as the comeback kid and Obama as the man who couldn’t live up to his own hype. And those narratives can be deadly.

So, McCain said something that the Obama campaign may be able to use to turn things around. It’s not the way things should be; we really should be talking about health care plans (and I wish Obama would.) But right now, this week, making fun of McCain’s houses (but they’re not his, they’re his wife’s!) was the only option.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Politics...

Everybody wants to participate in t-shirt politics and half-time trivia talking points.

Politics isn't supposed to be entertaining, politics isn't supposed to be entertainment.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Its 6:52...

and I'm finally about to get working on my homework which was in theory going to get started on Thursday... sigh...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

contending conservatives... one email at a time....

Brad Delong is on the team...
The Only Way to Win Is Not to Play

An email I just sent:

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem worth it to participate in your poll. These are not questions on which I have any particular value or insight to add. And they are not questions the answers to which would inform America's voters about their choices. I think you should rethink this project. Ask yourself: "What can I report to do the most to help America's voters learn about and weigh their choice this fall?"

Apologies,

Brad DeLong

And here is the backstory:

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Madigan, Tom wrote:

Hi Brad,

Just wanted to touch base with a reminder about the NationalJournal.com blogger poll. Please take a moment and send me your responses to our first round of questions. Thanks for taking part.

Pick the demographic group that Obama most needs to sway during the convention: Women; Whites over 45; Blue-collar workers. Comment:

Do you think Michelle Obama will help or hurt her husband’s candidacy in the general election? Help; Hurt. Comment:

What portion — if any — of the Democratic convention program should be devoted to tearing down John McCain and the Republican brand? More than half; About half; About a third; About a quarter; Hardly any. Comment:

What do you expect Hillary Clinton will focus more on in her convention speech? Attacking John McCain; Burnishing the Clintons’ image; Praising Barack Obama.Comment:

If you want to join the team who work every day to make politics about policy, ideas, and data rather than swiftboat attacks and meaningless distractions email me (your blog or email if you like) and I'll post you on the list.

I of coarse will be adding bloggers who are on the team whether they know it or not.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

McCain...

"John McCain and his wife spend more money--$270,000--on servants in a year than the average American's house is worth. There may be 4,000 households in America today richer than John and Cindy McCain. There may not.

To say "'John McCain' means a lot of different things, but rich isn't one of them" shows an extraordinary degree of ignorance about America, and about John McCain." --Economist Brad Delong *

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

in another life I would have been a scientist... sigh....

Check out human migration...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

blog post from the Henry Dems site...

I must be crazy... trying to run two blogs... that have political slants.. durning an election year. While you are chairman of one county, campaign manager in a state senate race, are in school, and work part-time...

Here is my most recent post on the Henry Dem's website. Please go sign up on the site to have new blog posts emailed directly to you.

from the comments page...

TO catch people up there has been a health debate going on in the comments page. I want to pull it to the front and hopefully entice others to comment as well. The more people dig into the numbers, and talk about their own opinions and feelings on these important issues... the more people will feel inspired to once again participate in the process.

Think about that for a second. By taking some time out of your day to think about and participate in dialogue you are helping empower someone else to want to join to political process. For too long people have been turned away from politics by attack ads and corruption. Well the only way to fight back and stop those things is through MORE participation not less.

Here was the thread so far... and then I’ll responded at bottom. Remember I represent Jim Nichols ideas... you should participate so that you can advocate for your ideas and views...

Henry Libertarian commented:
What we need is REAL change not tax and over spend Liberals. You only want to redistribute waelth not create any new income or jobs. Obama isn't the answer to ANYTHING except "Who is the worse choice for President in '08?"

On 08/21/08 04:37 PM

On 08/21/08 04:51 PM

On 08/22/08 08:26 AM

Henry Libertarian commented:
Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefited from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. Obama's plans will cost $200 billon a year. Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute. Cutting individual taxes increases spending wich creates more tax money. Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down. I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc. The Federal Government should not have ANYTHIG to do with local school systems. You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

Jim Nichols commented:
Also what do you mean by overspend? Our classroom sizes are far too big and lack basic things like supplies and books. Our health care crisis--we rank 37th in the world, and pay 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations--is harming our global competitiveness and litterally killing americans... or at least making them file bankruptcy. Our transportation infrastructure is massively underfunded. Our mental health systems... underfunded. I'm not for too much government... but we aren't investing in our long-term economic sustainability.. and it shows. People pay the price of the Regan economic revolution of cut taxes worry not about the consequences...

Jim Nichols commented:

Well actually the Republican record on the economy and economic growth speak for themselves. George Bush is about to end his 8 years in office having created fewer jobs than Clinton averaged each year of his term. Ever since Regan we've run deficits except during the Clinton years... data speaks louder than words!

My response:

"Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefitted from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. "

My claim wasn’t to imply Clinton "created" those jobs as if by magic. That not how an economy works. But my claim was intended to point out that every time they open their mouths Bush/McCain/and Company like to say that their economic policies will create jobs... or that they are pro-growth. The question should at least be asked of them... why do you think so?

The paternalistic: "Father says so" [or Bush... or McCain...] is not an economic argument.

And just a question because it seems to be begged...So the Republicans think you have to wait for a dot-com, or real-estate bubble... to create economic growth? Keynes would smile at that one.

Obama's plans will cost $200 billion a year.

true... for those of you who don’t know $200 billion is–if memory serves me–how much Obama’s health care plan costs. For context 200 billion is $645.58 per-capita. 645.58 in my tax dollars going to get millions of people who lack health insurance–such as myself–the ability to get needed medical care and not harm our economy since early treatment rather than last minute care is by far cheaper–more efficient to use an economists term.

And just to give you an idea of how much conservatives end up sounding like they are on mars when talking policy. I spend between 800-1400 dollars a month on health care treatment since I lack health insurance. Its condescending to hardworking Americans who get up each day and try to pay the rules to be told "tough cookies"

Its time for democrats to tell Republicans to cut the crap when it comes to pubic policy.

He then moves onto ear marks...

Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute

First a question why do "earmarks" always come up when talking to a conservative? The Economist magazine pointed out that all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year. That for fiscal year 2008 is $64.56. Since that is a very small chunk of my tax dollars and its part of the push and pull of a federal system. I have faith in our processes of checks and balances... and faith that corruption can be founded and dealt with... the sky isn’t falling.

$25 million for the San Fran waterfront.

For those that don’t know... for fiscal year 2008 that would be 8 cents of my tax dollars. 8 cents? 8 cents? Do we really need to deal with 8 cents? Millions without health care, Bin Ladin still on the loose, terrorist recrutiments UP after the Iraq war... and conservatives want to talk about 8 cents????

Since you brought it up I’ll answer it. San Francisco is a major tourist hub. It brings in tourists from all over the world–myself included. Ask an economist... Adam Smith... Joseph Stiglitz... anyone outside of the Heritage institute really and they will point out the importance of investment in vital infrastructure. Tourism brings a lot of money to the state of California and the United States as a whole. Next time I go to San Fran and enjoy a stroll through one of the tourist district I will feel pleased to know my 8 cents helped me have an enjoyable visit.

Cutting individual taxes increases spending which creates more tax money. ...

Yeah point blank not true... was never thought to be true in theory by a large chunk of economist... and since the Regan revolution has still not proven true in the real world.

You often hear this argument... "the tax cuts pay for themselves." Its either someone misinformed or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them do it. For more on this read "The Politics of Bad Ideas–the Great Tax Cut Delusion and the Decline of Good Government in America" by Bryan D. Jones and Walter Williams both of whom are at the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at University of Washington.

Then we move back to health care...

Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down.

We rank 37th in the world for quality of health care. We rank 37th!!!

WE SPEND 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations who already have universal coverage. We are creating huge profits for a small group of people, causing hard working Americans to go bankrupt from illnesses they have no control over, and we are killing people every day because they lack needed treatment. Our businesses put at a competitive disadvantage because they are paying the price....

The idea that tort reform and health care provider costs is going to fix the market failure we are currently dealing with is a bit of a stretch. Private insurance companies and the bureaucracy they bring into the health care system IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. Insurance companies pay people a lot of money to go through peoples files to try to keep people from getting insurance or certain treatments.

I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc

Our schools are underfunded.... class sizes too large... teacher pay too low.

As someone who dropped out of high school... I can tell you how passionate I am on making sure that our kids stay competitive in a global economy.

If we don’t invest in our kids... and create and educated work force we will continue to fall far behind Japan, Europe and the other industrialized nations in the world As someone who wants to know my economy is going to be strong and stronger... over the long run I can tell you how passionate I am at making sure the needed investment in our infrastructure is spent NOW.

Instead of seeing a hand-out... see it as a hand-up which helps empower other people to rise up and helps protect your own economic security at the same time

You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

When did I say that??? I don’t know how to respond to that one since I never said I want them to control everything and provide it for you. Republicans always try this trick. If it isn't a trick then its a manipulation. I never said any such thing so I can't respond to the attack.

Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts

That about as condescending as it gets... and you see it from conservatives all the time.

You don’t know me... but it doesn’t matter... you shouldn’t need to. The presumption should always be that people are trying to play by the rules and work hard. Plus I'm demanding better schools, better health care system, better foriegn policy. What do those things have to do with not being responsible for myself... what about that is look for a handout. I'm demanding Government actually do its job. It is there to protect and empower people. Plus personally I believe that which we do to the least of these is very telling about ourselves.

Every time someone tells me to stop whining and work hard I think of my grandfather who got up everyday before the sun to go work on his farm, would then go work at the factory for 8 to 10 hours, to come home and raise a family. He died with less than $200 to his name and never lived very far above the poverty line. You can call me every name in the book... but you I won’t let you call my grandfather lazy.

Imagine if Democrats finally told Republicans.. .cut the crap. The attacks, the personal a fronts, the swift boat ads... and urban legends speak to how little Republicans how when it comes to policy. But they win if Democrats don’t fight back. Knock on doors, make phone calls.... help bring our country back to the entrepreneurial machine it once was. Government is in the business of empowering its citizens. Its time to say no to another Republican who won’t do the job.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Friday, August 22, 2008

What am I missing here?

Boortz...
THE U.S.EXAMPLE

Barack Obama finally came around on Russia, scolding the nation for invading a sovereign nation (Georgia). However, now he has thrown a new caveat into the mix: the United States should set a better example on that front, too. He says, "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies ... They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."

So finally, Barack Obama comes out and directly compares Russia's military invasion of Georgia to our own efforts in Iraq. Way to go Big O.

Does anyone remember Georgia being a threat to Russia? Did Georgia have a weapons program? Was Georgia in violation of multiple UN Resolutions ... violations that authorized any UN member to go in and remove their leader? Just wondering.

What am I missing?

Does anyone remember Iraq being a threat to the their neighbors let alone the United States? Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?--and weren't the U.N. weapons inspectors, as well as many allies, and anti-war activists here at home pointing to the holes in that idea? Wasn't the US in violation of UN Resolutions when it preemptively attacked with no authorization from the Security Council?--the answer is yes if you weren't aware.

The lack of awareness about the facts during the war... and the rewriting of history afterwards has been an amazing and shockingly successful feat by conservatives.

And if you were wondering how laughable the idea that Iraq was a threat... think back to Iraq I. Where Arab countries were calling for us to beat back the preemptive attack by Iraq which lacked authorization from the security council. Thats why we fought with a HUGE coalition, and the war was paid for--mostly by Saudi Arabia if my memory serves me.

Agree or disagree with how it went down... we--Republican and Democrat alike--knew how to win wars, effectively, and at as little cost to our soldiers and our citizens wallets. Republicans were taken over by the conservative wing and all of a sudden the ability to win a war becomes this great quandary. As if military strategy was back to the rock, bigger rock, spear, club... of our ancestors days in the caves.

sigh... what a waste of lives, money, and our national security...

Obama 2008. The lesser of two evils...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Neal Boortz...

From his daily email...

The taxpayers of Prior Lake-Savage in Minnesota should be outraged. Their tax dollars funded the construction of a brand new $16.8 million elementary school. The people of the school district were so excited because their schools are "overcrowded." Do you know why they are overcrowded? Bluntly speaking ... too many parents having children that they (a) can't afford to raise; and, (b) won't take responsibility for. But don't get me started on that...

Question... since the Regan revolution of tax cuts... the economy that people once knew and still desire went away. Government after the Regan revolution no longer protected people and no longer empowered the economy to grow and reap rewards at all income levels. It turned our economy into an every man for themselves affair.

Unfortunately for those impacted by the Regan revolution (i.e. most everyone) economists since Adam Smith have been pointing out that an economy is a collective effort. You feel it every day and in many ways you don't even realize.

Why turn to the negative? Imagine if these people assumed the economy of the New Deal era... with all the post war growth and the newly created middle class--which the government program known as the G.I. Bill almost single candidly did... could it be possible that they were expecting the conservative revolution to pay off the way conservatives claim... and so made economic decisions that obviously seem unwise--is that a nicer way of putting it?--to Boortz.

Plus isn't behavioral economics and cognitive science addressing the question of people acting through emotion and biology rather than a reasoned and economically rational way. And if this holds true. Why would Boortz's bash people for doing that which isn't logical but is still natural.

You could simply flip it around and create incentives to do rational, efficient, and economically productive things rather than feel the need to punish and condemn. My job isn't to punish and condemn. My job is to forgive, protect those who are weaker, and empower those who need a hand up.

Boortz always seem to see a hand-out... when quite often it is really a hand-up.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

quandry...

This post is weird... I've linked to www.brillantstatesente.com and when you check the link (hover over it with your mouse) it reads both my blog and jerry's site's addresses. Which send you nowhere... WTF?

-----------------

As some might know, I have taken on campaign manager for a state senate race here in GA. Jerry Brillant is an amazing candidate. He is a natural. I've met a number of candidates and elected officials... and Jerry Brillant State Senate is the campaign to be on this year.

One problem. You google Jerry Brillant... the home site for Jerry Brillant does not come up. You google Jerry Brillant State Sentate the home site still does not come up. You get some hits and randomness from some of the webpages... but I want them to come direct to the intro page for Jerry Brillant.

Any thoughts or ideas on how to fix this. Voters should be able to find his site. We're going to be buying google ads soon.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Doctors opinions... from the comments page

Interesting comment--thanks for posting by the way!--on Doctors opinion about "National Health Care"

Jaxon said...

Did you see the Bunk study stating 2/3 of doctors in America want National Health Care. The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in their 2nd question. I found this article, 60% of Doctors Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan, It's worth a read.

Unfortunately I honestly don't have the time to read up on this, though I think it would be interesting to look into. I always like debunking good data. But I'll assume Jaxon is correct.

1) We rank 37th in the world for health care according to the world health organization. We spend 2 to 3 times more than other industrialized nations on that care. Meaning we spend MORE to get LESS. So somebody is making huge profits. Doctors probably aren't doing too shabby since protectionism keep them from facing market competition.

I can't help but think of the Upton Sinclair quote:

“If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”

So I could see how this is a plausible thing to find and explain--that speaks nothing to using the approaches that have succeeded for the other industrialized nations

2. "National Health care" Jaxon, if you could just clarify your meaning because there are so many words and labels being thrown around on this issue and unfortunately that causes a lot of confusion.

The approach I am for... is socialized health insurance. It does not nationalize the system meaning it doesn't make the Doctors or medical field government employees but creates basic requirements that would fix our current dysfunctional health care market. Right now we have a major market failure on our hands... it comes from major waste and inefficiencies from the insurance companies who are trying to squeeze out profits for shareholders over insuring people. Second reasons is there is a lot of protectionism--on medicine, and doctors, specifically.

Its unfortunate that John McCain is running around saying he supports a free market approach to the health care crisis. Either that shows he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters--since he is not for removing the protectionism I just spoke of. Or else he doesn't know much about how market systems work. Neither give a very positive impression of McCain--nor a very good reason to think he merits the job of President.

Universal Health Care in 2008... our economy is hurt by the current crisis making us less competitive globally, hard working Americans are going bankrupt over things they can't control much of the time, and it speaks to the values I believe in--that which we do to the least of these.

Oh yeah.. and I pay 800-1400 a month in health care costs since I lack health insurance...

Obama in 2008. McCain is 4 more years of the same.

Thanks again Jaxon I appreciate people bringing more items of interest to the table. Maybe one of my readers can dig around on that issue so that we can do some debunking if possible. Thats what we bloggers do!
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Thursday, August 21, 2008

smile... Critique of Obama... response to that critique...

Found this critique of Obama which made me smile... lesser of two evils and all... you deal with the world you have in front of you. Not the one you want!

From a blog called A Speculative Fiction: I've gone cold to Obama

This Krugman op-ed reminds me how Clinton has somehow slid into the number two seat behind Edwards on my ranking of the Democratic candidates...
Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.”

Look, the point of a mandate isn’t to dictate how people should live their lives — it’s to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy.

Here’s an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn’t think you’d actually need Medicare when you got older — except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.

Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare’s finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his allegedly universal health care plan.

Obama's way of playing health care shows he cares more about independents than actual policy. Which is a death knell if you think for two seconds you can take on the insurance companies and private profits coming from the status quo and come out with some form of policy that will be effective and successful.

Great points, and luckily it is the responsibility of congress to write the legislation. Making sure we elect Democrats to congress will help on this issue. Luckly Obama is very inspirational, a great speaker, and has brought in new people to the political process who finally believe government can help protect and empower people. His short comings on health care policy--yes. But even his plan is an improvement and can be adjusted to fix some problems. The choice will be between Obama and McCain. McCain's health care policy is dead wrong. Or should I say, deadly wrong.

Since our health care crisis kills people everyday. We rank 37th in the world for health care and pay two to three times as much for worse care. What have the other industrialized nations learned that we haven't? Fire conservatives like Bush and McCain and we can start to head in the right direction!
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Before Stiglitz... before Keynes, before Adam Smith...

You can find an acknowledgement of how an economy works... and how destructive Conservative's economic policy of "every man for themselves" is...

“If the Kingdom is divided against itself that kingdom cannot stand.” Mark 3:24

This speaks to how important it is to address disparities of wealth within the economy. Economists have a pretty strong grasp now of how disparities of wealth harm an economy over the long run... but this shows that it has been understood for ages.

Conservatives don't even blush when one points out disparities of wealth. They don't see it as a problem--since they hold the incoherent view that an economy is not a collective effort but individuals out on their own with boot-straps pulled up to their knees...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Why I'll never get elected to office...

If my writings weren't bad enough... if my artistic need to shock and inspire through dramatic black and white distinctions... if my unfortunate turns towards invective... if my tattoos which will certainly continue to expand... if if if...

to add fuel to the fire... or amunition for conservatives I... the blogger that I am... post things like this....

Which side are you on?

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Everyone stop what you are doing...

Stop... and go to Citizen Jay

I'm going to be updating my blogroll... might as well give a hat-tip before I do so...

Bloggers can change the world if they take there words, and effort, and turn into action--door to door, on the streets when necessary.. a struggle that will never end and therefore cannot be hopeless...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Henry County Democrats in the Press...

Richard comes out with the better quotes on this one... I wish the whole interview I gave was posted online or something... I had some better one-liners... sigh.

Published: Thursday, August 21, 2008
Henry Dems say 2008 is year of change

By Johnny Jackson

jjackson@henryherald.com

Local Democrats are optimistic about the upcoming November elections, saying increased interest in national politics will mean increased local political interest.

"I think that this is the year of the Democratic Party," said Richard Ray, a long-time member of the Henry County Democratic Committee, which underwent a sort of revival and reorganization in March.

Ray is also a super delegate for the Democratic Party. On Saturday, he will head to Denver, Colo., to represent the state of Georgia in the Democratic National Committee Convention, which will decide the party's next candidate for the presidency.

Ray said he believes a push for change in the national government will spur similar sentiments locally. "We don't have a lot of local candidates running in November under the Democratic banner," he said. "But those we have, we are hoping that they are going to do well in Henry County."

Energy policy and the economy are big concerns for Americans on the national level, he said. "The American people are seeing the middle class shrink, jobs go overseas ... people want better. People want change."

Issues are not much different, he said, on the local front. He said he believes that transportation, health care and education are the leading issues among Henry County residents.

"Certainly, the cost of gasoline is the No. 1 issue," he said. "Everybody is hurting with the cost of gasoline in terms of getting to and from work and getting their kids to and from school functions. And they want it fixed."

The Democratic Party presence is growing in Henry County as well. More than 5,600 ballots were cast in the July 15 Democratic Primary Election for U.S. Senate.

"Demographics are improving in favor of the Democratic Party," Ray said. "This election cycle, you are going to see more and more people qualifying for local elections as Democrats."

More local Democratic influence, he said, should encourage more debate on transportation issues, like the controversial Atlanta-to-Macon commuter rail idea. "The rail extension for Atlanta to Macon - I think the people are ready for that and the business community in Henry County is pushing for that," he added. "There's going to have to be something done, because the traffic is going to continue to increase."

Such controversial issues have fueled debate in Henry County for years. As gas prices have increased by more than a dollar per gallon over the past year, the debate is more heated now than ever.

"Democrats are really excited this year," said Jim Nichols, chairman of the Henry County Democratic Committee. "People have really been inspired to get back into politics. I think after eight years of Bush, people are starting to step up to the plate and say, 'enough is enough.'"

Several have joined the restructured Henry County Democratic Committee already, throwing their support behind Democratic candidate for Henry County Sheriff, Joe Mack Eckler. In November, Eckler will face Republican candidate, Maj. Keith McBrayer, of the Henry County Sheriff's Office.

"I think he's really going to run a fantastic campaign," Nichols said. "His goal is to bring change to the local level with gang issues and education."

He said he believes November will tell the story of what he believes is a political revival for Henry County's Democrats. "People are asking, 'How can I help bring back a government I can believe in?" he said. "People are ready for change, and the focus is on the issues, especially the transportation issue."

The Henry County Democratic Committee currently has about 25 core members and about 150 active volunteers. "We're growing, and we really have a core group that's active and energized," he added. "We have a revived party, locally in Henry."

The committee meets at the Henry County Government Annex on the fourth Tuesday of every month. The next meeting will be held Aug. 26, at 7:30 p.m.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

a pattern this year...

This year you are probably going to see a lot of votes going to Obama for National Security reasons... Bush/McCain Foreign Policy is undermining our global security and empowering the terrorists...

You are going to see a lot of Obama votes because of the Commander and Chief factor...

The accidental endorsement

I appear to have endorsed Barack Obama by accident. Brad DeLong - well-known blogger and economist - has a note on his weblog headlined - “Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times endorses Barack Obama”. And WCM asked yesterday - “Gideon’s endorsement of Obama for (global) Commander-in-Chief. Premature? Politically motivated? Deserved? ”

Oddly, despite the headline on my column - “Obama for commander-in-chief” - I wasn’t consciously sitting down to write an endorsement column. What I was aiming to do was to respond to the polls that show that McCain is much more trusted as future commander-in-chief. But c-in-c is not the only role performed by the president.

There are a few subjects on which I prefer McCain. Trade is the most obvious. I also think he has taken sound positions on immigration and on campaign-finance reform. And I accept that McCain was courageous to take an unpopular position on the surge - and that he has been largely vindicated. (Although he was wrong to back the war in the first place.)

But I think that Iran is shaping up as the biggest foreign-policy dilemma facing the next president. And there - as far as I’m concerned - Obama is clearly the better choice. In fact, the McCain position is downright dangerous.

Does that amount to an endorsement of Obama? Just about, I suppose. Although, come November, it’s possible that some other issue will have displaced Iran as the number one concern - or that Obama will have revealed himself as a raving lunatic. For now, however, yes - I’m backing Obama.

Two further notes on this: First, I should admit to a conflict of interest. I put £10 on Obama to win the presidency at 5-1, back in December - ie before the Iowa caucus. So my prescience has given me a small financial stake in his victory. I believe, however, that I can overcome this and maintain my habitual objectivity.

Second this is not an invitation to re-open the “bomb Iran” discussion.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Boortz newsupdate Wed. Aug 20th...

I don't know why I waste my time but... eh..

Boortz has a history of terrible policy positions. He makes up for this through invective and verbal intimidation...

Just how does The Chosen One feel about the 2nd Amendment? After the Supreme Court ruled on the DC gun ban Obama was somewhat trapped. His previous position in favor of the ban was inoperative, so he had to come up with a new position.

Could is possibly be that he respects the courts decisions? Could it possibly be that he realizes coalition building (i.e. leadership.. gasp) is about accepting some things you disagree with for a greater good. Is Boortz all knowing--or just trying to take a cheap shot?

I know, I know, I know... He's an entertainer so he is supposed to be a little crass, a little rough around the edges... but I see people every day who take him as gospel so a little hyperbole is fair? No? You tell me...

Ahhhhh .... But he's so suave, so debonair, and he speaks so well! It doesn't really matter what he says, but he sure says it good!

Once again attacking Obama for his ability to speak, communicate, and inspire people to believe in a government that will protect and empower them. This is also known as leadership.

When anyone who is not a Democrat or a liberal succeeds at anything .. a liberal will tell you it is because they cheated.

I don't.. your argument goes down the drain.

Here is another good one on Joe Biden

The real reasons that you don't want people like Joe Biden in the White House is because he has three priorities as a politician: Ending the war in Iraq, universal healthcare, and building up government schools. Not to mention that he also believes in this global warming scam.

These seem like good priorities, and an educated position on global warming.

Our schools are failing, the war is weakening our national security and we have failed to protect our troops once they come home. Universal Health Care? We rank 37th in the world for Health Care and spend 3 to 4 times as much as others.

Wow is all one should say. A vote for McCain empowers people who hold views like Neil Boortz... Obama in 2008. The lesser of two evils... but far less evil than the policies of guys like Boortz.

I'm still occupied quite enough, than you, thinking about The Chosen One's affinity for Marxism.

Can anyone explain the link between Obama and Marxism? Socialism? WTF? Where do these people come up with this? Well its manufactured propaganda but people repeat it. No one has ever explained the link between Obama and Marxism, Socialism, or anything of the lot

In a court appearance Wenning tried to use the "choice of evils" defense, saying that blocking the entrance to the site was less "evil" than the taxpayers subsidizing a day labor center that helps illegal aliens get jobs. (Uh oh ... should I have said "undocumented immigrants?")

Question. Can you grandstand on free-markets... and claim you support free markets when you obviously do not?

For those who don't know. Free market theory include... free movement of trade, finance, and LABOR. Free-Market... free flows...

Who could lecture others on how noble the free market is... and how evil and or incopetant those who don't support it are? Boortz's doesn't support the free market if he's worried about illegal immigration--maybe he doesn't care and is just pointing out this story...

If he does oppose migration of labor he is making a caviat... then he is moving from economics to the realm of politics where one must focus on the greater good in the society vs. economic theory debate. One man's passionate caviat to markets is another mans evil. Thats why and when elections come into play. When you lose public opinion which conservative always do. You cry conspiracy... you cry elitism... you cry socialism I guess...

Oh, and I thought Neal was a libertarian?

You heard this one, didn't you? About 100 college and university presidents have gathered together to promote the idea of lowering the drinking age to 18. Reason? To put it bluntly, these college presidents can't – or don't want to control underage drinking in their student bodies. Their solution is to lower the age. Appoint me to be the chairman of the board of regents and we'll get this problem solved. You drink one underage drink .. you're out. Gone. Tuition and all other fees forfeited. Campus security will escort you to your dorm room and stand by while you put your stuff in some black plastic bags, take your student ID card, and escort you off the campus. You'll be issued a warning never to return, and arrested for criminal trespass if you do.

We think they are responsible enough to fight and die... but not drink. Thats an infringement on Liberty. The hobgoblin of libertarians all over the world. Why would he pontificate on Liberty but not actually apply it?

Such is the sad state of affairs within "Libertarian" thought. This Libertarian can only feel sad for this sorry state...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

This is how conservatives win elections for the Republican party...

Obamamania...
Written
by Dr. Jack Wheeler

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave s hips. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves; he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum , I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior. His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

A vote for McCain empowers people like this. Vote Obama 2008. Any questions?

Lesser of two evils yes... but far less than the views of people like this...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

New Housing Market Monitor from CEPR

my highlights in bold...

Housing Starts Continue to Trend Down

August 20, 2008

By Dean Baker

"Extraordinary incompetence by top financial executives played a major role in the bubble."

Housing starts fell 11.0 percent in July, wiping out any hope that the market had begun to turn. The June data, driven by a jump in apartment construction in New York, showed an 8.6 percent increase (revised up to 10.4 percent in the July release), leading some analysts to see signs of a bottom.

Starts in July fell to their lowest level in this cycle, with starts of single-family units continuing their long downward trend. Single-family starts were 39.2 percent below year ago levels and down 62.6 percent from the 2005 average. While the West saw a modest gain in single-family starts in July, the region has been hardest hit in the downturn, with starts of single-family homes down by 67.4 percent from 2005 levels.

It is unlikely that there will be a turnaround in starts before inventories start to fall and prices stabilize. Starts will be a lagging indicator of a turnaround, not a leading indicator.

The mortgage applications index continues to trend downward, suggesting that demand is still weakening. This is likely reflecting both the weakening of the labor market and higher interest rates, in addition to the downward dynamics of the housing market itself.

The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that the average interest rate on 30-year mortgages edged down slightly from 6.57 percent the previous week to 6.47 percent last week. By historic standards, this is a low rate (especially with an inflation rate close to 5.0 percent), but it is an unusually large spread measured against a 3.9 percent 10-year Treasury rate. This reflects the ongoing turmoil in the mortgage market.

New York Times columnist Floyd Norris reported on a remarkable memo in his blog yesterday. The memo was prepared by outside consultants at Wachovia, one of the country’s largest banks, who were trying to determine how the bank managed to plunge to the edge of insolvency.

The memo indicated that the bank’s chief financial officer and chief risk officer did not realize that offering interest option ARM mortgages (you pay want you want each month, but face a higher interest rate), would attract less creditworthy borrowers. They also didn’t realize that allowing homeowners to refinance down to new zero-equity levels made them high default risks.

In the same vein, the Washington Post yesterday discussed the difficulties of Fannie Mae. It reported that it was still buying up subprime mortgage backed securities at the beginning of 2007, after the market had already begun to collapse. The article reported that Fannie had performed stress tests in which they saw no serious problems with these securities even if house prices fell by 5 percent for two consecutive years. Of course, house prices have fallen by close to 20 percent over the last two years and by more than 30 percent in many of the markets with high concentrations of subprime mortgages.

It is incredible that Fannie could invest hundreds of billions of dollars based on such an inadequate assessment of risk. There were economists who had noted the unprecedented 70 percent real increase in house prices over the prior decade. Competent management would at least have considered the possibility that much or all of this run-up would be reversed.

It was only due to extremely bad policy and regulatory decisions at all levels of government, first and foremost at the Fed, that the housing bubble was allowed to grow to the enormous proportions. However, it was the private sector that actually drove the bubble. The top executives in major financial institutions took extraordinary risks. These risks may have increased short-term profit, but they eventually led to enormous losses, which is endangering the survival of many of the country’s largest financial institutions.

These recent accounts about behavior at Wachovia and Fannie Mae suggest that the top executives at these institutions had no idea what they were doing. This is astonishing because these are huge institutions. It would be expected that the top management, who are very highly paid, would have some level of competence in their work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Baker is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net). CEPR's Housing Market Monitor is published weekly and provides an incisive breakdown of the latest indicators and developments in the housing sector.

Just cause you get paid a lot... or have made it to the top... doesn't mean you know whats going on.

It reminds me of a scene in weeds where one of the kids is in a debate at school. He steps up to the podium and the topic is: For/Against using the popular vote to elect the U.S. President. He stands up. Walks to podium and says.."George W. Bush." Without saying a word he walks back to his seat.

Argument for reasons why we are in the economic mess we are in:

Jim walks to the mic:

"Highly paid professionals not knowing how to read and respond to economic data. And the lack of accountability in terms of credibility and legitimacy as a voice of "educated opinion" from the rest of us...."

Jim walks away...

Lesson(and it seems blatantly obvious but amazingly enough is not... )

Requirement for a market economy: knowledge about economics...

Will we learn from the lesson? Not likely...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

good interview via Economit's View

Robert Pindyck is interviewed on the candidate's energy proposals:

A Q&A with MIT Professor Robert Pindyck, by Stephanie Schorow, News Office: This is the first in an occasional series in which MIT experts weigh in on the presidential candidates, their policy ideas and aspects of the campaign.

As jittery consumers contemplate the price at the pump, energy issues have become a major factor in the U.S. presidential race. Have the two major-party candidates forthrightly addressed the hard issues about the country's energy needs? ...

Q: Would either candidate's energy proposals make much impact on energy costs in the short term?

A: Neither of the candidate's plans would have any impact. The one exception would be McCain's proposal to eliminate tariffs on the importation of Brazilian ethanol. It would immediately reduce the cost of ethanol.

Q: How so?

A: We have a tariff on imported ethanol from Brazil, which is made from sugar cane. Ethanol here is usually made from corn. Sugar cane ethanol is about eight times more efficient than that made from corn. By removing the tariff, Brazilian ethanol becomes cheaper and will make ethanol-gasoline blends cheaper. It will reduce the use of corn ethanol, which would reduce the demand for corn, which would make corn prices drop slightly. There are many places where gasoline is blended with 10 percent ethanol. It would have a small impact, maybe a few cents, on the cost of blended gasoline.

Q: Is there anything in either candidate's proposal that would be particularly bad for holding down energy costs?

A: Most of the proposals are political and they involve subsidies to alternative energy sources. A lot of those subsidies are just ways of providing pork for different groups.

Q: It sounds like you are not impressed, to put it bluntly.

A: Look, what are going to be needed ultimately is a tax on carbon and a tax on gasoline -- a large one. Another way to have a tax on carbon is to have a cap-and-trade system so you only allow a certain amount of carbon dioxide to be emitted. That will raise the cost of carbon. A gasoline tax would greatly reduce gasoline use. It would create the incentives we need for other energy sources, including conservation.

No candidate is willing to get up and say, "We need a to have a high tax on gasoline." In fact, McCain wants to suspend the federal tax on gasoline for the summer and Obama didn't. Nobody is going to say, "We want to make sure we have a tax in place so gasoline prices are always going to be high." That encourages people to drive smaller cars and to conserve and that brings about investments in new technology. When people know that gas prices and fuel prices will stay high because of taxes, it means they have incentive to develop alternative energy supplies.

The question is will the candidates, nonetheless, do something when elected. Who knows?

Q: What do you think about Bush's recent decision to lift the longstanding executive ban on offshore drilling, which McCain and Obama support in some manner?

A: Offshore drilling is a tradeoff between pollution and producing oil. We've had the federal ban in place because we worry about oil spills. You could say: Why don't states make their own decisions? The reason is that if one state allows offshore drilling and there's a spill, the oil moves to the neighboring state. So whether we do that is how we trade off the environment with greater ability to produce oil domestically. And there's no right and wrong about that. What is clear is that even if we opened up offshore land for leasing and drilling, it's not going to result in any more oil production for five, six years.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

How far the Republicans have strayed

One of my topics of interest/talking points is how far the Republican Party has strayed from what made it respectable. I might not have always agreed but I could concede some legitimacy. With the conservative take-over of the Republican Party... that respect is gone and quite frankly no longer deserving.

Bob Herbert today with another example of why McCain--and in far too many cases Obama as well--is talking the talk... but not the walk...

August 19, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
A World of Difference
By BOB HERBERT

Presidential elections always have their share of foolishness, hypocrisy and, let's say, elasticity when it comes to facts.

This is what comes to mind whenever I hear John McCain and other Republicans reverentially invoking the name of Theodore Roosevelt. Senator McCain will tell you outright: "I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican."

That's about as elastic as the facts can get. In June, Mr. McCain ("We're gonna drill here! We're gonna drill now!") got a big boost in donations from oil industry executives after he reversed course and came out strongly in favor of offshore drilling. A Washington Post headline pointedly said: "Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling."

To put it mildly, that was not very Rooseveltian. Around the same time that the McCain campaign was pocketing its oil industry windfall, the historian Douglas Brinkley was poring over letters in which Roosevelt, running for his first full term as president in 1904, was indignantly ordering his campaign to return a $100,000 contribution from the Standard Oil Company.

In a letter to his campaign manager, dated Oct. 26, 1904, Roosevelt said: "I must ask you to direct that the money be returned to them forthwith." As Roosevelt saw it: "We cannot under any circumstances afford to take a contribution which can be even improperly construed as putting us under an improper obligation."

That kind of thinking is long gone, from both parties. Barack Obama, as well as Senator McCain, has taken contributions from oil industry executives. But what is telling about this particular difference between Teddy Roosevelt and John McCain is that it is so illustrative of what Roosevelt was really about, and how fundamentally different that was from what Senator McCain and the latter-day Republican Party is about.

"The truth of the matter is that Roosevelt today would be on the left," said Mr. Brinkley, who is writing a biography of the former president titled "The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt's and the Crusade for America."
Roosevelt believed passionately in regulating industry and curbing the excesses of the great corporations. He favored the imposition of an inheritance tax and fought his party's increasing tendency to cater to the very wealthy. And, of course, he was a ferocious protector of the environment.

Roosevelt was known as the "trust-buster," but it was in the area of environmental conservation that he really made his mark. Mr. Brinkley, in a draft preface to the biography, tells how a number of bird species in the U.S. were headed for extinction as the 20th century approached, in large part because of the popularity of feathered hats for women.

By 1886, when the Audubon Society was founded, more than five million birds a year were being slaughtered to satisfy the millinery trade. The feather boom was especially big in Florida. Egrets, herons — just piles and piles of birds were being destroyed, many of them by men with semiautomatic weapons.

Roosevelt was outraged that what he termed "the despoilers" were threatening to ruin the bird populations along the Florida coasts. Having already championed the preservation of what became Yellowstone National Park, Roosevelt designated Pelican Island, which had a once-thriving bird population off the east central coast of Florida, as the nation's first federal bird reservation.

The move was a tremendous success. Pelican Island became the first unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "By 2003," Mr. Brinkley wrote, "when Pelican Island celebrated its centennial, the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System comprised over 540 wildlife refuges on more than 95 million acres."

We're now in a ridiculous period in which politicians are concerned about appearing too well-spoken and too intellectual — elitist — as if mangling the language while downing a shot and slurping from a mug of beer were sure signs of fitness for high office. So it might come as a surprise to some that Senator McCain's macho hero happened to have been among the first naturalists at Harvard, an inveterate bird-watcher, and a prolific and sensitive writer.

According to Mr. Brinkley: "When writing or lecturing about American birds, Roosevelt often turned downright lyrical, sometimes achieving the level of song."
The kicker to the story about the contribution from Standard Oil is that despite Roosevelt's repeated orders, it may not have been returned. Roosevelt went to his grave believing that it had been, but Mr. Brinkley said a later investigation of the campaign's finances left open the possibility that Roosevelt's orders may not have been followed.

Roosevelt was a complicated fellow. Progressive in much of his politics and intensely concerned about the long-term welfare of the country and its people, he was also a social Darwinian and a conflict-loving imperialist.
What is not in question is that he was a far, far cry from John McCain and today's G.O.P.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Fall of the Roman Republic

I've been pulling together some thoughts for my political theory class...that is an expansion of my question/contention that the Republic as it currently stands is gone... with the Bush era we are purely under the facade of Democracy... might the Republic return? Might it be gone for good? I lean towards the first but that might be idealistic nievity... and might not idealistic nievity be a requirement of all republicans?

Anyhow I had to look into the history of the fall of the Roman Republic and came across something I wanted to share/keep...

Fall of the Roman Republic

In this chapter, the lives and impact of Caesar, Octavian, Antonius (Antony) and even Cleopatra, along with the continuing stories of men like Pompey, Crassus and Cicero will be examined. The Fall of the Republic was more than a single man or event. It was a culmination of several individual actions or achievements, coupled with social conditions that weighed heavily on Roman society. Additionally, massive and rapid expansion from Rome's foundation as a fledgling city 700 years earlier until the mid 1st century BC, created monumental holes in the political and governing ability of the Senate. Periods of stability were mixed in with those of near collapse while powerful generals or inciters of the Roman mob jockeyed for position.

Beginning with the Punic Wars and Roman conquest outside of Italy, followed by massive importation of slaves, the face of Roman life was changing far more rapidly than the governing body could deal with. Political infighting was and always would be a common trait in any system, but even the greatest of Romans like Scipio Africanus, fell victim to the whims of politicians. The social instability that resulted from inequities in the class system gave way to rise of demagogues like the brothers Gracchi. The use of the citizen assemblies for popular agendas tore at the very fabric of Senatorial power.

Men like Marius and Sulla, with their own personal agendas and rivalries wreaked havoc in an already weakened structure. Partisan politics of the conservative Optimate Senators trying to keep power with the elite class, while the tactics of the Populares, who looked to the lower classes for support, divided the people and classes into what seemed like warring factions. For nearly 100 years, the climate was unpredictable at best, and brutally bloody at worst.

By the time of the rise of Gaius Julius Caesar, the stage was set for a single man to assume power and stabilize the Empire. Caesar was neither the only man responsible for the fall, nor the one man who could stop it, but his role in the final demise is undeniable. He neither started the fall nor finished it, but continued a cycle of events that made its collapse irreversible. Contemporaries of the brilliant general and politician hold as much blame as the great man himself, however. How different events may have been without the plays for power and a bit of humility among the Senate.

Regardless, despite Caesar's short reign and policies of reform and stability, the strength of his character and personality held the Republic together only as long as he lived. His assassination and the continuing Civil Wars that resulted, would be required to bring necessary power to a single ruler of a single great nation: The Roman Empire. The eventual rise and adoption of Caesar's heir, Octavian, to the exalted post of Augustus spelled the real end of the Republic. He, unlike his predecessors, rose at a time when the will for the Republican system had nearly died.

While tradition and some semblance of power would remain, the foundation of government under a single figure was a requirement to continue the advancement of the Empire. It was Augustus who proved to be the one man great and powerful enough to control the Senate, the mob and the Legions. Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus rose above all the great Romans before him to outlast political opponents, reform a corrupt government and stabilize a system in disarray. The Fall of the Republic was inevitable, but fortunately for Rome, the right man at the right time was there to step in as the first Roman Emperor.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Go out and organize... register voters... vote... our Republic is at stake: Obama 2008

A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy

by Sheldon S. Wolin

Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world's only superpower."

Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial.

No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved.

Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel.

The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest.

The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile.

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.

Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity:

From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one.

From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars.

From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and and enfeebling opposition.

From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated "big business" to party leadership.)

The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.

In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.

Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged.

Sheldon S. Wolin is emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University and the author of "Politics and Vision: The Presence of the Past" and "Alexis de Tocqueville: Between Two Worlds."

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.