Dr. Forbush Thinks

Today Paul Krugman once again points out that the Republican party has only two solutions to problems - Tax cuts and deregulation or ignoring the problem hoping that it will go away.

Of course ignoring a problem and hoping that it will go away is not a solution. But if you can convince enough voters to ignore the problem along with you then at least you can win elections, control the government and eventually control the information going out to the public.

The Bush administration does this every day with the news from Iraq. How many pictures of coffins do we see coming out of the bellies of the planes coming back from Iraq? None! The reason for this is the simple party line - “its bad news, so ignore it until we have good news.”

The whole surge issue started with an increase in the numbers of deaths and injuries, both to Americans and Iraqi civilians. But, the administration did the best to ignore it, and at best admitted it saying that things would get better when the surge started to “work.”

Well, it’s a year later and the surge is supposed to be finished. The troops are supposed to be drawn down and the Iraqi government is supposed to step up and take over. Well, the reality is that “the enemy” went into hiatus and simply waited until the Americans finished their silly surge. And, now that it is ending those who are against America’s puppet government are slowly waking up and beginning where they left off before the surge began. If the US spent a little more time working with all the political forces in the country, instead of using force to make Iraq do what America believes is best maybe things would be different. But, the current administration doesn’t want you to see that. They continue to be in denial about what the solution must be. They don’t want to even admit to ant wrong doing when the whole situation could have been prevented in the first place.

But the administration is in denial about so many other things as well. Mainly it seems to be a fact that the Bush government is a faith based government. You are supposed to put faith in your government or else you are not being patriotic. Too many people bought into this in 2004 and re-elected George W Bush. Unfortunately we are stuck with this idiot for a few more months. But, if we work together to point out what the Republicans continue to deny then we may have enough people to vote to end this ridiculous ostrich policy.

Paul points out that the health care system is falling apart as we sit here and type. They believe that a market system will fix everything. But, there is a slight problem with markets. Markets react to what the average person is willing to pay for a service. So, I ask you one simple question, how much is your health worth to you? Are you willing to pay your entire family estate to make yourself live a few years longer - given there is a cure. So, given the fact that most people are willing to give up all of their money to live longer, then the price of health care will rise until all of our wealth is spent and health care providers possess all of the wealth. What other possible limiting factor is there? Why would people pay less than they have and decide to die sooner? The average cost of health care will always rise to mean wealth of the country. Health care providers will end up being the only people able to afford health care. If you disagree, then please tell me what will limit the cost of health care in a free market.

The only solution is to limit the market in some way. We can provide less health care, then people would not be able to purchase health care when they need it, thereby conserving wealth. We could allow everyone to become a health care provider and competition would tend to limit the price. Basically we would learn to take care of ourselves. Or, we could mandate maximum prices that health care providers would be able to charge for services. This would limit expenditure and reserve cash for other purposes.

The bottom line is that a free market health care system rations health care to those who can afford it, until they spend all of their money and whatever that they are allowed to borrow until they are forced out of the health care system surrendering that spot to the next guy in line. We could ration health care to the wealthy, or we could ration health care to the sickest, or we could ration health care to the most deserving. In the end health care is limited by the supply. If we maximize the supply and ration to the deserving we end up with the fairest system. Anything else is inherently unfair.






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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Last week I ventured on a business trip to the middle of the country. St. Louis is a major American city based on the fact that it offers major league sports teams. However, when you compare the city of St. Louis to many other American cities it seems to be a little more “laid back.” When I suggested this idea to a friend he asked, “By laid back do you mean - nothing is going on?” I actually believe that something is going on, it is just going on a bit slower than in other areas of the country.

Missouri is the “Show Me” state. Basically this self-assigned reputation suggests that people in Missouri are born skeptics. However, I don’t believe that Missourians are skeptics in all areas at all. Instead, as a casual observer it seems more likely that people from this state tend to be set in their ways until they are show to do things another way. Now, stereotypes are generally frowned upon by those who are politically correct, but when you walk into a new place and everyone is behaving in such a strange and universal way it is hard to not believe in stereotypes to some extent. In fact, the idea that people from certain places behaving in certain ways would be strongly supported by the cultural influence in an area effects the population. People who move from these areas take their culture with them as well as their genetic pool.

Missouri is also one of those states that will most likely play a significant role in the 2008 election. Missouri is also a state with a history of racial issues. For example, the Dred Scott case was argued in St. Louis. Therefore it tends to be important to understand how the people in this “compromise state” might feel toward the possibility of Barack Obama being elected to the highest office in the land.

The first Missourian I asked about Barack Obama laughed at me. Of course this fresh graduate from Mizzou was extremely drink and would laugh at just about anything she did have a serious disbelief in the possibility of a person of color being elected president. As I proceeded to ask her if she had heard any of his speeches, or knew what he stood for she drew a blank. She was aware that there was no possible way that any of her friends would vote for him. At that point I was happy to learn that she was not registered to vote.

Well, I didn’t feel very encouraged after listening to this (what do you call a person from Mizzou?) person tell me “the facts of life” in Missouri.

The next person that I questioned about the 2008 election wasn’t exactly from Missouri. And, since this was an informal survey that actually means nothing I will tell you what he said anyway. I began by suggesting that of course he must have voted for Barrack in the primary election, and he laughed in my face again. (I guess this is bound to happen when one spends time in the bar.) When he collected himself he asked me “In the month after 9/11 back in 2001 could you have ever imagined that we would have a black Muslim running for President of the United States?”

Well, what other answer could I have for this obviously misinformed question than, “Of course, I expected that would be the next step in our political culture.”

When this man was caught off guard by my response he said, “Hey, you aren’t being honest with me!”

Then I was able to say, “Well, that’s because you weren’t being honest with me. Barrack Obama is not a Muslim. In fact, the problem that he is currently having pertains to his membership in a Baptist church. And, last I knew the Baptist religion is a Christian denomination.”

Of course arguing with a drunk is never likely to be productive. But it does tend to bring to the surface one of the problems that our country still needs to solve. Clear lies and misinformation will continue to plague this election. Whispered innuendo will be a major force that will continue to work against what would be best for our country.

Of course the person I was arguing with was a working class person that would benefit economically from the election of Barack Obama more than the election of either of the other two candidates. However, the economic interest of the upper class is being served by the prejudice of the lower class. This tends to be a convenient circumstance for the upper class, because they would never dare to bring it up and expose their advantage. And, when people have been raised in a culture of racism then that racism is an undercurrent that seems to be acceptable within that culture.

My daughter recently returned from a trip to Texas. Being raised in California and having friends from many different racial groups she found her experience shocking. She was in the process of visiting different schools in an effort to choose a university to attend after graduation. Most likely just because her parents graduated from Texas A&M she felt an obligation to tour this campus. The non-diversity of that school was shocking, and she announced that it was highly unlikely that she would be able to attend that school. Her host, somewhat surprised, said, “Why? You’re white and you’re not a lesbian, so you would fit in just fine.” My daughter couldn’t even grasp the comment. She must have told us this story twenty times just trying to understand where these people were coming from.

But, the rest of the country might be a bit more like the center of the country rather than the coasts. And, because of this we are in need of a major national discussion on racism. And, I offer these points as just another effort to push this conversation forward.




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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

What should America’s foreign policy be?

I just finished “reading” “Charlie Wilson’s War.” I actually listened to the audio version of it on my way back and forth to work over the last week. I highly recommend it to anyone who wonders how our government works. The book details quite a few examples of why politicians do what they do as opposed to what they say in public.

The story of our involvement in Afghanistan and the historical context around it brings up a very interesting question. If America really hated communism or socialism, why were the Republicans so dead set on the Nicaragua War and the Democrats so dead set against it? And why was the converse true of the Afghanistan War?

People who haven’t seen the movie or read the book might be surprised to discover that Charlie Wilson was a Democrat from Texas. He was actually known as the “Liberal from Lufkin.” So, why did Charlie find the Afghan cause so important and the Contra effort such a lost cause?

The answer lies in the true nature of these two different wars and in the basic ideology of the Democrats and Republicans.

The Nicaragua War began when Somaza the dictator of Nicaragua, from a merger of wealthy coffee plantation family and other wealthy families was overthrown by a group of people who organized because of the abuse they suffered under this government. The overthrow could have been viewed as a liberation of the people from the oppression of the upper class. But, because the wealthy in America fear the common people they were eager to restore this wealthy family back to power. In order to do this they hired soldiers of fortune - the Contra to fight against the new Sandinista government.

The Afghan War began when the Soviet Union marched into Afghanistan and took over the government. The country was poor and not ruled by anyone possessing huge wealth. The Soviet Union mainly wanted territory and eventually access to a port on the Indian Ocean. But, in Afghanistan the Afghan people rose up en masse to fight the occupation of this land. These people didn’t need to be paid to fight, because they would gladly give their lives to fight the Soviet Union to the death.

These wars began roughly the same time in 1979, but the Republicans quickly backed the Nicaragua Contras while Charlie Wilson, the Democrat in Congress, sought to back the Afghanis. By looking at how those two wars started it is quite clear why one party backed one war while the other party backed the other. What does justice mean? Is justice protecting your ill-gotten gains or is it protecting your freedom? Obviously each political party here in the United States has its own interpretation. One war was to restore a wealthy family to power while the other war was to win freedom for a country that was overthrown by our direct cold war enemy - the Soviets. Which war was the more noble war? Which war was a war for freedom? Which war was for the people?

It is funny (or maybe sad) to think about how the Republicans have somehow inherited the caricature of the party that is willing to fight for freedom and liberty to defend our country, when they actually don’t act that way at all. A war for freedom and liberty isn’t really worth the fight in the minds of the Republican party. But, when real assets are involved, then the Republicans jump on the band wagon waving their pitchforks shouting “kill the beast.” In reality Democrats seem to act to protect our country in a more reasonable and rational way most of the time. When they are swayed to jump into the fight it seems to be when the plight of the people is in danger. Charlie Wilson went to bat for the Afghanis when no one else cared about them. He saw a noble people fighting to free themselves from oppression. This is the same fight that many working class Americans battle day to day because they have no choice; they need to feed their families. Hopefully, as these stories are retold and the truth bubbles to the surface we will see the true colors of the American political parties when it comes to defending our country.

When we put the Iraq War in the light of these two wars fought at roughly the same time we see how a Republican congress and a Republican President used their power to manipulate the facts to present their case for war. Their motives seem to be quite clear in this light. The Iraq War has nothing to do with winning freedom from the oppression of Saddam Hussein as many Republicans would have you believe. It is obviously for the control of Iraqi oil. Well, Ok I already knew that years ago, but it is always comforting to see additional evidence backing a theory. Although evidence mounts some people will never believe that whoever they support could ever do anything wrong.

Like a said above, this book is a must read. It goes into the nuance details of how this politician with a noble goal in mind could not realize when his war was beginning to go wrong. And, by wrong I mean that the CIA support against the Soviets turned into fuel for internal conflict in Afghanistan. The result put the Taliban in power and created terrorist camps. Charlie Wilson and the CIA remained blinded by the perception of the nobility of those they supported although the extremism that beat the Soviets was slowly being turned against the United States. They believed that if they were able to bring down one super power, they could surely bring down the other, because “God is the only superpower!”

When I start hearing words tied to actions like that I begin to worry. The mind of the person who says these things is convinced not only that God is all powerful. That part I am OK with. But they also imply a second part that says I am doing Gods will. The flaw is that the person acting believes that they know what God’s will is. This frightening thought process is not only a part of the Islamic religious ideology. It is a part of fundamentalist religious ideology. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists. Just like not all Christians are fundamentalists. But, all fundamentalists have this belief that they are doing God’s will and therefore nothing can stop them from doing it. And that’s why George W Bush’s claim that he is doing God’s will in the Middle East is so frightening. Eight more months!




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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

I have written before that in general conservatives operate on fear while liberals operate out of necessity.

Let me briefly review this idea. In general conservatives are the successful wealthy business people who fear losing what they have - money. Or, conservatives are the morally upright religious zealots who fear that society could go down the toilet at any moment. These two groups represent the majority of conservatives. Progressives however, feel that the world has already caved in all around them. Progress is anything that can help them dig out of this mess. Progressives are willing to try almost anything to fix the problems in society, while conservatives fear that anything new will lead to the downfall of everything they have come to love.

Since the people who are happy with the way things currently are is usually a smaller number than those who believe that they are up to their necks in shit conservatives needed to craft a way to convince those in need to vote to change things to the way they have been. The idea that change back to the “old ways” was a progressive change was championed by the Reagan revolution. Fear and progressive change have been the guiding principles of American politics for a long time.

Well, it actually turns out that the majority of people actually reside somewhere in the middle. These moderates fear change that is too rapid, but they want some change to help them out of the doldrums. For these people “fear” and “change” are words that can move them to support a candidate. Reagan used “change” to move these people to his side. George W Bush used “fear” to keep them there in 2004.

The truth of the matter is that we should worry a bit about change. But, we should also recognize that change can happen for the better.

It is easy for people to become fearful of terrorism. Obviously seeing 3000 people killed in one day in an orchestrated terrorist effort is scary. I don’t need to say this, but we all know that death is a bad thing. But, death does not only come from terrorist attacks. Death comes in many preventable ways. And, progress happens when we can reduce unnecessary death no matter where it comes from.

But, how can we know which efforts to defeat unnecessary death should be taken on, and which efforts should not? We have limited resources and we can only do so much. This is known as risk. We can calculate risk by what we observe. For example, we can count the number of people killed by terrorist attacks and divide by the number of years that we examine. We can quickly see that even before the security measures taken on by the government we have had relatively few people die in terrorist attacks per year. We can compare this to automobile accidents and we quickly realize that driving our cars is much riskier than going back to our old level of security before 9/11/2001.

But, fear rules and conservatives are controlled by their fear. Our conservative government has told us to be afraid and to do whatever we can no matter what the cost in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We have spent billions of dollars in Iraq fighting a war out of the fear that terrorist will attack us again. We have spent billions of dollars trying to prevent terrorist attacks that rarely happen. We could calculate how many lives have been saved by counting the number of deaths due to terrorism occurring in the seven years leading up to 9/11 and compare that to the number of lives lost in the prevention of terrorism since 9/11. We can include the amount of money spent and we will quickly come to the realization that we have lost more lives and spent more money based on irrational fear than before 9/11. The risk of terrorism was small and it is still small. We have lost more lives. It is almost as if we are paying terrorists to kill our soldiers. If we used a balance sheet that would be the conclusion.

But, the sad and frustrating part of this wasted effort is that the money could have gone to save lives instead. One example is our health care system. It turns out that roughly 18,000 people die each year because of lack of health care. That is equivalent to six 9/11s per year. Many of these people could have been saved if they had the health care that a civilized country like the United States has available to every citizen. With preventative care and regular checkups many lives could be saved or enhanced. The billions of dollars that we are wasting in Iraq to bring that country up to the twenty-first century could have been used to bring our poor and needy up to this century instead.

The foes of open borders continue to complain that immigrants too easily have access to services provided by our country. However, we freely give this same aid to Iraqis in an effort to appease them so that they will not join the insurgents. This may be working, but if we weren’t their in the first place it wouldn’t have even been an issue. And, if we had assessed to risks in a proper way we would never have gone into Iraq anyway.

Fear can be tempered by considering the risk involved. Fear of driving to and from work is almost zero for most commuters. The risk of this drive is far greater than to probability of being attacked by a terrorist. Roads could be made safer, but fear has persuaded the hand of government to spend more money on the terrorist “threat” and less on our roads.

The biggest problem that we face is not terrorism, or roads, or even health care. The biggest problem that we face is the education of our children. It turns out that we could make very good decisions based on the calculation of risk. However, our education system has cheated so many people in our society from having a useful education that politicians, if they actually can think, are able to persuade the public to fear risks that are as tiny as the threat of another terrorist attack. If we don’t educate our society to think, we will surely become a society where the wealthy and well-to-do minority will be able to control the rest of us through our ignorance. The erosion of our education system will ensure that any progress that we have made over the last 50-some years will erode as well.











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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Tomorrow I get to vote. I actually get to vote in an election that actually may effect the outcome of the American political process.

Twenty-some years ago I was in college when Harold Washington won the Democrat mayoral primary to become mayor of Chicago. Well, at least that’s what I was told as many exuberant Chicagoans ran through the dorms announcing that the first African-American had become mayor of Chicago.

I began to think about this recently as we are on the brink of such a similar historic event. I lived in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb when people like Dennis Kucinich and Carl Stokes were mayors of that town. At the time Harold Washington’s coronation as King of Chicago didn’t seem like such a big deal to me, an outsider to the windy city. When I finally read the news and discovered that his winning of the primary was only the first step - he had to win the general election I continued to be confused about this thing they called Chicago politics.

Politics is a funny thing. People think that they understand the way politics works until it doesn’t work like that any more. Hillary Clinton was able to pull off a surprising victory over Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary by simply shedding a tear. On the other hand four years ago Howard Dean won the New Hampshire primary and lost that nomination on the same night with his historic scream of exuberance. Confidence is a good thing but overconfidence soon becomes arrogance. And excitement soon becomes perceived as lunacy.

Perception influences more votes than any other aspect of a candidate. Perception is a powerful tool that can be used to lead a nation. In a perfect world there is a correlation between perception and reality. However, we don’t live in a perfect world. George W Bush and Karl Rove taught us that, if we didn’t know it before.

Harold Washington was an inspiration to many people who admired the struggle against adversity to achieve political power. However, Harold Washington also died of a heart attack that was most likely induced by the cocaine that was found in his bloodstream at the time of his death. People can be both an inspiration and a poor role model. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington advocated freedom and liberty while they were both slave owners. Being perfect is a very high ideal.

When we look for our next leader, and as I said I must cast my vote tomorrow, we can only know what we perceive a candidate to be. We are always short of the total picture of any candidate. The Chicagoans that voted for Harold Washington never knew that he had a cocaine habit. Instead, the perception that elected Mayor Washington was the perception that he understood the voters and he would fix the problems that the voters needed to be fixed. Because he was an African-American it was assumed that he had lived a life that a typical African American had lived, whether that was true or not. And, some people who where not African American feared that anyone who had experienced these inequalities in society was bound to take advantage of the power of the office of mayor to take retribution. Obviously this is a sad state of affairs when one group believes that there was a group of people that had been mistreated and a representative of that group might use power to seek retribution. Both the knowledge of mistreatment and the assumption of retribution are sad commentaries on our society.

Slowly our society is learning that people don’t necessarily take retribution when they win power. And, we are also learning that people we once thought that we could trust not to abuse political power surprising do abuse their power, like the current administration. How can we protect ourselves from people that would abuse their power? After all, this is the aspect that most of us fear the most about our government. We look for hints when we see these politicians up close and in person. We suspect politicians when they manipulate the facts on the campaign trail, because this type of manipulation makes us wonder what else they might manipulate.

So, I have determined that I will cast my vote for Barack Obama tomorrow. When I see Hillary shedding a tear the day before a vote and miraculously winning the New Hampshire primary it seems a bit too manipulative. When I see her do the same thing this weekend right before the big Super Tuesday primary it seems just a bit too unlikely to not be planned. But, this is not the sole incidence of Hillary’s continued perception of manipulation. I saw her take the easy way out when she voted to attack Iraq back in 2003. I saw her craft her presentation in such a way that she carefully doesn’t commit to anything in an effort not to lose any potential voters. She mirrors the same manipulative behaviour that I have despised in the Bush administration from the beginning. She may be on the left side of the political aisle, but she seems to be on the same side of the obfuscation partition. I really don’t want to have another deceptive presidency. I don’t think that any of us do.

Of course it really is hard to know if Barack is just better at hiding his manipulation. After all, many people still believe that George W Bush is as honest as the day is long. Currently that number of people might be down to 17% of the population. But, 17% of 300 million is still a lot of people - 51 million. And 51 million people can still influence a lot of power in this country, especially if there are dollars attached to those people. So, regardless of whether Barack is able to manipulate me as a voter I am willing to cast my vote his way and hope. I hope that we will finally have a president that believes what he says and will bring America together to create a more perfect union and move us forward.




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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Ronald Reagan had a vision. You might not agree with his vision. You might not even agree with the premises of his vision but you can not say that he did not have a vision. His vision was based on the propaganda that he voiced through out World War II. His propaganda ignored the reality that many Americans faced every day. Ronald Reagan’s vision could not see the homeless sitting on the grates trying to warm themselves. Ronald Reagan’s vision did not see a struggling poor person, he saw a lazy fat-ass welfare mom trying to cheat the taxpayers out of their money. Ronald Reagan certainly had a vision.

When George HW Bush won election in 1988, the part of the country that accepted Ronald Reagan’s vision thought that his Vice President had seen the same vision. They wanted to be told that they had a right to be wealthy and ignore the rest of the country. The poor were all the suckers and losers; if you had money you had a divine right to it. But George HW Bush hadn’t heard the train whistle. He didn’t have a vision to share with the American people. The working class who had suffered for 12 years under the Reagan vision and never saw any of it come true were ready to latch onto a new vision. Bill Clinton had a vision that was different from Ronald Reagan’s vision. But, the people wanted a leader with a vision as opposed to someone without one. So, George HW Bush lost the election because of that “vision thing.”

Every good leader needs to have a vision. It isn’t about what that vision is, it is about what the country could become. We do these things as a nation so that we can become a better nation. The vision is what we might become.

In the past many elections have been a competition between visions. The potential leaders tell us what their visions are, and we choose where we want to go. But, in recent years the reverse has become the trend. The leaders no longer tell us what their visions are for a future with them in the leadership role. Instead, they tell us to fear the vision of their opponent in that same leadership role. The electorate becomes entangled in trying to pick the least bad vision of the future. And, when a real visionary emerges he is shot down by his opponents who tell us how impossible and unrealistic his vision is. The message is that we can’t trust a leader with such outlandish and impossibly unrealistic ideas. He certainly must be hallucinating in order to have such wild visions.

Apparently the Bush family is the antithesis of vision, because George W Bush lacks vision just like his father. Occasionally he announces a new vision, but he lacks the skill to convince us that it really is his vision. It is more likely that he has an advisor that suggests to him that it is about time to tell the American people that he has a plan. These plans don’t fit into a bigger picture. Instead they are plans announced with the hopes that we can conjure up our own vision of what he is telling us. He announced a new space objective to land a man on Mars a few years back. Those who like and study science may still be imagining this amazing journey. Most of the rest of us have long forgotten this. Was this part of a larger vision for this country? Actually it doesn’t really fit into the rhetoric of a president who doesn’t trust science.

Even the George W Bush vision of spreading Democracy around the world has lost its luminosity. In the last seven years we have invaded two countries under this premise. But, a larger vision would include diplomatic and political efforts to free many more countries from the oppressive rule of tyrants and military governments. We are never reminded that General Musharraf Pervez is a military dictator who overthrew or sabotaged several democratically elected governments. General Musharraf Pervez has gone against democracy by arresting opposition leaders and even a Supreme Court Judge. A true vision of democracy can not coexist with embracing leaders like this.

It is actually more likely that George W Bush has a personal agenda, rather than a vision. He is in the White House to weld power for his friends, family and loyalists. His actions demonstrate this louder than any words that he has spoken. The appointment of incompetent loyalists to positions to which they were not qualified has lead to many disasters - where Katrina is at the top of the list. The appointment of the unethical Alberto Gonzales is another on this long list. The reasons or intentions of these appointments don’t fit into any vision for America. Instead these appointments fit into a personal agenda for George W Bush. America is only beginning to see this, because George W Bush never shares this vision with the American people.
Now, as we think back to 2000 we might ask ourselves if Al Gore would have had a vision for America. And, because you don’t need to be president in order to share your vision with the world we can say that Al Gore certainly has a vision for America. He has spent the last few years telling us about the “Inconvenient Truth.”

Al Gore’s vision is to make America better, by putting and end to global warming.

We could argue that terrorism might be a bigger problem. But, if you actually look at the risks and probability Global Warming is actually a bigger problem. Global Warming will effect our food production, our coast lines, and our infrastructure. Terrorists may occasionally destroy a building and show the results on TV in order to terrorize us. Global Warming will work 24 hours a day seven days a week gradually damaging our country piece by piece. But, because the destruction is a hurricane here, a flood there, a drought over there we don’t see this as clearly. And, therefore we are fooled into thinking that the terror problem is worth a larger effort than the Global Warming problem.

And, it turns out that Al Gore’s vision, without even being president, is making a bigger impression than George W Bush has on almost anything except his debacle in Iraq. It just goes to show that you don’t need to be president to make an impression and get your vision out there. Of course, if Al Gore were president he would certainly have more power to make an even bigger impression. Of course, its really important to have that vision thing.



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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

One of the “legal” sales techniques that we often witness is the “Bait and Switch.” The idea is to create a vision of what the customer desires. The customer begins to imagine the joy of ownership, and begins to fill in the blanks with his own imagination. The salesperson is careful not to lie about the reality of the product that he or she is trying to sell, but he is also careful not to clear up any possible misconceptions.

For example, on our recent trip to Las Vegas we sat through a couple of time share pitches. As the target of this pitch you begin to imagine lounging out by the pool with a waiter asking when to bring your next drink. Then, maybe you begin to think of the cost of these drinks. But, then no need to worry because with the time share you could surely stock the liquor cabinet. Having that “home away from home” is better than a hotel - right? The sales person will not point out that the reality of the situation is that this is basically a hotel with guaranteed guests for the owner. Occupancy rates are going to be high, because not using the time share is your loss. Now, since this does become obvious to some potential customers the time share pitch now talks about trading and delaying your weeks. But the salesperson will never point out that if you don’t want to use the time that you purchased you will eventually lose it. If you have saved up ten weeks of time share, and you die, then you have paid in advance for time that you can never use.

The illusion of sitting by the pool in a tropical paradise is tempting, but the reality of mandatory vacations to the same place, or similar places every year might be a bit to demanding. What if we want to go traipsing through the Outback with a guide? What if we want to take a climb in the Himalayas? A friend of ours recently took his family on a motorcycle tour around the Western states. The time share constraint would rule this trip out.

Well, the time share pitch isn’t the traditional bait and switch. They don’t promise something that they won’t deliver. You get the place to use every year for a week. For some people this might be just the thing that they want. After all, it isn’t the salesperson’s responsibility to advise you as to what the down side might be. It isn’t against the law to point out what the upside of a deal is without pointing out the down side.

Similarly the recent presentation of the situation in Iraq by General Petraeus is a sales pitch. His presentation is a continuation of bait and switch sales pitches that we have been offered for the last four years. First we attacked Iraq because Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When we discovered that they didn’t, we changed our motive to the removal of an evil tyrant, because he was a major focal point in the War on Terror. And, after we killed him and the Terrorists continued to pour into Iraq we decided that Iraq could be molded into a shiny example of Democracy in the Middle East. When the government failed to become this shining example, we have now changed our goal to a “bottom up” establishment of order in this country.

The point here is that General Petraeus has created a new vision of what it means to succeed in Iraq. Creating a new goal with out admitting to the failure to achieve the old goal is dishonest at best. I suggest that this is a typical bait and switch that a salesperson uses to make the sale. The sales person isn’t really concerned with the goal, but rather they are concerned with making a sale, or “saving face” in this case. Changing the goal continues to be used by the Bush administration, mainly because they can never admit when they are wrong by administration policy. Aside from Bush coming claiming that his only error of his presidency was to say “Bring It On,” the Bush administration hasn’t claimed a serious mistake. Instead of claiming human fallibility, the Bush administration continues to change the goals and proclaim that they are almost there.

Well, surprise, surprise, General Petraeus has claimed that we will reduce our military force by the surge number of 30,000 troops by next summer. But, he never pointed out that the military could not sustain the surge strength beyond next summer without some major changes that no one wants to do. We could implement a draft and demand that Americans make real sacrifice for this “necessary” war. Or, we could pull troops out of Korea. Or we could cut time in which troops spend in the US between deployments. So, in other words, General Petraeus is making a positive illusion out of a situation that was going to happen no matter what the reality on the ground in Iraq. Is this just another marketing ploy? Is he just giving us another illusion of success in the face of necessity?

And, in the only other positive announcement that General Petraeus made he claimed that the “bottom up” effort of getting the regional leaders to support our efforts was making progress. But, what does this really mean? The regional rulers have found that it is in their best interest to support us, NOW. But, will they change their support as the political winds change? Yes, they don’t care about the global situation. They don’t even care about the total Iraq situation. And, if they see that the US is supporting another rival group more than the US is supporting them, then they will change their allegiance.

The reality here is that was are supporting Sunis in Suni areas. And, we are supporting Shia in Shia areas. And, with all of the ethnic cleansing that has happened over the last few years these divides are greater than they were in the past. This means that the divisions in the country are actually becoming more not less profound. On this current course Iraq is moving toward a greater division along sectarian lines. And, without a way to share natural resources among these groups we are heading toward the traditionally difined civil war in which Suni areas organize Suni armies and militias to fight Shia armies and militias in Shia areas. In other words, current US policy is enabling factions to organize, strengthen and eventually fight each other in organized fronts. Is this positive or negative from a US perspective?

But, at the current time the current salespeople will continue to sell the current policy and continue to avoid the issues that they don’t want us to see. They are acting like any “good” salesperson. And, it is our responsibility to see through the candy coated illusion and pull out the reality, as ugly as it really is.





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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

I would like to submit for your consideration the following statement - The Democrats have been too nice in their rhetoric up until today.

During the 2004 election campaign the single most damaging group were the Swiftboaters, who hijacked John Kerry’s reputation. They were able to persuade enough voters in Ohio to vote against John Kerry and thus putting George W Bush into the White House for a second term. The Swiftboaters took lies and spread them around enough that enough gullible people actually bought the lies and voted for the guy that they believed to be more honest and trustworthy. It was like watching the OJ Simpson trial again - pathetic.

But, at least up until today I felt that I could be proud to support the opposition to this evil administration. At least I felt that truth was being used to fend off the created misinformation intended to spread fear. Yesterday, however, a group associated with the left, MoveOn.org, has pushed the rhetoric to equal the Swiftboaters of the 2004 campaign. They published a simple name calling advertisement in the New York Times. They said, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us.”

The question is not whether name-calling is allowed or not allowed. Obviously in the free society that we live in we all have the right to free speech. The question is not whether this advertisement will influence people. It obviously will bolster those who are against the war in Iraq. And, it will persuade a few of the people who might be questioning the war. But, like with the Swiftboaters who used name-calling against John Kerry it won’t change the minds of those who have already made up their minds. Like the Swiftboaters ads, this ad does not only questions General Petraeus’ patriotism, but by extension it is meant to challenge supporters of his policy to question their own.

So, was this a good idea?

An action is only a good idea if it achieves its goal. So, in order to understand whether the New York Times ad was a good idea it is important to understand what its goal was. So, what was the goal of this advertisement?

I am personally unsure of what the purpose of this ad was. I am only certain to understand what the goal was not. The goal of the ad was not to influence the members of congress to change their votes. Although many who don’t follow politics very closely may be affected by attacks on their patriotism members of congress are generally above questioning their own patriotism. They are much too certain about their own patriotism and much of everything else they do to be influenced in this way. No, this ad is aimed at someone who is uncertain about whether they should support the war mainly because they don’t spend enough time studying the information about the war. The target of this ad could only be meant for someone who is sophisticated enough to know who General Petraeus is, but not sophisticated enough to have made a decision about the war in Iraq. Does this person really exist? I am guessing that the goal of the ad must be to influence this hypothetical person to jump on the anti-war band wagon. So, I am guessing that the ad was not a good idea, because the target of this ad does not exist.

However, let us assume that the ad has another goal; it does not have the obvious goal of this obvious ad. Perhaps the goal was simply to bolster the base of anti-war activists by producing a symbol to rally the troops around. This actually makes some sense, because the anti-war group has been feeling dejected as of late. They have managed to pull some levers of power to influence a majority of congress to vote against the war. But, they have been exacerbated by the inability to climb over the President’s veto power. This advertisement being put out their for all to see must strike a chord among those who have put out such a large effort only to be rebuked at the gates. If this was the goal, then it surely has achieved a bit of success among the most extreme anti-war members.

But, if this was truly the goal of the ad, did it provide the rally point without damaging the cause? Because, the overall goal of the cause has higher priority than the goal of the ad itself. There are people who have worked hard to rally the people, that actually respect the military. These are generally people who have served in the military and they respect the work that the military does when it has guidance from a sane Commander-In-Chief. These people are serious and they don’t like name-calling directed toward the people that they respect. This group may become lukewarm to the type of ad taken out in the New York Times yesterday, if they respect generals like General Petraeus. And, this is why every congressman who supports the war and spoke during the hearings yesterday pointed out the ad in the New York Times. They wanted to win back some of these people.

There used to be a time when maturity was a respected attribute. People had an idea of what a mature person would do in a particular situation. This ideal of maturity was used to constrain and control people, because a large majority of society tried to “act” mature. This meant that people followed protocol, had manners and behaved in expected ways. Name-calling was considered immature behavior, and shunned. In an effort to reform society many accepted behaviors were questioned and often changed for the better. The strange turn about over the last few years was that the Conservative Right had embraced name-calling in its effort to appeal to those who spent less time following the details of everyday politics. Name-calling worked as a rally cry to swell the ranks of conservatives, giving votes to many. Often, like the case of the Swiftboaters who attacked John Kerry, the name-calling didn’t seem to deserve a response. It was ironic that the conservatives that raised the war banner to fight against the fall of civil society pulled down the last pillar of civil discourse to fight its battle. But, now the left has abandoned civil order as well.

The main question becomes - Is it too late reestablish civil discussion and debate?

If we all resort to name-calling, everyone stops listening to each other. Arguments become pointless. And, progress can not be made. If the Left follows the lead of the right and follows the example of MoveOn.org to call those we disagree with names, then progress will not be made. Let us not lower the playing field to the level of the right in an attempt to level the playing field.





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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

The sub-prime lending crisis is another opportunity for us to test our math skills.

My children never seem to stop asking me the question: “When will I ever use math in real life?” Just the other day my daughter and her friend got into an argument as to which was more useful, statistics or calculus. I could resist the urge to say, “They are both important, we use calculus to calculate some very complicated statistics problems.” But, the truth is that the average American tries to avoid math at every opportunity.

The Christian Science Monitor used the ignorance of the American public to create a shocking graph and fear mongering story on the crisis. I don’t understand the reason for this obvious exaggeration of the lending crisis. Maybe its just to sell more papers. Maybe there is another reason. I honestly don’t know. But the graph and the story make it look like the world is crashing down all around us. The truth is bad enough for the people that this crisis effects. Why do we need to create panic among the rest of the people?

First of all lets look at the graph that the Christian Science Monitor published. It can be found here.

I reproduced the graph from the data presented. It looks like this:



This graph gives the impression that housing prices are going up, and then suddenly the bottom has dropped out this year. What the graph really shows is the housing bubble. If you read this graph more closely we see that the graph shows the percent increase from the year before. In a good economic situation we would like all objects to hold real value. We don’t like it when our car gets old and we need to buy a new one. The truth of the matter is that things age and fall apart. Similarly houses age and fall apart. But houses age slowly. Another reality is that inflation is real. In an ideal economic situation a house would be bought at a price, and at some time later it would be sold for the same price taking into account aging and inflation. And, a very low constant inflation rate would be the best situation.

When we move away from the ideal situation we suffer. This is because eventually the market catches up to the reality. This action in the housing market is known as bursting of the bubble. So, if we look at the reality of the situation the way that we all think about this we would come away with a calmer outlook on this crisis. I am not saying that there isn’t a crisis. Obviously people who bought houses last year are actually going to have loans for amounts that are greater than the current value of their home. Similarly many people were swindled into borrowing money that they could most likely never be able to pay back. But, the crisis isn’t as dire as the Christian Science Monitor suggests in this article.



If we look at this same information in the way we normally would we see something much different. We see a house purchased in 1987 for 100% of its 1987 value. We can see the price of the house rise to over 300% of its 1987 value in 2006. Then in 2007 the price of the house falls to 294% of its 1987 value. These questions must be asked: “Is the person who’s house fell in value from 302% to 294% of its 1987 value really suffering very much? Have these people really lost anything that they deserved to have?”

The point here is that if you bought a house last year, and you want to sell it now you might have a problem. However, if you bought your house two years ago or more you have no problem even if you want to sell it today. Your house is worth less than what it was last year, but last year people were willing to pay more than its was actually worth. Most likely they are still willing to pay more than it is really worth, even though it is less than it was recently worth.

This sounds confusing, because people have a hard time realizing that 2007 dollars and 1987 dollars are not necessarily the same. People also don’t always understand percentages. And, in this case “percentage of change in price from the previous year” is not a clear concept. But, the real question is “Why would the Christian Science Monitor want to confuse the general public with this article?”





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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

In less than a month General David H. Petraeus is supposed to tell congress what the situation is in Iraq. People on the ground in Iraq already have a very good idea as to what is going on. The strategy for the last eight months has been to increase the troop strength in Iraq in order to calm the insurgents and allow the political process to go forward. The increase in American troops in Iraq has a definitive window of time. Without a draft we only have so many troops to dedicate to this plan. We can take away, or reduce leave time, but the long term implication of that strategy is the reduce the moral of the troops. American troops are people too, and they can only sacrifice so long before the pain becomes to great. The suicide rate for American troops continues to increase, which is some abstract measure of the stress involved in this effort.

While the window created for political action is limited the Iraqi government has chosen to withdraw and take vacation. The time is being wasted and it is running out. On the American side, much of the government is also on vacation. The president has taken a break from putting pressure on the Iraqi leaders.

General David H. Petraeus has told us himself that the only solution in Iraq is a political one. We can not use force to make the insurgents give up hope and surrender. The insurgents are driven by moral belief that what they are doing is for the greater good. They believe that the inhuman acts that they commit are worth it in the long run because they believe that they know the greater good. They have the same belief that Karl Rove had in his vision to win at any cost - the election victory is worth the lies and deception used to acquire that win. People who think that they know the right answer believe that the ends justify the means, whatever those means should be.

Of course when there are several groups that all believe that they have the truth, and that truth is not universal, then we have a recipe for civil war. Peace can only be accomplished by compromise. But like the situation in our political world, compromise is not an option for the majority of citizens.

This idea can not be changed over night. We can look at the situation in our own country for an example. Republicans don’t want to compromise, so they vote the party line. Democrats don’t want to compromise, so they vote the party line. We are getting nowhere fast. How then can we expect Iraqis to behave any differently when they look to us for an example?

Well, George W Bush knows this. He knows that we can’t win in Iraq by force alone. He knows that political action isn’t likely to happen. He knows that General Petraeus doesn’t have good news for us in September. So, George W Bush doesn’t want him to testify publicly.

George W Bush doesn’t want the public to hear General Petraeus tells us the truth about Iraq. He doesn’t want General Petraeus to tell us that this war can not be won by the use of American force. He doesn’t want the public to hear the truth about his failure from the mouth of the man who has been put there to make it happen. George W Bush knows that if General Petraeus tells us the truth the Republicans who have been supporting him will finally say enough is enough. A Republican politician would not have a chance in any political race if they continue to support the Iraq War after General Petraeus tells us the truth. So, George W Bush knows that the best strategy is to have General Petraeus’ testimony classified as a national security issue held behind closed doors so that the Republicans that continue to support the war will not be forced to change that support. Is this Karl Rove’s final obfuscation?

I’ve been called a Bush hater in the past. But, that certainly isn’t the case. I have always seen George W Bush caught up in politics like a whirlwind that he couldn’t control. He doesn’t have much of an imagination, so he is the idea candidate for a group of people that have their own ideas to imprint on him. These people wanted an actor to speak to the people while they wrote the script. George W Bush has done that job, even though his reading of the script wasn’t quite as good as Ronald Reagan’s. But, his quirks were accepted by the people who could relate to his inarticulate manor by identification. This is a good strategy for getting a predetermined agenda taken care of. But, when history brings challenges, imagination is the key to success. I sympathize with George W Bush sitting in the oval office as each tragedy hit our country through his term, and he had no answers. He sat there hoping that the people he appointed could come up with something. But, he had no vision and could not know if those ideas were any good. He was eager to flex American power and prove himself, so the Iraq War wasn’t a problem when Cheney or Rumsfeld or Wolfewitz suggested it. I don’t hate George W Bush for this short coming. I hate the sin, not the sinner. And, I have a problem with the American people who couldn’t see through the propaganda created by Karl Rove to sway the people in the elections. I hope and pray that Americans will learn from this failure of oversight and finally pay close attention to who they elect, and why. In that back of my mind I know that this is just a pipe dream.




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





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection