The recent diplomatic gains in relations with North Korea (DPRK) are being quietly heralded as a victory of the foreign policy of this Administration. But, again, as with everything coming from the White House in the last nearly eight years, the American people should be aware that this White House is run by liars. What truth has come from this Administration? Iraq, oil, national security, the environment, the economy? And, now, in the closing days of the Bush administration, we see this coming from the Oval Office when it could and should have been done long ago.
North Korea, for many reasons, has been willing to come to the bargaining tables over its nuclear program for most of this Administration’s tenure. North Korea has become, as a consequence of its long-running intractability on diplomatic issues and unending calls for aid, a pariah, shunned even by its historic sponsor, China. Through poor management, North Korea has led its people through an almost continuous regime of near-famine, alleviated only by food assistance from other nations, most particularly those currently engaged in the negotiations. North Korea’s economy and technology both have lagged tremendously in its attempts to compete on a world market that is mostly closed to them.
As a consequence of isolation and the resultant hardship, North Korea has long sought talks on disarmament, but needed the ability to save face in the eyes of its people, and, to an extent, the world. The Bush administration has heretofore consistently refused such diplomatic concessions and sought instead to pursue a policy of provocation. Only in the last couple of years has the White House pursued a more relaxed approach, forcing the timing of the negotiations to coincide with this Administration’s close. Do they hope to somehow be remembered, as Ronald Reagan is, for finally breaking a long-standing political and ideological deadlock and bring about the end of Communism in North Korea? If so, it would be advised that Bush and company realize that North Korea, and its consequences, is tiny in relation to the world-and-history-changing progress Reagan effected with the Soviet Union. One must also remember that the U.S. is not the sole actor in these negotiations. China, Japan, South Korea (ROK) and Russia have all been at the tables more consistently, effectively and enthusiastically than the U.S. In fact, this administration, in labeling North Korea a member of the “Axis of Terror” and a state sponsor of terrorist organizations, did much to delay these current talks.
It seems to this writer that the Administration has sought to leave office with at least one credit to its legacy, and even that one is tainted by apparent deception. And now too, the Bush White House wants to get on board with talking with Iran about their uranium enrichment program. All of a sudden, this White House is taking the advice of Barack Obama?
So many deceptions, so little time left to make a positive impression.
The White House is now embracing diplomatic moves across a wide range of fronts that closely resemble the announcements of Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s intentions for improving foreign policy and opening talks where the Republican White House has long refused. This shift also seems to undermine Republican candidate John McCain’s own assertions that he would refuse to deal with these “terrorists” and “thugs”. It seems that Bush has decided, regardless of the cost, to polish the image of his presidency in its waning days. Perhaps the intention is to give Republican candidates for lower offices a chance to recover from a negative international party image and avert the disaster that appears to await them this fall. It is hard to believe that, in the final days of office, the Bush administration has finally figured it out. It is equally hard to believe that the Administration is seeking to ease the international diplomatic path for whomever their successors might be. In any event, it must be remembered that this better news on the foreign relations front comes from the Obama playbook, not the Republicans’.
25 July 2008
24 July 2008
Georgetown Housing Authority, Nyla Small, and Lawncare
Nyla Small, acting Director of Georgetown’s Housing Authority has decided to have the Authority’s maintenance crew mow all lawns under the authority’s control, at least in the Scroggins Park area. No justification has been provided publicly. Now, on the surface, this action might seem beneficial for Scroggins Park residents, but it is not. For many years, maintenance crews have performed lawn mowing for the elderly and disabled, for whom said service is obviously advantageous. However, Ms. Small has also decided that there will be a thirty dollar fee for removal of items left in the yards of those whose lawns are to be mowed. This will amount to a minimum of one hundred twenty dollars per month for residents who have “items” on their lawn. Items may include lawn furniture or the forgotten child’s toy.
I may not have up-to-date information with which to work, but I believe that the average assistance for Park residents is probably around a thousand dollars, with some getting as little as six hundred. Still, Ms. Small wants to take as much as 20% from the already poor so that she can have a spotless, no furnishings, no decorations, no plants, and, certainly, no children’s toys, lawnscape in her Authority. Scroggins Park residents have done a decent job of maintaining their own lawns from what I have seen. Some have even put in time, money, and effort to improve the overall appearance. Why does Ms. Small want to take that self-expression from her residents?
Ms. Small offers this blanket service wresting freedom and some measure of self-determination from her residents, giving them no option to maintain their own lawns. In this move, Ms. Small takes some of the dignity that certain residents enjoyed in maintaining their lawns and even winning awards for their previous efforts. No justification has been offered, and Ms. Small has said that she can’t understand the upset, as the Authority is doing everything they can for everybody. I would posit that this attitude is much akin to the Conquistadors wondering why the Americans were upset for the new landscape, for which they were forced to pay, brought upon them.
This new Housing Authority policy is government run amok. The policy promotes uniformity where diversity should be permitted. This policy should be abandoned as it unnecessarily infringes upon freedom in the one place a person should most expect to be free- the home. It is, philosophically, an extension of the conservative homogeneity practice by which the common good is touted as an excuse to undermine the very principles of liberty and freedom on which America is supposedly founded. This policy of enforced lawn care is draconian, totalitarian, and fascist. Though it is evident that the matter may be perceived as trivial, the underlying attitude revealed is one that must be addressed. This is not a good-natured attempt to help; it is an ill-mannered attempt to control.
I may not have up-to-date information with which to work, but I believe that the average assistance for Park residents is probably around a thousand dollars, with some getting as little as six hundred. Still, Ms. Small wants to take as much as 20% from the already poor so that she can have a spotless, no furnishings, no decorations, no plants, and, certainly, no children’s toys, lawnscape in her Authority. Scroggins Park residents have done a decent job of maintaining their own lawns from what I have seen. Some have even put in time, money, and effort to improve the overall appearance. Why does Ms. Small want to take that self-expression from her residents?
Ms. Small offers this blanket service wresting freedom and some measure of self-determination from her residents, giving them no option to maintain their own lawns. In this move, Ms. Small takes some of the dignity that certain residents enjoyed in maintaining their lawns and even winning awards for their previous efforts. No justification has been offered, and Ms. Small has said that she can’t understand the upset, as the Authority is doing everything they can for everybody. I would posit that this attitude is much akin to the Conquistadors wondering why the Americans were upset for the new landscape, for which they were forced to pay, brought upon them.
This new Housing Authority policy is government run amok. The policy promotes uniformity where diversity should be permitted. This policy should be abandoned as it unnecessarily infringes upon freedom in the one place a person should most expect to be free- the home. It is, philosophically, an extension of the conservative homogeneity practice by which the common good is touted as an excuse to undermine the very principles of liberty and freedom on which America is supposedly founded. This policy of enforced lawn care is draconian, totalitarian, and fascist. Though it is evident that the matter may be perceived as trivial, the underlying attitude revealed is one that must be addressed. This is not a good-natured attempt to help; it is an ill-mannered attempt to control.
16 July 2008
Republican National Committee Survey
The Republican National Committee sent me a survey on Friday, and I wanted to share some of the details with you, as it sparked some thoughts on my part as to the state of the Republican Party.
Carly Fiorina is John McCain’s Chair of the Republican’s “Victory” 2008 Committee. She boasts of being the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and claims that electing John McCain and winning back Congress is critical to economic and national security. John McCain’s enclosure calls Carly “ a remarkable American success story.” What Carly and John leave out is that she is former CEO of HP, and with apparent good reason. Following HP’s merger with Compaq, and dismal subsequent performance, Ms. Fiorina was forced out; HP’s profits and operations improved spectacularly in the post-Fiorina era.
The survey’s accompanying letter from Ms. Fiorina states that I have received this survey, “Because of your high level of political involvement and steadfast commitment to the Republican Party…” Guess her research skills are no better than her business management.
Of course the letter also asks for donations. Based on other contents in the mailing, the Republican Party seems to consider me a “Republican leader”.
In the following, I will discourse on the contents of the survey and my responses to the various questions, along with providing some insight into my reasoning. Most of the questions offer three options: yes, no, or undecided. However the questions usually present false if, then and either/or dichotomies to which the true answers are more complicated than suggested. It is a known fact that presenting questions like this cause the respondent to be more agreeable with the preferred position, as most respondents will go with the yes if they partially agree with the statement/question. This is one method employed to manipulate the response and, therefore, the statistics. This method also produces statistically unreliable results.
1. Do you think Congress should respond to the economic slowdown with a plan of tax cuts to stimulate the economy? I responded no, because those tax cuts will disproportionately favor the wealthy and corporations. The average American, with an income under $30,000, after all is said and done, pays almost 47% in taxes, fees and surcharges; the average American or corporation earning over $250,00 pays only about 25%. Furthermore, Bush’s tax rebates have done nothing to help the economy.
2. Do you believe our economy will grow if we cut taxes and put more money in the hands of hardworking Americans who pay taxes? I responded yes, given that both conditions are met. But the McCain economic plan puts only an extra twelve dollars in the hands of low income Americans, while giving the wealthy a third back on their already lower realized taxation.
3. Do you think the unemployment insurance system needs to be modernized to meet the goals of helping displaced workers? I responded yes, because the majority of unemployed Americans find themselves w/out any assistance whatsoever. The unemployment claims figures for the U.S. are misleading, as most unemployed persons are unqualified to even file a claim.
4. Which of the following factors do you feel is most adversely affecting the economy in your area? This was multiple choice, including: Taxes, Real Estate, Terrorism, Regulation, Gov’t Spending, Fuel Prices, and Other. I marked Other and filled in “irresponsible economic, foreign and national security policy”.
5. Which of the following is the single most important economic issue facing you and your family? Another multiple choice: Health Care, Fuel Price, Taxes, Inflation, Mortgage Crisis, and Other. Again, Other; “all of the above”.
6. Do you believe that reducing the federal deficit should be a top priority? I responded no, for various complex economic reasons. Running a deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. If the money coming in today will beat that owed for tomorrow, deficits work. Nearly all business runs on deficit, as do many households; the danger is only in over-extension. At the personal level, where truly favorable rates are near impossible, deficit spending is incredibly dangerous; but, at the corporate/governmental level, deficits have been proven profitable. The U.S., with the world’s still largest economy, can operate in deficit mode as long as the management understands the principles behind financed prosperity.
7. Do you think the government should reduce regulations and provide tax incentives to encourage small business growth? I responded undecided. This is a two part question, and any thinking person could have two different answers. The question also suggests a false positive relationship between the two suggestions. This question specifically illustrates my comment above about manipulative surveys and statistics. This question also begs many others. Which regulations should be reduced? What sort of tax incentives should be enacted? Certainly, small businesses should see the same sort of incentives as larger ones to help ensure successful startups, but, at the same time, de-regulation will lead to abuses like those the regulations were originally intended to halt. Then again, many localized regulations are intended to protect the powerbases of, and prevent competition with, the established local interests.
8. Do you think the U.S. Tax Code should be made simpler and fairer? I responded yes, with the understanding that the Republicans do not have a plan to make this actually happen except to the disadvantage of the disadvantaged. Essentially the same issues raised in 1. and 2.
9. Do you agree that the government should aggressively rein in spending? Yes, but not in accordance with the Republican model.
10. Should pork-barrel spending be completely eliminated? Yes, but there needs to be a method adopted to address the many legitimate issues currently funded via pork-barrel (legislative bill rider clauses). Also, pork-barrel is the current and historic method for arriving at consensus; many critical pieces of legislation would never have passed without rider clauses sponsoring unrelated issues. Pork-barrel is the equivalent of legislative bribery; one agrees to a rider for a certain legislator in order to secure his/her affirmative vote on the primary bill.
As for these last three questions in the survey’s Jobs and Economy section, I wrote to the side that the Republicans don’t have a plan for any of this. They don’t; they have no workable plan to affect any of this.
The next section related to national security, an area in which the Bush administration has greatly harmed us.
1. Should the first foreign policy priority of the next President be winning the war against radical Islamic extremists? I responded No. The next President’s first foreign policy priority should be to repair the global relations strained and damaged by the Republican-backed War of Terror. Only united can the world confront the threats of militancy and radicalism; as we have seen in the last several years, unilateral action only succeeds in breeding more terrorists.
2. Should America surrender in Iraq regardless of the consequences in the Middle East? Yes; hey, didn’t you guys declare mission accomplished three years ago? This would be a belated withdrawal from a successful mission, quit fear-mongering. Iraq has a government, Hussein is no longer in charge, what more are you after? Oil?
3. Do you agree with Democrats who believe national defense spending should be slashed in order to fund domestic programs? I responded Yes. That national defense spending would not have expanded into position threatening domestic programs were it not for the Republican-backed deceit of the illegal Iraq War. If we were going after terrorists, why did we send so few to where the terrorists really were?
4. Do you support giving our law enforcement the tools they need to monitor terrorist communications? No, the tools have been there for years, there is no reason to create additional civil liberties violations to cover for incompetence.
5. Do you believe we should set a public date for withdrawing from Iraq even if it undermines our troops in the field? Undecided because the question is stupid. There are ways to go about a withdrawal that will not require a public date, or, there are ways to announce a date and still effect the pull-out. Any competent Infantry NCO could plan the broad operations necessary.
The final relevant section of the survey covers other issues.
1. Should we appoint judges who will interpret the law instead of liberal activists who will make new laws from the bench? No, this is a really bad question in that it conveys a false idea- that judges can make new laws. Judges can only interpret and limit or strike down laws. Although there have been cases where “liberal activist” judges have interpreted law to the favor of their opinion without regard to the law, in the last eight years, that tendency towards illegal activism has been seen more on the part of conservative activist judges like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia, in a recent dissenting against the call for any credible legal process for Guantanamo inmates, said essentially that he would prefer that the Constitution of the U.S. be violated than that Americans be placed at risk from foreign terrorists. His logic and reason were both as flawed as the current Republican platform.
2. Is it critical for the U.S. to develop alternative sources of energy and find new supplies of oil in order to slow inflation and keep fuel affordable? Again a statistically irrelevant and misleading two-part question suggesting false relationship and requiring separate answers, based upon information. Yes, the U.S. should develop alternative energy sources, but no, the U.S. does not need to locate new supplies of oil. However, the Republicans have erroneously led us down the counter-productive corn-ethanol road. As for oil supplies, it was accidentally revealed during the First Gulf War, via the government and published in Newsweek or Time, that domestic U.S. fields and production can provide for a doubled 1991 consumption rate for 150 years, so, please quit lying to us.
3. Do you think we should work to give parents with children trapped in failing schools more choices to help their children have a better future. Yes, but why not raise teacher/administrator competence levels through the utilization of European modeled programs proven to work; and, why is the single largest U.S. education expense athletics and its attendant insurance costs? Just stupid.
4. How do you think Congress should best address the looming Social Security crisis. I responded other, Invest intelligently. The crisis is nowhere near as bad as depicted in the media, and can easily be averted. A 2% increase in taxation of large corporations and those earning over $250,000 (both groups currently paying less relative to the general population anyway) will extend the lifespan of Social security sufficiently to see the baby boomers die off with a resulting decrease in demand as subsequent generations have been smaller.
5. Do you believe that individuals should be allowed to privately manage a set percentage of Social Security tax into a personal account. Yes, but those individuals should be given instruction in the workings of the stock market. In fact, dry and dull as such instruction might be, such instruction should be instituted into secondary education for all Americans. It is a great failing of the U.S. that its citizens are never instructed on the primary vehicles of wealth generation available in this country.
6. Do you believe that forcing every American into a socialized national health care system is the best way to deal with uninsured patients? No, but why do you continue to make this an all-or-nothing issue when many European countries have found combinative systems that work better? Why not have the system automatically available with an opt-out program instead. Again, a misleading and statistically irrelevant either–or question that ignores the spectrum of possibility.
7. Which political party do you feel is best able to handle each of the following issues? Iraq, Radical Extremists, Taxes, Health Care, Federal Spending, Social Security, National Defense, Foreign Policy, Environment, Economy, Immigration, Energy, Education, Protecting Traditional Values. I responded Democratic Party to all of these save immigration, on which I am undecided. This last Traditional Values worries me greatly and suggests, as such phraseology always has, fascism. The Nazi’s, the Communists, the Fascists all purported to protect traditional values. Whose traditional values do you mean? If you meant those espoused in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights of the U.S., shouldn’t you have made that obvious?
Finally, the Republicans have completely abandoned their core values of smaller government, lower taxes, new jobs and a strong national defense. In the last eight years, America has, under Republican leadership, seen its domestic and international stature reduced and has seen nothing of smaller government, lower taxes, new jobs and a strong national defense. We are weaker in all areas than we were in 2000, we cannot now even consider additional military operations, even in our own defense, for any purpose because of the foolhardiness and shortsightedness of the Republican Party
Carly Fiorina is John McCain’s Chair of the Republican’s “Victory” 2008 Committee. She boasts of being the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and claims that electing John McCain and winning back Congress is critical to economic and national security. John McCain’s enclosure calls Carly “ a remarkable American success story.” What Carly and John leave out is that she is former CEO of HP, and with apparent good reason. Following HP’s merger with Compaq, and dismal subsequent performance, Ms. Fiorina was forced out; HP’s profits and operations improved spectacularly in the post-Fiorina era.
The survey’s accompanying letter from Ms. Fiorina states that I have received this survey, “Because of your high level of political involvement and steadfast commitment to the Republican Party…” Guess her research skills are no better than her business management.
Of course the letter also asks for donations. Based on other contents in the mailing, the Republican Party seems to consider me a “Republican leader”.
In the following, I will discourse on the contents of the survey and my responses to the various questions, along with providing some insight into my reasoning. Most of the questions offer three options: yes, no, or undecided. However the questions usually present false if, then and either/or dichotomies to which the true answers are more complicated than suggested. It is a known fact that presenting questions like this cause the respondent to be more agreeable with the preferred position, as most respondents will go with the yes if they partially agree with the statement/question. This is one method employed to manipulate the response and, therefore, the statistics. This method also produces statistically unreliable results.
1. Do you think Congress should respond to the economic slowdown with a plan of tax cuts to stimulate the economy? I responded no, because those tax cuts will disproportionately favor the wealthy and corporations. The average American, with an income under $30,000, after all is said and done, pays almost 47% in taxes, fees and surcharges; the average American or corporation earning over $250,00 pays only about 25%. Furthermore, Bush’s tax rebates have done nothing to help the economy.
2. Do you believe our economy will grow if we cut taxes and put more money in the hands of hardworking Americans who pay taxes? I responded yes, given that both conditions are met. But the McCain economic plan puts only an extra twelve dollars in the hands of low income Americans, while giving the wealthy a third back on their already lower realized taxation.
3. Do you think the unemployment insurance system needs to be modernized to meet the goals of helping displaced workers? I responded yes, because the majority of unemployed Americans find themselves w/out any assistance whatsoever. The unemployment claims figures for the U.S. are misleading, as most unemployed persons are unqualified to even file a claim.
4. Which of the following factors do you feel is most adversely affecting the economy in your area? This was multiple choice, including: Taxes, Real Estate, Terrorism, Regulation, Gov’t Spending, Fuel Prices, and Other. I marked Other and filled in “irresponsible economic, foreign and national security policy”.
5. Which of the following is the single most important economic issue facing you and your family? Another multiple choice: Health Care, Fuel Price, Taxes, Inflation, Mortgage Crisis, and Other. Again, Other; “all of the above”.
6. Do you believe that reducing the federal deficit should be a top priority? I responded no, for various complex economic reasons. Running a deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. If the money coming in today will beat that owed for tomorrow, deficits work. Nearly all business runs on deficit, as do many households; the danger is only in over-extension. At the personal level, where truly favorable rates are near impossible, deficit spending is incredibly dangerous; but, at the corporate/governmental level, deficits have been proven profitable. The U.S., with the world’s still largest economy, can operate in deficit mode as long as the management understands the principles behind financed prosperity.
7. Do you think the government should reduce regulations and provide tax incentives to encourage small business growth? I responded undecided. This is a two part question, and any thinking person could have two different answers. The question also suggests a false positive relationship between the two suggestions. This question specifically illustrates my comment above about manipulative surveys and statistics. This question also begs many others. Which regulations should be reduced? What sort of tax incentives should be enacted? Certainly, small businesses should see the same sort of incentives as larger ones to help ensure successful startups, but, at the same time, de-regulation will lead to abuses like those the regulations were originally intended to halt. Then again, many localized regulations are intended to protect the powerbases of, and prevent competition with, the established local interests.
8. Do you think the U.S. Tax Code should be made simpler and fairer? I responded yes, with the understanding that the Republicans do not have a plan to make this actually happen except to the disadvantage of the disadvantaged. Essentially the same issues raised in 1. and 2.
9. Do you agree that the government should aggressively rein in spending? Yes, but not in accordance with the Republican model.
10. Should pork-barrel spending be completely eliminated? Yes, but there needs to be a method adopted to address the many legitimate issues currently funded via pork-barrel (legislative bill rider clauses). Also, pork-barrel is the current and historic method for arriving at consensus; many critical pieces of legislation would never have passed without rider clauses sponsoring unrelated issues. Pork-barrel is the equivalent of legislative bribery; one agrees to a rider for a certain legislator in order to secure his/her affirmative vote on the primary bill.
As for these last three questions in the survey’s Jobs and Economy section, I wrote to the side that the Republicans don’t have a plan for any of this. They don’t; they have no workable plan to affect any of this.
The next section related to national security, an area in which the Bush administration has greatly harmed us.
1. Should the first foreign policy priority of the next President be winning the war against radical Islamic extremists? I responded No. The next President’s first foreign policy priority should be to repair the global relations strained and damaged by the Republican-backed War of Terror. Only united can the world confront the threats of militancy and radicalism; as we have seen in the last several years, unilateral action only succeeds in breeding more terrorists.
2. Should America surrender in Iraq regardless of the consequences in the Middle East? Yes; hey, didn’t you guys declare mission accomplished three years ago? This would be a belated withdrawal from a successful mission, quit fear-mongering. Iraq has a government, Hussein is no longer in charge, what more are you after? Oil?
3. Do you agree with Democrats who believe national defense spending should be slashed in order to fund domestic programs? I responded Yes. That national defense spending would not have expanded into position threatening domestic programs were it not for the Republican-backed deceit of the illegal Iraq War. If we were going after terrorists, why did we send so few to where the terrorists really were?
4. Do you support giving our law enforcement the tools they need to monitor terrorist communications? No, the tools have been there for years, there is no reason to create additional civil liberties violations to cover for incompetence.
5. Do you believe we should set a public date for withdrawing from Iraq even if it undermines our troops in the field? Undecided because the question is stupid. There are ways to go about a withdrawal that will not require a public date, or, there are ways to announce a date and still effect the pull-out. Any competent Infantry NCO could plan the broad operations necessary.
The final relevant section of the survey covers other issues.
1. Should we appoint judges who will interpret the law instead of liberal activists who will make new laws from the bench? No, this is a really bad question in that it conveys a false idea- that judges can make new laws. Judges can only interpret and limit or strike down laws. Although there have been cases where “liberal activist” judges have interpreted law to the favor of their opinion without regard to the law, in the last eight years, that tendency towards illegal activism has been seen more on the part of conservative activist judges like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia, in a recent dissenting against the call for any credible legal process for Guantanamo inmates, said essentially that he would prefer that the Constitution of the U.S. be violated than that Americans be placed at risk from foreign terrorists. His logic and reason were both as flawed as the current Republican platform.
2. Is it critical for the U.S. to develop alternative sources of energy and find new supplies of oil in order to slow inflation and keep fuel affordable? Again a statistically irrelevant and misleading two-part question suggesting false relationship and requiring separate answers, based upon information. Yes, the U.S. should develop alternative energy sources, but no, the U.S. does not need to locate new supplies of oil. However, the Republicans have erroneously led us down the counter-productive corn-ethanol road. As for oil supplies, it was accidentally revealed during the First Gulf War, via the government and published in Newsweek or Time, that domestic U.S. fields and production can provide for a doubled 1991 consumption rate for 150 years, so, please quit lying to us.
3. Do you think we should work to give parents with children trapped in failing schools more choices to help their children have a better future. Yes, but why not raise teacher/administrator competence levels through the utilization of European modeled programs proven to work; and, why is the single largest U.S. education expense athletics and its attendant insurance costs? Just stupid.
4. How do you think Congress should best address the looming Social Security crisis. I responded other, Invest intelligently. The crisis is nowhere near as bad as depicted in the media, and can easily be averted. A 2% increase in taxation of large corporations and those earning over $250,000 (both groups currently paying less relative to the general population anyway) will extend the lifespan of Social security sufficiently to see the baby boomers die off with a resulting decrease in demand as subsequent generations have been smaller.
5. Do you believe that individuals should be allowed to privately manage a set percentage of Social Security tax into a personal account. Yes, but those individuals should be given instruction in the workings of the stock market. In fact, dry and dull as such instruction might be, such instruction should be instituted into secondary education for all Americans. It is a great failing of the U.S. that its citizens are never instructed on the primary vehicles of wealth generation available in this country.
6. Do you believe that forcing every American into a socialized national health care system is the best way to deal with uninsured patients? No, but why do you continue to make this an all-or-nothing issue when many European countries have found combinative systems that work better? Why not have the system automatically available with an opt-out program instead. Again, a misleading and statistically irrelevant either–or question that ignores the spectrum of possibility.
7. Which political party do you feel is best able to handle each of the following issues? Iraq, Radical Extremists, Taxes, Health Care, Federal Spending, Social Security, National Defense, Foreign Policy, Environment, Economy, Immigration, Energy, Education, Protecting Traditional Values. I responded Democratic Party to all of these save immigration, on which I am undecided. This last Traditional Values worries me greatly and suggests, as such phraseology always has, fascism. The Nazi’s, the Communists, the Fascists all purported to protect traditional values. Whose traditional values do you mean? If you meant those espoused in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights of the U.S., shouldn’t you have made that obvious?
Finally, the Republicans have completely abandoned their core values of smaller government, lower taxes, new jobs and a strong national defense. In the last eight years, America has, under Republican leadership, seen its domestic and international stature reduced and has seen nothing of smaller government, lower taxes, new jobs and a strong national defense. We are weaker in all areas than we were in 2000, we cannot now even consider additional military operations, even in our own defense, for any purpose because of the foolhardiness and shortsightedness of the Republican Party
09 July 2008
Georgetown,KY Garbage Collection Fiasco
Georgetown cut city garbage collection truck crews by a third, eliminating one of two men per truck who actually picked up garbage from the curb. The effect was to cut the workforce, in terms of amount of physical labor to remove garbage from curb to truck, in half. The driver doesn’t determine how long a route takes; the men on the ground do. The new labor arrangement has caused fully predictable delays in the garbage pick up for many, if not all, residents of Georgetown. Due to the delays, it has been reported that garbage crews were threatened with replacement by private companies if the current crews could not keep up with the schedule.
The cutting of the garbage crews has been blamed upon the necessity to cut costs and save taxpayer dollars. If this labor reduction is meant to offset the rising costs of fuel for the city, it is entirely wrongheaded and shows a lack of fiscal understanding on the part of the city. If the issue is fuel costs, it seems a more reasonable and responsible approach would be to cut fuel consumption rather than labor. By cutting labor, the city has forced the collection process to slow, raising fuel consumption by effectively doubling the amount of time trucks are on the road. The net effect of this will be reflected in increased fuel costs for garbage collection. A saner approach would have been to consolidate routes so that there is less travel in fewer trips from garage to routes. Putting five days’ routes into four days would have increased the daily travel and work load by 25% while reducing engine running time at idle. This would have saved on fuel without hurting the garbage collectors and the residential service. Then again, if the city really wanted to save labor costs in its garbage collection, why not, as has been done successfully in other communities, use the labor of inmates in the county jail?
The threat to privatize brings up interesting points. Why would the city adopt a cost saving plan that hurts employees and reduces service to residents without having positive impact on the true culprit, fuel costs? Why would the city not directly address the real issue by consolidating routes to reduce non-essential travel and idle time? Why would the city, having doubled the garbage collectors’ labor requirement, threaten them with privatization when they expectably fail to maintain the original schedule?
Privatization will not save money for the residents. The only way it can save money for the city is if the private company handles billing itself and gives the city a royalty or permit fee. If this is the case, and it usually is when municipal waste management is privatized, then residents’ bills will go up while the city can plausibly deny responsibility and still collect “fees”. All of this is an apparent effort by the city government to dupe its residents into paying more for services and being able to claim deniability.
All of this taken into account, it seems that perhaps the city government has set about creating the circumstances that will "force" privatization. As the city's decisions stand now, the city has made it nigh on impossible for acceptable garbage collection service to take place barring the introduction of a private company.
The questions then turn to, who in the city government has interests with private waste management or who stands to profit from this arrangement through some unethical, if not outright illegal, kickback scheme? Then again, it seems that the money has been already paid or promised. The interest of the city government is supposed to be the city and its residents; the actions taken and threatened thus far in Georgetown address neither. Therefore, the city government of Georgetown, KY is either incredibly inept or.., well I’ll leave the reader to fill in that blank.
The cutting of the garbage crews has been blamed upon the necessity to cut costs and save taxpayer dollars. If this labor reduction is meant to offset the rising costs of fuel for the city, it is entirely wrongheaded and shows a lack of fiscal understanding on the part of the city. If the issue is fuel costs, it seems a more reasonable and responsible approach would be to cut fuel consumption rather than labor. By cutting labor, the city has forced the collection process to slow, raising fuel consumption by effectively doubling the amount of time trucks are on the road. The net effect of this will be reflected in increased fuel costs for garbage collection. A saner approach would have been to consolidate routes so that there is less travel in fewer trips from garage to routes. Putting five days’ routes into four days would have increased the daily travel and work load by 25% while reducing engine running time at idle. This would have saved on fuel without hurting the garbage collectors and the residential service. Then again, if the city really wanted to save labor costs in its garbage collection, why not, as has been done successfully in other communities, use the labor of inmates in the county jail?
The threat to privatize brings up interesting points. Why would the city adopt a cost saving plan that hurts employees and reduces service to residents without having positive impact on the true culprit, fuel costs? Why would the city not directly address the real issue by consolidating routes to reduce non-essential travel and idle time? Why would the city, having doubled the garbage collectors’ labor requirement, threaten them with privatization when they expectably fail to maintain the original schedule?
Privatization will not save money for the residents. The only way it can save money for the city is if the private company handles billing itself and gives the city a royalty or permit fee. If this is the case, and it usually is when municipal waste management is privatized, then residents’ bills will go up while the city can plausibly deny responsibility and still collect “fees”. All of this is an apparent effort by the city government to dupe its residents into paying more for services and being able to claim deniability.
All of this taken into account, it seems that perhaps the city government has set about creating the circumstances that will "force" privatization. As the city's decisions stand now, the city has made it nigh on impossible for acceptable garbage collection service to take place barring the introduction of a private company.
The questions then turn to, who in the city government has interests with private waste management or who stands to profit from this arrangement through some unethical, if not outright illegal, kickback scheme? Then again, it seems that the money has been already paid or promised. The interest of the city government is supposed to be the city and its residents; the actions taken and threatened thus far in Georgetown address neither. Therefore, the city government of Georgetown, KY is either incredibly inept or.., well I’ll leave the reader to fill in that blank.
06 July 2008
Bush’s Economic Legacy
In recent news, there has been much political profiling over what is wrong with the US economy and how it should be fixed. Inserted as little more than footnotes in most of these reports is the evidence pointing directly to the real culprit- the Bush administration and its large corporate sponsors. Not in recent memory has the American economy been so haphazardly managed to such disastrous result. Or has the management of the US economy been so haphazard? Perhaps there is a plan in effect with our economic woes. As prices on everything have gone up and the dollar has gone down, many corporations, Big Oil in particular, are seeing record profits. Yet, labor costs are falling, as workers are laid off and everyman wages continue to be unreflective of the profits seen by their employers. Has the Administration deliberately engineered a reverse re-distribution of wealth?
This is what has happened in terms of the dollar’s value.
The supply of dollars has doubled during the Bush administration; theoretically, this cuts the value of every dollar in half. Every dollar printed without a corresponding bill being removed from the system increases supply, which automatically reduces value. Interest rates have been lowered; this reduces the dollar’s value on the international market beyond what occurred with the printing of more money. The Fed has not once during this Administration purchased dollars off the currency markets. The purchasing of money by that money’s parent government reduces supply and increases demand. By not buying US dollars off the exchange, the Fed has willfully allowed inflation to find its own level and reduced the value of US currency and goods.
What this means to us.
Prices for just about everything have gone up. Corporations have, in many instances retained their profit margins, meaning that the more we pay, the more they get. Additionally, corporations have been able, thanks to increasing fuel prices, to justify increasing their prices and margins beyond the natural limitations of the inflation caused by Administration economic policy. Additionally, as prices and margins have increased, relative labor costs have decreased, because wages haven’t kept pace with all these increases, artificially inflating margins even higher. This means that while we see more of our money going into purchasing items on the market while our pay fails to compensate for the disproportionate increase in our expenses, the corporations able to benefit from this see record profits enhanced by our need or desire for their products. In short, the Bush administration has made it possible for staple-producing companies to take more of our money and increase their wealth. At no time in my life has an Administration made such a blatant effort to maximize inverted re-distribution of wealth, taking it from the poor to give to the rich. This Administration has reminded the people of America of a time in the Nineteenth Century when robber-barons held court over people forced by circumstance of poverty to accept any treatment from employers to put food on the table.
This is what has happened in terms of the dollar’s value.
The supply of dollars has doubled during the Bush administration; theoretically, this cuts the value of every dollar in half. Every dollar printed without a corresponding bill being removed from the system increases supply, which automatically reduces value. Interest rates have been lowered; this reduces the dollar’s value on the international market beyond what occurred with the printing of more money. The Fed has not once during this Administration purchased dollars off the currency markets. The purchasing of money by that money’s parent government reduces supply and increases demand. By not buying US dollars off the exchange, the Fed has willfully allowed inflation to find its own level and reduced the value of US currency and goods.
What this means to us.
Prices for just about everything have gone up. Corporations have, in many instances retained their profit margins, meaning that the more we pay, the more they get. Additionally, corporations have been able, thanks to increasing fuel prices, to justify increasing their prices and margins beyond the natural limitations of the inflation caused by Administration economic policy. Additionally, as prices and margins have increased, relative labor costs have decreased, because wages haven’t kept pace with all these increases, artificially inflating margins even higher. This means that while we see more of our money going into purchasing items on the market while our pay fails to compensate for the disproportionate increase in our expenses, the corporations able to benefit from this see record profits enhanced by our need or desire for their products. In short, the Bush administration has made it possible for staple-producing companies to take more of our money and increase their wealth. At no time in my life has an Administration made such a blatant effort to maximize inverted re-distribution of wealth, taking it from the poor to give to the rich. This Administration has reminded the people of America of a time in the Nineteenth Century when robber-barons held court over people forced by circumstance of poverty to accept any treatment from employers to put food on the table.
Southern Revisionism
Two weeks ago, this writer attended the Morgan’s Raid festival/reenactment in Georgetown. This event celebrates or commemorates the raid of Confederate cavalry forces on the Georgetown area. Morgan’s Raid, as the event is popularly known locally, brings many questions to this writer’s mind. Many Kentuckians today feel compelled to claim Southern heritage, although Kentucky was overwhelmingly in favor of the North during the Civil War. Kentucky was a major, well-used and publicly known path for the Underground Railway into Indiana and Ohio; Kentucky’s legislature voted to remain with the Union and declared neutrality to keep Confederate forces from using Kentucky as a staging area for harassment of the North. At the end of the reenactment behind the Cardome in Georgetown, one of the senior characters announces for the crowd that the Civil War had no winners, that all were losers and that neither side was right or wrong, that the War was simply the result of political disagreement.
All of this calls into question the general American perception of the Civil War, and the efforts of nearly a century-and-a-half of Confederate/Southern sympathizers to re-draft the War as something more noble and socially acceptable than it was. Why would a state that went with the winning side claim allegiance to the loser after the fact? Why would primary and secondary history lessons claim falsely that the true issue behind the Civil War was States’ Rights, when in fact the War was fought over only one “States’ Right”- slavery? Jesse Helms used this same “States’ Rights” false argument to fight the Civil Rights Act, knowing full well that his true allegiance was to entrenched racism. Why would people align themselves behind a heritage based upon an ancient wrong and resistance to its demise? Why have I never, despite living in regions generally of Southern alignment for twenty-six years, met the great-great-grandson or -daughter of a Confederate private or NCO- they’re all at least captains? Why do people without Southern descent claim preference for Southern ideals? The short answers are revisionism and racism. American public school history seeks to integrate all of the American people, especially the whites, in a way that fails to point out the many failures of that majority in ethics, morality and law. American history textbooks have been written to minimize the evil perpetrated by the South in its continuation of a morally bankrupt economic system and its political and military efforts to protect that system.
Although Kentucky voted to not secede, it declared itself neutral in the military disputation of the Confederate secession from the Union. The Confederacy invaded Kentucky in September 1861 for the purpose of securing strategic ground for attacks along the Ohio River and pillaging civilian stores, while recruiting what few secessionist supporters they could locate. In all, only about 30,000 Kentuckians fought for the South, the largest single component being found in the Kentucky Cavalry Brigade. Otherwise, Kentuckians overwhelmingly fought for the Union, with approximately 70,000 enlisting in arms to oppose the South. The Kentucky Cavalry Brigade’s modern writers make the boast that, “it was never captured or surrendered in combat, and only voluntarily turned itself in to Federal authorities after discharging its last assigned duty..,”. http://www.morgansraid.com/hostunit.html What is left out of this statement is the unit’s regular failures; in its raid through Indiana and Ohio in 1863, the brigade suffered over 2,000 prisoners taken out of a force of 2,462. It seems to this writer that someone certainly surrendered or was captured, including John Hunt Morgan himself. Morgan shortly escaped and later re-constituted his brigade, but that does not negate the defeat, surrender, and capture of the unit denied by modern supporters. Those who re-write or re-phrase history to favor figures and events in defiance of the facts are called revisionists.
James W. Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me and Lies Across America, has detailed much of the story of the re-writing of American history for the purpose of being more Southern white-friendly. I strongly recommend these books to anyone whose understanding of US history was developed in the American public education system. In casting the history of the American south in more favorable light, textbooks bring a “human” element to the struggles of the South and elicit sympathy for the Confederate cause. Unfortunately, this “sympathy” is indiscriminate and even argues the issue of slavery as a necessary evil of the economic conditions in the South. Many American history texts present the Southern cause as a political disagreement over certain intangible ideas, such as States’ Rights and minimize the truth, seeking instead to present the South as a victim of circumstance and necessity. The Civil War becomes a sorrowful family dispute over incompatible ideologies in the history taught to the American student, and its participants should all be honored as noble men engaged in a horrific war for mutually noble but disparate ideals. Comparatively, to this writer, it would be every bit as reasonable to honor the Nazi’s and their conflict with the rest of the world over incompatible ideals. To many who contemporarily support the ideals of Southern heritage, there is no irony in that last sentence.
The history behind this revision is complicated and even involves a late-Nineteenth Century through mid-Twentieth Century world-wide pseudo-scientific trend. The antebellum South possessed three primary socio-economic classes of people: The plantation owner/farmer, the merchants and artisans, and the poor white subsistence farmer/laborer. These classes were unified by a couple of facts; they were white, and, usually, they could vote. The Reconstruction introduced former slaves into this mix, creating economic turmoil and an identity crisis within the old structure. Once prosperous plantation owners were now faced with shrinking profit margins as they were required to pay for labor if they wanted to remain in the business of agriculture. Poor whites now had to compete with freed slaves for work, as did, to a lesser extent, merchants and artisans, as many former slaves had been trained in the various trades during their time as plantation property. Into this situation, federal agents set about enfranchising former slaves and people of color, giving them their own voice in government for the first time. At the end of the Civil War, many plantation areas in the Deep South were predominantly black, meaning that the vote of former slaves greatly outnumbered that of the resident whites.
During post-Reconstruction, when the South was released from federal control, many of these whites sought to regain the power that they had enjoyed during the antebellum period. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan had been agitating for freedom from the “carpetbaggers” –Northern federal agents sent to oversee the pacification and reconstruction of the South- and for separation of the races in public venues and affairs. Reconstruction ended as a result of power shifts at the federal level and increasing interest in overall US economic health, among other considerations. Distracting matters on other fronts and increasing power of Southern politicians in federal office shifted federal focus from an as yet un-reconstructed South. At about the same time, western science began to embrace a theory that supported European colonization of the rest of the world. This new theory, based in part on Darwin’s observations, posited that the races were the products of evolution and that certain “genetic” characteristics determined the state of a person’s evolution. Naturally, this pseudo-science being promulgated within European colonial powers, the Caucasian was determined to be the most evolved of the races. With this “scientific” evidence, it became easy to denigrate the black and advance the old prejudices and agendas of the defeated South. By the 1920’s it had become unfashionable to discuss the Civil war as being a result of the issue of slavery, as it was no longer fashionable, thanks to great efforts by the Daughters of the Confederacy and related groups, to think of blacks as fully human. Herein lies the shift in teaching the Civil War as a conflict over issues other than slavery. Thanks to the teaching of the pseudo-science of eugenics, which has now morphed into social-Darwinism, the true catalyst for the Civil War was relegated to abstraction while the new embrace of whiteness unified the majority of Americans to more closely reflect the values and ideals of the South. The influence of these ostensibly civic organizations continues today, although their prominence has fortunately waned under the light of progress in race relations since the adoption of the Civil Rights Act.
Still, the impact of this revisionism, which shaded the lines of truth in American history texts for nearly a century, continues in the attitudes of Americans, particularly white Americans, with regard to the Civil War and its results. Emancipation was not an unanticipated sideline result of the war- it was a pre-determined, if unannounced, outcome of Union victory. States’ Rights and self-determination were not the root causes of the Civil War, as the South based those arguments upon one issue alone: the continuation of slavery. The fact of this is observed quite clearly in the violence, criminality and hatred shown by the South towards people of color after its release from federal supervision under Reconstruction. Quite simply, racism is the root behind the Civil War and the revision of American history to cast the South in more favorable light. No right or wrong? This writer thinks otherwise. No winners or losers? What about those freed? All of them Americans? Americans believe in equality under the law. In truth, the Civil War was only the first fight over Southern racism; the South lost the second with the adoption of the Civil Rights Act.
All of this calls into question the general American perception of the Civil War, and the efforts of nearly a century-and-a-half of Confederate/Southern sympathizers to re-draft the War as something more noble and socially acceptable than it was. Why would a state that went with the winning side claim allegiance to the loser after the fact? Why would primary and secondary history lessons claim falsely that the true issue behind the Civil War was States’ Rights, when in fact the War was fought over only one “States’ Right”- slavery? Jesse Helms used this same “States’ Rights” false argument to fight the Civil Rights Act, knowing full well that his true allegiance was to entrenched racism. Why would people align themselves behind a heritage based upon an ancient wrong and resistance to its demise? Why have I never, despite living in regions generally of Southern alignment for twenty-six years, met the great-great-grandson or -daughter of a Confederate private or NCO- they’re all at least captains? Why do people without Southern descent claim preference for Southern ideals? The short answers are revisionism and racism. American public school history seeks to integrate all of the American people, especially the whites, in a way that fails to point out the many failures of that majority in ethics, morality and law. American history textbooks have been written to minimize the evil perpetrated by the South in its continuation of a morally bankrupt economic system and its political and military efforts to protect that system.
Although Kentucky voted to not secede, it declared itself neutral in the military disputation of the Confederate secession from the Union. The Confederacy invaded Kentucky in September 1861 for the purpose of securing strategic ground for attacks along the Ohio River and pillaging civilian stores, while recruiting what few secessionist supporters they could locate. In all, only about 30,000 Kentuckians fought for the South, the largest single component being found in the Kentucky Cavalry Brigade. Otherwise, Kentuckians overwhelmingly fought for the Union, with approximately 70,000 enlisting in arms to oppose the South. The Kentucky Cavalry Brigade’s modern writers make the boast that, “it was never captured or surrendered in combat, and only voluntarily turned itself in to Federal authorities after discharging its last assigned duty..,”. http://www.morgansraid.com/hostunit.html What is left out of this statement is the unit’s regular failures; in its raid through Indiana and Ohio in 1863, the brigade suffered over 2,000 prisoners taken out of a force of 2,462. It seems to this writer that someone certainly surrendered or was captured, including John Hunt Morgan himself. Morgan shortly escaped and later re-constituted his brigade, but that does not negate the defeat, surrender, and capture of the unit denied by modern supporters. Those who re-write or re-phrase history to favor figures and events in defiance of the facts are called revisionists.
James W. Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me and Lies Across America, has detailed much of the story of the re-writing of American history for the purpose of being more Southern white-friendly. I strongly recommend these books to anyone whose understanding of US history was developed in the American public education system. In casting the history of the American south in more favorable light, textbooks bring a “human” element to the struggles of the South and elicit sympathy for the Confederate cause. Unfortunately, this “sympathy” is indiscriminate and even argues the issue of slavery as a necessary evil of the economic conditions in the South. Many American history texts present the Southern cause as a political disagreement over certain intangible ideas, such as States’ Rights and minimize the truth, seeking instead to present the South as a victim of circumstance and necessity. The Civil War becomes a sorrowful family dispute over incompatible ideologies in the history taught to the American student, and its participants should all be honored as noble men engaged in a horrific war for mutually noble but disparate ideals. Comparatively, to this writer, it would be every bit as reasonable to honor the Nazi’s and their conflict with the rest of the world over incompatible ideals. To many who contemporarily support the ideals of Southern heritage, there is no irony in that last sentence.
The history behind this revision is complicated and even involves a late-Nineteenth Century through mid-Twentieth Century world-wide pseudo-scientific trend. The antebellum South possessed three primary socio-economic classes of people: The plantation owner/farmer, the merchants and artisans, and the poor white subsistence farmer/laborer. These classes were unified by a couple of facts; they were white, and, usually, they could vote. The Reconstruction introduced former slaves into this mix, creating economic turmoil and an identity crisis within the old structure. Once prosperous plantation owners were now faced with shrinking profit margins as they were required to pay for labor if they wanted to remain in the business of agriculture. Poor whites now had to compete with freed slaves for work, as did, to a lesser extent, merchants and artisans, as many former slaves had been trained in the various trades during their time as plantation property. Into this situation, federal agents set about enfranchising former slaves and people of color, giving them their own voice in government for the first time. At the end of the Civil War, many plantation areas in the Deep South were predominantly black, meaning that the vote of former slaves greatly outnumbered that of the resident whites.
During post-Reconstruction, when the South was released from federal control, many of these whites sought to regain the power that they had enjoyed during the antebellum period. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan had been agitating for freedom from the “carpetbaggers” –Northern federal agents sent to oversee the pacification and reconstruction of the South- and for separation of the races in public venues and affairs. Reconstruction ended as a result of power shifts at the federal level and increasing interest in overall US economic health, among other considerations. Distracting matters on other fronts and increasing power of Southern politicians in federal office shifted federal focus from an as yet un-reconstructed South. At about the same time, western science began to embrace a theory that supported European colonization of the rest of the world. This new theory, based in part on Darwin’s observations, posited that the races were the products of evolution and that certain “genetic” characteristics determined the state of a person’s evolution. Naturally, this pseudo-science being promulgated within European colonial powers, the Caucasian was determined to be the most evolved of the races. With this “scientific” evidence, it became easy to denigrate the black and advance the old prejudices and agendas of the defeated South. By the 1920’s it had become unfashionable to discuss the Civil war as being a result of the issue of slavery, as it was no longer fashionable, thanks to great efforts by the Daughters of the Confederacy and related groups, to think of blacks as fully human. Herein lies the shift in teaching the Civil War as a conflict over issues other than slavery. Thanks to the teaching of the pseudo-science of eugenics, which has now morphed into social-Darwinism, the true catalyst for the Civil War was relegated to abstraction while the new embrace of whiteness unified the majority of Americans to more closely reflect the values and ideals of the South. The influence of these ostensibly civic organizations continues today, although their prominence has fortunately waned under the light of progress in race relations since the adoption of the Civil Rights Act.
Still, the impact of this revisionism, which shaded the lines of truth in American history texts for nearly a century, continues in the attitudes of Americans, particularly white Americans, with regard to the Civil War and its results. Emancipation was not an unanticipated sideline result of the war- it was a pre-determined, if unannounced, outcome of Union victory. States’ Rights and self-determination were not the root causes of the Civil War, as the South based those arguments upon one issue alone: the continuation of slavery. The fact of this is observed quite clearly in the violence, criminality and hatred shown by the South towards people of color after its release from federal supervision under Reconstruction. Quite simply, racism is the root behind the Civil War and the revision of American history to cast the South in more favorable light. No right or wrong? This writer thinks otherwise. No winners or losers? What about those freed? All of them Americans? Americans believe in equality under the law. In truth, the Civil War was only the first fight over Southern racism; the South lost the second with the adoption of the Civil Rights Act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
