I’ve been a Democrat for about 30 years. When I was a kid growing up outside Pittsburgh, just about everybody was a Democrat. Most parents were working class. Some were farmers, others worked in the mines, and some worked in the steel (pronounced “still”) mills. Even those parents who were in management had grown up working class (like my father who was raised on a farm). Most of the families in my neighborhood were second- or third-generation Americans from places like Germany, Italy, Ireland, or Poland. We thought of ourselves as Americans. Most of the people in my neighborhood were Catholics. In other words, we were the bedrock of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, in the late-60s and early-70s, the Democratic Party was taken over by middle-class, college-educated elitists. Their goals and, more importantly, their attitudes toward the traditional values of the Democratic Party were very different. This observation is nothing new. The “Reagan Democrats” were the traditional Democrats who felt abandoned and ostracized by their Party. The working class was now seen as some kind of “noble savages” or just idiots because they didn’t know what was good for them. Thank the Mother Goddess that new, better (used in a moral sense) educated individuals knew what was best for the rest of us idiots (See, for example, David Brooks, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There).
Through it all, the leaders of organized labor have steadfastly remained loyal to a political party that takes them for granted. I remember at the North American Labor History Conference in 1994 the big news was that the Clinton Administration had promised organized labor the 4-day work week. Still waiting. Democratic presidential hopeful, Barrack Obama, has promised organized labor that his administration will opt out of (if not actually repeal) NAFTA (then again, maybe he wouldn’t: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227/) This is another shibboleth. NAFTA doesn’t cause the loss of nearly as many jobs as does businesses like Wal-Mart buying more and more goods from China. The US opting out of NAFTA would be like Germany opting out of the EU – and just as likely to happen.
The most glaring example of the Democratic Party taking organized labor for granted is the Party’s continuing support for the same level of corporate welfare favored by the Republican Party – welfare for corporations but not for individuals. Take, for example Kmart’s bankruptcy. This was one of the largest bankruptcies in history. Kmart emerged from this debacle by screwing their workers and private stockholders. Over 37,000 workers lost their jobs while Kmart restructured (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2658539.stm). Despite this widespread suffering, Julian Day, who engineered this restructuring, received a $1 million bonus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2968785.stm). And while private stockholders had to eat their losses, banks and bondholders were taken care of. How did emerging from bankruptcy on the backs of workers and individual shareholders work out for Kmart? Apparently, remarkably well, because, within less than a year, Kmart was able to buy one of its competitors, Sears, for around $11 billion (when you’re talking billions, it’s hard to be precise). Eleven billion bucks is a lot of money for a recently bankrupt company to come up with. One of the ways the company did this was, no surprise, on the backs of its workers and former workers. Sears retirees, many of whom had worked for years for the company, now found themselves without health benefits (ht to http://politicalman.blog-city.com for this information). The Democratic National Committee, the defenders of labor, did nothing to stop this egregious form of corporate welfare.
In a similar vein, General Motors recently balanced their books on the backs of their former salaried workers by taking away their health benefits (ht to http://politicalman.blog-city.com for this information) (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080715/BUSINESS01/80715107/1118/rss). How long will it be before they do the same for hourly retirees?
Even if you accept the limited definition of “corporate welfare” advocated by the Cato Institute, the government was spending $75 billion on these benefits – and that was in 1996 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html). In 2000, Ralph Nader, in one of his more lucid moments, laid out an impressive list of abuses by both Parties on the backs of the American consumers (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/CutCorpWelfare_Nader.html). For example, Nader argues that the S&L bailout was “Perhaps still the largest corporate welfare expenditure of all time” and was the result of the cooperation between both Democrats and Republicans. Of course, at the time, he never suspected the debacle of the Mortgage Bailout. While the act proposes $300 billion for the FHA to help save the banks at the expense of taxpayers, an editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer points out that there may be $1-2 trillion in bad loans (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/373835_Housinged.html). It’s a safe bet that the taxpayers will eventually bear this cost. Instead of defending 95 per cent of taxpayers who are making their mortgage payments on time, including the majority of the working class, the Democrats have chosen to support their financial supporters. Maybe we can count on Congress to stop shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to big business. Or, maybe this will be Congress’ response: http://comics.com/wash/opus/archive/opus-20080727.html.
The leadership of organized labor must stop using the workers as the whipping boys of the Democratic National Committee. They need to stop being taken for granted. I would not urge the creation of a Labor Party in the US because it’s not necessary. Both political parties are simply a loose coalition of interest groups. One or more of these groups periodically attain a dominant position within the party. Thus, for example, Evangelical Christians have an influence in the RNC greater than their numbers within the Party. Likewise, pro-abortionists have a similarly disproportionate influence within the DNC thanks to NARAL. And this points out why these groups have so much influence – they are organized. It’s time for trade union leaders to start throwing their organization around. They should sell their votes to the highest bidder. If the parties are just loose alliances of interest groups, the trade unions must look at themselves as just one of these interest groups. If they want to really protect workers they must seek to influence one of the two parties – it really doesn’t matter which one because there isn’t a great deal of difference between the two (http://aspatula.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-might-be-paranoid-but-i-might-not.html). If the Sen. Obama wins the presidency and then screws labor the same way Clinton did, then the leadership should investigate what the Republicans have to offer. Remaining loyal to a party that is not loyal to you is idiocy.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
China's Olympics
We should give them the Olympics. If they are on the world’s center stage, they will settle down and join the world community. They will act with more restraint and be more cooperative. Further, they will know that we have moved on and put past animosities behind us. They need not worry about our intentions towards them, and, as a result, they will cease their massive rearmaments and attempts to destabilize governments throughout the world.
And look. Our efforts must be working, for they have significantly reduced (perhaps eliminated, oh we hop e so) their persecutions of religious and ethnic minorities. Yes, clearly, giving them the Olympics has worked beyond our wildest dreams. Surely, we will now enjoy peace and, more importantly, prosperity, in our time.
These are the sentiments expressed by many today. They are the same sentiments expressed by the same sorts of folks in 1936 during the Nazi Olympics. And we know how that turned out for everybody concerned.
If you’re watching the Olympics (I’m not), enjoy China’s Nazi Olympics. The slave laborers in their prisons (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DF163FF933A0575AC0A967958260; http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16577), their persecuted ethnic and religious minorities (http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/xinjiang.htm; http://cecc.gov/pages/hearings/2008/20080618/fu.php), and the oppressed Tibetans (http://www.freetibet.org; http://www.tibet.com) won’t share your enjoyment.
And look. Our efforts must be working, for they have significantly reduced (perhaps eliminated, oh we hop e so) their persecutions of religious and ethnic minorities. Yes, clearly, giving them the Olympics has worked beyond our wildest dreams. Surely, we will now enjoy peace and, more importantly, prosperity, in our time.
These are the sentiments expressed by many today. They are the same sentiments expressed by the same sorts of folks in 1936 during the Nazi Olympics. And we know how that turned out for everybody concerned.
If you’re watching the Olympics (I’m not), enjoy China’s Nazi Olympics. The slave laborers in their prisons (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DF163FF933A0575AC0A967958260; http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16577), their persecuted ethnic and religious minorities (http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/xinjiang.htm; http://cecc.gov/pages/hearings/2008/20080618/fu.php), and the oppressed Tibetans (http://www.freetibet.org; http://www.tibet.com) won’t share your enjoyment.
Friday, July 4, 2008
I Might Be Paranoid But I Might Not
Throughout time, humans have willingly given up freedom for what they perceive to be security. Or, as Benjamin Franklin put it more eloquently, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” The trouble is that freedom is always taken. Either we take freedom for ourselves, or we let others take our freedom from us.
The erosion of our freedoms began in 1960 when, during his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy stated, “… ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” While he meant that we should be more active citizens, its unintended meaning is fundamentally unconstitutional, that is, the notion that we exist to serve the state. We’ve lost sight of what John Locke taught us long ago when he argued that government is not our master, rather it is our servant. Since the 1970s our freedoms have not been legislated away so much as they’ve been bureaucratized away. Elected officials aren’t taking our freedoms from us at nearly the rate that the bureaucracy is. This is fundamentally unconstitutional. Individuals we did not elect are making dramatic decisions that take away our freedoms – and we are just letting them. Neither political party is interested in stopping this encroachment.
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, there were calls for federal identification cards. There was actually enough hue and cry over this affront to personal liberty that the plan initially fell through. However, the passport requirements and the enhanced driver’s licenses are the first step towards mandatory federal id’s.
H.R. 10 “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act” which was passed on 8 October 2004 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00010 contains some truly frightening infringements on our personal freedom. The most Orwellian part of the law under “Subtitle G – Protection of United States Aviation System From Terrorist Attacks,” contains “Section 2171. Provision for the Use of Biometric or Other Technology,” which calls for the creation of a system that can automatically analyze “the distinct physical or behavioral characteristics that are used for identification.” First, think about how much the government would need to know about you to identify you by your behavior. Secondly, such an automated system would be based on photographic analysis. Look around your town or city; how many closed-circuit “security” cameras are now in service for your protection? One of these cameras taped a truck that caused an accident that involved one of my daughters. After the driver of the truck fled the scene, the Tuscaloosa police said they were not able to use the information on the camera to determine his license plate number (despite having three of the seven digits thanks to a concerned citizen). I assume the new biometric system similarly would be used only against “undesirables” and not those who are part of the elite structure.
One of the central features of the Act appears to be simply annoying, that is, the proviso that all US citizens entering the country must now carry a passport even when entering Canada and Mexico which we never had to do before. These are our two partners in NAFTA. Compare this to the European Union, which, in a historic step, dropped the requirement for EU citizens to carry their passports between members states. However, there are far more troubling aspects of this law than inconvenience. First, “Section 3001. Eliminating the `Western Hemisphere’ Exception for Citizens,” paragraph 5 contains the idea that only the Secretary of Homeland Security can determine what documents might be substituted for the passport. That is, an appointed bureaucrat, not an elected representative (not even the president), has the power to determine what identification papers we must carry. A further paragraph in the same section tells the US citizens exactly who is in charge of them – a bureaucrat:
“( (2) LIMITATION ON PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY- Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the publication described in paragraph (1)(B), the President, notwithstanding section 215(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1185(b)), may not exercise the President's authority under such section so as to permit any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States from any country other than foreign contiguous territory, unless the citizen bears a document (or combination of documents) designated under paragraph (1)(A).
( (3) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- A document may not be designated under paragraph (1)(A) (whether alone or in combination with other documents) unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the document--
( (A) may be relied upon for the purposes of this subsection; and
( (B) may not be issued to an alien unlawfully present in the United States”
The law gives a bureaucrat the right to limit the authority of the president of the United States.
If you think requiring a passport for US citizens traveling to Canada or Mexico is keeping us safe from terrorists, then you’re a certifiable idiot. Terrorists can get faked passports or simply cross the borders without ones. The only reason we have this absurd law is for the government to keep more control and closer tabs on their own citizens. I don’t believe the government is out to get me. As I’ve told those who actually believe the government is out to get them personally, the real horror is that the government doesn’t give a damn about them as an individual.
“Subtitle B--Identity Management Security, Chapter 1--Improved Security for Drivers' Licenses and Personal Identification Cards,” carries the germ of the “Real ID Act.” In the sections dealing with the standardization of drivers’ licenses and birth certificates and the creation of national data bases to keep control over these sources of information, authority to enforce the regulations is taken from the states and taken by bureaucrats like the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Homeland Security. The standardized identification cards and data systems were supposed to be supported by grants to the states from the federal government.
The “Real ID Act” (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:) was a rider to “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.” The act was tacked onto an appropriation bill that nobody in his or her right mind would vote against. After all, who would vote against providing aid to our soldiers or the victims of the tsunami of 2005?
A good overview of the Real ID Act is available at http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-How-Real-ID-will-affect-you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html. Once again, the power to issue and maintain the cards and databases is held by the Secretary of Homeland Security. “Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those [already given to the secretary]. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.”
Opposition to the Real ID Act has created some odd bedfellows. For example, both the Maryland ACLU and the Republican governor of South Carolina eloquently have expressed their opposition to the Act. The ACLU points out that, “The Real ID Act creates an unprecedented national identity card and mandates that states expose the personal and private information of their residents to heightened risks of identity theft and data fraud, has a national price tag in the billions of dollars, and fails to establish real security.” (Remember the times that “secure” databases have been hacked? [http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/obamas_passport_file_hacked.html] or [http://attrition.org/dataloss/]) Further, “The law places no limits on potential required uses for Real IDs. In time, Real IDs could be required to vote, collect a Social Security check, access Medicaid, open a bank account, go to an Orioles game, or buy a gun. The private sector could begin mandating a Real ID to perform countless commercial and financial activities, such as renting a DVD or buying car insurance. Real ID cards would become a necessity, making them de facto national IDs.” (http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/33952prs20080115.html)
Governor Mark Sanford argues in a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, that, because the Real ID Act was a rider on an important appropriations bill, it was never debated. He cogently points out, “As a practical matter, this sensitive subject received far less debate than steroid use in baseball.” Secondly, despite the proviso to fund standardized driver’s licenses in the “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act” the Real ID Act is another unfunded bureaucratic mandate. Another point he raises in his letter is the continuing power of the federal bureaucracy to coerce the states and US citizens. In this case, the requirement to carry the national identification card to board an airplane or enter a federal building is coercive. Finally, Stanton, like the Maryland ACLU, points out that there are no limits to what the Secretary of Homeland Security can require on the card or require you have to have your papers. (http://www.scgovernor.com/NR/rdonlyres/8EA29AE1-B84F-443E-B54A-3626FE5DEF57/0/Letterf033108RealIDletterDHS.PDF )
There have been some efforts to repeal the Real ID Act, but these efforts have so far failed in the House of Representatives, for example, http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1117.html. But, all 50 states have been given extensions (whether they asked for the extensions or simply stated their refusal to abide by the bureaucratic diktat) to comply with the mandate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-02-realid_N.htm).
Coercing states to abide by a bureaucratic mandate is nothing new. “The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984,” coerced states into abiding by the rule by threatening to withhold federal highway funding unless they complied. However, there is some slight hope this idiocy might be overcome (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119618.html).
We conflate the two terms “government” and “bureaucracy.” But the government is elected and the bureaucracy is not. Unfortunately, the purpose of the bureaucracy has become to preserve the bureaucracy. (For an amusing take on this absurdity, see this clip from the brilliant BBC comedy, “Yes, Minister” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo). Max Weber must be doing summersaults in his grave. http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/TheoryWeb/readings/WeberBurform.html#Weber In this country, the elected political leaders of both political parties abdicated their governing role to the bureaucracy when they focused all their attention simply on being re-elected.
In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s, The Brothers Karamazov , the arch-bureaucrat, The Grand Inquisitor, triumphantly declares to Jesus, “In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us: `Make us your slaves, but feed us.’ They will understand at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together. Never, never will they be able to have both together! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless and rebellious.” When our bureaucrats make regulations to protect us from ourselves, they share the Inquisitor’s view of humanity.
We are reaching a tipping point where we are starting to lose meaningful freedoms. Franklin D. Roosevelt observed, “The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.” We should now substitute “bureaucracy” for “government.” We’re idiots if we let the bureaucrats take our freedoms.
The erosion of our freedoms began in 1960 when, during his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy stated, “… ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” While he meant that we should be more active citizens, its unintended meaning is fundamentally unconstitutional, that is, the notion that we exist to serve the state. We’ve lost sight of what John Locke taught us long ago when he argued that government is not our master, rather it is our servant. Since the 1970s our freedoms have not been legislated away so much as they’ve been bureaucratized away. Elected officials aren’t taking our freedoms from us at nearly the rate that the bureaucracy is. This is fundamentally unconstitutional. Individuals we did not elect are making dramatic decisions that take away our freedoms – and we are just letting them. Neither political party is interested in stopping this encroachment.
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, there were calls for federal identification cards. There was actually enough hue and cry over this affront to personal liberty that the plan initially fell through. However, the passport requirements and the enhanced driver’s licenses are the first step towards mandatory federal id’s.
H.R. 10 “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act” which was passed on 8 October 2004 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00010 contains some truly frightening infringements on our personal freedom. The most Orwellian part of the law under “Subtitle G – Protection of United States Aviation System From Terrorist Attacks,” contains “Section 2171. Provision for the Use of Biometric or Other Technology,” which calls for the creation of a system that can automatically analyze “the distinct physical or behavioral characteristics that are used for identification.” First, think about how much the government would need to know about you to identify you by your behavior. Secondly, such an automated system would be based on photographic analysis. Look around your town or city; how many closed-circuit “security” cameras are now in service for your protection? One of these cameras taped a truck that caused an accident that involved one of my daughters. After the driver of the truck fled the scene, the Tuscaloosa police said they were not able to use the information on the camera to determine his license plate number (despite having three of the seven digits thanks to a concerned citizen). I assume the new biometric system similarly would be used only against “undesirables” and not those who are part of the elite structure.
One of the central features of the Act appears to be simply annoying, that is, the proviso that all US citizens entering the country must now carry a passport even when entering Canada and Mexico which we never had to do before. These are our two partners in NAFTA. Compare this to the European Union, which, in a historic step, dropped the requirement for EU citizens to carry their passports between members states. However, there are far more troubling aspects of this law than inconvenience. First, “Section 3001. Eliminating the `Western Hemisphere’ Exception for Citizens,” paragraph 5 contains the idea that only the Secretary of Homeland Security can determine what documents might be substituted for the passport. That is, an appointed bureaucrat, not an elected representative (not even the president), has the power to determine what identification papers we must carry. A further paragraph in the same section tells the US citizens exactly who is in charge of them – a bureaucrat:
“( (2) LIMITATION ON PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY- Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the publication described in paragraph (1)(B), the President, notwithstanding section 215(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1185(b)), may not exercise the President's authority under such section so as to permit any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States from any country other than foreign contiguous territory, unless the citizen bears a document (or combination of documents) designated under paragraph (1)(A).
( (3) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- A document may not be designated under paragraph (1)(A) (whether alone or in combination with other documents) unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the document--
( (A) may be relied upon for the purposes of this subsection; and
( (B) may not be issued to an alien unlawfully present in the United States”
The law gives a bureaucrat the right to limit the authority of the president of the United States.
If you think requiring a passport for US citizens traveling to Canada or Mexico is keeping us safe from terrorists, then you’re a certifiable idiot. Terrorists can get faked passports or simply cross the borders without ones. The only reason we have this absurd law is for the government to keep more control and closer tabs on their own citizens. I don’t believe the government is out to get me. As I’ve told those who actually believe the government is out to get them personally, the real horror is that the government doesn’t give a damn about them as an individual.
“Subtitle B--Identity Management Security, Chapter 1--Improved Security for Drivers' Licenses and Personal Identification Cards,” carries the germ of the “Real ID Act.” In the sections dealing with the standardization of drivers’ licenses and birth certificates and the creation of national data bases to keep control over these sources of information, authority to enforce the regulations is taken from the states and taken by bureaucrats like the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Homeland Security. The standardized identification cards and data systems were supposed to be supported by grants to the states from the federal government.
The “Real ID Act” (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:) was a rider to “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.” The act was tacked onto an appropriation bill that nobody in his or her right mind would vote against. After all, who would vote against providing aid to our soldiers or the victims of the tsunami of 2005?
A good overview of the Real ID Act is available at http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-How-Real-ID-will-affect-you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html. Once again, the power to issue and maintain the cards and databases is held by the Secretary of Homeland Security. “Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those [already given to the secretary]. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.”
Opposition to the Real ID Act has created some odd bedfellows. For example, both the Maryland ACLU and the Republican governor of South Carolina eloquently have expressed their opposition to the Act. The ACLU points out that, “The Real ID Act creates an unprecedented national identity card and mandates that states expose the personal and private information of their residents to heightened risks of identity theft and data fraud, has a national price tag in the billions of dollars, and fails to establish real security.” (Remember the times that “secure” databases have been hacked? [http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/obamas_passport_file_hacked.html] or [http://attrition.org/dataloss/]) Further, “The law places no limits on potential required uses for Real IDs. In time, Real IDs could be required to vote, collect a Social Security check, access Medicaid, open a bank account, go to an Orioles game, or buy a gun. The private sector could begin mandating a Real ID to perform countless commercial and financial activities, such as renting a DVD or buying car insurance. Real ID cards would become a necessity, making them de facto national IDs.” (http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/33952prs20080115.html)
Governor Mark Sanford argues in a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, that, because the Real ID Act was a rider on an important appropriations bill, it was never debated. He cogently points out, “As a practical matter, this sensitive subject received far less debate than steroid use in baseball.” Secondly, despite the proviso to fund standardized driver’s licenses in the “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act” the Real ID Act is another unfunded bureaucratic mandate. Another point he raises in his letter is the continuing power of the federal bureaucracy to coerce the states and US citizens. In this case, the requirement to carry the national identification card to board an airplane or enter a federal building is coercive. Finally, Stanton, like the Maryland ACLU, points out that there are no limits to what the Secretary of Homeland Security can require on the card or require you have to have your papers. (http://www.scgovernor.com/NR/rdonlyres/8EA29AE1-B84F-443E-B54A-3626FE5DEF57/0/Letterf033108RealIDletterDHS.PDF )
There have been some efforts to repeal the Real ID Act, but these efforts have so far failed in the House of Representatives, for example, http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1117.html. But, all 50 states have been given extensions (whether they asked for the extensions or simply stated their refusal to abide by the bureaucratic diktat) to comply with the mandate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-02-realid_N.htm).
Coercing states to abide by a bureaucratic mandate is nothing new. “The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984,” coerced states into abiding by the rule by threatening to withhold federal highway funding unless they complied. However, there is some slight hope this idiocy might be overcome (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119618.html).
We conflate the two terms “government” and “bureaucracy.” But the government is elected and the bureaucracy is not. Unfortunately, the purpose of the bureaucracy has become to preserve the bureaucracy. (For an amusing take on this absurdity, see this clip from the brilliant BBC comedy, “Yes, Minister” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo). Max Weber must be doing summersaults in his grave. http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/TheoryWeb/readings/WeberBurform.html#Weber In this country, the elected political leaders of both political parties abdicated their governing role to the bureaucracy when they focused all their attention simply on being re-elected.
In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s, The Brothers Karamazov , the arch-bureaucrat, The Grand Inquisitor, triumphantly declares to Jesus, “In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us: `Make us your slaves, but feed us.’ They will understand at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together. Never, never will they be able to have both together! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless and rebellious.” When our bureaucrats make regulations to protect us from ourselves, they share the Inquisitor’s view of humanity.
We are reaching a tipping point where we are starting to lose meaningful freedoms. Franklin D. Roosevelt observed, “The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.” We should now substitute “bureaucracy” for “government.” We’re idiots if we let the bureaucrats take our freedoms.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Religion of Idiots
According to the American National Election Studies (ANES) Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, between 1980 and 2004, when asked “Do you consider religion to be an important part of your life, or not?” Americans answer in the affirmative at the rate of 75-79 per cent. (http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab1b_3.htm) However, in the same period, those who never attended a religious service climbed from 14 per cent to 35 per cent. (http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab1b_5b.htm) The American Religious Identification Survey (2001) by Barry A. Kosmin, Egon Mayer, and Ariela Keysar at the City University of New York showed that the number of Americans who identified with no religious heritage rose from 8 to 14 per cent or 14.3 million to 29.4 million between 1990 and 2001. (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf) The Harris Poll #80, “While Most U.S. Adults Believe in God, Only 58 Percent are `Absolutely Certain’" in 2006 indicated that 18 per cent of the population never attended religious services, but, as the title indicates, the majority attending may not actually believe in God. (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=707) David T. Olsen in “12 Surprising Facts about the American Church” (2004) indicates that the number of regular Christian church attendees is far less than other studies have indicated (only about 19 per cent). (http://www.theamericanchurch.org/facts/1.htm) In any event, according to the Barna Group, “Relatively few people - just one out of every six - believe that spiritual maturity is meant to be developed within the context of a local church or within the context of a community of faith.” (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=252)
With increasing numbers of Americans declining to attend religious services yet considering themselves still spiritual, they have to find some outlet for their religious, er, spiritual fervor. And, since they can’t possibly join a group that believes in somebody or something smarter than they are (you know, like a Deity) they have to find something that supports their own sense of self-worth (if not outright narcissism). And, since celebrities and the other media elites are the most narcissistic individuals in our society, you can chart the most significant issue of the decade based on celebrity involvement and the number of After-School Specials dedicated to the topic.
Thus, in the 1970s the issue was child pornography. Tons of ink were devoted to the problem and miles of tape and celluloid were dedicated to eradicating this scourge. We had to get rid of this bane. However, people change and evolve and move onto other issues. The media and Hollywood forgot about child pornography, the problem didn’t go away, and the internet came along and made the problem worse. During the 1970s, the threat of global cooling also enjoyed a brief popularity (Walter Sullivan, “Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” The New York Times, 21 May 1975, http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D137B93C3AB178ED85F418785F9&scp=1&sq=%22Scientists+Ponder+Why+World%27s+Climate+is+Changing%22&st=p)
In the 1980s the twin scourges of teen pregnancy and AIDS were the earnest focus of those directing their spiritual energies towards the cause du jour. These problems still haven’t been solved, but the true believers have moved on to more important issues – at least ones that might be more easily solved or get them more face time.
In the 1990s the problem that was destroying the US from within was the militias. They didn’t go away when that bastard McVeigh died, but the world didn’t end because of the militias, so the true believers moved on.
These were all valid causes to work against or to try to improve. However, because the individuals championing them were their own locus of authority, they could never stay focused on the important issues, but changed their focus as they themselves changed. Their lives are impermanent so their belief structures are equally in constant flux.
In every case, anybody who disagreed with the particular focus taken on the latest cultural issue or who offered different solutions was treated as a heretic. As often happens with political zealots, the politics of these true believers became their religion. Reason and knowledge make no sense to these people. They accept ideas on faith alone. But, to paraphrase Pope Benedict XVI, any belief structure that is not reasonable is not valid. Most of these politico-cultural fads embody the most irrational aspects of religion, bordering on superstition, without any of religion’s more reasonable (not to say rational) aspects.
The problem with these earlier neo-religious fads was that there was no apocalypse. Sure, the millenarianism of the Y2K hype was fun, but it quickly burned out when all the planes didn’t fall out of the sky on 1 January 2000 as some had predicted. Now, the neo-religious issue is global warming. Finally, those looking for something to put their faith in have their very own apocalypse.
The point of this essay is not whether global warming exists or not. The point of this essay is not whether we should reduce pollution (it would be irrational not to want to reduce pollution). The point is that, instead of the unbiased language one normally associates with scientific inquiry, the debate has become one better characterized in religious terms. Michael Crichton lays out all the similarities between environmentalism and religious belief, noting, “Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.” The general point of his speech is that substituting belief based on faith alone for reasonable scientific discussion is detrimental to the success of environmentalism (http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html) – the same could be said for global warming. Similarly, the Administrator of NASA, Michael Griffin has also likened the apocalyptic version of global warming to a religious belief (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2008/03/17/80933.html) (“Religion of Global Warming,” http://www.globalwarminghype.com/religion.html offers a long list of articles comparing proponents of global warming to religious adherents).
The language of the apocalyptic version of global warming is best understood as that of an unreasonable fundamentalist religion with all the zealotry and hatred that goes along with that. Anybody who offers a counter argument or who doesn’t accept the orthodox view of the apocalypse is not just stupid but actually evil.
Ellen Goodman in a Boston Globe article, “No Change in Political Climate” (9 Feb. 2007) writes favorably of, “American University's Matthew Nisbet [who] is among those who see the importance of expanding the story beyond scientists. He is charting the reframing of climate change into a moral and religious issue …” (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/) Goodman also opines: “I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” Scott Pelley, a correspondent for CBS News also compares those who don’t accept Al Gore’s version of global warming (or climate change) in its entirety -- or those who are outright skeptical – to Holocaust deniers (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml) A Google search of “global warming deniers” returns 768,000 hits.
The discourse itself is in religious terms. I’m not talking about those religious groups which have adopted global warming as part of their belief structure (such as the two Episcopalian bishops who called on their flocks to give up carbon for Lent http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/05/ealent105.xml). Rather, this is about those who, with no religion or spiritual structure of their own, have conflated and sublimated political or cultural ideology with religious belief. In an interview with Al Gore in the Washington Post (“Gore and Guggenheim: Speaking `Truth’ to Power”), Michael O’Sullivan writes, “The issue of global warming, he believes, is no longer one of science, but has become, like the civil rights struggle did, one of morality. `This is being redefined as a choice between good and evil,’ Gore says unequivocally. As for his own role in the crusade, he describes himself less as a leader than as a simple `messenger.’ When it is pointed out just how, um, Christ-like that sounds, he demurs, hemming and hawing with an embarrassed laugh. `I'm sorry. I'm not intentionally trying to put myself in that . . . . Puh-lease.’" O’Sullivan calls Gore “a man on a mission, maybe even with a calling.” The director of An Inconvenient Truth, Davis Guggenheim, “Like a skeptic at a revival meeting, … became a convert to the cause,” after seeing Gore’s slideshow on global warming. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060100632.html) In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore uses the language of religion when he calls global warming, “the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.”
Those who challenge any aspect of the global warming orthodoxy are often referred to as “heretics.” See, for example, “Climate Change ‘Heretics’: Adapt While You Can” The Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/26/climate-change-heretics-adapt-while-you-can/?mod=WSJBlog) or “Wildlife groups axe Bellamy as global warming ‘heretic’” Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article522744.ece). Freeman Dyson proudly accepts the label of heretic in “Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society,” an excerpt from his book, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html) The mainstream media consistently excommunicates or shuns global warming heretics who stray from the orthodoxy or canon. Julia A. Seymour and Dan Gainor, “Global Warming Censored: How the Major Networks Silence the Debate on Climate Change,” Business and Media Institute (http://businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/Globalwarmingcensoredfulltext.asp)
Plato in The Republic in “The Divided Line” demonstrated the difference between believing a thing and knowing a thing. For Plato, philosophers/scientists (for the ancient Greeks, the two were the same) devoted themselves to discovering truth through rational inquiry. That is, they moved from believing a thing to knowing a thing. And, as St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated in the Summa Theologica, faith has its realm (religion) and reason has its realm (science). The problem with the current apocalyptic view of global warming is that it’s moved from a proper scientific discourse to that of religious speech – this makes it the religion of idiots.
With increasing numbers of Americans declining to attend religious services yet considering themselves still spiritual, they have to find some outlet for their religious, er, spiritual fervor. And, since they can’t possibly join a group that believes in somebody or something smarter than they are (you know, like a Deity) they have to find something that supports their own sense of self-worth (if not outright narcissism). And, since celebrities and the other media elites are the most narcissistic individuals in our society, you can chart the most significant issue of the decade based on celebrity involvement and the number of After-School Specials dedicated to the topic.
Thus, in the 1970s the issue was child pornography. Tons of ink were devoted to the problem and miles of tape and celluloid were dedicated to eradicating this scourge. We had to get rid of this bane. However, people change and evolve and move onto other issues. The media and Hollywood forgot about child pornography, the problem didn’t go away, and the internet came along and made the problem worse. During the 1970s, the threat of global cooling also enjoyed a brief popularity (Walter Sullivan, “Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” The New York Times, 21 May 1975, http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D137B93C3AB178ED85F418785F9&scp=1&sq=%22Scientists+Ponder+Why+World%27s+Climate+is+Changing%22&st=p)
In the 1980s the twin scourges of teen pregnancy and AIDS were the earnest focus of those directing their spiritual energies towards the cause du jour. These problems still haven’t been solved, but the true believers have moved on to more important issues – at least ones that might be more easily solved or get them more face time.
In the 1990s the problem that was destroying the US from within was the militias. They didn’t go away when that bastard McVeigh died, but the world didn’t end because of the militias, so the true believers moved on.
These were all valid causes to work against or to try to improve. However, because the individuals championing them were their own locus of authority, they could never stay focused on the important issues, but changed their focus as they themselves changed. Their lives are impermanent so their belief structures are equally in constant flux.
In every case, anybody who disagreed with the particular focus taken on the latest cultural issue or who offered different solutions was treated as a heretic. As often happens with political zealots, the politics of these true believers became their religion. Reason and knowledge make no sense to these people. They accept ideas on faith alone. But, to paraphrase Pope Benedict XVI, any belief structure that is not reasonable is not valid. Most of these politico-cultural fads embody the most irrational aspects of religion, bordering on superstition, without any of religion’s more reasonable (not to say rational) aspects.
The problem with these earlier neo-religious fads was that there was no apocalypse. Sure, the millenarianism of the Y2K hype was fun, but it quickly burned out when all the planes didn’t fall out of the sky on 1 January 2000 as some had predicted. Now, the neo-religious issue is global warming. Finally, those looking for something to put their faith in have their very own apocalypse.
The point of this essay is not whether global warming exists or not. The point of this essay is not whether we should reduce pollution (it would be irrational not to want to reduce pollution). The point is that, instead of the unbiased language one normally associates with scientific inquiry, the debate has become one better characterized in religious terms. Michael Crichton lays out all the similarities between environmentalism and religious belief, noting, “Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.” The general point of his speech is that substituting belief based on faith alone for reasonable scientific discussion is detrimental to the success of environmentalism (http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html) – the same could be said for global warming. Similarly, the Administrator of NASA, Michael Griffin has also likened the apocalyptic version of global warming to a religious belief (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2008/03/17/80933.html) (“Religion of Global Warming,” http://www.globalwarminghype.com/religion.html offers a long list of articles comparing proponents of global warming to religious adherents).
The language of the apocalyptic version of global warming is best understood as that of an unreasonable fundamentalist religion with all the zealotry and hatred that goes along with that. Anybody who offers a counter argument or who doesn’t accept the orthodox view of the apocalypse is not just stupid but actually evil.
Ellen Goodman in a Boston Globe article, “No Change in Political Climate” (9 Feb. 2007) writes favorably of, “American University's Matthew Nisbet [who] is among those who see the importance of expanding the story beyond scientists. He is charting the reframing of climate change into a moral and religious issue …” (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/) Goodman also opines: “I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” Scott Pelley, a correspondent for CBS News also compares those who don’t accept Al Gore’s version of global warming (or climate change) in its entirety -- or those who are outright skeptical – to Holocaust deniers (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml) A Google search of “global warming deniers” returns 768,000 hits.
The discourse itself is in religious terms. I’m not talking about those religious groups which have adopted global warming as part of their belief structure (such as the two Episcopalian bishops who called on their flocks to give up carbon for Lent http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/05/ealent105.xml). Rather, this is about those who, with no religion or spiritual structure of their own, have conflated and sublimated political or cultural ideology with religious belief. In an interview with Al Gore in the Washington Post (“Gore and Guggenheim: Speaking `Truth’ to Power”), Michael O’Sullivan writes, “The issue of global warming, he believes, is no longer one of science, but has become, like the civil rights struggle did, one of morality. `This is being redefined as a choice between good and evil,’ Gore says unequivocally. As for his own role in the crusade, he describes himself less as a leader than as a simple `messenger.’ When it is pointed out just how, um, Christ-like that sounds, he demurs, hemming and hawing with an embarrassed laugh. `I'm sorry. I'm not intentionally trying to put myself in that . . . . Puh-lease.’" O’Sullivan calls Gore “a man on a mission, maybe even with a calling.” The director of An Inconvenient Truth, Davis Guggenheim, “Like a skeptic at a revival meeting, … became a convert to the cause,” after seeing Gore’s slideshow on global warming. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060100632.html) In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore uses the language of religion when he calls global warming, “the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.”
Those who challenge any aspect of the global warming orthodoxy are often referred to as “heretics.” See, for example, “Climate Change ‘Heretics’: Adapt While You Can” The Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/26/climate-change-heretics-adapt-while-you-can/?mod=WSJBlog) or “Wildlife groups axe Bellamy as global warming ‘heretic’” Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article522744.ece). Freeman Dyson proudly accepts the label of heretic in “Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society,” an excerpt from his book, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html) The mainstream media consistently excommunicates or shuns global warming heretics who stray from the orthodoxy or canon. Julia A. Seymour and Dan Gainor, “Global Warming Censored: How the Major Networks Silence the Debate on Climate Change,” Business and Media Institute (http://businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/Globalwarmingcensoredfulltext.asp)
Plato in The Republic in “The Divided Line” demonstrated the difference between believing a thing and knowing a thing. For Plato, philosophers/scientists (for the ancient Greeks, the two were the same) devoted themselves to discovering truth through rational inquiry. That is, they moved from believing a thing to knowing a thing. And, as St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated in the Summa Theologica, faith has its realm (religion) and reason has its realm (science). The problem with the current apocalyptic view of global warming is that it’s moved from a proper scientific discourse to that of religious speech – this makes it the religion of idiots.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
From What Idiot Do You Get Your News?
The fact that journalism in this country is biased is a truism. Whether it’s FOX on the right or CNN on the left, it’s all biased. This bias is no longer ideological (that is, based on ideas) rather, it is political (that is, trying to get the candidates of one party or the other elected no matter what ideas or plans they might champion). As part of his ongoing series on Der Spiegel’s daily news letter entitled, “West Wing: The Battle for the White House,” Gabor Steingart wrote a troubling piece on the media in the US on 13 May entitled, “The Media’s Mini Truths” (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,553068,00.html). He states, correctly, “the real loser of the election campaign is the American people. They have been betrayed by cynical journalists who have constantly opted for style over substance.” This “style” results in all issues being driven out of the political discourse in favor of oversimplified sound bites. More troubling, Steingart notes that many of the “experts” working for the media are really employees of the candidates or their respective parties. He notes, for example, Karl Rove “is now under contract with Fox News, Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal.” Likewise, “Donna Brazile, who appears on CNN as a commentator on every election night … is actually a member of the exclusive Democratic National Committee and one of her party's superdelegates.” As a result of infusing the news with the propaganda of these “expert analysts” – talking heads – journalism this election cycle is the most politicized and biased in memory.
The political as opposed to ideological focus of journalism and its oversimplification of important concepts is best exemplified in the popular usage of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” As descriptors, these two terms are now meaningless in the US. It is possible to define something in its opposite. For example, if something is liberal, the opposite might be considered conservative. However, for this approach to work, you have to have something at least positive. However, in this country, both conservatism and liberalism are both defined by their opposites. Thus, if the Democrats are for something, the Republicans are automatically opposed to it, and vice versa. For example, in most of the world, liberals are internationalists, while conservatives are nationalists. But, in this country, the Democrats are opposed to NAFTA largely for the reason that the Republicans are in favor of it. Thus, the “liberals” (Democrats) are, in this particular case, nationalists, while the “conservatives” (Republicans) are internationalists. The reality is that the terms liberal and conservative in this country have become synonymous with DNC and RNC, which is not very instructive.
Part of the reason for this oversimplification of domestic politics is the economic and political need for the news media to reduce everything to easily digested nuggets. The media must package as many flashy geegaws as possible into twenty minutes or the first few pages to ensure maximum ratings and maximum earnings. Call it news-tainment. Another example of this oversimplification is the reduction by the media and the public of the rest of the world into two camps: those who are our friends and those who are not yet our friends. But, as soon as the second group accepts democracy and McDonalds, they will become our friends. This is what passes for foreign policy analysis for most of the media and most of the undereducated public.
Like so much else in this country, the root fault with the media is the fault of the US educational behemoth to produce educated individuals. And, if you think about it, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want really well-educated individuals. The Republicans don’t want educated persons because they organize and create things like unions. The Democrats don’t want well-educated individuals either because educated persons ask questions and challenge authority. The DNC knows what’s best for us, even if we don’t. And by God they, as the anointed, are going to fix us.
Perhaps that’s why the media has been woefully lax in reporting on the presidential candidates’ educational platforms. In the 19 May 2008 issue of US News & World Report, “Not a Primary Concern: In the Background, the Candidates Make Plans for America’s Schools,” Dana Hawkins-Simons, in a brilliant understatement, observes, “How each of the presidential candidates would attempt to improve the American school system is difficult to ascertain, given the limited dialogue on education thus far on the campaign trail.” If by “limited,” Hawkins-Simons means non-existent, then the candidates have exhausted the meaning of “limited.” Hawkins-Simons breaks down the candidate’s stands on three issues: No Child Left Behind, Teacher Pay, and Higher Education Affordability. At the time of the article, Hillary Clinton was still in the race. Not surprisingly, her ideas and those of Barrack Obama were barely distinguishable. However, just looking at Obama’s and John McCain’s stands on these three issue, the similarities are staggering. Both would keep NCLB (which has proven to be an unmitigated disaster, http://aspatula.blogspot.com/2008/02/teaching-our-kids-to-be-idiots.html) but tweak the tests. Both candidates believe merit pay is the best way to ensure equitable treatment of teachers. However, since most merit pay systems are tied to student test performances, we’re back to the miasma of teaching to the test – another focus of NCLB that has crippled our educational system. The only significant difference between the two candidates on education is that Obama would provide tax credits for college tuition to make higher education more affordable while McCain would open up junior colleges to receive more federal financial aid to train displaced workers. Education is just one of many issues that is too complex to be solved by the undereducated listening to cynical purveyors of news-tainment.
The political as opposed to ideological focus of journalism and its oversimplification of important concepts is best exemplified in the popular usage of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” As descriptors, these two terms are now meaningless in the US. It is possible to define something in its opposite. For example, if something is liberal, the opposite might be considered conservative. However, for this approach to work, you have to have something at least positive. However, in this country, both conservatism and liberalism are both defined by their opposites. Thus, if the Democrats are for something, the Republicans are automatically opposed to it, and vice versa. For example, in most of the world, liberals are internationalists, while conservatives are nationalists. But, in this country, the Democrats are opposed to NAFTA largely for the reason that the Republicans are in favor of it. Thus, the “liberals” (Democrats) are, in this particular case, nationalists, while the “conservatives” (Republicans) are internationalists. The reality is that the terms liberal and conservative in this country have become synonymous with DNC and RNC, which is not very instructive.
Part of the reason for this oversimplification of domestic politics is the economic and political need for the news media to reduce everything to easily digested nuggets. The media must package as many flashy geegaws as possible into twenty minutes or the first few pages to ensure maximum ratings and maximum earnings. Call it news-tainment. Another example of this oversimplification is the reduction by the media and the public of the rest of the world into two camps: those who are our friends and those who are not yet our friends. But, as soon as the second group accepts democracy and McDonalds, they will become our friends. This is what passes for foreign policy analysis for most of the media and most of the undereducated public.
Like so much else in this country, the root fault with the media is the fault of the US educational behemoth to produce educated individuals. And, if you think about it, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want really well-educated individuals. The Republicans don’t want educated persons because they organize and create things like unions. The Democrats don’t want well-educated individuals either because educated persons ask questions and challenge authority. The DNC knows what’s best for us, even if we don’t. And by God they, as the anointed, are going to fix us.
Perhaps that’s why the media has been woefully lax in reporting on the presidential candidates’ educational platforms. In the 19 May 2008 issue of US News & World Report, “Not a Primary Concern: In the Background, the Candidates Make Plans for America’s Schools,” Dana Hawkins-Simons, in a brilliant understatement, observes, “How each of the presidential candidates would attempt to improve the American school system is difficult to ascertain, given the limited dialogue on education thus far on the campaign trail.” If by “limited,” Hawkins-Simons means non-existent, then the candidates have exhausted the meaning of “limited.” Hawkins-Simons breaks down the candidate’s stands on three issues: No Child Left Behind, Teacher Pay, and Higher Education Affordability. At the time of the article, Hillary Clinton was still in the race. Not surprisingly, her ideas and those of Barrack Obama were barely distinguishable. However, just looking at Obama’s and John McCain’s stands on these three issue, the similarities are staggering. Both would keep NCLB (which has proven to be an unmitigated disaster, http://aspatula.blogspot.com/2008/02/teaching-our-kids-to-be-idiots.html) but tweak the tests. Both candidates believe merit pay is the best way to ensure equitable treatment of teachers. However, since most merit pay systems are tied to student test performances, we’re back to the miasma of teaching to the test – another focus of NCLB that has crippled our educational system. The only significant difference between the two candidates on education is that Obama would provide tax credits for college tuition to make higher education more affordable while McCain would open up junior colleges to receive more federal financial aid to train displaced workers. Education is just one of many issues that is too complex to be solved by the undereducated listening to cynical purveyors of news-tainment.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The Idiocy of the Mortgage Bailout
I’m sorry for the people who are losing their homes. Most of them, however, are losing their homes because they made a mistake, and, to be honest, they were foolish. I knew enough to get a 15-year fixed rate mortgage. A balloon mortgage is idiotic. A few points lower for three to five years doesn’t make up for boundless increases for the next 25 years. How many people who now have homes they can’t afford watched any number of those house “flipping” shows on The Learning Channel, DYI, Bravo, etc. and thought they were going to make a ton of money in a rising housing market? This is speculation. At the least, it is like buying commodities, and, like they tell you in the commercials for commodity brokerages, “you can lose money.”
My 401(k) is in the crapper. My investments are losing money. Is the government going to bail me out? Don’t tell me it’s any different than those who were investing in their homes. They decided to make an investment of their own free will as did I. It’s not working out for either of us. I just didn’t invest more than I could afford to lose. Gasp, I was being responsible.
I don’t mind the government helping my fellow Americans who, through no fault of their own, are in trouble. The folks in New Orleans didn’t ask for Katrina and weren’t responsible for the catastrophic levels of idiocy at all levels of government. They deserve government help (which they’re still not getting, but I digress). Bailing out those who bought houses they couldn’t possibly afford comes down to the American belief that nobody is responsible for their actions or inactions. It’s always somebody else’s fault.
The fall in housing prices is a correction. Housing prices in this country have gotten out of hand. The traditional rule of thumb had been that you could afford a house that was twice your yearly salary. Then, about ten years ago, with house prices rising faster than wages, the amount was raised to two and a half times your yearly salary. The median price for a home is now much greater than 2.5 times the median income. For example (figures are from http://www.city-data.com/),
City .............................Median Income ($) ..Median Home/Condo Value ($)
San Diego, CA ............55,600 .......................566,700
Boston, MA ................42,600 .......................420,000
State College, PA ......22,500 ........................194,000
Houston, TX ..............37,000 ........................113,000
Tuscaloosa, AL ..........24,000 ........................127,000
Rome, GA ...................31,200 ........................109,000
Naperville, IL ............93,000 ........................382,500
Greenfield, MA .........36,000 .........................157,500
St. Augustine, FL ......37,000 .........................193,000
Midland, MI ..............49,000 .........................148,000
These figures, however, are for 2005, before the bubble in housing prices reached its peak. Craig Guillot, “Homes Still Too High for `Average’ Family,” clearly demonstrates that “even with homes more affordable, the median price is still out of reach for a median-income family in many markets …” (http://www.bankrate.com/bosre/news/realestateguide2008/median-income-buy-house-a1.asp?caret=2a) Guillot goes on to say that between 2000 and 2007, “the median price of homes had risen 64.8 percent, while median incomes had only risen 16.6 percent.”
The mortgage bailout is really just a bailout of the banking and housing industries. The bailout will keep prices so high that most low income and lower-middle class families still won’t be able to afford a house. In the words of President Woodrow Wilson (at least what he really meant when he took us into World War One), we are making the world safe for bankers.
My 401(k) is in the crapper. My investments are losing money. Is the government going to bail me out? Don’t tell me it’s any different than those who were investing in their homes. They decided to make an investment of their own free will as did I. It’s not working out for either of us. I just didn’t invest more than I could afford to lose. Gasp, I was being responsible.
I don’t mind the government helping my fellow Americans who, through no fault of their own, are in trouble. The folks in New Orleans didn’t ask for Katrina and weren’t responsible for the catastrophic levels of idiocy at all levels of government. They deserve government help (which they’re still not getting, but I digress). Bailing out those who bought houses they couldn’t possibly afford comes down to the American belief that nobody is responsible for their actions or inactions. It’s always somebody else’s fault.
The fall in housing prices is a correction. Housing prices in this country have gotten out of hand. The traditional rule of thumb had been that you could afford a house that was twice your yearly salary. Then, about ten years ago, with house prices rising faster than wages, the amount was raised to two and a half times your yearly salary. The median price for a home is now much greater than 2.5 times the median income. For example (figures are from http://www.city-data.com/),
City .............................Median Income ($) ..Median Home/Condo Value ($)
San Diego, CA ............55,600 .......................566,700
Boston, MA ................42,600 .......................420,000
State College, PA ......22,500 ........................194,000
Houston, TX ..............37,000 ........................113,000
Tuscaloosa, AL ..........24,000 ........................127,000
Rome, GA ...................31,200 ........................109,000
Naperville, IL ............93,000 ........................382,500
Greenfield, MA .........36,000 .........................157,500
St. Augustine, FL ......37,000 .........................193,000
Midland, MI ..............49,000 .........................148,000
These figures, however, are for 2005, before the bubble in housing prices reached its peak. Craig Guillot, “Homes Still Too High for `Average’ Family,” clearly demonstrates that “even with homes more affordable, the median price is still out of reach for a median-income family in many markets …” (http://www.bankrate.com/bosre/news/realestateguide2008/median-income-buy-house-a1.asp?caret=2a) Guillot goes on to say that between 2000 and 2007, “the median price of homes had risen 64.8 percent, while median incomes had only risen 16.6 percent.”
The mortgage bailout is really just a bailout of the banking and housing industries. The bailout will keep prices so high that most low income and lower-middle class families still won’t be able to afford a house. In the words of President Woodrow Wilson (at least what he really meant when he took us into World War One), we are making the world safe for bankers.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Idiocy of Funding College Football
I love football. I really love football; I’m an idiot for the game. I’ve wasted countless Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays, a few Wednesdays, and some Thursdays watching football. I love NCAA football, and I love the NFL (no so much Arena football). I’ve been known to listen to high school football on the radio. When I was a kid, my dad was watching a football game, and I asked him whom we wanted to win the game. He said, nobody. Being a clever tike, I switched gears and asked whom we wanted to lose. He said, nobody. I couldn’t understand this. A few years ago, I had essentially the same conversation with one of my kids. In a flash of enlightenment (satori, if you will), I realized I had achieved what my father had several years earlier – the Zen of football. I appreciated the game just for the game.
I need to say all of this first, because I think it’s a total crock how much universities put on the shoulders of their students to support their football programs. Everybody “knows” that football at NCAA Division I-A (or Football Bowl Subdivision -- FBS) pays for all the non-revenue sports (read, women’s sports). This justifies all the money spent on facilities, scholarships, and coaches’ salaries for the football programs. The problem is that few, if any football programs actually make any money. According to John V. Lombardi (what a great football name) “The Enemy is Us: Cost Reduction College Sports,” Inside Higher Ed (31 January 2005) http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/01/31/lombardi1 “Maybe five in the country make money (if you could get them to report their income and expenses honestly and fully). The other 112 or so lose money; some lose a great deal of money.” That’s for the major programs. The lower division schools, Divisions II and III and NAIA, spend a greater percentage of their universities’ budgets on their football programs, thereby losing a greater percentage of their budgets.
A favorite argument of those who argue that big-time NCAA football turns a profit is that teams that participate in Bowl games, especially the BCS games, surely turn a profit with the big payouts. A brilliant example of this fallacy is the University of Wisconsin, which, as winner of the 1998 Rose Bowl, received a payout of $1.1 million. Despite this, they lost $286,700 on the trip. This was largely the result of paying for “832 people to attend, including players, band members, boosters, and university administrators.” (Welch Suggs, “A Look at the Future Bottom Line of Big-Time Sports,” Chronicle of Higher Education (12 Nov. 1999)).
Athletic directors tend to claim that increased attendance coupled with increased ticket prices makes up for the financial losses. (Welch Suggs, “A Look at the Future Bottom Line of Big-Time Sports,” Chronicle of Higher Education (12 Nov. 1999)). However, in an editorial in the Charlotte Observer on 21 Feb. 2008, Mary C. Schulken, associate editor at the newspaper wrote in “When these two men talk, we ought to listen: 49er football: A choice about whether football or academics will lead,” points out the major source of revenue to make up the shortfall is actually “much higher mandatory student athletic fees.” She goes on to argue that, if UNC-Charlotte decides to institute FBS football, they need to keep in mind that, “A 2003 NCAA study determined that for every dollar spent on college football, only one is generated in additional revenues. And remember, millions of dollars of that so-called revenue comes from student fees.”
Unfortunately, a major reason for the cost of college football is the bloated bureaucracy in FBS programs and the incompetence of many of those administrators. According to Brian L. Porto, in A New Season: Using Title IX to Reform College Sports (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003), the salaries of the coaches and the athletic directors “do not reflect market forces.” He argues that athletic departments are “autonomous” and tend to be run as an “`old boy’ network that runs these departments to reward its members.” Porto continues, “The lack of market pressure on athletic directors also accounts for their tendency to list as assets on their financial statements hoped-for revenues from unpredictable sources such as gate receipts, postseason bowl game or tournament appearances, licensing income, and private gifts, which often fail to meet expectations.” According to Tim Sullivan, “SDSU profs say football `profit’ doesn’t add up’ Union Tribune (San Diego) (9 Nov. 2007), “`There's no other business in America that does its books like athletic departments,’ said Indiana University's Murray Sperber, author of “College Sports, Inc.” `I can't think of one (other business) that has the deep, deep subsidies.’” Sullivan continues his discussion of financial irregularities by noting, “Athletic departments customarily pay little or nothing for such items as office space, utilities and debt service incurred on new facilities. Their costs, therefore, tend to be significantly understated. Their pronouncements of profitability, in turn, tend to be met with cynicism. Thus, athletic directors are not the hard-nosed corporate executives that they think they are, because unlike corporate executives, athletic directors are not necessarily held accountable for failing to control costs. According to [economist] Andrew Zimbalist: `If there were true economic competition [in college sports], athletic directors would have to make wise decisions and spend money wisely or they would go out of business. But these programs don’t go out of business.”
This attitude that that athletic departments can’t “go out of business” is a particular problem for schools below the FBS level, like Division II, Division III, and NAIA football programs. According to Tom Brennan, retired English professor at the University of South Alabama in, “Observation: The Gaping Maw of the Bottomless Pitt: The High Cost of Football” Harbinger (16 Nov. 1999) “athletic directors say they operate in a unique environment and that their costs must be met regardless of needs in other segments of the university. In other words, the costs of athletics departments are sacrosanct, which means, in effect, that athletics directors and their programs occupy a protected sanctuary within the university and that these sanctuaries stand apart from the standard university governance.” http://www.theharbinger.org/xviii/991116/brennan.html This attitude can be devastating at a small state school in a state that decides to prorate its yearly education budget. I remember the university I work at deciding one year not to buy books for the library. We still fielded a full football team. You have to have priorities and, apparently, football comes before the library at this university.
One way that football programs get bailed out of their economic difficulties is through generous subsidies from their university. According to Tim Sullivan, “SDSU profs say football `profit’ doesn’t add up’ Union Tribune (San Diego) (9 Nov. 2007), SDSU football turned a “profit” only after receiving subsidies from the university. An independent audit showed SDSU football had actually lost $1.6 million, even after receiving a subsidy of over $800,000. Part of the subsidies came from increased student activity fees – against which the students had voted. SDSU is not unique in relying on forced subsidies from the entire student body. I thought football was supposed to be for the benefit of the students.
Virtually all football programs below the FBS level lose money, and few college presidents have the courage and foresight of Maravene Loeschke, president of Mansfield University of Pennsylvania. Without operating under preconceived ideas or myths about football increasing enrollment at small universities, she simply looked at the math. Mansfield, with a steady enrollment figure, could not continue to allocate over $400,000 to a football program on the backs of student fees when that money could be more productively utilized elsewhere in the university. Maravene Loeschke, “No Sacred Cows,” Inside Higher Ed (9 Feb. 2007). http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/02/09/loeschke Few college presidents have Loeschke’s courage.
I don’t want to see college football end. I just think that the cost of the programs should be born by those who actually want the service. Those students who want to go to the games can pay higher ticket prices. Don’t force all students to pay higher fees. I never went to a football game when I was at Penn State (the university couldn’t afford to put books in the library, but they had $14 million to build a covered practice field so the players wouldn’t get wet. In a meaningless act of protest, I boycotted the games), but I had to pay higher fees to support the team. Mandatory athletic fees are only the most obvious way the university extorts money from its students. A far more nefarious way of funding football is the profits from university bookstores. University bookstores at the major universities turn millions of dollars of profits on the backs of captive consumers; smaller universities make less money, but they still treat their students the same way. To ensure that steady flow, university bookstores will do anything to keep other bookstores catering to students from opening near campus. Many universities require that all books used in the classroom must be purchased through the on-campus bookstore. Professors, who will fight for their academic freedoms in so many areas, won’t fight against this tyranny.
Alumni are also said to demand football programs. Again, let them pay higher ticket prices or make contributions to the athletic department if they want the service. In addition to alumni, universities say they need to appeal to the wider fan base in the general public. Thus, the typical fan of University of Alabama football never attended any university, let alone UA (he probably can’t spell “Alabama” if you spot him the “A” and the “l” and remind him there’s no “r” at the end, but that’s another issue). Again, if they want the service, let them pay the fees; don’t force students to bear the unwanted burden.
While I’m tilting at windmills, here’s a thought for the schools below the FBS level. University administrators claim the school needs a football program to support Home Coming activities. Instead of losing almost 10 percent of their operating budget on a football program to support one day’s activities, why not sponsor a cultural event like a craft festival? Arts and crafts festivals typically draw people from all over the region. Many universities already sponsor these activities. If alumni want to return to their school, they can interact with far more people at a fair than sitting in a stadium for three hours. A successful fair is better publicity for the university than a mediocre football team. Even if the university doesn’t make money off the fair, at least they won’t be losing such vast amounts of money. And at least the students won’t be forced to foot the bill.
I need to say all of this first, because I think it’s a total crock how much universities put on the shoulders of their students to support their football programs. Everybody “knows” that football at NCAA Division I-A (or Football Bowl Subdivision -- FBS) pays for all the non-revenue sports (read, women’s sports). This justifies all the money spent on facilities, scholarships, and coaches’ salaries for the football programs. The problem is that few, if any football programs actually make any money. According to John V. Lombardi (what a great football name) “The Enemy is Us: Cost Reduction College Sports,” Inside Higher Ed (31 January 2005) http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/01/31/lombardi1 “Maybe five in the country make money (if you could get them to report their income and expenses honestly and fully). The other 112 or so lose money; some lose a great deal of money.” That’s for the major programs. The lower division schools, Divisions II and III and NAIA, spend a greater percentage of their universities’ budgets on their football programs, thereby losing a greater percentage of their budgets.
A favorite argument of those who argue that big-time NCAA football turns a profit is that teams that participate in Bowl games, especially the BCS games, surely turn a profit with the big payouts. A brilliant example of this fallacy is the University of Wisconsin, which, as winner of the 1998 Rose Bowl, received a payout of $1.1 million. Despite this, they lost $286,700 on the trip. This was largely the result of paying for “832 people to attend, including players, band members, boosters, and university administrators.” (Welch Suggs, “A Look at the Future Bottom Line of Big-Time Sports,” Chronicle of Higher Education (12 Nov. 1999)).
Athletic directors tend to claim that increased attendance coupled with increased ticket prices makes up for the financial losses. (Welch Suggs, “A Look at the Future Bottom Line of Big-Time Sports,” Chronicle of Higher Education (12 Nov. 1999)). However, in an editorial in the Charlotte Observer on 21 Feb. 2008, Mary C. Schulken, associate editor at the newspaper wrote in “When these two men talk, we ought to listen: 49er football: A choice about whether football or academics will lead,” points out the major source of revenue to make up the shortfall is actually “much higher mandatory student athletic fees.” She goes on to argue that, if UNC-Charlotte decides to institute FBS football, they need to keep in mind that, “A 2003 NCAA study determined that for every dollar spent on college football, only one is generated in additional revenues. And remember, millions of dollars of that so-called revenue comes from student fees.”
Unfortunately, a major reason for the cost of college football is the bloated bureaucracy in FBS programs and the incompetence of many of those administrators. According to Brian L. Porto, in A New Season: Using Title IX to Reform College Sports (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003), the salaries of the coaches and the athletic directors “do not reflect market forces.” He argues that athletic departments are “autonomous” and tend to be run as an “`old boy’ network that runs these departments to reward its members.” Porto continues, “The lack of market pressure on athletic directors also accounts for their tendency to list as assets on their financial statements hoped-for revenues from unpredictable sources such as gate receipts, postseason bowl game or tournament appearances, licensing income, and private gifts, which often fail to meet expectations.” According to Tim Sullivan, “SDSU profs say football `profit’ doesn’t add up’ Union Tribune (San Diego) (9 Nov. 2007), “`There's no other business in America that does its books like athletic departments,’ said Indiana University's Murray Sperber, author of “College Sports, Inc.” `I can't think of one (other business) that has the deep, deep subsidies.’” Sullivan continues his discussion of financial irregularities by noting, “Athletic departments customarily pay little or nothing for such items as office space, utilities and debt service incurred on new facilities. Their costs, therefore, tend to be significantly understated. Their pronouncements of profitability, in turn, tend to be met with cynicism. Thus, athletic directors are not the hard-nosed corporate executives that they think they are, because unlike corporate executives, athletic directors are not necessarily held accountable for failing to control costs. According to [economist] Andrew Zimbalist: `If there were true economic competition [in college sports], athletic directors would have to make wise decisions and spend money wisely or they would go out of business. But these programs don’t go out of business.”
This attitude that that athletic departments can’t “go out of business” is a particular problem for schools below the FBS level, like Division II, Division III, and NAIA football programs. According to Tom Brennan, retired English professor at the University of South Alabama in, “Observation: The Gaping Maw of the Bottomless Pitt: The High Cost of Football” Harbinger (16 Nov. 1999) “athletic directors say they operate in a unique environment and that their costs must be met regardless of needs in other segments of the university. In other words, the costs of athletics departments are sacrosanct, which means, in effect, that athletics directors and their programs occupy a protected sanctuary within the university and that these sanctuaries stand apart from the standard university governance.” http://www.theharbinger.org/xviii/991116/brennan.html This attitude can be devastating at a small state school in a state that decides to prorate its yearly education budget. I remember the university I work at deciding one year not to buy books for the library. We still fielded a full football team. You have to have priorities and, apparently, football comes before the library at this university.
One way that football programs get bailed out of their economic difficulties is through generous subsidies from their university. According to Tim Sullivan, “SDSU profs say football `profit’ doesn’t add up’ Union Tribune (San Diego) (9 Nov. 2007), SDSU football turned a “profit” only after receiving subsidies from the university. An independent audit showed SDSU football had actually lost $1.6 million, even after receiving a subsidy of over $800,000. Part of the subsidies came from increased student activity fees – against which the students had voted. SDSU is not unique in relying on forced subsidies from the entire student body. I thought football was supposed to be for the benefit of the students.
Virtually all football programs below the FBS level lose money, and few college presidents have the courage and foresight of Maravene Loeschke, president of Mansfield University of Pennsylvania. Without operating under preconceived ideas or myths about football increasing enrollment at small universities, she simply looked at the math. Mansfield, with a steady enrollment figure, could not continue to allocate over $400,000 to a football program on the backs of student fees when that money could be more productively utilized elsewhere in the university. Maravene Loeschke, “No Sacred Cows,” Inside Higher Ed (9 Feb. 2007). http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/02/09/loeschke Few college presidents have Loeschke’s courage.
I don’t want to see college football end. I just think that the cost of the programs should be born by those who actually want the service. Those students who want to go to the games can pay higher ticket prices. Don’t force all students to pay higher fees. I never went to a football game when I was at Penn State (the university couldn’t afford to put books in the library, but they had $14 million to build a covered practice field so the players wouldn’t get wet. In a meaningless act of protest, I boycotted the games), but I had to pay higher fees to support the team. Mandatory athletic fees are only the most obvious way the university extorts money from its students. A far more nefarious way of funding football is the profits from university bookstores. University bookstores at the major universities turn millions of dollars of profits on the backs of captive consumers; smaller universities make less money, but they still treat their students the same way. To ensure that steady flow, university bookstores will do anything to keep other bookstores catering to students from opening near campus. Many universities require that all books used in the classroom must be purchased through the on-campus bookstore. Professors, who will fight for their academic freedoms in so many areas, won’t fight against this tyranny.
Alumni are also said to demand football programs. Again, let them pay higher ticket prices or make contributions to the athletic department if they want the service. In addition to alumni, universities say they need to appeal to the wider fan base in the general public. Thus, the typical fan of University of Alabama football never attended any university, let alone UA (he probably can’t spell “Alabama” if you spot him the “A” and the “l” and remind him there’s no “r” at the end, but that’s another issue). Again, if they want the service, let them pay the fees; don’t force students to bear the unwanted burden.
While I’m tilting at windmills, here’s a thought for the schools below the FBS level. University administrators claim the school needs a football program to support Home Coming activities. Instead of losing almost 10 percent of their operating budget on a football program to support one day’s activities, why not sponsor a cultural event like a craft festival? Arts and crafts festivals typically draw people from all over the region. Many universities already sponsor these activities. If alumni want to return to their school, they can interact with far more people at a fair than sitting in a stadium for three hours. A successful fair is better publicity for the university than a mediocre football team. Even if the university doesn’t make money off the fair, at least they won’t be losing such vast amounts of money. And at least the students won’t be forced to foot the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
