A long time ago, I learned that one should not begin a letter–and I suppose now an email, blog, tweet, etc., with an excuse. Nonetheless, I will mention this now and expand on it in a subsequent post; there have been a lot of issues going on, not the least of which is being ill and in the hospital a few days. This is my excuse for an irregular and infrequent posting schedule for some time now. Anyway, on to the topic of the day. The former vice-president continues to extol the virtues of the Bush administration policies post 9/11, crediting them with preventing another terror attack. Most recently he reaffirmed this on Face the Nation last Sunday. Never one to let the facts get in the way of strongly held personal beliefs (like his “boss?” George W. Bush), Cheney offered an exemplary example of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this), a common logical fallacy. Admittedly a little less silly than the joke about the guy snapping his fingers to keep the tigers away (”but there aren’t any tigers around here,” says the onlooker who asks why he is doing this. “Ah you see how well it works then, eh?” the snapper replies). Read the rest of this entry »
I voted for him. I support him on most things. But Obama is so wrong to avoid prosecuting those who tortured suspected terrorists. The US has been actively involved in prosecuting people throughout the world for the same kinds of deeds done for purposes allegedly fair but more often admittedly foul. The fact that others could honestly say they were following orders or had the authorization of superiors did not inoculate them from prosecution. Oh, but we are the good guys. We were aggrieved. We were just trying to protect ourselves. No! It is not a legitimate defense; it is pure sophistry. Yes, it is certainly arguable (and I would be one to so argue) that those most deserving of punishment are those that wrote the specious legal opinions and offered the guidance that the torture was OK. Their crimes are more reprehensible than those of the interrogaters whose hands poured the water over cloth covered faces or slammed people into walls using plastic collar grips. There is an especially hot (or perhaps icy cold, to match his heart) hell awaiting Dick Cheney; but I don’t hold my breath that he will suffer any legal harm in this lifetime. While the laws of society may fail, the law of cause and effect never does. For the sake of our society, those who tortured should be punished. Those who authorized it will be–sooner or later.
The Vermont House joined the state’s senate in overriding the governor’s bill making gay marriage legal in Vermont. The Iowa supreme court recently made gay marriage legal there. Numerous states allow the use of medical marijuana and some have decriminalized the possession or use of small quantities of the recreational drug. An African-American man now occupies the White House. Change, like that stinky stuff we flush, happens–whether we like it or not. For many people, most any kind of change is unwelcome. Change is unsettling; a stressful event. But even when the change is one we strongly oppose, it still presents an opportunity to exercise the brain and to challenge the assumptions underlying the “truths” we hold dear. The stock market goes up; the stock market goes down. The political power shifts left; the political power shifts right. Does it make a difference? Sure it does, but how much difference it makes depends on what we make of it.
The worst fears of dittoheads were confirmed today, when Rush Limbaugh confirmed rumors that he and Bill O’Reilly have been secret lovers for several years. Birds of a feather do indeed “flock together,” as it were. Whether this will forestall planned participation on next season’s “Dancing with the Stars,” is yet to be determined.
Tags: April Fools, dittoheads, GOP
One would expect an economics professor from Harvard, and a president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research at that, to know whereof they speak on matters of dollars and cents. Martin Feldstein argues that the Obama administration should withdraw its proposal to reduce the charitable tax deduction of higher income (over $250,00 for married couples) donors to 28% from the 33% or 35% benefit they now enjoy. He notes:
“A substantial body of economic research shows that, on average, each 10 percent reduction in the cost of giving raises the amount that a person gives by about 10 percent. ”
Without expressly claiming studies supporting the corollary, he goes on to illustrate that a 10% increase in cost will conversely lower donations. Ironically, his explanation better makes the case for adopting the Obama proposal rather than for defeating it. He points out that the effect of the change from 35% to 28% is a 10.8% increase in the cost of giving. Accordingly, he suggests a donor of $10,000 might reduce his donation to $9,000 or 10%. As a result, the giver would pay $980 more dollars in taxes but save the $1,000 in donation–leaving him ahead $20. He says that:
“This is a hypothetical example, but the responsiveness of giving and tax revenue reflects the evidence regarding how people respond to changes in tax rates.”
Seriously?! To someone who can afford to give $10,000 to charity, the person would short his favorite charity $1,000 so he can have an extra $20 in his pocket? While giving the government $980 instead? This is a slap upside the head duh moment in the sensibility of economic theory. Having made this abundantly clear, I think Martin Feldstein eloquently has affirmed President Obama’s conclusion that this proposal should have little effect on charitable donations and a positive effect on tax revenues. Without this explanation, there might have been some foolish people out there who were actually opposed to the proposal.
Tags: charitable deductions, Feldstein, Obama, taxes
What a hoot! Leave it to the American Enterprise Institute to declare as a scholar someone who can set up and knockdown liberal strawmen in such a hilarious fashion. It’s difficult to know where to begin in critically examining his opinion piece from Sunday, March 22, so let me quickly summarize his thesis and then get right into his gratuitous slams via ill-thought out strawmen. He says the European model “drains too much of the life from life.” He posits that the essential developments of life occur within the institutions of family, community, vocation and faith. Rather than making them the robust and vital, European social policy enfeebles them. Europe has lovely but empty churches. Wonderful day care but less than replacement birthrates. Protected employment but jobs are viewed as but necessary evils enroute to the pleasures of vacations, etc. He asserts that the European view essentially is that the only purpose in life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible until death naturally intrudes. He proceeds to set up the strawmen when he offers his opinion of the defects at the heart of the social democratic agenda.
The “equality premise,” assumes that in a fair society, “different groups of people [defined by race, sex, sexual preference, etc] will naturally have the same distribution of outcomes in life [income, education, status, etc.]“ When they don’t, it must be because of bad human behavior and an unfair society. Well sure, but that is true only if all other variables are controlled; there may be those who baldly assert such a premise but more generally it comes into play in drawing conclusions about the absence of equal opportunity or outright discrimination. “Much of the Democratic Party’s proposed domestic legislation assumes this [equality premise] is true.”Logically, is there an error in such a premise? Well, let’s revisit Shockley, et al [Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites, etc.]. Without citing any specifics, Murray suggests that scientific findings will soon ”force the left to abandon the equality premise.”
These new findings of biology will also invalidate the “New Man” premise ”which says that human beings are malleable through the right government interventions.” From whence comes this bit of straw?! He cites the example of government programs intended to support fatherless children as an example. He goes on to say that “social democrats will have to acknowledge that the traditional family plays a special, indispensible role in human flourishing.” Are there politicians, bureaucrats or others on the left who argue otherwise or assert that government-run creches are the best? No, of course not. Did the 40% of babies born to single mothers in America in 2007 come as a result of government encouragement or “New Man” promoters? On the contrary, they probably came about due to the failure of the “abstinence only” sex education policies pursued over the years that a Republicans have controlled Congress and/or the White House.
The religious right has exercised an overly large influence on government policy during the past decade, attempting to impose their values on American institutions and the behavior of the American people. That is where the futility of the “New Man” premise has been most clearly demonstrated. Church attendance is down, unwed births are up, corporate greed has run rampant, etc. So whose paradigm is failing? The one item on which I can agree with Murray is that people must be treated as individuals. The success of social policy is to be measured by the “freedom of individuals, acting on their personal abilities, aspirations and values, to seek the kind of life that best suits them.” It is not social democrats, the left, Democrats or erstwhile Europeans that suck the life from life through social policies and values that limit individual freedom for individuals–it is the religious right and conservatives. On the other hand, the “he who dies with the most toys” perspective on life (not too different from the one Murray chastises the Europeans for) also comes from the right–not the religious right, of course, but the “free enterprise” right. Maybe the American Enterprise folks are comfortable with that?
Tags: American Enterprise Institute, equality premise, left, New Man premise, progressive, Shockley
Way back when, during the Vietnam War, there were areas designated as “free fire zones.” Those were pieces of land that the U.S. military described to the locals, via air-dropped fliers in Vietnamese language, as subject to automatic weapon or artillery fire without asking questions. In the old Wild West parlance, “shoot first and ask questions later,” only in this case no questions were asked. The purpose was to clear an area of Viet Cong, the communist guerrillas that were the focus of U.S. military combat. The problem was that they blended in, indistinguishably, with the local population. Much the same as Hamas militants/terrorists do with the civilian population in the Gaza strip. Much like the situation with the civilians in Vietnam, the locals in Gaza have difficulty moving anywhere else. Even when they take shelter in UN refugee facilities, they still are attacked. I am not unsympathetic to the Israeli predicament; with Hamas sending rockets indiscriminately into Israel, the Israelis have a reason to respond. Unfortunately, as in Vietnam, the cure may prove worse than the disease–”we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
Violence begets violence. The us versus them thought process dehumanizes those with whom we are in conflict. When we feel justified in responding with violence, to those we believe (with some justification) hate or disrespect us, we soon conclude that we must win at all costs. We will kill them before they kill us. We will stop only when they are all dead or in complete surrender. But then, inevitably, the cycle begins anew. The resentment among the losers boils up into terrorist activities. The simple answer is: STOP. Stop and realize that those others are fellow human beings. Stop and engage in dialogue. Simple, yes; easy, NO! But in Gaza as in every other area of the world where people fight over land, religion, money, power, self-determination, ethnicity or any other rationalization, it comes down to this. There is no point in debating relative virtues or who has committed more evil or suffered more harm; that only prolongs the suffering of all.
Is my household the only one in America that takes the Chinese food out of the container and eats it from plates? I don’t know about you, but one of the hallmarks of eating Chinese in my house is sharing the different items with other family members. That being so, eating out of the containers doesn’t work very well. I suspect we are not alone. So, again, is it only me that gets annoyed at the cliche of every instance of eating Chinese food shown in a movie or TV show has the characters eating out of the boxes? OK, it is a recognizable motif, but does it advance the story line? No, I think it is lazy writing, lazy directing, lazy editing and lazy producing. Most recent offenders (that I saw): Ghost Whisperer and Numbers.
Is it semantics or is there a difference between a goal and a (New Year’s)resolution? I’m not sure it matters, but I am sure that just as each flip of the monthly calendar page at the end of December begins a new year, each flip of the 365-day calendar begins a new day. In other words, whether you make a resolution or a goal, you start fresh on it each day–not just at the beginning of the year. So while it is refreshing to make goals or resolutions for the coming year, it is most important to keep working on them each day. Days without progress or even with setbacks will occur; continued efforts will result in victory.
Tags: 2009, New Year, resolutions
So Boston Legal is over. A great show. In its penultimate show, 86-year old Betty White (who played the occasionally recurring character Catherine Piper) went to court to sue the TV networks for failing to provide enough programs for older people. Carl Sachs, played by John Larroquette, cited a load of statistics to show that the sponsor-led programming decisions ignored the greater purchasing power and TV watching habits of those over 50. I couldn’t agree more. I can’t stand and watch NO (pseudo) reality shows. There seem to be more and more of them. I agree with Sachs arguments that shows seem to be getting dumbed down to comport better with viewers that may be texting and/or playing on handheld games while watching TV. I can only hope that eventually, as the percentage of the population older than 50 continues to increase, that we will be able to demand changes.
Tags: boomers, Boston Legal, reality TV, TV