Random Thoughts JAN-JUN 2009

Reaganism - Redefining The REAL Majority in America

2009-05-20T19:39:00.000-07:00

The most powerful political party in America is (and has been for generations) one that does not even have a name, a structure, even a platform.

According to the most recent polls, about 40% of America does not identify themselves as "Republican", "Democrat", "conservative", or "liberal". This number has surely fluctuated from year to year and election to election, but it can safely be said that the number of people in this group usually outnumbers the GOP and DNC, respectively.

The open secret of our political system is that we have a "hidden" de facto party that turns out to be the deciding bloc in almost every election. Yet year after year, we act surprised. Just as the GOP is struggling today to find a new base, the DNC of the 1980s wallowed in self-pity for over a decade before Clinton was able to capture enough support (with the help of Perot) to take the White House.

As the right moves further to the right and left moves further to the left, this plurality based model becomes ever more skewed to the semi-mysterious bloc of voters in what a traditional political analyst would call the "middle".

But for those of us who have cast away the archaic left-middle-right model of American politics, this hidden party has emerged as a powerful, albeit unpredictible, body.

When I hear todays GOP struggling on whether or not to hold firm to their conservative roots, or to try to "move to the middle", I just chuckle. The party that preaches small-government and liberty for all has just wrapped up an 8 year hold on the Oval Office that saw government expand at unprecedented levels, skirt one of the most fundamental principles of American liberty, habeas corpus, by putting "enemy combatants" in an internment facility in Cuba, and continue to oppose equal rights based on sexual preference. Is there really any question as to why the GOP did not get the votes they needed from the middle in 2008?

Rush Limbaugh suggested recently that the GOP just needs to start "teaching" America about conservatism. While this might be a sound strategy for a talk radio host who needs to sell ads, it blows as a political strategy.

See, Ronald Reagan did not get 525 electoral votes in 1984 by "teaching" America to believe in his conservative views. He did it in 1980 by convincing enough of that de facto "hidden majority" party that he was willing to consider their views as part of his decisionmaking...and in 1984 by following through on his promise. Contrary to today's revisionist history, this alienated many in the "conservative" camp of the GOP. From amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants to the Social Security bailout in '83 to the INF treaty, Reagan proved his commitment to consider all sides of an issue.

It makes me cringe when I hear today's Republicans hold up Reagan as some hardline "conservative". Sure, we can put his record up against other presidents and say he was one of the most "conservative". But Reagan did not tow a party line, especially with respect to radical conservatives, who he decried. Today's GOP should realize that the Limbaugh theory of conservatism isn't what brought them success and isn't what is going to bring them back to success.

Personally, after years of wanting nothing more than to see a viable third party, I have seen the math for what it is and decided that this system is perfect. As someone who believes about half of what each party espouses, I have never felt more certain that my vote counts.

Update: Having it Ten Percent of Both Ways

2009-05-19T08:52:00.000-07:00

How timely. Shortly after my post "Having it Ten Percent of Both Ways", GQ magazine obtained and released the cover sheets from a series of intelligence updates that Donald Rumsfeld prepared for President Bush in the months leading up to and into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Each cover sheet comes complete with its own motivational verse from the Bible.

There is nothing else to say, really. It is not all that shocking that there was a "higher cause" for those who orchestrated these wars.

What pains me is that so many people who call themselves Republicans and Americans would think that this is acceptable in a "free" nation. Our founders saw the need for the government to be secular. It is fine for elected officials to be religious, but when their religion becomes the motivation and justification for action it crosses the line of what is lawful and right.

For your viewing pleasure: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/galleries/intel_it_on_the_mountain_rumsfelds_bush_briefings/intel_it_on_the_mountain_rumsfelds_bush_briefings.html#ph11

Ugh.

Having it Ten Percent of Both Ways

2009-05-15T21:02:00.000-07:00

I have long been perplexed and frustrated by those who take from history only what supports their position. This is especially true of those who seek to pick and choose from the Constitution. This phenomenon occurs throughout the political spectrum as the politically-motivated twist and spin the foundations of liberty for their cause.

First case in point: the Second Amendment. Regardless of the ad nauseum debates about commas, grammar and the definitions of "well-regulated" and "militia", the most objective conclusion is that the founders would not have included the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" had they not intended for such a right to exist. Expanding on that, they probably would not have not included this short paragraph in what amounted to a "Bill of Rights" had it not been intended to enumerate (remember, not establish) such a right.

Of course, debate still rages. Political passion has turned many people who would fight to the death to preserve a strict interpretation of the rest of the Bill of Rights, against any such interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Another example of this conundrum comes from conservatives, chiefly the "evangelical" variety, who both ardently argue the uncompromising clarity of the Second Amendment and just as passionately that the inclusion of religious phrases in our Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency are lawful, right, and constitutionally allowed. They often remind us that the founders were religious folks, and that they intended and believed God to be a part of our national institutions. (1)

This is most likely the truth. But why, then, is the Constitution's only reference to religion, other than the "no test" for public office clause, the prohibition of Congress establishing or preventing the free exercise thereof? It seems logical that a person working under the same strict and objective interpretation that was applied to the Second Amendment would hold that laws made by Congress requiring the use of the phrases "In God We Trust" and "under God" violate both the free-exercise test (by requiring citizens to make a pledge and use currency that includes a specific religious reference) and the establishment clause (by specifying a religious deity under which our nation lives and in which it, apparently, should trust).

After all, what of those religious Americans who do not believe in "God", per se? A 2007 Pew study on religious affiliation found that as many as 1 in 10 Americans are either atheist, agnostic, or secular in their beliefs. (8) What about these citizens? Aren't they also entitled to the protection from establishment of religion? Or do rights exist only at the whim of the majority? What if the people someday elected a Muslim majority to Congress? I have a feeling that today's proponents of these phrases would sing a different tune if Congress voted to change them to "In Allah we Trust" and "...one nation, under Allah".

But, back to the constitutional dilemma. These dedicated guardians of the Second Amendment nearly take up their arms when presented with the idea that "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional. While it is true that religion is a major part of our nation's history and that most of the founders were pious men and that many traditions, morals, culture and heritage do come from religious roots, the constitution prohibits this. Regardless of whether one agrees, as did the Supreme Court in Zorach (2), that our nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" the Constitution simply does not, and no truly free nation can exist otherwise.

It was written in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (3), that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". At that time, with the barely 8 year old Constitution and its founders' intent still fresh in the mind, the statement was true. But 158 years later Congress found that it would be of "great spiritual and psychological value" to adopt the national motto, "In God We Trust". (4) Today, the premise of that passage in the treaty is readily dismissed as contextual. (5)

It does not surprise me that a McCarthy-era Congress and Supreme Court in a nation whose adult population was over 80% Christian would muscle through such measures. It does, however, surprise me that they have endured.

As of 2003, these phrases continue to enjoy enjoy a 90% approval rating (6) in a nation that remains around 80% Christian (7). But in that math lies my entire point. It is easy to look past the 10% of non-believers and say they are overruled by a 90% majority. But rights are not democratically derived! They are, to borrow an argument from the majority, "God-given". To our founders those rights most certainly included the exercise of any of the world's 10,000-some odd religions -- or the right to exercise none at all.

Abrogating the rights of the few to recognize the deity of the many, for the purpose of improving the "spiritual and psychological" health of the nation, was a pure abomination. Our founders understood that liberty, like religion, is not a matter of opinion. Just as the pious believe in their religions' fundamental truths, it is fundamentally true that specifying a religious deity under which this country exists is an affront to individual liberty.

But like so many truths, this one is easily clouded by religious passion -- the very reason our founders chose to leave religion out of the American equation. Both religion and government would be well served by the 90% majority learning to distinguish these religious men from the nation they founded, and their beliefs from the freedom to believe them. We can only hope that the future does not hold the application of this double-standard to more of our "God-given" and inalienable rights.

--
1. "Wall Builders" website, http://www.wallbuilders.com/default.asp
2. Zorach v. Coulson 343 U.S. 306 (1952). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=343&page=306
3. Wikipedia - Treaty of Tripoli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
4. Congressional Record, 1956, p.13917. http://www.nonbeliever.org/images/CR102-13917.pdf
5. Wall Builders- Treaty of Tripoli. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125
6. Gallup Poll, 2003. http://www.gallup.com/poll/9391/Americans-Approve-Public-Displays-Religious-Symbols.aspx
7. Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel1.htm
8. The Pew Forum, "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey", 2007. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Election Fallout

2009-05-13T21:09:00.000-07:00

With only one exception in 1792 (1), quadrennially, we elect a President of the United States. In the fifty-six elections that have taken place, fourty-four men have held the office. The process is regular and even major disruptions like the Civil War, assassinations, the World Wars, droughts, and the Great Depression did not cause so much as a hiccup in the four year cycle of this fundamental democratic process. (2)

While our country has seen many trials and tribulations, it has endured despite consistent predictions of its impending failure by varying groups of people throughout our history. It is one of the most interesting phenomena of the democratic electoral process, something I like to refer to as Election Fallout.

Election Fallout is one of the most predictable occurrences in the aftermath of any election; the failure of a small portion of those who oppose a particular candidacy to accept, adapt and cope with that candidate's victory.

With the 2008 election of Barack Obama we have reached a new level of fallout with dire predictions, scenarios of police states, diminished property rights, communism, a "New World Order", and gun-grabbing (to name a few) beginning almost as soon as the polls closed.

The historical context in which that election took place (i.e. the economic crisis, the war on terror, the first African-American president, etc) has made this round of fallout particularly bitter. For a small group of people, it was the realization of a multifaceted worst-case-scenario. Within days of the election an array of neo/theoconservative websites and blogs sprung to life with claims of government abuses and plots, not that any of this was new. But with the election of Obama the sense on many of these sites and in many of these groups has been that the end is drawing near.

These folks often consider themselves true patriots, the bearers of the original torch handed down by the founding fathers. They see America as a country that strayed from its original intent even before the Constitution was ratified, one with an abusive government ripe with sinister plots of domination and power. They sense conspiracies everywhere. They are pessimistic by nature (though they usually disagree with that assessment). They live in fear of the government, feeling anger for the "ignorant" masses and abhorring everything and everyone that contradicts them.

They are extremely suspicious of mainstream media, and tend to share their information from a network of websites, blogs, and forums that often feature stories of government abuses. These articles spread like wildfire via social networking sites and email, and are simply accepted to be true despite the fact that they are nearly universally unsourced, uncorroborated and not verifiable. In this way, the culture of this community has taken on a self-fulfilling nature.

But while argument after argument is made to prove that we have lost our rights, our freedoms and our liberties, the balance of power will continue to oscillate. The people's interest in their government and their ambition to be involved will rise and fall, our wealth will wax and wane and conflicts will occur. Regardless of it all, the pendulum of democratic rule will always prevail. That also means that we all will and should spend periods of time in the minority. For some, this is difficult or impossible to accept.

The irony is that these "patriots" do not carry the torch of the founding majority, they carry the flame of a minority whose ideas for government did not come to fruition, but whose contributions to America were great...the Patrick Henrys, the George Masons. That anti-federalist spirit and energy is an important and essential aspect of America, yes. But there is a fine line between anti-federalist spirit and anti-federalism. The latter would, by my definition, be treasonous.

The "conservative extremist" label tossed around in Department of Homeland Security recently has only fueled the self-fulfilling prophecy that is now overtaking these groups. But, the error at DHS was really only in labeling the threat as "conservative". It is certainly not illogical to consider the possibility of domestic extremism, especially from groups who advocate revolution, secession, and other extreme actions. After all, history has shown us that domestic terror is our greatest mainland threat.

Speaking of revolutions...in the next 7 1/2 years, we will elect two more presidents and will directly elect all 535 seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. We do hold the power, regardless of whether one agrees with the way we wield it. If these groups could concentrate their energies on the ballot box, they would be much more effective.

The best tribute we can pay to our founders is to enjoy the freedom we do have, even if it is not perfect. They neither expected nor demanded perfection, just a "more perfect" union. And while I have problems with many policies and laws from time to time and administration to administration, I feel fortunate to live here through the best and worst of both.

--
1. Wikipedia - Election of 1792. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1792
2. History of Presidential Elections. http://www.historycentral.com/elections/index.html

The Tao of Economics?

2009-05-08T21:31:00.000-07:00

That which is meddling, touching everything,
Will work but ill, and disappointment bring.

(Tao Te Ching, c. 58, ~600 B.C.)

I do not consider myself a Taoist, at least no more than I do a Muslim, Christian, Jew or Hindu. That being said, this proverb from the Legge translation ¹ of the Tao Te Ching is one of my favorites from any sacred text, and one that seems worthy of some reflection in these tough economic times.

The concept is quite simple, yet mastering its application can be a lifetime's work -- if it can be done at all. Here are a few examples of how the lesson of this passage play out in many aspects of our day to day lives:

In the culinary world, experienced chefs know that excessive meddling with foods often leads to disappointing results. This is true of overseasoning, overmixing and overcooking, as well as excessive flipping, handling, poking or prodding. (Incidentally, in my own 20 year culinary journey, I have found patience to be the most important cooking technique.)

In drawing and painting the most skilled artists are often those who use the fewest brush or penstrokes to create an image.

In photography, the most highly regarded images are often those that capture their subjects in a natural, unforced state.

In music and film, the sparsest of compositions can also be the most powerful. "Overproduction" can produce a generally inferior song, at least from an artistic standpoint.

In personal affairs and relationships, unnecessary or unwelcome meddling most often causes more harm than good.

In the financial world, the most successful investors are usually those who "look long" and do not excessively meddle with their investment strategy. Certainly, some meddlers prosper in the short term. But, the Taoist would be quick to point out that these types of positive gains for one individual are offset in the broader picture by the losses of others. (My personal belief is that speculative and intangible "investments" have had a large hand in precipitating this economic crisis...but this is another chapter altogether.)

You get the point. There are many similar examples. Perhaps what is to be taken from this simple lesson in the Te Ching is that the best solution to a problem is to avoid it in the first place.

But that is easier said than done, of course. I turn back to the current economic crisis since it seems to be the most pressing issue for our people at the moment. The real fault for this crisis lies not with those seeking to profit in the free market, but with 'We, the people' for allowing excessive meddling and manipulation in the credit and housing markets in the first place, especially in the past few decades. Now, we are allowing trillions of dollars to be thrown at a clearly broken system in an attempt to prop it up.

Have we not been here before? It is now generally accepted that the last time we experienced this level of economic malady was in the months leading up to the Great Depression.² Here are two graphs. They have not been manipulated in any way, and simply show the Dow Jones Industrial Average for about 6 months each in October of 1929 and 2008, respectively. Yes, many "experts" could baffle me with the reasons 2008 was not 1929, but in the end it is clear that we have been here before.

Although the similarity is striking I am not suggesting that history repeats itself in this mathematical of a manner (though it has in this case, so far), or that we are doomed to fall into another depression. I am trying to point out that when we make the same mistakes, we get similar results. The bubble will always burst when we allow the market to be run up based only on the confidence of the investors with little or no connection to actual, tangible value. Inevitably, this bastardization of the free market turns into a de facto pyramid scheme. It becomes necessary for many to lose so a few can gain. And yes, those few do gain.

The consensus in May 1930, just as it is today, was that we had "bottomed out" and the economy was recovering. ³ But history shows that there was actually no recovery, and the rest of the 1929 chart looks like this:

The black dot is placed at a point corresponding to May/June 1930, which is now considered the beginning of the actual market collapse that pushed us into depression. When adjusted for inflation, it would be 1965 before the market recovered to this level.

Again, I am not saying we are 'destined' to repeat this decline; simply that if we follow the same path it is quite logical that we have neither seen the end nor the worst of this downturn. What we are now experiencing could turn out to be a "sucker's rally" similar to what was experienced in the April to July market in 1930.

Then again, maybe this is a true bull market... Maybe all of the bailouts and bank rescues have restored enough confidence in the system to keep it afloat. But in that case, what is the long-term prognosis if the system itself has not been repaired? The lesson that should be learned is that we need not only to be prepared for the possibility of economic collapse in the short and long-term, but we also need to work at correcting the "meddling" that leads to it in the first place. Perhaps this means returning to an economy that is based less on confidence (or lack thereof) and more on actual value.

As draconian as it may in today's socio-political climate, the best course of action for our economy is likely the same as nearly everything else in life. Stop the meddling. I do not mean to let the economy collapse in a frefall, rather to stop fighting the natural result of failed systems and policies, and help the economy correct itself as gently as possible; "guide" it down to its natural state as we shift back to a value based system from a debt and credit based one.

While I am opposed philosophically to all of the current bailouts and rescues and I do not believe they will be effective, I must concede that simply restoring confidence to a majority of investors will likely succeed in stemming (or at least prolonging) this collapse. As far as I am concerned, what we do in the meantime to prevent it from happening again is much more important issue than these relatively small bailouts.

And this is where this simple lesson from the Tao Te Ching should be applied. A more hands-off approach by our government must be preceded by a more hands-on approach by We, the people. We need to educate ourselves and learn to responsibly oversee our government and our markets, because "free market" does not mean "free to manipulate", "free to abuse", or "free to take advantage of".

The pundits can go on blaming Obama, blaming Bush, blaming Wall Street, blaming banks. The simple fact is that We let this happen. It is our fault, our mess to clean up.

I am always impressed that the great thinkers of ancient times were so often able to parse a great deal of wisdom into a few words. I just wish more modern thinkers would learn from the history they so often cite.

--
1. James Legge - Wikipedia
2. Global recession worst since Depression, IMF says (AP 4/22/09)
3. The treacherous nature of bear market rallies (Jan. 2002)

(Why) Al Gore is Always Right

2009-04-16T12:03:00.000-07:00

Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species". The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun?, Prentice-Hall 1975.

It is fairly safe scientifically to state that our planet will someday experience another Ice Age. Geology and climatology tell us that the third rock has already experienced at least four major freeze-ups. In fact, our current climate is actually the tail end of the last Ice Age.(1)

In 1976, the year I was born, a scientific consensus was reached that the earth stood on the edge of environmental calamity; the possibility of an abrupt descent into a new Ice Age. 30 years of data showed that the earth was cooling much more rapidly than it had at any time in measured history. Yet by 1977, the data showed that the cooling had stopped, and by the time I was in High School the consensus had firmly shifted to that of anthropogenic global warming that now threatened humanity in the same way that the impending Ice Age did 15 years prior.

Over the next 15 or so years, the bulk of society gradually accepted that human produced carbon dioxide is amplifying the greenhouse effect and hastening the warming of our planet. The theory of human-carbon induced climate change is now nearly universally believed to be true. At the very least, it has become accepted.

After many years of failed attempts and contemplation on how to debate and present this issue, I had simply given up. There exists an impenetrable armor of passion and fervor around this issue that has absorbed it into the very fabric of our culture. This is especially true of people my age and younger -- those who have never experienced a world with any other possibility but an impending man-made climate catastrophe. To suggest that the current model is incorrect is to subject oneself to ridicule, disgust and scorn.

So rather than continue to waste my efforts on discussing the issue with people who are not equipped to do so, I have decided to simply emphasize the ease with which scientifically-based doubt can be formed. I do not seek to prove that anthropogenic climate change does not exist; only to demonstrate that the accepted understanding of it is an error of epic cart-before-the-horse proportions with ghastly economic consequences.

So, let's consider some questions:

Why, when we look at a chart of rising CO2 levels and temperatures do we assume that the rising CO2 caused the temperature increase? Is it not possible that the level of CO2 saturation measured in the atmosphere rises as a result of a non-related rise in temperature?

What if the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was non-linear and did not lend itself to the runaway greenhouse model?

What if increased CO2 in the atmosphere resulted in a more favorable environment for plant growth, offsetting CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas?

Do we really know the answers to these questions? No. Regardless of popular conception, there are plenty of legitimate and plausible theories that are contrary to the current consensus. However, the leaders of this cause chose to beatify the anthropogenic CO2 theory into truth, and to create a "system" to combat it with great effectiveness. So effective, in fact, that even in the face of failure it succeeds.

Consider these questions:

What is going to happen over the next few decades if the temperature and CO2 levels begin to decrease? Will we hear claims that our efforts to solve the crisis were successful, that things like new laws and regulations, "cap and trade" and carbon credits stopped the warming trend and saved us from calamity?

Of course we will.

What will happen if temperature and CO2 plateau and remain the same in coming decades? Will we hear similar claims of success; that our actions stopped the rise in temperatures?

Of course we will.

But, what will happen over the next few decades if the temperature and CO2 levels continue to rise? Will we hear claims that we have not done enough, and that we need to commit more of our resources to cutting carbon emissions so that we can slow the warming trend?

Of course we will.

It is self-fulfilling no matter what the result, and it is a win-win-win for those who believe in it and those who directly benefit from it. See, this sickening cycle of manipulation is perpetuated by a combination of zealous citizens, scientists and politicians, and by the businesses and individuals that profit from its existence. CO2-warming science made the jump from theoretical computer models straight to consensus, yet we wager trillions of dollars and increased government regulation and bureaucracy on it. And as long as trillions of dollars hedge on the CO2 supposition being true, it does not matter what the climate does. Down, up , or plateaued, the doomsdayers who brought this climate hysteria upon us will continue to interpret the data in ways that fulfill the prophecy. Don't believe me?

Al Gore, the forefather of the post-cooling climate change club, had this to say when asked how to motivate people to solve the climate change problem:

...denial [of anthropogenic/CO2-based climate change] is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solution. From, "An Interview with Accidental Movie Star Al Gore", http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/, May 2006.

In other words, as people become more and more accepting of this theory they will also be more supportive of the funding to "solve" the problem regardless of whether or not the solution is viable, or the problem actually exists. People like Al Gore will continue to receive awards and accolades, mostly because they can not be wrong.

Being the quasi-religion that it is, I am all but accused of heresy when I dispute the validity of the anthropogenic/CO2 model of climate change. People question how a seemingly intelligent person can not believe such a "widely accepted scientific consensus". However, I would wager that I have studied and striven to understand this issue more than 99% of those who simply "believe". The surprising fact to many is that I do believe in climate change. To think otherwise would be absurd! But I also believe that the modern institution of anthropogenic climate change is a man-made prophecy that has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars, hurt businesses, and exacted an immeasurable waste of time, energy and worry on society.

We have allowed the "boy who cried wolf" scenario to play out twice over the past 30 years, and I guarantee that when the next interglacial cooling period begins (which may be starting now) the dogma, and thereby all of the associated socioeconomic implications, will shift with it. The machine will continue to feed on the rich mix of fear and zeal to fuel itself.

This is as much about common sense as it is about good policies built on good science. Unfortunately, all three seem to be in very short supply since that first doomsday prediction 30 years ago. The real crisis in climate change is that humanity has been bamboozled and misled. And unfortunately, since the rules of the game change during play, time will not tell. Al Gore has never been more right.

--

1. An Ice Age. http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Intro/Iceage.html