Musings-from-Claremont

Three-dimensional Decision-making Model

2011-03-13T22:03:00.000-07:00

In a recent (3/8/11) column in the New York Times, David Brooks writes about the dangers of making policy decisions on the basis of rational thought alone, devoid of an emotional component. He believes that we glorify the former and deny the importance of the latter. Research, he states, points to a strong relationship between the two, which we ignore at our peril.

Brooks raises a fascinating and complex issue with important implications for people, both individually and collectively.

Let's start at the beginning. Psychologists and physiologists have known for decades that various parts of the brain specialize in performing specific functions. For example, consciousness, expressive language, and logical thinking seem to be modulated primarily in the cerebral cortex. The brain stem controls autonomic functions like breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. The limbic system, a complex array of interconnected structures, plays a key role in regulating emotions (among other things).

Anatomically, these separate structures communicate with each other through millions of neurons -- and these connections are apparent in the ways human beings behave. I'll come back to this point later.

First, think of a 2 x 2 matrix, where one dimension relates to "cognitive vs. emotional" and the other relates to "conscious vs. unconscious." Then it's fairly easy to cite specific behaviors that fall almost exclusively into each of the four "cells." Solving a simple algebraic equation during a test (aside from the issue of the motivation that brings a person to this situation initially) belongs in the "cognitive/conscious" cell. I got stuck on a computer programming problem many years ago, decided to give up and go to sleep, and woke up the next morning with a fully formed and accurate solution; that was evidence of "cognitive/unconscious" behavior. Similarly, we are all familiar with emotional conscious and unconscious phenomena (lust and repressed anger, respectively, to cite two common examples).

In more complex situations, it is well understood that the various parts of the brain interact in significant ways. People frequently ignore information that contradicts a pre-existing belief system; one way to explain this would be to postulate that changing one's mind about something important (or admitting that the facts at hand do not lend themselves to a clearcut conclusion) causes an uncomfortable emotional response. Memory itself is selective; recall is generally better for pleasant experiences than for unpleasant ones.

If our goal is to formulate a model for effective decision-making based on a fully functioning brain, there are plenty of places to start for what doesn't work. Apparently Adolph Hitler had full use of his cerebral cortex, in the sense that he could give electrifying speeches, direct military operations, etc. But his thought process was narrowly guided by grossly flawed emotions, based on hatred and prejudice, resulting in catastrophe on an unprecedented scale. And while this is an extreme example (fortunately), the world is full of people whose cognitive output is molded by emotional input that many of us find repugnant. (Witness those who have convinced themselves that it is acceptable to murder doctors who perform legal abortions.)

So apparently the model Brooks proposes is not infallible. Nor is its opposite -- a complete divorce of cognitive functioning from emotion. During the many years that Condoleeza Rice served as secretary of State under George W. Bush, I never saw even the hint of emotion in her public pronouncements. Apparently she was very good at thinking (having become, previously, provost at Stanford University) but very poor at feeling. Thousands of American (and Iraqi) citizens died, partially as a result. Pretty much the same can be said of Donald Rumsfeld; did you ever hear him express regret or sadness at sending so many young men and women to their death, for dubious idealogical reasons. I didn't.

Complicating the picture further, what are we to make of so many people (politicians at every level of government, CEOs of major corporations, union leaders, and many others) who are smart and emotionally intact but feel no remorse at raping their constituents and their country of vast resources, simply to line their own pockets and increase their personal power?

Do we really want good public policy and decent, well-meaning citizens in positions of responsibility throughout this country? Let's start with decision-makers who exhibit sufficient intelligence to search for, examine, and draw correct conclusions from complex data. That's called "critical thinking," and it is in critically short supply in the United States today. Add a healthy emotional component, based on a childhood enriched with parental love and fueled by a mature and solicitous regard for other human beings. Finally, to cognition and emotion, add a third dimension: ethical standards.

Robust cognitive ability, a healthy emotional outlook, and high ethical standards will combine to produce decisions fitting our complex society. But I fear that the human race will destroy civilization as we know it long before evolution produces such a combination in a majority of the members of our species.

Jerry Brown's Budget

2011-01-21T06:30:00.000-08:00

California's "new" (but experienced) governor is bringing some urgently-needed honesty and fresh thinking to the budgeting process in a state weary of smoke, mirrors, a two-thirds requirement in the legislature for tax increases, and the ravages of a recession imposed largely by external forces. But some mistakes are being made that will probably doom the effort to continue current taxes soon to expire unless the voters extend them.

First, the good news: the governor proposes to axe so-called "redevelopment funds," which local governments (primarily cities) allegedly use to promote economic and housing projects in blighted areas. Although not a bad idea conceptually, and occasionally successful in practice, this program does not pass the "smell test" when it comes to implementation in many instances. (And who can oppose efficiency in government -- except those who benefit from it?)

As documented by the Los Angeles Times, some governmental agencies have spent millions of dollars and failed to produce a single affordable housing unit. Too often, redevelopment funds constitute essentially a slush fund used to subsidize local developers (private sector "entrepreneurs" who won't take their capitalistic risks without a government handout) -- who of course then use some of their profits to line the pockets of the local politicians who have the power to hand out the money. I used to wonder about the hypocrisy of accepting government subsidies for such developments while opposing the use of tax dollars to help ordinary citizens; but that is old news, as the principle of "me first" -- gradually evolving into "me only" -- seems to rule the country these days. Predictably, local officials are strongly opposing Governor Brown's initiative on this issue.

The bad news is that, as usual, social services for the poor are being asked to shoulder the heaviest burden of budget cuts Some programs are being proposed for complete elimination -- for example, the Adult Day Health Care program that helps seniors continue to live independently when they might otherwise be in nursing homes.

The problem with focusing cuts almost exclusively on poor people is that they will not be able to "carry the day" when the extension of existing tax cuts due to expire comes on the ballot in June -- which apparently is the governor's plan. In this "me first" environment, most people only vote for taxes when they see a direct benefit to themselves With no "skin in the game" for the average middle-class and upper-middle-class citizen, what incentive (other than, umm, "the common good") do they have for what they perceive as self-imposed pain (with no gain)?

The governor needs to identify programs that impact the well-to-do and cut them also, at least proportionately. Then his tax-extension program might have at least a fair chance of success.

Oh, by the way, come around Christmas time, I'd love to see Governor Brown commute some prison sentences. Since his predecessor saw fit to reduce the sentence of the son of a political ally, ignoring the plight of many people who had committed similar crimes, Brown should finish the job by taking a comparable action to benefit those who are not well connected. In addition to saving money on the prison budget, it would help us celebrate a country that claims to offer "justice for all."

Welcome to the "Inland Empire"

2010-12-26T19:56:00.000-08:00

The "Inland Empire" is a vast stretch of land east of Los Angeles County inhabited mostly by cacti and Republicans, characterized over the years by brazen political corruption (the most recent former San Bernardino County assessor used the office as a political headquarters when he wasn't high on meth or participating in rehab) and the intellectual analysis of issues on a level of sophistication that would make any fifth grader proud.

The "West End" of this region -- roughly from the cities of Montclair on the west to San Bernardino on the east -- is served by a daily newspaper called the "Inland Valley Daily Bulletin," which is frequently used by local politicians as a convenient and apparently willing mouthpiece.

Thus, about two weeks after he was sworn in as the representative of the 63rd district to the California State Assembly, Republican Mike Morrell railed in a "Point of View" column (12/16/10) against increased taxes, "out-of-control spending, and looking to big government for solutions" (complete with sentence fragments and plural pronouns matched to singular antecedents). He claimed that "the people" always spend their money more wisely than government; that in the alleged dichotomy between people keeping their money or sending it to Sacramento, "it is our freedom that's at stake"; and that no less a luminary than Thomas Jefferson would certainly have agreed with him.

I would never argue that government is perfect. However, Mr. Morrell's "analysis" fails to mention even the most basic of services that state government is supposed to provide to its citizens -- including such things as public education and prisons (where the aforementioned former County assessor, along with a recently convicted former City Councilman from Rancho Cucamonga, will likely take up residence). One could read his article in vain for any reference whatsoever to any vital service for which any branch of government should accept responsibility. At least, then, he might (if he valued it) claim intellectual consistency; if he believes governments have no legitimate functions, then of course they have no need for any tax dollars. Of course, in order to do so, he would have to ignore the fact that that his alleged hero (other than Ronald Reagan, whom he cited repeatedly in a campaign event I attended) actually described several legitimate functions of government in his acclaimed Preamble to the Constitution.

The day after Morrell's diatribe against taxes and big government, another representative to the State Assembly, 60th District representative Curt Hagman, used an op-ed column (once again riddled with grammatical errors) in the "Daily Bulletin," to defend the e-mail he sent to constituents inviting them to a "Christmas Open House." Apparently he was upset by the fact that some of the residents in his district pointed out to him that he was using government money to pay for an event that was given an explicit religious label. In defending his action, he dug the hole even deeper: "The purpose of my Christmas party was to give people an opportunity to share their views with me on state issues in a casual setting."

I've been to events of this kind, and to the best of my knowledge, very little exchange of views takes place. People network with their friends, eat and drink (presumably at the expense of the government, which, remember, has no legitimate functions), and return to their offices the next bragging that they met an important public official (probably for about ten seconds). But even supposing that the event served as a venue for the casual exchange of views, does the Assemblyman only want the views of Christians?

Earlier this week -- I kid you not!! -- a letter to the editor appeared in said newspaper in response to this controversy, criticizing automobile companies for running a plethora of TV ads for their products in end-of-the-year sales campaigns (which they certainly did!) but failing to mention Christmas in their ads!

I strongly support the right of U.S. citizens to celebrate the religion of their choice (or no religion at all). But would it be too much to ask that they at least recognize the existence of a secular society apart from religion? Secularists are not a threat, as they are apparently perceived. The larger threat to American society is the failure of so many to see that our culture is diverse and can be "unbundled" (religion from non-sectarianism) without the slightest danger to either.

Evolution Continues

2010-12-05T08:05:00.000-08:00

As I was discussing the state of the world with one of my liberal friends the other day, a scary thought occurred to me, namely, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the human species as it presently exists.

We all know -- well, those of us who accept evolution know -- that species typically become extinct as a result of failure to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Homo sapiens may be the first species not only to have caused its own destruction but to have had the power to see it coming -- and failed to heed the warning signs.

Of course, climate change is the most dramatic evidence of this trend. And while we will probably adapt to increments of ten, perhaps twenty degrees around the world, despite the enormous disruption to the food supply and the global economic and political systems, will the species survive changes of fifty or one hundred degrees? Who is to say this catastrophic scenario will not occur, as we continue to burn coal and oil to maintain the status quo, knowing all the while that doing so will eventually destroy the status quo?

Human beings like to think of themselves as members of the smartest species that ever roamed the earth. If this is true, it doesn't speak well of the other species. At least in the United States, we are currently witnessing a full-scale attack on logical debate, critical thinking, acceptance of facts as the raw material from which decisions should be made, and the values set forth in the Constitution but constantly ignored by the very people who claim to cherish that document. Hypocrisy runs rampant and apparently undiagnosed among those whose left brains do not communicate with their right brains; how else to explain the simultaneous drumbeat for tax cuts for the rich AND deficit reduction? "General welfare" is derided as "big government" by those who fail to see the relationship between greed on the part of those who already have enough and poverty on the part of those who have never had enough.

No, if intelligence is a virtue and a prerequisite for survival of the species over the next thousand years or so, I'm not very optimistic.

Nobody reading these words will be alive to see the demise of the human race. The process is far too gradual. But we are heading down the path toward our eventual destruction unless the wise somehow wrest power from the wealthy. I fear, however, that the tipping point has already been passed. Our institutions themselves, for the most part, exist to protect the status quo (or worse). When, in history, did the ruling class voluntarily give up power and accede to the notion that common people also deserve a break? When, except for a few years in the late 1700s, did Americans ever think the future was just as important as the present?

Contrarians could legitimately argue that the United States is an anomaly, that in fact most developed countries (Denmark, England, Canada, Sweden -- you know the list) are much further along the path to permanent civilization. While this is true (take the general availability of health care as just one of many possible examples), the United States, mostly by virtue of its geographic size, its population, and its natural resources, unfortunately has a disproportionate influence on the rest of the world. If you want proof, stay tuned to see whether "the greatest deliberative body in the world," aka the United States Senate, approves a treaty that will reduce the global nuclear arsenal and make the world a safer place -- or whether it will be held hostage to the politics of destruction made possible by the 40-vote filibuster and a few opinionated reactionaries.

I just hope that homo sapiens II, which will invariably come along in another couple of million years, will be more successful than homo sapiens I.

An Uncanny Coincidence

2010-11-21T20:02:00.000-08:00

We learn in today's editions of both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times that a deadline of sorts has been set for the pullout of NATO troops from Afghanistan -- 2014! Between now and then, "primary security responsibility" will gradually be transferred from western troops to the government of President Hamid Karzai. Combat operations for the former will gradually cease (or at least be diminished), in favor of training the locals.

But officials from various NATO countries apparently did not reach complete unanimity; some stated that the deadline was firm, while others indicated it might slip depending on conditions on the ground in 2014.

Amazing as it might sound, 2014 is exactly the same deadline I have set for myself for the imposition of a low calorie diet. I've had this objective since 2002, but it's always been part of a long-term strategic plan, not something I wanted to rush into prematurely. After all, my body is pretty accustomed to carrying around excess fat, and who knows what kind of damage an abrupt and significant change could cause. My stomach, for example, could issue a complaint, probably couched in diplomatic language, that could be devastating to my public image.

I think gradual is best. There is no need to go "cold turkey" on large portions of meat and potatoes. If a lot of people did this simultaneously, the result could be devastating to the meat and potato industries -- and heaven knows we need all the jobs we can find these days. Likewise, cutting back too suddenly on the whipped cream I use to top off my chocolate sundaes wouldn't do the dairy industry any good. If my cholesterol stays a little too high as a consequence -- well, that's just the price I have to pay for being a good American consumer and caring more about other people than my own good health.

So, I am reconciled to starting my diet in earnest in 2014 and working towards it incrementally by decreasing my daily caloric intake by 0.048 per year in the interim. Of course, if conditions change between now and then, I reserve the right to modify my position and postpone that diet until such time as the situation seems appropriate.

Supreme Court Overturns Giant Victory in World Series

2010-11-14T19:08:00.000-08:00

In a stunning and unexpected development, the United States Supreme Court has vacated the recent victory of the San Francisco Giants over the Texas Rangers, awarding the World Series crown to the team from the Lone Star State.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, which prevailed on a 5-4 vote in the case known as Bush v. Giants.

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, and his office issued a tersely worded statement providing supporting rationale: "What He Said."

"In this opinion, the majority rests heavily on its most relevant precedent, Bush v. Gore," Scalia wrote. "In that case, the Court established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the actual results simply don't matter. Just as the number of votes case in 2000 carried little weight in the presidential election in the State of Florida, so too, by analogy, does the number of runs scored by the Giants in the World Series have little bearing on the actual outcome. Umpires are fallible; this Court is not."

"This Court is bound by the Constitution. No other document or set of facts in evidence is relevant -- especially the opinions of the liberal elite sitting in the press box who claim to be witnesses. A careful and thorough reading of this founding document reveals no clause giving the government -- and by extension, any other body that exists within our territorial boundaries -- the power to declare any athletic team located or residing in the State of California to be the winner of any contest that might be remotely construed as coming under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce clause. Since there were only two teams vying for supremacy in the World Series, and it is clear that the Constitution does not permit a team from California (and certainly not San Francisco) to be the winner, it therefore follows logically that the title properly belongs to the Texas Rangers."

An attorney for former President George W. Bush, who sat in the stands during the games played in Texas, lauded the ruling, indicating in a prepared statement that "the President is gratified that the Court has once again seen fit to validate the rule of law in a nation that has violated so many of our basic freedoms over the past two years. Of course, the textbooks in Texas would have reported in any case that the Rangers won, but it's nice to have the formal record correspond with the facts as we know them to be."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply worded minority dissent, claiming that the Roberts Court was distorting the founders' intent. "Neither corporations nor the States of California and Texas were in existence when the Constitution was written," she stated. "How this opinion, and several others within recent memory, can be construed in the context of a 'strict constructionist' philosophy, is totally beyond comprehension."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, siding with the majority, explained his vote by saying "I went with the liberals last time. It was the conservatives' turn to win."

A (Mostly) Thoughtful California Electorate

2010-11-07T08:23:00.000-08:00

Regular readers of this blog may assume that I think the recent election demonstrates thoughtfulness on the part of California voters because mostly liberal candidates won statewide offices. That is not the point I wish to make here.

Voters demonstrated sophistication and thoughtfulness, first, because they failed to allow the onslaught of money to purchase their brains. As we all know, Meg Whitman vastly outspent her victorious opponent, Jerry Brown, yet came up short in the polling booth. Proposition 23, which would have "suspended" air pollution control regulations (probably forever, due to the ridiculous criterion established for lifting the suspension), was supported in large part by out-of-state oil companies. The voters saw through it and defeated it by a hefty margin -- 61.2% "No" to 38.8% "Yes."

Dramatic evidence of careful voting is also exhibited by a comparison of the results of Propositions 20 and 27. The former was designed to extend the mission of the pre-existing Redistricting Commission -- which was created by an earlier proposition to put the post-census redistricting process for state officials in the hands of an impartial citizens' commission rather than the gerrymander-prone legislature -- to federal Congressional seats as well. The latter would have scrapped the Redistricting Commission altogether. Thus, Propositions 20 and 27 were, for all practical purposes exact opposites. It is difficult to imagine a rationale for voting for or against BOTH of them; the more logical approach would be to vote for one and not the other (in either direction).

In fact, most Californians did precisely that -- voted for one but not the other. Statewide, Proposition 20 passed by a vote of 61.4% to 38.6%; Prop 27 failed by a vote of 59.6% to 40.4%.

Clearly, some voters did vote for or against both of these propositions; otherwise, the passage rate for one would have been precisely equal to the failure rate of the other. By subtracting the "No" vote percentage of Prop 27 from the "Yes" vote percentage of Prop 20 (and taking the absolute value, i.e. using a statistical method that ignores the direction of the deviation, which in this case is irrelevant), one can calculate a "discrepancy" score that might be considered a measure of the degree to which voters acted in an intellectually consistent manner. Statewide, that discrepancy score is 61.4 minus 59.6 -- or 1.8. (See last week's post for a related issue on intellectual consistency.)

In mostly liberal Los Angeles County (where Brown trounced Whitman by 62.7% to 32.5%), the discrepancy score was 1.1. Reasonably liberal Santa Barbara County (Brown got more votes than Whitman but not by a huge margin) had a discrepancy score of 1.32. Extremely liberal San Francisco had a score of 2.78.

Conservative counties Kern, Orange, and Riverside, where major statewide contests went Republican by substantial margins, had discrepancy scores of 3.22, 5.35, and 6.09, respectively.

The pattern (did I just see some of you liberals smiling?) did not hold across the board. Fiorina clobbered Boxer in conservative Kings County, with a discrepancy score of 2.28. Fresno County, where both Whitman and Fiorina came out on top, had a moderately low discrepancy score of 2.07. In conservative and tiny Butte County, the discrepancy score was a lowly 0.85.

In liberal Humboldt County, where Brown got 56% of the votes for governor to Whitman's 36%, the discrepancy score was a whopping 10.51. What in the world do you suppose those voters were smoking?

Palin: Professor of Freedom?

2010-10-31T18:48:00.000-07:00

Every now and then we read allegations that colleges and universities exhibit a significant bias toward liberal and progressive viewpoints, resulting in a lack of academic diversity and a consequent inability to provide students with a wide range of opinions on critical issues of the day.

So I wasn't surprised when Richard E. Redding, a professor at Chapman University School of Law, in his October 25, 2010 op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times (p. A15), cited statistics indicating that "on average, liberal professors outnumber conservatives and libertarians by about 8 to 1, with the imbalance being much greater at elite institutions."

Redding concludes that "our colleges and universities [are] unimaginative places" and strongly implies that these institutions deliberately exclude and disrespect "a wide range of political ideas."

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll grant Redding's statistics. What I won't grant is his "reasoning" or his conclusion.

Let's stop for a moment and think about what the job requirements are for being an academician. First, one must normally have a doctorate. In order to earn such a degree, one must demonstrate (among other things) critical thinking skills and the ability to articulate an original research project in a comprehensive, rigorous, and intellectually consistent dissertation.

I don't know as much about critical thinking skills as I would like to. But I strongly suspect that articulating one's position using ill-defined name calling and broad over-generalizations does not qualify. Nor does ignoring well-established facts. Nor does a string of nicely alliterated words necessarily constitute a persuasive, well-reasoned argument, regardless of how clever the writing. On the other hand, intellectual consistency would be a virtue.

I have close friends who are conservative, intelligent, and articulate. But they are the exception, not the rule.

Witness George Will's recent comment (2/21/10) on global warming -- which is established beyond a doubt as a factual and potentially catastrophic, largely man-made phenomenon -- accusing scientists of "trying to stampede the world into a spasm of prophylactic statism." Is this argument worthy of academic circles?

Examine, if you will, the statement made on Fox News several months ago by one of George W. Bush's former press aides that no terrorist attack occurred in this country during that President's tenure. Talk about "political Alzheimer's disease" -- this one tops the charts. And this clearly fallacious comment was not even challenged by the Fox News anchors who witnessed it! Do they all deserve academic appointments?

I once encountered California State Senator Bob Dutton at the airport. Since we have a passing acquaintance due to my professional position, we had a brief conversation. In less than two minutes (literally), he was blaming Democrats for every political problem under the sun. (I didn't have the guts to disagree -- I just rolled my eyes and kept my mouth shut.) Would Dutton's statement conceivably be considered an over-generalization? Might it indicate the lack of ability to think in nuances? Is he qualified for an academic position at an "elite" university?

Redding claims that he values innovative solutions, creativity, and quality decision-making. Most conservatives and libertarians probably value them as well. Why, then, does the conservative-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce spend millions of dollars backing political candidates who then devote their careers to protecting the self-interests of existing businesses? Don't they believe in the capitalist dream -- the power of creative thinking and entrepreneurship to guide them through challenging and changing times without the help of the government? Where is the intellectual consistency?

Finally, Redding can't help using a buzzword from conservative circles intended to be derogatory -- the word "elite" -- without bothering to define it. While his transgression is minor compared to Sarah Palin and others who promulgate "freedom" in the broadest possible terms without giving the word a microsecond of intellectual analysis, he is nevertheless typical of the political ilk rapidly gaining a frightening constituency in this country.

Occam's razor -- a philosophical and decision-making principle of long standing -- suggests that, when theories compete to explain a known phenomenon, it is best to select the one that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. In other words, keep it as simple as possible.

In accordance with Occam's razor, I suggest that it is not necessary to postulate bias against conservatives as the reason for the preponderance of liberals in academia. The simpler answer is that conservatives (with exceptions! I don't want to over-generalize!) are less able (or at least less inclined) to engage in critical thinking worthy of an academic environment. People who are unwilling to think carefully, consider all known facts, and construct intellectually consistent arguments don't deserve academic positions. Maybe that's why they don't get them.

Should We Regulate Cities?

2010-10-24T12:59:00.000-07:00

I can't help thinking what the "deregulation contingent" of political thinkers would do about the situation in Bell, California, where a corrupt city council, in collusion with a city manager accused of criminal activity, raped the treasury of millions of dollars by paying themselves excessive salaries, sometimes for meetings that lasted only a few minutes.

While most city managers are hard-working, dedicated civil servants who earn upper-middle class wages in the neighborhood of $200,000 to $300,000 per year, the guy in Bell was "earning" more than a million, including benefits -- and Bell is a small city! Four of the five city council members were "earning" more than $100,000 annually -- for part-time jobs.

Now, if we're going to deregulate multi-billion dollar companies, as the capitalist purists would have us do, then philosophically we also have to deregulate cities. I can hear some people favoring this strategy already -- let the citizens patrol their own elected officials and vote them out of office if necessary! And let the elected officials supervise the city employees.

OK, that might work in a perfect world, where people are reasonably honest (if not always intelligent or guided by true public service) and information is available to those who attempt to monitor events. But more and more, we see that such a world eludes us.

Take the banks, for example. First they (and other mortgage companies) screwed members of the lower-middle class by putting them into unaffordable loans guaranteed to fail, in order to make short-term profits. After that little fiasco just about brought the country to its financial knees, we discover that some of the same institutions are now foreclosing without paying any attention to proper procedures -- once again, in the headlong rush to make money. These are the companies we are supposed to trust to regulate themselves?

No, self-interest is a powerful motivator, in the public sector (unfortunately) as well as in the private sector. The founders understood this clearly, by the way -- in a vastly more sophisticated fashion than today's Tea Party members and other deregulatory proponents. At a minimum, we need reporting rules so that enterprising citizens (and fortunately, media outlets like the Los Angeles Times that still perform the valuable service of investigative reporting) can legally demand information that people in charge would rather hide. And yes, reporting is one form of regulation. Without that essential element, we might as well not have laws, because public interest organizations would be hamstrung in their ability to identify and expose malfeasance.

For whom does the regulation Bell toll? It tolls for all of us. Because if the capitalist system that thrives on self-interest were "free" to operate unfettered, corruption would be even more widespread than it is now.

Mining the Disaster for an Important Lesson

2010-10-19T23:25:00.001-07:00

Like millions of people around the world, I followed the effort to rescue the 33 miners trapped below ground in Chile, and I rejoiced in their rescue. Talk about teamwork -- drilling crews came from near and far with the best technology available. NASA contributed knowledge gleaned from the space program to promote the physical and mental health of the men both before and during the rescue -- men who faced a life-threatening situation through no fault of their own.

It was a modern, global version of neighbors helping neighbors put up the barn on the family farm.

Tragedies can and do (sometimes) bring people together in noble ventures. But not always.

Remember Hurricane Katrina? More than 1,400 people were killed; more than 200,000 homes were lost. The government response was tepid and incompetent -- not surprising under the "leadership" of President George W. Bush, but nevertheless "unAmerican" in its lack of caring for fellow citizens. We didn't help rebuild the "barn" in any organized sense of the word. We didn't tax ourselves to provide the resources required to generate the massive rebuilding effort that would have been worthy of the term "community." No, what resources we did expend we borrowed from the next generation, so we wouldn't have to burden ourselves with higher taxes. And more than five years later, the wounds are still inescapable.

According to the Los Angeles Times (10/19/10), more than 21 children have died so far in 2010 at the hands of the County foster family "system" -- adding to the 26 tragic deaths in 2009 and 18 in 2008. (That's if you believe the "system" is reporting accurately.) Small numbers, perhaps, by comparison with the number of children served, and not entirely the fault of lack of resources, as the primacy of "family unification" seems to be playing a role (at the expense of the children). Nevertheless, can we truly say we have successfully addressed the plight of those who, through no fault of their own, face life-threatening situations? I think not.

Why is it that we sometimes respond to tragedy in a helpful, resourceful, and generous fashion, and other times we circle the wagons? I suspect it has to do with the perceived magnitude of the problem and the degree of sacrifice required to undertake a meaningful response.

Did it really require sacrifice for us to "care" about the 33 miners trapped in Chile? To the best of my knowledge, no American risked his life for the cause. It didn't cost anyone a cent. All we had to do was watch TV, read the paper, and hope that things would turn out OK.

In contrast, many of our other problems are both massive and personal. They are not easily resolved. They overwhelm the ability of the organism to respond in a manner that seems helpful but is not excessively painful, either psychologically or financially. They require time, effort, and resources -- in short, sacrifice. And that doesn't seem like something most Americans are prepared to do anymore.

Discouraging News

2010-10-11T20:04:00.000-07:00

A lot has happened since my last post. There have been five well-publicized suicides -- one a generally admired public school teacher whose students' test scores (published by the Los Angeles Times) were low, and four gay teenagers who were bullied and/or "outed." These occurred in what we loosely refer to as "civilized society."

But behind the headlines are other stories -- if not as dramatic or tragic, at least discouraging, especially when placed in juxtaposition. Michael Hiltzik reports in the LA Times (10/3/10, page B1) that the pay of American corporate CEOs has risen from 24 times the pay of the average worker in 1965 to 411 times the pay of the average worker in 2005.

Careful Times readers (9/28/10, page B4) also learned that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed two bills intended to reduce corporate theft of wages earned by those average workers, which has been estimated in a recent UCLA study to amount to $26 million PER WEEK in Los Angeles County alone. The Governor claimed that these bills, one of which would have created a MISDEMEANOR crime for employers that willfully fail to pay wages due within 90 days, were unnecessary. (Why wouldn't it have been a FELONY?)

So, will someone please explain to me how CEOs getting wealthy and average workers being cheated out of hard-earned wages is part of the American dream?

As a salaried employee, my earnings are subject to income tax withholding. I don't have the opportunity to pay bills with money owed to the State of California and then tell the tax collectors that, oops, I already spent it. But guess what some businesses are doing -- exactly that! According to the Times (9/28, page A1), businesses are NOT required to remit sales taxes collected from consumers immediately; they pay either monthly or quarterly. Not only is that unfair because money invested can earn more money (and heaven knows the State of California needs it!) -- but it also results in default if a business goes bankrupt (or claims to) before the taxes are paid. Especially egregious, apparently, are the auto dealerships. One such dealership owes the State about $1.2 million but cannot pay because "the money was mixed in with the revenue from car sales and was not sequestered in a tax only account" (according to the Times). Of course, the dealers themselves defend the practice. According to the spokesman for their trade association, "if you shorten the time you have to remit sales taxes, that has a huge effect on the cash flow of dealers." Wow, no kidding. Since it's such a good deal, I think I'll just take a little longer to pay my state income tax and purchase an extra package of hot dogs.

Finally, we find (LA Times, 9/30/10, page AA3) that three former LA County Sheriff deputies lost their jobs because they beat an inmate, fracturing his cheekbone and causing injuries to his rib cage and his ear. Are they in prison now -- like a poor guy probably would be if he stole a loaf of bread to feed his family (maybe not on a first offense, but certainly if it were a "third strike")? Nope. All three got probation -- two of them "unsupervised" -- which is apparently what they were when the incident occurred. And it would never have been discovered (or at least proven) had a fourth deputy not recanted his previous false testimony during a subsequent job interview.

OK, nobody promised Americans a rose garden. But I just don't get the "...and justice for all" thing. It simply isn't true. Not even close.

------

Special thanks to those who missed my posts and contacted me about my absence. No, I wasn't sick. Maybe I was just sick of discouraging news.

Tale of Three Bureaucracies

2010-08-22T22:43:00.000-07:00

Herewith, I provide the first-hand experiences of calling three different organizations for customer service. Two of them are large private-sector companies operating, allegedly, in a competitive, free market environment that forces them to be both efficient and effective. The other is a large governmental bureaucracy that one expects, if one believes everything one hears, to be riddled with the inefficiency characteristic of the public sector.

Tale #1 -- DSL with Verizon

This happened quite a few years ago. I was up-grading from my interminably slow dial-up Internet connection. I called Verizon, provider of DSL service. I don't recall the process of signing up to be anything other than routine. However, the service never worked. I called customer service several times and talked with technicians at great length (having been patient enough to be "on hold" at even greater length). Although I didn't keep time, I'm certain that I spent, in the aggregate, over a period of several days, close to two hours talking with technicians. Finally, as exasperation crowded out patience, I decided just to cancel the service. After the usual litany of "dial 1 for this, dial 3 for that," etc. I was lucky enough to get a live person on the line, who tried to talk me out of canceling. "According to my records," she said, "you haven't yet talked with the highest level of technical support available." I replied, not very tactfully if I recall, that having already spent many hours on the phone, if they hadn't yet connected me with their most skilled technicians, I had no desire to talk to them now, and the service was duly canceled. [Note: my cable Internet service usually works fairly well.]

Tale #2 -- Cable TV with Time Warner

This happened a few months ago. After several years of successful service with this company, suddenly the cable started going out on a regular basis for no apparent reason. Naturally my first step was to call customer service. To make a long and frustrating story short, after several visits from technicians, sometimes with temporary success that lasted anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours after they left, I gave up and returned my cable box to the nearest Time Warner office. The lady behind the counter kindly accepted it and canceled my cable TV service without asking me why I was doing it. [Note: Direct TV is working just fine.]

Tale #3 -- Social Security Administration

This happened a few months ago also. Because (confession time!) I was nearing the age when certain things needed to happen, I called the government (you know, Ronald Reagan's "I'm here to help you" guys) to ask a few questions. I got a voice recording explaining to me that I could hold, and the estimated hold time was 8 minutes. Or I could leave my name and telephone number and someone would call me back. I chose the latter, hung up, and pursued other tasks. Sure enough, about 8 minutes later, my phone rang, and a nice lady with the Social Security Administration talked with me about 5 minutes, answering all my questions. [Note: according to a recent LA Times article, this government agency spends about 0.9% of its resources on administration, with the remainder going to actual program benefits. Compare this to the approximately 20% of total revenue that insurance companies claim they need for administration and profit, crying bloody murder if anyone suggests that they be required to spend more than 80% of their premiums on actual benefits for policyholders. Could it be that we might actually get 19.1% better insurance coverage if we allowed the government to run the program? I don't know; you tell me.]

Thanks for reading!

On Reading the Sunday Paper

2010-08-15T18:38:00.000-07:00

Like many people, I get some of my news these days from blogs. But I still read a daily newspaper. Had I not, I might have missed the brief report (all of three paragraphs on page A4 of today's Los Angeles Times) on the hunger crisis in Niger, the story about Haiti on page A11, the recap of China's recent flooding disaster (page A6), and the drama unfolding about Donald Bren on page A33.

Niger is a land-locked nation in western Africa about twice the size of Texas (Wikipedia), with a population slightly in excess of 1.5 million. Frequently beset by droughts, parts of the country have recently witnessed temperatures above 110 degrees Fahrenheit. According to the Times, nearly half the population is now in desperate need of food. The country has the highest infant mortality rate in the world. Niger is a member of the United Nations and receives some economic assistance from the United States and a few other countries.

On January 12, 2010, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit the already impoverished country of Haiti (ranking 149 out of 182 nations on the Human Development Index). According to Wikipedia, the quake killed an estimated 230,000 people, with an additional 300,000 injured and 1 million made homeless. Six months later, 98% of the rubble remains, presumably including thousands of bodies. Almost no transitional housing has been built for 1.6 million people living in relief camps that have no electricity, running water, or sewage disposal systems.

Floods have killed an estimated 2,000 people in China this year. The worst occurred on August 7, and authorities are still attempting to rescue people crying for help and pulling bodies from the mud. Numerous cases of dysentery will probably claim more lives, as access to fresh water is limited.

Donald Bren is a wealthy man who is probably more responsible than any other single person for the development of Orange County, California. In 2008, Forbes Magazine estimated his personal fortune at $12 billion. Court records describe a lifestyle that includes at least three residences, a fleet of 5 jets, a 240-foot yacht, and a large staff of servants. Bren is also a noted philanthropist, having donated at least $43 million to the University of California alone. According to Business Week (2008), Bren's total donations to education, conservation, and research exceeded $1 billion. Two of his children are suing for retroactive child support payments of $400,000 per month, claiming that the $10,000 per month they did receive for awhile was insufficient and did not last as long as it should have.

I know, you're waiting for the hammer -- the moral of the story. I don't intend to provide it. It's just a commentary on the nature of today's world, culled from the pages of a single day's newspaper. You want a hammer -- supply your own! :)

Checks and Balances, Part II

2010-08-08T14:03:00.001-07:00

Last week I discussed the balance of power between the people and the government. Here I reveal how a coalition of sub-populations cutting in an entirely different direction (connecting selected people with powerful segments of government) can become destabilizing -- possibly even undemocratic (dare I say dictatorial?).

First, I must confess that I still remember something from college physics. Trust me; this will actually be relevant.

Envision a metal object in the shape of the letter "U" with an internal groove, so that a metal ball placed inside will roll up or down but not fall off the edge. Because of gravity, the ball will inevitably settle at the bottom of the "U" unless it is disturbed by an outside force pushing it up one of the sides. However, the gravitational force will oppose the outside force, resulting in a "stable equilibrium."

Turn the "U" upside down, however, and imagine placing the ball on top, perfectly balanced so that the forces pulling to the left and the right are exactly equal. The ball will remain at rest -- until any force disturbs it. In this configuration, gravity is destabilizing; once set in motion, the ball falls precipitously, and unless something exists outside the system to remedy the situation, it falls permanently off its previously stable perch. This is an "unstable equilibrium."

While the analogy may not be perfect (they rarely are), the societal counterparts to this old physics lesson should be reasonably obvious and at least mildly instructive. The American way of life has a built-in inertia ("gravity") that tends to produce equilibrium -- at least in the long term. The principle of stare decisis formalizes this, incorporating the concept that courts (especially the Supreme Court) should not overturn previous decisions without overwhelmingly convincing rationale. Equilibrium is also evidenced by such expressions -- representing, perhaps, the "conventional wisdom" -- as "don't rock the boat" and "if it isn't broken, don't fix it." The tendency to re-elect public officials in perpetuity -- often in the face of evidence that would easily justify a change -- may also be considered relevant evidence.

So far, the system has worked fairly well. Extremism is generally not tolerated in this country, and "political mistakes" are often corrected. Witness, for example, the reversal of sedition laws (multiple times!), the eventual repudiation of legal segregation, etc.

The question before us now is whether our system of stable equilibrium is in danger -- and I maintain that it is.

The wealthy and the powerful have and always will have a vested interest in controlling the functions of government that can either assist or hinder them. As long as a balance of power exists between these entrenched interests and the "general welfare" -- either through a sense of justice among elected officials regardless of political affiliation or through a distribution of control as a consequence of fair elections -- then a stable equilibrium will be maintained. But if the wealthy and the powerful are successful in gaining overwhelming control, along with the election machinery required to maintain that power in perpetuity, then "the people" will have only one recourse -- the decidedly destabilizing recourse of revolution.

According to the Los Angeles Times (8/2/10, p. A1), conservative organizations (thanks in part to the recent "Citizens United" decision of the Supreme Court) are preparing to spend up to $300 million on the elections that will take place this fall. Given that this money will be spent selectively in key races and that people are known to be influenced by political advertising (especially when the real source of the money is concealed), $300 million is a scary number.

Just suppose (and granted this is a worst-case scenario) that Congress eventually falls into the hands of people who lower tax rates on wealthy individuals and corporations to next-to-nothing and raise tax rates on the middle and lower economic classes. Suppose further that government programs to help the poor (food assistance, for example) are dismantled, partially because they would no longer be affordable and partially because of philosophical opposition. Suppose further that the election machinery falls into the hands of partisan-oriented public officials who use their positions to influence the outcomes. (You say that already happened? Forget Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 -- old news!) Suppose further that regulatory machinery and anti-trust laws are eliminated, allowing corporations to raise prices on essential products, thereby in effect taxing (yes, I said "taxing") the common people to guarantee a continuing flow of money that would perpetuate their omnipresent, self-serving, multi-million dollar political messages.

Does this irreversible condition strike you as a recipe for disaster? But what stands in the way of it actually happening? Unfortunately -- at the moment -- not much.

Checks and Balances

2010-08-01T14:50:00.000-07:00

Every reader of this blog -- by definition, educated and intelligent! -- is familiar with the internal checks and balances written into our Constitution, to ensure that no one of the three branches of government amasses excess control.

I maintain that we have not given sufficient thought to that other important balance -- the one between the people and their government.

Now, in order to argue that any sort of balance of power should exist between any two entities, it is necessary to assume or demonstrate that both of those entities have a rightful place in the world order. If either entity did not, then no balance of power would be necessary, or perhaps even desirable.

Let's take first the case of the people. That's only fair, since people -- individuals -- are the most essential building block of society. To claim that they should not have political power (in extreme cases, including the power to overthrow the government) would be ludicrous and contrary to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. It would also, as a practical matter, condone despotism, a force that has been responsible for many mega-tragedies in the world -- since individual dictators frequently find allegedly legal ways, through established governments, to compel their will on subjugated (although sometimes willing) people.

Secondly, let's examine government. At least in theory, it is simply the institutionalization over time of the collective will of the people at any given moment, established with at least one essential objective in mind: the prevention of the inevitable chaos that would result in its absence.

The Founders clearly understood this. Having declared independence from Great Britain, did they move toward anarchy (not used in a pejorative sense) and deliberately set out to organize no government in its place? Quite to the contrary. They recognized a purpose for government in the Declaration of Independence. When the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak to hold the original colonies together, they scrapped it and wrote the Constitution -- a document generally recognized as providing a stronger central government than its predecessor. To my knowledge, no historian or political scientist (or even Tea Party activist) is today reviling President George Washington for calling up the militia in 1794 to enforce the laws of the United States when a group of people (I use that word deliberately) in western Pennsylvania decided they didn't want to abide by an excise tax on whiskey that had been duly adopted by the established government.

It appears, then, that people and government should share power, the former retaining the ultimate right to rebel if the latter exceeds the boundaries of common sense and humanity, and the latter retaining the right to impose democratically established rules and regulations on its citizens in an attempt to avoid chaos and to, umm, "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." (Did any of those words appear by accident? I doubt it.)

But I see that the word "impose" may be a red flag to some, perhaps even a call to arms. Should the government have more than the power to persuade? Is it really necessary to hand over our guns (figuratively, of course) and grant the collective will authority over individual behavior? Unfortunately, human nature being what it is...yes. If the carelessness (and probably criminal negligence) of BP fails to convince you of that, exemplifying as it does the widespread tendency of people (and corporations) to operate ONLY in what they perceive as their own best short-term interests (which ironically, in our complex society, is frequently also detrimental to their best long-term interests and those of people in general not associated with their special causes), then possibly nothing will.

The Founders were way ahead of us, as usual. Witness Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #15: "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."

Wisely, there are constraints on that constraint. Constitutional Amendment #9 says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And Amendment #10 reserves powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...to the States respectively, or to the people." The many will always prevail over the few, using either ballots or bullets, if and when the few perform sufficiently egregious acts, regardless of whether such acts are condoned by allegedly legitimate government.

Today -- every day -- the inevitable irony unfolds in a dynamic and complex nation, home to well over 300 million people, who have very little alternative but to trust a collective authority -- which itself is governed and implemented by fallible human beings -- to safeguard their individual rights and their personal well-being (at least in the physical sense of that term). All things considered -- although some improvements are definitely desirable -- maybe it's not working out all that badly. So far.

Avoidable Tragedy?

2010-07-26T21:32:00.000-07:00

Today's Inland Valley Daily Bulletin carried an Associated Press story, reported originally on the front page of yesterday's Los Angeles Times, of an 11-year-old boy who killed himself one afternoon in June despite having alerted school officials earlier in the day that he felt suicidal.

Did it have to happen?

My experience as an executive tells me that disastrous incidents occur for any one of a number of reasons. There may be systemic problems: policies and procedures may be inadequate or even non-existent; required equipment may be lacking or in a state of disrepair. Personnel may be inadequately trained. Personnel may be placed in jobs they could not perform regardless of training because they simply do not meet basic qualifications. Or the system itself maybe overwhelmed due to understaffing.

At first glance, the incident at hand appears to fall primarily into category number one. The school counselor with whom the boy spent the morning crying, reporting that he didn't want to live anymore because of people hitting him all the time, did the right thing by promptly calling appropriate Los Angeles County authorities. Shortly after the boy returned home from school, he was visited by a social worker, accompanied by the police. The social worker, based on information available (which turned out to be incomplete), decided not to remove the child from the home. Shortly thereafter the little boy used a jump rope to hang himself.

Both newspaper reports indicate that a lack of information hampered the social worker from performing his/her job thoroughly. The stepfather who answered the door had been legally barred from living there -- but due to the inability to search computer records from the field, the social worker didn't know that. The social worker apparently also did not know that the child had a history of living in foster homes and homes characterized by violence and drug use. The social worker used a cell phone to make inquiries of relevant Los Angeles County departments that might have provided useful information, but those calls went unanswered and unreturned.

So -- based on facts available at the moment -- this is not a story about incompetence at the operational level. It may be a story about the failure of top management -- given that the County had purchased computers that might have been helpful but not issued most of them to field workers because management failed to purchase the wireless devices required to make the computers useful in the field.

I propose two additional reasons for what might have been a preventable tragedy. First, our society has become so large and complex that specialization governs the manner in which we respond to practically everything. Just suppose that the school counselor with first-hand information on the boy's complaints, not a separate social worker, had been the person to go to the boy's home. Would it have made a difference? We'll never know. But that wasn't the counselor's job. Had the counselor been at the home and made the determination that the boy was not safe, he most likely would not have had the authority to take the appropriate action. Suppose that an inter-departmental case manager had been assigned to the boy from the time he was an infant -- someone who would have known the relevant history and been in a better position to make a judgment. But no such person existed. And in our mobile society, it is unlikely that any such person could have existed over an 11-year period of time. We are stuck, instead, with a fragmented written record -- that was mostly inaccessible.

There is one more reason for tragedies that I deliberately left out of paragraph three above: the people in charge -- the leaders -- have not established the proper guiding organizational philosophy and mission, a creed that governs the actions of every employee every minute of every day. Apparently "NO MORE TRAGEDIES" is not something the leaders have communicated in strong enough terms. Los Angeles County Supervisors have been aware for years that several of their largest departments -- Juvenile Probation and Children and Family Services among them -- are dysfunctional. They claim to care -- but the problems persist. There is one thing a leader does in urgent times -- take urgent action!

I am not naive enough to believe in a perfect world. Sh*t happens. But it could happen a lot less often. We are still waiting for Los Angeles County Supervisors to take urgent action. And while we wait, we weep.

A Grand Fourth

2010-07-05T21:35:00.001-07:00

We've just celebrated our 234th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. There's nothing wrong with a good holiday, a little beer, one hot dog too many, and some fireworks to help it all settle in. Yes, freedom is a good thing.

FDR spoke about "four essential freedoms" on January 6, 1941, naming 1) freedom of speech and expression; 2) freedom of every person to worship in his own way; 3) freedom from want; and 4) freedom from fear -- which he explained was related to a reduction of armaments and the lack of physical aggression against any other country in the world.

We're actually doing pretty well with #1. Thanks to the Supreme Court, corporations are doing pretty well, too. Expect lots of "free speech" this coming fall, just prior to the general election. Only it won't really be "free" -- all of us will pay for it in higher prices for everything we buy.

Americans are doing pretty well with #2 as well -- far better than people in most countries. I wish we were doing half as well in recognizing the freedom of people not to worship. (Well, it's true, nobody can make us pray. But if we need to interact with certain elements of society, we can be made to feel uncomfortable if we choose that option. Try belonging to a Rotary Club! Try attending a City Council meeting!)

In regard to #3 -- not so much. What FDR was referring to was "economic understanding which (sic) will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants." Right now economists worldwide are debating the merits of stimulus vs. deficit reduction -- without giving much thought to methods of reducing the deficit that are politically unpopular. As a result, people will go hungry, which usually is not consistent with "healthy."

Freedom from fear -- unfortunately not. Physical aggression -- between nations, between people -- continues unabated, even when it's unnecessary, unproductive, and unpopular. Tell the Marines getting their limbs blown off in Afghanistan that they possess "freedom from fear."

My birthday is coming up soon. If you're thinking of getting me a present, consider the following: 1) freedom from deregulation where the potential (no, the LIKELY) result is higher profit at the expense of unnecessary loss of life (e.g. mining and oil extraction operations); 2) freedom from people who use "no taxation without representation" as an excuse to promote their actual philosophy, which is "no taxation at all"; 3) freedom from any more deaths resulting from stupid wars and government agencies that don't do their jobs (e.g. child protective services, juvenile probation departments, etc.); and 4) freedom from rigged elections, anywhere in the world, but especially here in the good ol' US of A.

Discrimination: Alive and Well

2010-06-20T21:29:00.000-07:00

Let's just suppose that an organization existed that didn't permit gays or atheists to join. Regardless of whatever good qualities this organization might have, would it be worthy of a formal legislative commendation?

A couple of Inland Empire politicians see nothing wrong with legitimizing this insidious form of discrimination. Assemblyman Curt Hagman and would-be assemblyman Mike Morrell have written the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin to condemn Democrats for refusing the pass a resolution honoring the Boy Scouts of America on its 100th birthday.

I don't quarrel with the Boy Scouts' right to determine its own membership qualifications, although I think what they've done is short-sighted in the least and actually downright bigoted. (Other organizations serving young people -- the Girl Scouts, Campfire, Boys and Girls Clubs, and probably a host of others -- have seen the light.) What I don't understand is the desire to celebrate and applaud discrimination, unless of course you approve of those views yourself.

Unfortunately, the Boy Scouts have lots of company when it comes to discrimination against atheists. During the past six months, I have had occasion to attend four meetings of public bodies. Three of them began with a sectarian, Christian prayer. Since I was there representing my employer, it would have been inappropriate for me to state openly what I felt -- namely, I felt unwelcome. More recently, the City Council in Ontario has voted to add "Under God" to the display of the City Seal in the Council chambers. [Note: Council meetings are presided over by a Mayor who has openly admitted to adultery.] I wonder whether they also plan to hang signs on all the roadways leading into town, announcing that "Atheists Are Not Welcome."

Some people claim that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against because sexual orientation is not a choice. Personally, I've never been real happy with people who do (or believe) the right thing for the wrong reason. Gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against regardless of whether it's a choice or not. But this misguided line of reasoning, albeit somewhat helpful in a crooked way with regard to the sexual orientation issue, is clearly not helpful to atheists, who are making a deliberate choice. I feel confident in predicting that, at least in the United States ("the land of the free...with justice for all"), atheists will continue to experience discrimination for many generations -- long after gays and lesbians have been received into conventional society by everyone except members of the Flat Earth Society.

Will the Boy Scouts be accepting either type of person when it celebrates its 200th birthday? Only time will tell.

Fight Them Over There, Not Here?

2010-06-13T20:58:00.001-07:00

The attempted terrorist bombing by Faisal Shahzad in New York City May 1, 2010, conclusively disproves the theory that "if we fight them over there, we won't have to fight them over here."

The truth is, apparently, that fighting them over there has little or nothing to do with fighting them over here. All of our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, now spanning about eight years (twice the time it took to win World War II), have not resulted in an ability to keep would-be terrorists outside our borders or foil their plots in advance (no doubt with some exceptions).

Meanwhile, we continue to lose American lives -- for what? To prop up a corrupt Afghan government (NY Times, 6/13/10, p. A1) that puts the most flagrant of American political disasters to shame (ok, with the possible exception of Watergate)? To curtail violence in a country in which suicide bombers continue to wreak havoc not only on American soldiers but on their own indigenous population (LA Times 6/12/10, p. A8)?

Let's put things in perspective. This country was outraged, with good reason, when 2,976 people (not including the hijackers) were killed on 9/11/2001. Since then, approximately 4,400 members of the U.S. military have been killed in Iraq, and another 1,000 have been killed in Afghanistan. CNN estimates that approximately 50,000 NATO soldiers have been wounded in both areas combined (most of them American, no doubt, since we supply the vast majority of combat troops). Meanwhile, peace is still not at hand in either country.

Is this an intelligent course of action?

Might we not be spending our precious resources (both lives and money) more intelligently to improve border security and beef up real-time investigations of people who rent vehicles with cash and purchase large amount of fertilizer (the ingredient of choice in home-made bombs -- used, if you recall, with devastating impact in Oklahoma City)?

I know, these things are supposed to be complicated. But there comes a time when your gut should overrule your cortex (even presuming that a thinking person can still believe these efforts to be worth the cost), and you should just conclude "This makes no sense. We should get the hell out of there."

The Awkward Confluence of Capitalism and Democracy

2010-05-29T16:51:00.000-07:00

California's Proposition 16, on the ballot for the June 8 election, provides an interesting case in point for a discussion of the merits of unfettered capitalism in a democratic nation that values free speech and extends that right to corporations.

Basically, this proposed "initiative constitutional amendment" would require, with a few exceptions, a 2/3 approval from voters in a selected geographical area before a governmental entity could start offering electric service to its constituents. It is being bankrolled primarily by PG&E, one of the largest investor-owned utilities in the state, which (so far, according to the LA Times 5/28/10, page AA3) has sunk $46 million into the "Yes on 16" campaign. The money is being used to purchase a mind-numbing number of TV ads, plus home mailers.

Aside from the veracity of the "Yes on 16" effort (see below), let's look first at the initiative itself. If a requirement were being imposed that mandated a vote of the people by a simple majority, I wouldn't be writing this post. But imposing a 2/3 requirement makes the motivation for the effort transparent, because everyone knows that a supermajority of that magnitude is almost impossible to achieve. For example, a presidential election is considered a "landslide" if one candidate gets about 55% or more of the vote. President Obama received about 53% of the popular vote in 2008. He won 28 states, not even close to 2/3 of them. Look how difficult it is for the U.S. Senate even to get 60 votes on controversial issues, much less the 67 that would be required to achieve 2/3 of 100.

Personally, I don't think that PG&E (plus a host of supporting Chambers of Commerce) is supporting Prop 16 to advance democratic principles (although that's what their commercials would lead you to believe). No, they are using their right to spend enormous amounts of money (from consumers of their product, of course) to advance public policy that will simply give them more control over their ability to take more money out of those same consumers' pockets (by reducing competition). Students of democracy, tell me where it says that people should be obligated to finance -- without a shareholder vote, of course!! -- the activities of corporations that are diametrically opposed to the best long-term interests of the people footing the bill!

If PG&E believes so strongly in democracy, shouldn't it let its shareholders vote on whether to support a campaign like this? Don't hold your breath. If capitalism thrives because it promotes market efficiency, what's wrong with letting governments operate utilities if they can do it better than private enterprise? (I don't know whether they can or not; it probably depends on individual circumstances. But throwing up insurmountable barriers is not an appropriate way to find out.) What's next -- shall we have a 2/3 vote before we can operate a publicly supported fire department?

Now look at the mailer I received at my house. Does it mention the 2/3 vote requirement? Is a triple fudge sundae good for you? What it says is that "Politicians throughout the state want to spend over $2.5 billion in public funds for government-run electricity -- and they don't want to let you vote on it." The graphic design experts put a big check on this mailer, payable to "local politicians," for "Gov't-run electricity," signed by the "California Taxpayer." Brilliant marketing -- it hits all the usual "hot buttons." Just unfortunately, it seems to omit one vital detail.

Here's the bottom line: most of us believe, to a greater or lesser degree, in the benefits of both democracy and capitalism. What do we do when one tries to destroy the other?

How Many is "Too Many"?

2010-05-16T11:12:00.000-07:00

I've always loved numbers. As a boy, I was well aware that a batting average of .400 (4 hits in every 10 official at-bats) was almost unattainable, even by the best major league stars. The incredible Hank Aaron never ended a season with anything higher than .355.

Following are a few other statistics. Should we be worried, or is this the best our economic and political systems can do? (In other words, how proud should we be of our collective batting average?)

In Los Angeles County, child abuse hotline tips flow in at a rapid clip. Responsibility for investigating them falls to the Department of Children and Family Services. The Los Angeles Times (5/16/10, page A37) reports that more than 18,000 cases are unresolved within the mandated time limit of 30 days, at least in part because there are simply not enough social workers.

Meg Whitman, GOP candidate for governor in the State of California, has donated (so far) $64 million of her personal funds to the campaign (LA Times, 5/16/10, page A43). At an estimated cost per social worker of $75,000 per year, $64 million would supply Los Angeles County with 853 social workers for an entire year.

A careful anonymous reader challenged a statistic I used in my previous post. I claimed that "millions of Americans were dying prematurely because they didn't have access to quality medical care." (Note: I didn't claim that every such case was the fault of insurance companies.) A more accurate number, my reader states, would be more in the range of 18,000 to 45,000 per year. Let's use the higher number, on the assumption that many such cases probably go unreported or undocumented. At that rate, the phenomenon would need to be repeated for slightly more than 44 years to make my statement true.

Well, on November 19, 1945, Harry S Truman sent a Presidential message to the US Congress proposing a new national health care program. In his message, Truman argued that "The health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility...About 1,200 counties, 40% of the total in the country, with some 15,000,000 people, have either no local hospital, or none that meets even the minimum standards of national professional associations."

According to Longman and Boshara ("The Next Progressive Era: A Blueprint for Broad Prosperity," p. 118), the New England Journal of Medicine estimates that "uninsured patients receive only 53.7% of the care experts believe they should get." The same book indicates that the journal "Health Affairs" concluded that 10% of the premature deaths in this country are attributable to shortfalls in medical care (p. 105).

A few global warming skeptics have stated that we have nothing to fear from increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because it is a naturally occurring compound (proving once again that a fifth grade education is not sufficient to produce informed public policy). In fact, the atmosphere is about 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, plus other trace elements and water vapor. At concentrations of 1%, carbon dioxide causes pronounced dizziness; at 2%, we experience reduced hearing and increased blood pressure; 5% causes confusion, headaches, and shortness of breath. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the atmosphere has experienced a 39% increase in carbon dioxide levels since 1800. While plants do use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis to produce sugars, extremely high concentrations actually inhibit the process, and food may eventually become poorer in quality and nutritional value as a result (LA Times, 5/15/10, p. A22).

Speaking of the stratosphere, in 2009 Greg Maffei, CEO of Liberty Media Corporation, earned $87.5 million, from TOTAL company revenue of $10.16 billion (LA Times, 5/9/10). According to its website, Liberty Media Corporation "owns interests in a broad range of electronic retailing, media communications, and entertainment businesses." I was unable to locate information on the total number of people employed by the company; presumably, there must be thousands. However, the CEO alone -- ONE PERSON -- pocketed 0.86% (nearly one of every 100 dollars) of the company's TOTAL REVENUE in 2009.

Had enough numbers for one day? Oh, permit me just one more; you have just read more than 800 words! Thanks for your persistence!

ALERT! George Will Speaks the Truth (Sometimes)

2010-05-02T20:43:00.000-07:00

Read carefully between the lines of the typical conservative invective, and you find that George Will (Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 4/18/10) actually believes a few things that are accurate.

First, he believes that a Value Added Tax (VAT) has merit, at least under certain conditions. (He doesn't mention that all members of the European Union -- including (gasp!) France!! -- have a VAT. There's only so much truth the average Will reader can bear in a single column.)

Secondly, he admits that the "Great Recession" resulted in a fiscal shambles. (He doesn't mention, of course, that the Great Recession was caused primarily by lack of regulation and capitalists pursuing the American Dream, both legally and illegally. See rationale for this omission in previous paragraph.)

Thirdly (hold onto your keyboards, my friends), George Will admits that "some taxation is necessary." OMG!

Alas, these kernels of truth are sandwiched between the usual poisonous slices of egregious eyesores of expedient and excruciatingly erroneous evasions of rational thought.

Without eliminating the income tax, Will says, "a VAT would be just a gargantuan instrument for further subjugating Americans to government" (emphasis added). In other words, we poor freedom-deprived Americans have already submitted to the giant altar of government control and interference in our lives -- lives that should instead be full of liberty. Yes, every time I drive on a taxpayer-financed road and obey the regulations imposed by traffic signals, I get sick to my stomach.

Manipulating the concept espoused by President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste" (Wall Street Journal, 11/2/08), Will recklessly charges that the Obama administration believes that "a crisis is a useful thing to create." But I will sleep well tonight, knowing that intelligent conservatives will easily see the difference between taking advantage of a crisis created by someone else and deliberately creating your own.

Democrats pushed health care reform, according to Will, because of liberals' tendency to "lunge to maximize government growth." Presumably, it was irrelevant that insurance companies were acting like bandits, taking policy-holders' money and then withholding services when people got sick, and that millions of Americans were dying prematurely because they didn't have access to quality medical care.

Will refers several times to the "political class" without defining it, but obviously, from the context, he considers it less desirable than, say, the club that backdates stock options. Members of this class "delight" in the "stealthiness" of incremental tax increases, show favoritism (by exempting "green" goods from VAT taxation, for example), and engage in "bossy" behavior by using the government code to regulate social behavior (e.g. taxing cigarettes and outlawing murder).

Finally, catastrophizing beyond the scope of any disorder described in the DSM (that's the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, for you non-psychologists), Will claims that introducing a VAT without repealing the income tax "would be the obituary for the Founders' vision of limited government." Presumably he means the government that was created to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like a pretty tall order -- one that requires people who want it to be successful to be willing to help foot some of the bill.

By the way, it is possible to write an article about the VAT that is informative and balanced. Witness "Much To Love, And Hate, In a VAT," by N. Gregory Mankiw, in the business section of today's New York Times.

You May Speak -- But Must I Listen?

2010-04-26T08:54:00.000-07:00

According to the Los Angeles Times (3/9/10), the Supreme Court will rule next year on a case in which a religious protester who believes the U.S. is too tolerant of gays and lesbians attempted to crash the funeral of a straight soldier while holding protest signs -- and then followed up on his website with derogatory comments about the deceased. The soldier's father sued the Kansas preacher for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The preacher based his defense on the claim of free speech. This defense was rejected by the jury, which awarded the plaintiff $10.9 million. After a judge reduced the award to $5 million, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the verdict altogether, agreeing that the First Amendment carried the day.

The father appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was a captive audience at his son's funeral (and the argument proceeds, presumably, that he could not therefore avoid being subjected to the preacher's "speech").

It's an interesting case, which raises a potent issue: does your right to speak imply that I must therefore listen? If I don't listen, does that risk diminishing the power of your right to speak? If I must listen, doesn't that violate my rights?

I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule. But as an interesting note, not necessarily peripheral to the primary issue, Chief Justice John Roberts has gone on record as believing that a coerced presence (by virtue of tradition) of the Supreme Court justices at the annual State of the Union address by the President of the United States is inappropriate if the President uses the occasion to criticize the Court (see Ruth Marcus' column in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 3/12/10). "Very troubling," he apparently said.

In other words, the President has the right to criticize, but members of the Court shouldn't have to listen.

If nobody has to listen, then how much is the right to free speech really worth? But if people must listen (in circumstances where they can't escape the environment in which the speech is taking place -- or where the speech is so ubiquitous (blanket TV ads?) that viewing it is practically unavoidable), isn't that a restriction on their liberty and freedom (loosely defined)?

OK, readers, how do you think the Supreme Court will rule...and why?

Buy Stocks and Enter Coal Mines at Your Own Risk

2010-04-18T22:24:00.000-07:00

I dislike repeating the same old themes. But when they slap you in the face, it's difficult to ignore.

By now, everyone who reads this blog is all too familiar with the fact that 25 miners lost their lives in an explosion at the Upper Big Branch location of the Massey Energy Company. They also know that the mine has a record of safety violations distinguished by frequency, potentially disastrous outcomes (e.g. lack of coal dust remediation and inadequate ventilation for build-up of methane gas), and the vigor with which the company appeals the citations.

The common wisdom seems to be that executive compensation should mirror performance. It is also the common wisdom that the CEO of any enterprise is ultimately responsible for what happens. Sure, nobody can know everything; operational details frequently escape the notice of top management. But the CEO sets the tone and establishes the philosophy that guides the work of all employees; indeed, that is one of the primary functions of the position. So the logical question to ask is: How much is the CEO of Massey Energy Company compensated for setting the tone and establishing the philosophy that "violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process"?

According to the New York Times (4/7/10), CEO Don L. Blankenship earned $11.2 million in 2008, about twice what he earned in 2006. Apparently he's been earning quite a large sum for many years, because he spent about $3 million in 2004 to influence the outcome of one political race in West Virginia -- a judicial office!

Here's another egregious example of CEO compensation -- an illustration of how badly the system works if you believe that executive pay should correspond to long-term financial stability and profit potential. According to the Los Angeles Times (4/16/10), Kerry Killinger, the CEO of Washington Mutual from 1990 to 2008, earned more than $100 million over a period of years, including $24 million in 2006 alone. What did he do to earn this reward? He bankrupted the institution, leaving the stockholders empty-handed when the company imploded in September of 2008.

The Los Angeles Times also reports (4/17/10) that Leslie Moonves, chief of CBS, earned $43.2 million in 2009. OK, I admit it -- CBS is not bankrupt, and to my knowledge no employees have been killed in industrial accidents. But if I were a shareholder (and I probably am, indirectly, through one or more mutual funds), I would be outraged. I know a lot of people who work hard and are highly motivated to produce excellent results for the employers -- for a lot less money.

Is there a lesson in all this? I'm not sure, but I think it might be: buy stocks and enter coal mines at your own risk.

Stock Ownership: Theory vs. Reality

2010-04-04T11:52:00.000-07:00

"Own a piece of the American Dream!" That, essentially, is the philosophical argument for including stocks in your portfolio. "Earn a good return on your investment!" That is the financial argument for including stocks in your portfolio.

While there may be some merit to both points, especially #2, I think the stockholder is being shortchanged in significant ways.

First, let's examine ownership. To own something normally implies a certain amount of control. If you own your car, you're the one who gets to drive it. But if you're an ordinary stockholder in an American corporation, your power to control -- or even influence -- anything about that company's behavior is essentially zero. (OK, that doesn't apply if you own a significant percentage of the shares; but very few people fall into that category.)

Do you want the company you "own" to lobby less -- or more? Do you want your company to operate in an environmentally sound manner? Establish operations (or not) in politically sensitive countries? Adopt employee-friendly personnel policies? Establish a reasonable level of executive compensation? Write a letter. Attend the annual shareholders' meeting. Good luck! Even large and organized groups of shareholders are typically stymied in such efforts.

All right,management by committee is a bad idea -- and totally unworkable if the committee has thousands of members. So we "owners" delegate our power to management. This would be prudent if management legitimately looked out for our best interests.

This brings us to point #2. A good case can be made that top level corporate managers look out mostly (gasp!) for themselves. Most of them even do it legally (i.e. without resorting to backdating of stock options).

Case in point: according to news reports, the CEO of WellPoint -- you know, that giant insurance company (with its subsidiary Anthem Blue Cross)) that doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation -- got a 51% pay hike last year. She earned $13.1 million, up from #8.7 million the previous year. Three other top executives at the company earned, cumulatively, $16.1 million. Goodbye hamburger, hello filet mignon!

Another case in point: according to the New York Times (4.1.10), the top 25 hedge fund managers earned, collectively, $25.3 billion in a single year. How did they do it? The guy who single-handedly earned $4 billion "bet on the country's survival" by surmising that the government would bail out the big banks.

Most people earn a simple living either by helping create a product or by providing a useful service. Hedge fund managers use other people's money to place bets, and it earns them a fortune. Hooray for capitalism!

I own a very small piece of the American Dream -- almost inevitably -- through mutual fund holdings in my retirement accounts. Philosophically, this gives me no grief at all. Being an executive myself, in a medium-sized non-profit agency, I'm familiar with compensation issues, and I don't begrudge hard-working people an acceptable salary. But I can't help wondering how much more I (and millions of other Americans) could be earning from our stock portfolios if the billions of dollars paid in executive compensation (based on rationale that is marginal at best) were distributed to the shareholders. That money must come from somewhere -- and in my view, it comes right out of the pockets of the "owners."

Putting the Brakes on the Corporate Model

2010-03-28T09:56:00.000-07:00

Syndicated columnist and Fox News commentator Cal Thomas wrote a provocative and surprising article that appeared March 3, 2010, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. The headline reads "Toyota's troubles stem from choosing profit over quality," and Thomas unabashedly recommends embracing excellence over short-term profits.

It is a measure of how far removed this country is from the culture Thomas suggests that the new CEO of Xerox Corporation was quoted recently as saying that "growth" was her number one priority. Not quality copies. Not customer service. Not corporate citizenship. Not exemplary employee relations. Growth, pure and simple. (Sure, these things are not mutually exclusive. But neither are they 100% consistent. Sooner or later, secondary objectives give way to the more urgent, important priority.)

One of the reasons American corporations typically choose profit over all other (competing) objectives is that they are legally required to do so. That's right. Not long after the Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that corporations were entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, a judge decided in the case of Dodge v. Ford (and the principle has never been overturned) that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." And what is it that American stockholders want? Dividends and a higher stock price, hopefully sooner rather than later. What produces these results? Profit.

How ironic (and unfortunate) it is that Toyota's massive current crisis was caused, by its own admission, by a switch from the traditional Japanese model of high quality to the Western desire for growth and profit.

Could it be that the speed control mechanisms on American corporations are malfunctioning, resulting in out-of-control self-interest and a consequent loss of quality and service?

Any ideas on how to apply the brakes? Well, for starters, we could repeal the law upon which Dodge v. Ford was based, or better yet require corporations to consider the public interest, as well as the shareholder interest, when making key strategic decisions.

I can hear the screams of the free market capitalists already!! But consider this: under the current system, too many corporations produce negative externalities (that's "bad stuff" like pollution and unsafe products, to you non-economists) because doing so produces higher profits for their shareholders (and not incidentally, bigger bonuses for the top executives). Extrapolate to the not-too-distant future, and this movement, unabated, will result in wealthy stockholders and the homeless alike wondering what happened to the quality of life. Poisoned air is an equal opportunity killer. Ironically, unsafe consumer products mostly kill the people with sufficient resources to buy them.

Unemployment? Or Unwillingness to Pay for Services?

2010-03-21T08:26:00.000-07:00

Once again the daily newspaper provides important policy information, if you read carefully and connect the dots.

On Wednesday, March 3 (2010), the Los Angeles Times carried a front page story describing the lack of quality control and discipline in the county probation department -- because there are "too many cases and not enough staff." As a consequence, juveniles under the department's supervision are almost undoubtedly being abused by sworn officers who should be disciplined or fired. And the situations are not trivial. One case that was resolved involved an officer convicted of having sex with three juveniles in confinement. Another case involved an officer directing five teenagers to beat another juvenile suspected of stealing her cell phone.

More front page news: You already know that Toyota is suspected of building cars with major electronic throttle design problems that result in unexpected and uncontrollable acceleration. Why didn't the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration take a more pro-active role in investigating the reports that started coming in seven years ago? There may be several reasons, including coziness between regulators and the industry allegedly being regulated and/or incompetence. However, depending on which report you believe, NHTSA has only two -- or five -- electrical engineers on staff, clearly not a sufficient number to investigate carefully and get to the bottom of a complex issue.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca (according to an article on page AA3) is cutting his budget by $128 million over 16 months through reductions in overtime and reassignment of administrative personnel to field duties.

States all over the country are experiencing their worst financial crises since, well, maybe forever. Thousands of teachers are losing their jobs, as school districts run out of money.

In today's Los Angeles Times, we discover that approximately half of California residents eligible for food stamps don't get them. One of the problems: welfare offices cannot afford the staff members required to process the applicants. Lines sometimes stretch out the doors, and the telephone goes unanswered. Some applicants simply give up.

Meanwhile, millions of people look for work. No, they're not all trained to be police officers, probation officers, electrical engineers, or teachers. But many of them could be. And most of the rest are either qualified or COULD be qualified to perform tasks that provide society with useful -- even necessary -- services.

If we were willing to pay for these services, we'd get not only more effective government but lower unemployment. Not a bad combination.

Education, Texas Style

2010-03-14T08:23:00.000-07:00

I've written fiction -- but I wouldn't dare make up stuff like this.

According to the New York Times (3/11/10, page A18, and a follow-up article on 3/13/10), conservatives on the Texas board of education are re-writing the social services curriculum in a manner more to their liking.

Ralph Nader -- and presumably therefore the entire automobile safety and consumer protection movement that he initiated -- out! Never happened. Those doggone corporations -- icons of the free enterprise system that don't need any regulation -- would never build a vehicle they knew was unsafe -- would they?

Phyllis Schlafly -- vigorous opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, who once described the United Nations as "a monument to foolish hopes, embarrassing compromises, betrayal of our servicemen, and a steady stream of insults to our nation" -- in!

Martin Luther King Jr. -- apparently he can stay. But references to race when describing how different groups have contributed to the national identity will be forbidden, so presumably the textbooks will not be allowed to say he was African-American. And General Stonewall Jackson will be included as a "role model for effective leadership." Yes, these conservatives have a dream!

A majority of the 15-member board of education wants to "highlight what they see as the Christian roots of the Constitution" -- you know, the document that refers to religion only twice: once in the First Amendment, establishing what has come to be known as the separation of church and state, and once in Article VI, stating that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or public trust under the United States."

Oh, by the way, country and western music will be studied as a cultural movement. High school freshmen will probably be assigned the task of writing lyrics to twangy melodies -- when they're not studying about the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association. Yes, they're all "in."

Since Texas buys a lot of textbooks, this modified curriculum may in fact impact the education of most or all public school students in the entire country.

Well, majority rules. I wonder if they'll tackle the math curriculum next. If they do, will 3 plus 4 be redefined to equal 6?

Good News on Bullying

2010-03-06T21:40:00.000-08:00

Every now and then the newspaper contains good news. Such was the case this past Thursday, March 4, when the Los Angeles Times carried an article with the headline "Fewer children bullied or beaten up" (page A16).

A study funded by the Justice Department (our tax dollars at work, in a useful way!) and published recently in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine revealed a significant decrease in physical bullying of children between 2003 and 2008. Sociologist David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center, cited as a cause the proliferation of school-based programs to combat bullying following the 1999 Columbine High School shootings.

I jumped on the Internet and quickly located that CACRC site -- a great source for anyone interested in additional background information. Among other things, I found a paper on school-based Victimization Prevention Programs (VPP), which detailed the conditions under which such efforts seem to demonstrate success. Among those conditions are: 1) intervention at young ages (if possible, before undesirable behaviors have a chance to develop); 2) active, systematic, and specific skills training; and 3) intensive programs exceeding 20 hours, repeated if possible over a multiple-year period. (Are you surprised by the latter? I'm not. We study English, math, history, etc. every year!) Lecture presentations alone, and the use of fear tactics, tend not to be successful.

It is difficult for me to contemplate anyone arguing that bullying is a useful or healthy activity. There may be some disagreement, however, about the philosophical justification and the logistical feasibility of including VPP in K-12 schools.

In regard to the former, it could be argued that schools are not the proper venue for "social engineering." This is the parents' function, some would say. Well, of course it is! But with 22% of children reporting bullying in 2003 -- and clearly many more subjected to the phenomenon but not reporting it -- maybe the parents need some help. (And some parents, victims of all kinds of negative childhood experiences themselves, are simply not equipped to provide positive role models.) School is a great equalizer, and it is the one social environment that practically every child experiences. Given the negative consequences of bullying on its victims, it seems a shame to me to pass up a proven opportunity to ameliorate a devastating and all-too-common behavior.

Can schools really implement such training effectively in an era when standardized tests have achieved near-deity status? Apparently some of them can, because they do! What's required is funding, teacher training, well-developed instructional modules, and a philosophy that values appropriate social behaviors as well as pure academic knowledge.

What are the consequences of not providing mature social learning environments for our children? Just observe the overgrown children who populate our legislative bodies!

Continuous Improvement

2010-02-21T13:07:00.000-08:00

No doubt some of the "conservatives" (for lack of a better label -- generally I dislike labels as oversimplifications) who read this blog feel that I spend too much energy denigrating our society. I can almost hear them say "If you love Denmark so much, why don't you move there?"

The truth is that I'm a patriotic American. Many wonderful things happen here, due in large measure to deeply-seated values (civil liberties, for example), caring people, and governmental/economic systems that can, in the best of times, facilitate an exceptional way of life. I had the idea once of traveling around the country, Charles Kuralt style, looking for moving stories of people doing noteworthy things, writing about them, and documenting them with photographs. Maybe I'll still do it some day.

But I don't believe that patriotism equates to wearing blinders or denying reality altogether. In fact, a sophisticated definition of patriotism might well include a desire (a responsibility?) to move closer to achieving our full potential as a nation.

In the business world -- and yes, in the non-profit world -- we encounter the philosophy of "continuous improvement." What would be wrong with applying that same philosophy to the country?

I wish it weren't true. But a simple reading of daily news provides many examples of conditions that need to be improved. If they are at all indicative of conditions just as egregious that don't get reported (as I suspect is the case), then we as a nation have some serious issues on our hands.

Take today's Los Angeles Times, for example. Front page headline: "Youths held by county were abused." The story goes on to document a "troubled portrait of L.A.'s juvenile probation system," including inappropriate sexual contact, physical beatings, and a culture that discourages reporting of such incidents by those mandated by law to report. (Thank goodness investigative reporting survives!)

Want more? On page A31, we discover that some corporations in California are opposing a bill (despite some attractive features) because it would impose penalties on corporations and wealthy individuals for improperly claiming tax breaks to which they are not legally entitled. (And the Great Terminator has vowed to veto the bill if passed unless it has unanimous support of the various interest groups -- such "leadership!" Pardon me while I vomit.)

Hmm, I wonder how we would feel about bank robbers establishing a coalition (most likely one that would qualify for tax-exempt status) with the purpose of eliminating penalties on holding up the local Bank of America? ("I'm sorry, your Honor, I didn't really mean to do it, and I promise never to do it again." "OK, try to be more careful. Case dismissed.")

An article on page A25 describes evidence that drug maker GlaxoSmithKline downplayed evidence that Avandia, a drug it markets to diabetics, substantially increases the risk of heart attacks. (Once again -- thank goodness for what little regulation and investigative powers remain!)

OK, where does this leave us? People have genetic tendencies toward both self-preservation (self-interest) and generosity (altruism). The dynamic interface between these dual human traits results in complex organisms that are sometimes virtuous -- and sometimes not. Nationalize this condition, and you have America: a country that is sometimes virtuous -- and sometimes not. Is there any shame in wanting to be a better person tomorrow than you are today? Or trying to make the country a better place tomorrow than it is today?

An International Covenant?

2010-02-15T13:09:00.000-08:00

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), a multilateral treaty promoted by the United Nations, commits its parties to work toward stated objectives for all its citizens. As of 12/08, 160 countries had ratified it. Not us. The United States has "signed," but the Senate has never ratified.

Part III, Article 6, of the ICESCR says that the parties "recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts."

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in this country in January, 2010, was 9.7%, representing 14.8 million individuals. (Remember that to be considered unemployed, you must be seeking work and not "under-employed"; people working part-time and those who have at least temporarily given up the search are not counted.) This "average" unemployment rate fails to note significant differences among demographic groups. The unemployment rate for teenagers was 26.4%; for blacks, 16.5%, and for Hispanics, 12.6%. Since the start of the recession in December, 2007, "payroll employment has fallen by 8.4 million."

Part III, Article 11, of the ICESCR recognizes "the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions."

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce (Census Bureau), 13.2% of the U.S. population had income below the poverty threshold in 2008 -- 0.2% higher than the previous year. "The estimated number of people in poverty increased by 1.1 million to 39.1 million in 2008." The report notes that the statistics only partially reflect the impact of the recession that began in December of 2007 -- so the picture today is undoubtedly more bleak. Once again, averages mask vast differences among demographic groups. The poverty rate in Mississippi was 21.2%; in New Hampshire, it was 7.6%. In households that included married couples, the poverty rate was 5.8%; in single parent households, the rate was 26.6%. Among Caucasians, the rate was 8.2%; among blacks, it was 24.7%. 21% of children live in poverty, but 46% of African American children live in poverty.

Part III, Article 12, of the ISESCR recognizes "the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health" and "the creation of conditions which would assure to all [people] medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness."

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." A separate study conducted by Harvard University and published in the American Journal of Public Health cited a much higher figure: 44,800. (Statistics are from Wikipedia.) The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations, according to the CIA. The life expectancy "gap" is growing between the rich and the poor and as a function of educational level -- but narrowing between men and women and by race. Accoring to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. ranks close to the bottom of nations for which data are available in terms of years of potential life lost due to lack of health care. On the plus side, the U.S. has an excellent record in terms of treatment of cancer.

Do you care to speculate about why the U.S. has not officially ratified the ICESCR? (Please don't tell me it's because the Heritage Foundation officially opposes it -- which it does.) Your comments are welcomed.

Haunted by Paralysis

2010-02-07T21:13:00.000-08:00

A phenomenon is haunting the United States of America -- the phenomenon of paralysis.

Talk about a "job killer" (as chambers of commerce inevitably describe every bill that would increase regulation and/or reduce profit) -- this phenomenon is a potential "country killer," potentially devastating industry and its workers alike.

You think I'm exaggerating? No less a luminary that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman recognizes it. His New York Times column (1/29/10) concludes as follows: "So we're paralyzed in the face of mass unemployment and out-of-control health care costs...Blame our political culture, a culture that rewards hypocrisy and irresponsibility rather than serious efforts to solve America's problems...I'm sorry to say this, but the state of the union -- not the speech, but the thing itself -- isn't looking very good."

Thomas Friedman (1/31/10) concludes much the same thing, decrying "forces of inertia and special interests" that are blocking the agenda of the President, elected with 68% of the electoral votes and 9.5 million more popular votes than his opponent. According to Friedman, the international community is now beginning to doubt the political stability of the United States. "If the two parties could...remove the growing sense that our country is politically paralyzed, you would not need another dime of stimulus money. Investment and lending would take off on their own. If, however, the two parties continue with their duel-to-the-death paralysis, no amount of stimulus will give us the sustained growth and employment we need."

Frank Rich, also writing for the New York Times (1/31/10), says "our union is not strong. It is paralyzed." He points out that historian Alan Brinkley claims we are entering "the fourth consecutive decade in which Congress -- and therefore government as a whole -- has failed to deal with any major national problem, from infrastructure to education."

OK, these guys might well be talking to each other. They all write columns for the same newspaper. But let's be adults and evaluate their claim on the merits.

Is paralysis -- assuming it exists -- always a problem? After all, the founding fathers designed a system of checks and balances specifically designed to prevent a few individuals from wielding excessive power and taking precipitous actions. State governments were cut from the same mold. So, if our nation is so close to achieving its objectives, on behalf of its citizens, that it has reached the point of diminishing marginal returns (that is, an enormous effort would be required to produce an extremely small improvement), then inaction would not be such a bad thing.

If, on the other hand, conditions are such that useful action can and should be taken to ameliorate them, then paralysis is unconscionable, wrong, and destructive to the way of life we claim to value (you know, the pursuit of happiness, the general welfare -- stuff like that).

Let's take health care as an example. The idea of a national system has been kicking around since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Presidents FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, and now Obama have tried to enact something substantial; only Johnson (so far) succeeded -- with Medicare. (Some might say that George W. Bush succeeded, with the Medicare drug benefit, but it's unclear whether the primary beneficiaries are human beings or the drug companies.) The result of nearly 100 years of near-paralysis: wealthy insurance companies and millions of people without access to the benefits of modern medicine.

I guess, as usual, it comes down to perspective. If you are one of the "haves" and your ethical compass always points inward, seeing millions of people out of work is nothing more than an intellectual curiosity -- an economic statistic. Families are homeless, and children would be starving if not for the detested and denigrated minimalist safety net. Juveniles in detention are reasonably likely to be raped, either by guards or their fellow prisoners. (See recent article in the Los Angeles Times.) Kids in the child protective services system die, at least partially because the available resources can't deal with the demand. The educational system (with fortunate exceptions) churns out people who can barely write, much less think. Our physical infrastructure is crumbling. The deficit grows, while earmarks and programs that benefit individual districts and states (protected by politicians in both major parties) add billions of dollars in federal expenses every year. Many if not most state governments are broke. Oh, yawn. Who cares? Inaction preserves the status quo -- which isn't that bad, right?

I for one -- call me liberal if you must -- think we can do better. But political paralysis is standing in the way.

Life-Saving Government?

2010-01-31T11:01:00.000-08:00

One person who commented on my blog recently asked me whether government had ever saved my life, surely expecting that the answer would be "No."

The honest answer is "Yes," both directly and indirectly.

When I was an infant, I developed a serious infection that landed me back in the hospital. Penicillin had just become commercially available in 1945, and it cured that life-threatening infection.

What does this have to do with government? Although penicillin had been discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928, it was an exceedingly unstable compound, and no method had yet been developed to produce large enough quantities to be used effectively in civilian populations. (It was used sparingly in the military during the latter stages of WW II.) This challenge was presented to the U.S. Department of Agriculture chemical research facility in Peoria, Illinois, where scientists employed by the government understood the process of fermentation probably better than those in any other laboratory in the world. This facility, the Northern Regional Research Laboratory, is credited by the American Chemical Society as playing a critical role, along with industry, in developing mechanisms to produce penicillin in commercial quantities.

I was born in Peoria, and my dad, a Ph.D. research chemist, worked at that laboratory. But that's incidental to the story. Thanks to the government, thousands of babies were probably saved that year, and since then millions of Americans have benefited from the wonders of penicillin.

OK, that's the "direct" part. I can't tell you for a fact that my life has been saved by the safety devices installed in automobiles, since I've been fortunate in avoiding serious accidents. But thousands, perhaps millions, of lives have been saved by seat belts and air bags -- the installation of which was opposed by industry but eventually mandated by government regulation because of the slaughter on our highways.

I can't tell you for a fact that my life has been saved by the research linking smoking to cancer, since I never smoked. (OK, I tried it a couple of times when I was a teenager. But please don't tell my mom. LOL.) Anyway, millions of American lives have been saved by the knowledge that smoking causes life-threatening diseases -- despite sworn testimony to the contrary from tobacco company executives.

I can't tell you for a fact that my life has been saved by the food and water safety programs adopted by federal, state, and local governments. I do know that when killer bacteria (e. coli, for example) invade the American food supply, it makes the news, and recalls are mandated by the government. Would industry implement rigid contamination control measures on its own, without government mandates? Remember -- the purpose of industry is to make a profit, and contamination control costs money. Sure, proven contamination could shut down a meat plant, an event any smart executive would want to avoid -- but without the government, who would investigate where the contamination originated once it entered our complex interstate commerce system?

I can't tell you that my life has been saved by the efforts of government to reduce air pollution. But living in an area highly susceptible to the accumulation of dangerous particulates and ozone, I can tell you that I notice a distinct improvement in air quality over the last 15 years. And that has probably added several years to my life expectancy.

Yes, government has saved my life. Maybe it has saved yours too. Is this worth paying for? I guess that depends on whether you want to pay your fair share of taxes to support these worthwhile endeavors.

The End of Freedom and Liberty

2010-01-23T10:30:00.000-08:00

Freedom and liberty are endangered. "America's founding spirit" has come under "devastating attack." Run, don't walk, to the nearest political bomb shelter and tune in Fox News, where "Heritage Foundation analysts appear more than ten times on a typical day."

"Our national identity as the beacon of liberty and hope is dimming toward a flicker. The Left is waging a successful counter-revolution on our nation's first principles. This is no doubt the most profoundly threatening time for our liberties for over three decades."

Can it really be that bad? Yes, it is, according to a recent fund-raising mailing I received (yes, with my actual, real name on it) from the Heritage Foundation, "America's leading conservative organization." No, wait -- it's even worse!! "The Obama Administration has made it clear that...they (sic) see freedom itself as the problem" (italics in original).

That's why the Heritage Foundation has continued its "promotional partnerships with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity."

Grab your muskets! One if by land, two if by sea, three if by Internet!

This litany of allegedly catastrophic facts and meaningless platitudes about freedom, liberty, the "fundamental principles of the country" (that's what my book will be about -- wink), and Big Government goes on for SEVEN nauseating pages.

OK, it's a fund-raising letter. I didn't expect it to be scholarly. But neither did I expect an organization that claims to be a "think tank" to utilize the linguistic legerdemain (yes, I made that phrase up, and I'm mighty proud of it) that is the quintessential opposite of critical thinking.

"Now is the time for you and me and other Americans who are upset by this wholesale abandonment of our nation's fundamental principles to challenge this expansion of government power and make the case for economically sound, truly conservative policies." Policies like deregulation of the financial markets -- the primary cause of the biggest government bailout of private enterprise in our nation's history, unfortunately required by eight years of Bush administration neglect, incompetence, and implementation of "truly conservative policies"?

"It is clear to many historians today that the New Deal did not end the Depression -- and indeed may have prolonged it." All right, I've heard that WW II had something to do with ending the depression, at least partially because the government incorrectly thought the problem was solved in the late 1930s and prematurely started cutting back on job creation programs. But I've never heard anyone say that FDR's policies "prolonged" the depression -- until now.

This is the "America" the Heritage Foundation wants: one that "upholds timeless moral values" and restores the family to its "primary role in civil society" -- one that promotes a "robust economy that rewards hard work." I wish they would just come out and say that it's OK for bankers to receive million dollar bonuses for nearly wrecking our entire financial structure and for heterosexual politicians to cheat on their spouses, but if you're a gay or lesbian in a committed relationship, working for close to the minimum wage, you're not a true American.

Here's the coup de grace! Your contribution to the Heritage Foundation is tax deductible! That's right, folks, even those of us who don't send in money are supporting this monstrosity, because the people who donate get to pay less in taxes as a result. Divine!

Well, I'm doing my part to impact the Heritage Foundation's "ten-year campaign to create an America that is once again animated by its First Principles" -- I'm writing this blog, I'm writing a book, and I sent the Foundation a sweet little note using its postage-paid return envelope.

Government, Cafeteria Style

2010-01-17T15:30:00.000-08:00

In response to a recent post, "anonymous" pointed out the significant difference between deciding to be charitable and being forced to be charitable. I couldn't agree more! In fact, the latter is a contradiction in terms.

The real issue with regard to welfare (see last week's post, where evidence is presented that social service programs to provide subsistence-level existence are generally effective) is whether or not attempting to provide an economic safety net for people who legitimately need help is a required function of a civilized society or whether it should be voluntary and discretionary. Despite the Founders' inclusion of the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the preamble to the Constitution, Americans are divided on this fundamental question.

Let me hasten to clarify that I deliberately used the word "legitimately" in the preceding paragraph. I am aware that some people will "game" whatever system is set up and attempt to secure resources without putting forth a concerted effort to live up to the dictates of personal responsibility. (Gaming the system is hardly limited to welfare recipients, but that's an issue for a different day.)

I am also aware (although this will apparently take my detractors by surprise) that no government program is perfect. But that doesn't bother me as much as it bothers them. All human enterprises (including corporations, by the way) are less than 100% efficient and occasionally even fail miserably to accomplish intended objectives. (General Motors, AIG, and Countrywide come to mind.) Thomas Jefferson referred to "imperfect man" and was well aware that governments require complex structures intended to mitigate such imperfections (incompetence and greed among them). To me, imperfection is an argument for maximizing efficiency and effectiveness in the service of common objectives, to the extent that human frailty permits; it is not an acceptable rationale for throwing out the entire structure.

The Articles of Confederation failed because individual states chose not to comply with a weak centralized authority when doing so didn't suit their purposes. This was an early indication of the phenomenon economists refer to as the "free rider problem," which states essentially that some portion of the population will fail to pay its fair share of the cost of a good or service it can enjoy for free as long as enough other people contribute. (Sociologists call it "social loafing," but it's the same thing.) The significance of this concept will become apparent shortly.

Let us now, for a moment, envision a society in which all individual actions are voluntary (i.e. those that benefit others will be "charitable"). Some people will choose to contribute to projects that benefit everyone (including themselves). Others will not, in view of the aforementioned free rider problem. Most people will not contribute to projects for which they perceive no personal benefit (regardless of whether that perception is accurate or not). In other words, we'll "unbundle" the various segments of society (to use a marketing term), and people adverse to coercion (yup, that's most of us) can just pay for things we value and not pay for the things we don't value.

In such a society, how will public schools be funded? Most of the people without children will refrain from contributing. Even some people with children will refrain (in the absence of a coercive power).

In such a society, how will meat inspections be funded? Vegetarians can opt out! If you eat exclusively from a garden in your back yard, feel free not to contribute anything to the national effort to ensure food safety. Should you support the effort to curtail mining operations that deposit poisonous, cancer-causing chemicals in the water supply? Not if you live in California -- that happens in West Virginia! And if you're not an outdoors kind of person, feel free not to support the operational costs of keeping up our national parks.

In such a society, who will fund security at airports and the entire (governmental) structure that makes air transportation possible? Those who never fly will have no incentive to chip in. Likewise, people with cars will not support public transportation; people without cars will not support road repair and construction. Should you help fund child protective services? No way -- not unless you're abusing YOUR child!

No, as ideal as it might sound, giving everyone the "liberty" of picking and choosing would soon result in chaos. Our national situation is considerably more complex than selecting basic cable or a more extensive package with more channels and paying the commensurate rate. Not only would cafeteria-style government be a logistical nightmare if it were attempted, but nearly every important function of an organized society would be under-funded, because a significant portion of the population would opt out.

So, let's return to the fundamental issue: is or is not the general welfare (just one example: families with breadwinners laid off because the economy tanked, through no fault of their own -- yes, those breadwinners who line up by the hundreds or thousands for the few jobs currently available) a central concern of every American? If it's OK to let these people and their children go hungry, live in cars or under freeway ramps, receive medical care only in dire emergencies, etc. then the discussion is over. Let those who are "charitable" do what they are willing to do -- which will be more than nothing but considerably less than enough to make any significant difference. If it's not OK, then we need a system (one that will undoubtedly be imperfect) to ensure that everyone shoulders his or her fair share of the responsibility.

While we're at it, why don't we set up a system for ensuring that ALL generally agreed upon functions of an organized society are funded at least to minimally effective levels and these functions are carried out by reasonably capable people? Since not everyone will agree on what is required and what is "minimally effective," let's establish a mechanism for making such decisions -- a mechanism that will not please everyone all the time but will at least be functional.

If we're going to talk about these things, we're going to need names for them. Let's call the system "government." Let's call the money we pay to keep the essentials of an organized society running "taxes." Let's call the reasonably capable people who implement the policies "bureaucrats" or "government employees." Let's call the people who make decisions about priorities "public officials." And the condition most of us enjoy as a result of having these things -- to live our lives pretty much as we please, to thrive in a relatively safe environment -- let's call that "liberty."

Does Welfare Work?

2010-01-11T21:42:00.000-08:00

That, my friends, is a billion dollar question with no easy "one size fits all" answer.

For starters, "welfare" as commonly defined consists of a number of totally independent programs, including unemployment compensation, food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and Section 8 (HUD) housing. It is entirely possible that some of these are more effective than others. It is also possible that the same program is effective for some segments of the population and not for others -- or even for specific individuals and not for others.

A sophisticated analysis would necessarily include both "macro" and "micro" viewpoints. In other words, both the aggregate impact of these programs nationally and the impact on specific people (or at least sub-population groups) would need to be considered. Another complicating factor is that statistics on the number of people living in poverty or taking advantage of various forms of government assistance, by themselves, do not lead to incontrovertible conclusions. Trend analysis helps, but sometimes the question still remains: what would the statistics be if the programs didn't exist? What would the statistics be if the programs were fully funded and accessible to all those eligible who desire to participate (which they aren't)?

A short blog post clearly cannot do justice to this infinitely complex issue. However, a few interesting points can be considered.

Let's start with a little macro-analysis. If social welfare programs work, then countries with more extensive programs should report a smaller percent of their population living in poverty. And that is exactly what we find. According to UNICEF, the percentage of children living in poverty in 2005 was: Denmark, 2.4%; France, 7.5%, Norway, 13.4%; Canada, 14.9%; United Kingdom, 15.4%; United States, 21.9%. (Thank goodness for Mexico -- 27.7%.)

The Human Development Index (HDI) measures general well-being, with special emphasis on child welfare. Ratings released in 2009, covering the period up to 2007, reveal the following: the U.S. ranks 13th, in a virtual tie with Austria, Spain, and Denmark, surpassed by some countries noted for extensive welfare programs: Norway, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, and Finland.

Here's a statistic that might surprise some detractors of welfare programs; among all households receiving food stamps, almost twice as many include at least one working adult as those that don't. In other words, receipt of this particular type of government aid does not discourage work (at least in many families); it supplements a wage that is inadequate to provide the essentials of life. (An anonymous commenter to this blog recently accused me of being "deluded" because I get my information from the Washington Post and the New York Times. I plead guilty to the latter and not guilty to the former. But the information in this paragraph comes from the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.)

According to the Food Research and Action Center, only 56% of people eligible for food stamps nationwide actually receive benefits. Some people are not aware that they are eligible; others are dissuaded from participation by misunderstandings about the nature of the program and/or difficulties in getting to offices during the work day.

Tired of macro-analysis? If you are unaware that literally millions of individuals (including some people who made six-figure incomes prior to the bursting of the bubble in late 2008) are out of work through no fault of their own and hanging onto life itself only by virtue of the social service safety net, then you're out of touch with reality.

Should all this matter? It only matters if we Americans truly believe in the principles enunciated by our founding documents. (Remember the Pursuit of Happiness? Have you tried doing that on an empty stomach? Recall that business about Promoting the General Welfare? I don't think the founders had bankers and sellers of financial derivatives in mind when they wrote that.) According to a study published recently in the American Journal of Public Health, poverty actually results in a loss of 8.2 "years of perfect health" -- exceeding the effect of either obesity or smoking.

Since welfare apparently works at least some of the time for a large number of people, how should we pay for it? Should it be voluntary (charitable), as "anonymous" recently recommended? Tune in next week for my thoughts on the matter.

I Really Cared About You -- Last Week

2010-01-04T18:53:00.000-08:00

The holidays are over, and now it's back to business as usual. It's time once again for segments of our population to regard economic assistance to the poor as a socialistic welfare scheme that reduces self-esteem on the part of the recipients, teaches them to be indolent and dependent on hand-outs, and confiscates the discretionary income of people who are already taxed nearly to death.

Now, last week was different. There was a spirit of generosity in the air. Toy and food collections were omnipresent. Bell-ringers graced the sidewalks of a thousand grocery stores. One local businessman and his partners brought more than 100 families together in a shopping center parking lot, handed out turkey dinners and gift cards to local merchants, and even brought in Santa Claus via helicopter.

I was there (no, not as a recipient, but as a representative of a participating non-profit agency that helped identify deserving families). Nobody I talked to expressed any concern that such giveaways would have a negative impact on the beneficiaries' self-esteem. What I observed was quite the contrary -- people seemed exceptionally appreciative of being considered "special," if only for a few hours. Some of them returned, immediately after the event, to their jobs paying little more than minimum wage. One such person, a grandmother whose son was incarcerated and who had taken in her grandchildren to care for them, looked forward to cooking them a nice meal and putting a present or two (probably clothes) under the Christmas tree.

I have mixed feelings about all this holiday cheer. On the one hand, I feel it's somewhat hypocritical to claim to really care about people but oppose funding for a well-designed welfare program that keeps the unemployed out of abject poverty until they get back on their feet. On the other hand, maybe caring about less fortunate people about 2% of the time (1 week out of 52) is better than nothing. Sometimes, feeling special for a few hours gives you hope that life will eventually get a little easier.

Happy New Year, everyone! And please don't wait for Christmas 2010 to exhibit your generous spirit.

P.S. I do not intend by any means to imply that the particular people associated with the event I describe above oppose government assistance programs. I do not know them well enough to make such a statement, and I have evidence that they do in fact engage in philanthropic activities throughout the year. I do believe, however, that many people behave in the manner suggested above. Otherwise, how do we explain the outpouring of goods and services during the holidays and the reluctance at all other times of year to spend government resources to establish a high quality safety net?

Rediscovering Principles -- But Which Ones?

2009-12-26T21:11:00.000-08:00

I recently discovered a book that purports to utilize a very similar tactic to my own work-in-progress -- commenting on the degree to which modern America conforms to fundamental "Founding" values.

Matthew Spalding ("We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future") cites the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as I do, but for the most part uses a different set of principles from the ones enunciated in the preambles to those documents. (Yes, he talks about liberty, but quickly associates it closely with religion, which as we all know was barely mentioned in the Constitution -- and then only to ensure that there be no religious test for holding public office.)

As might be expected from an author closely associated with the Heritage Foundation, his conclusions (from the last chapter -- I haven't read all the preceding chapters yet) comprise a veritable glossary of modern conservative philosophy: limited government, limited regulation (no mention of the deregulation of financial markets that just about caused another Depression), anti-welfare, anti-gay, pro-religion (anti-secular), opposed to socialized health care, anti-deficit (apparently unless the red ink is used to finance wars that implement an engaged foreign policy), pro-strict constitutional constructionism, pro-free enterprise, and pro-"liberty" (but apparently not opposed to the sections of the Patriot Act that violated the Fourth Amendment).

Appointed judges, intellectual and political elites, mainstream journalists, bureaucrats, and Europeans -- the customary targets of conservatives -- all fall victim to his keyboard. He almost equates property rights to the means of pursuing happiness, totally ignoring reams of evidence to the contrary. (As we know from last week's post, nobody expects a correlation any more between belief systems and evidence.)

Who is Matthew Spalding? He's a graduate of Claremont McKenna College, with a doctorate in government from Claremont Graduate School. (You'll find no mention of his doctorate anywhere in his book. Perhaps he's not proud of it; or perhaps having a degree of that nature makes it difficult to criticize the intellectual elite.) Spalding serves as project leader for the Heritage Foundation's First Principles Initiative, which "seeks to provide a much-needed education for policymakers, the news media and ordinary citizens on the ideas of liberty and constitutional self-government" (quote from the Heritage Foundation website).

Spalding testified recently before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, warning about constitutional and practical problems associated with naming high-level bureaucrats (commonly called "czars") to positions with the power to coordinate public policy in selected arenas (like health care). Perhaps he didn't anticipate that anyone would make a connection between this testimony and the fact that the Foreward to his book is written by none other than William J. Bennett -- reformed mega-gambler, author of "The Book of Virtues" (are you laughing yet?), and former Drug Czar under President George H. W. Bush. Can you spell I-R-O-N-Y?

Seeing something like this in print (a plethora of assertions with minimal footnotes, albeit with a list of relevant references at the end) merely adds to my motivation to publish the counterpoint to that view.

What Would a Space Invader Think?

2009-12-20T19:14:00.000-08:00

If a space invader believed what Americans say about education, he/she/it would conclude that we value it highly. If this same creature were to sit in on any of a zillion business meetings, he/she/it would also determine that Americans base their strategies, beliefs, and actions on facts (or in the face of uncertainty, at least the most reasonable assumptions), plus a logical thinking modality that connects facts with inevitable conclusions. If the alien were to overhear the thousands of conversations in businesses and non-profits alike about "continuous improvement," he/she/it might conclude that we are all intimately involved in feedback loops where consequences of current actions modify future actions.

If our hypothetical space invader then extrapolated to assume that Americans, in general, modify their belief systems and actions to conform to reality, he/she/it would be making a huge mistake.

I am not the only person to notice this phenomenon. Writing in the 12/14/09 edition of the New York Times, Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman commented: "When I first began writing for The Times, I was naive about many things. But my biggest misconception was this: I actually believed that influential people could be moved by evidence, that they would change their views if events completely refuted their beliefs."

In a similar vein, columnist Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times (12/12/09) that "our national conversation is dominated by a culture of assertion rather than a respect for evidence reasonably assessed."

One has only to witness the current "debates" about practically every important political issue of the day to verify these ugly truths.

I have been privileged as CEO of a mid-sized non-profit organization to learn about and actually utilize a complex and multi-step decision-making strategy (thanks in part to a skilled consultant) -- and it works! Unfortunately, the model is too complex to describe here in its entirety. Suffice it to say that it incorporates ten steps, including agreeing on the characteristics of a desirable outcome, ascertaining facts, and projecting the likely outcomes of alternatives suggested by a diverse group of people.

I don't see much evidence that decisions made in our public arenas conform to any cohesive decision-making process. We rarely define our goals carefully. We ignore or dispute facts based on pre-existing belief systems rather than modifying our beliefs to conform to generally recognized facts. We don't listen well; "debate" doesn't have the same meaning it used to.

In today's political world, evidence carries little or no weight; life-long learning (ideally part of the "education" we claim to value) is a joke. There is only one step in the political decision-making process: what do I already believe, or need to believe in order to get re-elected? Facts be damned.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but without giving weight to evidence, would we not still believe that the earth is flat and occupies its rightful place in the center of the universe?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but without giving weight to evidence, would we not still be bloodletting to cure people of diseases rather than giving them antibiotics?

(OK, admittedly, this means some people do pay attention to some facts some of the time, since we do have antibiotics and don't believe the earth is flat. But we still can't agree on health care policy, climate change, tax policy, the value of foreign interventions, etc.)

I'd love to see an intelligent creature from outer space slap a few people in the face and say "Wake up! You are destroying each other and the planet! Use your mental capacities for something more meaningful than voting for the next American Idol!"

"Rethink Reform"

2009-12-13T21:49:00.000-08:00

Today's New York Times (12/13/09) includes a full-page ad sponsored by the "Committee to Rethink Reform." The ad shows an elderly couple on a lonely country road facing a "highway sign" that says "Next Medicare Doctor 71 miles." The lady is using a walker. Huge letters above the graphic spell out "Cutting Support for Medicare Means Cutting Doctors for Seniors." Below the photo, we find this baffling message: "Incredibly, the Senate just voted to cut billions from Medicare. And despite $36 trillion in debt they expanded the program! More debt and rationing for seniors is coming."

Just out of curiosity, I did a little research. I wanted to know who was so concerned about the health care our seniors are receiving. I also wanted to know, if possible, where that $36 trillion figure came from and who wrote the ad copy that uses a plural pronoun to refer to a singular noun. LOL.

This so-called committee is really a project of the "Employment Policies Institute," which according to its own website is "a non-profit research organization dedicated to studying public policy issues surrounding employment growth." Among other things, the Institute publishes studies allegedly demonstrating that the minimum wage has a damaging effect on certain parts of the labor market. (It also doesn't help businesses very much, but I suppose that's incidental.)

CREW -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington -- links the "Rethink Reform" effort to discredit health care reform to Bernard & Company, which is closely connected to another non-profit called the "Center for Union Facts." According to the IRS Form 990 filed for calendar year 2007, the "Center for Union Facts" paid Bernard & Company more than $839,000 in compensation, from revenue of less than $3 million. According to CREW, Bernard & Company is closely associated with a long list of conservative causes.

So, I ask you: who really paid for this "Rethink Reform" ad? If we're going to exercise our right to free speech (yes, we all believe in it), is there at least an ethical responsibility to stand up and say it publicly, without hiding your identity?

The question has two answers. First, I don't really know who paid for it. Maybe somebody with lots of time and a research tool more powerful than the Internet can find out. (How likely do you think most readers of the ad will be to find out who really paid for it?) Secondly, in a sense, we all paid for it, because contributions to the "non-profit" organization that sponsored it were tax deductible!

I recently saw in another publication -- I believe it was "The Chronicle of Philanthropy" -- that the IRS is approving applications for new non-profit agencies almost carte blanche these days. Now, I suppose one could argue that doing "research" and publicizing the results also serve an educational purpose. But is education the real purpose of organizations like the "Center for Union Facts" and the "Employment Policies Institute"? Or is the purpose to blatantly influence public policy? (The ad in question concludes with "Call your Senators and raise hell," followed by an area code 202 phone number.) And if they can lobby with tax deductible money, why are the Sierra Club and the American Civil Liberties Union not eligible for non-profit status?

A Few Words about Philanthropy

2009-12-07T19:56:00.000-08:00

I accepted a donation this morning for the non-profit organization I work for, from the Verizon Foundation, in the amount of $20,000. Since I had no other burning issues for this week's post (lobbyists, feel free to breathe a sigh of relief!), I thought a few comments about philanthropy would be in order. Not only is it "seasonally appropriate," but it provides a bit of a contrast to my usual invective against selfishness.

Philanthropy is "big business" in this country. At this morning's meeting, the Verizon Foundation distributed close to half a million dollars to 20 or so non-profit social service organizations in the general areas known as the San Gabriel Valley and Inland Empire regions of Southern California. Nationally, the Foundation makes grants totaling millions of dollars every year.

According to the Giving USA Foundation, which tracks such things, philanthropic giving in this country amounted to some $295 billion in 2006. Most of this money came from individuals; only 4.3% of the total came from corporations and corporate foundations. About one third of all tax deductible gifts -- the largest single "chunk," -- goes to religious institutions. Social service agencies get maybe 10%.

In 2005, more than 1 in every 4 adults reported doing some volunteer work. I don't know exactly what definition was used. Chances are that coaching your kid's soccer team counted.

According to the "Chronicle of Philanthropy" (12/10/09), Bill and Melinda Gates have contributed approximately $21 billion to their foundation. The most recent gift of $350 million will pay for the building of the foundation's new headquarters building in downtown Seattle.

The same issue of the Chronicle reports that Goldman Sachs has pledged $500 million "to help develop small businesses and train entrepreneurs." (It occurs to me that successful entrepreneurs sometimes end up using the services of a large financial services firm, when they take their companies public.) Skeptics have accused the company of trying to buy a more positive image, pointing out that half a billion dollars is a small fraction of the amount the company pays in bonuses to its employees.

Businesses wouldn't try to purchase good will by making charitable donations -- would they? If they did, would it be a bad thing?

Lobbying (Not Again!)

2009-11-30T21:04:00.000-08:00

I can't seem to get away from the topic of lobbying. Maybe it's following me around. Hmmm, maybe it's following ALL OF US around!

The most recent report to pique my interest appeared in the New York Times 11-15-09 (yes, on the front page). It seems that lobbyists from Genentech, a biotechnology giant, were successful in ghost-writing portions of speeches inserted into the Congressional Record by members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Unknowingly, more than a dozen members of the House have even used almost identical wording when commenting on certain benefits incorporated in health care legislation. Company lobbyists, who are no dummies (more like ventriloquists?), planted two sets of talking points -- one for Democrats and one for Republicans.

Why does this matter? Psychologists tell us that people tend to believe things they hear from people they regard as credible and knowledgeable. All right, I can hear you laughing! Congressmen, credible? Well, compared to self-interested company spokespeople, lobbyists themselves, and so-called scientific reports funded by the company -- maybe so. Everything is relative. And remember, not everyone knows that the Congressional Record is pretty much "made up" -- revised at will, after the fact, to reflect things that were never said. Before you know it, those lobbyist-drafted words will be taken as fact by some naieve college sophomore writing a term paper.

There's another reason this is smart politics for the lobbyists. They know that people tend to get rigid once they have made on-the-record statements. Flip-flopping creates not only criticism from people who refuse to be smarter today than they were yesterday, but it can also engender a condition known as cognitive dissonance. "Why are you now saying x when last week you told everyone you believed y? Aren't you being intellectually dishonest?" Oh my, what politician will admit to that? So once they go on the record, they are easier to manipulate.

I have a suggestion for members of Congress: if you don't know what you're talking about, keep silent until you've done some real homework. And don't expect the self-serving statements of hired guns to always represent the truth.

Half Full? Half Empty? You Decide!

2009-11-22T10:50:00.000-08:00

According to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's department, a 12-year-old middle school student in Calabasas (an up-scale community) was kicked and hit by as many as 14 classmates about a week ago, possibly motivated by a Facebook group urging violence against redheads. (See Los Angeles Times, 11/22/09, p. A43.)

What are we to think? Is it possible to generalize from the viciousness and immaturity of pre-adolescents?

One thing we can be thankful for -- among the school's responses was a teacher-led effort to discuss discrimination in their classrooms. Hooray for the American tradition of taking action immediately following disasters. With "risk management" so well incorporated into the lexicon of every organization (much to the delight of insurance companies), is there some reason we can't extent the concept to the prevention of social stupidity?

I can hear the objections already. It's not the job of the school to inculcate values. We don't have time -- we're too busy teaching the required academic subjects and ensuring that our kids do well on standardized tests. Well, I for one am not happy about the fact that a vulnerable child who happened to have freckles was "left behind."

Sometimes I really don't know whether the glass is half full or half empty. There are millions of generous, kind-hearted people in this country. There are millions more who would cheat their grandmother if they thought it would benefit them personally. (Well, maybe not their own grandmother -- but somebody else's grandmother would probably be fair game.)

I guess it reminds us that human beings are exceptionally complex creatures, with conflicting genetic and environmental forces assaulting us from all directions.

Best Thanksgiving wishes to all my readers, and many thanks for your comments and encouragement, both on- and off-screen.

Achieving National Goals

2009-11-15T18:32:00.000-08:00

I'm happy to report that I'm making decent progress on writing the book proposal for "I Pledge Allegiance: To What? -- The Paradox of 'Me.' " Herewith, a draft of the summary of the volume's last chapter:

"Chapter 9 describes several strategies that could enhance the achievement of America's fundamental values. First, we must decrease the attention given to pure economic measures (e.g. GDP) and highlight more meaningful social indicators. (The President, for example, could even include a status report in the State of the Union message.) The successful non-profit model should be used more extensively to engage in activities that promote our stated objectives (thereby reducing the ubiquitous and sometimes deleterious profit-at-any-cost motive). Educational programs should incorporate, alongside "pure" academic instruction, modules on cooperation, problem-solving, conflict resolution, and increasing the skills required to cope with personal adversity. The Constitution should be amended to provide for additional representatives and senators, with publicly financed national elections, for the purpose of reducing parochial interests and promoting the common good. Corporations should be legally charged with the public responsibility to take the long-term welfare of all citizens into account, even as they strive to earn profits for shareholders. Inter-cultural exchange programs should be vastly expanded to increase the sense of "family" Americans feel for each other, regardless of geographic, ethnic, and religious differences. Finally, voters should be encouraged to select leaders on the basis of critical thinking ability and the willingness to take counter-intuitive, bold positions when doing so will enhance the pursuit of happiness, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure a nation and a world conducive to the well-being of our posterity."

Sorry -- long paragraph I know.

If any readers have additional ideas about how to achieve our fundamental values, as espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution, I'd love to hear them!

Corporate Justice at Last (LOL)

2009-11-08T22:11:00.000-08:00

Regular readers of this blog will not be shocked to learn that I am skeptical about corporate ethical standards and the effectiveness of this country's regulatory machinery. It came as a bit of a surprise to me that fines were levied recently against some big names for alleged wrongdoing.

Oil giant BP was fined $87 million by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) following a 6-month inspection that revealed hundreds of violations of a 2005 settlement agreement resulting from an explosion that killed 15 workers and injured another 170. According to the Associated Press, OSHA said that "the company also committed hundreds of new violations at the nation's third largest refinery by failing to follow industry controls on pressure relief safety systems." (Of course, the company disagrees and formally contested the OSHA action.)

Meanwhile, according to the Los Angeles Times (11/6/09), "three major retailers have agreed to pay nearly half a million dollars to settle a lawsuit stemming from the companies' sale of toys containing excessive amounts of lead." Collectively, Target, Toys R Us, and Kmart will pay a total of $454,000 in civil penalties and other fines. California State Deputy Attorney General Harrison Pollak is quoted as follows: "The settlement provides a remedy for past violations and makes it less likely that there will be future violations of lead standards."

So far, so good. But suppose I, as an individual, violate a safety standard that results in an increase in mental retardation in children (like lead poisoning does) or that results in 15 unnecessary deaths. Will it impact my behavior if the state, to punish me and make it "less likely" that I will become a repeat offender, fines me $1?

It's not a rhetorical question. Fining me $1 is, within an order of magnitude or two, the same type of punishment as the actions described above.

In 2008, BP reported revenue in US dollars of about $367.053 billion. The fine of $87 million amounts to .02% of such revenue.

Toys R Us, Target/Dayton-Hudson, and Sears Holding Company (owner of Kmart) reported total annual revenue in recent years of approximately $83.9 billion (combining reports from different years, as available). The fine of $454,000 represents .00054% of such revenue.

Ah, justice at last!

The Rape of Hope

2009-10-31T20:12:00.000-07:00

Today's Los Angeles Times (10/31/09) included a story horrifying in its brutality -- in more ways than one.

Recently, a 15-year-old girl was gang raped outside a high school near Oakland, California, while a homecoming dance proceeded peacefully nearby and as many as 20 onlookers jeered, took pictures, and messaged their friends to come join in the fun. Two hours passed before someone witnessing the event decided to call the police.

Columnist Sandy Banks tried to answer the obvious questions. How could such a callous (not to mention criminal) occurrence take place, and why on earth would it take two hours for someone to come to their senses sufficiently to put a stop to it? She interviewed a junior at the school, who opined that "A lot of them, they don't think they're going to be successful. They've already been judged, so they go with that. They drink, they smoke, they pop pills. It's the 'bad boy' culture. That's how they see themselves."

I can't help wonder how widespread this feeling is. Are there, in fact, thousands -- perhaps hundreds of thousands -- of young people who face the future with a brooding face and a heavy heart, uncertain whether any portion of the American dream will ever collide with what currently passes for their lives?

We are told by the so-called experts that the widespread and gargantuan inequality that pervades American society today will never cause unrest -- at least partially because people at the bottom of the ladder perceive the potential for upward mobility.

Do they?

Please note: regardless of the attitudes and emotional predispositions of the perpetrators of this indecent affair, their actions are in no way justified. Those directly involved should be prosecuted, and the voyeurs should be grounded until they mature. For some of them, this might entail missing next year's dance.

Side note: the school board is planning to install security measures now -- after considering them for years. And, rest assured, a campus police officer has proclaimed that "We have a safe environment at Richmond High." The educational bureaucracy at its finest!

What should really be happening in the classrooms when things return to "normal"? Should teachers focus on social responsibility, communication and collaboration skills, conflict resolution strategies, and critical thinking? Well, that might be nice, but some parents would complain, and besides, the students need more math, science, history, etc. so they can improve their scores on those all-important standardized tests. That way we'll "Leave No Child Behind" -- except the unfortunate young lady who was brutally raped.

When things finally erupt in this country, we're going to have the best educated rioters in the history of the world. They'll be full of knowledge -- potential "Jeopardy" champs all -- because that is what our educational policy makers think is important -- but hope will be in short supply.

From Whence Do We Come?

2009-10-25T19:20:00.000-07:00

If it's true that Americans suffer from an advanced case of evolutionary "mismatch," responsible for many of the ills of our egocentric and essentially selfish society (at least by comparison with many other developed countries), then something must differentiate us from the citizens of some other countries, who seem to understand better than we do the value of cooperative, caring behavior on an organized basis. Why would we cling to no-longer-adaptive behavior patterns established thousands of years ago if people in selected other countries don't (or at least do so to a lesser degree)?

What separates Americans from, say, Scandinavians, I suspected, was at least partially the result of our frontier heritage. Some confirmation of this hypothesis comes from the book "Wilderness at Dawn -- The Settling of the North American Continent" (complete reference upon request).

In 500 pages or so, Ted Morgan recounts an overabundance of detail about his topic, starting about 15,000 years ago and moving inexorably, sometimes laboriously, through the 18th century. Generally he is content to describe events, rarely lapsing into analysis. On page 483, however, we find this stunning conclusion: "Mix well these ingredients: three expansionist European powers, a native people refusing subjugation, and a population of slaves brought agains their will from West Africa. The result? A recipe for strife."

Indeed, the preceding pages tell the story of people with often vicious and aggressive tendencies, creating government on the fly, often violating their own laws almost as quickly as they make them, seeking fortunes and the freedom to practice religions not favored in their native countries while simultaneously denying tolerance to others.

"Whatever their destination, as they occupied hundreds of different habitats and climates, the various groups [of settlers] had one thing in common: the quest for food was their organizing principle" (p. 24). Fast forward a few hundred years -- and find some people scrounging for food in garbage bins, the slightly more fortunate accepting baskets at non-profit pantries and hoping the provisions will last out the month, and the very fortunate never satisfied even with huge fortunes, allegedly demanding multi-million dollar bonuses for moving money and securities around the world in ways inscrutable to the average person, stockpiling hundreds of millions of dollars in banks around the world to evade legally imposes taxes, and complaining all the while about over-regulation and large government deficits.

"Around A.D. 1100, at the peak of their power, the leaders of Cahokia [a settlement apparently near what is now Wisconsin] ordered the building of a stockade around the inner city. They cut down an estimated 80,000 trees...and didn't replant. Losing its cover, the game fled at a time when the human population was increasing...By A.D. 1300, Cahokia was abandoned, and its splendid mounds were covered with weeds and underbrush, monuments to man's overreaching" (p. 41). Fast forward a few hundred years, with industry still resisting efforts to mitigate the ravages of environmental destruction. We are the children of our forefathers.

"Like Columbus, the settlers of all of North America -- of Quebec, Jamestown, and Plymouth -- would believe that the white men didn't have to treat the Indians the way they treated one another" (p. 50). "In each village he visited, De Soto repaid the hospitality of the chief by taking him hostage, along with other captives who were used as porters" (p. 73). Fast forward to today. Every oppressed minority -- ironically, with the possible exception of some Native American tribes -- is still struggling with vestiges of past injustice, current-day bigotry, or both.

"On February 12, 1599, [Juan de] Onate pronounced the sentence [to Indians who had lost a battle]: All the men over the age of twenty-five would have one foot cut off and would have to serve twenty years of serfdom. Those between twelve and twenty-five would simply have one foot cut off" (p. 83). Fast forward to Texas, 2009, where commissions are disbanded just in time to prevent official findings that a convicted arsonist, since executed, was actually innocent. (I presume you saw the articles in the paper about this recently.) Don't see the connection? It's a mentality that basically says "we will have law and order here, at any cost, and if we make a few mistakes along the way, so be it."

Welcome to American, then and now.

Just the Juxtaposition of Facts, Ma'am

2009-10-18T16:27:00.000-07:00

You might need to be at least 50 years old to understand the title's reference to the perennial tagline of the old TV show "dragnet" ("just the facts, ma'am," usually spoken to a lady highly motivated to explain why her petunias are blooming so colorfully before she tells the detectives about the murder she just witnessed). However, all you need to draw conclusions from carefully juxtaposed facts is the ability to see that 2+2 = 4.

Fact #1 -- low wage workers are frequently screwed by the business establishment. According to the New York Times (9/2/09, p. A11), a new study documents frequent and egregious violations of work rules affecting people earning, on average, about $8 an hour. More than 4,000 workers were interviewed, across the country, in a variety of industries. Among the results: only 8% of such employees claimed workers' compensation benefits following a work-related injury -- the others mostly didn't report as a result of pressure by their employers not to file; 12% of workers who earn tips reported that their employers steal some of the tips; 76% who had worked overtime the previous week were not paid the proper amount; 57% had not received mandatory pay documents that would have indicated they were being properly paid; 43% in the apparel and textile industries reported being paid less than the minimum wage. Workers surveyed, in fact, lost on average 15% of the pay to which they were legally entitled.

Fact #2 -- more recently, it has come to light that wealthy Americans have hidden large sums of money in Swiss banks, illegally evading taxes. According to the Los Angeles Times (10/15/09, p. B6), 7,500 people have voluntarily disclosed such accounts in order to take advantage of an IRS amnesty program that would preclude them from being criminally prosecuted and possibly spending time in jail. No doubt thousands more are hoping that their names are not among those to be disclosed by banks "in 70 countries and on every continent except Antarctica."

Fact #3 -- According to the New York Times (5/16/09, p. A9), business groups were opposing legislation that would guarantee workers seven sick days per year if they work for employers with 15 or more employees. The authors of this bill claim that three-fourths of low-wage workers do not currently earn any sick days. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the head of the Republican Party oppose the bill.

Fact #4 -- According to the non-partisan California Budget Project (reported in the Los Angeles Times 10/12/09, p. B1), "the bottom fifth of taxpayers -- those earning less than about $18,000 -- paid about 11.7% of family income in state and local taxes. By contrast, the top 1%, earning $430,000 or more, paid only about 7.1% on average." (So much for California being a "high tax state" -- yeah, for whom??) The article goes on to point out how many state services (education, transportation, the entire law enforcement/correctional system, etc.) benefit the wealthy at least as much as they benefit the poor.

Try to keep these facts in mind the next time you recite the Pledge of Allegiance: "...with liberty and justice for all."

Dear Mr./Ms. Corporation

2009-10-11T21:58:00.000-07:00

My friend,

I understand that you want to be treated like every individual American -- imbued with all the rights and privileges included in the U.S. Constitution. For example, I understand that you'd like to be protected by the First Amendment and that you advance the view that "corporate free speech" should include the right to contribute to political candidates without limitation.

Let me point out that you already have more than half of this "cake." You have all the legal rights required to do business -- purchase and sell property, hire and fire employees, enter into contracts, advertise, etc. Although you are supposedly prevented from making certain kinds of political contributions, there are more ways around this than there are (or at least were) fish in the sea. You hire lobbyists in vast numbers and pay them so much that they just can't help attending political fundraisers and contributing to political action committees.

In fact, you even enjoy benefits individual people do not, e.g. perpetual life (hence, the ability to accumulate unlimited wealth and never be subject to an inheritance tax) and limited liability. Human beings do not have the right to sever their actions from their brains; in court, it is not considered a good excuse to say "my right arm may have hit you, but my brain was not involved." Yet, dear corporation, when you violate the laws of society, you have the right to shield your brains (your executives) from legal consequences. They do not go to prison unless they personally violate laws; mere malfeasance on your part (e.g. violating laws against pollution) only results in fines (paid, ironically, by shareholders who are not at all involved in your daily management). Even if your executives were to be subject to litigation individually, you undoubtedly protect them with general liability insurance (again paid for by your owners, the stockholders).

Unlike real human beings, if you are caught violating a law, you say you never did it, promise never to do it again, pay a small fine, and be done with it. You probably don't even feel embarrassed or ashamed, first because you are organically incapable of it, and second because you were just doing what the capitalistic system says you should do -- maximize profit!

Yet, with all these advantages, you continue to lobby for more -- usually with great success. According to a book by Dutman and Cray ("The People's Business," published in 2004 by Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.), you and your siblings handcuff the regulatory agencies by blocking sufficient funding for them to do their jobs adequately, and you promote legislation designed to block legitimate lawsuits (p. 202).

In summary, you want all the benefits of being an individual but none of the responsibilities. Is that fair? Does that work to the advantage of all citizens of this country?

Oh my, now I've gone and done it. In addition to wanting the rights of people, soon you might want the rights of citizens -- say, the right to vote. I can hardly wait to see what process you will use to determine who you will vote for.

Cordially,

Ron

Shh, it's a SECRET!

2009-10-05T07:47:00.000-07:00

I wish I could divulve my sources for this particular blog post, but my discussions with them are sensitive, confidential -- and in some cases downright classified! LOL. In protecting these sources, I am continuing a long-standing American journalistic tradition.

President Obama suggested recently to New York State Governor Paterson that he drop his campaign for election. How do we know? New York Times reporters spoke to administration officials and a Democratic operative who "spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions with the governor were intended to be confidential" (NY Times, 9/20/09, p. A1).

Former Senator John Edwards (as of 9/20/09) might or might not announce that he is the father of his mistress' child, but "Mrs. Edwards has yet to be brought around," said one family friend, who like others spoke about the situation on the condition of anonymity, pointing to the complicated and delicate nature of the issue (NY Times, p. A1).

A terror probe appeared to be concentrated in the New York area, according to the New York Times (9/22/09), according to a federal law enforcement official and others, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the high level of secrecy surrounding the investigation.

According to the New York Times, (9/23/09, p. A1), New York police have been using an immam for intelligence purposes: "Several officials -- all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because much of the investigation is classified -- have said that the inquiry, which had been under way for several months, could well have continued, tracking communications, meetings, plans and associates of the suspect." Unfortunately, the imam betrayed the police.

According to the New York Times (9/23/09, p. A9), President Obama had a meeting in the situation room with his top advisors. "They reached no consensus, so three or four more such meetings are being scheduled. 'There are a lot of competing views,' said one official, who, like the others in this article, requested anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations."

Here are my thoughts: Whatever happened to ethics? If people are privy to documents and discussions that are legally classified, family conversations intended to be confidential, law enforcement operations that are secret, and the like, what motivates them to talk about such details to reporters? Is it really appropriate, even for a newspaper dedicated to printing "all the news that's fit to print," to utilize anonymous sources so frequently, on such delicate subjects?

I don't have answers, folks, just questions. Do YOU have answers?

**Note: did you miss me last week? Sorry, I was out of town the entire weekend and returned exhausted. And how much are paying to read this blog anyway? (Haha, just kidding.)

Two Nations?

2009-09-20T11:11:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago I introduced the idea of splitting the United States into two distinct countries, and I provided data indicating that the southeastern states were, de facto, pretty much doing this already. These states generally score low on the Human Development Index, tax their residents at low rates compared to other states, and send conservative legislators to Congress, where they block progressive legislation backed by a majority of Americans (universal health care being just one current example).

So, the question arises, why not separate formally into two distinct countries, permitting both to treat their citizens in a manner consistent with their political philosophies? Then the people who want low (or zero) taxes could live in the south and dismantle their educational and social welfare systems, while those who have a better developed sense of social justice could live in the north and develop top quality schools, hospitals, and support networks, taxing themselves accordingly.

Yes, I know it's been tried before. But circumstances change. There is no danger now of a resurgence of overt slavery based on race. This time, the north would have no incentive to oppose succession; "good riddance" would be a more logical response.

Or would it? Aside from the obvious logistical and political problems, this country's massive dilemma is much too complicated for a geographical solution.

First, and probably least important, our states are not homogeneous. So-called red states contain pockets of blue voters, and vice-versa. Even if people wanted to move to their "country of choice," the process of leaving existing homes and jobs would be disruptive at best and completely impossible for many. You think it's tough being a liberal in Mississippi now? Wait until you're only 1% of the population and the Supreme Court rules that "free speech" no longer includes dissenting from popular views. (I can't help wondering: would the ACLU be permitted to exist in a "new south"?)

Secondly, this "solution" doesn't solve the long-range problems inherent in a world where isolation is neither desirable nor possible. Unless travel between the two countries was prohibited, contagious diseases could easily spill over the border. And atmospheric pollution knows no boundaries; if the planet warms up quickly due to complete deregulation of coal-fired utility plants in the south, fences along the Mason-Dixon line will not protect those who are willing to tax themselves to maintain a healthy planet.

Thirdly, how long would the north tolerate the extreme conditions that would probably develop in states controlled by reactionaries and the self-interested upper class unfettered by our current federal laws? Ethical standards occasionally result in international intervention (e.g. to prevent genocide and famine). Conditions might develop in the south that would eventually cause Civil War II -- and how unfortunate that would be!

Finally, I doubt that geographic separation provides the best model for the resolution of human differences. Regardless of political labels, liberals and conservatives don't agree even among themselves on everything. One imagines that substantive debates already do and would still occur in the cities of Berkely and Tuscaloosa. What are the residents going to do then -- move to the extreme eastern and western boundaries of the existing metropolis and declare that there are really two legally different cities? And the process of continuous fragmentation could continue indefinitely, as new issues would inevitably arise. Do we really want to see several million countries in the world?

No, let's not take that course of action. Let's move decisions to the lowest reasonable level of government, to allow individual enclaves to live in a manner of their choosing so long as the "externalities" (negative influences on surrounding people) are minimized. Let's facilitate better communication strategies among dissenting groups and encourage tolerance and compromise where possible. Oh, by the way, we probably also need to find a way to isolate politicians at ALL levels of government from the influence of wealthy self-interests. If decisions on health-care were made in 50 different political venues, drug company, insurance company, private sector hospital, and physician association lobbyists would be showing up in all of them, showering money on as many state legislators as necessary. (You say that already happens? Gee, we do have some intractable problems, don't we?)

I guess the National Football League won't have to change its name anytime soon.

On Reading the New York Times

2009-09-13T18:57:00.001-07:00

If you were expecting a continuation of last week's post -- well, that comes next week. I'm going to give my readers another opportunity to comment on my "Two Nation" solution to the political mess we find ourselves experiencing. (Surely such a radical notion conjures up a few thoughts -- even though I told you I didn't really believe it was the answer!)

So, today, you get to experience vicariously the enormous pleasure I got out of reading the New York Times a few Sundays ago. Herewith, the essay I wrote in early August, saving it just for this occasion:

Yes, it's expensive to subscribe to every day home delivery. But where else, in one edition of any publication, can you read about:

* the impact of economics professors on real-life American financial meltdowns;

* the arrest of a homeless man for being homeless while he sleeps in a shelter;

* the impact of special interests on what otherwise would be an effective cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions;

* the awakening of our defense department to the security threats posed by climate change;

* the questionable ethical behavior of former Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson during the economic turmoil of late 2008;

* the drug industry's plan to spend up to $150 million to run TV ads in support of health care change(wow, where did all that money come from? can you say "consumers"?);

* the demise of printed textbooks in favor of electronic delivery of sometimes-free content;

* the continuation of presidential signing statements;

* orthopedic problems associated with young baseball pitchers throwing too many fastballs; and

* President Obama's improvisational sense of humor?

Wait, there's more! Alberto Gonzales answers a question about his "ethical failings" by saying "All the inspector-general investigations, they're over now. They found that I had not engaged in any criminal wrongdoing." (Hmm, let me see -- is he equating unethical behavior with illegal behavior, or is he just evading the question? I report, you decide.) He follows up by saying, in response to a question about whether he has been offered a job with a law firm since le left government service, "I can understand why a company or a firm would want to make sure that the investigations are complete and there is no finding of wrongdoing before they make a hiring decision." And he's writing a book, publisher still to be identified. OK, I can relate to him on that last point.

Wait, there's STILL more! The word "fail" is becoming an adjective, as in "I'm so fail." (Is that somehow related to "Me bad"?) Human beings evolve, so does language. Who woulda thunk?

On Sunday, August 9, 2009, all this and more provided me with hours of enjoyment (not to mention the content for this blog post).

By the way, the New York Times actually has something in common with the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin -- neither is perfect. The photo of Sonia Sotomayor on page 1 of the Times, taking her oath of office as a Supreme Court Justice, says the accompanying article appears on page 12. It doesn't; it appears on page 10. (Does the Daily Bulletin make a few errors from time time? Don't get me started! Recently, a "reporter" kindly informed me that "entertaining entertainers" would be present at the Los Angeles County Fair.)

OK. I know you have 23 more blogs to read and 7 messages on your Facebook wall informing you what your friends had for dinner last night. So I'll end this here. But first, in the interest of full disclosure, I have no financial interest whatsoever in your subscribing to the New York Times! Do so only at peril of finding out what's really going on in the world.

The Two-Nation Solution

2009-09-05T15:48:00.000-07:00

Wait! Don't call the Department of Homeland Security just yet. I'm not really advocating the overthrow of the federal government, and certainly not by forceful means. However, I do think some of the following facts, figures, and analyses will trigger brain waves leading to an interesting and possibly even useful discussion.

Consider health care reform -- something most people in this country recognize as necessary in some form or another. In addition to the massive lobbying described in previous posts, the barrier to passage is simply this: too many "nays" in the U.S. Senate, where, for historical (not constitutional) reasons, a two-thirds vote seems to be required to pass almost anything of significance.

Also consider this: the following states are currently represented in the U.S. Senate by two Republicans: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Louisiana and North Carolina have one Republican and one Democratic Senator. (I exclude Florida in this entire analysis because, from a political standpoint, it's already two states; South Florida has the hallmarks of the northern states from which many of its residents migrated, and Northern Florida resembles its neighbors Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia.)

Among the most southern states, only Arkansas is currently represented by two Democratic Senators. Since Republicans are generally more conservative and reluctant to support social programs (and to vote for the taxes that support them), it follows mathematically that if the states listed above were not part of the union, health care (and a lot more) would pass the Senate with great ease. Then the rest of us could have the kind of country we really want to live in. (OK, pardon the slight hyperbole, designed not to boil your blood but to stimulate your synapses.)

Arguably, we already have two countries -- we just don't call them that. According to "The Measure of America -- American Human Development Report 2008-2009," the south is by far the poorest performing region of the U.S. on ALL aspects of the Human Development Index (HDI) -- based on hard data measuring health, knowledge, and standard of living.

Here are the ten worst states, in order from the "bottom" -- Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Montana. Texas ranks 35th, and Georgia ranks 32nd -- higher than the others but still firmly ensconced in the bottom half.

Case in point: here are the worst fifteen states to be born in if you want a long life expectancy, from the "bottom" up: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, and Texas.

In homicides per 100,000 residents, in the year reported by this study, the U.S. average was 6. Here are the numbers for selected states: Louisiana, 13; Mississippi, 10; Alabama, 9; Georgia and South Carolina, 8; Texas and Arkansas, 7; Oklahoma, 6; Minnesota and Massachusetts, 3; and Maine, 1.

Is this state of affairs imposed by external factors on an unwilling population? Apparently not. According to the Tax Foundation, which uses data primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau, the states that tax their residents the least (taking into account sales, income, and property taxes) are, in order of increasing tax burden: Alaska (obviously a special case due to oil revenue); South Dakota, Mississippi; Tennessee, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Nevada (another special case due to the gaming industry), Montana, Alabama, South Carolina, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana. Putting Alaska aside, please note that 5 of the 12 remaining states listed also rank in the bottom ten of the HDI.

High tax states include New Jersey (rated 3rd from the top on the Human Development Index), New York (rated 7th), Connecticut (rated 1st), Maryland (rated 5th), Ohio (rated 31st), Vermont (rated 14th), Wisconsin (rated 19th), and Minnesota (rated 9th). (By the way, California taxes its residents at 26% above the national average and ranks 11th from the highest in terms of the HDI.)

Have I made my point? With some exceptions, the states that rank low on HDI tend to be low-taxing southern states, and apparently that's what the voters want, because they elect predominantly Republican U.S. Senators and governors. High-taxing states generally rank much higher on the Human Development Index.

So, let's just formalize what we already have and give those states that collectively want to spend money on health care, education, and general quality of life the opportunity to utilize their chosen federal government to enact such provisions legislatively. And the states that more or less don't care about such things and are unwilling to pay for them -- well, since they would probably not revert to slavery, let's send them on their merry way.

I will present some reasons next week, or the week after, why this is truly not only politically impossible but ineffective -- and possibly even counter-productive. However, in the meantime -- as always -- I welcome comments from my perspicacious and insightful readers. Why, or why do you not, feel that segmenting this already splintered and politically polarized country would be a good (or a bad) idea? And don't just say that it would become necessary to rename the National Football League.

Prisons: Two Opposing Views

2009-08-30T09:47:00.000-07:00

Strangely, the New York Times and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin both carried commentaries on 8/20/09 regarding our prison system and the wisdom of keeping so many people incarcerated. Compare and contrast -- have fun!

Nicholas D. Kristof, in the Times, suggests that we could probably afford better and more universal health care if we used our criminal justice money more wisely. He cites the example of Curtis Wilkerson, serving a life sentence in California for (hold your breath!) stealing a pair of socks worth $2.50. (Yes, it was his "third strike." I'm not claiming he's an angel. At the age of 19 he abetted robbery -- twice.) Kristof wonders whether we really need to spend $216,000 annually on keeping people like this in prison, comparing that sum to the $8,000 the State spends annually on each child in the Oakland public school system.

Citing a study indicating that 82% of those sentenced to state prisons were convicted of non-violent crimes, Kristof asks why the U.S. incarcerates people at nearly five times the world average.

U.S. Senator Jim Webb, in introducing a bill to establish a commission to study the situation, says "There are only two possibilities here. Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice." (I have another hypothesis: in our predominantly selfish society with a wide gap between wealthy and poor, the former will go to just about any lengths to protect what they have from the latter.)

Well, enough of rational thinking. Let's see what California State Senator Bob Dutton has to say about the situation. "Everyone knows that liberals have a soft spot for criminals," he (or his ghost writer) begins, apparently having been inspired by the very first post on this blog to make a bold attempt to emulate famous writers who encapsulate entire universes of knowledge into their initial sentence. He goes on to criticize "unelected liberal judges" for requiring the state to release 43,000 inmates in the next two years. (Even assuming that the "liberal" label actually provides legitimate information, I can't help wondering whether conservative judges aren't selected in exactly the same manner. A fine point, I know.)

Never mind that legally constituted federal courts, attempting to enforce the U.S. Constitution and its prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, have mandated after years of delay and inaction (during which time Dutton has been accepting public money as both a State Senator and a State Assembly member) that the time has finally come to stop the prison overcrowding that inevitably leads, as it did recently, to riots.

Dutton says that "California already has an abysmal 70 percent recidivism rate from rehabilitation programs." Not true. We might have a 70 percent recidivism rate from prisons, but just about everybody knows (not including the Senator, apparently) that very little money is spent in this state on rehabilitation. Dutton also says it would be a crime (so to speak) for a "rehabilitated" inmate (the quotes are his, implying that a "rehabilitated inmate" would be an oxymoron) to re-enter society and accept a job during this deep recession that might otherwise be taken by a "law-abiding constituent." With attitudes like this, no wonder recidivism is high!

Not embarrassed at using fear tactics, Dutton states that unless California's liberals come to their senses soon, someone could become the victim of another wanton killing. Parolee Charles Samuel, he says, has been arrested by police and is suspected of slashing the throat of a 17-year-old high school student. (Note that he doesn't say that Charles Samuel has been convicted of this crime, only that he's been arrested; another great American principle -- innocent until proven guilty -- bites the dust.) "Releasing hardened criminals to make prison more roomy and comfortable for the remaining criminals is both foolish and short-sighted...[T]he liberals' love affair with criminals now risks the safety of every Californian -- including themselves." Perhaps the conservatives' hate affair with social justice is just as much to blame.

Suppose, hypothetically, you had to be in the same room for a couple of hours with a politician who can't use the word "liberal" without combining it with character-assassination-style insults or a guy who stole a pair of socks worth $2.50. With whom would you feel safer?

Lobbying and Evolution

2009-08-23T20:26:00.000-07:00

Just in case you have other things going on in your life besides reading my blog (LOL), let me summarize the last three weeks' posts for you. At all levels of government, lobbying is ubiquitous, influential, and dominated by wealthy special interests (frequently corporations) that spend literally billions of dollars every year to promote primarily short-term, profit-oriented outcomes designed to benefit only themselves (sometimes at great cost to others).

Surely another case in point is redundant. But major newspapers scream with examples on practically a daily basis. According to the New York Times (8/19/09), a noon rally the previous day in Houston -- the first of about 20 planned -- was designed to "organize resistance to proposed legislation that would set a limit on emissions of heat-trapping gases..." Despite its "everyman" flavor (the master of ceremonies was a local rodeo announcer), among the participants was James T. Hackett, CEO of Anadarko Petroleum, and many employees of oil companies were bused in from their workplaces. (No doubt their pay was docked for taking more than 30 minutes for lunch.) Who's behind it? A group called "Energy Citizens." Who's behind that group? The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's main trade group. If you're surprised, go to your room. (Wait! On second thought, if you're surprised, you are already spending too much time in your room.)

Here, finally (was that a sigh of relief I heard?), is my primary point. As we all know, evolution favors "survival of the fittest." With exceptions that will be introduced in weeks to come, normally survival of the fittest means behavior designed to favor the life and well-being of an individual organism. In this manner, the probability of that organism's passing its genes on to another generation increases. [Caveat: evolutionary theory can be complex; the ideas presented here are essentially accurate -- but far from comprehensive. I intend only to relate those points specifically relevant to whatever hypothesis is being described at a given point in time.]

This system worked effectively for homo sapiens in its early days thousands of years ago, when survivability meant essentially staying warm, dry, well-fed, and safe from intruders bearing spears and clubs. The last two in particular often required strength, speed, agility, and a hostile attitude toward those inclined to inflict casualties and/or steal precious resources. As a consequence, nature "selected" for future generations the kinds of behaviors that are primarily self-directed and oriented toward immediate needs. The welfare of society-at-large and the longevity of the planet did not figure into the equation. It wasn't necessary 10,000 years ago.

But evolution, for all its genius, is a notoriously slow process. According to one theory, if organisms with a beneficial mutant gene produce 5 percent more offspring, it will require about one thousand generations before virtually all organisms in that species inherit that gene. Given that one human generation equals about 25 years, it follows that even a mutation that produces substantially enhanced probability of reproductive success could require some 25,000 years to effectively permeate the species.

What we have, then, is a world that has changed exceptionally rapidly over the last 300 years or so, creating an entirely new set of survivability issues, inhabited (at least in this country) by people who have institutionalized lobbying as the legal embodiment of selfish behavior that is no longer adaptive.

For these reasons, mankind has been described by some evolutionary biologists as a "walking fossil." "Our psychological adaptations consistently produce maladaptive thought, emotion, and behavior in our modern environments." (Reference available upon request.)

And it's likely to get worse before it gets better. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether to lift what little restraint remains on the amount of money corporations can spend directly on elections -- and the people who claim to know about such things are placing their bets on a 5-4 vote in favor of doing just that. It might not matter a great deal, as we have already seen that corporations find legal ways of exerting enormous influence over politicians. But I see no reason to make it worse.

Will human beings be able to avoid the cataclysmic events that could be the consequence of the evolutionary "mismatch" between our stone-age brains and the modern, global, high-tech, polluting world? Will global warming, for example, result in massive political, social, military, or social unrest? Will the continued aggrandizement of wealth by those already wealthy eventually lead to upheaval? (Are we immune from such phenomena? If you think so, you may be spending too much time in your room -- but probably not reading history books.)

Please comment on this series of posts on lobbying, evolution, and their interactive relationship before global warming melts your keyboard.

Lobbying: Part III

2009-08-16T20:18:00.000-07:00

The financial meltdown of 2008 was predicted well in advance by people who understood that the repeal of regulations incorporated in the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 would result in an "oligopolistic situation" -- companies that are "too big to fail" in today's lexicon (Martin McLaughlin, posted November 1, 1999 -- complete reference available for those who inquire).

Could we, or should we, have known better? According to McLaughlin, "a financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan Administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations...The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history (at the time), costing the federal government more than $500 billion."

Why, then, did former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas and others push repeal of the 60-year-old law that had (except for the S&L situation) kept the country away from financial disaster since the Great Depression?

According to McLaughlin, in 1997 and 1998 alone, the banking, insurance, and brokerage industries spent over $300 million on lobbying. Gramm himself (or more correctly, his political action committees, but it's a fine point) collected more than $1.5 million from these three industries between 1994 and 1999.

Does lobbying buy results? Cause and effect is hard to prove. Common sense suggests that it does; in fact, if it did not, would the supposedly rational corporations continue to throw millions of dollars into it? Not likely.

Here's a typical recent news report, stating basically what we all already know: special interests exercise virtual veto power over legislation they strongly oppose. "To win industry support in enlisting more of his collegues, Mr. Durbin (Senator from Illinois) approached trade associations. Shortly after negotiations began, the American Bankers Association abandoned the talks, saying there was no compromise they could ever support. (Senator Durbin's) legislation went nowhere...There was no counterweight to that legislative muscle" (New York Times, 6/5/09).

Academic studies verify the phenomenon. David Parsley, professor of management at Vanderbilt's Owen Graduate School of Management (and his co-authors) "suggest that lobbying activities significantly and positively impact the bottom line of companies who do it. In addition, lobbying expenses appear to positively impact firms' stock prices and returns" (reference available). Kroszner and Stratmann theorize, in a paper published in the American Economic Review (Vol. 88, No. 5, Dec. 1998) that the entire Congressional committee structure facilitates the transfer of corporate contributions to powerful committe leaders.

If all this special interest lobbying worked to the benefit of the country as a whole, then who could possibly oppose it? But, for the most part, it doesn't. An entire treatise could be written on the efforts of utility and coal companies to derail environmental regulation, and the impact is dirtier air and the challenge of potentially cataclysmic climate change.

Here's a recent example: you're no doubt familiar with the "cash for clunkers" legislation that is providing large rebates to purchasers who trade in "old" vehicles for more fuel efficient models. But why were vehicles manufactured prior to 1984 excluded? According to the Los Angeles Times (8/13/09), "the restrictions were pushed by lobbyists for the Specialty Equipment Market Association, a group that represents companies that sell parts and services to classic and antique car collectors...The association opposed the entire concept because such a program could shrink the size of the market for aftermarket parts."

Is the 1984 limit in the national interest, considering that the legislation was intended primarily to reduce pollution and act as a stimulus for new car sales? "Experts at the California Air Resources Board say cars built before modern engine controls were fully developed in the 1980s are significantly dirtier than new cars. For example, a 1965 Chevrolet Malibu, when new, produced 400 times the smog-forming pollutants that a new 2010 Malibu produces...Older vehicles also are among the least fuel efficient. In 1975, the overall new-car fleet averaged just 13 mpg, compared to 22 mpg in 1985" (LA Times, 8/13/09).

Let me remind you that this series is about lobbying and its impact on achievement of national goals, e.g. "the general welfare." (Reference: Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.) Who's winning -- general welfare or special interests? It doesn't even seem to be a fair fight!

Could it be that evolution is playing a role? I'll have some ideas on that next week.

Lobbying (continued from last week)

2009-08-09T19:58:00.000-07:00

In last week's post I described the ubiquitous nature of lobbying in California. I doubt that any reader will find it difficult to extrapolate this situation to the national scene, where lobbying is legendary and the "game" is played for very high stakes -- billions if not trillions of dollars.

The amount of money spent on lobbying reveals the importance of the activity to those with skin in the game. Before I throw a few numbers at you, however, let me reassure you that I strongly support the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, certainly including the right to free speech. If lobbying were limited to presenting information to governmental officials and attempting to persuade them to engage (or not engage) in certain activities, I wouldn't be writing this. But common knowledge about Political Action Committees, gifts and travel, etc., added to the fact that lobbying involves far more money than could ever be spent on education and persuasion alone, leads us to the inevitable conclusion that more than free speech is involved.

OK, are you ready for some stark statistics? According to the Center for Responsive Politics (visit the website at OpenSecrets.org), total lobbying at the federal level alone in 2008 amounted to $3.30 billion. That's well over twice the amount spent ten years earlier. It's also about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States -- every year -- without even including the prodigious amounts spent on lobbying at the state and local levels.

According to The Hill, a congressional newspaper with a special focus on business and lobbying, the top 100 lobbying firms posted revenue of $414 million in the first half of 2009. Firms ranked 101 to 200 brought in another $125 million. Extrapolating to the full year, it follows that the top 200 lobbying firms in the country will rake in well in excess of $1 billion in 2009.

These numbers may under-report the truth. Some companies don't register their in-house lobbyists unless and until some watchdog agency calls them on the carpet (Archer Daniels Midland is one example, according to The Hill). Therefore, those expenditures don't get reported.

Needless to say, these lobbying efforts are focused on accomplishing specific objectives. So I know you won't be surprised that health care, insurance, and finance companies spent a bundle recently. In fact, according to the New York Times (8/2/09), the health care industry spent $263.3 million on lobbying in the first half of 2009. The combined finance, insurance, and real estate industries came in a close second at $222.7 million. PhRMA, the powerful association of pharmaceutical companies, spent $6.1 million, up 23% compared to the comparable period in 2008.

Do you suppose that companies receiving TARP funds from the government (bail-out money!) ceased their lobbying activities, claiming poverty? Nope. According to the Commonwealth Institute, TARP recipients spent $114 million on lobbying in 2008, including $14.8 million during the last quarter alone when "relief" funds were actually being distributed.

What exactly does all this lobbying buy? (Academic studies, as well as articles in the popular media, give us the answer.) In what ways did lobbying result in the financial meltdown to begin with? Stay tuned, faithful readers!

Self-Preservation: The Ultimate Ironic Mega-Mismatch

2009-08-02T09:42:00.000-07:00

The title of this blog entry is the working title for a chapter in my book "I Pledge Allegiance: To What? The Paradox of 'Me.' " (Don't look for it on the bookshelves yet! LOL) Due to space limitations, it will require several weeks for me to fully explore this topic here. Generally, though, the thesis is that our evolutionary, genetically-based behavior patterns -- successful though they were thousands of years ago in a completely different environment -- may lead to our undoing in the modern, high-tech, globalized society we now inhabit. Evolutionary psychologists refer to this situation as a "mismatch" -- an unintended disconnect between what once was a behavioral trait leading successfully to self-preservation through reproductive advantage and the impact of that same behavioral trait in a totally different world.

In the United States today, selfish and self-serving behavior -- once a necessity for survival -- has become institutionalized in powerful and inevitably dysfunctional ways. The ubiquitous corporation, an entity with the official legal status of a person and required by custom and well-established law to act solely in its own best interests, uses its accumulated wealth and power to preserve the status quo, sometimes at the expense of the general welfare. And to the extent that such status quo endangers the planet and/or results in social injustice on a scale that could conceivably lead to social unrest -- thereby putting at risk all that the corporations wish to preserve -- the self-serving behavior may ultimately and ironically become just the opposite.

Please note that this is not a condemnation of either capitalism or democracy. It is, however, a warning that unregulated, unenlightened, short-term self-serving behavior may eventually cause the demise of both.

Let us begin by simply expanding on the obvious: those powerful and wealthy enough to do so frequently hire lobbyists to peddle political influence, with the objective of preserving and/or enhancing such power and wealth. In the State of California, according to the website of the Secretary of State, there are more than 2,300 organizations that employ professional lobbyists. I will list below only a few of these organizations, grouped in accordance with certain traits or habits possessed by California residents:

Those who were born (hmm, OK, that's pretty inclusive): California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Hospital Association.

Those who live in an apartment or a house: California Apartment Association, California Building Industry Association, California Association of Realtors, Escrow Institute of California, California Construction & Industry Materials Association.

Those who eat: California Grocers Association, California League of Food Processors, Dairy Institute of California, California Restaurant Association, California Farm Bureau Association.

Those who buy anything: California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Alliance, California Retailers Association, Direct Marketing Association.

Those who purchase insurance: Anthem Blue Cross, Associaton of California Insurance Companies, California Association of Health Plans, Alliance of Insurance Agents & Brokers, Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies.

Those who use the telephone: Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc and Its Affiliates.

Those who will eventually die: Cemetery and Mortuary Association of California.

Special interests hire lobbyists to influence your life from cradle to grave. Are you surprised? I doubt it. But you may be surprised at how powerful these interests are. Tune in again next week.

Would You Like Salt with that Intellectual Pretzel?

2009-07-25T09:54:00.000-07:00

A faithful reader suggested that I look up a paper entitled "Thinking Clearly about Economic Inequality," by Will Wilkinson, a research fellow at the conservative Cato Institute. I did.

Although it's impossible to summarize 24 pages in a short paragraph, Wilkinson's main point seems to be that, although it's true that income inequality has increased in the US since the 1970s, it doesn't matter. In fact, he says, focusing on the discrepancy may be counterproductive because a) there are more relevant measures of economic and psychological well-being; b) the fact that some people are super-rich doesn't prevent others from having economic opportunity (never mind the most essential tenet of all of economics, the principle of scarcity); and c) economic disparity is independent of social justice.

I had two reactions to this article: 1) Wilkinson and I live in two completely different worlds; and 2) alleged intellectuals have an amazing capacity to twist logic to conform to preconceived conclusions.

Wilkinson wants us to measure not inequality of wealth but "the quantity of goods and services a person has consumed over the course of his lifetime, and the value to that person of all those goods and services" (p. 4). He claims that the inequality of this so-called lifetime "consumption income" [without specifying exactly what it measures] is considerably more stable than the inequality of income per se. Among the reasons for this is "the ability to engage in consumption smoothing...through access to credit...[and] the ability to smooth consumption [by racing] ahead of changes in income volatility" (p. 5). He fails to point out that even rich people generally only eat 3 or 4 meals a day and maintain a limited number of vacation homes; their "consumption" is bound to be less extreme than their income.

A lot of people I know don't have the luxury of "consumption smoothing." They frequently carry less than $20 in their pockets. They postpone maintenance on their elderly cars because they can't afford to have the repairs done. If they have a credit card at all, they carry a balance and pay hefty monthly interest charges (which will not worry you if you own stock in one of this country's major financial institutions). They barely have enough money to buy diapers for their babies. They hold car washes so they can pay to bury their deceased relatives.

Have we in fact "won the war against poverty without even noticing it" (p. 8)? I don't think so.

"If we are worred about inequalities in education and health care, as we should be, we might stop to consider that these are precisely the areas we have chosen to shield most jealously from entrepreneurship and market competition" (p. 9). He might have a reasonable case for education, but health care? Aren't pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies entrepreneurial? Aren't most doctors private practitioners? Aren't many hospitals owned by huge corporations?

Wilkinson admits that income inequality in the US "is higher than in any other wealthy nation" (p. 10) but says it doesn't matter because we are 12th on the UN Human Development Index (HDI) -- "a relatively comprehensive measure of well-being." Using the time-tested method of simply leaving out inconvenient facts, he fails to mention that the US has actually been slipping recently in its HDI compared to other countries. The most recent statistics, published in October of 2008, show the US 15th, not 12th as it was in the previous survey, outperformed by the usual cast of nations conservatives love to hate for their governmental intervention into the free market economy and their caring policies toward their less fortunate citizens -- among them Iceland, Norway, Canada (oh, watch out: socialized medicine!), the Netherlands, Sweden, Luxembourg, Finland, Switzerland, Denmark, and yes, even France.

Finally: "Rising income inequality should have very little effect on the ability of the wealthy to influence the outcome of the democratic process" (p. 18) and "Economic resources are not easily converted into political resources" (p. 22). That will be news to the lobbyists, the kingmakers (frequently land developers) who annoint each succeeding generation of local politians, and the corporations that spend billions of dollars every year influencing public policy. I would enjoy hearing Wilkinson explain his ludicrous assertion to the millions of poor, elderly, and disabled Californians who recently lost essential benefits while the rich were shielded from tax increases by the politicians whose campaigns were financed by, uh, the rich. Yes, Barack Obama collected a lot of small contributions from middle class Americans; watch what's happening to his attempt to provide medical care to poor citizens and get back to me in a couple of months if you still believe money doesn't buy political influence.

To his credit, Wilkinson does list a plethora of problems with existing American society, including "inner-city kids consigned to abysmal public schools,...a larger share of its citizens [imprisoned] than any country on Earth,...and patterns of private discrimination [that] constitute for millions a web of real, seemingly inescapable barriers to opportunity and achievement" (p. 13). What's his proposed solution? First, stop wasting time thinking about income inequality. "Focus on things like intergenerational poverty and failing schools" (p. 23) -- as long as you don't meddle with "well-functioning market institutions and entrepreneurial energy" (p. 24). Just exactly how we solve the problems of intergenerational poverty and failing schools in the context of the primary tenets of conservative political philosophy, he doesn't say.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Besides, what good comes from pouring more salt on a badly twisted would-be intellectual pretzel?

George Will

2009-07-19T09:29:00.000-07:00

Arguably one of the most intellectual of today's conservative media commentators, George Will produces a newspaper column that promulgates views on any and all political topics. In recent months, he has weighed in on health care, Spain's alternative energy program, the government bailout of General Motors, the significance of the death of Robert McNamara, regulation of tobacco, and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Ricci (New Haven firefighters) case.

Like many entertainers masquerading as sources of news and analysis, Will rarely passes up an opportunity to criticize liberals and successful government programs, usually out of the side of his mouth. On 6/11/09, for example, he refers to "the preposterous entitlement to collect Social Security at age 62." He fails to mention that people opting for such payments forego a significant portion of the monthly benefits they would receive if they retired at a later age. Will apparently feels no empathy (oh, that's a "bad word" these days) for workers who have paid into the system for at least 10 years (and probably much longer) and who now wish to enjoy some leisure time. (Perhaps opting out of the capitalistic rat race is something Will simply can't comprehend; what higher calling could there be than making more money?)

Continuing his first amendment right to engage in linguistic legerdemain, Will says (6/19/09) that "In a 1998 settlement, 46 states conspired to seize $206 billion from companies selling legal tobacco products..." An impartial observer might have said that "46 states cooperated in using the judicial system to hold tobacco companies liable for alleged infractions of laws and regulations duly adopted by democratic legislative bodies." Using neutral language, however, would be have been so, well, like Walter Cronkite.

Not content to lambaste President Obama by utilizing oblique literary references ("But the capitol, gripped once again by the audacious hope of mastering everything..." 7/10/09), Will apparently cannot stand the fact that we now have a President who accepts responsibility for his actions and speaks the English language. When our leader dares to use the word "I," Will denigrates him for being "inordinately fond of the first-person singular pronoun" (6/7/09). Where was his vehement protest when George W. Bush proclaimed "I am the decider"?

Will loves pointing out apparent inconsistencies using mildly clever language. "Washington mandates that Detroit must build cars for which there is much less demand than Washington demands that there be" (6/7/09). When you finish chuckling, remember that small, fuel-efficient cars are best-sellers. Until the recent recession, Toyota and Honda could barefly keep up with the demand. I don't mind "mildly clever" as long as the facts are correct, but Will has not mastered the art of presenting a comprehensive picture of a complex situation.

I absolutely love this one: "Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers" (6/21/09). What?? Could Will possibly be referring to the oligarchy of health care insurance companies that is raising premiums much faster than general inflation and using every trick in the book (legal and otherwise?) to avoid paying expensive legitimate claims by denying coverage ex post facto? Has he forgotten that MediCare, while far from perfect, is successfully providing health care to millions of Americans?

On 7/10/09, Will berates "behavioralists" (I think he means "behaviorists") for believing in "nation-building" (hmm, how quickly we forget the rationale Bush used to justify the war in Iraq once it became clear there were no WMDs). "Liberals," he says, "tend to treat hopes as probabilities," suggesting that it "would be wise to entertain a shadow of a doubt...that history is linear and progressive."

I would like to see George Will occasionally entertain a shadow of a doubt about what he apparently views as his own omniscience.

Health Care Debate (continued)

2009-07-12T12:32:00.000-07:00

My last post compared health care insurance to food insurance, the latter being a ridiculous proposition that bears too much resemblance to the current health care industry. Paul Krugman made exactly the same point when he asked in his recent column (New York Times, 6/22/09) "Isn't the purpose of health care reform to protect American citizens, not insurance companies?"

Krugman, unfortunately, is a singular voice in a sea of complaints that insurance companies won't be able to compete with a public endeavor. "Regardless of how it is initially structured, a government plan would use its built-in advantages to take over the health insurance market," whined Karen M. Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, and Scott P. Serota, president of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, in a letter to the U.S. Senate (New York Times, 6/24/09).

To which I believe the proper answer is "who cares?" If government can do it better, then why not let it? If private sector corporations can provide greater efficiency, better customer service, and enhanced results (more actual health care!), then let them demonstrate their capacity to do so.

If the purpose of public policy is to protect shareholders and employees of private sector companies, then letting buggy whip manufacturers go out of business was a huge mistake. And what about the corporations that used to make those ubiquitous dials on telephones? Where are they now? (Could it be that the great American free enterprise system actually has the capacity to retrain employees to perform functions that are useful and valuable in today's -- not yesterday's -- economic climate?)

This entire debate exemplifies what I regard as a central dilemma in this country today: we have totally lost sight of our true values, objectives, and aspirations. The ends have been displaced by the means. The holy grails of conservatism are free enterprise in the private sector, limited government, and low taxes, regardless of whether they actually produce the kind of country most Americans want to have. Why? Because these are the principles that preserve a comfortable status quo for the upper- and upper-middle class societies. The evolutionary power of self-preservation is alive and well.

Bob Cable and Dana Cox, in a recent "Point of View" op-ed piece in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (6/24/09), suggest that "Now would be a good time to remember how and why this great nation was formed..." Unfortunately, they don't provide an explicit conclusion. I'll suggest the following (without any claim to originality): 1) "to [organize]...its powers in such form, as to...[the People] shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"; and 2) "to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

All right, which is more essential to the promotion of the "general Welfare": maintaining the profitability of private sector insurance companies, or providing health care to every American using whatever method achieves the desired result most effectively and efficiently?

It's a rhetorical question.

Food Insurance?

2009-07-05T10:55:00.000-07:00

I am grateful to Vicki Riba Koestler for the idea resulting in today's blog post. She wrote a letter, published in the New York Times on July 4, pointing out that, like education and food, health care is a necessity. However, rather than spending our money on health care directly, we buy health care INSURANCE, positioning (with rare exceptions) a profit-oriented company as the gatekeeper between ourselves and the desired product.

Maybe we're missing a really good bet here -- an opportunity to provide jobs for hard-working Americans, investment vehicles for would-be shareholders, and executive positions for top-flight managers who feel they deserve million dollar salaries and bonuses.

Basically, here's how food insurance would work. To get an individual policy, we'd first need to do a complete inventory, detailing all the foods we have ever consumed that might have caused an upset stomach (including that incident when we were six months old and we spit out that yukky spinach). We'd submit the application to one of three or four major loosely regulated food insurance carriers that, like all corporations, are required by law and custom to make decisions in the best interest of their shareholders. Hope would be high that we'd be accepted, despite costly premiums, because without food insurance we would no longer be permitted to enter the local supermarket. (In an emergency, we'd could drive 45 miles to the nearest public food bank and wait in line several hours while all those who showed up were assessed (triaged) for the urgency of their need. Of course, we'd be on the hook for the expenses associated with such a visit.)

Perhaps our neighbors would be luckier. The husband (or wife) might still be employed, making him (or her) eligible for food insurance for the entire family through the employer. This would be fortuitous, just in case someone had an allergic reaction to broccoli at the age of four. The premiums would eat up 28% of the net paycheck, but hey, at least the family would be covered. And the wage earner would be able to feel very patriotic, knowing that a hefty percentage of the premiums would be devoted to providing employment to industrious Americans, performing such important tasks as: planning and implementing marketing campaigns on behalf of the insurance company; lobbying Congress; and determining how much people would have to pay for their food insurance, how often they could buy free-range chicken, and whose policies would be canceled retroactively when it came to light that they forgot to state on their applications that they have an occasional craving for sushi.

Generally, the system would work pretty well. Three days before each shopping trip we would submit a list of desired foods to the insurance company, which would approve or deny each item based on its own interpretation of what we should be eating. After paying the deductible at the entrance to the grocery store, we would proceed to fill our cart and check out. The store would then send us a bill, since the insurance would cover only 80% of the actual cost of the approved items.

If Aunt Jenny, her second husband, and a gaggle of cousins decided to drop in unexpectedly, the need for food would skyrocket. Quickly we would submit a supplementary list to the insurance company, and the underwriters might be kind enough to approve 50% of what we request, claiming that our policy includes in the small print a limitation on the number of visitors we can feed during a holiday.

OK, the analogy isn't perfect (but it's instructive nevertheless). Unlike treatment for cancer or other long-term, debilitating conditions, which some people need and others don't, the food bill is fairly predictable. But over the collective lifetimes of reasonably small groups of people, healthcare is also fairly predictable. We all need it regularly throughout our lifetimes, and large expenses can be anticipated sooner or later as a function of age.

So, seriously folks, why can't we devise a system for getting medical care without wasting a large percentage of our resources on profit-oriented middlemen? (I'll provide a partial explanation next week -- stay tuned, faithful readers!)

Independence Day Edition!

2009-06-28T19:29:00.000-07:00

Evolutionary psychology teaches us that it may take as many as 1,000 generations for even an exceptionally beneficial genetic mutation to permeate an entire species. It is not surprising, then, that a mere 10 generations after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, American human nature has (apparently) changed negligibly, if at all.

This point is brought home to me graphically -- even sonorously -- when I read speeches and other documents (the Federalist Papers, Supreme Court decisions, etc.) produced by some of our finest thinkers and orators. They describe not only the weaknesses of humankind's fragile intellect, far outmatched by basal emotional impulses, but also the ramifications these weaknesses create in a fragile society. Their wisdom is ageless, and we ignore it today at our own great peril.

I start, deliberately, with a fairly recent address by a not-so-famous gentleman named Felix G. Rohatyn. An investment banker by trade and a major figure in helping New York City survive its financial crisis in the 1970s, Rohatyn addressed the graduating class of Middlebury College, Vermont, in May of 1982. He identified "income and class disparities on the one hand, regional disparities on the other" as among "the most serious threat[s] to our democratic form of government." Furthermore, "The basic test of a functioning democracy is its ability to create new wealth and see to its fair distribution. When a democratic society does not meet the test of fairness, when, as in the present state, no attempt seems to be made at fairness, freedom is in jeopardy." (As this is written, the State of California is considering draconian measures to balance its budget by severely curtailing and/or eliminating many social programs for the aged and the disabled.)

Possibly channeling the California legislature of the 21st century in advance, Rohatyn claimed that "the critical issues we face today are not the levels of interest rates or what kind of package finally comes out of budget negotiations...Our fascination with numbers must not obscure the real issues, [which include] the rapid growth of a permanent underclass in America...without real hope of participating in the future of the country; ...the decline of our traditional manufacturing sectors;...illegal immigration;...and nuclear proliferation."

Although he lost the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956 to the popular World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson should be remembered for his quiet eloquence. "We talk a great deal about patriotism. What do we mean by 'patriotism' in the context of our times?...I venture to suggest that we mean a patriotism that puts country above self...The public interest must always be the paramount interest...The anatomy of patriotism is complex. But surely intolerance and public irresponsibility cannot be cloaked in the shining armor of rectitude and righteousness. Nor can the denial of the right to hold ideas that are different -- the freedom of man to think as he pleases. To strike freedom of the mind with the fist of patriotism is an old and ugly subtlety."

I wish some of today's politicians and lobbyists -- and the people and corporations that employ them -- would read a few words delivered by Judge Learned Hand at the "I Am an American Day" celebration in New York City in 1944 and 1945: "What, then, is the spirit of liberty?...The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. [T]he spirit of liberty which weights the interests of other men and women alongside its own without bias...Even in our own interest we must have an eye to the interests of others; a nation which lives only to itself will in the end perish."

Finally, President Andrew Jackson: "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes." And no list such as this would be complete without Alexander Hamilton: "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."

Readers are invited to submit their own favorite examples of wisdom that is well ahead of its time and/or ideas regarding how well today's society is responding to the admonitions of the ages.

Battle Hymn of the "Republic" Party

2009-06-20T09:07:00.000-07:00

Lucky me! Although I'm a registered Democrat, I received in last Wednesday's mail a fund-raising appeal for the Republican National Committee signed by none other than Chairman Michael Steele. Now, nobody expects this type of mailer to be profound or scholarly. It has one purpose only, and that is to motivate people to write checks. So, let's analyze what issues and kinds of "reasoning" the top Republican strategists think will get their "base" to open their wallets.

The mailer came in four parts: a letter (dated "Monday Morning" -- I kid you not!), a questionnaire (the "2009 Obama Agenda Survey"), a pledge form, and a postage-paid return envelope. To give credit where credit is due, I consider three of the 15 survey questions to be phrased in a reasonably objective fashion, e.g. "Should English be the official language of the United States?" More typical, however, were items characterized by the linguistic legerdemain that has become standard in political circles.

One common trick used to turn allegedly informational surveys into political statements is to incorporate into the items certain assumptions, "facts," and terminology with subjective and emotional connotations. Here's Exhibit #1 from the "survey": "Do you agree with Barack Obama's budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion deficit over the next ten years?" All of a sudden Republicans are against budget deficits, having squandered the balanced budget environment they inherited from the Clinton administration. And where did that $23.1 trillion figure come from. (It's strange, I didn't see a footnote.) And did the Bush/Cheney tax cuts increase or decrease the national deficit? Simplistic questions are not designed for people who prefer complex answers.

Item #9 reads "Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?" Using the words "bureaucrats in Washington, D.C." is like, well, throwing peanuts to a hungry elephant. Notice that the alternative -- trusting the administration of healthcare to the profit-oriented private sector -- was not provided as an alternative.

I really love #7: "Do you believe that Barack Obama's nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the U.S. Senate?" Presumably if someone answers "No," it will be interpreted to mean that it's OK to delay hearings and to oppose the nominees regardless of their qualifications.

I can't resist quoting #13: "Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed?" Are Democrats (as a group) really advocating this? Again I searched in vain for a footnote and found nothing -- not even from Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, or the Weekly Standard.

The four-page letter, though, is a real classic. Of course it trots out the old reliable "liberal media elites" and the "ultra-biased media" phrases guaranteed to boil the blood of most right-wing conservatives. It states, without any evidence whatsoever (maybe because it doesn't exist?) that "the media acts (sic) as though the outcome of the past election was a unanimous, 100% vote in favor of Barack Obama." (I guess Fox News, et. al., are really not part of the media -- at least not the media the conservatives love to hate.)

The letter accuses Obama of proposing changes that will "stifle our fragile economy" and (if you can believe this) "undermine our nation's sovereignty." I'm sorry, but that last one is over the edge in my opinion, even for a political hit piece.

Generally speaking, it appears that the Republican hot button issues are taxes, deficit spending, immigration, big government, the media, and unions -- and of course preventing health care reform if it reduces the influence (and profits) of insurance companies.

Despite the gross inaccuracies, innuendos, and misrepresentations, I think the letter is insidious for two additonal reasons. First, it refers to "Democrat legislation" and the "Democrat agenda," deliberately avoiding use of the word "Democratic." The intent is clear, despite the sophisticated but slimy strategy: to subliminally disparage the entire opposition Party and everything it stands for. Secondly, the letter never specifically refers to "President Obama"; the authors apparently believe that showing respect to the man who legitimately won the office (without benefit of a 5-4 Supreme Court decision) would rankle the people from whom they want contributions. They may be right.

I've marked the letter up good, correcting the grammar (apparently English isn't the official language at the RNC) and pointing out the logical and linguistic fallacies. Now I'm putting it into the postage-paid return envelope and sending it back to the "Republic" Party. With the money I save by not enclosing a contribution, I'll re-join the ACLU.

Meet Dr. Bob Segalman

2009-06-14T20:49:00.000-07:00

Bob Segalman, Ph.D., is a lot like you and some of your friends. He's funny, smart, and accomplished. However, with apologies to "The Wizaard of Oz," Bob has one thing you haven't got -- cerebral palsy.

Bob was partially asphyxiated at birth by his umbilical cord. He has limited use of all four limbs and talks only slightly above an inaudible whisper. His family and mine were friends sixty years ago in Peoria, Illinois.

I still remember being in a barber shop with him when we were teenagers -- me getting my hair cut, Bob waiting patiently for his turn. Bob's voice was stronger then, although it still took a long time for him to formulate and pronounce words. He had just explained that he would soon be going to college. Incredulous and callously skeptical, the barber (they weren't "hairstylists" yet, and a haircut cost $4) then wondered aloud -- as if those gathered in his shop would have some miraculous knowledge -- what Bob would study. Unabashedly and I think somewhat proudly, Bob answered "Psychology!"

And study he did, earning a Ph.D. in sociology in 1972 from the University of Wisconsin. He was employed for years by the State of California, working for 32 years for the Departments of Developmental Services, Justice, and Rehabilitation, before retiring in 2004.

Bob is the sole driving force behind a valuable program called "Speech Communication Assistance By Telephone, Inc." It provides an operator with special equipment and special training to "translate" telephone conversations between two people, at least one of whom, like Bob, cannot speak loudly enough to be heard in the regular way. If you're looking for a lesson in persistence, you just found it! Bob personally lobbied more than 100 California State Legislators in 1996 to secure support from the Pubic Utilities Commission (PUC) for a full-scale test. The service is now provided in Sweden and Australia and has been recognized by the Federal Communications Commission as a requirement for all common carriers. Shoot, it's even available in Texas!

Speech to Speech is a non-profit organization that advocates for a continuation of this valuable resource to the PUC, which funds operational expenses. I get periodic requests from Bob to make donations and to write statements of support. The impression I get is that the PUC supports Speech to Speech somewhat reluctantly. Could it be that none of the Commissioners has CP?

Bob's autobiography, "Against the Current -- My Life with Cerebral Palsy," is now available. You can get it from www.drbobsautobiography.org. Bob was kind enough to let me read a draft, and he even tolerated my comments (boy, do I love to edit!). The book is clever, funny, and poignant.

If I can muster half of Bob's focus and discipline, maybe someday I'll finish my current book project "I Pledge Allegiance: To What? The Paradox of 'Me.'" Bob will have a chance to edit a draft if he's willing!

Why Does This Dog Still Hunt?

2009-06-07T22:34:00.000-07:00

Part of the preparation for writing my new book involves studying evolutionary psychology. A review of a book by David Livingston Smith, "The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War," published in the journal "Evolutionary Psychology" (2008, 6(1):3-12), reminded me of right-wing Republicans in general and Dick Cheney in particular.

The mechanisms of evolution include both "selfish" self-preservation (required in order to pass along one's genes) and cooperation. The former can include violence, including total destruction of other human beings. Thus, modern homo sapiens can be considered "reluctant killers." According to Smith, reconciling these opposing tendencies requires an advanced capacity for self-deception and the ability to dehumanize the enemy.

A few months ago, in a weak moment, I actually watched a few minutes of Sean Hannity's show on Fox "News." In one segment a guest of Hannity's whose name I don't remember criticized President Obama (less than 100 days into his administration) for not keeping all his campaign promises. The guest's final point (I guess she thought she was saving the best for last) was that Obama had not kept his promise to help Americans replace thousands of energy-hungry old-style light bulbs with their more environmentally friendly cousins. Moving seamlessly into the next segment, Hannity introduced Karl Rove, who proceeded to criticize Obama for working on too many projects simultaneously. If Hannity noticed the contradiction, he did a good job of hiding his concern over the dichotomous nature of the juxtaposed criticisms.

More recently, according to Keith Olbermann, Fox News stated that Obama refused to use the word "democracy" in his address to the Muslim world in Cairo. Olbermann then showed actual video from the speech, in which the word "democracy" was used at least four times.

I am amused by Dick Cheney's recently-discovered love of open government. As you know, he wants documents that he claims prove the effectiveness of torture to be declassified. I wonder -- is he also now ready to reveal the identities of the members of his early-first-term energy task force?

Can supposedly intelligent people really not understand, or be concerned about, such hypocritical behavior? According to Smith, the human brain actually has the capacity to divide itself into segments that lack the ability to communicate with one another! Hypocrisy is thereby banished from existence.

The vitriolic nature of political debate, historically present to be sure but especially noticeable in the last decade, is characterized by intense dehumanization. You don't need me to name the people who engage in such behavior; if you're reading this blog, you already have your own favorites. But Dick Cheney comes to my mind (among others).

According to Smith, one of the best tactics for dehumanizing an enemy is to inspire among one's followers "hate, fear, or repugnance" in said enemy. And what kind of talk would be more inclined to do so than to charge, as Cheney has, that President Obama is making this country less safe? Cheney is doing nothing less than playing on our most personal fears -- ironically also evolved from our desire for self-preservation. Also ironically, it is our "advanced" language capability that permits such behavior.

Dick Cheney's eight years as "shadow President" have put the country at great risk. Now he doesn't even show the courtesy of letting the winners of the election implement their mandate without constantly sniping from the sidelines. I guess he can't help himself -- that's the way he "evolved." What an adventure the flies on the membranes of Dick Cheney's compartmentalized brain must have!

Internet-based Democracy?

2009-05-30T22:25:00.000-07:00

I see from the morning paper (LA Times, 5/29/09) that the Los Angeles Unified School District is canceling most of its summer programs due to budget cuts. According to state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, this action "will contribute to the dropout rate and...a less competent workforce."

Is this really the result intended by California voters who trashed the propositions during our recent election? Presumably, even conservative business owners, who typically oppose tax increases, would like to have employees who can read and write. Doesn't the general populace also want serviceable roads and bridges, medical care for kids, programs for people with disabilities, etc.?

Historical political analysis demonstrates that people will frequently vote for LOCAL taxes when they know exactly how such revenues will be used and when they perceive some benefit to their immediate community. Therefore, to some extent, our current predicament over funding of vital public functions results from the (possibly unintended) migration of these functions to the "highest" levels of government -- almost by definition, those seats of government power farthest removed from the average citizen.

Clearly, the national defense must be funded and organized by the federal government. So, too, must interstate commerce be regulated, and certain minimal standards of behavior (e.g. food and drug safety) be established, in our nation's capital. I don't pretend that the list of items appropriate to the federal government is short; imagine the chaos that would ensue, for example, if nobody actively regulated securities transactions. (Oops, we already know the answer to that!) But many things are better left to the states and local governments.

Readers may argue that we already have this system. It's not the federal government, after all, that picks up our trash and makes land use (zoning) decisions. But, at least in California, several significant problems still exist: 1) cities, counties, special assessment districts, and school districts have limited taxing power; 2) State and Federal taxes collectively "eat up" such a large chunk of disposable income (at least by current subjective standards) that additional local taxation may become less desirable than it otherwise would be; and 3) no mechanism exists for the average citizen to weigh in on local and regional policy decisions on a frequent basis.

But if we can vote on who should become the "American Idol," why can't we vote on whether to keep schools open during the summer? Surely the technology exists, or could easily be developed, to allow Internet voting only among those who ought to be eligible for such local plebiscites. (Yes, allowances would have to be made for non-Internet users and those without cell phones -- surely a gradually decreasing percentage of the population.) Then, maybe, we could stop hearing about "what percentage of our tax dollars sent to Washington we 'get back'" and start voting to fund those projects dear to our local hearts.

Note: I am aware that it's easier to write a blog post on this subject than to change the way our American political system works. That's the beauty of writing a column -- I can spew forth random ideas and let others point out the flaws and work out the details! Reader comments welcomed, as always!

P.S. One of my astute readers pointed out in his comment to last week's post that standardized tests have some advantages. I totally agree, and it was careless of me to imply otherwise. Let's use such tests when appropriate. But what would be wrong with random sampling, if our purpose is to ascertain general levels of accomplishment? To my knowledge, we don't use the results of standardized testing to prescribe individualized educational programs anyway. If sampling were introduced, perhaps we could avoid or at least reduce the counterproductive and widespread "teaching to the test" that the current system engenders. Also, let's not forget that the methodologies of modern social science permit valid and reasonably accurate ways of measuring many different types of data -- subjective as well as objective. Why settle for measuring only what's easy; let's also measure what's important. If we seriously want to know how public schools are affecting attitudes toward lifelong learning, or ability to reason, we have the capacity to find out. The problem is, I'm not sure many people really want to know.

An "Education" Dilemma

2009-05-24T19:25:00.000-07:00

Should algebra be taught to every eighth grader, as some in California propose? How about Thoreau in the third grade? Calculus in kindergarten?

OK, I realize I'm getting laughably extreme. But extrapolating ideas to their logical conclusions can be an instructive process.

Politicians and educational* policy makers debate what subjects should be taught to students of various ages in the absence of rational guidelines or strategic objectives. With few exceptions, it just seems like everyone wants kids to learn more and more at younger and younger ages -- preferably with "success" measured through the use of standardized tests!

This approach earns a failing grade for several reasons. First, developmental stages cannot be hurried along. Like flowers, they can be fertilized; but they grow in their own good time. Psychologists now believe that people are still experiencing cognitive (and certainly emotional!) development at least into their early twenties. It does no good to force them to deal with matters that are over their heads, any more than it would be useful to force a three month old to walk. Algebra, for example, requires the ability to think in abstract terms; trying to teach it to people who don't yet understand the manipulation of actual numbers is just plain dumb.

The second reason that the "calculus in kindergarten" syndrome fails is that knowledge of facts represents only the most basic and elementary type of academic learning. Treating kids like buckets and pouring as many isolated pieces of information into them as possible might help them become Jeopardy champions, but it neglects the more important abilities to comprehend data, to synthesize facts into concepts and theories, to write clearly, and to evaluate the veracity of what one hears and sees.

Third, knowledge is exploding. What today's young adults need to know the most -- at least from a cognitive perspective -- is how to learn new things. Wouldn't they be more inclined to do so if they enjoyed learning? And how exactly does homework in the first grade help accomplish that objective?

Finally, a great deal of current research indicates that social competence and the ability to engage in collaborative behaviors are far better predictors of success than knowledge of facts or even the capacity for sheer brilliance. "We have lacked the political courage and we have lacked the will to do the right thing by our children," says U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan (Los Angeles Times, 5/23/09). "Our dysfunctional adult relationships have hurt children in far too many places." Could it be that one reason so many adults are dysfunctional is that they lacked socialization opportunities as kids? OK, I'm not pretending that's an easy question to answer, or that schools can counteract dysfunctional families. But I don't think schools do enough, in an organized fashion, to help children mature emotionally as well as intellectually.

Spare the world the maladjusted genius -- we've had enough of those already! Let children play -- with appropriate guidance and supervision -- and they will develop into the kinds of human beings who can make the world a better place.

*Note: Has anyone else noticed that the word "educational" is falling into disuse? "Education" has become both a noun and an adjective. For example, according to the LA Times, "California already has received about $4.3 billion in education funding from the economic stimulus package..." (5/21/09, emphasis added). If this trend continues, pancreatic cancer will soon be a disease of the past; unfortunately, pancreas cancer will probably be just as lethal.

Lady Justice

2009-05-17T16:31:00.001-07:00

Statues of Lady Justice frequently portray her wearing a blindfold, signifying impartiality and objectivity. But careful readers of the "Los Angeles Times" on May 13, 2009, have good reason to believe that the Lady is peeking -- at least in California -- and it is entirely possible that her vision is distorted in favor of "white collar" criminals.

Voters in the "Golden State" adopted the "three strikes" initiative in 1994, requiring a sentence of 25 years to life for defendants convicted of two previous violent or serious crimes. An effort to amend it, which would have required the "third strike" to also qualify as violent or serious, was defeated in 2004 by a vote of 47.3% to 52.7%.

As a consequence, along with many thousands of admittedly deranged and dangerous people, others have received "three strikes" sentences for such infractions as shoplifting and abusing illegal drugs.

One such person, according to the Times, is free today, thanks to the efforts of a law clinic at Stanford University where students identify people convicted of what they view as relatively minor offenses resulting in disproportionately long imprisonments. Norman Williams was sentenced in 1997 to 25 years to life for stealing a car jack and tools from a tow truck. Williams, along with 11 siblings, was raised in a household with no father and an alcoholic mother, whose boyfriend reportedly raped him and beat him with electrical cords.

The Times also reported on May 13 that San Bernardino County is suing 6 former employees following "years of alleged crime, fraud, and sordid activities inside the Assessor's office," including the falsification of time cards and unauthorized political campaigning at taxpayer expense. The former Assessor, Bill Postmus, who resigned effective February 13, 2009, is in rehab for an addiction to methamphetamine, according to the "Inland Valley Daily Bulletin," which also carried the story. Two of Postmus' former employees in the Assessor's office have been arrested, with allegations including perjury, preparing false evidence, destruction of public property, vandalism, and improperly reporting gifts from a well-known local developer who recently negotiated a $102 million settlement with the County.

How many times did these people come to "work" and engage only in political activities (oh, by the way, Postmus is the former head of the County Republican Party)? Does each day count as a separate event (strike)? Is stealing taxpayer money a "serious crime"? Does anyone think the people connected with this affair are going to be sentenced to 25 years to life? (If you do, please use the comment feature to explain your rationale.)

The juxtaposition of these two articles in the Los Angles Times tells us something about our State and our country -- perhaps more than we want to know. And as long as we are juxtaposing things, I'll close by quoting the official California website: "California's future and its promise are nothing less than the future and promise of America. It has a California context, to be sure, but it is nothing separate from the dreams and hopes and aspirations of all the American people in their collective struggle to create a decent, fair, and secure republic."

On a separate note, in last week's post I said I would reveal the source of the quote regarding the struggle of imperfect people to establish a government that approaches perfection. It's actually the first sentence of Appendix III of my novel "Operation Capitol Hill," written in essay form purportedly by one of the characters in the book. Please note: I am in no way attempting to put my writing into the same category as that of J.D. Salinger, Charles Dickens, etc. I just really liked that sentence and thought it encapsulated a lot of "truth."

2009-05-12T21:45:00.000-07:00

I seek a memorable, lasting, first impression -- one that will drag readers back to this blog week after week, putting pressure as it were on their very cerebral cortexes to ascertain what nuggets of truth, fancy, or downright stupidity await them.

Therefore, I invoke the muse of the enlightened first sentence -- a literary technique known to many but perfected by only a handful of the most deliriously talented writers.

Witness, for example, Camus: "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know." (OK, you purists, I agree that's two sentences. But you get the idea.) Or Karl Marx: "A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of Communism." Powerful, regardless of its veracity or lack thereof.

Everybody knows "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." But did you know that these are only the first 12 words of an introductory sentence containing 119 words and 17 commas?

No compendium of famous first lines would be complete without this: "If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth." Inspired!

The following, no doubt, is less well known: "The history of modern civilization is essentially the story of the never-ending attempt to conceive a form of government that approaches perfection despite the imperfections of the people who create it." One colossal gold star to anyone who correctly identifies the source. (Answer in next week's entry.)

Herewith, my all-time favorite: "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains." (Purists, you win again. Rousseau precedes this line with a three paragraph introduction to Book I of "The Social Contract.")

I invite readers to submit their favorite "first lines" and test this author and their fellow readers. Let's have some fun!