Do you have any Christmas traditions? she asked me as I settled into the chair for my (traditional) pre-Christmas haircut. As with all of my tonsorial events during the year, it would be an ultimately vain attempt to bring neatness to my naturally shaggy crown. But, it was a few days before the holiday, and it's traditional for me to do this.
Yes, of course, we see a Christmas show, have get-togethers with family and friends, decorate with a tree, all that sort of stuff -- I answered her question, wanting to be friendly, but also not wanting to prolong my time in the chair (getting a haircut never has been one of my favorite activities) and besides, this was my introduction to this particular stylist (is that the right way to name her job?) so I wasn't sure where the conversation was going.
But I decided to take a plunge into the unknown,
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Thursday, December 18, 2014
If you had asked me to predict these events, I would have missed all of them
Here are five significant social-political events that were talked about in the 1970s and 1980s, mostly as far-out, idealistic possibilities. If someone had asked me "Which of these do you think will happen in your lifetime, or in the next 50 years?" I would have answered "Anything's possible, but I don't think I'll see any of these happen." At this point, four out of five have taken place, and there's still time for that last one.
Let's pick the year 1980. That was thirty-four years ago. It was a decade-and-a-half after the height of the Civil Rights movement and consequent legislation, as well as the Voting Rights Act, but also the Watts riots and other civil conflicts. The Cold War was in an icy phase, and the economy didn't look so hot. But, for me personally it was a good year--no details, just take my word for it--and I was optimistic about the future, so if I'd been asked about the likelihood of any of these five things happening by the year 2030 you might reasonably think that my response for at least some of them would have been an enthusiastic "yes, of course that'll happen!"
Let's pick the year 1980. That was thirty-four years ago. It was a decade-and-a-half after the height of the Civil Rights movement and consequent legislation, as well as the Voting Rights Act, but also the Watts riots and other civil conflicts. The Cold War was in an icy phase, and the economy didn't look so hot. But, for me personally it was a good year--no details, just take my word for it--and I was optimistic about the future, so if I'd been asked about the likelihood of any of these five things happening by the year 2030 you might reasonably think that my response for at least some of them would have been an enthusiastic "yes, of course that'll happen!"
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Thanksgiving Day -- mental meanderings
Thanksgiving is the American holiday celebrated on the fourth Thursday of each November. Why on that date? Mostly so that people are primed and ready to go for Christmas-time and holiday-time shopping. Yes, that's the case. Read on to find out why.
The first Thanksgiving, so the legend tells us, was at Plimoth Plantation, Massachusetts in 1621. The actual date is a little murky, but it probably took place in October, not in November. The English settlers, known as Pilgrims or Separatists, who had arrived less than a year earlier aboard the small ship Mayflower were using the occasion of their first harvest to celebrate the simple fact of survival. The voyage across the Atlantic had been tough, but its rigors were nothing compared to the challenges they encountered on land as they settled in to build themselves a permanent community. Fortunately, the local natives were friendly and helpful. Without their assistance, the English Pilgrim settlers--their numbers diminished by half, down to a remaining population of about 50 by the time of the harvest celebration--probably would have all perished. And so the local Indians were included in the gathering, too.
That's the basic American history lesson; it's well-known. Not so well-known are a few other factoids:
The first Thanksgiving, so the legend tells us, was at Plimoth Plantation, Massachusetts in 1621. The actual date is a little murky, but it probably took place in October, not in November. The English settlers, known as Pilgrims or Separatists, who had arrived less than a year earlier aboard the small ship Mayflower were using the occasion of their first harvest to celebrate the simple fact of survival. The voyage across the Atlantic had been tough, but its rigors were nothing compared to the challenges they encountered on land as they settled in to build themselves a permanent community. Fortunately, the local natives were friendly and helpful. Without their assistance, the English Pilgrim settlers--their numbers diminished by half, down to a remaining population of about 50 by the time of the harvest celebration--probably would have all perished. And so the local Indians were included in the gathering, too.
That's the basic American history lesson; it's well-known. Not so well-known are a few other factoids:
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
U.S.A. -- Election 2014: Congratulations, Republicans! (Now what?)
In all sincerity: Congratulations to the Republican Party for its success in yesterday's elections.
It's only fair to say so.
Also, it's only fair to say that there's always another election in another two years.
The truth--and this is disappointing to me (not a surprise to most readers)--is that the Democratic brand just did not sell well to yesterday's voters. The Republicans created and sold a more appealing brand.
The election results will be parsed and re-parsed intensively over the next few weeks, so this posting isn't going to go into things like how Republican voters tend to have a better turnout than do Democratic voters in mid-term elections, or how President Obama's approval ratings did one thing or another. Lots will be said about that, and you'll read it elsewhere in great detail if you care to do so; maybe you already have. I suppose that most all of those things are true; what really matters for the future is how true they will be come the next election.
After all, there's another election coming in two years.
But there's just one little numbers-parsing that I will indulge in here and now: voter turnout. As I am writing this I have seen no overall analysis of turnout for this election, but I imagine that it's pretty low.
Case in point: California's election for governor. It looks like just over 5 million votes were cast in total for Jerry Brown--the Democratic incumbent and winner--and Neel Kashkari, the Republican challenger; those two being the only choices for governor on the ballot. Let's be charitable and add in a few thousand additional votes that might have been made without including a choice for governor, and allow for the fact that not all the votes have been counted yet, and let's say that 6 million Californians voted in yesterday's election.
Does that sound like a lot of votes? It is, but consider that California has about 18 million registered voters, with about 24 million people who are eligible to vote (out of a total state population of around 38 million).
Which means that Mr. Brown has won an unprecedented fourth term as governor by less than one quarter of the state's residents who could have, and should have, voted.
We get the government we vote for -- or maybe it's the one we don't vote for.
And there'll be another chance to do this again in two years. Not for California governor, of course; that will be in four years, and Jerry Brown will not be running for reelection again because he's reached his legal limit (besides, he'll be 80 years old then, and I presume he will have better things to do with his time than campaign for elected office. . .not that he spent much time campaigning for this election).
Are California voting patterns representative of the nation as a whole? In some ways, no they are not, and in other ways, yes they are. Politically, the state seems to slide leftish, although that could be argued simply by noting that two of the last four governors have been Republican, and two have been Democratic. But when it comes to the urge to vote, I suspect that there are some pretty compelling laws of large numbers that suggest the state's voter turnout for this last election is representative of the nation overall.
In other words, both the Democratic and the Republican parties now have just two years to develop and implement some kind of compelling message to deliver to the other three-quarters of the nation's potential voters, because the winners in the next election ought to be--and probably will be--decided by some numbers from yesterday's non-participating three-quarters.
Speaking of California -- yesterday's election results have set the state up as a potential national poster child for the benefits--or shortcomings, depending on how things work out--of spending public monies on infrastructure projects. Proposition 1, authorizing $7.5 billion in bond sales for water-related projects, was easily approved by voters. Also, Governor Brown is on the record as saying that he will stoke the boilers on the state's high-speed rail effort so that the project will soon have a full head of steam. (Can't help myself; I like trains.) That one is commonly quoted as having a $62 billion price tag.
Only a fraction of those amounts will be spent over the next two years, but that could still end up being worth a few billion dollars. It will be interesting--to say the least--to see what it means for California's economy, and then make comparisons with Kansas, for example, where the deeply conservative state government has been indulging itself in extreme austerity, and looks likely to continue that practice for the near-term future. It could end up being a national political message. Perhaps it will even be compelling, which would be an important thing.
Because there's another election two years from now.
It's only fair to say so.
Also, it's only fair to say that there's always another election in another two years.
The truth--and this is disappointing to me (not a surprise to most readers)--is that the Democratic brand just did not sell well to yesterday's voters. The Republicans created and sold a more appealing brand.
The election results will be parsed and re-parsed intensively over the next few weeks, so this posting isn't going to go into things like how Republican voters tend to have a better turnout than do Democratic voters in mid-term elections, or how President Obama's approval ratings did one thing or another. Lots will be said about that, and you'll read it elsewhere in great detail if you care to do so; maybe you already have. I suppose that most all of those things are true; what really matters for the future is how true they will be come the next election.
After all, there's another election coming in two years.
But there's just one little numbers-parsing that I will indulge in here and now: voter turnout. As I am writing this I have seen no overall analysis of turnout for this election, but I imagine that it's pretty low.
Case in point: California's election for governor. It looks like just over 5 million votes were cast in total for Jerry Brown--the Democratic incumbent and winner--and Neel Kashkari, the Republican challenger; those two being the only choices for governor on the ballot. Let's be charitable and add in a few thousand additional votes that might have been made without including a choice for governor, and allow for the fact that not all the votes have been counted yet, and let's say that 6 million Californians voted in yesterday's election.
Does that sound like a lot of votes? It is, but consider that California has about 18 million registered voters, with about 24 million people who are eligible to vote (out of a total state population of around 38 million).
Which means that Mr. Brown has won an unprecedented fourth term as governor by less than one quarter of the state's residents who could have, and should have, voted.
We get the government we vote for -- or maybe it's the one we don't vote for.
And there'll be another chance to do this again in two years. Not for California governor, of course; that will be in four years, and Jerry Brown will not be running for reelection again because he's reached his legal limit (besides, he'll be 80 years old then, and I presume he will have better things to do with his time than campaign for elected office. . .not that he spent much time campaigning for this election).
Are California voting patterns representative of the nation as a whole? In some ways, no they are not, and in other ways, yes they are. Politically, the state seems to slide leftish, although that could be argued simply by noting that two of the last four governors have been Republican, and two have been Democratic. But when it comes to the urge to vote, I suspect that there are some pretty compelling laws of large numbers that suggest the state's voter turnout for this last election is representative of the nation overall.
In other words, both the Democratic and the Republican parties now have just two years to develop and implement some kind of compelling message to deliver to the other three-quarters of the nation's potential voters, because the winners in the next election ought to be--and probably will be--decided by some numbers from yesterday's non-participating three-quarters.
Speaking of California -- yesterday's election results have set the state up as a potential national poster child for the benefits--or shortcomings, depending on how things work out--of spending public monies on infrastructure projects. Proposition 1, authorizing $7.5 billion in bond sales for water-related projects, was easily approved by voters. Also, Governor Brown is on the record as saying that he will stoke the boilers on the state's high-speed rail effort so that the project will soon have a full head of steam. (Can't help myself; I like trains.) That one is commonly quoted as having a $62 billion price tag.
Only a fraction of those amounts will be spent over the next two years, but that could still end up being worth a few billion dollars. It will be interesting--to say the least--to see what it means for California's economy, and then make comparisons with Kansas, for example, where the deeply conservative state government has been indulging itself in extreme austerity, and looks likely to continue that practice for the near-term future. It could end up being a national political message. Perhaps it will even be compelling, which would be an important thing.
Because there's another election two years from now.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Election 2014 and a President's legacy
Had a good conversation--let's call it a good and spirited conversation--with some friends yesterday about next week's election; the issues--at least those here in California--and the potential impact that the national electoral outcome could have on the presidential legacy of Barack Obama.
It's hard to believe that California is electing a Governor this year; it might be more accurate to say that California is re-electing a Governor, if only from the standpoint of the amount of campaigning that is going on. There's not much. Jerry Brown, the Democratic incumbent, and Neel Kashkari, the Republican challenger, have met in face-to-face televised debate only once, and that was way back in early September.
The debate was inconsequential in that no new ground was plowed by either candidate. Mr. Kashkari, claiming to be fresh and new, managed to establish the fact that he was new; but as for "fresh," I don't think so, if only because he didn't have much room to differentiate himself from the incumbent. Both candidates position themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals; it's hard to tweak those characteristics so as to make them look much different from one person to the next.
Mr. Brown, for his part, used the debate to come across as a fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal curmudgeon who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the ways in which the levers of political and governmental power can be used in California; once again, nothing new there.
Since the debate, Mr. Kashkari has struggled with a poorly-funded campaign organization; at this point, if what we see in reported polling is accurate, he is still trying to gain enough traction to have people recognize his name. Mr. Brown--who seems to be well-known--has mostly ignored his opponent, and has declined to do a real campaign. I'm not sure that he has even once asked that people vote for him. Seems like an odd way to win a political office. We are all allowed our little eccentricities; it looks to me like Jerry Brown perhaps should be recognized for accumulating eccentricities in the way that some people accumulate stamps, coins, cars, models, artwork and other collectibles.
Four years ago Mr. Brown was elected as a fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal curmudgeon with an encyclopedic knowledge of government minutia; he's the same person, he's done much of what he said he would do if he were elected then; the voters are much the same now as they were four years ago; Governor Brown will likely be re-elected next week.
The California ballot has the usual array of initiatives and candidates for various other offices (why oh why do we vote for so many judges?). With few exceptions, there's not much to generate a lot of enthusiasm; which, of course, has done little to tamp down on the generation of misleading and uninformative campaign advertising, whether done by direct mail, television or radio. Though I am not a great consumer of campaign advertising, my guess will be that 95% of it is misleading and/or uninformative.
(On which point I have to give favorable mention to the small amount of campaigning that Mr. Brown has done: his testimonials for a small number of fellow Democratic candidates, as well as for two ballot initiatives that he has sponsored (#1 and #2), conjure up images of General Patton strutting in front of an audience and proclaiming "Do this for me because I want it done!" Not real smooth, perhaps, but concise. Interviews with him seem to be different; he rambles.)
Regarding the Obama presidential legacy: opinions on that during our spirited conversation ranged the spectrum from "total failure" to "very good." Here's how we got there. I asked this question: Suppose that the upcoming election hands control of the U.S. Senate over to the Republicans (as seems likely, if not certain) so that Mr. Obama is confronted by a totally non-cooperative Congress for the final two years of his presidency, and so we can safely assume that he will add no more accomplishments to his record; after the passage of a few years, what will be the general assessment of his time in office? (I asked the question and moderated the conversation, so the resulting opinions are those of others; you will have to wait for my answer to that question.)
The two liberal-leaning participants agreed that the assessment of the Obama presidency would be "very good;" supporting reasoning for this focused mainly on the Affordable Care Act and responsive actions to the financial crisis and succeeding recession. Mention was also made of progressive environmental and civil rights policies and actions; mention of foreign policy was brief, but perhaps significant for reasons that we can get to later.
The single conservative-leaning participant offered "moderate, at best" as his assessment, largely because of a feeling that the accomplishments during the Obama presidency were not his alone, but were the product of the efforts of others, too. The assessment of "total failure" was offered up in response to my question regarding the opinion of another individual, not present, but well-known in his political leanings (proudly and definitely conservative) and well-known by the conservative-leaning participant in a personal way; so, therefore, I think it an accurate representation of the opinion of one who was with us in spirit if not in person.
Reflecting on this conversation, I am struck by a startling omission: no mention, whether positive or negative, was made of Barack Obama's racial heritage. He is the first black American president--perhaps the second if we allow that Bill Clinton was the first; but that's an old conversation and metaphorical--and that by itself establishes a remarkable legacy for the man.
Furthermore, the absence of mention of this fundamental, observable and so far unique presidential accomplishment--that is, the accomplishment that was not only the election of 2008, but also the re-election of 2012--is perhaps testimony to growth in the maturity of American social inclusion. If the conversation of a small circle of friends is in some way representative of the population at large,then I would say that we as a nation have achieved, or on our way to achieving, a monumental goal.
More on this subject later as there is more contributing conversation and thought.
As for thoughts on the California election: mostly I like the Democratic candidates (no surprise there!) with the realization that one or two Republican candidates for state-wide office are probably as well-qualified and as acceptable as are their Democratic opponents (surprise!). Well, heck, even Mr. Kashkari isn't all that objectionable, but Gov. Brown has performed in the way that he was elected to perform, and so he is deserving of re-election.
On the various propositions: #1 is good, because it gets the state started on some water cleanup and storage projects that should have been started years ago (a fact made obvious by the current drought). #2 (establishing the so-called state "rainy day fund" for use in future fiscal emergencies) is deserving only because the real fix to the problem will have to be through some dramatic changes to the state's taxation and budgeting policies, and that's not happening any time soon, so this proposition is the next best thing currently on offer.
None of the other state-wide propositions--there are four others on the ballot--is of existential importance, although I believe that two of them have merit and deserve approval:
#45 will give the state's Insurance Commissioner the power to reject rate increases by health insurers if those increases are deemed to be excessive; this is a power that this same office has held for the last quarter century over auto insurance rates (as a result of a previous ballot proposition that was approved by California voters) and which experience has shown to have been exercised carefully and prudently in favor of the state's consumers.
#46 would address a couple of major issues regarding medical practice that have been brewing for several years: if approved, it would adjust the current limitation ("cap") on malpractice lawsuits for pain-and-suffering from $250,000--an amount established back in the 1970s--to a current inflation-adjusted value of $1.25 million, with a provision for future adjustments for inflation; and, it would implement drug/alcohol testing of doctors. This one has some rough edges in the details, but those are the major goals, and I believe them to offer fair and even-handed treatment to those seeking medical services, as well as to those who provide the services.
Finally, I hope that California's electoral turnout for this election surpasses the turnout for the primaries a few months ago, because that turnout was dismal.
I have voted.
It's hard to believe that California is electing a Governor this year; it might be more accurate to say that California is re-electing a Governor, if only from the standpoint of the amount of campaigning that is going on. There's not much. Jerry Brown, the Democratic incumbent, and Neel Kashkari, the Republican challenger, have met in face-to-face televised debate only once, and that was way back in early September.
The debate was inconsequential in that no new ground was plowed by either candidate. Mr. Kashkari, claiming to be fresh and new, managed to establish the fact that he was new; but as for "fresh," I don't think so, if only because he didn't have much room to differentiate himself from the incumbent. Both candidates position themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals; it's hard to tweak those characteristics so as to make them look much different from one person to the next.
Mr. Brown, for his part, used the debate to come across as a fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal curmudgeon who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the ways in which the levers of political and governmental power can be used in California; once again, nothing new there.
Since the debate, Mr. Kashkari has struggled with a poorly-funded campaign organization; at this point, if what we see in reported polling is accurate, he is still trying to gain enough traction to have people recognize his name. Mr. Brown--who seems to be well-known--has mostly ignored his opponent, and has declined to do a real campaign. I'm not sure that he has even once asked that people vote for him. Seems like an odd way to win a political office. We are all allowed our little eccentricities; it looks to me like Jerry Brown perhaps should be recognized for accumulating eccentricities in the way that some people accumulate stamps, coins, cars, models, artwork and other collectibles.
Four years ago Mr. Brown was elected as a fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal curmudgeon with an encyclopedic knowledge of government minutia; he's the same person, he's done much of what he said he would do if he were elected then; the voters are much the same now as they were four years ago; Governor Brown will likely be re-elected next week.
The California ballot has the usual array of initiatives and candidates for various other offices (why oh why do we vote for so many judges?). With few exceptions, there's not much to generate a lot of enthusiasm; which, of course, has done little to tamp down on the generation of misleading and uninformative campaign advertising, whether done by direct mail, television or radio. Though I am not a great consumer of campaign advertising, my guess will be that 95% of it is misleading and/or uninformative.
(On which point I have to give favorable mention to the small amount of campaigning that Mr. Brown has done: his testimonials for a small number of fellow Democratic candidates, as well as for two ballot initiatives that he has sponsored (#1 and #2), conjure up images of General Patton strutting in front of an audience and proclaiming "Do this for me because I want it done!" Not real smooth, perhaps, but concise. Interviews with him seem to be different; he rambles.)
Regarding the Obama presidential legacy: opinions on that during our spirited conversation ranged the spectrum from "total failure" to "very good." Here's how we got there. I asked this question: Suppose that the upcoming election hands control of the U.S. Senate over to the Republicans (as seems likely, if not certain) so that Mr. Obama is confronted by a totally non-cooperative Congress for the final two years of his presidency, and so we can safely assume that he will add no more accomplishments to his record; after the passage of a few years, what will be the general assessment of his time in office? (I asked the question and moderated the conversation, so the resulting opinions are those of others; you will have to wait for my answer to that question.)
The two liberal-leaning participants agreed that the assessment of the Obama presidency would be "very good;" supporting reasoning for this focused mainly on the Affordable Care Act and responsive actions to the financial crisis and succeeding recession. Mention was also made of progressive environmental and civil rights policies and actions; mention of foreign policy was brief, but perhaps significant for reasons that we can get to later.
The single conservative-leaning participant offered "moderate, at best" as his assessment, largely because of a feeling that the accomplishments during the Obama presidency were not his alone, but were the product of the efforts of others, too. The assessment of "total failure" was offered up in response to my question regarding the opinion of another individual, not present, but well-known in his political leanings (proudly and definitely conservative) and well-known by the conservative-leaning participant in a personal way; so, therefore, I think it an accurate representation of the opinion of one who was with us in spirit if not in person.
Reflecting on this conversation, I am struck by a startling omission: no mention, whether positive or negative, was made of Barack Obama's racial heritage. He is the first black American president--perhaps the second if we allow that Bill Clinton was the first; but that's an old conversation and metaphorical--and that by itself establishes a remarkable legacy for the man.
Furthermore, the absence of mention of this fundamental, observable and so far unique presidential accomplishment--that is, the accomplishment that was not only the election of 2008, but also the re-election of 2012--is perhaps testimony to growth in the maturity of American social inclusion. If the conversation of a small circle of friends is in some way representative of the population at large,then I would say that we as a nation have achieved, or on our way to achieving, a monumental goal.
More on this subject later as there is more contributing conversation and thought.
As for thoughts on the California election: mostly I like the Democratic candidates (no surprise there!) with the realization that one or two Republican candidates for state-wide office are probably as well-qualified and as acceptable as are their Democratic opponents (surprise!). Well, heck, even Mr. Kashkari isn't all that objectionable, but Gov. Brown has performed in the way that he was elected to perform, and so he is deserving of re-election.
On the various propositions: #1 is good, because it gets the state started on some water cleanup and storage projects that should have been started years ago (a fact made obvious by the current drought). #2 (establishing the so-called state "rainy day fund" for use in future fiscal emergencies) is deserving only because the real fix to the problem will have to be through some dramatic changes to the state's taxation and budgeting policies, and that's not happening any time soon, so this proposition is the next best thing currently on offer.
None of the other state-wide propositions--there are four others on the ballot--is of existential importance, although I believe that two of them have merit and deserve approval:
#45 will give the state's Insurance Commissioner the power to reject rate increases by health insurers if those increases are deemed to be excessive; this is a power that this same office has held for the last quarter century over auto insurance rates (as a result of a previous ballot proposition that was approved by California voters) and which experience has shown to have been exercised carefully and prudently in favor of the state's consumers.
#46 would address a couple of major issues regarding medical practice that have been brewing for several years: if approved, it would adjust the current limitation ("cap") on malpractice lawsuits for pain-and-suffering from $250,000--an amount established back in the 1970s--to a current inflation-adjusted value of $1.25 million, with a provision for future adjustments for inflation; and, it would implement drug/alcohol testing of doctors. This one has some rough edges in the details, but those are the major goals, and I believe them to offer fair and even-handed treatment to those seeking medical services, as well as to those who provide the services.
Finally, I hope that California's electoral turnout for this election surpasses the turnout for the primaries a few months ago, because that turnout was dismal.
I have voted.
Friday, October 17, 2014
U.S.A & West Africa: Ebola -- facts, not frenzy; let common sense prevail
Feeling saturated with ebola news? Are you getting the feeling that there's too much unhelpful political posturing? Yep, I thought so; me, too. So this will be short and quick and probably the most concise thing you can read on this subject.
There's no doubt that this is a complicated and dangerous disease. The chances are pretty good that it's going to become more complicated and more dangerous before there's any really good news to report. The timeline for eradication is probably years, not days or weeks or months. This thing will mutate and evolve; for all we know, it might be doing this on a daily basis, but could go unrecognized for months or years. Victory over ebola will not come easily, nor will it come quickly.
And victory over ebola will not happen in the United States. It can happen only in those areas where it is already firmly entrenched. Those areas appear--based on everything we know at this time--to be in west Africa. Call it the "hot zone" for ebola if you want to. That's where it already has thousands of human hosts in which to incubate, and is aided and abetted by those nations' limited abilities to provide effective medical treatment and recovery care.
Is there a danger to the United States--or, for that matter, to Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Nigeria, Brazil and all the other nations of the world--from the arrival of ebola-infected travelers? Yes, but it's a danger that is recognized. If you are saturated with the news, then you already know that the danger is being mitigated. It's something new for us to deal with, so a little time--remember that as of the date of this writing we are talking about an experience directly affecting America and Europe of only a few weeks--has passed, much has been learned, mistakes have been made, more has been learned from the mistakes, adaptations have taken place, and effective procedures, protocols and tools have been activated to deal with the issues involved in medical care and exposure.
With a few lines of text, we have summarized a massive medical, governmental and logistical response to a major event of great importance. So far, so good, but that's just the easy part, because America and Europe have been exposed to only the smallest of dangers from ebola.
The second danger--horrible as the first one is, this one is much worse--is the potential for some kind of ebola-induced social disintegration in these hot zone countries. If these countries are not provided with massive additional amounts of medical and social assistance--including on-site guidance and help by trained practitioners--then this disease might simply evolve and spread until it is out of control.
With that possibility in mind, it's not hard to conjure up images of consequent mass migrations of human populations, eventually causing chaos, greater numbers of deaths, prolonged and exacerbated human suffering and potentially national failures throughout much of Africa. This, then, would become a humanitarian and national security crisis of unspeakable proportions for the rest of Africa, all of Europe and North America. With that thought, can there be any doubt about the value of President Obama's arrangement for appropriate American military personnel to be a part of the containment and relief efforts?
I don't know if international travel restrictions--an idea with a companion conversation that is consuming much of the political and media atmosphere at the moment--are helpful or hurtful, or a combination of both. What I do know is that the most helpful approach would be one that includes liberal amounts of common sense, which means recognizing that a complicated problem is going to be fixed only with a complicated solution.
In the spirit of promoting common sense--not able to fix the problem with this, but perhaps it can help certain parts of the problem from getting any worse--here are a few simple facts about ebola--put together by the Obama Administration for American consumption, but applicable everywhere--that I hope will be helpful (to see this at its origin, visit the White House blog via this link):
There's no doubt that this is a complicated and dangerous disease. The chances are pretty good that it's going to become more complicated and more dangerous before there's any really good news to report. The timeline for eradication is probably years, not days or weeks or months. This thing will mutate and evolve; for all we know, it might be doing this on a daily basis, but could go unrecognized for months or years. Victory over ebola will not come easily, nor will it come quickly.
And victory over ebola will not happen in the United States. It can happen only in those areas where it is already firmly entrenched. Those areas appear--based on everything we know at this time--to be in west Africa. Call it the "hot zone" for ebola if you want to. That's where it already has thousands of human hosts in which to incubate, and is aided and abetted by those nations' limited abilities to provide effective medical treatment and recovery care.
Is there a danger to the United States--or, for that matter, to Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Nigeria, Brazil and all the other nations of the world--from the arrival of ebola-infected travelers? Yes, but it's a danger that is recognized. If you are saturated with the news, then you already know that the danger is being mitigated. It's something new for us to deal with, so a little time--remember that as of the date of this writing we are talking about an experience directly affecting America and Europe of only a few weeks--has passed, much has been learned, mistakes have been made, more has been learned from the mistakes, adaptations have taken place, and effective procedures, protocols and tools have been activated to deal with the issues involved in medical care and exposure.
With a few lines of text, we have summarized a massive medical, governmental and logistical response to a major event of great importance. So far, so good, but that's just the easy part, because America and Europe have been exposed to only the smallest of dangers from ebola.
The bigger danger hasn't yet hit the news
The bigger danger is in those African countries that are saturated with the disease. The danger there is two-fold: First, near-term ebola deaths that have the potential to suddenly spike from the current count of thousands to a possible death count--over the next few months--of tens of thousands.The second danger--horrible as the first one is, this one is much worse--is the potential for some kind of ebola-induced social disintegration in these hot zone countries. If these countries are not provided with massive additional amounts of medical and social assistance--including on-site guidance and help by trained practitioners--then this disease might simply evolve and spread until it is out of control.
With that possibility in mind, it's not hard to conjure up images of consequent mass migrations of human populations, eventually causing chaos, greater numbers of deaths, prolonged and exacerbated human suffering and potentially national failures throughout much of Africa. This, then, would become a humanitarian and national security crisis of unspeakable proportions for the rest of Africa, all of Europe and North America. With that thought, can there be any doubt about the value of President Obama's arrangement for appropriate American military personnel to be a part of the containment and relief efforts?
Let common sense prevail
America, of course, is key in seeing to it that none of these dire scenarios prevails; simply put, the United States--and Europe, too--have the most to offer in terms of medical and humanitarian assistance. It's a combination of science, know-how, money and commitment.I don't know if international travel restrictions--an idea with a companion conversation that is consuming much of the political and media atmosphere at the moment--are helpful or hurtful, or a combination of both. What I do know is that the most helpful approach would be one that includes liberal amounts of common sense, which means recognizing that a complicated problem is going to be fixed only with a complicated solution.
In the spirit of promoting common sense--not able to fix the problem with this, but perhaps it can help certain parts of the problem from getting any worse--here are a few simple facts about ebola--put together by the Obama Administration for American consumption, but applicable everywhere--that I hope will be helpful (to see this at its origin, visit the White House blog via this link):
Thursday, October 9, 2014
U.S.A. -- This is (hopefully) the last thing you need to read about same-sex marriage
As hot-button topics go, the issue of same-sex marriage ought to be cooling off by now. It's explicitly legal in most of the country--although the most conservative people and states still cling to the notion that it is and/or ought to be illegal--and public opinion clearly illustrates popular support by a majority of Americans. Nonetheless (sigh), since we are less than a month away from a mid-term election which includes posturing for the Republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election, the politics of opposition to same-sex marriage are consuming a significant amount of the available oxygen.
Therefore, in the spirit that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to misrepresent the law, here's a short question-and-answer overview of how same-sex marriage fits within the U.S. Constitution. The questions are from the public discussion of this subject--and, in fact, have been in popular discussion for about twenty years--and the answers are based on my own reading of a well-thumbed copy of the Constitution and its Amendments. As you probably know, the Constitution is a fairly short document, and its Amendments are few and typically concise, so it isn't a big job to do this. But, in case you might be wondering about some of the constitutionally-related comments that are thrown around in hopes of winning a few votes, this might save you the time of reading the Constitution yourself if you are looking for what might be the basis for some of those comments.
And with that, on with the Questions and Answers:
Question 1. Is marriage mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Answer 1. Nope. Nothing there about marriage.
Question 2. If there's nothing about it in the Constitution, then what laws establish the legal act of getting married?
Answer 2. State laws.
Question 3. Is there something in the Constitution that supports/enables/authorizes the states to make these laws?
Answer 3. Yes. More specifically, Amendment 10--the last Amendment in the Bill of Rights--says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Question 4. So, then, since the Constitution says nothing about marriage, and it also devolves non-specified "powers" in general to the states, then each state can set up its own laws regarding marriage, and those laws can, among other thing, define marriage as only being legal when it involves a man and a woman, right?
Answer 4. Well, no, that's not what the Amendment says. The Amendment clarifies the Constitution and explicitly says that the states can make laws--which they were doing anyway at the time that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and adopted--but it doesn't take anything away from the Constitution.
Question 5. What's your point?
Answer 5. Good question. There are at least two other places in the Constitution--one in the main body, and another in a later Amendment--that would (and do) conflict with any law that would define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The first place--admittedly, this is my own observation, since I have not yet seen it remarked upon in any reporting of the various legal aspects of same-sex marriage--is in the opening sentence of Section 2 of Article IV, in which is stated "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." I'm not qualified to argue this in front of the Supreme Court, but if that statement is to be rendered into plain American Standard English for purposes of this discussion, it sounds suspiciously like it is saying that if a same-sex couple is legally wedded in, for example, the state of California, and they move to another state (maybe Texas?) then that second state is obligated to recognize the legal status of the incoming couple's same-sex marriage. After all, that would be a "privilege" granted, by law, in another state. There's probably more that could be made of this, but that's enough for now.
Question 6. That seems kind of iffy; you got something else that's better?
Answer 6. Yes, I mentioned an Amendment. It's Amendment 14. Section 1 of that Amendment reinforces the concept of "privileges and immunities" by saying that states may not make laws that abridge those things. And then to be crystal clear, that Section concludes by saying that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It's not a very big leap of constitutional logic to conclude that any state law that defines marriage in such a way that it excludes same-sex marriage--or, perhaps, interracial marriage (yes, that's been done, too)--is unconstitutional because it would therefore be a law that is applied differently for different groups of people, and is therefore unequal in its protection.
Question 7. That conclusion is just your opinion, isn't it?
Answer 7. No, not "just" my opinion. Several Federal appeals courts have said the same thing. At this point, no such court has said anything that contradicts that conclusion. For that matter, opponents of same-sex marriage--to my knowledge--don't seem to dispute the conclusion that such laws would be unequal. If there is an argument by anybody that a law that explicitly defines marriage in the way that we are discussing it here would constitute "equal protection," then I've not read about it, and I read a lot of stuff. As a result, any state law that says something that would rule out same-sex marriage in that state is on very thin constitutional ice.
Question 8. Will the U.S. Supreme Court eventually issue a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage?
Answer 8. Maybe. They are almost certainly going to have to take a case on the issue when a Federal appellate court issues a ruling that conflicts with the appellate rulings that are already on record, and that could happen at any time (and, eventually, it will happen). As for the ruling being "definitive". . .who knows?
Question 9. Could the U.S. Constitution be amended to make a national definition of marriage?
Answer 9. Yes.
Question 10. Is it likely that the Constitution will be amended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only?
Answer 10. Anything is possible, but at this point the success of such a proposed amendment would be nothing more than a pipe dream.
Okay, you're right; that last one there is my own opinion. But it made me feel good to write it, and I truly believe that most people in this country feel the same way.
And that's the way that the hot button cools.
Therefore, in the spirit that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to misrepresent the law, here's a short question-and-answer overview of how same-sex marriage fits within the U.S. Constitution. The questions are from the public discussion of this subject--and, in fact, have been in popular discussion for about twenty years--and the answers are based on my own reading of a well-thumbed copy of the Constitution and its Amendments. As you probably know, the Constitution is a fairly short document, and its Amendments are few and typically concise, so it isn't a big job to do this. But, in case you might be wondering about some of the constitutionally-related comments that are thrown around in hopes of winning a few votes, this might save you the time of reading the Constitution yourself if you are looking for what might be the basis for some of those comments.
And with that, on with the Questions and Answers:
Question 1. Is marriage mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Answer 1. Nope. Nothing there about marriage.
Question 2. If there's nothing about it in the Constitution, then what laws establish the legal act of getting married?
Answer 2. State laws.
Question 3. Is there something in the Constitution that supports/enables/authorizes the states to make these laws?
Answer 3. Yes. More specifically, Amendment 10--the last Amendment in the Bill of Rights--says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Question 4. So, then, since the Constitution says nothing about marriage, and it also devolves non-specified "powers" in general to the states, then each state can set up its own laws regarding marriage, and those laws can, among other thing, define marriage as only being legal when it involves a man and a woman, right?
Answer 4. Well, no, that's not what the Amendment says. The Amendment clarifies the Constitution and explicitly says that the states can make laws--which they were doing anyway at the time that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and adopted--but it doesn't take anything away from the Constitution.
Question 5. What's your point?
Answer 5. Good question. There are at least two other places in the Constitution--one in the main body, and another in a later Amendment--that would (and do) conflict with any law that would define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The first place--admittedly, this is my own observation, since I have not yet seen it remarked upon in any reporting of the various legal aspects of same-sex marriage--is in the opening sentence of Section 2 of Article IV, in which is stated "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." I'm not qualified to argue this in front of the Supreme Court, but if that statement is to be rendered into plain American Standard English for purposes of this discussion, it sounds suspiciously like it is saying that if a same-sex couple is legally wedded in, for example, the state of California, and they move to another state (maybe Texas?) then that second state is obligated to recognize the legal status of the incoming couple's same-sex marriage. After all, that would be a "privilege" granted, by law, in another state. There's probably more that could be made of this, but that's enough for now.
Question 6. That seems kind of iffy; you got something else that's better?
Answer 6. Yes, I mentioned an Amendment. It's Amendment 14. Section 1 of that Amendment reinforces the concept of "privileges and immunities" by saying that states may not make laws that abridge those things. And then to be crystal clear, that Section concludes by saying that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It's not a very big leap of constitutional logic to conclude that any state law that defines marriage in such a way that it excludes same-sex marriage--or, perhaps, interracial marriage (yes, that's been done, too)--is unconstitutional because it would therefore be a law that is applied differently for different groups of people, and is therefore unequal in its protection.
Question 7. That conclusion is just your opinion, isn't it?
Answer 7. No, not "just" my opinion. Several Federal appeals courts have said the same thing. At this point, no such court has said anything that contradicts that conclusion. For that matter, opponents of same-sex marriage--to my knowledge--don't seem to dispute the conclusion that such laws would be unequal. If there is an argument by anybody that a law that explicitly defines marriage in the way that we are discussing it here would constitute "equal protection," then I've not read about it, and I read a lot of stuff. As a result, any state law that says something that would rule out same-sex marriage in that state is on very thin constitutional ice.
Question 8. Will the U.S. Supreme Court eventually issue a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage?
Answer 8. Maybe. They are almost certainly going to have to take a case on the issue when a Federal appellate court issues a ruling that conflicts with the appellate rulings that are already on record, and that could happen at any time (and, eventually, it will happen). As for the ruling being "definitive". . .who knows?
Question 9. Could the U.S. Constitution be amended to make a national definition of marriage?
Answer 9. Yes.
Question 10. Is it likely that the Constitution will be amended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only?
Answer 10. Anything is possible, but at this point the success of such a proposed amendment would be nothing more than a pipe dream.
Okay, you're right; that last one there is my own opinion. But it made me feel good to write it, and I truly believe that most people in this country feel the same way.
And that's the way that the hot button cools.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
USA: Old electronics -- You and I know it's poison; why don't they?
Most people--certainly all readers of this tiny part of the electronic universe--know that unneeded, old electronic devices should be recycled or properly disposed of instead of simply putting them in the normal trash. In case you have less-enlightened friends, relatives or neighbors who are not yet with the program needed to keep the world habitable--or if you are looking for some really unusual cocktail party conversation--here's a short list of some of the big reasons why recycling and proper disposal of electronic gadgets is so important:
When electronic waste ends up in the typical household or business trash bin it is usually burned or interred in landfills. Either way, the substances in that list up there--along with other elements and chemicals--are released into the air we breath, the water we drink and wash in, the soil that grows our food and which nourishes the domestic livestock--and even the wild game--that helps to satisfy our need for protein. It's persistent, too; it hangs around for many years. Shop organically if you care to, but it won't make much, or perhaps any, difference -- the nasty stuff seeps everywhere. Be a vegan or a carnivore or an omnivore as you choose, you are still ingesting poisons which could be avoided with a little more care and effort on the part of individuals and businesses.
We've been aware of this for years--decades, even--but that doesn't mean that old electronics are safely recycled or trashed. Different things that I have read on this subject indicate that America safely trashes or recycles only 20% of these devices, if that much. Which means that you, good reader, are exemplary -- and, unfortunately, probably in the minority when it comes to proper treatment of dangerous trash.
There's plenty of readily-available information on the subject. It will help in the identification of those items which should be recycled or properly disposed of as electronic waste, and will also point out convenient locations--often local retailers--where this can easily be done.
The EPA has much good and useful information on its web site. They have a very big web site, so if you are interested specifically in the part that deals with recycling of electronics, click on this link here.
Additional resources are available from local trash collection firms, municipalities, county and state governments.
It's pretty easy to do this and do it well. In my house, we keep a box on a shelf in the garage; any small defunct electronic gizmo goes into that box (batteries and CFLs, too) and then the box is eventually taken to a local county-authorized hazardous waste disposal center. Functioning larger items--computers (without the original disk drive, which is physically destroyed to prevent disclosure of personal information, and then placed in the box in the garage), monitors, TVs and the like--might be taken to a local charitable organization that can refurbish and recycle.
You and I don't want to be slowly poisoned--or have our children or grandchildren or other descendants slowly poisoned--by electronic trash, so we do our little part to help make sure that doesn't happen. It sure would be great if we could count on everybody doing the same thing.
- Arsenic.
- Beryllium.
- Cadmium.
- Lead.
- Mercury.
- Toxins (many and varied).
When electronic waste ends up in the typical household or business trash bin it is usually burned or interred in landfills. Either way, the substances in that list up there--along with other elements and chemicals--are released into the air we breath, the water we drink and wash in, the soil that grows our food and which nourishes the domestic livestock--and even the wild game--that helps to satisfy our need for protein. It's persistent, too; it hangs around for many years. Shop organically if you care to, but it won't make much, or perhaps any, difference -- the nasty stuff seeps everywhere. Be a vegan or a carnivore or an omnivore as you choose, you are still ingesting poisons which could be avoided with a little more care and effort on the part of individuals and businesses.
We've been aware of this for years--decades, even--but that doesn't mean that old electronics are safely recycled or trashed. Different things that I have read on this subject indicate that America safely trashes or recycles only 20% of these devices, if that much. Which means that you, good reader, are exemplary -- and, unfortunately, probably in the minority when it comes to proper treatment of dangerous trash.
There's plenty of readily-available information on the subject. It will help in the identification of those items which should be recycled or properly disposed of as electronic waste, and will also point out convenient locations--often local retailers--where this can easily be done.
The EPA has much good and useful information on its web site. They have a very big web site, so if you are interested specifically in the part that deals with recycling of electronics, click on this link here.
Additional resources are available from local trash collection firms, municipalities, county and state governments.
It's pretty easy to do this and do it well. In my house, we keep a box on a shelf in the garage; any small defunct electronic gizmo goes into that box (batteries and CFLs, too) and then the box is eventually taken to a local county-authorized hazardous waste disposal center. Functioning larger items--computers (without the original disk drive, which is physically destroyed to prevent disclosure of personal information, and then placed in the box in the garage), monitors, TVs and the like--might be taken to a local charitable organization that can refurbish and recycle.
You and I don't want to be slowly poisoned--or have our children or grandchildren or other descendants slowly poisoned--by electronic trash, so we do our little part to help make sure that doesn't happen. It sure would be great if we could count on everybody doing the same thing.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
U.S.A.: Central American children on the border -- let's interrupt this hysteria and consider some facts
Why do people leave home to move to another country? Why do they do this when their transit includes riding on top of a train called La Bestia? (You probably don't have to look up the English translation to figure out what it means.) Why do this when riding on La Bestia might be the safest part of the trip?
People voluntarily uproot themselves, leave their homes and move to another country for only a few reasons: long-term personal safety and security are always among the top reasons, along with pursuing opportunities for education, comfort and wealth. Americans--other than Native Americans--are exclusively either immigrants, or are descendants of immigrants, slaves and others who were forcibly brought here in some indentured manner; most of us have American pedigrees that originate within the last three hundred years, a relatively short time span in the great scheme of things that we call civilization.
Despite this history, the American consciousness--including especially our politics--has occasionally been obsessed with an almost hysterical fear that our country is being overwhelmed with outsiders who are--for purposes of this controversy--lumped together as "illegal immigrants." Now is one of those occasions.
Leaving aside for the moment the inherent absurdity that a nation based on the pedigree of immigration can be overwhelmed by any number or type of additional immigrants--out of a current population of 315 millions, the undocumented or illegal population numbers about 11 millions, or roughly 3.5% of the total--let's focus only on the immediate "crisis" at hand, which is described as the illicit arrival--many via La Bestia--over the last almost a year of 57,000 illegally-immigrated minors (children) from Central America. That's right: children riding on top of La Bestia.
Here's something that might come as a surprise to most people: these 57,000 are not necessarily "illegals." Almost certainly some are, but with equal certainty some--perhaps the majority--are not.
Granted, 57,000 people in one place at one time can be a lot of people. But we're not talking about all of these people being in one place at one time. They are spread out over a huge geography, and over some significant amount of time. True, more have probably arrived since that number was counted, but some have already been returned to their countries of origin, all of which is a normal state of affairs.
Yes, believe it or not, there is some normalcy in this "crisis" story.
But let's work with that number: 57,000 added to 315 million works out to .02%, which is two one-hundredths of a percent of America's total population. That is a pretty small, almost miniscule, and proportionally insignificant, addition to the nation's count of residents.
Admittedly, managing to a situation such as this costs the country something, some of which was anticipated and therefore planned for. These 57,000 people are seeking asylum in the United States; asylum is a legal status, granted upon judicial review, and it has been around for decades. In particular, a specific law that was adopted by the U.S. six years ago in the waning months of the Bush 2 administration could apply to many of these 57,000 since it was crafted to offer asylum to Central American children who are determined to be at risk of exploitation by gangs and criminals (sometimes organized) in their home countries.
There's a much larger context to asylum than just the current plight of children from Central America. The United States offers asylum for many reasons, and the offers go out to people all over the world. In the years 2003 to 2012, the United States granted asylum to over 250,000 people from more than 100 countries.
During that time period, fewer than 10,000 of those grants of asylum were made to people from all Central American countries combined. Almost the same number of Ethiopians--about 9500--were granted asylum. Over in the Caribbean, Haiti by itself accounted for over 16,000 grants of asylum. China had the most: almost 65,000. (See the New Republic article by Danny Vinik that analyzes asylum data from the U.S. Government, and then presents it in a really nifty interactive map.)
Put all of this together--American history; immigrants being spread out over space and time; the legal and historical context of asylum--and the case for calling this situation a "crisis" is just not convincing. If there is anything of crisis in this, it is a crisis of our morals and ethics; but let's pass on discussion of that, at least for now, because my working assumption is that the great majority of Americans, when confronted with the reality of endangered children, will choose to provide those children with safety instead of returning them to an environment of hostility and criminal compulsion; especially when at least some of the root causes of that criminality emanate from America's own social and legal behaviors towards cocaine, heroin and other drugs.
Nonetheless, working through thousands of asylum-seekers is time-consuming and costly. I don't know what is the "right thing to do" for these people as individuals, because each one will have a different story. But taken together as a group, I know that the legalities of asylum require that due process be provided. America is, after all, a legalistic society. Tedious though that might be at times, it is our adherence to the "rule of law," as we call it, that helps us to build and maintain our leading position among the world's nations.
Additionally, in the current case of the Central American children, it is in the self-interest of law-abiding Americans to do whatever is possible and practical to show them that there are better ways to live than to return to an environment that could make them a part of criminal enterprises supplying illicit and dangerous drugs to the North American market. If we are law-abiding Americans, do we want to encourage young people to pursue criminal lifestyles that ultimately profit from the continuing use and purchase of dangerous drugs in the United States? I think not.
The larger question, of course, is this: Will the United States be welcoming to immigration, or hostile to it? There's a general feeling in this country that we Americans are opposed only to illegal immigration, and welcoming to legal immigration, and that this means that the United States is anything but hostile to immigration. Unfortunately, the whole story is that the U.S. provides immigration visas to only a small fraction of the apparently-qualified applicants, and so because of that fact we therefore severely restrict the number of foreign people who can legally move into the country and seek to become naturalized citizens.
Some will say that this is as it should be because the United States is populous enough as it is. Certainly, the size of the population bears watching, but also consider the nature of that population, and realize that without sustained, large numbers of immigrants--more than the U.S. currently allows in legally--the country faces two undeniable demographic shortcomings: first, large numbers of highly-skilled potential immigrants are denied access to America and therefore go elsewhere, enriching the business and innovation cultures of those other countries instead of doing so in the U.S.; and, second, America's population will age much faster with less immigration than it will with more immigration, which means fewer workers making money, paying taxes and supporting programs like Social Security and Medicare that are vitally important to an older population.
It's true, as some like to say, that a country must be able to control its borders. But the bigger truth is that border control is only a small part of the bigger picture. Is there an immigration crisis? Maybe so, but it's not a crisis of figuring out how to deport 57,000 children as quickly as possible; it's bigger than that.
(Note: this posting is corrected from the original with regard to math errors pointed out by an astute reader. I should have done a better job in proof-reading my own work. Sorry.)
People voluntarily uproot themselves, leave their homes and move to another country for only a few reasons: long-term personal safety and security are always among the top reasons, along with pursuing opportunities for education, comfort and wealth. Americans--other than Native Americans--are exclusively either immigrants, or are descendants of immigrants, slaves and others who were forcibly brought here in some indentured manner; most of us have American pedigrees that originate within the last three hundred years, a relatively short time span in the great scheme of things that we call civilization.
Despite this history, the American consciousness--including especially our politics--has occasionally been obsessed with an almost hysterical fear that our country is being overwhelmed with outsiders who are--for purposes of this controversy--lumped together as "illegal immigrants." Now is one of those occasions.
Leaving aside for the moment the inherent absurdity that a nation based on the pedigree of immigration can be overwhelmed by any number or type of additional immigrants--out of a current population of 315 millions, the undocumented or illegal population numbers about 11 millions, or roughly 3.5% of the total--let's focus only on the immediate "crisis" at hand, which is described as the illicit arrival--many via La Bestia--over the last almost a year of 57,000 illegally-immigrated minors (children) from Central America. That's right: children riding on top of La Bestia.
Here's something that might come as a surprise to most people: these 57,000 are not necessarily "illegals." Almost certainly some are, but with equal certainty some--perhaps the majority--are not.
Granted, 57,000 people in one place at one time can be a lot of people. But we're not talking about all of these people being in one place at one time. They are spread out over a huge geography, and over some significant amount of time. True, more have probably arrived since that number was counted, but some have already been returned to their countries of origin, all of which is a normal state of affairs.
Yes, believe it or not, there is some normalcy in this "crisis" story.
But let's work with that number: 57,000 added to 315 million works out to .02%, which is two one-hundredths of a percent of America's total population. That is a pretty small, almost miniscule, and proportionally insignificant, addition to the nation's count of residents.
Admittedly, managing to a situation such as this costs the country something, some of which was anticipated and therefore planned for. These 57,000 people are seeking asylum in the United States; asylum is a legal status, granted upon judicial review, and it has been around for decades. In particular, a specific law that was adopted by the U.S. six years ago in the waning months of the Bush 2 administration could apply to many of these 57,000 since it was crafted to offer asylum to Central American children who are determined to be at risk of exploitation by gangs and criminals (sometimes organized) in their home countries.
There's a much larger context to asylum than just the current plight of children from Central America. The United States offers asylum for many reasons, and the offers go out to people all over the world. In the years 2003 to 2012, the United States granted asylum to over 250,000 people from more than 100 countries.
During that time period, fewer than 10,000 of those grants of asylum were made to people from all Central American countries combined. Almost the same number of Ethiopians--about 9500--were granted asylum. Over in the Caribbean, Haiti by itself accounted for over 16,000 grants of asylum. China had the most: almost 65,000. (See the New Republic article by Danny Vinik that analyzes asylum data from the U.S. Government, and then presents it in a really nifty interactive map.)
Put all of this together--American history; immigrants being spread out over space and time; the legal and historical context of asylum--and the case for calling this situation a "crisis" is just not convincing. If there is anything of crisis in this, it is a crisis of our morals and ethics; but let's pass on discussion of that, at least for now, because my working assumption is that the great majority of Americans, when confronted with the reality of endangered children, will choose to provide those children with safety instead of returning them to an environment of hostility and criminal compulsion; especially when at least some of the root causes of that criminality emanate from America's own social and legal behaviors towards cocaine, heroin and other drugs.
Nonetheless, working through thousands of asylum-seekers is time-consuming and costly. I don't know what is the "right thing to do" for these people as individuals, because each one will have a different story. But taken together as a group, I know that the legalities of asylum require that due process be provided. America is, after all, a legalistic society. Tedious though that might be at times, it is our adherence to the "rule of law," as we call it, that helps us to build and maintain our leading position among the world's nations.
Additionally, in the current case of the Central American children, it is in the self-interest of law-abiding Americans to do whatever is possible and practical to show them that there are better ways to live than to return to an environment that could make them a part of criminal enterprises supplying illicit and dangerous drugs to the North American market. If we are law-abiding Americans, do we want to encourage young people to pursue criminal lifestyles that ultimately profit from the continuing use and purchase of dangerous drugs in the United States? I think not.
The larger question, of course, is this: Will the United States be welcoming to immigration, or hostile to it? There's a general feeling in this country that we Americans are opposed only to illegal immigration, and welcoming to legal immigration, and that this means that the United States is anything but hostile to immigration. Unfortunately, the whole story is that the U.S. provides immigration visas to only a small fraction of the apparently-qualified applicants, and so because of that fact we therefore severely restrict the number of foreign people who can legally move into the country and seek to become naturalized citizens.
Some will say that this is as it should be because the United States is populous enough as it is. Certainly, the size of the population bears watching, but also consider the nature of that population, and realize that without sustained, large numbers of immigrants--more than the U.S. currently allows in legally--the country faces two undeniable demographic shortcomings: first, large numbers of highly-skilled potential immigrants are denied access to America and therefore go elsewhere, enriching the business and innovation cultures of those other countries instead of doing so in the U.S.; and, second, America's population will age much faster with less immigration than it will with more immigration, which means fewer workers making money, paying taxes and supporting programs like Social Security and Medicare that are vitally important to an older population.
It's true, as some like to say, that a country must be able to control its borders. But the bigger truth is that border control is only a small part of the bigger picture. Is there an immigration crisis? Maybe so, but it's not a crisis of figuring out how to deport 57,000 children as quickly as possible; it's bigger than that.
(Note: this posting is corrected from the original with regard to math errors pointed out by an astute reader. I should have done a better job in proof-reading my own work. Sorry.)
Friday, August 1, 2014
Israelis and Palestinians today -- King Pyrrhus rides again
Some will read this article and conclude that I am biased, or prejudiced, or pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian; others will conclude that I am hopelessly naive or ill-informed. In truth, I have a normal set of biases and prejudices, and am both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. As for the hopeless part: there's always something else to learn, and optimism--which is my nature--is much different from naivete.
As I sit down to write this, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Hamas armed forces of the Gaza Palestinians have been in armed and bloody conflict for the last three weeks. The total number of deaths is approaching 2000, and it appears that about 90% of those deaths are Palestinian non-combatants. The fundamental cause of the fighting is that the Israelis feel threatened by the animosity and belligerence of the Hamas organization; the Palestinians, for their part, feel threatened by Israel's willingness and ability to destroy and isolate, both with impunity.
It really is that simple.
Yes, of course there are many other facts involved in the present battle; some, perhaps all, of them are important, but all else that can be said, whether factually or emotionally, is derivative of the fundamental causes: each side feels threatened by the other, and for good reason. This is a problem that is now over six decades old, with little or no current hope for resolution.
No outsider--least of all myself--can impose a solution to this problem on the parties involved; they must develop that solution themselves, and they must do it jointly. At the moment, of course, these two sides have no interest in doing anything together.
Make no mistake about the outcome of the current battle: the IDF will win. The rockets and tunnels used by Hamas to threaten Israel will be greatly diminished or eliminated; perhaps even Hamas will be destroyed as a governing and fighting organization. Israel will gain a measure of security, which it deserves; the Israelis will suffer relatively little in order to accomplish this. The Palestinians of Gaza will gain nothing, and will lose much and suffer greatly; they deserve better, but "better" will not happen for them if recent history is any guide.
Similar battles have been fought in recent years between the IDF and Hamas, with similar results. You would think that the leaderships would notice the futility, tragedy and expense of this, and then decide to try something different. In that regard, Israel's government and Hamas share a gruesome bond.
Through its endemic corruptions and ineffectiveness Hamas has utterly failed its constituents of Gaza. By denying Israel's right to existence and security, Hamas also prohibits the development of leadership for the Gazans, since leadership depends upon the ability to recognize reality, and also to recognize that mass hallucinations are eventually overwhelmed by the greater massiveness of reality.
Israel's government, for its part, is equally guilty of ineffective leadership, although in more subtle ways. Its subtly hides an inability to recognize that the future of Israel is one of decline unless it develops a new strategy for living alongside the Palestinians.
The IDF does a good job of winning Israel's battles, but each battle which is won--in a military sense--incurs a greater cost for Israel in larger ways. Not only does the majority of the rest of the world take notice of and deplore the toll of Palestinian non-combatants in these battles, but there is a growing sense that Israel has willfully established itself as overlord of the Palestinians, and yet accepts and fulfills only the most rudimentary responsibilities of overlordship, and does so reluctantly and minimally.
International sentiment is turning away from Israel. This is a great cost for a small country. The IDF wins the battles, but Israel might be losing the war, because the total cost of winning those individual engagements is disproportionally high for the size of the country.
Some twenty-three centuries ago King Pyrrhus had a similar experience. His army fought battles with the Romans and others; the King's forces won those battles, with fewer casualties than their opponents. But the cost to King Pyrrhus, in relative terms, was higher than it was for the other side, and so King Pyrrhus lost the war. (He also lost his life in battle; possibly this happened because he wasn't aware that the greater part of the world--as he knew it--had turned against him.)
The State of Israel deserves to exist in peace and security. Likewise, the Palestinians deserve their own State of Palestine that will exist in peace and security. Both sides deserve leadership that understands and acknowledges that these are fundamental and equal requirements for achieving a peaceful coexistence that is mutually beneficial.
As said above, there's no way to impose a solution from the outside. However, if it were up to me, I would say that the only way to get to a solution is for both sides to be willing to give up something of great value to the other side. Probably the only thing left of value to the Palestinians--certainly the Gazans--is Hamas' intransigence towards Israel's very existence; they should be prepared to give that away, either through an ideological change or by removal of Hamas from the picture (peacefully, I hope, and not brutally). Such an offer would be of existential value to the Israelis.
For Israel's part, its current holding that is of great value to the Palestinians is the ability to nurture an independent Palestinian state, with all the territorial integrity that would come with statehood. Success might require that Israel give up some land that it now occupies. If the current Israeli government can develop enough foresight to see that this would be a small price to pay for existential security, then let them do it; if they cannot develop that foresight, then Israel needs a new government.
A message to the vast majorities of people on both sides in this conflict: Get yourselves some real leadership that thinks in terms of mutual respect and integrity; do so, and over time the feelings of being threatened and being insecure will go away. That means no more fighting, no more killing, no more destruction, no more lingering bitterness and misery. Finding the right kind of leadership might take some real effort, but the long-term benefits will make it all worthwhile.
As I sit down to write this, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Hamas armed forces of the Gaza Palestinians have been in armed and bloody conflict for the last three weeks. The total number of deaths is approaching 2000, and it appears that about 90% of those deaths are Palestinian non-combatants. The fundamental cause of the fighting is that the Israelis feel threatened by the animosity and belligerence of the Hamas organization; the Palestinians, for their part, feel threatened by Israel's willingness and ability to destroy and isolate, both with impunity.
It really is that simple.
Yes, of course there are many other facts involved in the present battle; some, perhaps all, of them are important, but all else that can be said, whether factually or emotionally, is derivative of the fundamental causes: each side feels threatened by the other, and for good reason. This is a problem that is now over six decades old, with little or no current hope for resolution.
No outsider--least of all myself--can impose a solution to this problem on the parties involved; they must develop that solution themselves, and they must do it jointly. At the moment, of course, these two sides have no interest in doing anything together.
Make no mistake about the outcome of the current battle: the IDF will win. The rockets and tunnels used by Hamas to threaten Israel will be greatly diminished or eliminated; perhaps even Hamas will be destroyed as a governing and fighting organization. Israel will gain a measure of security, which it deserves; the Israelis will suffer relatively little in order to accomplish this. The Palestinians of Gaza will gain nothing, and will lose much and suffer greatly; they deserve better, but "better" will not happen for them if recent history is any guide.
Similar battles have been fought in recent years between the IDF and Hamas, with similar results. You would think that the leaderships would notice the futility, tragedy and expense of this, and then decide to try something different. In that regard, Israel's government and Hamas share a gruesome bond.
Through its endemic corruptions and ineffectiveness Hamas has utterly failed its constituents of Gaza. By denying Israel's right to existence and security, Hamas also prohibits the development of leadership for the Gazans, since leadership depends upon the ability to recognize reality, and also to recognize that mass hallucinations are eventually overwhelmed by the greater massiveness of reality.
Israel's government, for its part, is equally guilty of ineffective leadership, although in more subtle ways. Its subtly hides an inability to recognize that the future of Israel is one of decline unless it develops a new strategy for living alongside the Palestinians.
The IDF does a good job of winning Israel's battles, but each battle which is won--in a military sense--incurs a greater cost for Israel in larger ways. Not only does the majority of the rest of the world take notice of and deplore the toll of Palestinian non-combatants in these battles, but there is a growing sense that Israel has willfully established itself as overlord of the Palestinians, and yet accepts and fulfills only the most rudimentary responsibilities of overlordship, and does so reluctantly and minimally.
International sentiment is turning away from Israel. This is a great cost for a small country. The IDF wins the battles, but Israel might be losing the war, because the total cost of winning those individual engagements is disproportionally high for the size of the country.
Some twenty-three centuries ago King Pyrrhus had a similar experience. His army fought battles with the Romans and others; the King's forces won those battles, with fewer casualties than their opponents. But the cost to King Pyrrhus, in relative terms, was higher than it was for the other side, and so King Pyrrhus lost the war. (He also lost his life in battle; possibly this happened because he wasn't aware that the greater part of the world--as he knew it--had turned against him.)
The State of Israel deserves to exist in peace and security. Likewise, the Palestinians deserve their own State of Palestine that will exist in peace and security. Both sides deserve leadership that understands and acknowledges that these are fundamental and equal requirements for achieving a peaceful coexistence that is mutually beneficial.
As said above, there's no way to impose a solution from the outside. However, if it were up to me, I would say that the only way to get to a solution is for both sides to be willing to give up something of great value to the other side. Probably the only thing left of value to the Palestinians--certainly the Gazans--is Hamas' intransigence towards Israel's very existence; they should be prepared to give that away, either through an ideological change or by removal of Hamas from the picture (peacefully, I hope, and not brutally). Such an offer would be of existential value to the Israelis.
For Israel's part, its current holding that is of great value to the Palestinians is the ability to nurture an independent Palestinian state, with all the territorial integrity that would come with statehood. Success might require that Israel give up some land that it now occupies. If the current Israeli government can develop enough foresight to see that this would be a small price to pay for existential security, then let them do it; if they cannot develop that foresight, then Israel needs a new government.
A message to the vast majorities of people on both sides in this conflict: Get yourselves some real leadership that thinks in terms of mutual respect and integrity; do so, and over time the feelings of being threatened and being insecure will go away. That means no more fighting, no more killing, no more destruction, no more lingering bitterness and misery. Finding the right kind of leadership might take some real effort, but the long-term benefits will make it all worthwhile.
Friday, June 6, 2014
USA -- Nothing else says "hypocrisy" like the words "war on coal"
A few days ago, in advance of last Monday's announcement by the Obama Administration of proposed new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions rules for the nation's coal-fired power plants, I was getting myself mentally lathered-up to write about the inevitable poorly-founded Republican and special-interest opposition to such a worthy ground-breaking initiative.
As it turns out, I was wasting my time. Here's why: These proposed new regulations are, unfortunately, not very challenging; in fact, it's hard to call them ground-breaking. The 30% reduction in carbon emissions called for by the proposed new EPA regulations can be achieved by the power generation industry if they just simply keep on doing what they have already been doing.
Accomplishing a 30% emissions reduction in the next 15 years--the proposed regulations are not immediately effective, as the process requires a one-year period of commentary and revisions first--doesn't seem very challenging to me; when you do the math, it probably doesn't seem that challenging to you, either.
But, it's even easier than it would seem after doing the math. Why? you might ask. Because, I would answer, the baseline year is not 2014 or 2015, but instead it is 2005, and in the last nine years these emissions have already been reduced by about half of the target of 30%! So, according to the regulations as they are currently proposed, the power generation industry must accomplish over the next fifteen years about the same as they have accomplished during the last nine years. In other words, they need to accomplish a 15% reduction over a period of 15 years, when they've already done the same in 9 years.
If America's taipans of power can't do that by just getting out of bed in the morning and going to work, then we need new taipans.
Yes, I realize there are lots of moving pieces that affect power generation. For example, it's been relatively easy over the last few years to replace thermal coal with natural gas because of the emergence of relatively inexpensive natural gas as an alternative fuel, which offsets the costs of plant conversion. And then there's the argument that plays so well in all of those coal-mining states: Coal means jobs!
The economic reality, of course, is brutally in favor of continuing to reduce the use of thermal coal for a couple of reasons. First, natural gas is abundant; even the most conservative estimates of America's natural gas resources speak in terms of supplies that can last for centuries. Second, the labor part of the business of extracting and delivering coal is dirty, dangerous and undesirable; over the next decade-and-a-half, most of the people involved in that labor will either die, retire or engage in more agreeable employment.
Bear in mind the fact that coal miners have been passing away, retiring or moving to better jobs for the last nine years as the power industry has been reducing its reliance on coal. If the numerical impact on that labor force is proportional to the change in need for its product--seems like a reasonable assumption to me--then changes that have happened over nine years will now be spread out over fifteen years, thus making for more manageable changes in the overall employment environment.
I think these things by themselves close the case in an economic sense, even without adding in the economic, emotional, mental and human benefits of a population that will enjoy better health.
We need the proposed new EPA regulations; without them, there's nothing to nudge the power industry to make further improvements in their operations that will mean cleaner air for us to look through and breath into our lungs. If it were up to me, we would be doing more. . .but that's a conversation for another time.
The effort I first spent on this wasn't entirely wasted; I'm still using the same title, because I think it's a good one.
For those who are interested, what follows is the original, lathered-up version.
****************************************************************************
You would think that it would be relatively easy for Americans to agree that breathing polluted air is bad, and acting to remove pollution is good. We decided this decades ago, with bipartisan agreement from both major political parties--Democratic and Republican--as well as most of the minor parties.
It seems that some people have forgotten this and so they want to waste good air--presumably they wouldn't want to suck up bad air since that would send them into fits of coughing or worse--by objecting to the next expected step in further reducing airborne pollution, which is to begin the process of putting a stake through the heart of King Coal.
The squeamish among America's political class--admittedly and shamefully, this includes some Democrats, but mostly it's Republicans--feverishly chant that this is "Obama's war on coal!" They understate the reality. It's a war on a power-generating substance which has reigned supreme with disguised malevolence for two centuries. The combustion of which corrupts our air, land and water with chemicals which are inimical to all higher forms of life on Earth, including--and especially--the bipedal life forms known as homo sapiens sapiens; that's us. Don't call it simply coal; call it King Coal, because it has powered the furnaces and generators and engines needed by a developing and growing civilization for generations. Yes, we needed it, and so we willingly gave our fealty while basking in the protective warmth of those furnaces. But King Coal has always deceived us about the costs of our feudal relationship. The price of living under King Coal's protection is more than what we could see we were paying for discovery, extraction, transportation and combustion. Much more.
We've already had the debate about the not so obvious costs of a dirty environment, and the importance and values of a cleaner living environment, starting in the 1950s, gaining clarity in the '60s--remember Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring?"--and then the decision being decisively awarded in the early '70s with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the federal government by the Republican Administration of Richard Nixon and the Democratic-majority House and Senate. The Clean Air Act legislation was a companion product to the formation of the EPA. Seems like a pretty solid piece of bipartisan commitment to me.
Which brings us to the here-and-now, with the Obama Administration set to announce soon a set of reduction actions, under the authority of the Clean Air Act, that must be taken over the next several years by coal-fired electricity plants. Already, the Chamber of Commerce and other similar special-interest groups, and their bought-and-paid-for anti-environmental politicians, have objected to these actions by saying that they are too expensive--they peg the cost at $50 billion annually, which they somehow figured out before the program has been announced--and that jobs will be lost if the actions are taken.
If these people who oppose the next steps needed to clean the environment know what they are talking about, then they sure are doing a good job of hiding that fact.
First of all, let's assume that the $50 billion figure is accurate, which is just an assumption. In a $17 trillion economy, $50 billion is hardly even a rounding error. But the whole discussion is pointless, because it will take time to figure out these numbers. The fact that these people are throwing figures like this around even before the program is announced is just evidence that they don't want to engage in a fact-based discussion.
The same holds true for any commentary on job losses. I don't doubt that reducing the use of coal will cause some coal mining jobs to go away. That's not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it even an event that will have an adverse effect on the people who currently hold those jobs. Coal mining is dangerous, dirty and unhealthy work; that's the kind of employment that ought to decrease over time.
In fact, many of today's jobs related to the finding, extraction and transportation of coal are going to be around for a good amount of time yet. Reducing coal usage will not take place overnight, and normal employment attrition might well balance the books as coal-related job opportunities fade away.
I wish we could do without the use of coal entirely, because I believe we would all be better off for doing so. That's not going to happen soon, certainly not in the next few decades. But the new EPA regulations point us in the right direction.
As it turns out, I was wasting my time. Here's why: These proposed new regulations are, unfortunately, not very challenging; in fact, it's hard to call them ground-breaking. The 30% reduction in carbon emissions called for by the proposed new EPA regulations can be achieved by the power generation industry if they just simply keep on doing what they have already been doing.
Accomplishing a 30% emissions reduction in the next 15 years--the proposed regulations are not immediately effective, as the process requires a one-year period of commentary and revisions first--doesn't seem very challenging to me; when you do the math, it probably doesn't seem that challenging to you, either.
But, it's even easier than it would seem after doing the math. Why? you might ask. Because, I would answer, the baseline year is not 2014 or 2015, but instead it is 2005, and in the last nine years these emissions have already been reduced by about half of the target of 30%! So, according to the regulations as they are currently proposed, the power generation industry must accomplish over the next fifteen years about the same as they have accomplished during the last nine years. In other words, they need to accomplish a 15% reduction over a period of 15 years, when they've already done the same in 9 years.
If America's taipans of power can't do that by just getting out of bed in the morning and going to work, then we need new taipans.
Yes, I realize there are lots of moving pieces that affect power generation. For example, it's been relatively easy over the last few years to replace thermal coal with natural gas because of the emergence of relatively inexpensive natural gas as an alternative fuel, which offsets the costs of plant conversion. And then there's the argument that plays so well in all of those coal-mining states: Coal means jobs!
The economic reality, of course, is brutally in favor of continuing to reduce the use of thermal coal for a couple of reasons. First, natural gas is abundant; even the most conservative estimates of America's natural gas resources speak in terms of supplies that can last for centuries. Second, the labor part of the business of extracting and delivering coal is dirty, dangerous and undesirable; over the next decade-and-a-half, most of the people involved in that labor will either die, retire or engage in more agreeable employment.
Bear in mind the fact that coal miners have been passing away, retiring or moving to better jobs for the last nine years as the power industry has been reducing its reliance on coal. If the numerical impact on that labor force is proportional to the change in need for its product--seems like a reasonable assumption to me--then changes that have happened over nine years will now be spread out over fifteen years, thus making for more manageable changes in the overall employment environment.
I think these things by themselves close the case in an economic sense, even without adding in the economic, emotional, mental and human benefits of a population that will enjoy better health.
We need the proposed new EPA regulations; without them, there's nothing to nudge the power industry to make further improvements in their operations that will mean cleaner air for us to look through and breath into our lungs. If it were up to me, we would be doing more. . .but that's a conversation for another time.
The effort I first spent on this wasn't entirely wasted; I'm still using the same title, because I think it's a good one.
For those who are interested, what follows is the original, lathered-up version.
****************************************************************************
You would think that it would be relatively easy for Americans to agree that breathing polluted air is bad, and acting to remove pollution is good. We decided this decades ago, with bipartisan agreement from both major political parties--Democratic and Republican--as well as most of the minor parties.
It seems that some people have forgotten this and so they want to waste good air--presumably they wouldn't want to suck up bad air since that would send them into fits of coughing or worse--by objecting to the next expected step in further reducing airborne pollution, which is to begin the process of putting a stake through the heart of King Coal.
The squeamish among America's political class--admittedly and shamefully, this includes some Democrats, but mostly it's Republicans--feverishly chant that this is "Obama's war on coal!" They understate the reality. It's a war on a power-generating substance which has reigned supreme with disguised malevolence for two centuries. The combustion of which corrupts our air, land and water with chemicals which are inimical to all higher forms of life on Earth, including--and especially--the bipedal life forms known as homo sapiens sapiens; that's us. Don't call it simply coal; call it King Coal, because it has powered the furnaces and generators and engines needed by a developing and growing civilization for generations. Yes, we needed it, and so we willingly gave our fealty while basking in the protective warmth of those furnaces. But King Coal has always deceived us about the costs of our feudal relationship. The price of living under King Coal's protection is more than what we could see we were paying for discovery, extraction, transportation and combustion. Much more.
We've already had the debate about the not so obvious costs of a dirty environment, and the importance and values of a cleaner living environment, starting in the 1950s, gaining clarity in the '60s--remember Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring?"--and then the decision being decisively awarded in the early '70s with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the federal government by the Republican Administration of Richard Nixon and the Democratic-majority House and Senate. The Clean Air Act legislation was a companion product to the formation of the EPA. Seems like a pretty solid piece of bipartisan commitment to me.
Which brings us to the here-and-now, with the Obama Administration set to announce soon a set of reduction actions, under the authority of the Clean Air Act, that must be taken over the next several years by coal-fired electricity plants. Already, the Chamber of Commerce and other similar special-interest groups, and their bought-and-paid-for anti-environmental politicians, have objected to these actions by saying that they are too expensive--they peg the cost at $50 billion annually, which they somehow figured out before the program has been announced--and that jobs will be lost if the actions are taken.
If these people who oppose the next steps needed to clean the environment know what they are talking about, then they sure are doing a good job of hiding that fact.
First of all, let's assume that the $50 billion figure is accurate, which is just an assumption. In a $17 trillion economy, $50 billion is hardly even a rounding error. But the whole discussion is pointless, because it will take time to figure out these numbers. The fact that these people are throwing figures like this around even before the program is announced is just evidence that they don't want to engage in a fact-based discussion.
The same holds true for any commentary on job losses. I don't doubt that reducing the use of coal will cause some coal mining jobs to go away. That's not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it even an event that will have an adverse effect on the people who currently hold those jobs. Coal mining is dangerous, dirty and unhealthy work; that's the kind of employment that ought to decrease over time.
In fact, many of today's jobs related to the finding, extraction and transportation of coal are going to be around for a good amount of time yet. Reducing coal usage will not take place overnight, and normal employment attrition might well balance the books as coal-related job opportunities fade away.
I wish we could do without the use of coal entirely, because I believe we would all be better off for doing so. That's not going to happen soon, certainly not in the next few decades. But the new EPA regulations point us in the right direction.
Friday, May 16, 2014
U.S.A -- Making do with an old Constitution
Is __________________ (fill in the blank) constitutional or unconstitutional? Here in the United States we seem to ask that question often.
If you were asked to render an opinion on the constitutionality of a law or an action--in other words, deciding if something is constitutional or unconstitutional--how would you go about doing that? For example, might you read the text of the Constitution, looking for a reference to the matter under consideration, and then make your decision based on the wording that is found, with the feeling that if no such reference exists in the Constitution then the presumed law or action might well be unconstitutional?
With that approach, you would have to read all the way through the main body of the Constitution, and continue reading past the first twelve Amendments, to arrive at the conclusion that slavery is unconstitutional. If you were to stop reading at the end of the Constitution--as originally written--you would have to conclude that slavery was perfectly legal in this country, which was the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
You might read that far and then beyond, all the way to the last Amendment--#27, or Amendment XXVII, adopted in 1992--and reasonably conclude that the Air Force is unconstitutional, since it is nowhere described within the Constitution or those Amendments, even though the Army and the Navy are specifically mentioned.
In a few months--on September 17--the Constitution of the United States of America will be two hundred twenty seven years old. The world, and the nation, are a whole lot different now than they were when the Constitution was written in the 1780s. Nothing lasts forever.
It's time to start thinking about writing a new Constitution.
We've done it before. The United States did not start with the Constitution that we have now. Instead, the nation was born with a different supreme governing law of the land; it was called the Articles of Confederation. Those Articles acted as a national constitution for the duration of the Revolution and the subsequent time of peace during the early to mid-1780s.
The Articles of Confederation never worked very well. The national government was small, dysfunctional and weak. It was just barely able to establish working relations with the governments of other nations, it depended for its success on the voluntary cooperation of the thirteen individual state governments, and it had little ability to raise national revenues. As a result, it took years longer than should have been needed to convince European governments of the sincerity and eventual success of the American Revolution, and the Continental Army--and embryonic Navy--were constantly underfunded. In fact, by the time that the Revolution was successfully concluded with the Treaty of Paris, there was so little that the national government was able to do for the individual states that a common thought in Great Britain was that those states, within a few years, would start drifting back to the Mother Country, seeking the protection and stability of Crown and Parliament.
So, we already know that we can write a new governing law for the land and use it to replace an old one that has become out-of-date. Why should it be done now? And, even if there are good reasons to write a new constitution, is there another, less disruptive solution that could work just as well?
This practice did not originate in America; it probably started with the British monarchy during the mid-1300s. French was the language commonly spoken by British royalty and nobility at that time, hence the Gallic appearance of the terminology. Sir Francis Drake was probably the most famous holder of a letter of marque, which was granted to him by Queen Elizabeth I.
Issuing letters of marque might have made some sense for the United States when the country had an insignificant Navy, but it makes no sense at all at a time when the U.S. Navy wields more firepower than all of the other navies of the world combined. Nor is it a sensible tool to hold when the nations of the world are united in condemning and combating piracy in all its forms.
Another example: the Constitution retains its original wording regarding the difference between "free persons" and "all other Persons." It also still has the statement that Senators are to be chosen by the state legislatures. Both of these, of course, have been corrected and superseded by Amendments, but the original wording remains.
There are flaws of omission, too. The Constitution, even with the addition of the Bill of Rights of the first ten Amendments, is weak on provisions for the protection of personal privacy, whether from intrusion by law enforcement and our own government, by other individuals, or by businesses and organizations of any size and type. Regarding impeachment, the Constitution fails to define what could be a reason for impeachment, other than to describe it as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Treason and bribery are probably fairly straight-forward, but the rest is vague at best, and a springboard for political cupidity at worst.
There are plenty of good reasons to create a new constitution, but it's not likely to happen any time soon. The inertia of human apathy, and the current political disagreements over the responsibilities of a national government, probably prohibit any meaningful attempt at achieving something that can be expected to last for another one or two hundred years.
So, instead we content ourselves with a judicial system that is expected to render Olympian judgments on matters of constitutionality that are increasingly distant from the realities of the day when the Constitution of the United States was written. From the standpoint of liberal progressives such as myself, that's not such a bad thing, as long as the judiciary making those decisions is largely composed of people who believe that which seems to be obvious for the long-term viability of the nation: the U.S. Constitution must be increasingly interpreted to accommodate contemporary realities, rather than judging by trying to make contemporary realities fit into the more than two century old box of original intent.
As time goes by, it becomes more and more important to ask the questions "Why do we care about the original intent of the framers of the Constitution? How should the original intent be updated to take into account today's lifestyle and social contexts, instead of the contexts of the late 18th century?"
Fortunately for America, the ambiguities inherent in the Constitution, along with the general acceptance of the practice of judicial interpretation, have combined to enable gradual legal adaptations over time so that the Constitution is still effective, even if it isn't perfect.
But, in the absence of a new and more current constitution, we are going to have to prepare ourselves for an increasing tug-of-war over the how far the nation's laws should stray from the original intent of the Constitution. Times change and people change, and laws of the time will have to change to keep abreast of the needs of the people. Consider this: the U.S. Constitution was written from a predominantly Anglo-Saxon perspective by a predominantly Anglo-Saxon population; by mid-century, the United States will no longer have a predominantly Anglo-Saxon population. In some ways, even now the population is no longer predominantly Anglo-Saxon. As for perspective, that which reflects an Anglo-Saxon type of outlook will continue to be hugely influential for the foreseeable future, but other types of outlook are emerging (and have emerged) and will expect to be adopted into the legal system, too.
There's a much-quoted, but largely under-appreciated, part of the Constitution that provides the best indication of anticipation on the part of the members of the Constitutional Convention that their final production would, in fact, be liberally interpreted over time. It's the Preamble, which sets huge national goals for things that naturally have evolving definitions: justice, domestic tranquility, defense, welfare, and blessings of liberty. Everything else that comes after the Preamble builds the apparatus that we use to achieve these goals.
This is a design for a powerful national government. A limited and shackled national government cannot accomplish nor can it maintain these things. I say this with all due respect to today's limited-government denizens of the tea party cliques. American government is far from perfect, but a small and wimpy government cannot accomplish the lofty goals of the Preamble to the Constitution. We already know that because we tried such a government first, and it failed.
A new American Constitution, properly crafted, would serve the country better than an old one that has had to be amended for improvement, and which is based in human experiences that are more than two centuries in the past. Can we muddle along with what we already have without replacing it? Probably, but that means continually charting and re-charting a course between original intent and contemporary interpretation, and that will be a ride that's likely to be something similar to charting a course between two black holes.
If you were asked to render an opinion on the constitutionality of a law or an action--in other words, deciding if something is constitutional or unconstitutional--how would you go about doing that? For example, might you read the text of the Constitution, looking for a reference to the matter under consideration, and then make your decision based on the wording that is found, with the feeling that if no such reference exists in the Constitution then the presumed law or action might well be unconstitutional?
With that approach, you would have to read all the way through the main body of the Constitution, and continue reading past the first twelve Amendments, to arrive at the conclusion that slavery is unconstitutional. If you were to stop reading at the end of the Constitution--as originally written--you would have to conclude that slavery was perfectly legal in this country, which was the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
You might read that far and then beyond, all the way to the last Amendment--#27, or Amendment XXVII, adopted in 1992--and reasonably conclude that the Air Force is unconstitutional, since it is nowhere described within the Constitution or those Amendments, even though the Army and the Navy are specifically mentioned.
In a few months--on September 17--the Constitution of the United States of America will be two hundred twenty seven years old. The world, and the nation, are a whole lot different now than they were when the Constitution was written in the 1780s. Nothing lasts forever.
It's time to start thinking about writing a new Constitution.
Pre-Constitution: Articles of Confederation
Most people will read that last statement and react with a hearty response of something along the lines of "That's the craziest idea I've heard in a long time!" Well, maybe so, but not because it cannot, or should not, be done. It can be done--people are just as able to write laws today as they were in the 18th century (maybe more so). It should be done--our Constitution is creaking under the weight of more than two centuries of change.We've done it before. The United States did not start with the Constitution that we have now. Instead, the nation was born with a different supreme governing law of the land; it was called the Articles of Confederation. Those Articles acted as a national constitution for the duration of the Revolution and the subsequent time of peace during the early to mid-1780s.
The Articles of Confederation never worked very well. The national government was small, dysfunctional and weak. It was just barely able to establish working relations with the governments of other nations, it depended for its success on the voluntary cooperation of the thirteen individual state governments, and it had little ability to raise national revenues. As a result, it took years longer than should have been needed to convince European governments of the sincerity and eventual success of the American Revolution, and the Continental Army--and embryonic Navy--were constantly underfunded. In fact, by the time that the Revolution was successfully concluded with the Treaty of Paris, there was so little that the national government was able to do for the individual states that a common thought in Great Britain was that those states, within a few years, would start drifting back to the Mother Country, seeking the protection and stability of Crown and Parliament.
A national government that was given a fighting chance
The world of the mid-1780s looked a whole lot different from the world of the early and mid-1770s. Those differences are what motivated the leading American citizens of the time to write a new constitution for the country. They dropped the reference to a loosely-organized confederation of states by naming the document the Constitution of the United States. That was a clear statement of legal principle and national intent that was meant to cure one of the major ailments of the time: the states were to be firmly bound together, with no drifting back towards Great Britain.So, we already know that we can write a new governing law for the land and use it to replace an old one that has become out-of-date. Why should it be done now? And, even if there are good reasons to write a new constitution, is there another, less disruptive solution that could work just as well?
Our constitution includes some really old and odd ideas
There are good reasons to write a new constitution. As it stands now our constitution has content that was relevant in the 18th century, but no longer has any meaning in the 21st century. For example, did you know that it gives Congress the authority to issue letters of marque? Most people today don't have the faintest idea of what a letter of marque is, or what it means. (I'm going to guess that most Members of Congress have no idea what a letter of marque is, or even that they have the authority to issue one.) A letter of marque is a governmental authorization given to a private shipowner to arm that ship--at the owner's expense--and then sail the high seas with the goal of capturing, and then selling for profit, the shipping of another country. Basically, this was legalized piracy.This practice did not originate in America; it probably started with the British monarchy during the mid-1300s. French was the language commonly spoken by British royalty and nobility at that time, hence the Gallic appearance of the terminology. Sir Francis Drake was probably the most famous holder of a letter of marque, which was granted to him by Queen Elizabeth I.
Issuing letters of marque might have made some sense for the United States when the country had an insignificant Navy, but it makes no sense at all at a time when the U.S. Navy wields more firepower than all of the other navies of the world combined. Nor is it a sensible tool to hold when the nations of the world are united in condemning and combating piracy in all its forms.
Another example: the Constitution retains its original wording regarding the difference between "free persons" and "all other Persons." It also still has the statement that Senators are to be chosen by the state legislatures. Both of these, of course, have been corrected and superseded by Amendments, but the original wording remains.
There are flaws of omission, too. The Constitution, even with the addition of the Bill of Rights of the first ten Amendments, is weak on provisions for the protection of personal privacy, whether from intrusion by law enforcement and our own government, by other individuals, or by businesses and organizations of any size and type. Regarding impeachment, the Constitution fails to define what could be a reason for impeachment, other than to describe it as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Treason and bribery are probably fairly straight-forward, but the rest is vague at best, and a springboard for political cupidity at worst.
It's a different world now
The constitution that we are living with was written when the United States was a primarily rural, agricultural nation of less than four million total population. Today, the U.S. is populated by over 318 million people who live mostly in metropolitan areas--each of which is composed of millions of residents whose occupation is anything but an agricultural endeavor. It's probably obvious to most that the United States of the 1780s had no Internet and television, but here are other things that it did not have: paved roads, railroads, pipelines, massive coal mines, No. 2 pencils, oil wells, electricity, steamships, guns that could shoot more than once without reloading, bicycles, tennis balls and racquets, barbed wire, telegraph lines, ballpoint pens, police forces, observable theory of evolution, pharmaceuticals, telephones, quantum mechanics, space travel, airplanes, hospital emergency rooms, public education, black holes (they were around, of course, but we didn't know about them), medical records, stop signs on the roads, canals with barges, mega-huge corporations, a stock market. . .the list could go on and on. Some things arrived after the Constitution was written, changed the world, and then became obsolete by something else that arrived later and changed the world again.There are plenty of good reasons to create a new constitution, but it's not likely to happen any time soon. The inertia of human apathy, and the current political disagreements over the responsibilities of a national government, probably prohibit any meaningful attempt at achieving something that can be expected to last for another one or two hundred years.
So, instead we content ourselves with a judicial system that is expected to render Olympian judgments on matters of constitutionality that are increasingly distant from the realities of the day when the Constitution of the United States was written. From the standpoint of liberal progressives such as myself, that's not such a bad thing, as long as the judiciary making those decisions is largely composed of people who believe that which seems to be obvious for the long-term viability of the nation: the U.S. Constitution must be increasingly interpreted to accommodate contemporary realities, rather than judging by trying to make contemporary realities fit into the more than two century old box of original intent.
As time goes by, it becomes more and more important to ask the questions "Why do we care about the original intent of the framers of the Constitution? How should the original intent be updated to take into account today's lifestyle and social contexts, instead of the contexts of the late 18th century?"
Maybe it can be interpreted in endless ways
As each year goes by, it becomes more and more absurd to try to make constitutional judgments that are substantiated by the idea of original intent, simply because we change and our world changes. This makes life harder for the political and judicial conservatives in the country, because they put themselves in the position of defending something that is less relevant to a modern society. "Less relevant" doesn't mean irrelevant, it just means that there are more and more chinks in the armor plating of original intent.Fortunately for America, the ambiguities inherent in the Constitution, along with the general acceptance of the practice of judicial interpretation, have combined to enable gradual legal adaptations over time so that the Constitution is still effective, even if it isn't perfect.
But, in the absence of a new and more current constitution, we are going to have to prepare ourselves for an increasing tug-of-war over the how far the nation's laws should stray from the original intent of the Constitution. Times change and people change, and laws of the time will have to change to keep abreast of the needs of the people. Consider this: the U.S. Constitution was written from a predominantly Anglo-Saxon perspective by a predominantly Anglo-Saxon population; by mid-century, the United States will no longer have a predominantly Anglo-Saxon population. In some ways, even now the population is no longer predominantly Anglo-Saxon. As for perspective, that which reflects an Anglo-Saxon type of outlook will continue to be hugely influential for the foreseeable future, but other types of outlook are emerging (and have emerged) and will expect to be adopted into the legal system, too.
There's a much-quoted, but largely under-appreciated, part of the Constitution that provides the best indication of anticipation on the part of the members of the Constitutional Convention that their final production would, in fact, be liberally interpreted over time. It's the Preamble, which sets huge national goals for things that naturally have evolving definitions: justice, domestic tranquility, defense, welfare, and blessings of liberty. Everything else that comes after the Preamble builds the apparatus that we use to achieve these goals.
This is a design for a powerful national government. A limited and shackled national government cannot accomplish nor can it maintain these things. I say this with all due respect to today's limited-government denizens of the tea party cliques. American government is far from perfect, but a small and wimpy government cannot accomplish the lofty goals of the Preamble to the Constitution. We already know that because we tried such a government first, and it failed.
A new American Constitution, properly crafted, would serve the country better than an old one that has had to be amended for improvement, and which is based in human experiences that are more than two centuries in the past. Can we muddle along with what we already have without replacing it? Probably, but that means continually charting and re-charting a course between original intent and contemporary interpretation, and that will be a ride that's likely to be something similar to charting a course between two black holes.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
About this Texas vs. California thing: Enough Already!
The following commentary is written for publication in LeftWingCapitalist by my good friend and multiple-time guest commentator Guy Heston.
***
Toyota Motor Corporation’s recent announcement that it will move
much of its United States administrative operations from California to Texas
has some Texas officials gloating, especially the governor, and some California
officials moaning, especially the mayor of Torrance, where the Toyota offices
and about 3,000 jobs are currently and soon to be formerly located. Many of the
comments are along the line of Toyota’s decision being proof of the business
friendly Texas climate or the business unfriendly climate of California.
There are, however, various problems with the narrative.
Reviewing Toyota’s manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, it seems
obvious the company’s motivation was Toyota wanting to have administrative
functions closer to manufacturing functions.
James Lentz, Toyota North America’s CEO, was quoted in the Los Angeles
Times, “It doesn’t make sense to have oversight of manufacturing 2,000 miles
away from where the cars were made.” Corporations often move things and people
about for logistic improvements and overall efficiency. Synergy and all that.
The moving companies love it.
Texas also gave Toyota a $40 million tax credit at taxpayers’
expense. Lots of other states do this sort of thing to attract a company from
another state, and as Edward Alden and Rebecca Strauss, a senior fellow and the
associate director of the Council on Foreign Relations, respectively, wrote in
their May 10, 2014, New York Times column “How to End State Subsidies”, “From a
national perspective, this is about as dumb as it gets.” They argued states
would be far better off to work together to end such subsidies and invest in
education or infrastructure or just lower overall tax rates.
But if you really want to get into this Texas versus California
thing, Google “Texas versus California” and pick your hits. Not surprisingly,
the business magazine website forbes.com offers a good case that Texas is a
better place to do business, while businessinsider.com gives the nod to
California as a better place for business and family. About Google, please note
it is headquartered in Mountain View, CA, whereas Apple is headquartered in
Cupertino, CA, whereas the Walt Disney Company is headquartered in Burbank, CA.
Not to brag or anything. By the way, the Yahoo headquarters are in Sunnyvale,
CA. How these companies deal with the supposedly awful California business
climate I do not know.
Next let’s have a look at the Toyota facilities in Torrance, CA.
The loss of Toyota employees is a short term blow to California for sure. But
anyone with knowledge of the California real estate market can tell you the
Toyota campus (I have been there and it definitely has the look of a beautiful
university campus) is primo South Bay property that will be immensely
attractive to other employers and well-paid employees. Jobs move out, jobs move in, and so it goes.
Incidentally, the multinational biopharmaceutical company Amgen is
headquartered in Thousand Oaks, CA, where it somehow manages to comply with
California business regulations and make a tidy profit.
So pick your metric. Lower labor costs, Texas. Cheaper land,
Texas. Less business regulation, Texas. A higher graduation rate from college,
California (good luck with that metric, Toyota). Stricter environmental
protection regulations, California. Higher rate of residents without health
insurance, Texas. Oh, before I forget, Lucasfilm, in case you want to watch
“Star Wars” or something, is headquartered in San Francisco, CA. Just saying.
But here is my biggest problem with this Texas versus California
thing. It is not nice and not neighborly. When did it become OK for a governor
like Mr. Perry to fly about the country bragging about trying to take companies
from another state and throw people there out of work? Maybe you want to be
President or something, but there is no need to be rude. We are the United
States, meaning we hope that 50 states that have many differences will still
act as one country and support each other state as best we can, regardless of
our various regulations and values or whether the governor of our state can
remember the three federal departments he is proposing to eliminate. Please
Google “Rick Perry Presidential Campaign 2012”.
So congratulations are in order to Texas for getting Toyota and
I don’t blame Toyota a bit for moving. The company has been a model corporate
citizen in California and I am confident they will continue that tradition in
Texas. It’s a nice feeling when you get a company to move to your state or
attract a convention in competition with another city, that sort of thing. And
it’s OK to go home and brag about it a bit (by the way, Qualcomm headquarters
are in San Diego, CA). But it seems awfully impolite to try to rub the other
party’s nose in it, especially if the other party is one of the other 49
states. It just seems so, well, un-Texan, un-Californian and not putting one’s
best foot forward as an American. Governor Perry could borrow a page from
Nebraska, where the state tourism slogan is “Nebraska Nice.” The key word is
nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)