Health Care Reform will be bad for Party of No Deal

The Health Care Bill... assuming reconciliation passes the Senate, is a solid start to eventual real Health Care Reform. 

The Party of No Deal's assumption that it will play politically for them, especially beyond the immediate midterm election, is, in my view almost certainly overly optimistic on their part, and not something we Progressive Democrats need fret overly much about. I offer David Frum's piece here, about how passage of HCR is the GOP's waterloo, not Obama's, as an indicator, and the following, Glenn Greenwald commenting on a CNN poll, as actual evidence: 

 A new CNN poll today finds that Americans oppose the current health care plan by a margin of 59-39%, but a sizable portion of those opposed -- 13% -- oppose it because "it is not liberal enough" (see questions 20 and 21):

Thus, a majority of Americans either support the plan or believe it should be more liberal (52%), while only a minority (43%) oppose the plan on the ground that it is too liberal.

To my mind, this indicates that the proportion of the public that wants "change"... meaning at least modestly progressive reform, is about 39+13 = 52%, just about the same proportion as elected President Obama. So, Republicans, don't be so damn sure this will inure to your benefit, especially in the long term. I think it will not. 

Wingers Gone Mad

Georgia Congressman sees parallels between health care reform bill and "Great War of Yankee Aggression.'

I think it's fair to say some of these right wingers have literally been driven mad in frustration at no longer being in control.

Ryan says GOP will repeal health care: Bring it On!

The mentally challenged Ayn Randite Paul Ryan, author of the Republican Roadmap budget (that would increase the deficit, transfer even more wealth to the superrich, increase middle class taxes, and destroy the most popular social programs in U.S. History), has a new line: the GOP, if it takes back control of Congress, will repeal the Health Care Bill. 

Let's parse this a bit. First, it effectively concedes HCR will pass. Second, it ignores the fact that the President would obviously veto such a repeal. So what does this mean? They think they can win elections by arguing that HCR was a bad idea, after it becomes law?

I hope so. We can use this same idiot's budget plan to paint Repubs as shills for the very rich, who want to screw ordinary people out of every benefit they now have, including the most recently passed (more or less) universal health care. If they think this is a winning strategy, I say, they're nuts, and let's have it, because it will not work for them.

Right Wing Congressman Supports Single Payer (!?)

I suppose it should not surprise me that a right-wing Republican would be a self-contradicting idiot (from TPM):

[MSNBC's] Shuster accused Republicans of supporting insurers, [Rep. John] Shadegg [R-AZ] balked.

"No we don't! You guys keep saying that, but I'm not the guy pushing the bill that says we should compel people to buy insurance from the for-profit guys. That's the Democrats," he said.

Then, after some back and forth with Shuster: "I would support single-payer."

"You would support a government-run medical system?" Shuster asked.

"Absolutely," Shadegg said. "I would support forcing American insurance companies to compete. Right now they have a monopoly."

He also said that the best way to pay for those with pre-existing conditions is to "spread their costs among the healthy, among the taxpayers."

On his web site, Shadegg is described as "known for his strong advocacy for free market health care reform" and once compared single-payer to Soviet gulags.

Go figure. (Might take a while, because it doesn't add up). Interesting, though, almost despite himself, he actually was giving at least the core of a case for single-payer. I guess the essential logic of compassion somehow penetrated the fog of his mean-spirited ideology.

Erick Erickson, extremist, on CNN

Here's my comment to CNN about their execrable decision to give airtime to the notorious right wing extremist, Erick Erickson:

I had long ago concluded that CNN's former reputation for reasonable objectivity and temperateness was no longer deserved, in light of its consistent tilt to the right since the commencement of the Second Bush Administration, but the selection of the GROSSLY intemperate and extremist Erick Erickson as a commentator has pushed the network entirely off the cliff in my book. I will consider the slot on the dial occupied by CNN to be a vacuum, unsuitable for viewing, like FoxNews, henceforth.

Final March for Reform and What's Ahead for Democrats

The materials being put out by OFA (Organizing for America, the President's outreach organization), on the "Final March for Reform" are very good, and very well organized. I hope this is a blueprint for greater activism from the President, in particular as to the specifics of the legislation he wants to see passed. 

The President was great in Ohio the other day, and I think this is just what reform actually takes: highly visible presidential leadership.

I hope going forward that the lesson learned from Health Care is that you must come to the table with the best reform you can think of... and compromise from there. The mistake we made, as Democrats, in HCR was to compromise away Medicare for All or something of that sort before we even came to the negotiations.

Also, I think it must by now be abundantly clear that the Party of No Deal is just that... and that we have to convince the people to demand that their Republican (and some Democratic) congresspeople and Senators vote for their interests.

And, in the campaign, we have to be willing to call them out, point out their hypocrisy, point out how they represent corporate interests and the interests of the Very, Very Rich, and not the interests they pretend to represent.

With Dennis Kucinich having yielded to pressure (including even from Daily KOS's Markos Moulitsas), I am now reasonably optimistic that this HCR reconciliation bill will actually pass, and that it will, in fact, serve as a springboard for further critical reforms.

I have seen commentary (not sure about actual polling) indicating that possibly the election of Brown in Massachusetts was actually the low water mark for Democrats, and that things are actually swinging back already. If that's true, then a huge push to counter the lies and hypocrisy of the Party of No Deal may minimize the damage this MidTerm, and from there, we just have to continue to shape the message, pull together as a party to make sure that there actually is a reform agenda that can be simply and clearly explained to be in the best interests of the great majority of the public, and fight like hell to regain and build on victorious margins in the Congress.

To this end, I would like to see the President's supporters organize to actually buy time for Presidential Fireside Chats, (including advertising to get people to watch them). I have been critical of the President and especially of some of his advisers, but I do think his communication abilities are second to few, if any, and that if he will get out there with real "fire in the belly" and ask the public for support, with strong, albeit straightforward and simple, arguments for his policies, he could actually easily turn around the perception that his presidency is floundering, and create a big momentum of public good will for his agenda. So far, the Party of No Deal has been winning the Message War; they're good at it; but now is certainly not the time to give up.
 

Shout Down Bush War and Tax Cut supporters!

And on the subject of Lying Hpocrite Republican hypocrisy, could we just stipulate, please, that anyone who supported the Not-Paid-For Trillion Dollar War for Iran's Interests (aka the Second Iraq War), and the Two Giant Not-Paid-For Wealth Transfers to the Rich (aka "Tax Cuts") under Bush, should be permanently banned from braying about budget deficits? And if they won't shut up, let's just shout them down!

After all, these two events account for the bulk of the current national debt. Let's have some truth around here. 

Lying Hypocrites hypocritical once more (surprise)!

I have no strong opinion on whether it's a good idea to use the "Self-executing" rule to pass the Senate HCR bill in the house at the same time as the reconciliation markup.

But I have to comment on the now continual total hypocrisy of the Lying Hypocrites Republicans in bleating about it, since under Bush they used exactly this parliamentary maneuver dozens of times. 

Damn, I'm sick of these people. 

T. R. Reid: no-brainer: hate abortion? Support Universal Health Care.

T.R. Reid, author of The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care, writing in the Wa. Post:  

  When I studied health-care systems overseas in research for a book, I asked health ministers, doctors, economists and others in all the rich countries why their nations decided to provide health care for everybody. The answers were medical (universal care saves lives), economic (universal care is cheaper), political (the voters like it), religious (it's what Christ commanded) and moral (it's the right thing to do). And in every country, people told me that universal health-care coverage is desirable because it reduces the rate of abortion.
  It's only in the United States that opponents of abortion are fighting against expanded health-care coverage -- a policy step that has been proved around the world to limit abortions.

Tea Partiers truly nuts

"Tea Party Crowd Calls for Pelosi to be Tried for Treason"

--TPM headline today.

Truly, deeply, these people need to get a grip.

Yet another exhortative e-mail to the White House

I was impressed by the President's passion speaking in Ohio yesterday, only wondering why he couldn't have done that 6 or even 9 months ago. But having said that, I am seriously disappointed that the White House is yet again failing to stand up for the best reform possible. Even now, there's every reason to believe that with real effort, the Senate could muster 50 votes for a reconciliation bill that would include a decently robust public option, but YET AGAIN the White House has dragged its feet.

This is truly disappointing. Mr. President, Democrats are unenthusiastic because they feel that you have tended to concede too much too soon, when there is no such thing as bipartisan support for anything anymore. We must fight, and convince the American people that it is the Party of No Deal that is blocking progress, and that it is Democrats who stand for jobs, reigning in financial abuses, etc. You don't need to be told that the public overwhelmingly supports a public option... much of the reason the crappy bill now before Congress has such weak support is because it is so poor on cost containment and choice for non-employer market folks that it appears hardly worth passing to many. So why can't you at least TRY to get a bill with public option passed? Many in your party look at this scenario and shake their heads, concluding you never really supported it in the first place. And the evidence isn't too clear that you ever did, sadly.

Next comes financial reform, assuming some miserable excuse for a health care reform bill passes. The Dodd bill sucks. That's plain. The president just MUST fight for a much more robust bill. The Tea Partiers have hijacked the anger of much of the public by appearing to be more opposed to Wall Street's excesses than Democrats in Congress and the White House. The only way to change that impression is to DEMAND real reform, and fight like hell for it. Let's see some righteous anger. Let's see town halls, fireside chats (buy half hours on TV... the base will contribute for that if they feel the President is on our side). Convey to the people that the President is on their side and will whip congress into shape to get it done!

Thank you. 

Paul Ryan, typical GOP right wing lying hypocrite

If in doubt that Paul Ryan, the author of the GOP "Roadmap" model budget which actually increases deficits, cuts core social programs which are historically popular (particularly medicare and social security), dramatically shifts wealth to the rich and increases taxes on the middle class, is a lying hypocrite like most right wingers, see this. 

Clinton right to rebuke Netanyahu

I approve entirely of the tack taken by Secy of State Clinton in sharply condemning Israel's provocative and decidedly unhelpful announcement of additional settlements in East Jerusalem. To my mind, it's high time the obstreperous conduct of the Israeli right wing was condemned in the strongest possible terms, as presenting a huge obstacle to any chance of lasting peace in Palestine.

Krugman on Three Big Health Care Reform Myths

Despite the usual right-wing (= "lying hypocrite") smears, Paul Krugman is actually pretty moderate in his assessments of the actual impacts of legislation, as today's column on three big health care reform myths attests.

CO Republican Nutcase calls Social Security a Ponzi Scheme

I love it when Right Wing Republicans campaign against social security, the most popular social program in U.S. History. Keep it up, Repubs. This will help Democrats more than you can imagine (with your teeny-tiny little minds).

Ryan Roadmap: Nihilistic Civilization Destroyer

It seems very telling to me, that legitimate experts find that the mean-spirited and nihilistic "roadmap" submitted by Right Wing Republican Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), supposedly to reduce deficits going forward, actually not only does not do this, it actually increases deficits, increases taxes the middle class, and destroys the social safety net which this country decided in the midst of the Great Depression 70 years ago, was the bare minimum we must do as a civilized society to care for our citizens in need. 

Look in vain, however, for mention of these facts in the mainstream media.

Why does no one ask the obvious question: why should we be cutting taxes for the wealthy still further? They already pay far less as a percentage of income than they did fifty years ago, when our country was so prosperous (Glenn Beck's golden age), and have already reaped the benefit of multiple broad cuts in taxes. I can see no rationale other than sheer greed and lack of concern for the future of our country to slash taxes on the rich still further. Why, then, are Democrats so fearful of lodging the obvious accusation against these people: that they are unpatriotic? Because, as I see it, that is exactly what they are.

Taxes are the price of civilization, and unwillingness to bear the fair burden of supporting your country's continued stable existence is just as unpatriotic as refusing to defend her against foreign enemies. 

Support Howard Dean's Democracy for America

Please support Democracy for America, Howard Dean's Political Action organization, which is currently pressing Senators to support a public option through reconciliation (currently 38 Democratic senators (and no Republicans, of course)) have agreed to do so.

E-mailing Senators to Support Public Option via Reconciliation

I sent this message to every one of the Democrats who have so far not announced support for Public Option via reconciliation:
•••
Dear Sen. x:

Please join 33 of your colleagues in declaring support for a Public Option via the Health Care Reconciliation Bill.

If enough Senators make clear they will vote for this, maybe the White House will exercise leadership and urge its passage.

65% of Americans favor a public option!

Thank you.

David Studhalter

How about favoring a DEMOCRATIC health care idea, Mr. President?

I see where the President sent a letter to the congressional caucus saying he likes four of the Republicans' ideas on health care. Fine, and these aren't exceptional or objectionable (although I oppose pressuring people to enroll in HSAs in place of real insurance), but couldn't he also have taken the opportunity to say he also likes a Democratic idea that's not in the current drafts, namely, the public option favored by 65% of the public!? For CRYING OUT LOUD ALREADY!!? Sheesh! 

Please Support Barbara Boxer's reelection campaign

Californians! Or others who care about progressive voices in the Senate:

Please support Barbara Boxer's re-election campaign. The Right in this state is determined to defeat her, and in this anemic year for Democratic energy and political moxie, she could be in trouble! Thank you.

Link here.

Hall of Shame in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate

I've made clear my view that when people who call themselves Democrats prove that they don't even come close to representing what the majority of Democrats believe in, they should be challenged in primaries, and replaced if possible by real Democrats. There's nothing to lose, because these people are not really Democrats anyway, and they stand in the way of the kinds of reform and change that people voted for President Obama to see happen.

Here's a list of Senators whom I think Democrats should work to defeat in their next primaries:

Max Baucus
Ben Nelson
Mary Landrieu
Blanche Lincoln
Dianne Feinstein
Kent Conrad 
and, of course, Joe ('Say No!') Lieberman, who isn't a Democrat anyway

A week ago, I would've included Evan Bayh, but he fortunately decided to quit politics. Good idea, I wish all of these people would follow his lead. Ditto Byron Dorgan, although he has a bit more integrity. Unfortunately, we now are given to understand that Ellsworth, who is the Dem. running to replace Bayh, is worse.

Sen. Feinstein is pretty good on social issues, but she's horrible on civil liberties and 'national security' issues, and has repeatedly demonstrated that she cares nothing for the views of the majority of her constituents. She should retire, and let someone take over who is more in tune with what Democrats in California by and large support.

My letter to the White House today: put PUBLIC OPTION in the Reconciliation Bill (for crying out loud!)

With the announcements today bringing the total number of the Democratic Senate caucus pledging support for a meaningful Public Option in a reconciliation bill to 30, it is time for the White House to demonstrate some real leadership and push for this in order to bring along the remaining 20 Senators needed to pass it.

It just amazes me that Democrats think the public will be pleased, and vote for them, when they compromise away real reform before votes have even been taken. The reason the public has "soured" on health care reform is not because they don't want real health reform, it's because the Democratic party has botched this process, and passed a bill in the Senate with all kinds of unsavory "deals" and precious little to actually control costs (like the Public Option will!). By putting this essential reform into the final bill, and corralling enough Senators to vote for it, both the President and Congress will be seen to have finally exercised some real leadership ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, and not special interests. THIS is what garners support in mid-term elections. The endless deal-making and compromising before there are even negotiations is what makes people who voted for the President in 2008 vote, however irrationally, for the other party, out of sheer frustration.

Thank you.
David Studhalter

My e-mail to Sen. Durbin on ending the filibuster

Dear Sen. Durbin,

I signed the petition you urged, expressing support for ending the power of the minority to block legislation (now if someone in the house would sponsor a similar petition to end gerrymandering, we might make progress towards restoring majority rule in this country).

I am concerned, however, that there isn't a move in the Senate to just DO IT. I refer to the procedure outlined recently in Talkingpointsmemo.com:

>>>"The Senate's presiding officer -- played by a friendly vice president -- would make a ruling saying the Constitution allows the Senate to change its rules by majority vote. That would allow a simple majority to rewrite the Senate's filibuster rules.

That ruling could be appealed by Republicans -- who could then filibuster their own appeal to delay, or end, debate.

"The goal is to derail the majority's effort to change the rules by majority vote," said Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Sarah Binder.

But, "according to precedent," Binder said, Democrats could simply table that appeal of the presiding officer's ruling, and go directly to an up-or-down vote.

From there, secure 51 votes and you can reform the Senate's filibuster rules anyway you want.

And, according to Binder, that doesn't have to be done at the outset of a new Congress. That's just a matter of tradition. If the Dems really wanted to, they could go through this process anytime they wanted."

I urge you to make the motion, talk to your colleagues... do whatever it takes to GET THIS DONE now, without fuss, and taking no quarter. The Republicans have declared all out war on the will of the majority, and it's up to Democrats to stand up for the People.

Thank you.

David Studhalter

Polls are showing public not bamboozled by Republican flimflam

Republicans, as we all know, are masters of crocodile tears, but in this case, it appears the bamboozlement isn't working. TPM reports that recent polling reveals that by substantial margins folks want legislation to be passed by majority vote, and they don't trust the filibuster. Probably at least some people remember the refrain Republicans used to croak with regularity during the Bush years: "Up or down vote! Up or down vote!"

I think this "Restore Majority Rule" meme should be a big ticket item for Dems, both nationally, and with its special meaning in relation to eliminating the supermajority needed under the draconian budget and revenue provisions of the Calif. Constitution as amended by the infamous prop 13 in 1979, in my home state of California.

Republican Hypocrisy just incredible.

I find it just unbelievable to watch Newt Gingrich say the Democrats are "majoritarian" "like Hugo Chavez," because they might dare to use the reconciliation process to pass health care with a mere majority in the Senate, even though this same process has been used at least six times in the past, dating back to the 80s, to pass health policy changes, and has been used 22 times, (as Sen. Boxer pointed out on Maddow last night) since 1980... 16 of those times by Republicans. Now, can we all stand in a circle and yell "HYPOCRITES!"?

Oh, and Newt? I don't buy any connection with Hugo Chavez, but I'll take the "majoritarian" label and wear it proudly, as should any American. Our constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority, but when it comes to deciding policy, I say, bring on majority rule. Anything less compromises and diminishes our democracy. 

Health Care Summit: a Waste of Time

I suppose some kind of case can be made that by showing up just how unreasonable and obstructionist the Great Obstructionist Party actually is, the public will be influenced to support Democrats and Health Reform. But, frankly, I doubt it will have much of that kind of effect. Otherwise, the "Health Care Summit," underway at this writing, seems to me to be a monumental waste of time, and potentially even counterproductive. These people will offer nothing, and will merely grandstand and pander to their propaganda-addled followers. By listening to this grossly deceitful nonsense respectfully, the President accomplishes little beyond giving them yet another forum for their propaganda and lies.

Deceitful politicians only reason Public Option not in reconciliation bill

I can imagine no reason, other than deceitful politicians, why, if we're now down to passing a health care bill using reconciliation (explain again to me why we didn't do this six months ago?)... that we cannot have a public option in the health reform bill. There were, unless some Senate Democrats were lying, more than 50 votes for a public option. Now, the White House says there aren't, even though 65% of the public when polled say they want it.

I reluctantly conclude that Democrats in Congress (and the White House) are practicing deceit and secret deals with Health Insurers, and that Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher are right in saying so.

Please write your Senators and Congressmen, and demand a public option (yet again), and that they get this thing done, finally, at long last.

To Sen. Reid: Use Ruling from the Chair to End the Filibuster

Dear Senator Reid:

These are EXTRAORDINARY times. The American people elected Barack Obama and a historic Democratic majority in the Senate and House in 2008. Right now, a lot of people are frustrated with the inaction of Congress, particularly on health care reform, but also on financial re-regulation, and a number of other issues. People who are dissatisfied with government's actions, irrationally or otherwise, tend to vote out the incumbent party. So, the whole agenda that was the basis of the 2008 election is in TERRIBLE JEOPARDY right now. I don't need to tell you this.

WHAT GIVES? The Party of No. Or, rather, they don't give. They are unified in obstructing everything that is brought before them, and the archaic and undemocratic Senate rules are giving this MINORITY party untoward and unjustified power to block the will of the people.

The time has come to break with hidebound tradition, as the Republicans have done. They have abandoned comity, respect for the results of elections, and just common decency. What should the Democratic party leadership in the Senate --YOU -- do in response?

I say, abandon the conciliatory traditions which prevent using every means available to restore Majority Rule.

I am referring to the possible use of a Ruling from the Chair, coupled with some perfectly legitimate parliamentary procedures, to change the rules to eliminate once and for all the supermajority required to cut off debate. This procedure is described in some detail here.

Let's face it, Sen. Reid. A constitutional amendment or legislation (such as Sen. Harkin's proposal), to change the rules (requiring 2/3 vote) simply isn't going to pass. This is the ONLY way to get this done. It will require heroic leadership, but what other reason is there for YOU and your colleagues to be in the Senate? This is your mandate. This is what the people elected you to do: stand up for them. Most people don't think about parliamentary procedure and Senate rules much, but there is polling to show that most people think the filibuster is unfair, and should be abandoned. Right now, it is literally crippling the effective functioning of our small-r republican form of government. With republican government hogtied, we get Republican government (big-R), even though we elected a majority of Democrats. This just cannot go on. It's time for the filibuster to be scrapped, once and for all, BY ANY MEANS available!

We have a historic opportunity and mandate here, and we need to be able to pass legislation to fulfill it! I firmly believe that if real health care reform, real financial re-regulation, real jobs programs, and real action on moving forward with a new renewable energy infrastructure and action on climate change were to pass the Congress, the majority of Americans would cheer from the rooftops and reelect their Democratic Congressmen and women and Senators by large majorities.

But the unacceptable, undemocratic, and unfair power of the Party of No to block legislation must first be broken, and THIS is the way to do it.

Thank you.

David Studhalter

Four Points to Restore Majority Rule in America

FOUR POINTS TO RESTORE MAJORITY RULE AND RESPECT FOR OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

• Direct Popular Election of the President by majority vote (runoff if needed)

• End Gerrymandering • fair, realistic districts without regard to constituency to ensure majority rule in congressional elections (and local and state government)

• End Filibuster • majority rule in the Senate and all state legislatures

• End the Power of Corporate Money; restrict lobbying and overturn court decisions giving corporations power to buy and sell elections

These reforms, all of which would probably require a Constitutional Amendment, are the minimum needed to restore a semblance of majority rule in this country. Without them, respect for the Rule of Law is in jeopardy, as only half of eligible voters, and sometimes even less, vote in national elections.

RESTORE MAJORITY RULE TO AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

Four Points to Restore Majority Rule in CALIFORNIA

FOUR POINTS TO RESTORE MAJORITY RULE AND RESPECT FOR CALIFORNIA’S SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

• End 2/3 Vote Rules for Revenue and Budget: Majority Rules

• End Gerrymandering • fair, realistic districts at all levels of government without regard to constituency

• All U.S. Citizens automatically registered to vote

• Direct mail voting (like Oregon’s)

These reforms are necessary to end gridlock in Sacramento and ensure majority rule. This is crucial to restoring the faith and trust of the people of California in the government of our state.

RESTORE MAJORITY RULE TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT!

My letter to Alan Grayson

Dear Congressman Grayson:

I respect your commitment to the Rule of Law and restoration of majority rule in this country, and I deeply appreciate your willingness to throw over convention and stand up for the American people.

It seems clear to me, and to millions like me, that what we need, in addition to various specific policy goals, is a set of structural changes, which will require changing the Constitution. We all know how difficult that is… just 12 states can block it, and with the country as deeply divided as it is, it will be a long slog to get anything done.

Jonathan Turley recently published a terrific piece in the Los Angeles Times outlining some of these necessary changes, to restore majority rule.

Here’s my idea: why not pledge, and demand that every member of Congress and the Senate, and every governor and member of state legislative bodies pledge, to support the following changes to our system, and urge people not to vote for anyone who won’t sign on, regardless of party?

• End the electoral college, and majority popular vote needed to elect the president (run-off if no majority)
• End gerrymandering. All Congressional districts to be drawn fairly, "minimally contiguously", and without regard to constituency (there are various methods to ensure this)
• End the filibuster… majority cuts off debate in the Senate, majority changes rules
• Overturn Citizens United, end the power of corporate money, and instigate meaningful public financing of elections

If these four things, worded in a catchy and memorable way, could be accomplished, we’d still have less “democracy” than many advanced countries that don’t have anything like our Federal system and inherently undemocratic system for electing Senators. But is sure would go a long, long way to restoring “one man, one vote,” and giving renewed legitimacy and respect for government.

Thank you.

David Studhalter

Get health care done, Sen. Reid, through RECONCILIATION, NOW

Been here, done this, but I'm giving it another go, after reports that up to 52 senators may be on board: my e-mail to Harry Reid today: 


Dear Sen. Reid:

I am writing to urge you IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS to support and energetically work for the use of reconciliation to pass meaningful health reform FORTHWITH, and that it include a public option and a medicare buy-in for those over 50 or 55.

The TIME IS NOW to get this done, and support for Democrats, including your own re-election, Sen. Reid, will surge once this is done.

The American people are sick and tired of MINORITY RULE and the obstruction of the party of No. But, it's a sad fact of life that when the majority party cannot get the job done, the electorate blames them... even by electing the very people who have obstructed reform! Of course it makes no sense, but this is the reality.

Thank you.

David Studhalter

Labor Law: The Law in Shambles (Geoghegan)

Left-leaning Chicago labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan wrote a fascinating "pamphlet," à la Tom Paine, called The Law in Shambles. It makes an argument that when Fareed Zakaria a few years ago argued that the U.S. and Iran(!) had in common too much democracy and not enough rule of law, he had a point but had it half backwards; should've been not enough of either. In fact, he says, the arbitrariness and unfairness of our society in the last 30 years has all but destroyed respect for the rule of law. He argues that this is literally destroying the fabric of our society.

One chapter I found fascinating was the one on labor law. His thesis follows on British historian Sir Henry Maine, who argued that modernity resulted from the transformation of the basis of livelihood from "status" to "contract." Geoghegan says that in the last 30 to 50 years or so in America, we have gone from "contract" to "tort." Where formerly there was either an explicit contract (35% of the workforce union members employed under labor contracts in 1958), and those not explicitly covered by contract were nonetheless implicitly brought in to the bargain (e.g., parallel benefits and work rules, including not being fired without cause and due process), we now have an environment where very few workers are employed in this sort of bargain. Almost everyone is "at will," and the process has become one of distrust and adversarial relationship. This all occurred in conjunction with a widening class gap and income gap, that has resulted in what he calls the "corruption of the middle class," wherein the middle class is not only shrinking, it has come to distrust the system of law, believing (rightly) that it is arbitrary and stacked against them in favor of the wealthiest. Employees by and large literally hate and distrust their employers, and believe that there are no real protections for them against arbitrary and unfair treatment. And they're basically right.

Depressing stuff, and it reminds me of why I just can't stand employment law. It's just too depressing, and I find myself all but unable to represent, even as a paralegal, employers in this rotten system.

Geoghegan: Busting the Filibuster

I have been reading a number of things lately by Chicago labor lawyer and scholar Thomas Geoghegan. Here he makes the case (which I've tried to make here as well), for "busting the filibuster."

Nuclear Power: too dirty to matter

I am not reflexively opposed to nuclear power in principle, as some of a new-agey bent are, but I believe the weight of evidence says that it is plagued by unresolved waste disposal issues that drive its already uneconomically high costs to the point where almost every other energy alternative appears preferable, at least here in North America. The reality is that nuclear reactors have never been built anywhere without public or ratepayer subsidies on either the front or back end, usually both. When all the costs (including waste, public health, and environmental damage costs) are included, the cost of nuclear power is higher than any other form of electric energy. Which is why I'm surprised by this NYT article saying that there's a new drive from policymakers for nuclear power.

Unvarnished truth: why we should adopt the German model because the Right has destroyed our economy

There's a terrific short article in the March Harper's by prominent liberal labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan called Consider the Germans. (Unfortunately, not available online yet; and you may have to be a subscriber to read it online even after they post it). His key points are that it's the mixed-system in Germany, where workers are on every board, wage rates are publicly disclosed information and workers are involved in management even of small businesses (by law)-- that have made it possible for Germany to keep its Industrial base and manufacturing economy.  (Until recently, despite crowing about China, with less than a tenth the population, it was Germany that was the top exporter in the World). As he puts it, with mandatory 6 weeks vacation, "they're beating us with one hand tied behind their back."


Why? works councils, co-determined corporate boards, and wage setting institutions. Things we almost had in this country after the New Deal, but which our fundamentally rightist politics have done away with. But the reality is that the Ayn Rand-worshiping top-down American management system doesn't work well in a competitive world, and the German mixed system, where every corporate board is one-half controlled by worker representatives, works much better.


As Geoghegan says, maybe we'll decide one day, out of patriotism, that we have no other choice than to emulate this kind of system. This is the key to waking up American working people to the need to reform our economy through progressive legal change: it's patriotic because the fucking misguided right wingers have destroyed our economy. Decades of extraction in place of production have taken a toll. It is no coincidence that since 1974 productivity of American workers has grown steadily, but real wages have remained flat. The Extractive Caste has (mostly legally) stolen the margin of difference, while failing to invest to conserve American manufacturing production or capacity, American jobs, or the robust middle class, which is the foundation of our consumer economy. Of course, there's probably a more polished and effective way to frame these points to convey the message to the working people who need to wake up to reality, but that's the unvarnished truth for you.

LAT: Turley: Real Reform needs to go beyond Campaign Finance Reform

I agree 100% with this article by Jonathan Turley:
--------------------
Real political reform should go beyond campaign finance
--------------------

There are ways to ease the two-party stranglehold on our political system, but they require taking a broader approach.

By Jonathan Turley

February 11 2010


For decades, political reform in the United States has largely meant campaign finance reform. It is a focus the political mainstream prefers, despite the fact that it is akin to addressing an engine with a design defect by regulating the fuel.


The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley11-2010feb11,0,457747.story   [Visit latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com]

Key points:

• Our current problems are either largely caused the stranglehold the two parties have on our political system. This needs to be changed structurally. 

• A constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United v. FEC is not enough; at best it would return us to the status quo of a month ago; but our problems with electoral dysfunction run much deeper.

Turleys' proposals:

• Remove barriers to third parties. Change registration, financing and qualification rules to encourage third party candidates to run.
  
  
• End the practice of gerrymandering. We need a constitutional amendment to end gerrymandering (I have discussed this before, see this, from 2005).

• Change the primary system. The principal reason incumbents are returned to power is that voters have little choice in the general election. Move top two votegetters to general election (Federal and State offices), regardless of party; have automatic runoff.

• Abolish the electoral college. This one's a no-brainer at this point.

• Require a majority for presidents to be elected. If no outright majority, two top votegetters in runoff. Controversial, but it would ensure more democracy and make candidates really seek honest support from independents. This procedure works well in many countries around the world.

Turley acknowledges that Congress won't vote to implement such sweeping changes, and a constitutional amendment or set of them are thus pretty much DOA. 
☺☺☺

I'd add: 

• End filibuster and other abuses. Remove the authority of Congress to make its own rules, to some extent. End filibustering, holds, and some other tools of obstructionists to block the effective enactment of what the people vote for, by constitutional provision.

There is a danger in utilizing the nuclear option of a Constitutional Convention to try to effect these changes; because it could so easily by hijacked by the malevolent forces of plutocracy, which will spend money on propaganda to gin up the Knownothings and the Teapartiers to focus on issues that don't even belong in the constitution, like same-sex marriage. But with continued effort, and goodwill, we could change our system. 

It seems to me the danger of being hijacked is worth the risk, because as things stand now, our government isn't really working at all. We have to work very hard to bring about change, and to correctly frame the issues so that the people understand what's at stake. Ultimately, if we can't rely on the people to do the right thing, democracy will not work anyway.

Lanza on karma and emptiness (without using the words)

Robert Lanza writes about karma and emptiness, although he doesn't call them that, from a (purported) scientific perspective. Frankly, I don't think these rather fuzzy attempts to make metaphysics sound like science really help much. Not everything true is science, and because something is metaphysics, and not subject to external scientific verification, doesn't mean it isn't true and internally verifiable. B. Alan Wallace has a very clear take on the differences between these approaches to truth.

Rethinking Economic Relations with China, Rogue Nation

Please read Robert Borosage's piece in HPost on how China cheats the global trade regime, and how, after 20 years, we can no longer pretend that the Chinese mercantilist policy is benign ... or acceptable going forward.

I have believed for some years now that the "Globalization" and "Free Trade Forever" tropes have very much run their course and that we are on a collision course with disaster if we don't regear our economy towards production, technology and infrastructure development, higher taxes on the rich, sensible trade protections, and a serious (and expensive) jobs policy to ensure a continuing and growing middle class.

If the Chinese won't play by rules, they need to be slowly but surely frozen out of sharing in our markets. We are deeply entwined with them, but nothing is forever, and even the worst effects of wrongheaded policy can be reversed over time.

Amend the Constitution to Restrict Corporate Control of Politics in the wake of Citizens United

Here are two websites devoted to the amendment of the constitution to erase the damage done by Citizens United v. FEC. 

Move to Amend 

Free Speech for People

Fireside Chats

I wrote this to the White House today:

The Q+A thing is a good idea. How about Fireside Chats? I imagine Pres. Obama is a little tired of being unfavorably compared to Pres. Roosevelt (Well, read the 1944 State of the Union... we do have a LONG way to go to match what FDR said 66 years ago)... but the President is great when he's speaking one on one to the American people, and I think if we Democrats seized the initiative in framing a message of incremental progressive change, rejecting the framing and mean spiritedness of the Great Obstructionist Party and even far too many in our own party, the tide could be turned into a wave of support.

How About We Just Bite the Bullet and Make a Commitment?

When I read mean spirited and arrant nonsense like this column in the NYT by Ross Douthat (probably better yclept Ross Dontdothat), I am inspired to ask this simple question:

Are we truly not a wealthy enough, and a generous enough, society, that we will make a commitment to provide decent health care to all our citizens? 

If the answer, selon the GOP, and too many Democrats, is really going to be No, we can't afford it, then all I have to say is, for shame. We can afford Gulfstreams for the Morally Repugnant Elite but not a doctor for the children of coal miners in West Virginia and the elderly on fixed incomes everywhere in America? F--k that! I will never, ever accept that reasoning or settle for that kind of just plain rotten cheapness. These people should be deeply, deeply ashamed of themselves.

And as for the notion that health care will rise to 25% of the GDP, this is the most ridiculous nonsense of all. Yes, of course we have to raise taxes; the Bush tax cuts were outrageous gifts to the wealthiest Americans. In any case, long term predictions of future trends, including predictions of growth in spending, are always wrong. (Bank on it: they never take into account social and technological changes accurately, which effectively reform the value of goods and services generationally; this should be understood as a fundamental principle of economics. It's why you can't accurately say what 200 florins in Beethoven's time was worth in today's money... because there simply is no "equivalent purchasing power").

I mention Beethoven because I came across an anecdote in Marek's Beethoven biography to the effect that even with the huge economic disruptions caused by the devaluation of the Austrian currency and general depression in the aftermath of the Napoleonic invasion, if a person had a letter from a priest attesting poverty, doctors and hospitals were required by law to treat them for free. This in an autocratic society that recognized the absolute power of the Emperor. Of course, medical care was something very different then, but even in that time and that society, the right of people to the common decency of receiving health care when needed was acknowledged.

Moreover, if you look around the world, countries that do provide health care as a "right not a privilege" spend far less as a percentage of GDP on health care than we do, because they accept that government has a proper role in regulating health care costs, and, to a reasonable extent, health care expenditures as well. Of course it's rationing. But we ration now: the wealthy get it all, and the poorest get nothing. That's rationing. A decent form of rationing might not pay for every test, not every procedure, not every piece of expensive technology, not every drug. But reasonable care for all. We can afford it, and we are a lesser, more niggardly, and meaner people for not doing so now.

······································································································
(I sent a much shortened version of this spiel to whitehouse.gov)

All hail Michelle Bachmann, the GOP prophetess!

Michelle Bachmann wants to explain to the American people why we can't have Social Security and Medicare (Taiwan can have universal health care that pays for Chinese herbal medicine, long term care, dental and vision, as well as Western high-tech science-based medicine, but we, the Superpower of the World, can't even afford basic health care for the elderly, don't you see?). Here's what she said, this past weekend at the right-wing Constitutional Coalition in St. Louis, Missouri:

"So, what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system, that don't have any other options, we have to keep faith with them. But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off, and wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we can't do it. So we just have to be straight with people. So basically, whoever our nominee is, is going to have to have a Glenn Beck chalkboard and explain to everybody this is the way it is."

PLEASE, please, Great Obstructionist Party, adopt Michelle Bachman's (and Paul Ryan's and Tom Price's and Sarah Palin's) plans for Social Security and Medicare as your party platform and agenda! (You might try to put it in complete sentences first). Wonderful! We'll cream you and end up with a two thirds Senate majority, with which we can get rid of the filibuster forever, and enact a progressive agenda to actually address our society's problems! Oh, please!

Untitled from 1973?

I wrote this about 35 years ago. I have no recollection of it, but here it is anyway. My sister came across it on an undated piece of notebook paper. (Something about people in their early twenties (with the occasional genius exception): they so often mistake the obscure for the profound).

Amidst the sordid reminisce through receding souls exploding, the hard-won, now hard-nosed what that's this and here, the plated sparks flow by like voices in my heart, and the passing words draw up the faint resounding of an edda long since untold (the very hills that rang of it long since worn away). The oldest trailing song, sorrow-voice, comes into my heart as I were one with them, and I hear it the smallest minute and I weep to hear it. Our road led away even then; for us the seeming choice is lost: it's long since the young earth's firstborn walked her face. Their song though abides its sense, even as her children abuse her face, and put aside her gifts, and worship their own nature's god. And I think my song could be such, but I were so entwined in that image. My voice croaks and stops; the words are lost -- and the moment fades when even deep that spirit sounded.

FDR's economic bill of rights speech

In the post below I linked to an excerpt from Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union address, in which he set forth a new 'economic' bill of rights. Reading it over, I think it's important enough to quote in full:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Would that the Democratic party stood for these principles today, 66 years later.

I find it a little hard not to wonder, wistfully, what the world would have been like had Franklin Roosevelt survived the end of the war, and overseen the implementation of his program for our country.

Apologia and rethinking politics

I don't kid myself that I have many regular readers. Maybe none, in fact, although there are a few who look in when I call their attention to something, which I appreciate. I also don't kid myself that anyone is responsible for that situation other than myself.

Lately I ventured a few longish posts about an issue of what I think of as natural philosophy that has always interested me, and I got a bit of feedback, but mostly nothing, as I expected. If anyone cares to say they either like or don't like that kind of rumination, I would be interested.

I have also been pretty quiet about some of the recent rather discouraging developments in the political arena. The fact is, I'm deeply discouraged, and have lost most of my faith that Democratic electoral politics has a genuine capability, given the structural impediments of our political system, to effect change that actually makes peoples' lives better in meaningful ways.

I'm not saying those of us who believe that government should work for the people and not for the Morally Repugnant Elite (a phrase used in Haiti a lot that I think fits the bill here too)...should give up. I do think, though, that Joe Bageant is right when he says that our political parties and political system have been all but entirely hijacked by corporatist interests. Michael Moore says much the same thing, and it seems to me if you find him simplistic and annoying, you ought to examine what you believe in, because he represents a pretty clear statement of the actual interests of ordinary people, unfettered by propaganda. If we want, as I do (for example) to have a president who will reiterate Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union address, in which he laid out his conception of a "new bill of rights," guaranteeing each citizen a job with a living wage, freedom from unfair competition and monopolies, a home, medical care, education, and recreation; -- and mean it, we have to act locally to change peoples' minds, and work long term to resist the undemocratic control of our government by moneyed interests. The recent Citizens United v. FEC case, which I am convinced is one of the most sweepingly regressive court decisions of the past century or more, will only make this that much harder.

But if there is any responsibility that free people simply cannot shirk, no matter how deeply entrenched opposing interests may be, it is to articulate, advocate, and work for change in the system of governance which we espouse to exist only by our consent. No matter how long it may take. And so, that is what we must do. We must state our views. We must vote accordingly. We must organize and contribute our resources to others and to organizations who think as we do. And we must resist the imposition of policy imposed by undemocratic institutions and systems, with efforts at change, and, when necessary and appropriate, with civil disobedience. Because it's a long, hard struggle ahead.

«We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.»
--Justice Lewis Brandeis

Obama announces support for renewal of Glass-Steagall

OK, amidst all the bad news, something good. It's a start.

My e-mail to President Obama

I have written to the White House numerous times before, urging the President to give up on conciliation with the enemy, and urging him to adopt a more populist progressive stance, and to get smart about the necessity of framing the issues in a way that communicates an emotional message to overcome the propaganda manipulation of fear which the Right Wingers have become so very good at. George Lakoff and Manuel Castells have written very cogently on this subject. See also the excellent comments of Matt Taibbi in the Village Voice on what is needed in the way of reframing the progressive message.

The president seemed to get this, at least to a great extent, during the campaign, but, frankly, his governance has been abysmal. We are the verge, if not over the verge, of complete failure.

The president must listen to new voices. He must abandon those who advocate compromise and conciliation with the Right, because it could not be clearer that the Right… virtually all Republicans and some Democrats, such as Nelson and Lieberman, will stop at nothing to block and impede the President’s efforts to change the message from “government is the enemy” to “we need good governance, and reform, to ensure that the interests of ordinary people are put first.”

The president needs desperately to not only change the tone of his message, but its substance as well. He must clearly and squarely oppose those, even in his own administration, who refuse to recognize the need for sweeping financial reform. He must embrace a truly progressive agenda, and not approach every issue by proposing the compromise before the negotiations even begin.

Yes, we are in a real pickle legislatively. But the president must LEAD us out of it. Demand, in the state of the union, that the Senate be run on a majority rule basis, and ASK the people to write to their Senators and make this demand. Fight like hell, giving no quarter, to elect Democrats who will actually support a Progressive agenda, and leave those that won’t in the cold. We have to build a legislative majority… it may take a few years, but if the President truly changes course now it can be done.

Otherwise, the President will have already been defeated, and the Right will regain power sooner rather than later. The choice IS as stark as that. Mr. Obama, I implore you: get smart. It's all out war. Slash and burn; use every tactic; learn from the Right Wing the power of message and propaganda, and fight like the future depends on it (because it does). The future of the whole world is at stake.

What a week

What a week. First, the Massachusetts electorate votes in an idiot from the Torture Party to replace Edward Kennedy. Now the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. F.E.C.,  has effectively gutted campaign finance law and handed the power to buy elections and representatives without much restraint to corporations, based on some of the most irrational legal reasoning in decades. Now, Nancy Pelosi is effectively conceding that Health Care Reform is a lost cause. Sheesh.

Politics is becoming unbearable in this country. Something's gotta give: I cry out for Progressives to get smart. It's all out war. Slash and burn; use every tactic; learn from the Right Wing the power of message and propaganda, and fight like the future depends on it (because it does). The future of the whole world is at stake.

Where are they, then?

Sixty years ago Enrico Fermi asked this question when the discussion of the prevalence of extraterrestrial intelligence came up. It's a fair question.

Over the past fifty years or so, various writers, some very carefully examining all the known facts, and others perhaps a bit less careful, have addressed the question of whether it's realistic for the human race to expect to encounter alien technological civilizations (usually the expectation being that they will be contacted by radio). Frank Drake came up with the famous Drake Equation in the early 1960s to attempt to give a number to the technological civilizations in the Galaxy (let's call them, rather, spacefaring, meaning that they have made themselves detectable from outside their own home star system). The problem with Drake's "equation," as variously treated by different authors, is that virtually all of its terms, beyond the basic physical facts about the Galaxy and its stars, are pretty much informed (at best) guesses, some usually pretty clearly colored by wishful thinking. The factors are designed so that the number of spacefaring civilizations will equal a fraction of the number of stars in the Galaxy, by estimating how close to unity various factors are. Some of these are: How many (i.e., what proportion of) star systems have planets with living organisms? How many of these develop complex multicellular life? How many of these develop intelligent life? How many of these develop outer-space technology? (E.g., there's no sign that Earth's dolphins, who may well be as intelligent as we, will ever do so; which begs the question of just what is intelligence, anyway, and how biased is our view of what it essentially is by our own characteristics as a species?) How long does an average spacefaring civilization last? (This of course determines how likely we would be to encounter any given civilization in a given period of time). The original Drake equation ignored the physical evolution of the Galaxy, whereby in its earlier phases the likelihood of intelligent life was presumably zero, since the interstellar medium from which stars formed was pretty much devoid of the necessary elements for the evolution of life for the first billion or more years of the Universe's (and therefore necessarily any particular galaxy's) lifetime.

In any case, there are no definitive answers to any of these questions, and estimates have tended to be on the rosy side. See this post for reasons to believe that complex life, and therefore intelligent life, may be a good deal rarer in the universe at large than formerly thought. Many of the Drake factors could well be very low, in which case spacefaring civilizations could be quite rare... or we could even be unique in all the Galaxy. I think it cannot be dismissed that there may be some number well above zero (one, really, counting us), on the other hand, but the fact is we don't have a lot of evidence from which to make informed estimates, so people's proclivities and wishes tend to infect their estimations. 

Most scientifically minded people allow that conditions similar to the early Earth are probably not all that rare, and that life is likely to arise in such conditions, although even this is debatable. There are those who, not resorting to any kind of religious argument or metaphysics at all, nonetheless conclude, using Occam's Razor reasoning with regard to the likely permutations of molecules, that life may be a fluke, so unlikely to arise that it is probably unique to Earth in all the universe. Personally, I'm convinced by explanations for why a purely probabilistic analysis of how likely it is, for example, for DNA molecules to arise spontaneously from simple organic precursors, are not realistic. See, for example, the excellent work of Christian René de Duve on the origin of life. I think there's a good intellectual case to be made that basic living systems, comparable to bacteria, at least, will arise in time wherever the conditions are present and stable long enough for it to do so.   

I have not yet read Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart's Evolving the Alien, but from what I can gather their thesis is that we need to expand our thinking about how and where life may evolve, and not merely assume that a planet much like Earth is the only possible place of origin. Fair enough, but I don't see how most of the observations I talk about here are affected much by widening the scope of exobiology a bit; the facts about evidence or lack thereof of its presence remain. I am not arguing that intelligent beings do not likely exist elsewhere than Earth. I am only arguing for a certain perspective and realism in discussing this subject. 

It's generally been accepted by most who have written about this subject that the Earth and its Solar System bear no evidence of ever having been actually physically visited by alien beings (or by their machines), UFO true believers notwithstanding. I would have to call this an open question. We have hardly explored the Solar System in sufficient depth, and our knowledge of the form that alien technology might take is sufficiently paltry, that no definitive statement to the effect that we have never in our planet's 4½ billion year history been visited by alien intelligence, is possible. Still, there is no positive evidence either, so at least we can say that there doesn't appear to be any active visitation going on. Of course it isn't possible to absolutely rule out the Galactic Zoo hypothesis, whereby we are under clandestine observation by aliens careful to conceal their presence, but in the absence of actual evidence for this, it remains purely speculative. To my personal prejudices, I consider this idea just short of silly and not at all likely.

Technically, indeed, as discussed above, the existence of any life of any kind anywhere other than this planet is speculative, but given what is known about the depth and breadth, as well as the essential sameness of the stars and galaxies which comprise the vast universe, I take it as a reasonable supposition that life, if it could evolve once, must surely have done so countless times, in sufficiently similar contexts; and that, however rarely, nonetheless somewhere and at some times, it must have evolved into beings to some arbitrary degree comparable to ourselves. People with certain religious--or other philosophical-- views (e.g. Ray Kurzweil) will reject this notion out of hand, but holding an opposite view, it seems to me, is what requires special pleading: it is actually hard to imagine that what has happened here has not happened, in essentials, elsewhere. The essential, really unanswerable, question, is how often? Are beings comparable to ourselves common in the universe, vanishingly rare, or somewhere in between? The fact is, we just don't know.

So what can be said? Not a great deal, definitively, but there are some additional factors that need to be taken into account.

What about machines visiting the Solar system in the past and having left evidence? As noted, this can't be ruled out. But how likely is it that some past civilization would have actually done this? The brilliant theoretician John von Neumann is credited with first conceiving of self-replicating machines, sometimes called Von Neumann Machines. Elaborating on this a bit, the idea is that a sufficiently advanced technological civilization is likely to wish to explore the galaxy, and to do so, eventually, it is likely to build spacecraft which use Von Neumann's idea: they would be capable of using raw materials they encounter in space to construct copies of themselves, to proceed further, possibly in exponentially increasing numbers, to explore star after star, reporting back to 'home base' (the programming is reproduced as well). It is a pretty simple calculation to realize that, even without fantasizing about unknown physics allowing faster than light travel, or particularly exotic energy technologies, such systems would be at least theoretically capable of visiting every last one of the 300 billion stars in the Galaxy is a small fraction of the age of the Galaxy. I've seen estimates of perhaps one to no more than a few million years for such a project, to explore a galaxy that (like all galaxies) is something on the order of 13 billion years old. Is this possible? Since it's never actually been done, as far as we know, I don't know that anyone can really say. Maybe even if some particularly relentless and determined explorer species tried this, their program might fail just from the inevitable incursion of noise into the programming. But the multiply redundant code of DNA in living genes suggests that sufficiently detailed and exact information can be preserved sufficiently intact over tens or hundreds of millions of years, so this doesn't seem to be a legitimate objection, at least in principle.

The Scottish science fiction writer Iain M. Banks has publicly dismissed the whole Von Neumann Machine scenario on the grounds of aesthetics. It's just so mechanical, and ultimately, boring, he would argue. What conclusion can be drawn from any of this? I would say only that advanced civilizations capable of building self-replicating automatic exploration machines, if they have ever existed in this galaxy, are (in all likelihood) not currently active and have not left any very noticeable traces here in the Solar System. Can this scenario, having happened in the past, or likely to happen in the future, be ruled out? No, but beyond that there really isn't much to say about it.

So what about "SETI," the search for extraterrestrial radio communications? SETI enthusiasts always say that their search is just barely begun, and that it isn't realistic to expect them to have succeeded by now, because the Galaxy is so vast, and the available bandwidths and modulation potentials for communication so various and extensive. But is this really a reasonable point of view? It seems to me that the whole premise of SETI is that other civilizations will be actually a lot like us, using electromagnetic waves to communicate by superimposing artificial patterns on them, and further that any such civilizations will continue to do this for long periods of time, so that there would be a reasonable probability that they would exist and be doing this concurrently with our existence, and we might detect this activity passively. I think this is at best an untested guess. We may well have advanced in the relatively near future to the point where we no longer use leaky EM broadcast signals for any form of communication. Maser or Laser communications (tight-beam) would probably not be detectable by anyone not their intended recipients over any great distances of space, and this technology already exists. To my mind, the fact that we have not detected other civilizations from their communications is not surprising, but it also doesn't tell us much about how likely other civilizations are to exist, and not, or not only, for the reasons the SETI folks suppose. It may just be that they are on a fool's errand.

What does the fact that there's no obvious evidence of visitation to Earth by extraterrestrials at any time in the past tell us about the likely potential for space travel? Here, I think, the implications are clear, and they are not what many space enthusiasts like to believe. Let's make some assumptions and see where they lead us. Assume that there have been in the Galaxy some substantial number of civilizations which have well exceeded our level of technology, over the at least few billion years that stars a lot like the Sun have existed, such that at least potentially a civilization comparable to ours could have arisen. Assume that some reasonable fraction of these persisted, or continue to exist, for long periods of time, such as at least many thousands of years (making it likely that some exist now). Next, assume that we have not learned all the fundamental laws of physics, and, after all, despite all the sound reasons what we have learned tells us otherwise, it turns out that it is feasible to build starships, wonderful engines of technology that can transport beings and materials from one star to another at speeds faster than light. And at least some fraction of these putative past and present civilizations have discovered this secret, and actually built such things. Star Trek!

Well, there is a serious problem with the implications of these assumptions in combination. It's the Von Neumann implication all over again, only moreso. If a civilization with even a very modest rate of natural growth and stable technology capable of traveling between stars at faster than light speed (if that were even possible) existed, and if it persisted for a few tens of thousands of years, it would have plenty of time to visit every single star in the Galaxy. If it persisted for millions of years, it would have had time to visit a few of the nearer outer galaxies as well. And surely, with all that awesome power, it would, somewhere in all the vast cosmos under constant observation by thousands of terrestrial astronomers, have left some evidence... some radiation that didn't fit a natural cause; some star whose energy signature was obviously artificially modified, some artifact somehow detectable using the powerful telescopes and other means of detection at our disposal. To my mind, all this seriously strains credulity. The fact is that nothing has ever been discovered which is even seriously suspected of being the product of an advanced technological civilization. I think the fact that we live in a quiet galaxy, where to all appearances our Solar System has remained undisturbed for billions of years, speaks volumes, and what it tells us, if we have ears to hear, is that no technology exists anywhere which can transport matter or even signals faster than light. This is an actual limitation, a real barrier, imposed on us by the nature of reality in our universe, that is and has always been an effective limit on the ability of any organisms anywhere to travel or propagate themselves in space. No amount of scientific or technological progress is going to change this fact, ever.

To those who might object, "what if they just didn't want to visit every star?," I'd have to say, well, maybe so, but surely in all of the Galaxy, and in all that time, if this were possible, and if such civilizations existed in any numbers, someone would have done this. I think the conclusion is all but inescapable that a Star Trek type universe, with tens or hundreds of concurrently existing spacefaring civilizations, all capable of traveling faster than light and zipping around the galaxy in small fractions of their individual lifetimes, will forever remain a fairy tale.  

The fact that, for reasons I don't have time or space to go into here, travel at speeds faster than light is the exact functional equivalent of time travel, and that both of them violate fundamental laws of causality, is at least suggestive that there are very good reasons why faster than light travel is and always will be impossible.  

The fact is that stars are very, very far apart (see this), and travel between them takes a very long time, in any vehicle likely to be developed, even by advanced technologies. It is also likely to remain expensive, in terms of fraction of resources that a civilization would likely as soon devote to other uses, although a sufficiently advanced civilization may have resources to freely spend without much care. So, generally, star travel is likely to remain essentially infeasible, except, conceivably, for one-way colonization and/or exploration missions. Extremely long lifespans of the travelers could change this, but it seems to be a real limitation. This is a subject of much speculation, which I will defer for another discussion, except to say that these same considerations would apply, and would have applied, to other civilizations as much as to our own.

Another subject of much speculation is whether machine civilizations might come into existence. There has been a fair amount of speculative fiction written on this subject. I have rather definite views on the possibility of machine consciousness (not), but I will defer that subject as well, and merely observe that whether you are talking about biological civilizations, machine civilizations, or hybrids thereof, makes little difference for this discussion. Assuming, that is, that machine civilizations must necessarily arise originally as byproducts of the civilizations of living beings. 

I will also leave alone any metaphysical speculations on the existence of nonphysical entities, whose intelligence and presence may not be observable conventionally. This is a fascinating topic, but it has no direct bearing on the issue, which assumes ordinary physical existence as a starting point for discussion.  

What about advanced civilizations' artifacts? Freeman Dyson and science fiction writer Larry Niven postulated, respectively, "Dyson spheres," huge spherical artifacts which contain a star at their center and host living space on their inner surfaces; and "ringworlds," bandlike rings orbiting stars at roughly earth-distance, with habitable inner surfaces. Iain M. Banks modified the ringworld idea to postulate what he calls an "orbital," a rotating ring about 3 million km. in diameter, orbiting a suitable star, which could be spun to have approximately Earthlike centrifugal gravity equivalent on its inner surface, and, as it works out, approximately a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, just like a planet. These fictional future technologies (or current or past technologies of hypothetical advanced civilizations elsewhere) are, to say the least, conjectural, but even if they exist, in large numbers, would they be detectable? I'm not sure of the answer to that. I've seen it speculated that a Dyson sphere, at least, would be noticeable within a certain range. It would be a dully radiating infrared source, emitting all the energy of its concealed star. Such an object would be detectable for quite large distances, and would be sufficiently unlike any natural objects to raise some red flags. Conceivably, the smaller versions might exist and go unnoticed, but this at least suggests that civilizations that use all the energy of their home stars are not common, if they exist or have previously existed at all.

The Russian scientist Nikolai Kardashev pursued these ideas to a logical extreme in the 1960s, postulating the existence of different levels of super-advanced civilizations, with Type I consuming all the energy of a single star, all the way up to Type IV, which would consume the equivalent of all the energy of the entire universe. On this scale, we aren't even at Type I -- far from it. Looking out into space, we do not see any obvious evidence of civilizations which are using all the energy of their star, and re-emitting it as infrared. Still less are there any reasons to suppose that any of the fascinating objects observed in the Galaxy or beyond is the glow of the waste heat of a supercivilization. To my mind, all of this is pure fantasy, with the possible exception of advanced cultures that use some considerable fraction of the light of a star, and might eventually be detectable as a result. It seems to me looking for such things might actually be worthwhile. Certainly actually finding one would be of earthshaking importance. But the idea that there are civilizations anywhere using all the energy of a galaxy seems to me fanciful in the extreme, particularly in the complete absence of any actual evidence for even the lesser 'classes.'

So what can we conclude from all this? Where, in fact, are they? I think from what we observe we can conclude that advanced technological civilizations, at our level or above, are not, and have not been in the past, very abundant. If they were, over long periods of time, it seems to me reasonable to assume that there would already be some evidence, somewhere, of their existence.

For all intents and purposes the Galaxy has been more or less as it is now for billions of years, so other worlds could have formed earlier than Earth (or later, for that matter, since rates of evolution are not necessarily uniform)... and reached an equivalent of Earth's current evolutionary phase many millions of years ago. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, at least in terms of hundreds of thousands or even millions or tens of millions of years, that there is anything special about this time, as opposed to some earlier time. So civilizations could have arisen and surpassed our technological level, persisting for long periods of time, at least some tens or even hundreds of millions of years ago. Had any significant number of them at any time reached a level where their presence was likely to leave unmistakable traces... artifacts sent roaming the Galaxy to search for life; huge space arcologies, whatever... it seems likely that some residual evidence of that fact would persist and be detectable, somewhere in the vastness of the Galaxy. Is there such evidence? We can't be sure, because our technology for detection remains of uncertain prowess. We have not exhaustively explored places like the Moon, where there is no erosion, and where small artifacts from an actual visit remote in time could remain. Also, the works of a civilization at any distance, particularly one which has ceased to function, could well be completely undetectable. But still, the absence of evidence, while, in the famous formulation (attributed to Carl Sagan), not being evidence of absence, is nonetheless suggestive: it seems to me that we should accept as an operating assumption, since there is literally nothing in all the observational history of our world that can reasonably be ascribed to extraterrestrial life, that many of the factors in the Drake equation are a good deal less than one, and that advanced civilizations are not really all that common, nor necessarily all that long-lived when they do arise.

To my mind the facts point to a tentative conclusion that space is vast, and likely mostly empty of beings (to whatever arbitrary degree) "like" ourselves. I find it hard to imagine that intelligent beings haven't existed, and don't continue to exist, elsewhere in space, but space is really, really big, so we could well be alone in a huge volume, which could mean communication with or even detection of extraterrestrial civilizations may just not be effectively possible. Maybe someday we (or our remote descendants) will find and somehow converse with our like out there somewhere, but there doesn't seem to be any good reason to expect this to happen any time soon. 
······
See further thoughts here.

Taking a Break

For my few readers wondering at the recent spate of posts on, shall we say, philosophical, issues: I am taking a break from commentary on politics for a while, for the I suppose obvious reason that what's been going on both in my home state of California and in Washington these past several months is so profoundly disappointing.

Link to article on "Where are they?" (i.e., the Fermi Paradox)

An interesting article on the "Where are They?" question (so-called Fermi Paradox) from Scientific American a few years back. I will post a few of my own thoughts on this subject later.

One glaring fallacy in this article is the assumption that technological civilizations would likely form at a more or less constant rate since the origin of the universe. Without going into long explanations, I'll just say that assumption is obviously wrong and defer further comment.