Transforming society to a sustainable future

I admit to being more or less a big-government Progressive. Unlike libertarians, the extreme example of which would be Ayn Rand, and her many followers including Alan Greenspan, I believe that over the past century or more government regulation in the area of health, building, environment, etc. has been overwhelmingly a force for good. But having said that, I also recognize that government is inherently inefficient at certain types of development. The development of the X-15 and manned orbital space flight was extremely expensive and inefficient organized by government, with aerospace industries which were incentivized, if anything, to maximize costs. But, had these developments not taken place, the subsequent independent entrepreneurs who achieved the same thing, thirty years later, for two orders of magnitude lower cost, could not have done so. (This technology has still not proved itself to be economically viable, but that's another issue).

So, it seems to me, the only practical ideology is one which recognizes that government has an essential role to play in setting the standards of society: safe buildings, security, medical care and decent level of housing, etc., and which is prepared to finance research and development when the kind of "bang for the buck" that government can force to happen is needed, but which then is more than willing to allow private entrepreneurial activity to actually do the development (and re-development). This private development works best not on a subsidy contract basis, but on the basis of seed money or even just intelligent regulation that allows private actors to develop technologies and businesses that meet the needs of people, while disincentivizing enterprises that merely extract and concentrate wealth. I think this sort of recognition of overlapping but not congruent spheres or magisteria, is the only basis for a sound system of government.

America has a serious structural problem in its governance. Our constitution and the forms of government, at all levels, while they are the descendants of what have become historical models of how to institute checks and balances and protections against domination of public policy by vested interests, have almost entirely failed in actually protecting the society from control by oligarchs whose interests are directly inimical to not only the interests, but the stated beliefs and intentions of the majority of citizens. Our politics has been nearly completely hijacked by the power of money, and the ideological tenor of our elected representatives is far more regressive, and specifically, shaped by the dictates of moneyed interests, than that of most citizens. This is just a fact.

But the solutions to our problems are not, I believe, primarily, the re-institution of "Big Government." What we need is responsive government, which recognizes its function as serving the needs of the people as a whole, is not beholden to special interests, and which functions to shape the economy and direction of the society to prevent the excessive concentration of wealth and power in the hands of people whose advantages are, when really examined, invariably the result of unwise policy.

But at the same time government must encourage creativity, cost-effective and advanced technology development shaped not by a desire to concentrate wealth but to solve the problems of the society. Government should foster, but not dictate, new ideas, and entrepreneurship, while ensuring that the essential interests of the people are protected. We face huge technological challenges in the coming decades: how to ensure sufficient clean water, how to grow enough food for an expected world population of 9 billion at peak, how to create an energy and transportation economy that utilizes only renewable energy sources, how to restore a more localized manufacturing capability that efficiently provides goods and services, how to husband and obtain the needed resources to make a high-tech economy work in a sustainable way. Government has a role to play to ensure that new technology brings not only wealth for a few, but a viable economic system, for our country, with jobs and wealth creation here, as well as in cooperation with other countries. These things are not going to be solved entirely or even primarily by government programs, on the model of rocketry research and development after World War II that led to the "military industrial complex" which is now more of a millstone than an aid to our future development. Government will have a role to set the agenda, direct resources to projects that are shown to work (maybe through "prize" competitions), fund university and laboratory research, etc., but a lot of this needs to be done more on the model of the Stanford and U. of Illinois technological DIYers who gave us, in the original seed R&D, workable personal computing and the public dimension of the internet. (Building, it is true, on military research; again the government has a role, but ordinary people also have to be given the incentive and freedom to work out what actually works for people).  Government needs to encourage solutions, while setting, through public policy, some of the goals: more efficient agriculture that isn't reliant on petrochemicals, energy produced from renewable sources, smart rail and automotive transportation that doesn't require oil, manufacturing that utilizes emerging technologies and which produces jobs as well as stuff, etc. For example, we need to protect individuals' rights to their labor and intellectual property, but there is no advantage to society in giving a Monsanto a monopoly forever on a type of seed that is found to produce more with less land and resources. There have to be intelligent and dynamic regulations to ensure rationality and public interest.

In this, government needs to be responsive, not compulsive. Our society is greatly distracted by frivolity and nonsense these days, in which category I would include no only the Kardashians and celeberity idolization, but things such as most of the TSA security for airline passengers, which just doesn't make sense. We spend billions on "security" and "intelligence" that accomplishes almost nothing. (I'm not saying there is no role for security and intelligence, but these areas need to be openly scrutinized with an eye towards getting only what we need for the least possible expenditure of resources. Plus, if we were to spend more of our resources working on moving towards a post-oil public-focused world economy, I actually believe that many of our security problems would gradually disappear). We need to foster and encourage a steadily emerging new spirit of We Can Do It. Kids need to be encouraged, and incentivized, to think about solutions to problems, to spend time tinkering with technology, and go into math, science and engineering; fields which will be the necessary springboards for a renewal of our economy and national spirit. The goals of our public education should be informed by values: people working together can solve problems, for the benefit of people. Not selfishness, but a sense of synergistic development that benefits all. This should be the goal of public policy, and the ethos of our public education.

There is already a movement emerging to find solutions to problems without recourse to government. If we, through movements like Occupy and the general frustration that the majority now feel with the way our government is controlled by a small fantastically wealthy elite, can bring about a change in government: make it more responsive, resist and defeat the myths and structures that make it possible for certain oligarchs to virtually own it, ensure that it functions to regulate and encourage positive development rather than protect the interests of wealth-extractors, then a new paradigm of public and private cooperation can emerge.

I think this is the only viable way forward, but it will require that people power, the willingness to get involved and demand change, come to the fore. We saw, in Wisconsin last year and in the Occupy movement, that there is a level of dissatisfaction, comparable to what existed just prior to the Civil Rights movement or the Vietnam Anti-War movement, that may be about to take off. If this energy can be channeled, internally, by the hopes and desires of its own people, to demand changes that enable not a big "Old Left" "new new deal" transformation, but a transformation of government to one that actually listens to the people, responds to new ideas, ensures public interest and basic welfare, and encourages people to get involved in direct, to a great extent private, efforts to solve the problems we face in transforming our society into a sustainable one, then we just might be able to not only survive, but flourish in the twenty-first century. It's going to be up to us, as a people, to make this happen.
○DS

• PRAGMATIC PROGRESSIVE FOR OBAMA 2012 •

Data collection by google, etc.

I take quite a different view regarding online privacy of search engines and e-mail programs like google and gmail and its competitors than most people of a progressive bent. I actually take somewhat seriously the fact that a sort of meta-informational world system, of as yet unknown form, is in the process of emerging. We need to accept, I think, that what we do in a relatively public way, such as what we buy, what we are interested in and read, and what we say in public spaces, will be partially tabulated and utilized as significant data. Obviously we need safeguards to ensure that people who could take advantage, or governments, cannot individually identify information, but there is an implicit bargain which is the entire raison d'être of google and such; they find out about us, and direct advertising to us, in exchange for free services. I find this an acceptable bargain, with the understanding that if someone, including the government (without due process and probable cause) asks for or otherwise seeks to obtain identity-specific information about an individual, the privacy policy (and the law) need to protect that information from disclosure. In other words, statistics, stripped of identifying information, or use of data to steer commerce, yes, but use of data to gain specific information about people, no. This may not always be an easy tightrope to negotiate, but it seems to me the proposed alternative, of draconian restriction of the flow of information from users of the information superhighway to purveyors of commerce, would undesirably stifle what is likely to be the main commercial intercourse in the future just as it is really starting to develop.

Obama playing grown-up on Iran

Seems Pres. Obama is doing a pretty good job of playing the grown-up in the room on the Iran warmongering fever among the Republican presidential zoo.

U.S., Europe offer to restart Iran nuclear talks

Hopefully this initiative will blunt the war fever being ginned up by the man I've come to regard as evil, Benjamin Netanyahu. I can't be more convinced that pushing for war with Iran is horrible policy for the U.S., the World, and for Israel. Israel's security would be greatly degraded by the outbreak of yet another war in the Middle East. How is it that seemingly rational people cannot see what is before their eyes?

Robert Wright: Netanyahu affront on Iran

Please read Robert Wright's latest piece in the Altantic: "Netanyahu's Latest Affront to Obama".

2d Message to the White House today: get out in front on the Iran War Fever

Here's my second message to the White House today:

The President needs to cut off all the war hysteria on Iran at the pass. He needs to clearly state what his military and intelligence leaders have said: that there is no evidence that Iran has committed to building a nuclear weapon, and he needs to reassure the American people that we act in OUR interests, and will not allow our foreign policy to be dictated by Israel or anyone else. We will continue to seek a negotiated resolution to issues and suspect actions of the Iranians having to do with their nuclear program, but the White House will make decisions on the basis of facts, not on the basis of propaganda, or a drumbeat of war fever cooked up by vested interests.

I believe that the American people overwhelmingly DO NOT WANT another war in the Middle East, and if the President, as he is quite capable of doing, frames this issue correctly, the people overall will support him and it will inure to his benefit in seeking re-election.

First Message to White House: Get out in Front on Gas Prices

Here is the first of two messages I sent to the White House today:

Although the CFEC has failed to rein in the rampant speculation which is obviously the real cause of the spike in Gasoline prices (when domestic demand is actually LOW), the President can and should announce that his administration will investigate the unwarranted speculation going on in these markets. As Michael Greenberger has said, this would be like turning on a light; the cockroaches will go scurrying. The 1%er speculators, like the Koch Bros., who are responsible for this intentional harm to ordinary working Americans, don't want to take even a slight risk of going to jail.

The President already knows this tactic will work, because he said the same thing a year ago, and it was, in fact, the threat of investigation which drove gasoline prices down the LAST time they went over $4/gal.

The President can also urge Senate leaders to hold conspicuous public hearings on this issue.

High gas prices are a danger to our recovery, and a danger to the President's re-election chances, and it's vital that he get out in front of this issue immediately.

Thank you.

Still a Buddhist

I have strayed away, in the last couple of years, from what had been a fairly intensive involvement in training in Tibetan-origin Buddhist doctrine and practice. The program I had been involved in just became too much for me to deal with; and, in truth, especially after the passage of some time; I've come to realize that I really wasn't accepting some of the truth claims being made. The practices, in the form of training the mind to correspond to Buddhist values, I still regard as wholly admirable and undoubtedly the most worthwhile of any possible human endeavor, but some of the more peripheral doctrine I never really quite accepted and still do not.

Looking back on one of the very earliest posts on this blog, however, Why I am a Buddhist (2004) [link], I find myself still in accord with all of it, and hoping to find the time and energy to put into practice the core Buddhist "Way of Life" to the best of my ability and capacity as I go through the rest of my life.
----------------------------------------------
UPDATE, 2014. I find nothing in this 2012 post that I don't still hold to, except perhaps that I would not describe the parts of the Buddhist tradition I was studying (based on Gelugpa, or Kadampa, through Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's so-called "New Kadampa Tradition," which I now find to be both soteriological and supernatural, (and thus, to my hopelessly literalist mentality unbelievable), as "peripheral." Actually, they are quite important to that tradition, and to its sincere practitioners. And I certainly respect and wish nothing but success for them. But for me, the ethics, the mental practice, the discipline of developing the Brahma Viharas and of focusing your mind on the well-being of others; these things are innately good and supported by reason. This is Buddhism as philosophy, not religion, and there I hope to dwell and practice for the rest of my days.

Breitbart dead

I cannot pretend for a second to mourn the death of the odious Andrew Breitbart. If consciousness (in whatever form) survives death (an open question, I'd maintain), then I wish for him a better existence. His prior existence among us sucked.

Two important messages Pres. Obama needs to drive home

A couple of quick points it seems to me are issues the President needs to drive home right now, and take action on in the near-term.

1.  Responsible economists are nearly unanimous that the current spike in oil/gasoline prices is not primarily caused by normal supply & demand, but by unwarranted speculation in the commodities markets. Thanks to a turncoat Democrat on the CFEC, the Dodd Frank regulations were not really implemented. Still, the President can announce (and then carry out) investigations of illegal and "unwarranted" speculation. Michael Greenberger has said that doing this would be like turning on a light... the cockroaches will scurry away. (Listen to this --audio). It's also vital for the president to make clear that gas prices are the result of "1%ers" run amok, not the result of fundamental economic problems. This issue could be a big problem for the economy and Democratic electoral prospects if not dealt with quickly and decisively.

2.  Christine Fair, who is one of the world's leading experts on South Asia, has made clear that U.S. policy in Afghanistan has become completely untenable. (Listen here). The President seems to get this, but he's dragging this out. He probably calculates that the Republicans would criticize a "cut and run" policy. It would have been better if the Administration had executed an accelerated withdrawal last year, as many Progressives urged, but it's still not too late. It would have to be framed as "we've tried to help the Afghan Security forces to build up the capacity to defend themselves, but this is a two-way street, and the U.S. cannot accept responsibility for the corrupt government there forever." U.S. interests simply are not served by continued slow bloodletting in Afghanistan. Pres. Obama should get his top military leaders to get out in front and call for accelerated disengagement, then go on TV and promise an end to the war in Afghanistan sooner rather than later. 

Bob Kerrey

I'm no big fan of former Sen. Bob Kerrey, but if he can retain the DINO Ben Nelson's seat for the Democratic party, I'm happy to see him decide to run for his old seat (Nebraska) again. (As has been rumored and was officially announced today).

Controversy over Pres. of Fish & Game Commission and the shooting of a cougar in Idaho

Here's how I see this controversy. (See this for details). If Daniel Richards were responsible for a Commission to Combat Child Abuse and posted his picture on a website touting his recent adventures (legal and on his own dime) with underaged prostitutes in Bangkok, the governor would be well within his powers to demand his resignation for conduct which was contradictory to and inconsistent with his legal charge. I see going to another jurisdiction and gloating over conduct which would be a serious crime in California, and the prohibition of which it is specifically the responsibility of the agency for which he is charged with oversight to enforce, is comparable. Gavin Newsom is right and when Governor Brown takes up the issue, he should publicly demand that Richards resign immediately.

If we can't hold appointed commissioners to higher standards than mere technical legality of their conduct, we need to enact some regulations that give the governor the power to require compliance with California's legal and ethical regime everywhere as a condition for continued tenure in office.

I find his defense, the usual bait and switch, particularly egregious, incidentally. He says what the "real problem" is is budget cuts to his agency. That's rich. Coming from a Republican; someone whose party and its obstructionist legislators are directly and exclusively responsible for the budget mess our state is in. It's just unbelievable. This guy's gotta go. 

Santorum preaches biblical basis for climate change denial

And speaking of the poisonous effect of sanctimonious religiosity, see this on Rick Santorum's truly obnoxious preachiness on the supposed biblical basis for climate change denial (read: anti-rational idiocy; it's all the same).

Franklin Graham's not sure the president isn't a Muslim.

Today, one reads (see TPM) that Billy Graham's idiot son Franklin "can't be sure" Obama isn't a Muslim because his administration has given "Islam a free pass."

Sheesh. I'm starting to agree with the late Christopher Hitchens: Religion poisons everything. (Except I have to qualify the use of the word "religion" to mean the religiosity and sanctimoniousness of people so sure of their unfounded and unprovable beliefs that they think it's a fine idea to slander others and force their moronic views down others' throats).

Must Read: Ari Berman from tomdispatch: it's not 1% -- it's .000063%

See this (cross-posted to Huffpo).

We have to face the fact, now, that we are living in the most inegalitarian oligarchy in the history of the human race. That's not the same thing as saying it's the worst government, which it clearly isn't, but the fact that the smallest elite with the most unequal wealth and power now runs this country, compared to any other political entity that has ever existed, is just that, a fact. And in my view, it is a contradiction that we simply cannot live with and must change.

(See this, if you doubt this statement). 

Obama Budget: Theater but a step in the right direction

Although it's only possible to be happy about the Obama budget by comparison to the outrageously destructive policies of the other party, and one has to acknowledge that it is primarily a political document, part and parcel of ongoing political theater, intended to portray the Righticans in an unfavorable light with zero expectation that it will ever actually be reflected in policy, I still have to acknowledge that it represents a notable improvement in the policy positions of the Obama administration, and will likely help him consolidate his Progressive Democratic base.

For a discussion of some of the details, I recommend Ian Masters's interview with Thomas Ferguson on ianmasters.com ;  mp3 file; link here. Ferguson is on the board of the Institute For New Economic Thinking and a contributing editor to The Nation. Masters and he discuss "what is not an austerity budget, but one that calls for more taxes on the rich and therefore has no hope of Republican support, but yet might persuade American voters that it is the path back to economic health."

A Critique of Sam Harris's comments on torture and "collateral damage"

I have a lot of respect for Sam Harris, and his attack on irrational religious belief in general (The End of Faith, 2004). I don’t entirely agree with all of his points. For example, I think he is a bit too doctrinaire in condemning (I'm paraphrasing here) the enabling effect of “liberal” Christianity, in particular, as having the effect of giving a pass to irrational beliefs that are actually practiced and cause harm by more fundamentalist Christians. (He argues that, essentially, all of Islam is fundamentalist, which is also arguably an exaggeration).

Still, his arguments are well reasoned and very well written. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to consider the position and moral value (or otherwise) of religious faith in a world where the necessity of rational policy decisions is becoming more and more critical, to the point even of being a question of survival of our civilization.

He makes one argument, however, that I genuinely abhor, namely a claim that equates, in terms of ethics, “collateral damage” in warfare with torture. He argues that collateral damage is much more ethically problematic than is generally acknowledged; but that there are situations where it is the ethical choice. He then argues that, at least as a thought experiment (the “ticking time bomb” type situation), there are circumstances where torture may be ethically justifiable. (Not that it should be legal, but that it could, in extreme cases, be moral). Much has already been written about this (see his own response here), so my comments here are no doubt not original (especially since it’s been eight years since this book appeared). Nonetheless, here goes:

I think any equation of collateral damage in war with torture is simply fallacious. Harris himself elsewhere talks about “perfect weapons,” and the fact that they don’t exist; collateral damage is the intentionally invoked probability of death and suffering being caused to innocents which necessarily results from waging even “just war.” So far, so good. But there is no specific intent to harm; every effort is made to avoid harming anyone other than so-called legitimate targets, and there is an at least tacitly acknowledged responsibility to strive, continually, to make weapons ever more perfect, so that danger and harm to noncombatants is minimized, or, better, eliminated. These are the moral imperatives of those who would attempt “just war.”

Torture is entirely different. Even the most evil person, taken prisoner, is not only no longer a combatant, he is not even in the theater of war. He is in custody. Prisoners, who are by definition under the control of their captors and no longer capable of waging warfare in return,  in a civilized society, are treated not under the rules of engagement with combatants, but under legal process. I hold as an absolute tenet that under such circumstances, it is never justified to use torture. Not only because it creates a slippery slope where unchecked state power is likely to lead to all manner of hideous, and increasingly terrible, consequences, with more and more people falling into categories of prisoners for whom torture is deemed justified, but because centuries of terrible experience has proven, once and for all, that torture does not work; that its results are uniformly unreliable and indeed useless.

So, on this point, I think Sam Harris is flatly and entirely wrong.

Nonetheless, much of what he has to say in The End of Faith and the more recent The Moral Landscape  and Lying is very well thought through, original, and highly probative.

Message to White House on Contraception "compromise"

Very skillful statecraft in creating a "compromise" on the phony issue of contraception coverage, ginned up by Republicans as a wedge. It stole the thunder of the religious freedom argument while maintaining the fundamental principle that women need to have this coverage available.

The president needs to continue to make the interests of ordinary working Americans his main focus, and to devise strategies not only to win reelection, but to build a coalition for a new legislative agenda, and a strategy, including winning the Senate and persuading its Democratic leadership to force a rules change to end the supermajority requirement to pass legislation, to actually get a progressive agenda enacted.

This "compromise" and the president's recent commitment to prosecuting Wall Street Crooks, and the strengthened "deal" on mortgage fraud (while far from perfect), are all steps in the right direction which will help the President to consolidate his "Pragmatic Progressive" base. (Of which I consider myself to be a part).

Obama's end run on contraception

Although I find it a bit galling that any accommodation to misogynistic religious institutions is politically expedient, I have to acknowledge that the Administration's defusing of the ginned up (and largely phony) contraception insurance controversy was pretty clever. As I understand it, they said, OK religiously affiliated employers, we won't mandate that you be required to include no additional cost contraception in your health care plans for your employees. Instead, as part of the regulation of health insurance itself, we will require the insurers to do an end run around you and offer the same benefit directly to your employees. (Which they're plenty happy to do, since it's an established fact that providing contraception benefits saves insurers a ton of money... both abortion and childbirth care cost far more).

Sam Harris takes on the Fireplace delusion

Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith, Lying, and The Moral Landscape) takes on the the Fireplace delusion, partly as an analogy for rationalist critiques of the truth claims of religions. But what he's saying here is actually quite true, even though contrary to most peoples' cherished beliefs. This is one uncompromising rationalist, this Sam Harris.

Rightican Division good for Obama

I can see no reasonable conclusion other than that the insistence of the Fringe of the Rightican party on avoiding a seemingly mainstream candidate like Willard Romney, can only redound to the advantage of Obama. (Witness recent surge for Big Senate Race Loser Santorum last night).

Prop. 8 Decision ... might NOT go to Supreme Court?

The L.A. Times is reporting speculation amongst legal scholars that today's 9th Circuit decision in Perry v. Brown, very narrowly finding California's Prop. 8 to be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, may NOT end up being accepted for review by the Supreme Court. The decision (which I've read), is pretty clearly directed to Justice Kennedy, who was the author of the 1994 Supreme Court decision Evans v. Romer finding unconstitutional a Colorado law prohibiting local jurisdictions from enacting anti-gay-discrimination statutes. Kennedy is widely seen as the likely deciding tie-breaking vote should this case, or any "Gay Marriage" case, come before the High Court.

Today's decision is intentionally narrowly based on the specific procedural and legal posture of the Initiative Constitutional Amendment and context of pre-existing law in California, and will not have wide-ranging effects on other states' laws. The Supreme Court, the thinking goes, may well take a pass on this one, allowing this case to stand as the law in California, while waiting for a more general-question case on whether or not the 14th amendment is violated by gay marriage bans, in general.

NYT Op-ed the Voice of Sanity on Iran

This op-ed in the NYT on the shape of a possible negotiated detente with Iran strikes me as the Voice of Sanity. Listening, Barack? Hilary?

Chris Dodd admits to bribery?

Allow me to stipulate that at one time I thought Chris Dodd was a pretty good senator, and might even make an acceptable presidential candidate (a sort of an unglamorous compromise figure, but anyway)...

Now, however, I think he's a totally unprincipled lobbyist who should be run outta town on a rail, figuratively speaking.

Still, the online petition to the White House calling for an investigation into Dodd for, in effect admitting to bribery, has me scratching my head a little. Investigating? A former senator? For Bribery? Might as well investigate all of 'em, because as near as I can figure out, this is just S.O.P. in D.C.

Newt the faux populist

I think it's a little premature to conclude that Newton Gingrich is going to be the Rightican nomminy, but it's still worth noting that he's obviously adopting an anti-elite, pseudopopulist framing, in contrast to Romney's more reassuring, professional manager-is-what-we-need message. (Which is rich, considering he's an ultimate insider, who has lived in Washington since 1978). If Pres. Obama ends up running against Gingrich, he had better work up his pro-99% real populist creds and have them in line and ready to go for the general election.

Wheelerdealer Romney losing to hypocrite Newt!?

I am more than a little skeptical about reports that Gingrich is "surging" and Romney is "collapsing" in polls. But if it does turn out to be true, it will be hard to escape the (admittedly anecdotal because based on one example) conclusion: voters, at least Rightist voters, care less about sexual peccadilloes and personal character than they do about the perception that someone is a Wall Streeter. It seems in the wake of the financial collapse, no one (other than themselves) likes Godon Gekko type Wall Street wheelerdealers (and for good reason).

Press Senators and Congress to OPPOSE SOPA & PIPA now

Please see this (Electronic Frontier Foundation) in opposition to SOPA/PIPA (the alternative pending House and Senate Internet bills that have been vigorously denounced by Internet content providers as destructive of Internet independence and freedom of information).

Unfortunately, both of California's senators, and my Congressman, Howard Berman, have come out for these dreadful bills. We who care about freedom of internet information need to pressure them to change their stance immediately.  (See ProPublica here to find out how your representatives stand).

Here's an idea on capital gains

There was a time in this country, not so terribly long ago, when so-called capital gains were taxed the same as other income. The world didn't implode. In fact, it was a time of great prosperity, at least some of the time. (And when it wasn't it certainly didn't have anything to do with capital gains taxes).

The rationale for a low rate on capital gains has always struck me is phony and hypocritical. Low taxes on the income (primarily) of the very rich (obviously) mainly benefits the very rich, who don't need any benefits.

But for those who are swayed by the usual Rightist argument that little old ladies who live on investment income would be harmed, here's my retort (both):

• A cap. Capital gains can be taxed at 15% up to a maximum of (say) $60,000 income; subject to...
• An aged/disabled qualifier.To qualify for a reduced capital gains rate, (capped or otherwise), you'd have to prove, in the same manner as you have to prove to be eligible for SSI, either age (over 65) or disability (inability to work full time for medical reasons).

I can't think of a sensible rejoinder. These work together: i.e., you don't get capital gains reduction unless aged or disabled, and even if you do qualify, it's limited to $60,000 income (subject to adjustment for COLA or some other formula).

The argument that without capital gains taxed at low rates investors wouldn't "invest in America" is, I believe, provably ridiculous and false; it is merely a propaganda point for advocates of low taxes on the rich.

Romney 15% tax rate a political issue?

TPM today is talking about how Romney is admitting that, as a 1%er whose income is almost all capital gains, he pays an effective tax rate lower than most middle class people, on his millions and millions in annual income. I'd say this was a great issue for Democrats, but, unfortunately, unless framed very carefully and well, it probably won't be, because the level of sophistication acceptable in messaging directed to the electorate at large seems to have to be at about third grade level to have any effect, and things like "effective tax rates" are just too complicated. Sad, really.

Not a diet, a (permanent) change of diet

Almost 8 months ago now, after reading Gary Taubes's quite detailed explanation of how so-called metabolic syndrome-X and the overconsumption of easily digestible carbohydrates (and especially sugar and refined flours) are the cause of most obesity and overweight, I decided I'd try to change my diet in accordance with the facts he outlined. (The book is Good Calories, Bad Calories, or there's an "airliner" version called Why We Get Fat and What to do about it). 

I had put on a good deal of extra weight by that time, and it had been a factor in a back injury I'd suffered picking up a laundry basket, that caused me to be in physical therapy for six weeks and even to have to walk with a cane for a short time.


What I (and my partner, for the same reasons) did was to change our diet (permanently), not go on a diet. It's simple, although it takes some determination, and you have to be willing to go against some conventional wisdom, that Taubes convinced me was just not true. I won't go into all that; if you're interested, read his book.

For me, the proof is that I've lost more than 45 pounds and it seems to be staying off; I feel better and get around more easily; I have been able to (or had to) cut my blood pressure medication more than in half, including eliminating one of the drugs entirely, and, although there are a few foods I somewhat miss eating, I do not have to starve myself and eat as much as I want every day. Just not of certain foods.

The Good

On a sensible low-carb regime, you can eat bacon, nuts, meat, eggs, cheese (which I'm averse to, but no matter), dairy, butter, cream, (even ice cream if you go to the trouble to make it yourself and use low-glycemic natural sugar alcohols and sweet short fibers to sweeten it rather than sugar). Leafy and fibrous vegetables (but not starchy ones). Much as you want. No restriction. Your body regulates fat quite well as long as there isn't an insulin spike from sugar and starch every time you eat anything. Two important facts, contrary to most actually scientifically unwarranted belief, even in the medical community: dietary cholesterol does not correlate particularly with serum cholesterol, and it has no particular affect on incidence of heart disease and stroke. The research to prove that it does has been, at best, completely inconclusive. My personal story: I eat bacon all the time, and my blood serum cholesterol is unchanged. A little high, but not high enough to prescribe medication. The same as before I made these changes. The cause of most cholesterol "issues" is mostly genetic.

The Acceptable

You have to cut out sugar. This even means restricting sweet fruits, like bananas (I avoid them) and mangoes (ditto), although most berries, grapefruit, tart apples, an occasional orange, are fine. You have to cut out starchy foods. Potatoes (french fries are my greatest regret), pasta, rice, couscous, bread, cookies, crackers, etc. Really eliminate them from your diet (there are some pretty low carb sprouted grain breads and inulin-blocked pasta products which you can use occasionally and in small quantities, if you need to. You can have an occasional tortilla chip or something, but literally, just a couple. There are tortillas made that are mostly dietary fiber that you can use to make "wraps" to substitute for sandwiches. (This is my usual lunch). You have to look at labels and avoid salad dressings that are loaded with High Fructose Corn syrup. You have to avoid sweet beverages, including fruit juices. You can't eat cake, pastry, muffins, biscuits, waffles, pancakes, or anything that's mostly flour (although there are carb-blocked substitutes, if you must; but it's actually easier to just find other things to eat). Even tofu and other soy products are suspect. Obviously, this is not a regime suitable for vegetarians; although many people find that if they stick to whole grains and higher protein foods, they're fine. Some South Beachers avoid even pulses (legumes), but I eat them freely and continuously lost weight for months, having now more or less stabilized at what I consider an acceptable weight. A lot of people use a lot of artificial sweeteners to accomplish the starch and sugar elimination, but I have experimented with the aforementioned natural substitutes, and, mainly, you just learn to avoid starch and sweet foods. You really do get used to it.

The Bad

You have to explain to well intentioned people that no, you won't try their cookies. Cookies are poison. But most people don't insist.

I am a believer, because this has worked for me, and I'm almost never hungry and have no desire to return to eating starch or sugar.

Counterintuitive development on Iran?

In the last couple of weeks Ian Masters interviewed several Iran hands about the apparently increased tensions between the US and Iran, in the wake of the draconian financial sanctions enacted in December and a number of other factors. Some of them, like Robert Baer, were quite alarmist in their assessment of how precarious the situation was, as in, an inadvertent or deliberately falsified (by either side) misunderstanding in the Gulf could lead to a Tonkin Gulf like casus belli. He stressed how out of touch with reality the hardline regime in Tehran is, and how unworkable the sanctions regime is, etc.

But then he interviewed Gary Sick, whom I believe to be one of the most informed people around on the subject. (His blog here). Sick noted that SOS Clinton had strongly condemned the clandestine assassination last week of a nuclear scientist in Tehran (almost certainly committed by Israeli agents), and that her condemnation was obviously directed, with notable anger, mostly at Israel, not Iran. There had actually been some signals that the Iranians want to seek to get some kind of negotiation framework going, and talks were actually set up in Turkey before this happened. Clinton was clearly trying to signal the Iranians that the Israelis were acting rogue, and that the US really does want to find a way out of this crisis short of military engagement, as, apparently, the Iranians do as well.

Sick also mentioned that the sanctions, which were part of the already notorious (for other reasons too) Defense Authorization Act signed by Obama in late December, may be having an unintended consequence. That is, by creating a totally untenable situation for all concerned, they have destabilized a status quo that everyone was pretty much just living with for some time, and now, something's gotta give. And what's given, perhaps surprisingly, is that the Iranians want to talk. Let's just hope the saner minds in the Obama administration are able to quell whatever neocon thinking may still reside in the halls of power here, and restrain the nuts in the Netanyahu government, long and well enough to actually change the situation and get us on the road to a negotiated resolution of the whole Iranian nuclear question.

Two NYT columns on the same subject: one right on, the other, as usual, off base

Two columns in NYT today on the same subject:
Krugman.   Brooks.
I suppose needless to say, in my view Krugman has it right. I think Brooks is, as usual for him, way off base in his dismissal of the callousness of Leveraged-Buyout capitalists,* and Romney in particular, and just how wrong for America right now someone like that actually is.
---
* I refuse to use the euphemism private equity, which was merely invented to deceive gullible people into thinking that quasi-criminal predation, which does no one but the raiders themselves any good, is benign.

On the other hand, recovery may already be underway?

If my post (below) about the danger of an Iran war was too depressing, there's always this, a prediction that economic recovery may already be underway. Maybe if we can somehow avoid a war, we'll actually have a good year economically, which can only be good for defeating the Rightists at the polls.

Disconnect in the Media: ignoring the danger of war with Iran

Listening to Vali Nasr and Robert Baer being interviewed by Ian Masters on Background Briefing, (kpfk.org; ianmasters.com), I was struck by a major disconnect in the public discourse in this country. These guys are experts on Iran by any lights and they're saying the "pressure regime" of the Obama White House has failed, that the paranoid regime in Iran is on a hair trigger, and that inadvertent war is actually likely. Which would be terrible news for Obama's re-election, and could spin entirely out of control very quickly. Yet the news media, even the progressive blogosphere and the likes of Current and MSNBC (for the most part) are acting like the clown shows in Iowa and New Hampshire (and beyond) are the only things that matter.

NYT news analysis says chance of economic uptick in 12 appears better

Here.

The WTC

I recall reading that Pau Casals, although a cellist, would start each day by playing one of the Inventions or Preludes and Fugues of the Well Tempered Clavier. It's also a standard anecdote of music history (probably derived from the notoriously unreliable Carl Czerny) that Beethoven "cut his teeth" as a child by playing the "ne plus ultra of our art..." meaning, the same Well Tempered Clavier, although that story seems unlikely because the first publication them didn't occur until 1803, when Beethoven was in his 30s, and the likelihood that he had a manuscript copy seems a bit remote.

Anyway, I am not naturally gifted musically, at least not particularly so. I love music, and Bach in particular, and have over the years slogged away at playing his keyboard music to the point that I can manage... just... to negotiate some of the 48 preludes and fugues of the WTC. And I have to say that even that, pale reflection of the creativity that went into them in the first place or even the pleasure that must come from real mastery of them, is a privilege that I cherish.

Why I am supporting President Obama's re-election

I think it no exaggeration to argue that this coming presidential election may be one of, if not the most important of my lifetime. My main reason for this belief is the Supreme Court. It is hardly an original idea — that, from a Progressive point of view (the actual issues-determined view of the majority of Americans), the danger of a Supreme Court irreversibly dominated by an un-American Rightist philosophy is the greatest threat to the American Republic of our lifetime. Yet it is quite clearly true. Our present court has four justices, the Gang of Four, whose identities are known to every thinking American, who do not believe in the essential constitutional principles of our country, and who fail completely to respect principles of law, instead deciding critical issues on the basis of right-wing ideology alone. If you doubt this, please peruse the so-called reasoning of the Citizens United case (I have done so). It’s unmistakable.

From this corporate personhood, plutocracy is good, money is speech judicial fiat, to the potential for grave damage on civil liberties (such as the recent defense authorization bill that purports to effectively eviscerate the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments), to reproductive rights, to the right to be free from religion and to choose your own partners with equal treatment under law, to the right to fair elections… the list is long and frightening. If a Romney or other Rightist becomes president, the court will almost certainly be cemented in Rightist ideology for a long time to come.

I have been quite critical of President Obama on a number of issues of importance to me, as I have discussed on this blog at length. I regard Obama as no better than a corporatist-Centrist Democrat, whose policy intentions are well aligned with the moneyed interests that really run this country. But Democrats are different from Republicans. They at least believe in checks and balances, and in a system that is not entirely given over to exclusive interests of the rich and powerful. President Obama is no Progressive, but on a whole host of issues, his policy intent is clearly superior to that of any conceivable Republican opponent.

And for those reasons, I intend to support his re-election, both financially and with time and energy. Our political system is deeply dysfunctional, and one of its dysfunctions is its bipolarity; but this is simply a fact of life. We should work, long term, to change that, but we must also make the right choices for the future now, in the short term. We must, as thinking people, act in ways that we sincerely believe will result in the best outcome for the future. For me, the choice is clear, that we have to put our support on the side closer to our world view, while continuing to put what pressure we can on those whom we support to change their views to conform more closely to ours, while constructing in our advocacy the means to a better system, and working for that for the longer term. 

But the most salient point in this short-term calculus, for me, is the danger of generation-long domination of the Supreme Court by truly dangerous Rightist ideologues. We’re almost there already; if we don’t reverse the trend, our country will be benighted by Rightist jurisprudence for so long that real social progress will be hobbled no matter what changes in the Zeitgeist may bring in terms of electoral politics in the coming years. And this, alone, for me, is sufficient reason to eschew any thought of Progressive Third Party candidates, or of high-mindedly foregoing voting altogether (which I’ve seen advocated), and getting serious about making sure that the most Progressive Democrats we can find run to defeat Republicans, that Democrats in general are elected and re-elected to the House and Senate, and, above all, that President Obama is re-elected this year.

Where I part company with the Consequentialist•Atheists

Where I part company with people like Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris is not so much with regard to their analysis of the logical fallacies of religious faith. I agree with them about that. They are right to cite Bertrand Russell’s famous reference to an orbiting teapot, and his having noted that even agnosticism with respect to the reality of an eternally orbiting China teapot is not really rational. And that the same applies to belief in the God of Abraham, the infallibility of the Bible or (closer to home for me) the miraculous powers of the Buddhas and the reality of rebirth and karma which somehow persists from lifetime to lifetime. These things are not rational, and belief in them cannot be sustained by rational argument nor proven empirically by scientific investigation.

And I am skeptical, myself, about almost all religious dogma, including that from the religion with which I have the most experience, which is the Middle Way Consequence School of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism (Madhyamika Prasangika). Where Buddhism teaches the methods of training the mind towards concentration, towards moral discipline, towards awareness, towards generation of love for all living beings-- I believe it is useful and good, in the sense that it helps to decrease the suffering of living beings and to increase their overall well being. But when it comes to whether one or another particular traditional story, or ritual practice, is in some literal sense true, or efficacious-- well, apart from the placebo effect of almost any kind of ritual practice, I’m not so sure.

But where I really part company with these modern day Consequentialist•Atheists, if I may call them that, borrowing the term from Harris (the terms used not together, but separately), is with regard to their assumptions about what is consciousness. Consciousness could be a sort of meta-state that arises from the computational functions of biological computers (brains), or of the entire organism. If so, in principle, if, as these thinkers do, you assume that there is nothing about living organisms, other than their origin through natural selection, that makes them different from artificial systems, it should be possible to model these functions and to create artificial consciousness, or even artificial systems which will serve as hosts for transferred biological consciousness (Presto! Immortality!)

But, and here, I cannot cite empirical evidence, but only intuitive belief, or, if you prefer, faith, I just do not believe this. I do not accept the idea that the inner experience of mind is merely the sum-over effect of computation of a biological computer. I cannot prove my thesis, but nonetheless believe it, probably as firmly as most Christians believe in God, or the resurrection: there is something non-mechanical, non-physical, even, about inner experience, about mind, that cannot be replicated. Whether it in some way, as Buddhists believe, is a continuum, that has always existed and can be neither created nor destroyed, I don’t know, but that it is not merely computation, I believe. No computer, no matter how well it may outwardly simulate the behavior of a mind, is a mind, or ever will be. No one’s conscious mind will ever be downloaded into a computer. No Artificial Intelligence will ever have the inner experience that even a cat or a baby has. Again, I can’t prove this, but I believe it. So, in this sense, I am not fully an atheist, and not fully a scientific rationalist.

So far, I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise, although I will admit that in this particular attitude I am not fully consistent, and am not strictly applying Occam’s Razor, because I suppose it could be argued that the hypothesis that mind is nothing more than a sort of sum-over of the electrochemical functions of brain and organism is simpler than my theory that it is… well, I don’t know. But I hold it nonetheless, and I believe that from it comes a whole host of consequences, some of which actually reinforce the Moral Landscape view of people like Sam Harris.

That this idea of inner experience is somehow connected with the fact that from apparent nothing, something, i.e., this universe and likely an infinity of others, arises, I also hold to be true, although, again, I cannot prove this or describe a rational argument for why it must be so. 

Eventually, everyone chooses what their world view will be. There are philosophical choices made in every system of thought, including scientific rationalism. For the most part, I share the worldview of the Atheists. I find the idea of a God who ransomed the supposed inherited sin of his creatures by torturing his only begotten son to death not only preposterous but offensive. I recognize the hideous harm that is committed in the name of belief in various religious doctrines. I am unclear that, in toto, religion creates more moral behavior, and less suffering, than would occur in its absence. Maybe it does, but there are a lot of counterexamples. But, irrespective or a sort of reckoning of whether holding certain irrational, or rather, not rationally justifiable, beliefs, is or is not beneficial, we all hold certain beliefs, and most of us believe at least some things that cannot be fully justified by rational philosophy or scientific outlook. And this view, that the inner experience of consciousness is in some way a product of the essential nature of reality itself, and cannot be replicated, created artificially, or even fully understood or described, is mine.  

Buddhism has a doctrine of emptiness, which is explicitly held to be beyond the ability of a rational mind to comprehend. The describable part of it seems almost ridiculous, and yet is literally true, from a physical point of view: the way that things appear to exist is not the way that they exist. No thing has fixed existence, inherent, or self-contained. The apparent existence of matter and energy is illusory. I am no doubt influenced by this concept, or phenomenon-system. Perhaps it's like Gödel's proof that no arithmetic system can be fully self-descriptive. Outside of rationality there is... something. And, to me, that something is the ground of existence, which is somehow implicit in, inextricable from, and intrinsic to, the inner experience of mind. 

Yet from rationality, I believe, can be derived a comprehensive, practical universal morality. And where religion fails to do this, fully, it is worse than useless. Religion, and even mysticism, the atheists argue, is unnecessary for morality, and in this they are right, I believe. But morality is absolutely necessary for the integrity of human experience, and for the full flowering of itself: we cannot be a truly moral race, until we recognize that it is irrational, and unacceptable, to cause suffering avoidably; to hold as ours what is needed for others to have well being; to take needlessly what others need. Of course, it isn't realistic for us to expect to fulfill these standards perfectly, but if we do not accept them, and strive for them; if we rationalize systematically ignoring them, we forego our claim to morality, regardless of any affiliation we may have for any religion or philosophy. 

Sam Harris on Youtube: Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?

This video by Atheist ethicist Sam Harris Who Says Science has Nothing to Say about Morality? is 1 h 17 min. long but well worth a view. You don't have to be an atheist to appreciate some of his points.

Morality and Science, some musings

After reading Brian Greene's The Hidden Reality, I ordered another book on cosmology by a guy who turns out to be a militant (but not nasty) atheist, name of Lawrence Krauss (physicist at ASU in Tempe). Haven't received it yet, it's forthcoming next month; title is A Universe from Nothing). Krauss rejects string theory, but not necessarily the multiverse; he also embraces the idea that from nothing can come nonzero canceling opposites, which are something (think of, for example, the net electric charge of the universe, which is zero; but there isn't no charge, there's just net zero charge).

Anyway, one thing leading to another, and via Youtube, I watched some Atheist discussions and what not and stumbled upon a book by Sam Harris, who wrote Letter to a Christian Nation, called The Moral Landscape. This is about the idea that human suffering can actually be measured through the miracles or modern neuroscience, and that, at least to a "Better than Nothing" approximation, it might be possible to scientifically evaluate morality, if you define what is moral as that which tends to minimize suffering (plural, not just in any one person; you could even include para-human intelligences such as chimps and dolphins, or even all sentient beings, at least in principle).

Perhaps a bit of a stretch, but it is an answer to those who would claim that science is morally neutral: actually, it isn't. It is irrational to cause harm to the Earth, or to others, without some counterbalancing benefit, and if you accept the idea of society as having any value, as opposed to pure narcissism, the only rational goal is the old saw, the greatest good for the greatest number. That is a quantity, at least in principle, which can be determined, and used a measure of morality. Therefore, although the results scientific investigation can be used by immoral persons, their conduct is irrational, and not supported by scientific conclusions. In just the same way that mental techniques discovered by spiritual practitioners can be used by misguided persons to cause harm, but that does not mean that the spiritual practice is morally neutral, or worse, evil, just that it is capable of being subverted. The same for scientific knowledge and technique: if applied consistently, it is moral, but if subverted, it can be used by irrational persons to do harm.

After I get the book (ordered it used) and read it, I'll let you know what I think about all that.

It occurs to me that there may be value in this, irrespective of whether one chooses the reductionist viewpoint that is atheism.* A person can choose to hold beliefs, and still embrace the idea that science is not, or need not be, morally neutral, and that its methodologies can aid in determination of moral courses of action.

...
* I think this can be summed up thus: The evidence so far claimed for anything supernatural is unverifiable. The rational course in face of unverifiable evidence is to reject premises based on any assumption of the existence of the claimed phenomena (Occam's Razor). Therefore, the rational mind rejects the supernatural, which includes the existence of God, gods, fairies, ghosts, etc.
Whether this is too narrow a viewpoint, or there is a flaw in the logic, I leave for your own particular preferred interpretation. I think it's best not to argue religion with people, because religion and the questions it addresses are inherently emotional.

Obviously, there are some subtleties here. Why would one, for example, more or less categorically reject fairies and ghosts, but have a predisposition to accept extraterrestrial intelligence? I can think of several reasons, but I just throw that out there, except to say, the first category is not only unverifiable, but there is no reasonable chain of assumptions that lead to the conclusion that there is a plausible theoretical basis for the existence of these things, whereas, one actually would have to do a bit of special pleading to conclude that other intelligent beings do not exist somewhere other than Earth, notwithstanding the current state of evidence (i.e., none).

Britain effectively pulled out of E.U.?

I claim no expertise in the intricacies of Euro politics, but it would seem from the refusal of Britain to join the rest of the E.U. in a treaty to impose uniform fiscal standards, that Britain has effectively removed itself from the E.U. for most practical purposes. Britain's justification, from what I understand, is essentially to preserve plutocracy: i.e., protect its banks and financial sector, the control of which is precisely why the treaty is needed in the first place, so, although not a member of the "Eurozone" anyway, it would appear that Britain has basically taken its toys and gone home.

I guess the question is whether or how long the E.U. as a Great Idea can survive without Britain as a real member.

Brian Beutler: Dems gambling on being able to raise taxes on rich in Payroll Tax gambit

This piece is interesting. It seems to me that the Democrats are finally standing up for the Middle Class, and that if they do an even halfway decent job of framing and presenting their message, this will pay off and break the stranglehold of right wing economic doctrine on Congress after 2012... at long last. Let's hope and pray.

Obama Speech: Cautiously Optimistic

Having now had a chance to read Obama's entire speech, I was impressed that he seems to be saying really a lot of the right things. This president has suffered from a lack of passion and energy, especially during the past two years, and I have been very critical of his having been too-ready and too-willing to cut deals with the Rightists, even before pushing hard for his own positions. But if this speech is an indicator of how he intends to campaign in 2012, I am, as Aung San Suu Kyi recently put it, "cautiously optimistic" about democracy in Burma..er, I mean, in America.

Obama's speech today: some right notes

I haven't had a chance to read or see the entire speech the president gave in Kansas today, but in referring to "make or break time for the middle class," noting that the gross inequality of income in America "distorts our democracy," and acknowledging that radical free market thinking just isn't going to work to bring broad prosperity back to our country, the president seems to be hitting the right notes.

Obama DOJ, Supreme Court likely to shoot down 1st Amendment Rights yet again

The failure of the Obama Justice Department to stand up for the 1st Amendment in the Cheney Arrest Case (see this) is, unfortunately, all too typical of this Administration's terrible record on defending Constitutional rights and principles. I find this particularly disgraceful, in light of Obama's repeated promises to defend and protect the Constitution (as of course is one of his primary responsibilities as president). Of course, the reliable 5-4 majority for Rightist Authoritarian ideology over legal principle on the Court can pretty well be counted on to shoot down the exercise of free speech rights yet again.

It should be emblazoned on the front of the Justice Department, a new motto:

Where there is doubt, where the call may be close, we must err on the side of defending the rights of the people to redress grievances. 

The policy of the government, for a long time before this president, but unfortunately very much including this presidency, has been just the opposite. 

Occupy Electoral Politics: A historic opportunity (about to be missed?)

Having previously commented (here) on Republican hypocrisy in refusing to acknowledge that either allowing the payroll tax cut to lapse and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire are both tax increases, or neither is; you can't make any legitimate distinction, I wanted to comment on the wisdom of the payroll tax cut as a centerpiece of Democratic policy right now, and then comment much more broadly on the opportunity Democrats have to reshape the 2012 election. 

Look, I get it that there's very little that can be passed in this Congress, and that extending this reduction in regressive taxes, while making up the revenue with a tiny increase in taxes on the very richest is at least something, I find it meager and grotesquely inadequate that the best we are able to do as a society in the way of stimulating our moribund economy is a tax cut. Tax cuts are very weak stimulus, at best. As policy, this is pathetic.

George Lakoff has recently said that what the Democratic party needs to do is reach out to the Occupy Movement, not to co-opt it, but to (in essence) offer it the opportunity to shape and re-form the party in its image. I agree with this. The only way to counter the power of money in politics is to directly provide in kind what money buys: which is, in large measure, people, organization, and direct action. The "Tea Party" and its Fundamentalist Christianist allies managed to virtually take over the Republican party. Now it's time for "Occupy" to occupy electoral politics. If the Democratic party, led by the president, were to put forward a plan to actually put into effect the program of the occupiers: a financial transaction tax, prosecution of Wall Street criminals, strong re-regulation of the financial industry, reformation of trade policy to restore the production economy of America, major investment in infrastructure and renewable energy development, reform political rules including public financing of elections, end gerrymandering, investment in public works jobs to get us through the financial downturn years still ahead, etc. etc. .... AND were to reach out to the very people who've been occupying the streets and say, we want to get the things done that you have been asking for, so join us, give us not your money but your bodies, your energy, your direct action.... We could a) take the special interest corruption and double dealing out of the Democratic party; and b) sweep to victory on a tide of enthusiasm and commitment not seen since the 1960s.

Polyanna? I say no. It just takes a bit of epic leadership, of which, unfortunately, I see no sign. But no one can convince me that what I just outlined above isn't perfectly possible, even this late in the game. I fear there's little chance it will happen, but the Democratic leaders, and President Obama in particular, will have no one but themselves to blame if next year goes badly for Democrats, because the opportunity for truly historic change is there.

If it's a tax hike here, it's a tax hike there

It goes without saying that Republicans and their Ministry of Truth aka Fox News care nothing about intellectual integrity or consistency, but you gotta call 'em on this: they're now claiming that allowing the payroll tax cut to lapse "isn't a tax increase" but allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is. Even the spineless Congressional Democrats and the president have gotta have enough gumption to say, Look, you just can't have it both ways.

Norm Coleman, insidious evildoer

"Moderate" Democrats (by today's standards) often cite Norm Coleman as one of the "reasonable" Republicans. Take a look at this, if you are one of these "moderates."  What this guy is essentially saying is that he's just fine with unlimited power of money taking over politics, and the interests and will of the people be damned. I have a terse descriptor for that view: insidious evil.

Cain Out, Gingrich benefits?

Roiling around the probably well-founded speculation that Herman Cain is finally about to throw in the towel, and the presumption that the most likely beneficiary of that event will be the Newster, my comment is this:

Despite the fact that Romney is obviously a totally hypocritical wealth extraction/concentration specialist (i.e., oligarchic fatcat 1%-er), whose interests are antithetical to those of nearly everyone in America, I am more concerned about his candidacy that that of Newt Gingrich, who I truly believe has zero chance of being elected president.

Updated: FTL, Causation, and Travel to Remote Timespace Locales

Updated post

FTL, Causation, and Travel to Remote Timespace Locales

Original Post Jan. 2009 

I've been kicking around a sort of sci-fi idea. Conventional scientific thought has it that travel faster than light (FTL) is inherently impossible because it violates causation. (If you don't know why, you can read about it any number of places). Also because the energy necessary for any mass to travel at the speed of light is infinite, and asymptotically approaches infinity as you get closer and closer to that velocity. Nature abhors infinities, just as it abhors vacuum.

However, since the universe (as opposed to the observable universe) is, while not infinite, very very large, it stands to reason that there are many, many worlds, some perhaps a lot like Earth, all over the place, that are outside the time horizon of our current location in space and time. In other words, they are not and can never be causally connected to anything happening here.

If this isn't clear, think about this. The universe is no more than 13-14 billion years old, but there are regions of space much further than 13 billion light years distant, due to the expansion of space. A star in such regions isn't even theoretically visible from here, and it never will be. In fact, no form of communication whatsoever with such regions, which are by far most of the universe, will ever be possible. Unless...

If space is, as some believe, all twisted and interconnected with trapdoors and wormholes, maybe there are ways to connect more or less instantly, say across some kind of 'gateway', with places (timespace locations) which are vastly far away from here; so vastly that they cannot see us and we cannot see them, effectively, ever, in normal space and time.

Might it be at least conceivable that there could be a permanent or at least stable connection between two locales, vastly separated in normal spacetime but immediately proximate in twisty spacetime, so that you could routinely travel between them with no concern for violating either the energy considerations of FTL travel or the problems of timetravel paradoxes which normally arise when FTL is being considered? Travel of signals between such places in normal spacetime is impossible, so there's no way either could causally effect the other in normal spacetime. So the issue of timetravel paradoxes which would otherwise arise from any travel from one such location to another will never arise.

Anyway, an odd consequence of this is that it might be possible to immediately, or at least relatively quickly, travel to extremely remote locations in the universe, while it remains effectively impossible to travel quickly to even the very nearest stars, or anywhere in our own Galaxy, for example.

UPDATE (Nov. 2011):
Here is a more recent exposition of this same speculation. One problem that came to my attention after this, is created by relativity, whereby simultaneity is effectively nonexistent. The spacetime angle created by even small relative motion between very widely separated points in "normal space" might make synchronous travel through such points of contact effectively impossible even if they did exist. But it remains an intriguing idea, at least to me:

This is my idea, and it's how I think it's just possible that the universe actually is.

Accept, if you will, the following premise (I can explain why this is almost certainly so, if you like, but for now please just take it as a premise):

Faster than light travel by massive particles (and anything made out of them, including us and our spaceships, now and in the future, as well as those of any other creatures and their spaceships, now, and in the past and the future)....is impossible. For reasons of General Relativity, and because FTL is actually the mathematical equivalent of backwards time travel, which creates the possibility of violation of causality. For FTL to be possible, the many-worlds hypothesis of Quantum reality is necessarily true, and branching would have to occur both forwards and backwards; once you travel faster than light, you effectively break the connection with the universe you came from and you can never get back to it, although you could seemingly return to a world that resembled the one you left. Anyway, for purposes of my idea, please assume that this is not the case, that FTL is not now and never will be possible.

Now, accept, if you will, just as a thought experiment, the following:

The universe is so structured that places that are too far apart to be causally connected to each other (because light could never reach from one point to the other in the entire history since the Big Bang; rest assured that almost all locales in the universe are separated from almost all other locales in the universe in just this way)... nevertheless can be immediately adjacent to each other in the additional dimensions through which the normal space we live in is curved and re-curved. Picture three dimensional space projected like a map onto twisted spaghetti: locations distant along the threads might touch each other from one thread to another, or even one thread to another part of the same thread.

Then accept the following additional thought experiments:

There are points of contact, where it is possible to cross over from one part of space to another. The distance from A to B through this transit contact point is negligible, even though the distance between the same two points in normal space would typically be tens of billions of light years.

Such points of contact are relatively common (say, several, but not a huge number, accessible from any given place), and are possible, albeit technologically difficult, to detect.

Such points of contact are gravitationally associated with largish masses, like stars, but are typically found well outside the main mass of star systems, where planets and such are found, so that travel to them from such planetary systems is feasible, but not trivially easy. This makes them stable over time, and associated for long periods of time with particular stars and their planets.

A technological civilization arising anywhere in the universe could use these points of trans-spatial contact to create a whole network of accessible worlds, which were located some few tens to hundreds of billions of kilometers through normal space and a limited number of "link jumps" through the extra dimensions, without ever traveling faster than light and without violating causality. None of these linked worlds would be even theoretically visible from any of the others, and would be located literally all over the universe in "real space." (Yes, incidentally, the universe really is plenty large enough for this to be actually possible). Thus, a Trans-Galactic "Empire," even while travel to even the nearest stars remains effectively impracticable.

Bruce Fein, anti-NeoCon conservative

Bruce Fein, the conservative but anti-NeoCon constitutional lawyer and Ron Paul adviser, was interviewed last Wednesday on Ian Masters's Background Briefing. (Ianmasters.com).

I obviously totally disagree with Fein and Paul on domestic policy issues, but Fein in particular makes a dead-on and totally rational argument against the perpetuation of the Military/Congressional/National Security/Industrial Complex and any continued funding of the American Imperial Enterprise.  Fein is entirely consistent, but I believe foreign policy and whether domestic public investment and tax increases are necessary or not are completely separate issues, and it's possible, as I do, to completely disagree with these Conservative Libertarians on those issues, while completely agreeing with them (as I do) on foreign policy, and the necessity of dismantling the American Empire, in particular.

I also completely agree with Fein's views on the terrible danger to our republic posed by the National Security state and the erosion of constitutional guarantees under both the Bush and Obama administrations. 

Sachs: Fairness and the Occupy Movement

Jeffrey Sachs, author of The Price of Civilization, is a visionary who deserves to be listened to. See his Fairness and the Occupy Movement (update) from today's Huffington Post

My bright idea: micro-commerce on the internet

I am surprised someone hasn't invented (or implemented) a micro-commerce system for the internet, whereby a publication, for example, could sell a one-time view-only, no-download access to a backlist article or story for 5 cts. or something like that. You'd enroll an account, or put money in one, and by entering a password or PIN (or setting up your computer as 1-click, a la Amazon), you'd authorize the micro-charge. Surely this technology exists. Downloadable could cost more, say 50 cts. Free internet is wonderful, but small-cost access to the vast world of privately held backlogged information would be preferable to what we often have nowadays, which is no access. I suspect the reason something like this doesn't already exist is greed: people want to make unreasonable amounts of money from transactions. If the actual cost per transaction is, say 0.02 cts. (which I think is probably about what it would be), the commerce service provider could take a cut of 2 cts. out of 5 cts., giving the backlogged info owner 3 cts., and everybody gets something, at a low, sustainable cost to the consumer. Since this would be commerce that, for economic reasons, currently does not exist, it would be positive for everyone. I just have to believe that with 50 million+ transactions a day (not hard to imagine), there wouldn't be enough money in such a system to make it commercially viable. Something like this could conceivably save newspapers, too... you'd have to pay just a few cents to read an article, but you could set up your computer so that incurring the tiny charges involved would be relatively seamless and take only a fraction of a second.

Peaceful Civil Disobedience does not justify Police Assault

Monumental fatuous idiots Megyn Kelly and Bill O'Reilly discussing on Fox Propaganda Channel the police assault on immobile protesters at UC Davis agreed that it was "no big deal," and that pepper spray is a "food product". (This).

I have really had it with these Rightists who tout America and the Constitution when they neither know anything about it nor believe in its principles.

Earth to Kelly: police may, according to long standing interpretations of the First Amendment, enforce certain time and place restrictions on the exercise of assembly rights, with good cause and due notice. That could mean, for example, that protesters engaging in "Sit-Down" demonstrations (a form of nonviolent Civil Disobedience), could be arrested and physically removed, under certain circumstances. But if they are immobile, the only acceptable use of force is... "with reasonable care" bodily removal and arrest. The use of clubs, sound cannons, or assault chemicals such as tear gas and pepper spray, on people who are merely refusing to move, is assault and police riot, and should be prosecuted as such. Anyone watching the campus cop spraying massive amounts of pepper spray on completely immobile protesters as if they were weeds who wasn't revolted by that illegal use of police weaponry, has no grasp of what it really means to be an American. If our society blithely tolerates such conduct, we are a long, long way down the road to a republic lost.

Sachs: The SuperCommittee's Big Lie

Jeffrey Sachs's piece in the Huffington Post today is an absolute dead-bang must-read. 

Yes, it's the economy, stupid, but Michael Moran's missing the bigger picture

From the headline, this piece in Salon, It's the Politics, Stupid, sounds like it's got it right, by presenting the thesis that the real cause of America's now much talked about decline is political, more than it is economic.

But when you get into the author's specific analysis, I find it much wanting. Yes, he's right that our political system is gravely dysfunctional, and is making it virtually impossible to do what's necessary to fix our economy. But the solution is not technocracy, or more unconstitutional government by commissions and czars. It's the restoration of democracy.

I've talked about this ad nauseam, but it's worth laying out the fundamental progressive position, in a few sentences, one more time:

Michael Moran is right that America's most serious problems are political, not economic. But the solutions have more to do with restoration of the American republican form of government to its intended functions than with specific technocratic policies.

We need to amend the Constitution, as now, in the wake of Citizens United v. FEC, appears to be necessary, to take the power of money out of politics, by making it impossible for special interests to buy and sell elections. We need to alter course and enshrine as a principle that Corporations are not people with constitutional rights, but public trusts; and that money is not speech. The unlimited use of money to corrupt politics should be a crime, and certainly is not a right.

We need to restore fairness in taxation, so that the rich pay more, and we need to regulate and control the unwarranted power of financial speculators in our political system.

We need to ensure that our representatives are citizens, not professional oligarchs beholden to the elite that sustains them, and that they are elected to represent the interests of the people, their legitimate constituency, not corporate and financial oligarchic elites. Limiting private political contributions, ending corporate contributions, restricting consecutive terms, and ending gerrymandering might be four of the things that would move us well along in this direction.
 
If we could accomplish this transformation, I am enough of a believer in the power of democracy with a small-d to believe that the actual technocratic solutions will take care of themselves. There are plenty of good ideas out there for how to invest public resources to create jobs and ensure America's future in energy, industry, and sustainable development. There are plenty of ways to ensure that the common good is the goal of government. Most importantly, there is plenty of wealth in this economy to ensure decent economic development and a social safety net that would be the envy of most of the world, and on a par with the best that privileged highly developed nations like Germany, Sweden, and Japan have to offer their citizens. But until we the people, either through the Occupy Movement, or through a succession of public demands, demand control of our government back from the oligarchy that now owns it lock, stock and barrel, our republic will remain dysfunctional, and its economic decline, including gross income disparity and increasing poverty, will be merely a symptom of that disease.

Report of Crimes Connected to Occupy L.A. part of a coordinated effort to discredit Occupy Movement

See this from the L.A. Times. I would stake a tidy sum that this is a media plant by governmental forces trying to justify an illegal crackdown, which is rumored among Occupy L.A. protesters to be set for this coming Tuesday.

What is REALLY disturbing, if true, is the indication from Oakland Mayor Quan, who let slip that mayors around the country, with coordination by and with the Obama Justice Department, are coordinating tactics to fight against this populist uprising.


WE ARE THE 99%.

Prop 8 proponents should have standing to argue, Cal. Supreme says

The L.A. Times reports on the Cal. Supreme Court decision today, advising the 9th Circuit that the proponents of California's odious Prop. 8 gay marriage ban should have standing to appeal the District Court decision finding the measure unconstitutional.

I do not regard this as a major setback, although of course the case would have crumbled (as would Prop. 8) had the decision gone the other way. In fact, Rightists generally have argued the other way on these standing issues, and the Cal. Supreme Court, if anything, is reinforcing a precedent that citizens (such as groups like the ACLU) can act to either defend or challenge laws even when there is no specific, already manifest plaintiff damages to found the case upon. This decision is a bit arcane for the average citizen to follow, but overall I don't see it as a reason to be concerned. Where the Prop. 8 decision may face a genuine struggle is if, or when, it goes before the U. S. Supreme Court, with its unprincipled gang of 4... sometimes 5... who vote Rightist ideology over legal principle every time.

No on bad Supercommittee Deal • No on SOPA

I sent 2 messages to my Congressman today. The first was simple: No on the blatant attempt to undermine net neutrality and address a problem (piracy) that requires a pocket screwdriver with a Howitzer. I refer to "SOPA," the so-called "Stop Online Piracy Act." VOTE NO.

The other one was as follows:

Virtually any deal that may come out of compromise with the Rightist members of the (unconstitutional) "SuperCommittee" is guaranteed to be BAD for the majority of Americans.

• No deal that doesn't increase taxes on the very Rich.
• No deal that makes cuts to Social Security, MediCal or Medicare.
• No extension of the Bush Tax Cuts.
• No deal that doesn't cut military spending substantially.

Since there will be no such deal, VOTE NO. The automatic cuts, which can be modified or repealed later, are far preferable.

WE ARE THE 99% and WE ARE ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT US.

Thank you.

Herman Cain: pathetic monomaniac

OK, it's official. (See this.) There can be no further doubt that Herman Cain is a monomaniac, and that the subject of his monomania is his own tremendously, and pathetically, bloated self-image. The fact that this figure remains, despite all, a darling of a certain segment of the right-wing fringe that controls the Republican Party, says a great deal about them.

Some proposed reforms to take money and its influence out of politics

After the shocking revelation on CBS' 60 Minutes that members of Congress are exempt from insider trading laws, and that some of the worst scoundrels in that body are in fact guilty of wretched behavior that would otherwise land them in jail for a long time, I have a few simple proposals:

1.  All members of Congress and Senators must put their assets into blind trust upon assuming office; for those in need of it, the Congressional administrative offices will provide that service.

2.  (While we're at it); House and Senate members may serve only one term, then must stand down; with a maximum of 2 terms in the Senate or 4 in the House in a lifetime. (Eliminates entrenched incumbency bias).

3.  After the dreadful holdings of Citizens United v. FEC are nullified, Congress persons will be prohibited from raising private money, or taking any form of private remuneration for any purpose while in office, and shall have only public campaign funds to spend on elections; the same for their challengers.

Might well add a fourth: Congressional representatives and Senators, upon leaving office, shall be prohibited from all lobbying activity permanently or from taking any form of remuneration or compensation for any actions taken while in office. This would be tricky to enforce, but the standard should be there. As it should be for all Congressional and Executive branch staffers and for retired military personnel.

Also, Congressional pensions should be prorated; there is no reason someone who serves a few years should receive a glorious income for life.

Penn State Scandal

I am not a prude, and I sometimes wonder if our over-sexualized culture doesn't make too big a deal about sex in general, and sex involving teenagers in particular. Having said that, this interview reveals that this Jerry Sandusky guy is a World Class Creep and very likely a sexual predator who does indeed belong behind bars for life; and people who knew what he was up to and did nothing to protect the victims, who apparently were mostly pre-teen, deserve what they've got coming to them.

Hell No -- We Won't Go‼

The Occupy Movement needs to be recognized as a fundamental exercise of peaceable assembly rights, with some degree of peaceable civil disobedience admixed.

Thus, while the polities may have an arguable right to maintain restrictions against, for example, camping and tents, and those who want to defy these restrictions will have to accept that they do so at risk of arrest, it can also be said that in recognition of the importance of the right to petition for the redress of grievances, city governments should be as flexible as possible.

But having said that, when it comes to people refusing to leave, the police clearly have no right to mace and molest peaceable protesters, or, indeed, to forcibly remove them. The 1st Amendment is quite clear about an unqualified right of assembly and petition of grievance.

Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. 

The word is abridging, not prohibiting. Macing people who refuse to break up an assembly is abridging. It is the mayor and the police who are violating the law of the land here, not the OSW protesters.

(I trust I need not belabor the post Civil War constitutional changes that apply the First Amendment's strictures to all levels of government).

Herman Cain

There is a great deal of ruckus today about one of Herman Cain's accusers coming forward, etc. etc., blah blah. Don't get me wrong, I am not minimizing the importance of sexual harassment or even implicitly condoning what was in all likelihood at minimum (unsurprisingly) boorish behavior on the part of this profoundly stupid man. But what strikes me is that it's this scandal which is likely to unhinge his candidacy, when there are at least two other reasons it should have already spun entirely apart:

1.  The man is an idiot. His comments about "Ubekka bekka stan stan" make George W. Bush look like the statesman of the century. Examples of the man's profound incapacity to hold national office abound.

2.  As documented by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Alternet.org (Adele Stan), Cain was undoubtedly a knowing recipient of campaign material assistance illegally funneled from a 501(c)(3) organization (charity; the same category as a church) created and managed by his campaign manager, Block (aka Cigarette-Smoking-Man).

It would seem to me blatantly obvious lack of qualification and strong evidence of conspiracy to commit tax evasion would trump some fifteen year old civil matter involving unproven, however plausible, allegations of personal misconduct.

Government by SuperCommittee ... NG

Two very quick points.
1.    I deplore, detest, despise, and believe unconstitutional un-elected "supercommittees" and other such undemocratic means of avoiding the job of doing the people's business as the Constitution intended.
2.    I actually hope the so-called SuperCommittee deadlocks and fails to reach any kind of "deal." "Deals" with the Rightist party have been disastrous for our country. Forced cuts, while stupid and counterproductive, would at least fall on the military budget to some extent. (Better to just repeal the stupid deal after we take back the House and make gains in the Senate, which if the idiot Democrats and the president could get their act together and get BEHIND the We are the 99% movement, they could easily do).

UPDATE (11/7):
I see where Chuck Schumer is predicting "supercommittee failure." Good. I hope he's right.