I wrote the following in response to a post on Gather on how much the rich pay in taxes.
The US has had a progressive tax rate for a century. Through both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses. So this is a false story to begin with.
Add in the fact that the actual effective rates paid at the highest income levels are much lower because they have access to tax shelters that lower income levels do not have. So while the theoretical tax rate might be, say, 38% for the rich versus 15% for the less rich, the actual rate might be less than 20% for the rich (most capital gains are taxed at 15%, and since the vast majority of the income of the very rich is capital gains, they actually pay only 15% on most of their wealth).
But all of this is irrelevant anyway.
How much do you make in a year? Are you in the top 1 or 2% of the very wealthy in this country? Do you really care that 1% of the superrich might have to pay a little bit more than the really poor?
Let me put it a different way.
Say basic housing, food, education, transportation, etc. costs are $32,000 a year. Of course, it can be more than that if I buy two big expensive houses and have several cars and vacation in Fiji, but lets just say that basic needs require around $32,000 a year to pay the bills.
Now assume you have a normal job that pays $40,000 a year. How much free cash do you have? You know, for extras, like buying your kids an ice cream cone occasionally. Or loading up the car to go camping. Or paying for that operation that you suddenly need.
Now assume you make $2,000,000 a year. How much free cash do you have over and above the $32,000 basic needs?
The difference here is that the lower income person has just enough to meet his basic survival needs. Any unexpected expense could wipe out everything. The rich person has so much excess over the basic survival needs that he can afford to buy bigger and nicer cars, bigger and nicer houses, bigger and nicer vacations. He can also stash money aside to cover unexpected contingencies. There is nothing wrong with that. More power to him. But the point is he has a lot of discretion as to how to spend his excess cash while the poorer person doesn't have much excess cash at his discretion. So if gas prices go up the poorer person might not be able to afford to put gas in his car, which might mean he can't get to work, which might mean he gets fired. The richer person simply grumbles a little more when he fills up his tank (or more likely when his assistant fills up the tank).
The other implied insult of all of this talk of "unfair taxation of the rich" is that somehow the amount of money you make is directly proportional to how hard you work. The rich are rich because they work harder and/or smarter, while the poor are poor because somehow they are lazier and/or stupider. This isn't often said out loud, but it is implied that somehow the rich are more worthy than the poor (otherwise they wouldn't have gotten rich, right).
This ignores the obvious fact that luck plays some role in the path we take. Someone born into a family of Admirals, for example, may have a path to the Naval Academy despite poor grades and behavior, whereas someone born into the family of steelworkers would have a tougher time both getting access to the needed elementary education as well as the proof of eligibility to the Academy. (You can substitute any profession and any well respected higher education institution)
Basically, if you start in a hole you can still scramble to the highest reaches. But if you start half-way up the slope it's a lot easier to get to the top.
The point is that wealth is not solely a function of how hard and/or smart people work. External factors outside an individual's control can also be very important. Any individual can reach the top if they work hard and smart and catch a break here and there. And we should all strive to do so. But consider how many otherwise intelligent and hard working people drop out of the race after the first 200 hurdles when they see others starting the race with only 10 hurdles to go. This is a source of frustration for many.
So whenever I see someone whining about the tax structure I have to remind them that this is the structure we have had for a century. It was put in place because some people have so much excess wealth that they can afford to help cover the costs of those who do not have enough to put decent food on the table (or even have a place to put that table). The alternative is to simply let people fend for themselves, which means that some children will be starving to death. We made a choice in this country many years ago that we wouldn't allow people to die simply because someone decided to put more money in their own pockets.
No, the discussion shouldn't be on whether the rich get taxed too much, but rather on how to help all Americans improve their own conditions. Let's help people get educated and trained and jobs. The more education people have the better is their chance to get and keep a good paying job and take care of themselves. And help contribute to the tax base so that the wealthy don't have to pay more. It's basic economics. Raising up the masses helps raise the econony helps increase the revenues helps the government reduce the debt (payment of interest on the national debt is one of the biggest expenditures of the government). It helps us all.
So let's not argue in general terms for something that will help a few hundred people. Let's focus on helping the other 300 million Americans enhance their education, which will enhance revenues, which will reduce costs, which will help the wealthiest among us.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Je pense donc je suis
Cogito ergo sum.
Rene Descartes originally wrote, "Je pense donc je suis" in his native French in Discourse on Method (1637). He later uses a Latin version including "Cogito ergo sum" in the Principles of Philosophy (1644).
I think therefore I am.
I've thinking about this phrase a lot lately. It has been used and misused many times, paraphrased to make completely different points on other occasions, and largely, I fear, ignored.
I wonder sometimes how much most of us think. We seem so intent to go through life doing what we always do, even when we have been complaining that we don't want to do it that way any more. We parrot talking points without stopping to think for one second if there is any veracity to the point being parroted. Worse, we parrot them even when they have been proven to be false. Still worse, we parrot them even when they make absolutely zero sense, logically or in any other way.
In other words, we don't think.
I'm sure that some people have already stopped reading this article. This to a large degree supports my very thesis. They simply do not want to think. Thinking is hard, and requires taking responsibility for our actions, our decisions, and our words.
There are others who are on the verge of labeling this as merely the pedantic musings of a self-absorbed intellectual elitist. I thank them for getting this far and ask that they stay a little longer and take to heart the point that I'm hoping to get across with this piece.
My point, of course, is that I am deeply concerned that we appear to have decided that thinking is a bad thing. That we appear to take pride in ignorance. Think for a second. What is ignorance? It is not so much the lack of knowledge, for we can never know everything. Rather it is the willful refusal to acquire knowledge. The more information we have, the more we must evaluate, assimilate, and integrate it into our thinking. In other words, the more we know the harder it is to think through the information, and the harder it is to make an informed decision.
Herein lies the problem. We all have our daily lives...our work, our family, our faith, our priorities...and it is easier to simply go with the flow. Changing our routines, built over years of rote learning, is seen as disruptive. More information simply takes more time to assimilate. And so we avoid more information. It's too hard to think. It takes too much time.
Which is why the "sound bite" generation has taken hold. We "don't have the time" to watch an entire interview, so we seek a sound bite to latch on to as "representative information." Unfortunately, as I discovered through a year of posting quotes by Abraham Lincoln, single lines taken out of context can easily be interpreted differently. They can easily be seen to support the viewers positions even when the point the speaker was making is diametrically opposite. And since information may show differently than what we are predisposed to believe, assimilating it can be hard. Sometimes it requires us to rethink our previous conceptions. It requires us to think. Therefore we tend to focus on those sound bites that appear to support our predetermined view. The networks dutifully feed us the sound bites we want to hear.
And we accept them without thinking.
The trick, of course, is to stop long enough to think. Blogs and sites like Gather allow people to create our own sound bites. Most articles are short, because people tend not to be able to focus long enough to actually read the more informative ones. Our comments are often short as well, and too often they reflect the predetermined opinions, biases, and even prejudices of the commenter and have nothing to do with the article itself. Often the commenters don't even read the article, including the short ones. We prefer simply to parrot our favorite line without thinking.
Needless to say I thank anyone who has read this far. I suspect that only a few people would be curious enough at the foreign title to click on the article in the first place. And of those who did come here, I suspect only a small percentage will read the entire post.
I'll conclude with a plea for all of us to think a little more. Let us break away from the sound bite mentality. Let us stop...long enough to question what we see and hear and read. Don't take everything (or perhaps anything) at face value. Think about what the question meant - was it a "gotcha" question like "Do you still beat your wife?" in which no answer can be made. Think about the answer - was it a simple parroting of the talking point...or did it show that the person understood the multiple viewpoints and deeper ramifications of the issue?
Let us all take just a little bit of time to think.
I think therefore I am.
Rene Descartes originally wrote, "Je pense donc je suis" in his native French in Discourse on Method (1637). He later uses a Latin version including "Cogito ergo sum" in the Principles of Philosophy (1644).
I think therefore I am.
I've thinking about this phrase a lot lately. It has been used and misused many times, paraphrased to make completely different points on other occasions, and largely, I fear, ignored.
I wonder sometimes how much most of us think. We seem so intent to go through life doing what we always do, even when we have been complaining that we don't want to do it that way any more. We parrot talking points without stopping to think for one second if there is any veracity to the point being parroted. Worse, we parrot them even when they have been proven to be false. Still worse, we parrot them even when they make absolutely zero sense, logically or in any other way.
In other words, we don't think.
I'm sure that some people have already stopped reading this article. This to a large degree supports my very thesis. They simply do not want to think. Thinking is hard, and requires taking responsibility for our actions, our decisions, and our words.
There are others who are on the verge of labeling this as merely the pedantic musings of a self-absorbed intellectual elitist. I thank them for getting this far and ask that they stay a little longer and take to heart the point that I'm hoping to get across with this piece.
My point, of course, is that I am deeply concerned that we appear to have decided that thinking is a bad thing. That we appear to take pride in ignorance. Think for a second. What is ignorance? It is not so much the lack of knowledge, for we can never know everything. Rather it is the willful refusal to acquire knowledge. The more information we have, the more we must evaluate, assimilate, and integrate it into our thinking. In other words, the more we know the harder it is to think through the information, and the harder it is to make an informed decision.
Herein lies the problem. We all have our daily lives...our work, our family, our faith, our priorities...and it is easier to simply go with the flow. Changing our routines, built over years of rote learning, is seen as disruptive. More information simply takes more time to assimilate. And so we avoid more information. It's too hard to think. It takes too much time.
Which is why the "sound bite" generation has taken hold. We "don't have the time" to watch an entire interview, so we seek a sound bite to latch on to as "representative information." Unfortunately, as I discovered through a year of posting quotes by Abraham Lincoln, single lines taken out of context can easily be interpreted differently. They can easily be seen to support the viewers positions even when the point the speaker was making is diametrically opposite. And since information may show differently than what we are predisposed to believe, assimilating it can be hard. Sometimes it requires us to rethink our previous conceptions. It requires us to think. Therefore we tend to focus on those sound bites that appear to support our predetermined view. The networks dutifully feed us the sound bites we want to hear.
And we accept them without thinking.
The trick, of course, is to stop long enough to think. Blogs and sites like Gather allow people to create our own sound bites. Most articles are short, because people tend not to be able to focus long enough to actually read the more informative ones. Our comments are often short as well, and too often they reflect the predetermined opinions, biases, and even prejudices of the commenter and have nothing to do with the article itself. Often the commenters don't even read the article, including the short ones. We prefer simply to parrot our favorite line without thinking.
Needless to say I thank anyone who has read this far. I suspect that only a few people would be curious enough at the foreign title to click on the article in the first place. And of those who did come here, I suspect only a small percentage will read the entire post.
I'll conclude with a plea for all of us to think a little more. Let us break away from the sound bite mentality. Let us stop...long enough to question what we see and hear and read. Don't take everything (or perhaps anything) at face value. Think about what the question meant - was it a "gotcha" question like "Do you still beat your wife?" in which no answer can be made. Think about the answer - was it a simple parroting of the talking point...or did it show that the person understood the multiple viewpoints and deeper ramifications of the issue?
Let us all take just a little bit of time to think.
I think therefore I am.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
To Raise Taxes, To Lower Taxes, That is the Question
It seems that the Republicans are always about cutting taxes (which generally does help the rich more than the poor) and the Democrats are always about raising taxes (which raises costs for everyone even if supposedly targeting the rich).
The problem, IMHO, is that it is not the amount of taxes that are collected so much as the prioritization of the use of those revenues. We give billions in tax breaks to farmers, industries, home owners, parents, Prius-buyers, investors, etc. Theoretically this is to subsidize those behaviors we culturally and fiscally feel are most critical. In practice, it has become more of an auction to the highest bidder (aka lobbyist) or for show in the continuing quest for reelection.
We need to stop the he said/she said rhetoric of both parties and focus on independent thinking. What should be our priorities as we move forward? What resource options do we have at our disposal to achieve those priorities (e.g., tax base, subsidies, finding the $60 billion worth of supplies we "lost" in Iraq)? What political, social, and business options are there for achieving these goals? What changes to our current tax code may be necessary to fund the selected priorities?
And this should be done transparently so the public fully understands how and why these priorities are being selected. The question is, are any of the candidates capable of independent thought, making the tough choices, and adequately communicating with the public? And more importantly, is the public willing to do the hard work of finding such a candidate and voting for them, or are we simply to vote based on our traditional method of voting for the candidate who panders to our one-note decision-making capacity?
The problem, IMHO, is that it is not the amount of taxes that are collected so much as the prioritization of the use of those revenues. We give billions in tax breaks to farmers, industries, home owners, parents, Prius-buyers, investors, etc. Theoretically this is to subsidize those behaviors we culturally and fiscally feel are most critical. In practice, it has become more of an auction to the highest bidder (aka lobbyist) or for show in the continuing quest for reelection.
We need to stop the he said/she said rhetoric of both parties and focus on independent thinking. What should be our priorities as we move forward? What resource options do we have at our disposal to achieve those priorities (e.g., tax base, subsidies, finding the $60 billion worth of supplies we "lost" in Iraq)? What political, social, and business options are there for achieving these goals? What changes to our current tax code may be necessary to fund the selected priorities?
And this should be done transparently so the public fully understands how and why these priorities are being selected. The question is, are any of the candidates capable of independent thought, making the tough choices, and adequately communicating with the public? And more importantly, is the public willing to do the hard work of finding such a candidate and voting for them, or are we simply to vote based on our traditional method of voting for the candidate who panders to our one-note decision-making capacity?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Deceptive Campaign Ad
I recently received the attached envelope in the mail (above). As you can see, it clearly says "Fairfax County Income Tax Authority" on the top. It also has "Notice: Your new Fairfax County Income Tax Payment is Due."
Is it possible not to assume this is some sort of tax bill from the County? So obviously people will open it.
Only to find a negative campaign ad accusing the Democratic candidate for State Senate of creating a new income tax. Clearly this is false, misleading, and deceptive. After searching for the ad for some attribution, I finally found a small notice on the back of the envelope saying it was Authorized and paid for by Cuccinelli for Senate. This actually was the third ad I had received (not counting the TV commercial I saw last night) accusing the opponent of raising taxes (something she had no power to do as a member of the county school board). The previous ads were merely annoying and obviously trying to scare the voters. This one actively deceived.
Frankly, I had not decided on for whom I would vote in the upcoming election. But I now know that I could not possibly vote for Cuccinelli (the incumbent) because he purposely attempted to mislead and deceive the voters with his ads. Think about it - rather than state his own beliefs (presumably anti-tax), he stoops to playing to the fears and inattentiveness of the voters. How can someone vote for a candidate that is so blatantly deceptive?
I shall not vote for Cuccinelli. In fact, I may actively support his removal from office. I prefer integrity.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Post 9/11 Opportunity - Lost
I recently posted an article called "The Real 9/11" on Gather, a community site. My motivation was a series of discussions with conspiracy theorists insinuating the whole day was some grand shadow government operation. At one point I realized that attempting to intelligently debate the point with people incapable of seeing even the incongruence in their own arguments (not to mention lack of any evidence) was a waste of time. More importantly, I realized that these people were disrepecting the nearly 3000 people who died that day. So I gave an opportunity in my post for people to express their feelings for those who gave their lives, loved ones, jobs, security, etc. I also asked if people thought our actions since that day were helping or hurting the "war on terror." There were varied responses, however one struck me as so thoughtful and so insightful that I've quoted it here in its entirety. The commenter is Suzanne Ford, an actress (watch for her on the premier of Bones on Sept. 25th) and obviously a very keen observor of life (imho). The following is her comment:
"We had several opportunities as a nation after 9/11. We could have made a mighty effort to enlist the help of the nations of the world in tracking down and stopping Bin Laden. We could have initiated the creation of an international anti-terrorist effort that would have made great strides in dampening terrorist movements across the globe. We could have reached out, in the throes of worldwide sympathy and condemnation of that event, and developed a global alliance of unprecedented strength and effectiveness, which we could have led as the most powerful country on earth. Instead, we have squandered those opportunities and are now possibly the most reviled nation on the planet, having created a brand new and ever more frightening threat in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet are still trembling lest the terrorists come at us again. It almost doesn't matter why we did this - the reasons are myriad and largely wrongheaded if not completely opportunistic. The point is that we blew it. Figuring out what to do now, where to go now, and how to get out of this mess is, for me, at least, an exercise in futility and frustration."
I couldn't have said it as well.
See the entire post and comments here: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977097590
"We had several opportunities as a nation after 9/11. We could have made a mighty effort to enlist the help of the nations of the world in tracking down and stopping Bin Laden. We could have initiated the creation of an international anti-terrorist effort that would have made great strides in dampening terrorist movements across the globe. We could have reached out, in the throes of worldwide sympathy and condemnation of that event, and developed a global alliance of unprecedented strength and effectiveness, which we could have led as the most powerful country on earth. Instead, we have squandered those opportunities and are now possibly the most reviled nation on the planet, having created a brand new and ever more frightening threat in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet are still trembling lest the terrorists come at us again. It almost doesn't matter why we did this - the reasons are myriad and largely wrongheaded if not completely opportunistic. The point is that we blew it. Figuring out what to do now, where to go now, and how to get out of this mess is, for me, at least, an exercise in futility and frustration."
I couldn't have said it as well.
See the entire post and comments here: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977097590
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Focusing the Debates
The early presidential debates allowed the candidates on both sides to generalize and spout their practiced canned speeches. The You Tube debate was the first to get questions about the day to day, what really matters, issues for the 95% of the country who really don't care about the games the "inside the beltway" folks play. Interesting to hear that the Republicans are backing out of their You Tube - sure, some of the questions were off the wall, but then some of the voting populace are off the wall, or young, or technologically savvy, etc.
Focused debates sponsored by different special interest groups can be very revealing. Will the candidates simply pander to the audience? Or will they at least attempt to address the issues even if doing so doesn't give the questioners/audience what they want to hear. A little honesty would be nice, though pandering will probably rule the day.
The Univision debate is interesting in its own right because of the decision to do it in Spanish. Certainly you need to have enough of a command of English to work the voting machine, but most new immigrant's understanding is usually best in their native language (this has always been the case for 1st generation immigrants, with 2nd and 3rd generations becoming more English-speaking). It makes sense to discuss difficult issues in the language they can understand. While I don't expect to see similar debates in Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Portuguese, Swahili and even Canadian (eh), it could be done if the need is there. The goal is to educate and communicate in the manner best understood.
As I've said before, I would really like to see focused debates, each dealing with a particular issue (e.g., Iraq, or perhaps more broadly, national security; Social Security - keep it, fix it, or dump it; Infrastructure improvement - the need, the path forward; etc.). Don't let each candidate give their canned responses...require details and follow ups. Stimulate them to argue with each other and give actual pros and cons of various proposals. I'm even for co-party debates where Republicans and Democrats are on the same stage presenting and defending their proposals. Likewise, don't allow the media to give 10-second "quotes" that supposedly represent the candidates' entire philosophy or program proposal. Make sure the breadth of the discussion is communicated so the one or two liners they practice in advance look as meaningless as they are.
Focused debates sponsored by different special interest groups can be very revealing. Will the candidates simply pander to the audience? Or will they at least attempt to address the issues even if doing so doesn't give the questioners/audience what they want to hear. A little honesty would be nice, though pandering will probably rule the day.
The Univision debate is interesting in its own right because of the decision to do it in Spanish. Certainly you need to have enough of a command of English to work the voting machine, but most new immigrant's understanding is usually best in their native language (this has always been the case for 1st generation immigrants, with 2nd and 3rd generations becoming more English-speaking). It makes sense to discuss difficult issues in the language they can understand. While I don't expect to see similar debates in Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Portuguese, Swahili and even Canadian (eh), it could be done if the need is there. The goal is to educate and communicate in the manner best understood.
As I've said before, I would really like to see focused debates, each dealing with a particular issue (e.g., Iraq, or perhaps more broadly, national security; Social Security - keep it, fix it, or dump it; Infrastructure improvement - the need, the path forward; etc.). Don't let each candidate give their canned responses...require details and follow ups. Stimulate them to argue with each other and give actual pros and cons of various proposals. I'm even for co-party debates where Republicans and Democrats are on the same stage presenting and defending their proposals. Likewise, don't allow the media to give 10-second "quotes" that supposedly represent the candidates' entire philosophy or program proposal. Make sure the breadth of the discussion is communicated so the one or two liners they practice in advance look as meaningless as they are.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Tossing the Plame Lawsuit
Tonight I saw a brief report on Fox News regarding the Valerie Plame lawsuit accusing President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Scooter Libby and others of outing her covert CIA status.
In their reporting Fox indicated that the judge's decision read "the act of rebutting public criticism by speaking with the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch official." To which the Fox commentor did a bit of a "I told you so" monologue.
Then I just read an article on the ruling on CNN's web site. Unlike the Fox version, CNN provided a little more in the way of quotes (but not obviously the full 41-page decision). Interestingly, the flavor of the CNN piece could easily lead to somewhat different interpretation of the judge's statements. For example, here is what CNN quotes relative to the Fox quote:
[ The way the defendants handled criticism from Joseph Wilson "may have been highly unsavory," the judge wrote, but "there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch officials." ]
Furthermore, earlier in CNN's piece they quote another part of the judge's opinion:
[U.S. District Judge John Bates said the lawsuit raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials." ]
Hmm....to me this looks like the judge is saying that even though Plame and Wilson didn't have a legitimate case against the President et al., he did have serious concerns about the actions taken by them against Plame/Wilson. Now I think most legal scholars believed that the case would not move forward. In fact, I think it likely that Plame/Wilson always assumed their suit didn't have enough meat to enable a judgment in their favor, but rather filed so as to cause as much political angst as retribution for their own loss of reputation/status. So having the case tossed isn't really that much of a surprise (though apparently they plan to appeal). But what is interesting is the selective reporting aspect of the case. Am I alone in expecting news organizations to evaluate the information and present an accurate representation of the facts? And I don't mean "fair and balanced" where one side yells at the other side and no one actually gets the real facts so we can make up our own minds.
In their reporting Fox indicated that the judge's decision read "the act of rebutting public criticism by speaking with the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch official." To which the Fox commentor did a bit of a "I told you so" monologue.
Then I just read an article on the ruling on CNN's web site. Unlike the Fox version, CNN provided a little more in the way of quotes (but not obviously the full 41-page decision). Interestingly, the flavor of the CNN piece could easily lead to somewhat different interpretation of the judge's statements. For example, here is what CNN quotes relative to the Fox quote:
[ The way the defendants handled criticism from Joseph Wilson "may have been highly unsavory," the judge wrote, but "there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch officials." ]
Furthermore, earlier in CNN's piece they quote another part of the judge's opinion:
[U.S. District Judge John Bates said the lawsuit raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials." ]
Hmm....to me this looks like the judge is saying that even though Plame and Wilson didn't have a legitimate case against the President et al., he did have serious concerns about the actions taken by them against Plame/Wilson. Now I think most legal scholars believed that the case would not move forward. In fact, I think it likely that Plame/Wilson always assumed their suit didn't have enough meat to enable a judgment in their favor, but rather filed so as to cause as much political angst as retribution for their own loss of reputation/status. So having the case tossed isn't really that much of a surprise (though apparently they plan to appeal). But what is interesting is the selective reporting aspect of the case. Am I alone in expecting news organizations to evaluate the information and present an accurate representation of the facts? And I don't mean "fair and balanced" where one side yells at the other side and no one actually gets the real facts so we can make up our own minds.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Declaration of Independents
It's time.
For quite a while now we have been working under the two party system in the U.S. The system has been gamed by those already in the system to make it incredibly difficult to get elected unless they run either as a Democrat or Republican. (Unless of course you're from Vermont.) The rare third party candidates need to be largely self-funded these days in order to compete with the "big guys."
NYC Mayor Bloomberg has just recinded his Republican party moniker to become "unaffiliated." Granted this wasn't much of a stretch because he was a Democrat up until the point where he realized he could get elected Mayor by switching to the Republican party. So unaffiliated (which I'll just call Independent because I feel like it) is a good middling description for him. But the point here is that we have the Mayor of a major U.S. city who decided that he could best govern without the constraints of a "party platform" to which he had to conform. Which means he can use good ideas no matter which party thinks them up. Which means that he can perhaps actually get things accomplished withough worrying about whether someone will jump on him for not adhering to the party "group thought."
There are a few other independent thinkers that still belong to one of the two major parties, but they often are assailed as the outsiders in their respective caucuses. Perhaps these folks would consider changing their party affiliation to Independent. Perhaps we as voters could insist that our representatives consider all reasonable options, and seek common ground with the goal of resolving issues. This seems like a better way of moving forward than simply staking out anti positions to whatever position the other side espouses.
It's Independents Day!!!
For quite a while now we have been working under the two party system in the U.S. The system has been gamed by those already in the system to make it incredibly difficult to get elected unless they run either as a Democrat or Republican. (Unless of course you're from Vermont.) The rare third party candidates need to be largely self-funded these days in order to compete with the "big guys."
NYC Mayor Bloomberg has just recinded his Republican party moniker to become "unaffiliated." Granted this wasn't much of a stretch because he was a Democrat up until the point where he realized he could get elected Mayor by switching to the Republican party. So unaffiliated (which I'll just call Independent because I feel like it) is a good middling description for him. But the point here is that we have the Mayor of a major U.S. city who decided that he could best govern without the constraints of a "party platform" to which he had to conform. Which means he can use good ideas no matter which party thinks them up. Which means that he can perhaps actually get things accomplished withough worrying about whether someone will jump on him for not adhering to the party "group thought."
There are a few other independent thinkers that still belong to one of the two major parties, but they often are assailed as the outsiders in their respective caucuses. Perhaps these folks would consider changing their party affiliation to Independent. Perhaps we as voters could insist that our representatives consider all reasonable options, and seek common ground with the goal of resolving issues. This seems like a better way of moving forward than simply staking out anti positions to whatever position the other side espouses.
It's Independents Day!!!
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The Immigration Debate
I read a great column by Charles Krauthammer on Friday, June 15 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061401742.html). I don't always agree with his views, but he writes clearly, concisely and thoughtfully on a variety of issues. He raises an excellent point in his column "Good Fences." Apparently one of the few parts of the immigration bill that everyone can agree on is the building of a physical barrier along the US/Mexico border. A bill was passed (and signed by the President) last year authorizing the building of such a fence. Border security, including a fence, is stated as a precondition for some of the guest worker and path to citizenship provisions in the current bill (and any bills that will likely be forthcoming).
Seems like a no-brainer folks. Why not pass Immigration - Part I? Agree to build the double-line fence along the entire border while we work out the details on the rest of the bill. Let's do the fence part right at least. Ah, but those pushing for "comprehensive" legislation will argue that once a fence bill is passed the Congress will rest on their laurels and not move the other issues forward. This is a false arguement. For one, it's the Democrats and the President that most want the comprehensive provisions, and don't they currently hold the power in their respective branches of government? If you really want to find a resolution then let's show some leadership folks. And second, they can easily include a schedule for debating the remaining and most contentious topics in the fence bill. Is it so hard to say that the Congress shall identify by 3 months after the fence bill is signed a list of topics that need to be debated, that these topics will be debated openly for a set period (say 1 month for each big issue in succession), and that a goal will be set for developing a reasonable comprehensive legislation by the end of the year (or by March, or by spring, or by whatever date seems reasonable for an open and honest debate to occur)? This would allow one key provision to move forward now (the fence) while the other difficult issues are discussed and a path forward negotiated.
Think about it.
Seems like a no-brainer folks. Why not pass Immigration - Part I? Agree to build the double-line fence along the entire border while we work out the details on the rest of the bill. Let's do the fence part right at least. Ah, but those pushing for "comprehensive" legislation will argue that once a fence bill is passed the Congress will rest on their laurels and not move the other issues forward. This is a false arguement. For one, it's the Democrats and the President that most want the comprehensive provisions, and don't they currently hold the power in their respective branches of government? If you really want to find a resolution then let's show some leadership folks. And second, they can easily include a schedule for debating the remaining and most contentious topics in the fence bill. Is it so hard to say that the Congress shall identify by 3 months after the fence bill is signed a list of topics that need to be debated, that these topics will be debated openly for a set period (say 1 month for each big issue in succession), and that a goal will be set for developing a reasonable comprehensive legislation by the end of the year (or by March, or by spring, or by whatever date seems reasonable for an open and honest debate to occur)? This would allow one key provision to move forward now (the fence) while the other difficult issues are discussed and a path forward negotiated.
Think about it.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Internet
The internet is a complex issue. I'm convinced that the best way to communicate across this "flat world" (as in The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas Friedman) is to use the power of the internet for free expression. Certainly knowledge is power in the sense that if people around the world have the facts they can then make decisions. Ah, but therein lies the rub.
Anyone can write anything they want on the internet now...through blogs, personal web pages, "community" sites like Gather and Myspace, etc. It is largely unfiltered...and often inaccurate. Statements can be made as if fact when they have no basis in reality. In many cases the writers use the freedom of the medium to present their particular biases. In some extreme cases the medium can be used to foment hate. Authoritarian governments such as China, North Korea and many others strictly control the "freedom" of thought, site accessibility, and use. Even in the US the political parties and other special interest groups have manufactured concensus, created news, planted stories and videos on sites such as You Tube, and otherwise attempted to "control" (or at least supplement) the content. Clearly the "reporting" is unbalanced. Perhaps it is balanced in toto should people go to the trouble of comparing views on multiple sites (sort of like switching back and forth between CNN and Fox News Channel in order to figure out what the real non-spun version of the facts are). However, most folks don't do that. Rather they read those sites, watch those TV stations, and peruse those papers that they tend to agree with.
Okay, having said all this, and while the suggestion that England (technically it is the United Kingdom) is leading the way toward totalitarianism is more than a little unrealistic (and perhaps conspiratorially paranoid)[Note: this relates to a statement in the posting I was responding to]*, I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of keeping the internet free and uncontrolled. This is where it has the greatest power. However, to paraphrase a line from the first Spiderman movie, with great power comes great responsibility. It behooves all of us to read everything on the internet (and elsewhere) with a wary eye....to consider the source and the source's inherent bias (we all have it)...and to consider viewpoints that may not be the same as our own. We each need to filter out the noise and find the reality. While I certainly wouldn't trust some government functionary to do this screening, it does mean that each of us must take this personal responsibility upon ourselves.
Now let's get out there and blog people!!
[*Note: I wrote this in response to a comment on Gather, and decided it would be a good blog.]
Anyone can write anything they want on the internet now...through blogs, personal web pages, "community" sites like Gather and Myspace, etc. It is largely unfiltered...and often inaccurate. Statements can be made as if fact when they have no basis in reality. In many cases the writers use the freedom of the medium to present their particular biases. In some extreme cases the medium can be used to foment hate. Authoritarian governments such as China, North Korea and many others strictly control the "freedom" of thought, site accessibility, and use. Even in the US the political parties and other special interest groups have manufactured concensus, created news, planted stories and videos on sites such as You Tube, and otherwise attempted to "control" (or at least supplement) the content. Clearly the "reporting" is unbalanced. Perhaps it is balanced in toto should people go to the trouble of comparing views on multiple sites (sort of like switching back and forth between CNN and Fox News Channel in order to figure out what the real non-spun version of the facts are). However, most folks don't do that. Rather they read those sites, watch those TV stations, and peruse those papers that they tend to agree with.
Okay, having said all this, and while the suggestion that England (technically it is the United Kingdom) is leading the way toward totalitarianism is more than a little unrealistic (and perhaps conspiratorially paranoid)[Note: this relates to a statement in the posting I was responding to]*, I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of keeping the internet free and uncontrolled. This is where it has the greatest power. However, to paraphrase a line from the first Spiderman movie, with great power comes great responsibility. It behooves all of us to read everything on the internet (and elsewhere) with a wary eye....to consider the source and the source's inherent bias (we all have it)...and to consider viewpoints that may not be the same as our own. We each need to filter out the noise and find the reality. While I certainly wouldn't trust some government functionary to do this screening, it does mean that each of us must take this personal responsibility upon ourselves.
Now let's get out there and blog people!!
[*Note: I wrote this in response to a comment on Gather, and decided it would be a good blog.]
Saturday, June 9, 2007
False choices…and deflections
Have you noticed how politicians and the media are great at providing false choices? These are “choices” that are created as straw men to oversimplify the issue to the point of having to choose between either being for it or against it…making things black or white when they are really different shades of gray. Both Republicans and Democrats do it. As do the media.
For example, while the Democrats say they are for “a new direction” and want to set an “exit timeline” the Republicans call any timeline a “surrender date” that will embolden the terrorists (um, like the terrorists haven’t been emboldened already). It’s either “cut and run” or it’s “winning.” The “surge” to some is an “escalation of the war” to others and "reinforcements" to still others. Either we “win” in Iraq or “the terrorists will attack us here.” Regarding the likely failed attempt to resolve the immigration issue, it is either “amnesty” or a "path to citizenship;" a “comprehensive” solution that couldn’t possibly work unless it includes a “guest worker program.” Some Republicans have taken to using the term “Democrat Party” (vs. the proper “Democratic Party”). You are either “Pro-Life” (as opposed to “Pro-Abortion”) or “Pro-Choice” (as opposed to “it's a life, not a choice”). Candidates either "win" or "lose" the debates (er, the election is almost 1-1/2 years away...shouldn't the debates at this point be considered "debates," i.e., a chance to voice viewpoints and perhaps even listen to opposing viewpoints rather than a game of cut-throat?)
You get the idea. Each of these false choices belies the bias of the individual or group spouting them. However, by simplifying complicated issues into “bumper sticker slogans” (as presidential candidate John Edwards recently called the “war on terror”) we lose the ability to have an honest debate about arguably legitimate differences of opinion. Notice how the media pundits focused entirely on the controversy of Edwards’ choice of language rather than the real question of what in fact the “war on terror” actually means. Doesn’t it make sense to look at the “war on terror” in the context of, for example, the “war on drugs?” Clearly the decades-long war on drugs hasn’t come close to removing illegal drugs from our society. Some would argue that drug use goes through faddish cycles and that the billions of dollars we spend is really nothing more than an expensive public relations campaign. Others would argue the opposite, but the point here is we don’t really discuss the effectiveness of programs; somehow we equate the amount of money we spend as a measure of whether a program is worthwhile. The recent immigration bill, for example, equated the amount of money allocated, the number of border agents hired, and the number of miles of fence built as “proof” that the “border security” part of the deal had been met, thus allowing the “guest worker” and “path to citizenship” phases to begin. Wouldn’t it make more sense to set the benchmark as something like “a reduction of illegal border crossings to 5-10% of 2007 levels?” Wouldn't that or similar metrics actually measure the endpoints we're really interested in rather than some false straw man that makes it look like we're doing something? By playing with the language we do ourselves a great disservice and, in all honesty, deflect ourselves from the possibility of resolving the issue at hand. Clearly our elected officials have devolved into making decisions based on the affect on electability. Perhaps we, the people, should take more seriously our own role in this democracy and demand some semblance of accountability?! Perhaps we need to pay more attention and stop abdicating our responsibility.
For example, while the Democrats say they are for “a new direction” and want to set an “exit timeline” the Republicans call any timeline a “surrender date” that will embolden the terrorists (um, like the terrorists haven’t been emboldened already). It’s either “cut and run” or it’s “winning.” The “surge” to some is an “escalation of the war” to others and "reinforcements" to still others. Either we “win” in Iraq or “the terrorists will attack us here.” Regarding the likely failed attempt to resolve the immigration issue, it is either “amnesty” or a "path to citizenship;" a “comprehensive” solution that couldn’t possibly work unless it includes a “guest worker program.” Some Republicans have taken to using the term “Democrat Party” (vs. the proper “Democratic Party”). You are either “Pro-Life” (as opposed to “Pro-Abortion”) or “Pro-Choice” (as opposed to “it's a life, not a choice”). Candidates either "win" or "lose" the debates (er, the election is almost 1-1/2 years away...shouldn't the debates at this point be considered "debates," i.e., a chance to voice viewpoints and perhaps even listen to opposing viewpoints rather than a game of cut-throat?)
You get the idea. Each of these false choices belies the bias of the individual or group spouting them. However, by simplifying complicated issues into “bumper sticker slogans” (as presidential candidate John Edwards recently called the “war on terror”) we lose the ability to have an honest debate about arguably legitimate differences of opinion. Notice how the media pundits focused entirely on the controversy of Edwards’ choice of language rather than the real question of what in fact the “war on terror” actually means. Doesn’t it make sense to look at the “war on terror” in the context of, for example, the “war on drugs?” Clearly the decades-long war on drugs hasn’t come close to removing illegal drugs from our society. Some would argue that drug use goes through faddish cycles and that the billions of dollars we spend is really nothing more than an expensive public relations campaign. Others would argue the opposite, but the point here is we don’t really discuss the effectiveness of programs; somehow we equate the amount of money we spend as a measure of whether a program is worthwhile. The recent immigration bill, for example, equated the amount of money allocated, the number of border agents hired, and the number of miles of fence built as “proof” that the “border security” part of the deal had been met, thus allowing the “guest worker” and “path to citizenship” phases to begin. Wouldn’t it make more sense to set the benchmark as something like “a reduction of illegal border crossings to 5-10% of 2007 levels?” Wouldn't that or similar metrics actually measure the endpoints we're really interested in rather than some false straw man that makes it look like we're doing something? By playing with the language we do ourselves a great disservice and, in all honesty, deflect ourselves from the possibility of resolving the issue at hand. Clearly our elected officials have devolved into making decisions based on the affect on electability. Perhaps we, the people, should take more seriously our own role in this democracy and demand some semblance of accountability?! Perhaps we need to pay more attention and stop abdicating our responsibility.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)