Received the latest copy of The Military Officer. Among the articles is a brief, eloquent essay on page 58 by Col. Charlie King, USA-Ret "On the Day My Daughter Became an Officer."
The essay makes clear what it means to take the oath to "discharge well and faithfully the duties of the office which I am about to enter." As Col. King explains, it means far more than following orders.
It's worth reading and contemplating.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
How 'Bout That Herman Cain?
Many political analysts have been puzzled by the Herman Cain phenomenon. One of the most puzzled has been the statistical analyst Nate Silver on his blog, fivethirtyeight. In the end, Silver concludes that Cain is a statistical outlier and he (Nate) has no idea how to make a prediction.
Not so with the blogger Amanda Marcotte at the blog pandagon.net. Here is what she has to say:
"Herman Cain's temporary surge in popularity baffles much of the press, but it honestly doesn't surprise me that much. There's always been a strain of conservatives---the ones who say, "I'm really more libertarian"---who missed out on the 60s and so want to reimagine themselves as dangerous rebels who are out to get The Man, except in this case The Man is ordinary working people who are oppressing the beleagured wealthy class. You don't know downtrodden until The Man, in his greedy grasping for health care and a humble pension, makes you downgrade to a smaller yacht and reduce your summer house options to a mere two or three. Luckily, the downtrodden rich have "libertarians" out there who imagine they're being radical and subversive by calling for regressive tax structures. These folks are Cain's base. Who else do you think is buying all those stupid Harleys?"
That offers a whole new perspective on lawyer and doctor bikers.
On second read, I have to admit that there is a sneering tone to Amanda's observations which I have decried elsewhere. So while I am personally more comfortable with Nate Silver's cerebral style, I couldn't resist Amanda's more visceral take. So sue me.
Not so with the blogger Amanda Marcotte at the blog pandagon.net. Here is what she has to say:
"Herman Cain's temporary surge in popularity baffles much of the press, but it honestly doesn't surprise me that much. There's always been a strain of conservatives---the ones who say, "I'm really more libertarian"---who missed out on the 60s and so want to reimagine themselves as dangerous rebels who are out to get The Man, except in this case The Man is ordinary working people who are oppressing the beleagured wealthy class. You don't know downtrodden until The Man, in his greedy grasping for health care and a humble pension, makes you downgrade to a smaller yacht and reduce your summer house options to a mere two or three. Luckily, the downtrodden rich have "libertarians" out there who imagine they're being radical and subversive by calling for regressive tax structures. These folks are Cain's base. Who else do you think is buying all those stupid Harleys?"
That offers a whole new perspective on lawyer and doctor bikers.
On second read, I have to admit that there is a sneering tone to Amanda's observations which I have decried elsewhere. So while I am personally more comfortable with Nate Silver's cerebral style, I couldn't resist Amanda's more visceral take. So sue me.
Warren Buffett Hoax
I just received for the umpteenth time an internet hoax (in this case attributed to Warren Buffet) purporting to forward an e-mail about a proposed 28th amendment. The amendment, it is claimed, would "fix" congress.
One of the things I have learned over the years when someone forwards a report alleging nefarious actions by public officials that are so bad they are hard to believe, is that they are probably not true. That is the case with this one.
It is a good idea to check with various sites that investigate possible internet hoaxes, such as snopes.com. In this case, here is a link to snopes.com's discussion of this particular item: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp.
Snopes.com rates the e-mail as "mostly false." I rate it lower than that. It appears to be a concerted effort to discredit the entire U.S. Congress and to promote some really bad ideas on the basis of false information. By the way, I am fairly certain that Warren Buffet had nothing to do with the e-mails, though his idea about deficits is also a really bad idea. How does he propose to deal with emergencies such as wars and depressions?
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened
One of the things I have learned over the years when someone forwards a report alleging nefarious actions by public officials that are so bad they are hard to believe, is that they are probably not true. That is the case with this one.
It is a good idea to check with various sites that investigate possible internet hoaxes, such as snopes.com. In this case, here is a link to snopes.com's discussion of this particular item: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp.
Snopes.com rates the e-mail as "mostly false." I rate it lower than that. It appears to be a concerted effort to discredit the entire U.S. Congress and to promote some really bad ideas on the basis of false information. By the way, I am fairly certain that Warren Buffet had nothing to do with the e-mails, though his idea about deficits is also a really bad idea. How does he propose to deal with emergencies such as wars and depressions?
I will insert my comments after each paragraph:
Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 6:42 pm
Subject: Fwd: Warren Buffett's proposal
Warren Buffett
in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about
the debt ceiling:
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a
law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP,
all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election
That's a really bad idea. What do we do in an emergency? Like a War? Like a depression? There are times when a deficit is really good. There are times when a surplus would really be good.
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took
only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded
it.
That was in 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less
to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a
minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of
those to do likewise.
I doubt that.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have
the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
No such act has been introduced.
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay
when they are out of office.
Members of Congress have no tenure now. Their pensions result from a contributory retirement plan just like that of other federal employees.We even have term limits. They are called elections.
2. Congress (past, present &future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social
Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social
Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It
may not be used for any other purpose.
Members of Congress have participated in the Social Security program since 1984.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.
They do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional
pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
See Amendment 27:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in
the same health care system as the American people.
Members of Congress have the same health care system as is provided to all other federal employees.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.
There is only one provision in the Constitution relating to this: [Members of the House and Senate] "shall in all Cases, except Treason,
Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their
Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and
returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they
shall not be questioned in any other Place." This protects the people's representatives from harassment by law enforcement officials of the executive branch, especially of a different party.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective
1/1/12.
What contracts? Hard to make sense of this.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.
Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned
citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home
and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only
take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message.
Maybe it is time.
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!
If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete. You are
one of my 20+.. Please keep it going.
Please don't.
It would be foolish of anyone to claim there are no problems with the Congress. There are. Mostly they are problems with the Senate, which was the least representative legislative body in the western world (except for the House of Lords) to begin with. Current procedures on cloture make it worse. That needs to be changed. But changes like that need to be handled with care.
It Isn't Greece - It's the Euro
Strong concerns yesterday about the European debt package adopted last Wednesday/Thursday by the EC were expressed Friday by both economists and investors. Economist Kash Mansori reported the results of Friday's auction of Italian bonds.
I have cruised the internet this morning, reading blogs of respected economists, and haven't found a single one who is confident that the rescue plan will work. It's no longer about Greece - it's about Italy and Spain and more importantly, about the survival of the Euro project itself. It would be more reassuring if the European Central Bank seemed committed to doing everything necessary. No such signals have been received.
What should the message be? How about: "It's the Euro, stupid!"
I have cruised the internet this morning, reading blogs of respected economists, and haven't found a single one who is confident that the rescue plan will work. It's no longer about Greece - it's about Italy and Spain and more importantly, about the survival of the Euro project itself. It would be more reassuring if the European Central Bank seemed committed to doing everything necessary. No such signals have been received.
What should the message be? How about: "It's the Euro, stupid!"
Friday, October 28, 2011
Keep Your Eye On The Ball
In case you joined the parade of optimists thrilled by yesterday's step back from the brink by European banks, here's one of today's posts by Paul Krugman:
European
leaders reach an agreement; markets are enthusiastic. Then reality sets
in. The agreement is at best inadequate, and possibly makes no sense at all. Spreads stay high, and maybe even start widening again.
Another day in the life.
Here We Go Again
Another day in the life.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Qaddafi's Demise, Part II
Three days ago I posted a comment on Qaddafi's demise, including some cryptic historical references.
Yesterday's New York Times printed a more complete account by the historian Simon Sebag Montefiore. Montefiore compares the death of Qaddafi to deaths of other tyrants in history.
The headline of the article says it all: "Dictators Get The Deaths They Deserve."
Yesterday's New York Times printed a more complete account by the historian Simon Sebag Montefiore. Montefiore compares the death of Qaddafi to deaths of other tyrants in history.
The headline of the article says it all: "Dictators Get The Deaths They Deserve."
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Contempt For Working People; Contempt For Democracy
It has long been obvious that many republicans, especially the Tea Party kind, have little but contempt for people who work for a living. They despise labor unions and public employees, but also look down on anyone but (to quote the words of William Jennings Bryan more than a century ago) "the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world."
This contempt is reflected in the sneering tone of commentary about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, but also in other comments that pass for political discourse these days. Here is an example recently brought to my attention. It is posted on the web site of the Asheville Tea Party in Buncombe County, North Carolina:
A question that comes to mind is, "just what have the top one percent of earners in this country actually produced lately?" Do they produce anything but deals? If so, I'd like to know what.
I would like for folks who write such things and think such thoughts to turn their energies to a thoughtful examination of what kind of a country we want the United States to be.
As I drive around the country, I see crumbing roads and bridges, decrepit school houses, general decline in public infrastructure. This isn't because our public servants don't do the best they can with what they are given to work with - it's because of the "we're too poor to do that - we can't afford it - we're broke" mantra. As I have pointed out before, that didn't keep our forebears from turning the great depression into the Age of Great (and lasting) Undertakings.
This contempt is reflected in the sneering tone of commentary about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, but also in other comments that pass for political discourse these days. Here is an example recently brought to my attention. It is posted on the web site of the Asheville Tea Party in Buncombe County, North Carolina:
Ineptocracy (in-ept-o-cra-cy)
A system of government where the least capable to lead
are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of
society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with
goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing
number of producers.
A question that comes to mind is, "just what have the top one percent of earners in this country actually produced lately?" Do they produce anything but deals? If so, I'd like to know what.
I would like for folks who write such things and think such thoughts to turn their energies to a thoughtful examination of what kind of a country we want the United States to be.
As I drive around the country, I see crumbing roads and bridges, decrepit school houses, general decline in public infrastructure. This isn't because our public servants don't do the best they can with what they are given to work with - it's because of the "we're too poor to do that - we can't afford it - we're broke" mantra. As I have pointed out before, that didn't keep our forebears from turning the great depression into the Age of Great (and lasting) Undertakings.
The Rich Get Richer
Yesterday's New York Times reported on a new Congressional Budget Office report that the top one percent of earners in the United States doubled their share of the nation's income since the late 1970's.
Unlike some economic statistics, this is a win-lose proposition. The share of the nation's income received by the lower 99% has decreased by 9%.
From the NYT account, specific increases and reductions in the share of national income were as follows:
"¶ The share of after-tax household income for the top 1 percent of the population more than doubled, climbing to 17 percent in 2007 from nearly 8 percent in 1979.
¶ The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in 1979. In other words, the after-tax income of the most affluent fifth exceeded the income of the other four-fifths of the population.
¶ People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, down from 7 percent in 1979.
¶ People in the middle three-fifths of the population saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points from 1979 to 2007."
Why did this happen? The rules changed to benefit the already wealthy.
Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan described the process in 1896:
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it."
What happened after 1979? The political rise of "supply-side," "trickle-down" economic actions. A kind of reverse Robin Hood policy. This was not new. Such thinking was plainly evident to William Jennings Bryan in 1896. And the results were foreseeable.
Unlike some economic statistics, this is a win-lose proposition. The share of the nation's income received by the lower 99% has decreased by 9%.
From the NYT account, specific increases and reductions in the share of national income were as follows:
"¶ The share of after-tax household income for the top 1 percent of the population more than doubled, climbing to 17 percent in 2007 from nearly 8 percent in 1979.
¶ The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in 1979. In other words, the after-tax income of the most affluent fifth exceeded the income of the other four-fifths of the population.
¶ People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, down from 7 percent in 1979.
¶ People in the middle three-fifths of the population saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points from 1979 to 2007."
Why did this happen? The rules changed to benefit the already wealthy.
Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan described the process in 1896:
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it."
What happened after 1979? The political rise of "supply-side," "trickle-down" economic actions. A kind of reverse Robin Hood policy. This was not new. Such thinking was plainly evident to William Jennings Bryan in 1896. And the results were foreseeable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
