Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban seems well on his way to turning Hungary into an authoritarian dictatorship. In an earlier post, I suggested Hungary was beginning to resemble the authoritarian regime of Admiral Horthy, who led Hungary from 1922 to 1944.
That was a good guess. Viktor Orban himself has called attention to Horthy as a model. The latest report from Hungary by Professor Scheppele is not good. The most hopeful sign is that the EU is calling Hungary to task. Whether the EU's measures will work any better than the timid measures taken by the League of Nations in the 1920's and 1930's is anybody's guess.
What seems clear is that the events in Hungary are a serious threat to democracy in Europe.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Scientific Method
"First
you guess. Don't laugh, this is the most important step. Then you
compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If
it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple
statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your
guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees
with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."
-- Richard Feynman, on how to discover a new law of physics
Comment:
I would call it a "conjecture" rather than a guess, but Feynman is right that it is the most important step in discovery. Some inaccurately call the conjecture a "theory." For a theory, there needs to be some data. I think that's what Feynman means by "experience."
-- Richard Feynman, on how to discover a new law of physics
Comment:
I would call it a "conjecture" rather than a guess, but Feynman is right that it is the most important step in discovery. Some inaccurately call the conjecture a "theory." For a theory, there needs to be some data. I think that's what Feynman means by "experience."
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
More On Why Congress Doesn't Get It
On New Years' Day, the New York Times printed a very thought provoking article on "The Distorted View From Capitol Hill." It's worth reading for yourself, but I offer a brief summary:
The median net worth of members of congress approaches a million dollars and is growing.
The median net worth of all Americans is declining.
Members of congress consort with each other and with other millionaires. Not to mention their staffs.
Representatives can hire up to eighteen personal staffers who answer their beck and call.
Senators have anywhere from twenty-six to sixty personal staffers.
Most don't drive themselves anywhere and never use public transportation. At Washington National Airport, they are treated like royalty.
White residents of Washington DC are better off than those who live in the members' own districts.
Poverty in DC is overwhelmingly a part of the African American experience, not that of whites. As is crime.
Joblessness overwhelmingly affects DC blacks.
None of the perquisites of office would be a problem except the view from Capitol Hill distorts the reality of America.
In the real America, nearly twice as many white Americans are in poverty as black Americans.
In the real America, about the same number of white Americans are in prison as black Americans.
The Times article suggests that isolation in DC is one reason some members of Congress find it so easy to believe that the unemployed are all black folks taking a vacation at public expense; lazy, unambitious freeloaders.
This false picture is not only believed by the millionaires' club that Congress has become - it is seldom contradicted by those in the profession of journalism. If there is such a profession these days.
Who benefits from this false picture and the policies it engenders? Mostly the 1%. Actually the .1%. Those who acquired their wealth the old-fashioned way - inherited it.
The median net worth of members of congress approaches a million dollars and is growing.
The median net worth of all Americans is declining.
Members of congress consort with each other and with other millionaires. Not to mention their staffs.
Representatives can hire up to eighteen personal staffers who answer their beck and call.
Senators have anywhere from twenty-six to sixty personal staffers.
Most don't drive themselves anywhere and never use public transportation. At Washington National Airport, they are treated like royalty.
White residents of Washington DC are better off than those who live in the members' own districts.
Poverty in DC is overwhelmingly a part of the African American experience, not that of whites. As is crime.
Joblessness overwhelmingly affects DC blacks.
None of the perquisites of office would be a problem except the view from Capitol Hill distorts the reality of America.
In the real America, nearly twice as many white Americans are in poverty as black Americans.
In the real America, about the same number of white Americans are in prison as black Americans.
The Times article suggests that isolation in DC is one reason some members of Congress find it so easy to believe that the unemployed are all black folks taking a vacation at public expense; lazy, unambitious freeloaders.
This false picture is not only believed by the millionaires' club that Congress has become - it is seldom contradicted by those in the profession of journalism. If there is such a profession these days.
Who benefits from this false picture and the policies it engenders? Mostly the 1%. Actually the .1%. Those who acquired their wealth the old-fashioned way - inherited it.
Monday, January 9, 2012
How To Fix Congress - And Why It Won't Happen
According to polls, public approval of Congress is at an all time low - about 12% and disapproval at an all time high - about 84%. How to fix this? I have some ideas, but before suggesting a cure, there must first be a diagnosis.
So. What's wrong with the congress?
Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.
By the way, some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment that provided direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?
A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."
Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.
We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.
Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.
My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.
How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.
How could we accommodate so many representatives? We could replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. We could also reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. Where would they get the time to do this? By going to fewer fund raising events.
Something else worth trying is proportional representation, but that's a really wonky subject I'll save for later.
None of this will happen, because all of these measures would reduce the present power of incumbents and wealthy patrons.
So. What's wrong with the congress?
Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.
By the way, some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment that provided direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?
A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."
Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.
We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.
Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.
My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.
How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.
How could we accommodate so many representatives? We could replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. We could also reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. Where would they get the time to do this? By going to fewer fund raising events.
Something else worth trying is proportional representation, but that's a really wonky subject I'll save for later.
None of this will happen, because all of these measures would reduce the present power of incumbents and wealthy patrons.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Rescue at Sea
Earlier this week, TV news reports showed footage of an Iranian fishing vessel and crew rescued from pirates near the Straits of Hormuz by US Navy sailors.
The TV report mentioned that the operation was supported by the nearby aircraft carrier Stennis. Not mentioned, but of more interest to me is that the fishing vessel had been intercepted by USS Kidd (DDG-100) and the rescue was effected by sailors from Kidd. Kidd is an Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer with the Aegis combat system. After I retired from the navy, I worked for a few years as a senior member of the engineering staff and engineering project manager on the Aegis combat system at RCA.
Also of interest is that Kidd's commanding officer is Cdr. Jennifer L. Ellinger, a 1993 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. That calls to mind a couple of other personal memories:
1. It was about 40 years ago that the navy first authorized assignment of women to ships at sea. At the time, I was Operations Officer of USS Albany, a Talos guided missile cruiser built during WWII as a heavy cruiser. When the decision was announced, there was a lot of grumbling and assertions that women couldn't work at sea. When my officers joined in the grumbling, I suggested that there was not a single job in the operations department that couldn't be performed as well by a qualified woman. I didn't mean it as a put-down, but in hopes it would open their eyes. I also knew that the policy against assigning women to ships had created some irrational situations. For example, the Fleet Programming Center, Pacific, the organization supporting Albany's tactical data system, had civilian and military computer programmers, both male and female. The programmers were often sent to ride the ships at sea when the center received computer program problem reports, in order to see for themselves what the problem was. Some of the computer programs were on aircraft carriers. The computer programmer for the carrier programs was a female Lieutenant Commander. She was not allowed to ride the carrier at sea. Instead, the center sent a female civilian to ride the carrier. The 1972 change in policy opened these doors.
2. During my subsequent tour in the Pentagon (1972-1975), my wife Elizabeth worked for the National Organization for Women and took part in a coalition effort to open up the service academies to women. This effort was successful, and Congress opened the academies to women in 1976. Four years later I was on a NATO tour and was very impressed by one of the early Naval Academy women graduates performing a job on the staff of the Commander, US Naval Forces Europe. She was doing a job normally assigned to an officer two grades senior to her, and was doing it very well. Now about 22% of entering Naval Academy plebes are women.
By the way, USS Kidd's second in command, Cdr. Gabriel Varela, of Phoenix, Arizona, enlisted in the Navy in 1987, achieved the rank of Petty Officer First Class, and was commissioned at Officer's Candidate School in 1995.
The navy assigns only its best and brightest officers to serve in Aegis destroyers and cruisers.
The TV report mentioned that the operation was supported by the nearby aircraft carrier Stennis. Not mentioned, but of more interest to me is that the fishing vessel had been intercepted by USS Kidd (DDG-100) and the rescue was effected by sailors from Kidd. Kidd is an Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer with the Aegis combat system. After I retired from the navy, I worked for a few years as a senior member of the engineering staff and engineering project manager on the Aegis combat system at RCA.
Also of interest is that Kidd's commanding officer is Cdr. Jennifer L. Ellinger, a 1993 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. That calls to mind a couple of other personal memories:
1. It was about 40 years ago that the navy first authorized assignment of women to ships at sea. At the time, I was Operations Officer of USS Albany, a Talos guided missile cruiser built during WWII as a heavy cruiser. When the decision was announced, there was a lot of grumbling and assertions that women couldn't work at sea. When my officers joined in the grumbling, I suggested that there was not a single job in the operations department that couldn't be performed as well by a qualified woman. I didn't mean it as a put-down, but in hopes it would open their eyes. I also knew that the policy against assigning women to ships had created some irrational situations. For example, the Fleet Programming Center, Pacific, the organization supporting Albany's tactical data system, had civilian and military computer programmers, both male and female. The programmers were often sent to ride the ships at sea when the center received computer program problem reports, in order to see for themselves what the problem was. Some of the computer programs were on aircraft carriers. The computer programmer for the carrier programs was a female Lieutenant Commander. She was not allowed to ride the carrier at sea. Instead, the center sent a female civilian to ride the carrier. The 1972 change in policy opened these doors.
2. During my subsequent tour in the Pentagon (1972-1975), my wife Elizabeth worked for the National Organization for Women and took part in a coalition effort to open up the service academies to women. This effort was successful, and Congress opened the academies to women in 1976. Four years later I was on a NATO tour and was very impressed by one of the early Naval Academy women graduates performing a job on the staff of the Commander, US Naval Forces Europe. She was doing a job normally assigned to an officer two grades senior to her, and was doing it very well. Now about 22% of entering Naval Academy plebes are women.
By the way, USS Kidd's second in command, Cdr. Gabriel Varela, of Phoenix, Arizona, enlisted in the Navy in 1987, achieved the rank of Petty Officer First Class, and was commissioned at Officer's Candidate School in 1995.
The navy assigns only its best and brightest officers to serve in Aegis destroyers and cruisers.
Friday, January 6, 2012
YOYO vs. WITT
Much of today's vicious political discourse reflects a conflict between those who believe in YOYO (you're on your own) against those who favor concerted action for the common good (WITT - we're in this together). This is an ancient struggle, but the twentieth century saw great strides in the ability of American society to work together for the "general welfare," as our constitution puts it. We came out of the great depression and defeated the Axis powers by following the policies of WITT. We created general prosperity for two and a half decades after WWII by extending the policies and attitudes of WITT.
The efforts of government at both the federal and the state level to act in the public good has been under constant attack for about four decades now. Last night's attack by North Carolina Republican legislators on public school teachers is a recent example of the YOYO philosophy.
This Wednesday, Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, posted a very thought-provoking article entitled "The Decline of the Public Good." I recommend it.
Reich makes it clear that the decline in spending on public assets that everyone uses is a consequence of relentless attacks. Not only public schools, but parks, roads, playgrounds and transit systems have been victims. His most striking statistic: "Outside of defense, domestic discretionary spending is down sharply as a percent of the economy. Add in declines in state and local spending, and total public spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research has dropped from 12 percent of GDP in the 1970s to less than 3 percent by 2011."
Anyone who uses those public assets knows about the decline.
The efforts of government at both the federal and the state level to act in the public good has been under constant attack for about four decades now. Last night's attack by North Carolina Republican legislators on public school teachers is a recent example of the YOYO philosophy.
This Wednesday, Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, posted a very thought-provoking article entitled "The Decline of the Public Good." I recommend it.
Reich makes it clear that the decline in spending on public assets that everyone uses is a consequence of relentless attacks. Not only public schools, but parks, roads, playgrounds and transit systems have been victims. His most striking statistic: "Outside of defense, domestic discretionary spending is down sharply as a percent of the economy. Add in declines in state and local spending, and total public spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research has dropped from 12 percent of GDP in the 1970s to less than 3 percent by 2011."
Anyone who uses those public assets knows about the decline.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Our New National Strategy
I have just read through the Secretary of Defense Report: "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense." I wish it were more inspiring.
It has been a long time since I have read through any of the documents generated in the Pentagon and purporting to be a "strategy." The problem I always have with such documents is that it is almost always impossible to ascertain the overall design. It reminds me of Winston Churchill's remark at a dinner party: "madame, this pudding has no theme."
If this were a management challenge (and it is), it should follow W. Edwards Deming's advice and first address the aim. "A system must have an aim," he wrote in The New Economics. "Without an aim," he emphasized, "there is no system." He goes on in his writings to explain that the system must have a method for achieving the aim.
I keep hoping for a new American strategy that truly identifies the aim of our policy and the method by which it can be attained. The best example of what I keep hoping for can be found in George F. Kennan's famous "X" article, published in Foreign Affairs in 1947. The article addressed the problem of Soviet attempts to expand their power and influence. After a detailed rundown of Soviet history, Kennan observed, "In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies. It is important to note, however, that such a policy has nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward 'toughness.'"
Here it is in one eloquent sentence. The aim: prevent Soviet expansive tendencies. The method: patient, firm and vigilant containment.
I see nothing that clear in today's document. Can't blame me for wishing.
It has been a long time since I have read through any of the documents generated in the Pentagon and purporting to be a "strategy." The problem I always have with such documents is that it is almost always impossible to ascertain the overall design. It reminds me of Winston Churchill's remark at a dinner party: "madame, this pudding has no theme."
If this were a management challenge (and it is), it should follow W. Edwards Deming's advice and first address the aim. "A system must have an aim," he wrote in The New Economics. "Without an aim," he emphasized, "there is no system." He goes on in his writings to explain that the system must have a method for achieving the aim.
I keep hoping for a new American strategy that truly identifies the aim of our policy and the method by which it can be attained. The best example of what I keep hoping for can be found in George F. Kennan's famous "X" article, published in Foreign Affairs in 1947. The article addressed the problem of Soviet attempts to expand their power and influence. After a detailed rundown of Soviet history, Kennan observed, "In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies. It is important to note, however, that such a policy has nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward 'toughness.'"
Here it is in one eloquent sentence. The aim: prevent Soviet expansive tendencies. The method: patient, firm and vigilant containment.
I see nothing that clear in today's document. Can't blame me for wishing.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
How To Buy A State Law
Ever hear of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)? Sounds pretty harmless.
In fact, ALEC is a powerful and influential lobbying organization, able to influence its members (predominately Republican state legislators) to pass legislation (which ALEC drafts) favorable to wealthy corporate interests (who fund ALEC). A large percentage of the legislation passed by the Republican legislature of North Carolina this year was drafted by ALEC, including legislation affecting elections.
Business Week has a very informative article on ALEC entitled "Pssst... Wanna Buy a Law?" Makes interesting reading for anyone who wants to learn how corporate interests distort the legislative process.
In fact, ALEC is a powerful and influential lobbying organization, able to influence its members (predominately Republican state legislators) to pass legislation (which ALEC drafts) favorable to wealthy corporate interests (who fund ALEC). A large percentage of the legislation passed by the Republican legislature of North Carolina this year was drafted by ALEC, including legislation affecting elections.
Business Week has a very informative article on ALEC entitled "Pssst... Wanna Buy a Law?" Makes interesting reading for anyone who wants to learn how corporate interests distort the legislative process.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
