Once again, we must attempt to explain why a young man decided to pick up a gun and use it on innocent people. Once against we must try to ask, discuss and debate the merits of gun control and the limitations of our mental health system.
Was he insane? What kind of disorder plagued him? How did he get the gun? What kind of gun? Should we pass new gun control legislation?
But, there is something lost in the fray. Something that makes this situation unique. One simple question must be asked: What about the children?
How can we even begin to explain to a 5 year old that his best friend will not be there tomorrow? They won't have play dates, won't each lunch together and won't see each other on the playground. How can we explain to a class of Kindergarten students that their teacher was murdered?
What the children do know is that a man walked into their classroom and killed people. They know who and they know how. But will they ever understand why.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Happy Constitution Day!
225 years ago, a set of principles, set forth by intellectuals, politicians, merchants and statesman became the guiding principle for the beginnings of a great democracy. This document, and it's written and unwritten principles, have survived war, depression and internal strife, only to emerge as a undamaged pillar for the every growing sense of inclusiveness and participation that defines our countries' evolving governance.
Throughout the last two-and-a-quarter centuries, despots, tyrants, revolutionaries and military juntas have challenged and upended their governments, creating chaos and uncertainty. Those who disagree were thrown in jail, tortured or killed. Religion was used as a tool for oppression and disenfranchisement. When the United States faced a crisis, our Presidents, statesmen and leaders did not abandon our democracy. They debated and discussed how we could maintain a Union. And, they did this by consulting and interpreting the Constitution and the principles therein.
We have proven that key tenets of our democracy, like freedom of the press, assembly, speech, religion and petition are essential for both our survival and our evolution as a country. While many will disagree on how these principles are afforded, they will defend to the end our right to have them. It is a tradition, set in precedence, that is uniquely American.
As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "the law, wherein, as in a magic mirror, we see reflected, not only our own lives, but the lives of all men that have been"
Throughout the last two-and-a-quarter centuries, despots, tyrants, revolutionaries and military juntas have challenged and upended their governments, creating chaos and uncertainty. Those who disagree were thrown in jail, tortured or killed. Religion was used as a tool for oppression and disenfranchisement. When the United States faced a crisis, our Presidents, statesmen and leaders did not abandon our democracy. They debated and discussed how we could maintain a Union. And, they did this by consulting and interpreting the Constitution and the principles therein.
We have proven that key tenets of our democracy, like freedom of the press, assembly, speech, religion and petition are essential for both our survival and our evolution as a country. While many will disagree on how these principles are afforded, they will defend to the end our right to have them. It is a tradition, set in precedence, that is uniquely American.
As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "the law, wherein, as in a magic mirror, we see reflected, not only our own lives, but the lives of all men that have been"
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Post-War America?
Today marks the 11th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. Over 2,700 people lost their lives and and the U.S. was once again mobilized for war. This anniversary is not a time to debate the justification behind going to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. This anniversary is a time for mourning, but also a time for inward looking.
Each passing year, Americans are given the chance to re-evaluate the first major epoch of the new Millennium: The Post-9/11 Era.This re-evaluation should consider something that the Romney campaign has been asking in the last couple months: are we better off? Is our continued presence in Afghanistan a symbol of our enduring fight against terrorism, or an unrealistic nation-building project that will never take hold? Given the implications of a war on terrorism, will we ever be a post-war nation?
When President George W. Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center, he vowed to hunt down the perpetrators of the horrendous attacks. We searched for terrorists and their sympathizers in caves, city streets, village squares and urban homes. With bomb, missile, artillery and gunship, we collapsed networks and disrupted cells.
That was Iraq. That was Afghanistan.
Now, it's Yemen. It's Somalia. It's Pakistan. It's Karachi, Mogadishu, Tehran, Sanaa and Aleppo. It happens on subways in London and Madrid, hotels in Mumbai and secret compounds in Pakistan. It is disruptive, unstable and unending.
This War on Terror is a misnomer: it is not a war.
Wars end.
Each passing year, Americans are given the chance to re-evaluate the first major epoch of the new Millennium: The Post-9/11 Era.This re-evaluation should consider something that the Romney campaign has been asking in the last couple months: are we better off? Is our continued presence in Afghanistan a symbol of our enduring fight against terrorism, or an unrealistic nation-building project that will never take hold? Given the implications of a war on terrorism, will we ever be a post-war nation?
When President George W. Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center, he vowed to hunt down the perpetrators of the horrendous attacks. We searched for terrorists and their sympathizers in caves, city streets, village squares and urban homes. With bomb, missile, artillery and gunship, we collapsed networks and disrupted cells.
That was Iraq. That was Afghanistan.
Now, it's Yemen. It's Somalia. It's Pakistan. It's Karachi, Mogadishu, Tehran, Sanaa and Aleppo. It happens on subways in London and Madrid, hotels in Mumbai and secret compounds in Pakistan. It is disruptive, unstable and unending.
This War on Terror is a misnomer: it is not a war.
Wars end.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Deficits or Jobs, Deficits and Jobs
According to Republican talking points, a high deficit means that less jobs will be created.
According to LSAT Logic Reasoning, when making an argument you have to an unwritten assumption that connects the conclusion (no jobs) to the evidence (high deficit). You can also make assertions about statements through formal logic. For example, if there is high deficits, then there will be no job creation. An equivalent statement would be the contrapositive, or if there is job creation, then there are no high deficits (or a balanced budget). You can also say there will be job creation unless there is a high deficit (taking the double negative of "if not high" to mean low or balanced).
Republicans in Congress and the Romney/Ryan ticket have not budged from the idea of renewing the Bush tax cuts without an end date. The tax cuts, in their current form lower the marginal tax rate for the highest income earners. Passed during the first Bush, Jr. Administration, these tax cuts have been a significant drain on government coffers. Along with a prescription drug rebate that borrowed against 26 years of Social Security, you end up with quite a deficit.
They charge that the Obama Administration has ballooned the deficit to such a point that the economy is slowing that jobs are not being created. While Romney and Ryan might not agree on how to slow the increasing cost of the some of the highest additions to the deficit (Medicare or Healthcare, in general), they do have a plan to create jobs. This plan includes keeping the Bush Tax Cut and lowering tax rates to give businesses certainty about the way they can spend their capital.
According to LSAT Logic Reasoning, when you are looking for an assumption, the best strategy is to find the "rhetorical jump" (my characterization). In other words, find out where the argument added a word or concept in the conclusion that was absent from the evidence (IE, if you are talking about dogs and the conclusion says something about Dobermans).
The plan's conclusion is that it will result in the creation of jobs. But, one cannot divorce the deficit from job creation, according to the talking points. This is where the rhetorical shift comes in. Can you use policies like those in Romney's plan to create jobs AND reduce the deficit, or do you have to separate your strategy and create jobs OR reduce the deficit.
But, the ticket has a response the charge that lowering tax rates and keeping the Bush Tax Cuts will not reduce the deficit. Their plan is to eliminate certain tax breaks and/or loopholes that will balance out the gaping hole in the treasury caused by the lower revenues. But, Romney has yet to reveal which tax breaks and/or loopholes he wants to eliminate. Political poison pills like the home mortgage interest rate deduction and renters credit are all fair game, but not expected to be on the chopping block.
In the LSAT Logic Reasoning section, you can strengthen an argument by adding facts that support the conclusion or you can weaken an argument by inserting something that might undermine the conclusion. Oftentimes you can weaken a causal argument (x is related to y so x caused y) by showing that there is an alternative explanation (x is related to y, but q can cause y).
Was it the deficit that is causing significantly low job creation, or is it something else? Could it possibly be that gridlock in Congress over a certain debt ceiling debate created something called a "sequester," whose diversified cuts could lead to a sharp increase in unemployment and a significant decrease in GDP growth? Could it be a possible EU-wide recession? Both of these events could create so much uncertainty over growth and tax rates that businesses might be reluctant to hire.
For some reason or another, regular citizens have become so passionate about kicking out the current Administration that they have a near contempt for logic reasoning or the truth. I heard an interview on the radio recently where a Romney supporter was enraged about the Administration taking out the work requirement for Medicare. After hearing that the Administration was not going to take out that requirement, she responded by saying, essentially, that the truth has become relative and that she trusted Romney more than Obama.
Anecdotal or not, the ticket has used this point and many other selectively edited statements, stamped them on campaign material and spewed them out from battleground to battleground, effectively skewing the truth to whatever the ticket endorses.
According to LSAT Logic Reasoning, when making an argument you have to an unwritten assumption that connects the conclusion (no jobs) to the evidence (high deficit). You can also make assertions about statements through formal logic. For example, if there is high deficits, then there will be no job creation. An equivalent statement would be the contrapositive, or if there is job creation, then there are no high deficits (or a balanced budget). You can also say there will be job creation unless there is a high deficit (taking the double negative of "if not high" to mean low or balanced).
Republicans in Congress and the Romney/Ryan ticket have not budged from the idea of renewing the Bush tax cuts without an end date. The tax cuts, in their current form lower the marginal tax rate for the highest income earners. Passed during the first Bush, Jr. Administration, these tax cuts have been a significant drain on government coffers. Along with a prescription drug rebate that borrowed against 26 years of Social Security, you end up with quite a deficit.
They charge that the Obama Administration has ballooned the deficit to such a point that the economy is slowing that jobs are not being created. While Romney and Ryan might not agree on how to slow the increasing cost of the some of the highest additions to the deficit (Medicare or Healthcare, in general), they do have a plan to create jobs. This plan includes keeping the Bush Tax Cut and lowering tax rates to give businesses certainty about the way they can spend their capital.
According to LSAT Logic Reasoning, when you are looking for an assumption, the best strategy is to find the "rhetorical jump" (my characterization). In other words, find out where the argument added a word or concept in the conclusion that was absent from the evidence (IE, if you are talking about dogs and the conclusion says something about Dobermans).
The plan's conclusion is that it will result in the creation of jobs. But, one cannot divorce the deficit from job creation, according to the talking points. This is where the rhetorical shift comes in. Can you use policies like those in Romney's plan to create jobs AND reduce the deficit, or do you have to separate your strategy and create jobs OR reduce the deficit.
But, the ticket has a response the charge that lowering tax rates and keeping the Bush Tax Cuts will not reduce the deficit. Their plan is to eliminate certain tax breaks and/or loopholes that will balance out the gaping hole in the treasury caused by the lower revenues. But, Romney has yet to reveal which tax breaks and/or loopholes he wants to eliminate. Political poison pills like the home mortgage interest rate deduction and renters credit are all fair game, but not expected to be on the chopping block.
In the LSAT Logic Reasoning section, you can strengthen an argument by adding facts that support the conclusion or you can weaken an argument by inserting something that might undermine the conclusion. Oftentimes you can weaken a causal argument (x is related to y so x caused y) by showing that there is an alternative explanation (x is related to y, but q can cause y).
Was it the deficit that is causing significantly low job creation, or is it something else? Could it possibly be that gridlock in Congress over a certain debt ceiling debate created something called a "sequester," whose diversified cuts could lead to a sharp increase in unemployment and a significant decrease in GDP growth? Could it be a possible EU-wide recession? Both of these events could create so much uncertainty over growth and tax rates that businesses might be reluctant to hire.
For some reason or another, regular citizens have become so passionate about kicking out the current Administration that they have a near contempt for logic reasoning or the truth. I heard an interview on the radio recently where a Romney supporter was enraged about the Administration taking out the work requirement for Medicare. After hearing that the Administration was not going to take out that requirement, she responded by saying, essentially, that the truth has become relative and that she trusted Romney more than Obama.
Anecdotal or not, the ticket has used this point and many other selectively edited statements, stamped them on campaign material and spewed them out from battleground to battleground, effectively skewing the truth to whatever the ticket endorses.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Let's Talk About the Market
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has leveled various accusations against the Obama Administration's policies on energy and the economy. He has called the administration out on everything from failed solar companies to failed Stimulus Packages. For Romney, and a lot of the Republican base, the president has chosen "winners and losers" in the market, thereby propping up failing industries that will inevitably go belly up. They believe that the administration's policies towards the economic recovery have failed solely because they were inadequate at lowering the unemployment rate and only added to a ballooning deficit. They assume, wrongly, that the administration is solely responsible for the current freeze in hiring and general economic malaise.
For a party that lionizes the free market, they have taken a very narrow view of it's area of affect. They have assumed, for political reasons (most likely), that commodities that are traded on the international market that often portend trends in international economic growth or stagnation do not apply to US markets. Do you remember when Newt Gingrich said he would magically create $2.50 gasoline? Derp.
The basic assumptions about commodities like coal, natural gas, oil, oil-based products, corn, soybeans, jet fuel and every other internationally traded commodity is that all countries who trade in those goods are affected by price fluctuations. In a recent interview with Platts, two international economists pointed out that the shale gas boom in the United States (and abroad) has been pushing lower quality Atlantic metallurgical coal into the international market, which has depressed the price of that commodity. Coupled with an overproduction of steel and piling surpluses of coal, production companies are experiencing depressed prices and lower profits. This, in part, led to the bankruptcy of Patriot Coal, whose reserves are heavy in eastern Atlantic met coal.
What does this all mean?
It means that the price and use of coal power is subject to the whims of the international market. It has entered a cycle whereby lowering domestic use of coal in the US is pushing surplus to the international market which is depressing the international price. This is not the result of the so-called "War on Coal."
Do you remember Solyndra?
Romney and Congress have used Solyndra as a way to target the Administration and it's use of tax-payer money. They believe that companies like Solyndra (and Renewable Energy, in general) are only propped up by political nepotism and government largess. Again, they fail to realize that the market had a big play in the failure of the company. At the time that Solyndra failed, the market was being flooded with cheap solar panels from China. Domestic solar panel companies could not compete and many, including Solyndra shut their doors.
While Republicans hammer at the Administration for the Solyndra failure, they do not point to the cost overruns of the coal-gas, carbon capture Taylor Energy Station (DOE - Private partnership), the nuclear guarantees to build reactors in South Carolina and Utah that have cost an extra $2-4 billion (That is nearly 4-6 Solyndras) and the failure to create a utility scale coal plant with Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology, despite millions of government funds for so-called "clean coal." In the same vein, they criticize the Administration for not creating jobs, yet they are willing to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs in the Wind industry by not approving the Production Tax Credit. I digress...
Romney has been hammering the Administration's policies on the economy since he announced his bid for president. For every month that the US has released a sub-par job report, the Romney camp has attacked. For every bankrupt company, depressed mill town and broke farming community, Romney has towed the line that the President is the sole creator of the Recession and the current slow recovery.
Here is what is happening in the international market:
1. Greece Bailout
2. Spanish Bailout
3. LIBOR rate fixing
4. Portugal and Ireland economic troubles
5. Electoral uprising in EU (France, Greece, etc)
6. Chinese economic slowdown
7. EU recession
8. US "fiscal cliff" (Sequester cuts, Payroll tax expiration, Bush Tax Cut expiration, etc)
What does this mean for the US and the "small businesses" that Romney loves? Uncertainty. It means uncertainty in the rate of exports to China. It means uncertainty in EU bond markets. It means financial uncertainty in the EU economy. It means uncertainty in the international market.
When businesses are uncertain, they will retain cash and forego hiring until things are certain. But, there is one certainty about the international market: No matter what the Administration does, it cannot affect the long-term health of the EU or China. If these economies falter, our economy falters.
Congress has the power to institute measures to improve job growth and soften the effect of the slow recovery on the economy. But, what did Congress do this week instead of looking at stimulative measures? They repealed Obamacare...for the 33rd time...
I suppose we will all have to wait until November...
For a party that lionizes the free market, they have taken a very narrow view of it's area of affect. They have assumed, for political reasons (most likely), that commodities that are traded on the international market that often portend trends in international economic growth or stagnation do not apply to US markets. Do you remember when Newt Gingrich said he would magically create $2.50 gasoline? Derp.
The basic assumptions about commodities like coal, natural gas, oil, oil-based products, corn, soybeans, jet fuel and every other internationally traded commodity is that all countries who trade in those goods are affected by price fluctuations. In a recent interview with Platts, two international economists pointed out that the shale gas boom in the United States (and abroad) has been pushing lower quality Atlantic metallurgical coal into the international market, which has depressed the price of that commodity. Coupled with an overproduction of steel and piling surpluses of coal, production companies are experiencing depressed prices and lower profits. This, in part, led to the bankruptcy of Patriot Coal, whose reserves are heavy in eastern Atlantic met coal.
What does this all mean?
It means that the price and use of coal power is subject to the whims of the international market. It has entered a cycle whereby lowering domestic use of coal in the US is pushing surplus to the international market which is depressing the international price. This is not the result of the so-called "War on Coal."
Do you remember Solyndra?
Romney and Congress have used Solyndra as a way to target the Administration and it's use of tax-payer money. They believe that companies like Solyndra (and Renewable Energy, in general) are only propped up by political nepotism and government largess. Again, they fail to realize that the market had a big play in the failure of the company. At the time that Solyndra failed, the market was being flooded with cheap solar panels from China. Domestic solar panel companies could not compete and many, including Solyndra shut their doors.
While Republicans hammer at the Administration for the Solyndra failure, they do not point to the cost overruns of the coal-gas, carbon capture Taylor Energy Station (DOE - Private partnership), the nuclear guarantees to build reactors in South Carolina and Utah that have cost an extra $2-4 billion (That is nearly 4-6 Solyndras) and the failure to create a utility scale coal plant with Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology, despite millions of government funds for so-called "clean coal." In the same vein, they criticize the Administration for not creating jobs, yet they are willing to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs in the Wind industry by not approving the Production Tax Credit. I digress...
Romney has been hammering the Administration's policies on the economy since he announced his bid for president. For every month that the US has released a sub-par job report, the Romney camp has attacked. For every bankrupt company, depressed mill town and broke farming community, Romney has towed the line that the President is the sole creator of the Recession and the current slow recovery.
Here is what is happening in the international market:
1. Greece Bailout
2. Spanish Bailout
3. LIBOR rate fixing
4. Portugal and Ireland economic troubles
5. Electoral uprising in EU (France, Greece, etc)
6. Chinese economic slowdown
7. EU recession
8. US "fiscal cliff" (Sequester cuts, Payroll tax expiration, Bush Tax Cut expiration, etc)
What does this mean for the US and the "small businesses" that Romney loves? Uncertainty. It means uncertainty in the rate of exports to China. It means uncertainty in EU bond markets. It means financial uncertainty in the EU economy. It means uncertainty in the international market.
When businesses are uncertain, they will retain cash and forego hiring until things are certain. But, there is one certainty about the international market: No matter what the Administration does, it cannot affect the long-term health of the EU or China. If these economies falter, our economy falters.
Congress has the power to institute measures to improve job growth and soften the effect of the slow recovery on the economy. But, what did Congress do this week instead of looking at stimulative measures? They repealed Obamacare...for the 33rd time...
I suppose we will all have to wait until November...
Thursday, May 31, 2012
The EU and Greece
The most recent edition of The Economist had a good amount to say about the future of Greece, the European Union and the Euro. Most of the coverage of Greece and the EU in the United States has been from the usual doom-and-gloom political statements from Republican presidential candidates about excessive government spending. While the charge may be true relative to the large size of the public sector in bailed out Greece, Portugal and Ireland, the crises in Europe requires a deeper and more nuanced review of the Union.
The EU, while united under one currency (The Euro) and a few policy authorities (Council of Ministers and European Council), is still a hodgepodge of countries of various sizes, cultures and political persuasions. From the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht to the current banking crises, many of the EU nations have taken fiscal governing of such a large body with a less than adequate level of seriousness. That is, rules set out to avoid a crises of this nature took a back seat to the financial interests of some of the larger economies (France, Germany, etc). The article in the Economist highlights this problem with an anecdote about France's view of budget cuts:
In 2002, Francis Met, newly installed as French Finance Minister dismissed commission requests for budget cuts to comply with the stability and growth pact by saying that "France has other priorities."
The article rightly states that the current finance minister under newly elected French president Francois Hollande would quickly lose his job if he were to dismiss EU fiscal responsibilities in the same manner. While some nations ignored the fiscal pacts of the Union, many still believed that a region united under one currency would facilitate political integration through fiscal unity and stave off a crises. But, as the article points out: They did not foresee that it [financial/political unity] would do so by throwing the continent into crises.
The EU is also facing a crises of democracy. Smaller countries with smaller economies (like Greece) are becoming less relevant in a growing Union. Once a country feels that their electorate and local issues are being ignored in favor of a Union controlled by the larger economies, a sense of resentment grows. When the fiscal crises in Greece came to a head, many in the country protested to the Austerity Measures because they believed that it was a problem that they did not create. Overspending by the Greek government after the conversion to the Euro that led to massive deficits and lack of a voice among bigger economies like Germany and France created a disconnect between the electorate of Greece and the wider Union.
The result of increased austerity measures has been political and financial turmoil. In elections, citizens increasingly voted for extremist candidates who opposed or favored a renegotiation of the terms of the Euro bailouts. In Greece, nearly 7% of the vote went to the ultra-right wing Golden Dawn Party, whose party platforms are anti-immigrant and anti-bailout. Their party symbol resembles the swastika. There was also no consensus candidate, which sent the election to a runoff, taking place on June 17th. In France, the Conservative party under incumbent Nicholas Sarkozy was ousted by the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande.
One major problem remains for the European Union: there is a disconnect between the larger and smaller economies, fostering disillusionment with the Union and individual country's national governments. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democrats) has shown visible disappointment with the way that Greek government has managed it's finances. She is reluctant to continue using German banks to prop up failing economies. At the same time, voters within Greece have become weary of their technocratic governing coalition and have voted in droves alongside anti-immigrant, nationalistic parties on the right and left. Continued entrenchment by larger economies like Germany will only foster nationalism and hatred towards the Union, leading to a possible exit by Greece. Once this happens, any country with the same sentiment might use that precedent to also leave the Union.
There is a way out of this crises for the EU. Direct election of members of policy making bodies in the EU by member countries can bring more democratic power to smaller states. Currently, the leaders of the European Council and Council of Ministers are appointed by member states. But, the Union must provide an efficient, enforceable method to institute fiscal policies in order to reign in on indebted countries and stave off future crises. In this way, smaller countries get more say in the inner governance of the Union while larger economies prevent having to bail-out smaller economies. But, above all, it keeps the Union intact without having to face the international consequences of a bank run or an exit.
During the debate over the ratification of the U.S. constitution, larger states wanted representation in Congress based on population (Virginia Plan). Smaller southern states proposed equal representation, as they would be less relevant under the Virginia Plan (New Jersey Plan). Congress created a compromise (Connecticut Compromise) that created a bicameral legislature whereby the House of Representatives would be based on population and the Senate would have two members elected from each state.
The EU should take note of this idea, giving equal representation to smaller economies, while redefining their ultimate goal of unified stability and fiscal control.
The EU, while united under one currency (The Euro) and a few policy authorities (Council of Ministers and European Council), is still a hodgepodge of countries of various sizes, cultures and political persuasions. From the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht to the current banking crises, many of the EU nations have taken fiscal governing of such a large body with a less than adequate level of seriousness. That is, rules set out to avoid a crises of this nature took a back seat to the financial interests of some of the larger economies (France, Germany, etc). The article in the Economist highlights this problem with an anecdote about France's view of budget cuts:
In 2002, Francis Met, newly installed as French Finance Minister dismissed commission requests for budget cuts to comply with the stability and growth pact by saying that "France has other priorities."
The article rightly states that the current finance minister under newly elected French president Francois Hollande would quickly lose his job if he were to dismiss EU fiscal responsibilities in the same manner. While some nations ignored the fiscal pacts of the Union, many still believed that a region united under one currency would facilitate political integration through fiscal unity and stave off a crises. But, as the article points out: They did not foresee that it [financial/political unity] would do so by throwing the continent into crises.
The EU is also facing a crises of democracy. Smaller countries with smaller economies (like Greece) are becoming less relevant in a growing Union. Once a country feels that their electorate and local issues are being ignored in favor of a Union controlled by the larger economies, a sense of resentment grows. When the fiscal crises in Greece came to a head, many in the country protested to the Austerity Measures because they believed that it was a problem that they did not create. Overspending by the Greek government after the conversion to the Euro that led to massive deficits and lack of a voice among bigger economies like Germany and France created a disconnect between the electorate of Greece and the wider Union.
The result of increased austerity measures has been political and financial turmoil. In elections, citizens increasingly voted for extremist candidates who opposed or favored a renegotiation of the terms of the Euro bailouts. In Greece, nearly 7% of the vote went to the ultra-right wing Golden Dawn Party, whose party platforms are anti-immigrant and anti-bailout. Their party symbol resembles the swastika. There was also no consensus candidate, which sent the election to a runoff, taking place on June 17th. In France, the Conservative party under incumbent Nicholas Sarkozy was ousted by the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande.
One major problem remains for the European Union: there is a disconnect between the larger and smaller economies, fostering disillusionment with the Union and individual country's national governments. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democrats) has shown visible disappointment with the way that Greek government has managed it's finances. She is reluctant to continue using German banks to prop up failing economies. At the same time, voters within Greece have become weary of their technocratic governing coalition and have voted in droves alongside anti-immigrant, nationalistic parties on the right and left. Continued entrenchment by larger economies like Germany will only foster nationalism and hatred towards the Union, leading to a possible exit by Greece. Once this happens, any country with the same sentiment might use that precedent to also leave the Union.
There is a way out of this crises for the EU. Direct election of members of policy making bodies in the EU by member countries can bring more democratic power to smaller states. Currently, the leaders of the European Council and Council of Ministers are appointed by member states. But, the Union must provide an efficient, enforceable method to institute fiscal policies in order to reign in on indebted countries and stave off future crises. In this way, smaller countries get more say in the inner governance of the Union while larger economies prevent having to bail-out smaller economies. But, above all, it keeps the Union intact without having to face the international consequences of a bank run or an exit.
During the debate over the ratification of the U.S. constitution, larger states wanted representation in Congress based on population (Virginia Plan). Smaller southern states proposed equal representation, as they would be less relevant under the Virginia Plan (New Jersey Plan). Congress created a compromise (Connecticut Compromise) that created a bicameral legislature whereby the House of Representatives would be based on population and the Senate would have two members elected from each state.
The EU should take note of this idea, giving equal representation to smaller economies, while redefining their ultimate goal of unified stability and fiscal control.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Note About Orthodox Gathering in Brooklyn
Articles have been popping up all over the web about a recent gathering of 60,000 Orthodox Jews (40,000 men in Citi Field and 20,000 women in a nearby location). The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the internet and how it has and will affect the Orthodox Jewish Community.
A group of "counter-protesters" gathered across the street, rallying against the supposed unreported acts of child abuse and molestation. They believed that a gathering of the Orthodox Community to discuss the internet was not important when these disgusting acts were being perpetrated and not reported.
The media response ranged from subtle understanding to sympathy to complete ignorance. A piece by Paul Miller at The Verge fell into the latter category. Paul describes his confusion over why members of the Orthodox Community attending the rally were reluctant to speak to him. This theme characterizes a major shortcoming of this article - lack of perspective. Paul is not a member of the Orthodox Community and only knows what most outside of the community understand - they keep to themselves. While he does admit that he is definitely out of his element and is ignorant to the nuances of the community, his lack of understanding makes his conclusion seriously flawed.
The most egregious part about the article is when he brings up the idea (not his idea) that limiting the internet in the Ultra-Orthodox community is akin to the internet controls in China and North Korea. The point of the gathering was to discuss the internet and how it has affected the lives of the community. The rally was closer to a family discussing a new obstacle than a synod of the powerful in an oppressive regime. His claim that limiting information in a so-called "information age" is hypocritical is a generalization. Again, the purpose of the rally was to discuss the internet and it's affects on the traditions of the community.
Then, there are the protesters. The purpose of their protest was seriously flawed. A gathering to discuss the affects of the internet on the Orthodox Community and allegations of sexual abuse are not intertwined. The proliferation and cover-up of molestation is a problem that must be addressed. But, the restrictions that the community wants to put on the internet for IT'S MEMBERS has nothing to do with these allegations. So, their protest is irrelevant.
The reason I specifically picked on Paul Miller was because his article is a good example of a misguided, outside perspective. While, he goes into details about his experience and admits that his outsider status limits his ability to gain credible information, less detailed articles (or more user-friendly, depending on your attention span) claim that the community thinks the internet is evil.
It may seem to outsiders that the Orthodox shun modernity and try to live much like the Amish. It is true that the Ultra-Orthodox and the Amish have a lot in common (they even met up in Brooklyn a couple times). While some in the insular community reject the internet because of their beliefs, many look to integrate it into their religious lives. They turn off their phones for Shabbat, unplug the ethernet cable or wireless router and actively restrict what they deem inappropriate for their children.
For a nice, and short, debunking of myths about Orthodox women and the community from an Orthodox Jew, click HERE.
A couple notes for context: When I say "Orthodox" or "Ultra-Orthodox," I mean it to be all-encompassing. There are various sects of Orthodox, some of which are much stricter than others.While I defend the purpose of this rally against attacks by outsiders who lack perspective, I do not agree with a lot of the doctrines of the Orthodox Community regarding the rejection and treatment of Jews of non-Orthodox status.
A group of "counter-protesters" gathered across the street, rallying against the supposed unreported acts of child abuse and molestation. They believed that a gathering of the Orthodox Community to discuss the internet was not important when these disgusting acts were being perpetrated and not reported.
The media response ranged from subtle understanding to sympathy to complete ignorance. A piece by Paul Miller at The Verge fell into the latter category. Paul describes his confusion over why members of the Orthodox Community attending the rally were reluctant to speak to him. This theme characterizes a major shortcoming of this article - lack of perspective. Paul is not a member of the Orthodox Community and only knows what most outside of the community understand - they keep to themselves. While he does admit that he is definitely out of his element and is ignorant to the nuances of the community, his lack of understanding makes his conclusion seriously flawed.
The most egregious part about the article is when he brings up the idea (not his idea) that limiting the internet in the Ultra-Orthodox community is akin to the internet controls in China and North Korea. The point of the gathering was to discuss the internet and how it has affected the lives of the community. The rally was closer to a family discussing a new obstacle than a synod of the powerful in an oppressive regime. His claim that limiting information in a so-called "information age" is hypocritical is a generalization. Again, the purpose of the rally was to discuss the internet and it's affects on the traditions of the community.
Then, there are the protesters. The purpose of their protest was seriously flawed. A gathering to discuss the affects of the internet on the Orthodox Community and allegations of sexual abuse are not intertwined. The proliferation and cover-up of molestation is a problem that must be addressed. But, the restrictions that the community wants to put on the internet for IT'S MEMBERS has nothing to do with these allegations. So, their protest is irrelevant.
The reason I specifically picked on Paul Miller was because his article is a good example of a misguided, outside perspective. While, he goes into details about his experience and admits that his outsider status limits his ability to gain credible information, less detailed articles (or more user-friendly, depending on your attention span) claim that the community thinks the internet is evil.
It may seem to outsiders that the Orthodox shun modernity and try to live much like the Amish. It is true that the Ultra-Orthodox and the Amish have a lot in common (they even met up in Brooklyn a couple times). While some in the insular community reject the internet because of their beliefs, many look to integrate it into their religious lives. They turn off their phones for Shabbat, unplug the ethernet cable or wireless router and actively restrict what they deem inappropriate for their children.
For a nice, and short, debunking of myths about Orthodox women and the community from an Orthodox Jew, click HERE.
A couple notes for context: When I say "Orthodox" or "Ultra-Orthodox," I mean it to be all-encompassing. There are various sects of Orthodox, some of which are much stricter than others.While I defend the purpose of this rally against attacks by outsiders who lack perspective, I do not agree with a lot of the doctrines of the Orthodox Community regarding the rejection and treatment of Jews of non-Orthodox status.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
TEA Party 2012: Reality Bites
The TEA Party is a hodgepodge of conservative activists who support a range of ideologies from pro-life guerrilla warfare against Planned Parenthood to legalization of marijuana and everything in between. Their ranks waffle between purist libertarians and social conservatives. One of the many goals of the TEA Party was to "change" spending in Washington and make it leaner and more efficient, the latter description being a nice way of saying complete obliteration of all social services.
In 2010, they decided to vote with their feet and mobilized candidates all over the country to challenge mainstream party congressmen and congresswomen. Establishment Republican Senators like Bob Bennett (UT) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) were defeated in their respective primaries by TEA Party backed insurgent candidates (Murkowski won back her seat in a rousing write-in campaign). Veteran Democrat Representatives like Jim Oberstar (17 terms from Michigan) were defeated by unknown and inexperienced TEA Party backed candidates.
Then...their legislative champions failed.
In the ensuing debates in Congress over the debt, taxes, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, abortion and women's rights, the Congress did not improve. Intransigent lawmakers, taken hostage by their own selfishness slowed the pace of government to the speed only seen on a plate tectonic scale. Traditionally bipartisan issues were bathed in partisan rhetoric and riders, left to be killed on the Senate floor. Budgets to fund essential government services were loaded with non-germane amendments, which elicited veto threats from the President and an assurance of no-progress from a divided Senate. Speak of the House John Boehner was constantly forced to cow-tow to a far right extremist ideology before supporting or rejecting even the most basic bills.
Now that the 2012, elections are approaching, the TEA party is once again geared up for a fight. While many of their freshman allies in Congress are not up for a vote, they will invariably try to challenge Washington insiders and establishment candidates.
Here are some numbers for the TEA Party:
Congressional Approval rating 10/04/2010: 20.5%
Congressional Approval rating 04/19/2012: 14%
It is my hope that the TEA Party will be forced to face reality in 2012. The reality is that their extremism will only hurt the party and alienate veteran lawmakers who have spent most of their political lives drafting keystone legislation that changes how America treats its environment, economy and citizens. This reality has already taken its toll, as many veteran lawmakers are deciding to leave Congress in 2012. Centrists like Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) look at the partisanship and the lack of progress as a reason to jump ship.
The worst side of the TEA Party and the extreme rightward shift of the Republican Party is demonization of political experience. Someone who understands the dynamics of Congress, like a Ted Kennedy or a Orrin Hatch, will become anomalies. They have been replaced with the inexperience dunce who can only make progress by screaming the loudest and complaining the most.
In 2010, they decided to vote with their feet and mobilized candidates all over the country to challenge mainstream party congressmen and congresswomen. Establishment Republican Senators like Bob Bennett (UT) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) were defeated in their respective primaries by TEA Party backed insurgent candidates (Murkowski won back her seat in a rousing write-in campaign). Veteran Democrat Representatives like Jim Oberstar (17 terms from Michigan) were defeated by unknown and inexperienced TEA Party backed candidates.
Then...their legislative champions failed.
In the ensuing debates in Congress over the debt, taxes, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, abortion and women's rights, the Congress did not improve. Intransigent lawmakers, taken hostage by their own selfishness slowed the pace of government to the speed only seen on a plate tectonic scale. Traditionally bipartisan issues were bathed in partisan rhetoric and riders, left to be killed on the Senate floor. Budgets to fund essential government services were loaded with non-germane amendments, which elicited veto threats from the President and an assurance of no-progress from a divided Senate. Speak of the House John Boehner was constantly forced to cow-tow to a far right extremist ideology before supporting or rejecting even the most basic bills.
Now that the 2012, elections are approaching, the TEA party is once again geared up for a fight. While many of their freshman allies in Congress are not up for a vote, they will invariably try to challenge Washington insiders and establishment candidates.
Here are some numbers for the TEA Party:
Congressional Approval rating 10/04/2010: 20.5%
Congressional Approval rating 04/19/2012: 14%
It is my hope that the TEA Party will be forced to face reality in 2012. The reality is that their extremism will only hurt the party and alienate veteran lawmakers who have spent most of their political lives drafting keystone legislation that changes how America treats its environment, economy and citizens. This reality has already taken its toll, as many veteran lawmakers are deciding to leave Congress in 2012. Centrists like Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) look at the partisanship and the lack of progress as a reason to jump ship.
The worst side of the TEA Party and the extreme rightward shift of the Republican Party is demonization of political experience. Someone who understands the dynamics of Congress, like a Ted Kennedy or a Orrin Hatch, will become anomalies. They have been replaced with the inexperience dunce who can only make progress by screaming the loudest and complaining the most.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Something about Oil...
If you drive down the 405 Freeway from Los Angeles towards Orange County, you will invariably see a large American Flag draped over a industrial expanse. Among the smoke-stacks, economizers, tubing, flaring, iron and steel is a oil refinery. These refineries take in oil from Alaska and refine to use in various products that range from plastics and nitrogen-rich fertilizers to gasoline or diesel for your car. This is how the business of oil becomes the business of American (and Californian) consumers.
If the price of oil spikes, the cost for nitrogen-infused fertilizers goes up, which leads to an increase in the cost of production for farmers who use that fertilizer, which forces them to charge higher prices for their goods which leads to higher costs at the supermarket. While this may not be the main driver for an increase in food prices (salmonella outbreaks, weather, pests, etc. aside), it is still a way your average Whole Foods or Trader Joes shopper can connect the price of oil to the price of produce.
If a refinery shuts down for maintenance, and the market for the oil that comes from that refinery becomes tight, the price of oil from that refinery will go up. If a bunch of oil refineries shut down for maintenance, then the region that receives oil from those refineries will go up in cost. This will lead to higher prices at the pump, assuming a good portion of that oil is refined for gasoline and diesel.
If an oil producing country experiences social or political upheaval that paralyzes their oil production, then the global cost of oil will rise. The United States imports nearly half of the oil it consumes (in one way or another). If the global cost of oil goes up, the price at the pump will surely be affected.
Each of these situations have occurred in some capacity during the current Administration. The price of oil on the global and domestic market spiked during the Arab Spring (Libya), we are entering a phase where refineries are shutting down for maintenance and higher commodity prices have been a result of an increase in oil prices and the recession.
There are a couple factors that are leading to higher oil prices, which are translating to higher prices at the pump. But, let's look at a parallel economic universe to give you a perspective.
Coal...
Domestic coal consumption has been dropping over the last 5-10 yrs. At the same time, the price of coal has been steadily rising. Demand from Asia (China, South Korea, Japan), South America (Brazil, Colombia) and Europe (Germany) has grown. Traditional sources of coal for the international export market (Australia, Indonesia) have been hit with weather events and supply constraints. So, the US has stepped in to cover the gap. This has led to an increase in the price of coal on the international market for thermal (steam generation for electricity) and metallurgical (steel making) purposes. At the same time, coal companies have been cutting domestic production due to lower demand which has been caused (mostly) by a precipitous drop in the price of natural gas, an alternative to coal power. While the US is far from exporting more coal than it burns, many analysts from major coal companies (Arch, Peabody, Alpha Natural, Patriot, Cloud Peak, CONSOL, Arcelor Mittal, etc) are seeing a robust export market into the near future. Even though domestic consumption is low, production in places like the Powder River Basin is set to increase as more domestic and international partners buy up mine expansions.
Oil...
For the first time in decades, the US has become a net exporter of oil. Demand from developing countries for US oil exports has grown dramatically in the last couple of years. Domestic oil production has increased (instigated during the last Administration), but domestic consumption has gone down. This has been due to the recession and an increase in the average fuel efficiency of autos sold in the US. While we have enough oil to satiate our consumption, the drop in demand coupled with increased exports has led to an increase in price. Refineries are also shutting down for maintenance and moving towards higher cost blends for certain regions (see CA gas prices). And, threats from Iran on closing the Straits of Hormuz are not helping.
The Point: There is no Administration policy that could alleviate the increasing price of oil in the short term. If Obama approved the Keystone XL pipeline tomorrow, the price of oil and gas at the pump would still be high for the short term. Republicans have been criticizing the Administration for what they characterize as overreaching regulations and stalling on the exploration of new oil and gas fields. Putting aside the exploratory well will be drilled in the Arctic in the next few months, if the Administration approved a good amount of onshore and offshore wells, the price of gas would remain relatively high. As long as we are connected to the international market for oil, we will be subject to it's fluctuations. The Administration can do nothing to influence that.
So...why, with all this information in mind, are the Republican nominees blaming the Administration's policies, talking about offshore oil exploration, and promising far-flung dreams of $2.50/gallon gas?
Political gain. Pure and simple. Their assertions are nowhere near the universe where fact resides.
And a point on the Strategic Petroleum Reserves...If the Administration were to release oil from the SPR, it would send a price signal to the market that we are in a dire situation in regards to oil supply. But, we are not. We have plenty of supply. We are just exporting more and consuming less and feeling the effects of the international market.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Gingrich/Romney and the Art of Buzzwords
When the TEA Party anti-Obama, anti-tax rhetoric was making it's way from one state to another ala TV personalities like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, the art of the buzzword was revitalized.
A buzzword is a polarizing statement or word that is meant to radicalize or motivate a political base. During the Bush Administration, many on the left compared Bush to Hitler, which made their arguments both polarizing and illegitimate. During the current administration, talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck compared Obama to Hitler, Rev Jeremiah Wright and radical William Ayers.
The problem with buzzwords is ingrained in their simplicity. The average person listening to talking heads absorbs buzzwords more readily than nuanced details. When Sean Hannity criticizes the Obama Administration by using the graphic of the "apples" of security, industry and commerce "falling" into the "basket of Socialism," viewers will make their own conclusions based on vague and often simplified concepts. Hannity's viewers will, more often than not, have a completely misguided understanding of both the Administration's policies and the tenets of modern Socialism. But, the words evoke an ideal of a bygone era where Socialism and Communism were the antithesis of American.
Prospective Republican presidential nominees Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have stepped up their buzzword attacks on the Administration. I am going to break down some of the buzzword attacks of recent:
"Bureaucratic socialist" (Gingrich)
These two words slyly evokes the characteristics of someone who supports an inefficient government and is anti-American. Those who rail against the government use "bureaucratic red tape" as a reason to cut funding from programs that range from Nuclear Energy to regulations covering farm dust. Socialism is something that is considered, Prima Facie, anti-American.
"Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" (Gingrich)
This statement covertly revives the "birther" issue without explicitly supporting it. Gingrich would lose the race immediately if he overtly supported the deranged conspiracies of the Birthers. But, by adding in "Kenyan" anti-colonial, he is bringing up the idea that Obama was born in Kenya. The anti-colonial part of the statement has many implications, none of which are elaborated on by the former Speaker. It could refer to Kenyan nationalism in the colonial and post-colonial era, it could refer to the Mau-Mau Movement or it could be veiled racism.
"...takes political inspiration from Europe" (Romney), "...must choose between a European-style welfare state and a free land" (Romney), "I am for the Constitution, he is for European socialism" (Gingrich)
Calling Obama a "European" seems to be all the rage among the potential nominees. By evoking Europe, Romney and Gingrich instill fear into voters that the U.S. will end up like the faltering economies of Ireland, Portugal and Greece. What voters see in the media is that these governments have failed because of their bloated public sector. So, they make the assumption that if we cut from our public sector and elect a president who will work to shrink the government, we will not end up like Greece, Portugal or Ireland. Even mentioning the word Europe implies high government wages, high debt, socialism, anti-Americanism and economic failure.
"I am for the Declaration of Independence, he is for the writing of Saul Alinsky." (Gringrich)
Gringrich seems to be giving the average American more credit. I know many educated people who have no idea who Saul Alinsky is. This one, while not apparent to most, brings up the same effects as comparing Obama to Rev Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers. Alinsky was a community organizer who taught minority communities how to gain political power through organizing. While he was not a socialist or a communist, mentioning him brings up the Palin-made criticism of community organizing and its connection to socialism. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" was very confrontational. According to psychologist Drew Westen , the combination of a "Jewish-sounding" last name the idea of radicalism could appeal to the antisemitic voters.
What I despise most about buzzwords is that it polarizes voters instead of informing them. Those who support the existence of the Electoral College often point to a popular vote that assumes, to a certain extent, an informed voter. By listening to the nominees and the talking heads, an average voter would come up with the assumption that socialism will and always has been Anti-American, the government is inefficient and the European governments of Ireland, Portugal and Greece failed because they had a bloated public sector. They will also think that Obama is a Kenyan socialist who values European-style democracy over the basic tenets of the Constitution.
This kind of conspiratorial hogwash should have no place in electoral politics. And, mudslinging is ineffectual once elected. If you don't believe me, just look at the effectiveness of the Freshman TEA Party class in the House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)