Lawrence Lessig's Plan to Reduce Congressional Corruption

I've been very impressed with Lawrence Lessig's thinking ever since reading Free Culture, his book on the dangers and distortions of current copyright law.  He's back with a new book to fight Congressional Corruption: 'Republic Lost'. I'm thinking this is a must read!

Here's the extended interview on The Daily Show to whet your appetite...

The Pledge Has Been Broken

Remember the Republican Pledge To America? The 'We will stop packing unpopular legislation with must pass bills' - The 'We won't force votes on large legislation until sufficient time for everyone to read it'?

According to Bloomberg News - pledge broken. The Republican sponsered spending bill now hitting the house (all 1200 pages of it) breaks both of those pledges...

Who would'a thunk? Politicians lying for their own gain...

Just drop the integrity crap during the election cycle - those running for office don't have it, won't have it, and never had it. It's not about integrity - although maybe it should be.

One Trillion Frames Per Second...

This is so unbelievably cool - The folks at MIT have built an imaging system that allows them to produce video shot at one trillion frames per second - fast enough to allow them to photograph the propagation of light. The science behind it is just as fascinating - the Titanium Sapphire Laser they use as a pulsed illumination source, the electromagnetic field used to bend the light to their will - the multiple layering of subsequent images to produce the final, 2d video. Check it out:

One Trillion Frames Per Second

It's Not About Us

Writing is a good way of making sense of ideas, and hence the world. I've not had much to say lately because the input of ideas has been low: My reading is down as I pursue some other activities. (I've also run across many who say things so well that I feel less compelled to add to it...)

So, this post isn't really about the world or ideas - it really is a trail to see how facebook's new functionality regarding importing blogs works. Supposedly, it won't import, and I'll have to link to it.

Not that it really matters. I've noticed increasingly that facebook is choosing my content for me, and although I've sorted my friends into lists (so that the quiet or intermittent posters are less likely to be drowned out by my 'chatty' friends), I still miss posts - sometimes posts of a certain nature, sometimes it appears that I miss entire posts from some.

I've specifically noticed that I no longer see posts from two of my friends who blog on a regular basis. True, I only sometimes read their posts, and true, I even more infrequently interacted via commenting or 'liking' the posts - but I want to see that they have said something, even if I choose not to read very far.

But, I have to remember: Although we use it as a means of interacting and keeping in touch, Facebook is not about us: It's about funneling consumers and money to corporations that can afford to play.

If you've ever had any doubt, then the possibility of a $100 billion IPO from facebook should remind you exactly who and what facebook is for.

We may think of ourselves as the primary users as we post and play, but it's not about us.

What? The Fed is an Old-Boys Club of Backscratching Bankers!

The GAO released its report on the Federal Reserve Wednesday: Yves Smith has a nice summary.

And, just as many have long known: Those at the top build networks to ensure they remain at the top regardless of how they perform - the meritocracy breaks down under their myriad conflicts of interest. Everyone screams about individual accountability when its some poor individual who cannot afford to repay their bank loan, but no-one seems to care that none (as in zero!) of the major bank executives were held accountable for their roles in undermining the worth of their banks, counterfeiting the nation's currency through liar's loans, and their ultimate thievery of the production of a nation. Now we have it a little clearer: Literally, the fox is guarding the hen house!

We need leaders (are you listening, candidates?) who will make it a priority to wind-down the financial sector back to a size that is beneficial to society, rather than a cancer that sucks more and more of the life-blood of a nation in its greed. Candidates that will vow to staff the regulatory agencies (the Fed, the SEC) with people of diverse backgrounds and affiliations who will regulate, rather than remunerate, those under regulation.

Anyone? Anyone?

Taxing Capital

With the election season beginning, I think there is a question that needs to be clearly answered:

Is there any legitimate reason why the tax schedules for capital (investment return) should be any different than the tax schedules for labor (wages)?

When the marginal tax rate for labor rises above 15%, shouldn't the marginal rate for capital income do the same? And shouldn't the total tax rate for an individual begin with the simple sum of labor and capital income, without distinction between them?

If one individual were to earn $75,000 from labor, and another $75,000 from investment return, is there any good argument that they should not pay the same taxes? Ditto if the amounts were $100k, $200k, etc?

Playing with the tax codes appears to be the most prominent campaign rhetoric of our candidates, a favorite tactic to gain acceptance from voters. So, it's only fair if we, the voters, really start having a conversation and determine beforehand what a good, fair tax code would look like, then we lessen the chance that we'll be hoodwinked into voting for a design that is unfair, and worse, damages our society.

Logical Fallacies and Occupy Wall Street

You've seen the picture: Protesters of Occupy Wall Street, with call-outs to each mass-produced (corporation) item they are carrying: Their cell-phones, their cameras, their music devices, their clothing, etc. The obvious point is that the protesters are somehow hypocrites for protesting the institutions that have produced so much that they carry and use.

The more insidious point is that it is somehow wrong to criticize anything that has any beneficial aspects. Ironically, however, adopting that point of view is just has destructive: If we must be silent about anything that has a benefit, no matter how egregious the violations committed on its behalf, we have lost our ability to challenge anything in our society, lost our ability to move society forward.

True, the creation of the corporation has allowed for the allocation of money to advance our manufacturing of the items that bring greater leisure, greater connectivity, and greater productivity to our society. But that's not what Occupy Wall Street is about. They are protesting the outsized influence corporations have on our political lives, and the resulting outsized influence they have on our daily lives; by their ability to constrain the uses to which we put our money (preventing taxation to support beneficial government services), our ideas (through the support of strong forms of patent and copyright law), and our land and water (through pollution).

Corporations have also become anti-democratic forces - rigid hierarchies that exploit many to move money to the few in outsized compensation for their 'work'. As such, there is a strong tension between those who view autonomy and participation as a right (democracy) versus those who believe that submission to the will of the 'elite' is not only better, but proper (oligarchy).

So, the protesters' position is that there are aspects of corporations that don't fit with our conception of freedom and equality, and that society would become better if those aspects were changed or eliminated.

The job for corporate supporters is to address the issues head on: to contend and offer proof that corporations don't pollute more per-capita or leave behind their private messes for social clean-up; that strong, 99-year copyright laws don't constrain innovation and advancement; that immense rewards to the few don't undermine our ability as a society to advance and prosper as a whole.

And so we see the logical fallacy committed by supporters of the picture: That somehow the fact that the protesters have also benefited refutes that there is anything to protest. It's a cop-out by corporate apologists and their tools. (I saw Elisabeth Hasselback on the View talking about this picture like she was making some great point; the only point she was cementing is that she is a doofus, incapable of logical thought, a perfect tool of the corporation that employs her.)

Criticizing the bad in an institution or an individual is not logically inconsistent with recognizing the good brought about by the institution or individual - the two are mutually supportive: For without criticizing the bad (and working to overcome or improve), we can't increase the good that is possible or that we can realize.

Occupying History

As I listened to the news this evening I couldn't help but be struck by the hyperbole in the segments about the Occupy Wallstreet movement. The newscasters were beside themselves, looking for anger, reason, demands, clearly attempting to understand Occupy Wallstreet on their (the newscasters') terms, rather than on the terms of the people in the movement. And, just as clearly, the fear, anger, and confusion was on the part of those reporting, not the participants.

We live, theoretically, in a democracy. Each individual their voice, each understanding of the world to be brought to the decisions that affect us.

But we've watched as the financial sector has ballooned, feeding like a parasite on the remainder of the economy and the populace (for the financial industry makes nothing but money, and their charge is to make that in accordance with the general growth of the nation: True, they are to facilitate that growth where possible, to ensure money moves where it is most needed, but nothing gives them leeway to overproduce, indeed, the efficient market's hypothesis proposes that they can't produce more, since the resulting inflation and busting would bring them to heel in short order.), creating an enormous asset bubble in the housing market, and fooling investors worldwide into purchasing their fancy derivatives. When the bubble burst, these incapable gamblers came to us, hat in hand, and asked for a bailout, which we, although not willingly, gave.

With that money they've rebuilt, and turned on us: Blaming us for the ills of the country, and demanding that we make concessions, reduce our standards, move towards austerity. They've asked for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, they fight against any meaningful Health Care reform for all, and why? Because our willingness to share and hedge against the unknown is inefficient? No, of course not. It's because in so doing we reduce the amount of money they could potentially pillage, and having gotten a taste of kingly amounts, they thirst for more.

The Tea Party got it (mostly) wrong. They blamed the government, the employees, perhaps even the form that we have, but their unwillingness to give up their medicare showed them to be confused. They know that something is wrong, that something is not as it should be, but they can't identify it. (And, they were quickly co-opted by the wealthy to become a tool to use against 'us' – even though there are many of 'us' in the Tea Party itself!)

Occupy Wallstreet has identified the true source of the problem: The outsized influence, even outright control that is exercised now by a moneyed minority of the population that is no longer willing to even pretend that the good of society is the purpose of a government. They accurately point their fingers at the undemocratic nature of corporations – rigid hierarchies that resemble feudal monarchies in all but name. If that minority manage their wish of repealing the Estate Tax once and for all, we will see the reestablishment of the heredity aristocracy, and the Nation of Opportunity will become a moment in history. (Evidence indicates that it is already passing, that social mobility in America is far less than most European countries, that children of the bottom 20% are much more likely to stay there. See fn1.)

Having identified the problem, what is the correct solution? Ideas have been proposed: Re-enactment of Glass-Steagall (admittedly, it must be put on steroids to have a positive effect this time around). Establish the Tobin Tax (a tax on each financial transaction, not large, but enough to put some “sand in the gears” - remember that Efficient Market Hypothesis mentioned above? Debunked. Doesn't hold.) How about a Consumer Protection Agency with a strong, knowledgeable, no-nonsense leader (yep, they kicked Elizabeth Warren out because she possessed precisely those qualities!) Changes to the Federal Reserve so that it can manage the money supply in favor of the nation, not the wealthy few.

But each idea is likely stillborn or bound to be so diluted that it will effectively become trivial, and the looting will continue. So, the pressing question becomes: How does a movement grow that will motivate those currently in power to pay attention, to not talk out of one side of their mouths while accepting money from Wall Street?

Sure, editorials and letter writing are a start, but what's a stack of letters in a congressman's office compared to a face-to-face with the likes of Peter Peterson or Edward Koch and the promise of money and a high paying lobbying job after retirement? We need a presence, a means of showing the size and strength of population that doesn't want their well being suborned by the prima-donnas of Wall Street. And, we know the wrong way to go about it: Violence. There need be no torches, pitchforks, knives, guns or guillotines – We are still a democracy, and, has been shown time and again around the world, a peaceful but forceful democratic assembly gets attention, and over time, can move a cause forward.

They need our support, not our ridicule. Those who would attempt to undermine or cast aspersion upon them show themselves to be either a tool of the wealthy or unsupportive of the notion of democracy. Sure, those present will largely be the youthful and the unemployed: Those of us with corporate overlords must keep our masters happy. Sure, they may seem disorganized, but that is the nature of true democracy. (We are so accustomed to the faux democracy of a presidential election or corporate life that we have a hard time recognizing, let alone accepting, something that closely approaches true, free, democratic association and decision making.) They don't have a media machine hammering the message (fn2), but listen to the interviews: They (individually), know what they want, and are exploring a means to bring it about.True, too: Some of their ideas are much more than just bringing Wall Street to heel: They are about re-imagining society. But, it takes grand ideas to sometimes make small or medium improvements.

The moment is ripe with possibility. Possibility that the population of America is approaching its tipping point – the point where the 95% make themselves heard, where they take the country for themselves. Sure, the 5% will fight – just as they did in Philadelphia when the Constitution was being written, just has they did (via proxy) during the Civil War, just as they have since the setbacks (to them) of the 14th and 15th amendments, since the setback of the New Deal. Just possibly these occupiers will start something that will culminate in the reduction of the outsized presence and influence of the financial sector, and a movement towards a land of greater democracy, opportunity, and equality.

Fn1: See the study done by Haskins and Sawhill of the Brookings Institute (2009) – I ran across the information in John Quiggin's “Zombie Economics”. See especially pages 159-161. In summary, Haskins and Sawhill looked at the male children of men in the bottom quintile (20%) - in a mobile society, one would expect only about 20% to remain. In America, it is 42%, Denmark 25%, Sweden 26%, Britain 30%.

fn2. Of course, after I write this I see that Occupy Wall Street has published the Occupy Wall Street Journal, Issue #2!

If Only...

We all could constantly raise our salaries above the median for our peer group -- think what we would earn in a few short years! A Nice Racket...

On The Invention Of Money

So, it turns out that we actually don't know how or why money was invented, but we pretty conclusively now know that it wasn't invented as the evolution of a barter economy! This article by David Graeber is fascinating for its account of the anthropological record and insights into possibilities. I really, really like the questions he poses at the close of the article: In short, is Economics a science designed to empirically provide answers about the way the world works, or is it a non-science, designed instead to teach us modes of behavior that are beneficial (and beneficial to whom?) in the societies of today? Read the article, and the relevance of the question becomes not only obvious, but understandably important...

A Tale of Two Cities

I've been reading Dickens' classic - something I somehow managed to avoid during my formal education! I've been enjoying it, and fully appreciate why it is a classic. However, it has made me realize there is another hole in my knowledge: The French Revolution itself: Causes, Actors, Outcomes. I know from a biography of Thomas Jefferson that he was horrified by the actions of the French, and quite dismayed that they could interpret the move to democracy in such a violent manner.

I need a recommendation of a good history of the French, especially one that covers the Revolution in depth. I'd like very much to gain an understanding of what forces led to their revolutionary experience being different from our own (or is that just a perception?), and perhaps some insight into how their revolution plays into the attitudes the French have today.

Sometimes, too, the best histories are biographies, so if a biography of a central figure is available, that could be a good approach, also. I'm open to your ideas!

Thanks!

Children's Humor

Seriously, the recent events have left me dumbstruck - and, besides, there is lots of discussion around the blogosphere about the various expected outcomes, along with plenty of analysis (often dire). So, in an effort to lighten things up a little and remind us that our (important) lives go on, here's a sampling of recent utterances from the littlest members of my household:

Me (on recent camping trip, contemplating the pine beetle devastation): I read recently that it is somewhat cyclical, that around 100 years ago there was a similar outbreak, with similar consequences...
10yr-old: Wow, Dad! Do you remember what it was like, you were, what, a teenager?
Me: Thanks for thinking me so young! No, I was already married...(!)

Me: Snacktime! Everyone pick their snacks.
5yr-old: (Holding up package): Dad! You have GOT to try these!
Me: No, that's ok. I have my own, and I wouldn't want to eat yours...
5yr-old: Dad! I don't like these!

Me: Watching TV wasn't the same when I was young, we didn't get to just watch anytime we wanted...
10yr-old: I remember! Like during the war, when you all had to huddle around the radio instead?
Me: We need to work on your concept of time! No, I meant that we only had 1, and had to share...

How Did The Deficit Get So Large?

If you are like me, you are a little peeved at the actions of the politicians, apparently willing to throw the entire nation under the bus for who-knows-what reason, and, even more peeved at the media for not providing real, in-depth analysis of the causes that got us here so that we can all be informed...

I've seen hints, and even attempted to look at some of the numbers myself, but realistically, I've got more to do - and let's face it: That's why we pay the investigative journalistic profession. They should be delving into the reasons for our current state, and laying it out clearly, and repeatedly when some politician, for power gain, attempts to say otherwise.

This article, in the NYTimes, does exactly what I've been waiting for: A solid presentation of the causes of the deficit, including clearly understandable graphs. Read it, and cogitate on this most salient point:

"...non-
defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades."

It's not the welfare for the public good that has gotten us here...

A little babysitting economics

Dr Krugman says it so well with this story about babysitting...(and notice the pub date - its not recent!)

I seriously wonder that maybe every one of our elected officials is compromised - compromised in the sense that if they were to be seen as the ones who allowed inflation they legitimately fear that not only will they become unelectable, but that cushy jobs as lobbyists or in the banking industry will evaporate, since inflation will hurt lenders (bankers) most... (and so we get a kabuki debate that will only end in the destructive actions of reducing the deficit though government cuts rather than revenue increases...)

I also believe that we don't make enough here - sure, we could pull out with the help of a little inflation, but to what? What would prevent us from falling right back in? Sadly, Krugman's tale doesn't go that far...

Friday Shorts - Buffett, Huckabee, Debt, Anthony

The Republican stance on the debt shows that they have no enduring ideology, other than obtaining and staying in control. Remember that Reagan said that deficits don't matter? As Warren Buffett pointed out, congress raised the debt ceiling 7 times during Bush's term, without nary a whimper. But, they'd hold a gun to America's head over this, threatening to shut down the government? If they hate government that much, perhaps they should seek employment in the private sector...

Ever wonder if maybe Mike Huckabee was forced into politics because he was thrown out of the ministry for a lack of compassion? Every time I see his ad calling for the repeal of the Health Care Plan he just comes across as completely, totally heartless.

Speaking of the debt, have you ever wondered about the history of it? What our ancestor's thought and did related to it? How long has America had government debt? You can hear all these questions answered, and more on Backstory Radio's recent coverage of exactly this topic. Download the podcast, and do whatever it is you do this weekend while you learn why Alexander Hamilton could say, “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."

Casey Anthony. Everyone I know is certain she committed the murder of her daughter, but her acquittal is actually proof that our judicial system works, and works well. We have to demand sufficient proof of a crime to convict, and if the prosecution fails to bring that proof to trial, then the accused must go free. For there is the distinct possibility in all trials that if there is a lack of proof, then the accused is innocent of the crime in question. We certainly don't want to err on the side of locking up innocent people - even though it means that we must err on the side of occasionally setting the guilty free. (Which I must point out, we don't know has been done here.)

Which brings to mind an excellent campaign question for our congressional and presidential candidates: Do you feel that America's incarceration rate is too high? Are we locking up individuals for 'crimes' that shouldn't require it - and what and how do other nations, who all have much lower incarceration rates, deal with the activities in question? And, the real kicker: Do you support the privatization of our jails and penitentiaries - and do you see any conflict of interests between a private organization which will want to increase the quantity of incarcerated to increase their profits with America's desire to decrease its costs and reduce its government debt?

Big Pancakes

“Daddy, are you staying home today?”
“Yes, hon. It's a holiday.”
“Goody! That means we can have BIG pancakes!”

Big pancakes in my daughter's language are those pancakes that I make on the griddle, not the tiny microwave ones that come in a box. Although it will be more time consuming than I had planned this morning, it is such a simple request, and will give her lots of happiness, so I acquiesce. The real joy, for both of us, is determining what shape the pancake will take. Today, it is to be Pooh Bear. I've made many in the past: Micky Mouse (easy), Brontosaurus, T-Rex, Triceratops, (harder), Thomas (The tank engine – fairly hard). Since batter spreads, it requires a large paddle to flip the rather large pancakes that result.

“Pooh has a big belly,” as I pour an oblong ellipse, “and a pretty big head” as a connecting circle appears. “Tiny ears,” to my daughter's hand clap and exclamation of delight. “Don't forget the feet, Daddy!” she admonishes, and two more pours provide feet. “And arms!” We make some arms, which end up being closer to clubs. “It's Pooh Bear!” she cries, and laughs. This is the moment I love: Seeing the misshapen blob of batter on the griddle through her 5-year-old eyes and imagination as the beloved story-book character of Winnie the Pooh.

It doesn't go completely as planned: During the flip, one of Pooh's feet comes off, but we reconnect it, and the magic is restored. She sits down to eat her pancake, and I set about making a bunch (standard round) for me.

Then the demands start. “I want some orange juice!” “Dad, I need some orange juice!” when it doesn't come fast enough. “And my vitamin!” “Syrup! I want syrup!” Then, in a switch worthy of the Jekyll and Hyde duo, my beautiful, inquisitive, laughing daughter becomes a monster: “I've gotten syrup in my hair! Aaaahhhh, AAAAhhhhhhhh, AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!”

And so, the challenge of parenthood begins, as we balance providing for our little dependents while not giving in to their every demand. It's a tightrope that every parent walks, providing what is reasonable while they cannot, teaching them to do for themselves what they can, instilling in them the confidence they need to negotiate life. Its a work in progress. We won't know the outcome in my daughter's case for 15, 20, maybe 25 years. Has she become capable of balancing her needs and wants against the needs and wants of those around her? Will she politely wait her turn? Will she only ask for what she needs of others, or will she attempt to manipulate them into providing for her things she can do and obtain for herself? Will she quietly tolerate some unfairness, not demanding that she always go first, even if it is her right? Conversely, will she have the confidence to step up and ensure that her needs are met when required (for while there is grace in holding our needs and wants secondary, there are times when it is crucial that we look after ourselves)?

It's tough work. Punishment is not an adult strategy: We've learned it from our children. They punish us for not jumping to their needs, which is quickly extended to their wants. They scream, they throw tantrums (and sometimes things), and will repeat incessantly the demand in too often successful attempts to wear us down. They haven't learned our adult strategies of masking our demands in feigned kindness, proceeded with 'please', 'if you don't mind', 'Could you do me a favor'. They also don't know when to accept defeat, or when it is impolite to ask, skills we hopefully all have. Everything is primal, raw, tears and yells and actions.

Of course, too, our responses depend upon how rested we are. Fortunately for us this morning, I've had a very restful night's sleep. I procure her orange juice (with the admonishment that she ask “Please”), and ask her to wait on the vitamin until I've finished my pancakes. And, in one of those insightful moments, instead of berating her for not keeping her hair out of her plate, I demonstrate to her how to remove the syrup from her hair and have her brush the tangles out. In the process, the monster disappears, and my daughter returns to finish breakfast with me.

This I can count as a parenting success. We've enjoyed a good breakfast together, we've navigated the interactions without growing angry at each other, and my little girl has acquired a necessary skill for those who will wear their hair long and eat big pancakes in the morning.

Could You Kill A Friend?

At the end of my last post I took a subtle jab at the Harry Potter series, curious of anyone would rise to the bait. I don't think that the series is pointless, nor that it is particularly bad. I have outlined before how I don't especially like the model of the protagonist that is chosen, that all others defer to him or her, and they end up saving the world in spite of themselves or their efforts. In real life, success takes effort, confidence, and the support of others (and a little chance.)

I think the real heroes of the series are Severus Snape, Albus Dumbledore, and amongst the children, Hermione Granger. Harry succeeds largely upon the backs of these three, plus the efforts of many others who have been working to defeat Voldemort for longer than Harry has been alive.

Hermione exhibits those qualities that generally lead to real life success, foremost perseverance. She keeps after something until she understands it, researching, practicing, and researching some more. Her timely revelations throughout the series provide Harry the information and spells he needs to move forward. Without Hermione, Harry likely would have fallen into a trap early on, and never recovered.

My advice to my children: Be like Hermione, not Harry.

But what is intriguing to me are the behind the scenes machinations and interplay between Snape and Dumbledore that ultimately bring about the fall of Voldemort. These two have been working for decades to uncover the horcrux, to work out the secrets of Voldemort's power, and to devise a plan to weaken him and then lure him out where he can be killed. Harry stumbles into this when he comes to Hogwarts, and provides a useful decoy for Dumbledore to deploy and distract Voldemort. Again, in an almost deux ex machina fashion, Dumbledore provides Harry with just the information he needs just when he needs it to rise to the occasion and avoid (presumably) death at the hands of Voldemort.

But what of the sacrifice by Dumbledore at the end of the 6th book that ultimately robs Voldemort of the power of the Elder Wand? By having Snape kill him, Dumbledore really sets up Voldemort's defeat. Imagine the conversations those two must have had: “If ever Voldemort gets the upper hand, you must kill me instead.” “My friend, I cannot do that.” “You MUST, or all will be lost.”

Could you kill a friend?

Our minds rightly recoil at the thought – taking a life in a Machiavellian manner to further our ends seems wrong, no manner how it plays out. In the story, Snape's actions not only eliminate an enormous source of power for Voldemort, but they also provide cover for Snape to continue to work towards his former master's defeat. That one action is really the pivotal point of the series.

Snape ultimately succeeds in destroying Voldemort, but per the series, is forced (by Rowling) to do it through Harry, spoon feeding the final information Harry needs as he (Snape) is dying. Armed again through the efforts of others, Harry is able to make the final blow, and the long fall from innocence is complete.

Snape is the hero. But what a dark hero he is! My mind keeps returning to these facts about the story, buried, glossed over; I'm certain missed or misunderstood by many, if not most, of the young readers of Rowling's narrative.

Imagine the conversations that could be had: Is Snape justified in killing Dumbledore? Why or why not? Could we transfer this to situations that could occur in our world (where Elder wands and the Dark Arts don't exist)?

Despite my early misgivings on the series, has Rowling actually written an allegory from which we can learn, or is it just a children's series?

Kraken

My English teacher and I had this repeating conversation that arose after the completion of each assigned book. It starting when the teacher asked his stock question, “Why did the author write this book?” and I would answer something like “To make the money he needs to live.” “No,” my teacher would patiently reply, “What’s the author’s point, his message?” “Oh, it was born of a wager with another English teacher: I’ll bet I can get millions of school-kids to read this piece of literary drivel; I’ll call it ‘The Lord of the Flies’”

I could never tell if the ensuing choking sounds emanating from my instructor were signs of amusement, exasperation, or admiration that one so young could already discern the crasser motives that sometimes drive activities, even those of our literary heroes.

Of course, he was right: Authors often do have a point or message and the story is just a vehicle for bringing it to us – and, of course, I was right: Authors don’t always have any high aspirations, and the story is just a story.  I am unwilling to ascribe a strong message to authors of more formulaic stories, and grow weary of authors that are so obtuse that we have to go on a major investigation to pry out their meaning. Besides, if there is a large question or disagreement over what the author was attempting to convey, can we be certain that was their motive, or are we attempting after the fact to create something when perhaps they simply thought, “Hey, this would be an interesting story!”?

(I’m even more skeptical of the ‘meanings’ of classical music: I still think that Mahler was a pre-Keynesian works program, “If I don’t continue to write these massive symphonies and score them for hundreds, there will be many out-of-work musicians, and with their feeble, non-calloused hands, what else can they possibly do?” )

Too, there is the personal aspect of a story: Depending upon our particular prior experiences, any specific story may invoke in us ideas, thoughts, or allow us to connect some previously unconnected dots. However, the 'take-away' that we obtain is often more telling of us than perhaps the author: Can we be certain, unless the author had similar experiences, that we understood their point? But, if we read a book, and gain something, even some feelings, experience, or understanding that we didn't have, does it matter if the author intended or predicted it? We've gained...

So I still approach most fiction with a sense of skepticism: Entertain me, don't let me predict the outcome or the sequence (keep me guessing!) - and if it doesn't make a major point about the human condition or society's problems, etc. I'll not be unkind. If the author brings the characters to life, instills them with purpose, and entertains me, that is enough. If, however, the author does manage to convey a point or observation, even better.

I recently picked up Kraken by China Mieville on the basis of the general esteem of Mieville by Dr Farrell of George Washington University and was not disappointed: It is a rollicking good romp through the London underground, if that London underground was populated by the sorts of characters you might meet while playing World of Warcraft, D&D, etc. Mieville is a good writer, and manages to reconstruct the English language while constructing his scenes – standard turns of phrase are largely absent, instead, words appear in uncommon positions, phrases continue past normal, as if to leave no doubt that I was reading something new. “They all stared at the spot where the squid was not.” The meter is comfortable, though, and before long I was drawn in to the plot, wondering just how it could possibly shake out.

I'll say, too, that the characters that appear have purpose – purpose outside of the story, in a very vivid, we're not just here to prop up the plot kind of way. It is easy to imaging them existing outside of the narrative, with goals and desires that have been affected by the situation being described. Very much like encountering others on a massive on-line role-playing game. I would have to guess that some of that milieu provided a basis for Mieville as he wrote the story.

I was entertained thoroughly, but the real surprise came at the story's climax: The surprise villain, known, but unsuspected throughout, the tying together of the themes into a reasonable relationship, and then, whoa! A point emerged from the interchange between the protagonist and his adversary. I literally had to pinch myself, go back and re-read the chapter, but yes, Mieville has something to say. Even better, he made getting to and receiving it fun!

(Wouldn't my English teacher be proud?)

I see that 'The City & The City', Mieville's 2010 novel won the Hugo last year – guess I will have to put that on my 'to read' list, as, by Dr Farrell's account, its even better and more intellectually challenging than Kraken. If its just as good, I'm a fan!

(If you go: People in London swear. People in the seamy underground swear more. If the depiction of what a crime boss might actually say when things get out of hand and not in his favor might bother you, let me recommend instead something by J.K. Rowling. You'll have to forgo the point, but no swearing, either.)

Sharing The Sacrifice

Everyone else has a tax day proposal - figured I should offer one of my own. Mine is built around the idea of shared sacrifice (or shared boon.)

When a CEO forces the layoff of a portion of his company's workforce to reduce expenses (and likely increase both the stock value and his compensation), in a well-functioning, robust economy, those displaced workers can find other work at or near their former pay. The transition may not be completely seamless, but it should occur.

However, when an economy is stumbling, fizzing, or recessing, those same displaced workers may not be able to find other jobs even close to their former compensation - they may not be able to find jobs at all, or they may take jobs and displace others. The net result is that many find themselves chronically unemployed, with neither prospects nor income for lengthy periods. They make a 100% sacrifice, whereas the management and CEO that oversaw their layoff often suffer nothing or very little.

So, to spread the sacrifice (or force at least a rudimentary sharing), I propose that the top marginal tax rate be directly tied to the unemployment rate. National unemployment rises - so does the top tax rate. Unemployment drops - so does the top tax rate.

I would use the extra money pulled in from the increase in top tier taxation to fund a government work program that would pay any takers for as long as they are willing - or, as long as they are unable to find a job in another sector of the economy. To borrow an idea from Hyman Minsky, such a guaranteed program could, potentially, even replace the minimum wage - the wage the government pays would generally be a new minimum (although one could see that for part-time work, especially that taken by teenagers, it might be possible for a franchise to pay slightly less in return for more flexible working hours our conditions...)

The money could also pay for re-training programs, to handle contractions in one sector that force massive skills re-alignment. Since we may have a surplus of workers that lack the proper training, and a shortage of workers in a new, growing sector, until their skills get re-aligned, we have higher unemployment.

This is not a silver-bullet solution, to be sure. It doesn't address the structural problems in our economy that promote the creation of monopoly - and although they may see their tax rate rise, many at the top would still likely benefit more from a decision to throw workers out of work than they would ultimately pay in increased taxes. But, it has a nice reciprocity to it: Instead of the sacrifice of a sputtering economy be forced on the few, it is spread more evenly on the top and the bottom.

Additionally, it does avoid the problem of a growing government deficit when demands on the government are raised by a chronically unemployed populace - and it would 'claw back' some of the excess compensation taken by those at the top.

I know one of the arguments against this is the idea that the wealthy create jobs. We can dispense with that (hopefully once and for all!): First, we will simply observe that at the start of the recent recession, wealthy pay had risen sharply and was continuing to rise, even as jobs were being shed - if the wealthy create jobs, this should not have happened. Second, we'll observe that most economists blame the slowdown on over-leverage, the collapse of the housing bubble, and market opacity - none of which are related to wealthy pay (well, ok, market opacity does relate in that it allows CEOs and their ilk to vastly overpay themselves without it being evident). Third, the idea that wealth creates jobs runs completely counter to the idea that productivity and increases in productivity are what fuel and grow an economy (and by extension, fuel and grow the ability of the economy to employ more) - the latter ideas which form the core of the observations made by Adam Smith in 'Wealth of Nations', and Fourth and Finally: Any ideology that draws direct casual connections between two elements of a modern economy is likely false or misleading - observe how easily statistics can be employed to both 'prove' and 'falsify' many economic statements - proof that neither captures much useful information about the myriad connections and forces that are at work.

We can, and should, simply assert that the ability to work and provide is a right in an affluent society, and since we are a community, all should be working before we allow those who are more skilled and productive take a larger share. Tying the top marginal tax rate to the unemployment rate is a start in aligning the interests of the few with the interests of the many.

Mr Greg Daniel

I was out riding the other day. Just after turning around at the far end of our local reservoir, (which involves a small climb), this cyclist came zooming past. Descending the hill he freewheeled, and his cassette made a sound I hadn't heard since the old Suntour freewheel days. I wondered if that was the SRAM freewheel (I swear, it was even louder than Campy!)

Hitting the flat, I could see that perhaps he wasn't going all out, and I wondered if I had a strong enough interval in me to catch him. I figured if I could, then I could see if I was right on his components, if not, well, I needed some interval training anyway. So, off I went.

I did catch him, and to forestall a counter push by him, quickly asked him about his components and his bicycle. Yep, he was riding the SRAM group set, and yes, he really liked them (good news to me since I've been considering getting a new bike so equipped.)

We rode along together and talked - one of those geeky conversations that only cyclists have: Length of crank arms, training patterns, peaking, etc. He mentioned an upcoming trip to Belgium to do some racing, so I asked who he was. Turns out he is local a local phenom and pro rider Greg Daniel. He's heading to Europe to try his hand against the best juniors over there.

Nice guy. I wish him well, and it will be fun to have a local name to watch in the cycling stats. Might even get me interested again.

Oh, he was polite, too. Even asked me if I raced!

Eddie B says...

As in Borycewicz, US Olympic cycling coach for the early eighties: "You must cover your knees until it is at least 65 degrees."

I was amazed (or appalled) at the sheer number of uncovered cyclist knees I saw on my ride tonight. Red, chapped knees suffering in the spring breeze, the rider they were connected to probably wondering why they couldn't go any faster.

I guess I shouldn't care, it's their knees, but now that we're all in the same insurance pool*, I resent having to pay for the eventual knee replacement they'll require because they were too macho to cover their knees at 55 degrees. This goes for the women riders, too, who apparently suffer the same foolishness as their male counterparts.

Kudos, then, to the rider on the sleek black carbon Pinarello sporting their new Pearl Izumi knickers, a bargain at $185 compared to knee surgery (if my wife is reading this, don't I deserve a pair?) I was positively filled with knicker envy, my 20-year-old team issue leg warmers bunching up under my shorts of similar vintage.

But, hey, we were all out tonight chasing that elusive entity called fitness on a fine spring day! Given the number of riders I did see, I would think that one of us should corner and catch him/her/it - maybe with my warm, protected knees, it'll be me!

*A gross and inaccurate generalization, used here purely for the comedic effect. Or maybe not. I already get my insurance from the government, and the addition of those 30 million has already driven my costs up. I gotta say that I enjoyed having my needs socialized, even though I'm certain that it will prove a corrupting influence on others.**

**You didn't think this referred to me, did you? Of course not, that's the Boehner dude at his finest! (paraphrased by yours truly.)

No Motor Vehicle Parking

I paused as I passed the new sign on may way into the office this morning. 'No Motor Vehicle Parking' it proudly proclaimed. Interesting. It was on the sidewalk... Clearly, we are henceforth forbidden from leaving our cars on the sidewalks surrounding the office. Of course, ten years I've been working here, and not once have I noticed that any of my co-workers have availed themselves of the sidewalk as a parking place. Not that I might have missed someone...

But what really gets me is that apparently before today I could have been parking on the sidewalks - parking much closer than I usually do, parking where my vehicle would have been under prime observation of the security cameras.

A golden opportunity missed!

A Citizen's Dilemma

As an individual, I'm fairly certain that I will benefit from the recent Citizens United ruling. As an employee of a corporation in a sector that does substantial lobbying to get laws passed to its benefit, it stands to reason that I will benefit also. Those favorable laws and actions keep employment and wages in this sector high, likely increasing my future income. So, in my role of individual, my best interest lies with maintaining the status quo.

However, as a citizen, I worry about the distortions that occur when money is used to amplify demands upon the government - especially when those amplifications are unequal, sometimes brought about by sector profitability that in turn is enlarged by increased sector lobbying. I might easily take up the argument, presented by Robert Reich in his book Supercapitalism, that only citizens have the right of free speech, and all political contributions should have to come directly from a citizen's income (after tax, take home pay!) - and that as non-citizens, businesses, corporations, non-profits, foreigners - in short, any entity that is not directly a citizen of the country, cannot make contributions nor lobby our government.

So, instead of the corporation for which I work being able to take company profits and lobby the government for more favorable laws to maintain and increase those profits, I would have to do so myself (if I thought it worthwhile), or perhaps pool with my fellow employees and do so.

Since it would be straightforward to assume that laws will be passed (under this second idea) that prevent a corporation from making contributions by funneling the money into an employee's hands with the purpose of passing on to lobbying, this sort of regime should level the playing field, and allow those in society that don't have access to such deep pockets a greater voice. That, in turn, should create more even laws across all sectors of our society, but the effect may be that in my particular sector, the reduction in lobbying power will curtail future profits, and perhaps my future wages (fn1) also (or, more likely, future wage growth).

So, we have a citizen's dilemma: How does one choose between courses of action when the interests of the individual conflict with the interests of the citizen? What is the moral basis for determining which is the correct decision?


(fn1: Those who know me and my work my find it unlikely that the outcomes will be much different, i.e., Neither outcome is likely to see me flirting with either poverty nor riches, nor would it for most individual/citizens. The likely difference is probably just a few percent over many years, so the moral arguments will have to be similarly nuanced and subtle. However, one can easily see that for some individuals in our society, the difference in outcomes is much larger, and hence the personal dilemma they face.)

Women Are Not Moral Agents And Must Be Subjugated For Their Protection (And Male Gratification)

That would be your conclusion if you listen to the current rhetoric or view the pending legislation emanating from the Republican members of Congress. Clearly, women are incapable of making moral decisions, and must remain subjugated in the best interests of society.

We have a long history of the difficulties women face when accusing a man of rape. They, rather than the accused, often go on trial: How were they dressed, how did they act – it's not enough that they didn't wish to have sex, or that they perhaps indicated as much; unless they took every precaution, denied him at every turn, perhaps they wished it? And now, we have bills presented that would change a rape victim's status to that of 'rape accuser'.

Notice how that changes our perception: A victim is somehow noble, pure, while an accuser can be dirty, have hidden motives, perhaps even speak falsely.

The underlying issue is this: How are men to engage in pre- or extra-marital sex if they can be easily convicted of rape? Their reputations can be tarnished, their marriages split, if women are empowered to accuse them of their dirty actions. No, better to cast doubt on the woman's actions, make it difficult for her to prove, have society aid by labeling her a tramp, a floozy, a trollop. She's not a victim, but just an accuser (it wasn't rape, until she realized he wouldn't leave his wife for her, he'll argue.)

Strange how father-daughter chastity balls have become popular amongst the conservative crowd: But where are the mother-son chastity balls? Why isn't abstention of equal importance for men as it is for women? Why shouldn't the penalties for pre- and extra-marital sex be high for men, also?

Men have had it good for so long: In the dominant position, women were property, sex could be taken at will, and any women who dared to speak up would have to suffer humiliation, while the men could brag about their exploits, free from any pejoratives.

The attempts to keep women subjugated continue, by denying them moral agency. Movements abound to force a rehearing of Roe v. Wade, in the hopes that it will be overturned. More stringent anti-abortion laws have been proposed (including the condoning of vigilantism in South Dakota!). Strangely, even the availability of contraceptives (which can prevent the conditions that would lead to abortion!) have been under continued attack (I see that Planned Parenthood faces a major funding cut under the proposed Republican budget). All appears to be part of an effort to force women to bear more children – which continues the power asymmetry, forcing women into marriage for economic reasons, or forcing them to bear the economic difficulties of attempting to raise children alone while working (which aids in keeping them from rising as far in the workplace.)

The position taken is that abortion is an absolute moral wrong. Interestingly, though, allowances are made for medical reasons, and instances of rape (and the aforementioned changes appear to be an attack on closing this loophole.) Most religious organizations have accepted that abortion in cases of rape and incest is allowable.

But that reveals that abortion is not an absolute: That it is a decision, that a choice can be made between this life and that life. It sets up judges and doctors as moral arbiters, but denies moral agency to those most affected by the decision: The pregnant woman. It continues our history of female subjugation, suggesting that men are more capable moral agents, and that women are not suited to make difficult decisions for themselves.

Our views of personal liberty should suggest otherwise. Our views should always motivate us to give individual moral agency as freely as possible – that is the very meaning of liberty. We want those closest to the question, those who will live with the consequences, to have the freedom to make the decision. Equality is there, too: If we tier our giving of moral agency, then we are creating inequality, also.

Women are equal moral agents to men (and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary!), fully capable of engaging in moral and civic life to the same degree as men. And in the case of abortion, the woman, who for whatever reasons is considering it, is the individual who will be most affected, who will most carry the consequences, who will remember. So, it only stands to reason in a free and equal society, that the pregnant woman, perhaps in consult with her friend, her clergy, her doctor, her husband, or perhaps alone, is given the right to exercise her moral agency and make the decision without interference.

There is nothing in these proposed laws that make society a better, freer place in which to exercise our individual liberty. They are decidedly skewed towards female subjugation, towards returning to a previous time. But when the previous time involved deep subjugation, an asymmetry of power, there is nothing noble about either the time or the conditions that made it so.

Sure, some men will argue that without these laws they are losing some of their liberty. But, any freedom that comes from inequality is a false freedom, for it can be quickly lost if power shifts. No, real, enduring liberty comes only when it is derived from the interactions of equal members of society, exercising their moral agency, and equally free to do so. Equal members who have to adhere to the same social mores, the same customs, where an interaction is not asymmetrical, but equally acceptable or equally unacceptable.

It also means the freedom to choose the life that we will live, defined by the choices we make. We have the liberty to choose as unacceptable some behavior, and refrain from that behavior ourselves (and perhaps influence others to copy our actions!). But in claiming that freedom, we must have the courage to grant the same freedom to all others, and the wisdom to comprehend that they won't all make the same choices we make, and will live different lives. Freedom is multifaceted, and attempts to constrain it to a single viewpoint, such as these Republican proposed laws, must be met and beaten back in the interests of all.

Copyright Tax?

In our current state of affairs, everything written gets copyright protection from the moment it is created, and for the next 99 years. This blanket protection now outlives the creator of any new work, and provides a major hurdle for new creators to derive or build upon previous work.

Sure, the answer is easy: They just have to get permission of the copyright holder to use his or her work. However, as outlined in 'Free Culture' by Dr L. Lessig, identifying the copyright holder can be more than just difficult, and in the case of music remixing, require so many holders to be identified and tracked down to post inquires to that making the derivative work is no longer viable.

I question society's benefit from such stringent and long-lived copyright laws. Not only do they restrict creativity, but they lower the possibility of competition (remember, the golden tenet of a free market society?), and pump up salaries in several fields beyond what a non-monopolized market would produce (think sports, movies, performers).

Initial copyright protection was granted for just 7 years, with a one-time renewal of an additional 7 years if the creator so wished. I would think this would be quite sufficient for the majority of cases: Either the creation is no longer worth much (if anything!) after 14 years, and could freely enter the public domain, or so much income has been received by the creator (think JKRowling) that allowing the creation to enter the public domain will not have any real affect upon their well-being.

But there are those who feel that having control of their creation is important, regardless of whether they are earning income. Perhaps Ms Rowling wouldn't want to have others writing stories featuring Harry Potter (and doing a much worse / the same / better job).

So, in the interests of getting the bulk of human creativity into the public domain quickly where it can be used as a springboard for more creativity, but allowing those few instances where there is a compelling interest in keeping it out, (and recognizing that giving copyright protection is to create a form of property), perhaps we should just allow those who want to extend their exclusive rights to their creation the option of doing so by paying a tax.

The tax would be proportional to the property's value (like all property taxes), but have a high enough minimum to prevent speculative holding of copyrights. Granted, this would still give large corporations an advantage of maintaining long-lived copyrights, but at least they would have to continually evaluate (and pay!) to do so, rather than periodically extending copyright (via legislative lobbying) in a blanket manner that prevents all works from entering the public domain.

It doesn't solve all problems surrounding copyright, but if we were to return to a seven year copyright, and then force those who want to extend their rights to at least pay a tax, perhaps it would solve many.

A reasonable proposition? Or seriously flawed? I submit this idea to a jury of my peers...

The Bigotry Of Bankers

Last week I labored. I didn't do my normal, sit-in-my-chair job of programming, but instead really worked. I framed my basement. Twelve hour days, late dinners, tired muscles. And, I realized just how much a life of leisure I live. I sit for eight hours, take my lunch at the proscribed time, make up activities just to get a little physical exertion. Sure, lifting and bicycling get my heart-rate up, but in the end, I have nothing to show for the effort: The world has not been changed, other than some extra calories burned.

But physically building, assembling something – making a structure where none stood before: That is real work. As I labored, I thought about how those who have forgotten what it means to work with their hands often look down on those who still remember: The economists for whom a day laborer is just an interchangeable unit of output, unable to command a higher salary due to the low level of education required; The Banker who believes his or her output is somehow superior due to the extra education attained and money's fungible nature.

But during the last decade, when the financiers of Wall Street paid themselves ever greater salaries and bonuses as they repackaged ever more mortgage backed securities, justifying it on the grounds that they were making large contributions to the economy, who was it that was really providing the wealth of the nation? Why, it was the laborers who were building the houses that were being securitized: The framers, the drywallers, the electricians and plumbers, the surveyors and roofers and concrete workers. Wall Street extracted its profits on the backs of those who do the work – and to add insult, the unscrupulous mortgage brokers who had nothing to lose by writing liar's loans, often saddled those same laborers with houses they couldn't afford.

When Wall Street's house of cards came tumbling down, who has paid a disproportionate share of the cost through extended and high unemployment? Why, it is those same individuals who created the wealth that Wall Street pilfered.

Yet, an unrepentant Financial Industry has beaten back attempts to write regulations and increase taxes that would move some of their ill-gotten wealth back to those who did the actual creating. Crying foul, they continue to justify what they do as something vitally important: That without them and their expertise, the economy couldn't run.

However, they are only partially correct: Money and finance are necessary components of our world, but not sufficient. In order for money to have any value, in order for a loan to return a profit, there must by some underlying worker who is actually creating something of use; building, modifying, molding. Wealth comes from the bottom up.

Bankers are experts in obfuscating this simple fact by the language they use, their allusions to (unproven) economic principles, their appeals to politicians who receive their money.

Fortunately for us, however, by pretending that they aren't riding on the backs of all of the workers of society, by claiming theirs is a privileged position that must be paid 20, 30, 100+ times what a laborer makes, their bigotry is plainly visible for all to see.

Protecting One's Nose

Benjamin Franklin famously said, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." A libertarian would probably rephrase it thus: "Your right to complain about my swinging fist begins at the tip of your nose."

In many ways, the libertarian viewpoint on when we can complain, when we can limit another's behavior is the right stance to take. It helps us remember that we don't want to overly constrain others, because we want to retain the right for ourselves to pursue our version of happiness without interference from the rest of society.

I find it strangely odd that pushes to limit who we can choose as living partners, as life partners, as marriage partners, issues from the pro-libertarian party. Sure, for decades they trumped up reasons why limiting marriage to heterosexuals protected society's (metaphorical) nose, but as each was debunked, their continued stance against same-sex marriage reveals instead a very non-libertarian viewpoint.

True libertarianism requires a highly developed sense of reciprocity - the ability to recognize that creating societal restrictions requires a strong proof that society will improve as a result, and that the restrictions don't constrain a minority's choices (paradoxically, at least to much of what is espoused as libertarian thinking, regulations fit this test: Requiring that businesses adhere to minimum quality standards allows consumers greater freedom to choose from competing products without fear of becoming the guinea pig for poison, and still gives business the options to select how and what to make). Restricting others simply because you don't like what they are doing is a form of tyranny, not liberty.

Choosing who we associate with, who we share our lives with, should be a fundamental right of all in society. Everyone should be free to make that choice without restrictions - sure, you can impose limits on yourself based upon your world-view, but really, it endangers your nose not one bit if instead of choosing Jill, Jack prefers John, and Ann and Beth want to move in next door.

It is high time that true, reciprocal thinking enters our debate on same-sex marriage, and that those who would maintain true liberty for choosing our lives stand up and drown out the tyrannical calls of those pseudo-libertarians who would instead impose their views - views that increase our liberty not one bit!

Motivation, Manipulation

This post is more of a question than an essay. What is the difference between motivation and manipulation: When does a motivating action cross the line and become a manipulating action? What is the salient characteristic of manipulation that motivation lacks (or vice verse)? Or, as I started suspecting, is the difference purely in the eye of the beholder (the one being motivated or manipulated)?

I know: We could all look up the dictionary definition for clues, but that's cheating. With your current knowledge and experience, what would you say?

Violent References

One of the notable achievements of an electoral democracy, like ours, is that the ballot box replaces violence as the mechanism of power change. As the different would be leaders contend for their time in control, the pen replaces the sword, words replace bullets, oration the cannonball.

In support of this ideal, many realize that allusions to violence have no place in the process either: Criticize your opponent (or those from a different power group), speak out with specific remedies you prefer, frame it as a contest if you will, but leave the violent metaphors (no 'targeting' your opponent, no 'assassinating' their view, etc.) out of the conversation or debate.

You would think that removing violent speech from the process would be so uncontroversable as to gain universal acceptance - that even those who've perhaps used such speech in the past would realize the undesirability, and join with those who call for all to abstain.

But, no. It seems that there are some who so identify with their idols that a call for them to refrain from violence as metaphor or allusion is a personal attack - and in defending the right (?) to violent speech, they show themselves to be morally unanchored.

For their very defense is to deny the interconnectedness of society - to deny that our actions ripple outwards and affect and influence those around us - that leading a moral life is not just for our benefit, but benefits (by example and support) our family, our friends, our colleagues, our fellow citizens.

Their defense, too, espouses the ultimate 'me first' attitude - recast as 'me only' - an abdication of any and all responsibility to anyone else, to society, to country.

But, for an electoral democracy to succeed requires that the citizenry accept shared responsibility for society's problems, that they build an inclusive community of shared ideals and values, and, foremost, that violence as a solution is eschewed in favor of open debate, with ideas carrying the day.

You Are Not A Rational Actor In A Free Market Economy!

I'm not trying to insult you, but I wanted to get your attention and start you thinking. I know you believe that you are rational, and in the sense that you aren't irrational, you are. However, when an economist postulates rational actors in an economy, he or she actually means something more. They mean that you have perfect knowledge about the market, that there is no asymmetry of information between you and whomever you are dealing with. They also mean that you plan your actions according to those which will provide you with the most good.

And that's so patently false in the real world in which we live and act economically that I can say that you aren't a rational actor! We all act economically with partial information, we sometimes (Oftentimes?) make economic decisions on a whim, not really considering whether the outcome will be good or bad. We also don't all act alike, and we often are willing to withhold information (or lie!) during a transaction if we think it will give us an advantage.

Given that rational (knowing, utility maximizing) actors provide a major underpinning of neoclassical economics (the kind that holds sway in our policy makers - Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan (an extreme case)), one has to wonder if the predictions made are as bad as the axiom (oh, wait! We don't have to wonder: The evidence is in, and the predictions don't mean squat - one can clearly see that they don't know what's going to happen next in the economy!)

What about the Free Market Economy? Again, a fuzzy definition would be that it is unregulated, with free trade across boundaries and within. But, again, economists mean something much more restrictive: Not only that trade is unregulated, but that any of the aforementioned rational actors can buy or sell at any time without effecting the market!

But, that only works if the actors are small: During 2008, when the financial industry started melting down, we saw how the actions of the major banks (Lehman, Bear Sterns, AIG) to liquidate their positions in hopes of raising capital to cover their margin calls caused the market to fall further, which required more selling, which led to more selling, until some (notably Lehman and Bear Sterns) could no longer change their positions, and were forced into bankruptcy or a bailout (I shouldn't say 'forced', since I really think it was optional to save them...)

We've never seen a 'free' market - so economists have absolutely no data that would indicate that a free market could exist, or that it would be optimum. Again, however, this tenet provides one of the underpinnings of neoclassical economics.

Think about it: In physics, theorems hold sway as long as they provide useful predictions about events, and when an event or experiment occurs that contradicts theory, scientists search for a better theorem that can explain (predict) the event - and the theorems are built to support the empirical evidence. Additionally, axioms are never adopted unless they have been solidly proven (and if they are ever dis-proven, they cast their dependent theorems into doubt!).

But in economics, we have an entire class of 'predictive' theorems built on at least two very shaky (false?) axioms - with our policy leaders using those economic models to determine our national economic and monetary policy. Any wonder they didn't predict the potential downside to the actions of the major banks and investment houses as they grew ever larger trading Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations, a majority based upon the subprime lending market?

Our Libraries

I have a bookmark with a saying of Erasmus: "When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes."

My love of reading is such that could apply to me; I would seriously be in jeopardy of purchasing more books than I should afford. Fortunately, my city has a reasonable library system, and I don't have to.

It was actually better than reasonable a few years ago, before the recession. Seeing that the revenue was falling, and likely to fall farther, a ballot initiative was floated to make a separate, dedicated income stream for the city libraries based on property tax. It wasn't to be much, the estimates were $60-$70 for a median valued home. I for one know that in books alone I save far more than that each year; plus, with its computers, many city residents who cannot afford one of their own can search for information for school, look for work, even keep an email account they otherwise would not.

Unfortunately, many in the city either didn't know firsthand the value of the library, or think it worthwhile (perhaps because of misinformation like this), and the measures failed. Several of our libraries were closed, and hours at the remaining curtailed.

Sadly, yesterday I read in the paper that the sharing agreement with the county libraries for our residents to check out books there will be sharply curtailed. Not unreasonably so, since our residents don't contribute to their funding, it was extremely generous of them to allow us to check out books at their branches.

So it was with a little anxiety that I rushed to the library. I had requested an inter-library transfer of a book and had received confirmation that it had arrived. However, I wanted to get it in my hands before they changed their minds and took it back!

So, for now, I finally have a copy of "Econned" by Yves Smith to read (she of the blog Naked Capitalism), with the hopes that these transfers will continue for our beleaguered libraries, since I have a few more to request.

Hopefully, too, the residents of our city will change their minds and decide that they, like me, value our libraries much more, and perhaps we'll be able to bring them back.

Conflict of Interest (oweno.com should be Oh No! What a load of crap Part 2)

The national debt is growing. We are currently running a deficit, spending more than we take in in taxes from our people. To some, this is a cause for alarm. To others, it is an acceptable situation, given the current recession, and, as long as it proves temporary, a good thing for the government to do.

Everyone has their favorite villain: The two wars, The growth of social welfare (including medical spending), The financial industry, China. Of course, it is actually a combination of all of them that contributes to our current deficit: We would need to get all under control to balance the budget, if that were a worthy goal (again, it's not clear that it needs to be balanced at the Federal level.)

But there is one sector of the current budget that is balanced, that hasn't, ever, contributed to the deficit. One sector that does not need to be tampered, changed, realigned, etc. One sector that has its own, dedicated income stream, a stream that has always exceeded the payments made on its behalf.

You would think that fact alone would prevent every honest politician from including it in a list of items to be adjusted to balance the budget. That it would prevent any special interest group from attacking it under the rubric of balancing the budget. That it would assure our citizens of the viability of the program, and remove concerns about its ties to our deficit.

But, that's not what we see. Every time the subject of the budget comes up, this program heads the list of those that need adjustment or cutting. Every conversation about congressional spendthrifts includes mention of this program. It has become so ingrained in our consciences that reference is made in seemingly unrelated articles.

Why should that be? Why would a solvent, money making program get included when the subject of the budget comes up? Why would it be disparagingly referred to as a cause of our woes when in fact is does not?

My guess is two-fold. First, not every citizen is aware of this fact. They haven't seen the numbers, they don't know that the program is, in fact, solvent. But, it is: In 2009, income was $899 billion, expenditures were $678 billion. That's a pretty good surplus.

Second is the propaganda machine that continually couples this program with the deficit and the debt, that has so infiltrated our thinking that the program is mentioned, to the exclusion of all others, when government growth is the topic.

But, whence this propaganda machine? Who's behind it? For what purpose?

I have to admit that I don't know. But I can take a guess. Remember oweno.com? They include this program in their list of items that need to be cut back to balance the budget. Who is oweno.com? Why, it's none other than the Peter G Peterson Foundation, run by investment banker Peter G Peterson.

And the program? Social Security.

And the purpose? Conflict of Interest.

Social Security is a retirement vehicle, run by the US Government. It doesn't have great returns, but it does have guaranteed returns. And, it is big: $900 billion in 2009 alone.

Investment Banking is a retirement vehicle run by banks and Wall Street. They sometimes have great returns, but there are no guarantees. Think about how they must be salivating to get their hands on the $900 billion collected by the US Government each year to fund Social Security? A significant portion of that $900 billion would go to line their pockets, rather than finding its way into the hands of our retirees.

So, who cares if Social Security contributes to the deficit? Since worry about the deficit is on people's minds, it can be used to whip up concern of a solvent program for the very purpose of moving that money into private hands to increase private empires.

But only if we listen. Only if we follow the faulty reasoning that it somehow is tied to the debt.

And only if we are silent. We have an obligation, on behalf of the 3.5 million people who will retire this year, and similar numbers for the next several years, to tell everyone we meet that Social Security is solvent, that it doesn't contribute to the debt, and that it has proven itself a societal good.

We have an obligation to pressure our law makers, and the president, to stand down from tampering with it in their pursuit of 'fiscal accountability'.

And, we have an obligation to remain informed about matters fiscal, so that we aren't easily led into believing we need to fix problems that don't need fixing (which are presented by those who just want to get their hands on the money!)