Alright. Enough. You are a fool, ethically immoral, and a purveyor of violence if you believe that death is a fair retribution for petty theft. What I don't understand is how many people I formerly thought well of have revealed their heartless, violent tendencies after the awful shooting at Sandy Hook: Those of us who reel at the though of innocent youngsters losing their lives in a pointless act, who believe that one action (of the many) that may counter such future occurrences is reasonable, considered limitations on the types of weapons that may be privately owned are suddenly under a barrage from those who see (and are posting) that violence is the solution to everything, that bigger, more lethal means are their right:
Stop.
We have been attempting for 6000 years of recorded human civilization to reduce violence, to build peaceful means of co-existing, teaching understanding, tolerance, and that the first response should not be to reach for a knife, sword, or gun.
We have attempted to build a judicial system second to none that metes fair punishment for the crimes committed, that accords all individuals equality before the law, that gives every individual the forum to argue their innocence, or at least to explain any mitigating circumstances that their fellow citizens (the jurors) should perhaps take into account when declaring guilt or innocence, that the judge should consider when declaring punishment. All that is taken away when a citizen takes it into their own hands and shoots and kills another - and is an action that we should always inspect carefully and with prejudice towards the shooter until it can be justified as an act of self-preservation.
Granted, we have much work to do: Neither the system nor the means to implement it are perfect - but that is exactly the point: We only can reduce violence in society if we err on the side of withholding our own violent actions, our own violent thoughts, and consider carefully the small (and hopefully diminishing) situations where we would allow violence.
Considered push back if we attempt to define those situations too tightly is welcome, but wholesale glorification of those who use violence inappropriately, glorification of means of inflicting extreme violence, and glorification of vigilantism is wrong and should and will be met with disapproval by the rest of us.
There is no reason for those who wish a peaceful society to remain silent - your violence fetish needs to be called for what it is: A desire to circumvent the laws and traditions of our land, a lack of respect for your fellow citizens and for the lives of others. Your violence fetish is a desire for the return of vigilantism and an overturn of the institutions we have built in for the goal of creating a fair, just, and non-violent society. We, as the citizens of that society are speaking. Put your gun away, look at the darkness of your heart, shut your mouth, and join us in exploring means to improving the project we have started.
We are not free when that freedom is tenuously held by the threat of violence: We are free when thoughts of violence are replaced by thoughts of mutual respect, when we move through society secure that the non-violent ideals we hold are held by those around us. We are largely there, and any Faux-Neanderthal that would take us back needs to be reminded of the accomplishments of non-violence, and of the accomplishments of the society we have built, and that the rest of us are not willing to consider a return and are fed up with those who would take us back.
My friend Dan always indicated that reality wasn't what mattered, but rather perception, and managing perception. Our perceptions mask reality, and often hinder our understanding. But, if we think a little, and peel back the layers (unmask) our perceptions, perhaps we'll perceive reality a little clearer!
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Dear Paul Krugman (from Angry Bear): Please Read This About Social Security
Sometimes President Obama upsets me. Especially when he follows the illegitimate framing of the issues surrounding our budget, deficit, and debt. It is worth noting that Social Security DOES NOT contribute to the deficit, the debt, nor any real (or manufactured) budget/debt crises. If we want to cut government spending, we need to cut UNFUNDED government spending (which is largely the cuts called out in sequestration: You know, the major cuts to the military and pentagon budgets) not FUNDED spending...
So, I particularly enjoy when real economists take the time to write it up, like this blog by Dale Coberly of Angry Bear writing about Social Security, with the hopes that it will be cross-posted by Paul Krugman who has a much wider audience. A very well supported post that shows that Social Security shouldn't even be in the discussions about budgets and deficits, etc.
So, read the article here, but in summary (the key points!):
Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit...
... and therefore should not be part of the "deficit reduction" hysteria.
Social Security is not going broke.
The Trust Fund is NOT Social Security. It does not matter at all when it "runs out."
The "Eight Trillion Dollar Actuarial Deficit" can be paid for by raising the payroll tax eighty cents per week each year.
Social Security was designed...insisted upon by Roosevelt...to be worker paid: "So that no damn politician can take it away from them."
One has to only follow the money to see where the "Big Liar's" desire to take SS: Remove it from the public's control (via the government) to private control so that a few can extract (extort) money from the flows into the fund.
No doubt this will be much wider read if taken up by Mr. Krugman (as Angry Bear hopes!), but I am more than willing to spread the word if I can...
As Mr Coberly closes:
The Big Lie is that "Social Security is going broke, causing huge deficits that will burden our children."
Tell the people.
Read the article, and please, Spread The Word!
So, I particularly enjoy when real economists take the time to write it up, like this blog by Dale Coberly of Angry Bear writing about Social Security, with the hopes that it will be cross-posted by Paul Krugman who has a much wider audience. A very well supported post that shows that Social Security shouldn't even be in the discussions about budgets and deficits, etc.
So, read the article here, but in summary (the key points!):
Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit...
... and therefore should not be part of the "deficit reduction" hysteria.
Social Security is not going broke.
The Trust Fund is NOT Social Security. It does not matter at all when it "runs out."
The "Eight Trillion Dollar Actuarial Deficit" can be paid for by raising the payroll tax eighty cents per week each year.
Social Security was designed...insisted upon by Roosevelt...to be worker paid: "So that no damn politician can take it away from them."
One has to only follow the money to see where the "Big Liar's" desire to take SS: Remove it from the public's control (via the government) to private control so that a few can extract (extort) money from the flows into the fund.
No doubt this will be much wider read if taken up by Mr. Krugman (as Angry Bear hopes!), but I am more than willing to spread the word if I can...
As Mr Coberly closes:
The Big Lie is that "Social Security is going broke, causing huge deficits that will burden our children."
Tell the people.
Read the article, and please, Spread The Word!
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Time to Change Course, Rebuild Finance and Debate 'What is The Good Life'
Jamie Galbraith is one of my favorites: He speaks clearly and holds nothing back. Elsewhere he has called for the destruction of the Financial System and a clean rebuilding of it. Makes sense, since in its current form it serves us not, and instead extracts the value of our labor and output. Finance should be a utility: Moving money from where it is to where it is needed. However, the reality is that Finance instead preys upon the majority, stripping the value from our assets (via loans and speculation), pocketing money they create akin to Counterfeiting.
As Finance grows and extracts all they can from a particular market, it continually moves on. Currently its intended prey is our public institutions: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and even perhaps our public lands. Through its tools in the House and Senate, they pretend that it is the only way.
But there is a another reasonable way of viewing the current situation. Finance promised us jobs and prosperity if we cut taxes on Capital and High Incomes. We did so in 2003, with dismal job growth and stagnate gains since. It was a loan that didn't pay off. It is time to call it in: If we have learned anything over the past 20 years is that leaving money in the hands of the Finance industry and the excessively wealthy does society no good - and there is no credible argument that the majority of society need to give anything up to pay for the misdeeds of the members of the Finance Industry.
Galbraith here explains the global state of affairs very nicely, and reveals in commonsense terms how what is happening in America is not distinct or separable from what is happening in Europe - that Finance is currently in the advanced stages of destruction of the World Economy. Although speaking to a European Audience, he reveals many things about the global economy, the US Economy, and exactly how and why there are different current outcomes, but that all is not stable...
Galbraith: Change of Direction
As Finance grows and extracts all they can from a particular market, it continually moves on. Currently its intended prey is our public institutions: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and even perhaps our public lands. Through its tools in the House and Senate, they pretend that it is the only way.
But there is a another reasonable way of viewing the current situation. Finance promised us jobs and prosperity if we cut taxes on Capital and High Incomes. We did so in 2003, with dismal job growth and stagnate gains since. It was a loan that didn't pay off. It is time to call it in: If we have learned anything over the past 20 years is that leaving money in the hands of the Finance industry and the excessively wealthy does society no good - and there is no credible argument that the majority of society need to give anything up to pay for the misdeeds of the members of the Finance Industry.
Galbraith here explains the global state of affairs very nicely, and reveals in commonsense terms how what is happening in America is not distinct or separable from what is happening in Europe - that Finance is currently in the advanced stages of destruction of the World Economy. Although speaking to a European Audience, he reveals many things about the global economy, the US Economy, and exactly how and why there are different current outcomes, but that all is not stable...
Galbraith: Change of Direction
Labels:
bankers,
congress,
counterfeiting,
current affairs,
economics,
economy,
Galbraith,
social security
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Thinking Empathetically
The genius of Sherlock Holmes was
seeing the pattern that wasn't there – recognizing that the dog
didn't bark, but should have, that something was missing from the
clutter of the room, etc. It turns out that is a devilishly difficult
thing to do: Our minds place the available information into patterns,
but gloss over anything that isn't readily handy. Researchers have
shown that we can regularly find a pattern in a sequence of numbers
or shapes, but seldom do we recognize a pattern in the missing
numbers or shapes.
Not only do we seldom see these
patterns, but due to the way our minds work on available information,
we even less frequently notice when we have blindly omitted even
considering the holes. This crops up in our everyday interactions and
conversations, in the ways we view ourselves and others.
Listening to a group conversation
yesterday, I was struck by how this mechanism blinds us to
possibilities for how others think and feel, for what may motivate
them. Instead of recognizing that they didn't have the information
about others' motivations and desires, and taking that into account,
it was almost universally common for the various speakers to assume
that the others either didn't have motivations or desires, or their
motivations and desires were only of the most basest sort.
If we stop and consider, however, it
doesn't make sense that only we have positive motivations, desires,
hopes, fears, biases, and that our motivations, desires, etc. are
unique and not universally shared by the majority of those we
recognize as human. Truly, this is the key to thinking
empathetically: To believe and then think and act as though those
around us have dreams, just like us; that they have fears, just like
us; that they have motivations and desires, just like us. That where
we have found our lives shaped by forces outside of our control,
perhaps they, too, have had their lives buffeted and diverted, not by
lack of motivations or dreams, but in spite of them.
We are quick to give ourselves a pass
when the outcome of our lives doesn't match the inputs we've made: We
know the details, both of what motivated us and what outside
influences either helped or hindered our achieving our goals. But we
are equally quick, since this intimate information is seldom
available about others we see, to assume that the lack of information
is proof of lack, and that those others are deficient in those
qualities, rather than realizing the truth: We just don't know.
Upon reflection, I often wonder if my
own motivations and desires would by themselves be insufficient for
achievement, if it weren't for the influences and stabilizing forces
of the people in my life. If it wasn't for those who looked to me to
provide education, shelter, and love; if it wasn't for those who
looked for my advice and valued my experience in my job or my
community; if it wasn't for those who demanded that I be a good
friend and a good example; would I be all that I am?
So I give thanks today for all of those
people who have shaped and guided my life, for those who have taught
me and those he needed my teaching, for both change me. Thanks for
those who have loved me, and those who have requested my love, for
one is not complete without the other. Thanks for those whom I have
needed, who have consoled me, encouraged me, and challenged me; and
for those who have needed and accepted my consoling, my
encouragement, and my challenges to them.
And I encourage you to consider that
the success in your life is likely due to the richness of the people
surrounding you; to the quiet, often unspoken motivation living up to
their expectations places upon you and aids you; and overall, to
think empathetically, to become aware of the lack of information you
have about those who are struggling, and rather than discount their
internal processes, consider that perhaps the determining forces are
external, that they could be more if only they had a rich network of
people and community. Just as those external forces awaken
motivations and dreams in us and alleviate our fears, the less
successful others in our community have motivations and dreams, and
rather than condemning them by failing to recognize that we
don't have the proper information, we need to consider always that
they may not be so different from us.
Modern research may have illuminated
the mechanism and given it a name, but the ancients knew and
understood it well, and crafted a simple reminder to overcome this
availability bias. So, today, as we bow our heads in humility at what
we have gained during our lives, I remind you to retain the humility
for the knowledge you don't have, and to remember:
“Judge not an individual
until you have first walked a mile in their shoes.”
Labels:
life,
motivation,
prejudice,
science,
sociology,
thanksgiving
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Enacting a Pigou Tax
The growing inequality in America is
probably one of our greatest problems – from reduced health
outcomes to increased violence to reduced beneficial productivity
(think of the quants who could have been working on energy or health
care but instead were figuring out ever more creative ways to fleece
the unsuspecting pension fund of its money), grotesque increases in
inequality degrade a society in a multitude of ways. However, an
equally difficult problem has been to find a reasonable solution.
Interestingly, British Depression Era
Economist Arthur Pigou floated a possible solution to neutralizing
undesirable externalities: Tax them! (An economic Externality is a
side effect of a transaction that costs a third party – pollution
is the most common example.)
In this
well-presented essay, Liam C. Malloy and John Case explain more
fully the idea, what it would imply, and present even some 'whys' –
Why we would want to do this, Why it would help, Why it is reasonable
for a society to take this action.
I was particularly struck by the number
of topics we've discussed over the past year: The fact that higher
taxes do NOT correlate with reduced economic productivity; The fact
that CEO's who are paid 300-400 times their average workers are not
producing at 300-400 times the average rate (in fact, likely
'earning' their income by lobbying the government for breaks or
handouts for their company or sector); The fact that 80% of the
productivity growth of America's economy over the last 35 years has
gone to the top 1% (as pointed out in the article, if the 90%
increase, 2.1% per year had accrued to everyone, today's median
household income would be $85,000 instead of the $50,000 that it is.)
The only omission I easily spotted was failing to call to equate income taxes on labor (wages) and capital (capital
gains). There is no good reason to give preferential treatment to
money earned via investment, and many, many reasons to tax investment
income at exactly the same rate as labor income. Left unsaid is that
for the Pigou Tax to be most effective, it would have to apply
equally to all income, regardless of source. But, that is a change
that needs to occur regardless of our enacting a Pigou Tax.
Enjoy, and spread the word! Want to do
something positive for America's future? Advocate for those actions
(like this) that would reduce the grotesque, almost third-world,
levels of inequality currently present. Our country does best when
everyone works towards a common goal, and when everyone, even the
rich, acknowledge and act like we're all in this together.
Labels:
ceo pay absurdities,
current affairs,
economics,
politics,
tax,
wealth
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Leonardo Da Vinci Exhibit
We stopped by the Da Vinci exhibit at
the Denver Pavilions yesterday. On display there are over 60
recreations of Da Vinci original machines – many believed to never
have been executed before. From his fertile mind sprang ideas for
gears, bearings, chains, and flight. Although the tools and materials
available during his day (late 15th century) were
inadequate to realize many of his inventions, the ideas were sound.
For instance, he developed plans for a
bicycle, the rear wheels connected to the operator's pedaled
crankshaft via a flat chain – a chain that would have been
impossible to make in his day, but closely resembles early bicycle
(and other machinery) chains.
Some of the best aspects of the exhibit
are those interactive inventions sprinkled throughout. I took the
kids, and they marveled as they played with gear systems, chain
systems, bearings, and thoroughly enjoyed assembling the interlocking
bridge that requires no fasteners. Of course, too, they wanted to
spend much more than time than would have been polite in the 360
degree mirror room whereupon we could all gaze upon our
backsides...(And see, for once, what really was behind our
ears!)
They give guided tours every hour, and
we drew a student art major who propelled us around the exhibits with
her animated explanations, her easy knowledge, and her nearly
breathless wonder at the accomplishments of the man: Whether the leap
in progress was mechanical, imagination, or artistic, her enthusiasm
was infectious, especially for the kids. Written placards next to
exhibits really are no match for the spoken account from a
knowledgeable guide – especially when the guide will entertain
questions.
Naturally, on the way out, we stopped
by the gift shop to see if there was something which would help us
remember our trip. Puzzles, games, models of the machines, t-shirts:
It seemed they had it all. But the item that intrigued my son the
most was a simple black notebook: faux leather outer binding yellow,
parchment-like pages. I purchased each of the children one, along
with M. Gelb's book, “How to Think Like Da Vinci.”
The inspiration from the trip was on
full display today. Early this morning my 12-year-old mastered
writing in mirror script to be more fully like Da Vinci. Then, after
reading a chapter of the book, he started imagining, writing, drawing
in his 'notebook', creating his inventions. Later he tried bringing
one to life (with modest success!), illustrating that often the best
gift we can give our children is a blank book along with the
permission to fill it up with their ideas, their imaginings, their
life (along with the necessary string, tape, glue, cardboard, etc.!)
Da Vinci didn't start receiving a
formal education until he was 14 years old. Prior to that he
developed his process of disassembling, assembling, drawing,
thinking, and learning about the ways in which the world works and
how to illustrate them, and how to combine known parts into
previously unknown creations. He didn't suffer under the need to get
an 'A': he was driven, it appears, from a formidable curiosity, and
perhaps the realization that, as a bastard child, without learning
all he could, making his way in the world may have been very
difficult. It is hard to know what drove him, but if even a little of
that drive and inquisitiveness can be transferred to our children,
and will stick, then Da Vinci and those who brought the modern
exhibit to life are my newest heroes.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Romney Will Say Anything
I didn't realize how ripe of a take-down there was awaiting Mitt
“Robme” Romney, but it's all out there just waiting for someone
to put it all together...
Mr. Romney claims that he will create 12 million jobs during the next
4 years if only we elect him as president. He doesn't say how he'll
create the jobs, just elect him, sit back, and find out...
Nail
#1: Since he won't specify, we are enabled to speculate. And some big
guns have speculated, like those fine folks at Macroeconomic Advisers
and Moodys Analytics. Their estimation: The economy, regardless
of the president will add 11.8 million jobs over the next
four years. So, that's only 200,000 for you?
Mr. Romney has repeated used the meme
that he was a job creator while working for Bain Capital, that he
knows how to create jobs...
Nail #2: Search for the jobs he
created, and you will search in vain. But you will find cogent
analysis of his work and methods there, by no less a business
standard than Bloomberg:
What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors. He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors. When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain. Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses.
So, Mr. Romney is willing to mislead on
his record, mislead on what he'll actually accomplish while at the
helm (if we give it to him). But, he has served in government before,
what did he accomplish there? Surely that would give him some
bona-fides...
Nail #3: As Governor of Massachusetts,
which as candidate Romney he claimed
he would initiate a jobs program "second to none in the history
of the state.” But, the history, as capably outlined by Jim
Kaplan of the Tampa Bay Times: “When Romney's four-year term
expired, the job growth rate of 1 percent lagged four points behind
the national rate.” So, even though he has promised this particular
outcome before, last time he utterly failed.
During the second Presidential Debate,
Mr Romney asserted that “Government does not create jobs”.
Which leads us directly to...
Nail #4: Mr. Romney: If the government
does not create jobs, how the he** are you going to create jobs as
president of the United States? You didn't create jobs when you were
in the private sector, you failed to create jobs the last time you
were in government, and you are willing to lie to us about what will
happen even though, by your own assertion, it is impossible for you
to accomplish that! What kind of a man are you?
I believe four nails allows us a
roundtrip on this particular coffin. Sleep well, Mr. Romney. I don't
believe there is a place in heaven for folks like you. May I suggest
you read Neil Gaiman's collection of shorts, “Smoke and Mirrors”.
There is a particular story in there about a place where time has no
meaning...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)