Been doing some packing and unpacking of late in various locales and have been enjoying reading "Knox's Irregulars" by J. Wesley Bush when time allows.
“These fanatics aren’t fighting for our land, but for our destruction. They think in slogans and talk in bullets. Such men can’t be reasoned with, only fought . . ." Randal Knox never wanted to be a leader. But as the firstborn son of the Prime Minister, he seemed fated to a life in politics. Fleeing his family's plans, Randal enlists with the armored infantry, thinking he'll be safe on the snowy border with neighboring Abkhenazia. When followers of the Prophet take control of Abkhenazia, his haven turns to hell. A vast army of zealots invades New Geneva, routing its tiny defense force and sending the remnants fleeing for their lives. Randal is forced to take charge of a small band of survivors, sheltering them in the mountain city of Providence. With Providence under the iron rule of Colonel Gregor Tsepashin, Randal faces a choice. Will he hide safely in catacombs beneath the city, or embrace his calling? The militia cells are scattered. His only allies are a turncoat Abkhenazi, a mad Belorussian immigrant, a beautiful but green medic, and a handful of armored infantry. It will take all he has to lead his people to freedom.
Hope to have time for a more in-depth review once I complete the book. For now, I'm savoring this rollicking good read.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Sunday, December 11, 2011
American Beauty
In Fiscal Year 2010, the Federal Government spent $3.721 trillion dollars. Federal revenue from all sources was only $2.165 trillion dollars, for a deficit of $1.556 trillion. Put another way, in 2010 the government collected enough tax to cover 58% of its spending.
The federal deficit is currently $15.1 trillion. That means the United States has funded over four times 2010 spending levels by issuing debt. Since GDP for the US was only $14.5 trillion, directing every cent of national productivity for a year toward deficit reduction (a clearly ridiculous proposal) would not pay off the federal debt.
There are ultimately three components of the debt situation. The elephant in the room is the entitlements including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They represented $2.009 trillion, or 54% of government spending in 2010. As baby boomers continue to retire, this number will balloon, that is unless these previously untouchable promises are trimmed. Trimming seems unlikely, as Obamacare goes on-line in later in the decade and promises to add hundreds of billions of dollars to entitlement spend.
Discretionary spending amounted to $1.378 trillion in 2010. National defense accounted for almost half of that at $0.664 trillion. No other department accounted for more than $79 billion.
Finally, revenues (aka taxes) provide $2.165 trillion to the federal government. In 2011, congress and President Obama enacted a payroll tax holiday that are expected to reduce payroll taxes by $111 billion in 2011; at this moment there is debate on extending this tax cut into future years.
Ultimately, debt must be repaid. While many borrowers take advantage of revolving credit accounts, lenders only extend them to borrowers whose financial statements show high likelihood of paying them back. We don’t need to pay off $15 trillion in debt, but we do need to stabilize our borrowing as a sustainable percent of GDP according to normal lending standards. In the long run, I would expect that a balanced budget each year is not necessary, but over time expenditures must equal tax receipts.
When you look at the numbers, there are a few conclusions that are easy to reach:
1) The tax increases required to solve this problem would need to be massive.
2) Americans would not opt for an increase in Federal Taxes in excess of 40% required to pay for spending; therefore Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare benefits must be reduced.
3) Normal spending cuts simply cannot close the gap. Our deficit last year exceeded the total outlays for discretionary spending.
While the picture looks pretty bleak, I do have some good news. Tax receipts were down in 2010 because of the rotten Obamaconomy. It’s not ridiculous to expect that receipts could quickly rebound to 2008 levels of $2.7 trillion. However, we would still need to find a way to stem the tide of entitlements, cut discretionary spending, and/or increase tax rates to fill the gap between spending and tax receipts.
I believe all three options must be taken. I would love to see some sort of grand bargain along these lines:
1) Stem entitlement spending by:
a) raising the age for Social Security eligibility to 70
b) revamping Medicare into a program that provides more of a defined contribution for all except the most indigent Americans
c) repealing Obamacare
d) reducing unemployment compensation eligibility down from 99 weeks to 26 weeks
2) Significantly cut discretionary spending, including national defense. There is no reason that the defense department shouldn’t be able to cut spending by 10-20% as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars end. Additionally, multiple federal departments need to be eliminated or dramatically reduced. I would like to see $100 billion reduction in defense and $100 billion from elimination/downsizing of other departments
3) We cannot stabilize the budget unless taxes increase. I would sunset the payroll tax holiday and the Bush/Obama tax cuts. This could add $300-$400 billion in annual revenue. This would raise taxes on all taxpayers, something Republicans have opposed. However, as many Democrats have said, during the 1990’s these tax rates still allowed for a robust economy. I stress that I wouldn’t accept a piecemeal package that only includes tax increases, this must be tied to spending cuts and entitlement reform.
4) I would tie these to a balanced budget amendment requiring that federal budgets limit spending to no more than 103% of previous years revenue by 2020.
It is not too late to solve this problem. Hopefully, by targeting everyone's sacred cows, we could achieve a solution that really represents the ideal of shared sacrifice for the greater good. If we don't, we face a day of reckoning that will prevent our children and grandchildren from maintaining the standard of living that we now share.
The federal deficit is currently $15.1 trillion. That means the United States has funded over four times 2010 spending levels by issuing debt. Since GDP for the US was only $14.5 trillion, directing every cent of national productivity for a year toward deficit reduction (a clearly ridiculous proposal) would not pay off the federal debt.
There are ultimately three components of the debt situation. The elephant in the room is the entitlements including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They represented $2.009 trillion, or 54% of government spending in 2010. As baby boomers continue to retire, this number will balloon, that is unless these previously untouchable promises are trimmed. Trimming seems unlikely, as Obamacare goes on-line in later in the decade and promises to add hundreds of billions of dollars to entitlement spend.
Discretionary spending amounted to $1.378 trillion in 2010. National defense accounted for almost half of that at $0.664 trillion. No other department accounted for more than $79 billion.
Finally, revenues (aka taxes) provide $2.165 trillion to the federal government. In 2011, congress and President Obama enacted a payroll tax holiday that are expected to reduce payroll taxes by $111 billion in 2011; at this moment there is debate on extending this tax cut into future years.
Ultimately, debt must be repaid. While many borrowers take advantage of revolving credit accounts, lenders only extend them to borrowers whose financial statements show high likelihood of paying them back. We don’t need to pay off $15 trillion in debt, but we do need to stabilize our borrowing as a sustainable percent of GDP according to normal lending standards. In the long run, I would expect that a balanced budget each year is not necessary, but over time expenditures must equal tax receipts.
When you look at the numbers, there are a few conclusions that are easy to reach:
1) The tax increases required to solve this problem would need to be massive.
2) Americans would not opt for an increase in Federal Taxes in excess of 40% required to pay for spending; therefore Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare benefits must be reduced.
3) Normal spending cuts simply cannot close the gap. Our deficit last year exceeded the total outlays for discretionary spending.
While the picture looks pretty bleak, I do have some good news. Tax receipts were down in 2010 because of the rotten Obamaconomy. It’s not ridiculous to expect that receipts could quickly rebound to 2008 levels of $2.7 trillion. However, we would still need to find a way to stem the tide of entitlements, cut discretionary spending, and/or increase tax rates to fill the gap between spending and tax receipts.
I believe all three options must be taken. I would love to see some sort of grand bargain along these lines:
1) Stem entitlement spending by:
a) raising the age for Social Security eligibility to 70
b) revamping Medicare into a program that provides more of a defined contribution for all except the most indigent Americans
c) repealing Obamacare
d) reducing unemployment compensation eligibility down from 99 weeks to 26 weeks
2) Significantly cut discretionary spending, including national defense. There is no reason that the defense department shouldn’t be able to cut spending by 10-20% as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars end. Additionally, multiple federal departments need to be eliminated or dramatically reduced. I would like to see $100 billion reduction in defense and $100 billion from elimination/downsizing of other departments
3) We cannot stabilize the budget unless taxes increase. I would sunset the payroll tax holiday and the Bush/Obama tax cuts. This could add $300-$400 billion in annual revenue. This would raise taxes on all taxpayers, something Republicans have opposed. However, as many Democrats have said, during the 1990’s these tax rates still allowed for a robust economy. I stress that I wouldn’t accept a piecemeal package that only includes tax increases, this must be tied to spending cuts and entitlement reform.
4) I would tie these to a balanced budget amendment requiring that federal budgets limit spending to no more than 103% of previous years revenue by 2020.
It is not too late to solve this problem. Hopefully, by targeting everyone's sacred cows, we could achieve a solution that really represents the ideal of shared sacrifice for the greater good. If we don't, we face a day of reckoning that will prevent our children and grandchildren from maintaining the standard of living that we now share.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
HWX, with Peter Schweizer
The new Hinderaker Ward Experience podcast is now up on Ricochet and ready for your listening pleasure.
Topics discussed include the latest developments in the GOP Presidential race (John has the long knives out for Newt again, while I attempt a defense), the upcoming departure of Barney Frank from the national stage, and our Christmas gift wishes (beyond Barney Frank departing from the national stage).
The highlight of the program is our interview with Peter Schweizer, author of the blockbuster new book on Congressional corruption called Throw Them All Out. Consumers of conservative media have probably already heard Peter via numerous outlets already. But he always brings something new to the discussion, this time comments on why such a widespread problem has gotten virtually no publicity from the Washington press corps and his comments on the self-aggrandizing efforts at reform winding it's way through Congress now.
Later, we wrap up with The Loon of the Week and This Week in Gatekeeping.
Many ways to hear the podcast, including over on the mothership at Ricochet. You can be sure to never miss an episode, by subscribing via iTunes or Feedburner. Or just use the player embedded below. If all of these fail, send me an email and I'll come to your house and read from the written transcript. Enjoy.
In Heaven There Is No Beer of the Week
Chad the Elder's "Beer of the Week" feature has been suspended for this week in order to support the nascent efforts of a young blogger just beginning his adventure in the world of online commentary. His new "Kool Aid Report" has been going for a couple of weeks, and is still rough around the edges, but he has some potential. If he dedicates himself to several more years of daily blogging, I feel he could someday be good enough to join the Northern Alliance Apprentice Program.
So, in lieu of a Beer of the Week, check out KAR's new feature Whiskey of the Week.
Those not satisfied with this pale imitation can perhaps enjoy this classic Beer of the Week edition from one year ago.
Normal Beer of the Week broadcasting will resume next week.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Thrown Out, But Not Forgotten
Back in 2006, Rod Grams was challenging Jim Oberstar for his MN CD-8 Congressional seat and we interviewed him on the NARN First Team. One of Grams’ criticisms of Oberstar was that he didn’t really live in his district anymore, he spent most of his time living in a million dollar mansion in Potomac, Maryland.
At the time, I was more intrigued by the wealth necessary to maintain that lifestyle than the residency issues. I asked Grams how a guy like Oberstar could enter his 30+ year career of “public service” as a pauper, but emerge on the other side a member of the landed gentry. Grams credited it to marrying well, Oberstar's second wife was independently wealthy and was responsible for setting up the distinguished gentleman in the big house on the bay.
Turns out that may not have been the only way Oberstar was able to sustain the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Peter Schweizer has a new book about Congressional corruption called “Throw Them All Out”. There is a chapter on the remarkable acumen of Senators and Congressman in perfectly timing stock trades, buying shares in companies whose stocks are about to rise and dumping stocks that are about to decline. It just so happens that the fortunes of these various companies are often decided by laws passed in Washington. For whatever reason, the people involved with creating, or stopping, these laws often make investment decisions immediately in advance of the public being informed of what is about to happen with the law.
Among the litany of public servants in Congress that Schweizer identifies as participating in these suspiciously well-timed trades, only one name from Minnesota emerges. This excerpt is in regard to the passage of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in November of 2003.
The voters did throw Oberstar out in 2010. Although this was primarily due to the abandonment of his pro life voting record in order to support Obamacare. No quarrel was ever made with regard to his alleged use of political inside information to enrich himself. That’s the case for most of the practitioners of this dark art. The House and Senate do not police this issue themselves, their ethics committees have consistently looked the other way or approved of this behavior outright. And beyond the occasional reports that their Congressman is living in a mansion a thousand miles away from their district, the voters are left unaware that there’s something not quite right with how these people are conducting their financial affairs.
Hopefully Schweizer’s book will start to wake people up. It was the source of a 60 Minutes investigation and Schweizer has been promoting it all over talk radio. He’ll also be this week’s guest on the Hinderaker-Ward Experience podcast on Ricochet (to be posted tonight or tomorrow).
To get the full story, buy the book “Throw Them All Out”. It would make the perfect stocking stuffer for the Tea Party member in your life.
At the time, I was more intrigued by the wealth necessary to maintain that lifestyle than the residency issues. I asked Grams how a guy like Oberstar could enter his 30+ year career of “public service” as a pauper, but emerge on the other side a member of the landed gentry. Grams credited it to marrying well, Oberstar's second wife was independently wealthy and was responsible for setting up the distinguished gentleman in the big house on the bay.
Turns out that may not have been the only way Oberstar was able to sustain the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Peter Schweizer has a new book about Congressional corruption called “Throw Them All Out”. There is a chapter on the remarkable acumen of Senators and Congressman in perfectly timing stock trades, buying shares in companies whose stocks are about to rise and dumping stocks that are about to decline. It just so happens that the fortunes of these various companies are often decided by laws passed in Washington. For whatever reason, the people involved with creating, or stopping, these laws often make investment decisions immediately in advance of the public being informed of what is about to happen with the law.
Among the litany of public servants in Congress that Schweizer identifies as participating in these suspiciously well-timed trades, only one name from Minnesota emerges. This excerpt is in regard to the passage of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in November of 2003.
… James Oberstar of Minnesota quietly sold off his shares in the generic drug manufacturer Pharmaceutical Resources (now Par Pharmaceuticals) on September 22 and October 17 as the bill moved toward passage. He sold his holdings when the stock was selling at more than $70 per share. After Bush signed the bill, shares plummeted to $40 within a few months, as generic drug makers lost some competitive advantage to name-brand drug providers. Three days before President Bush signed the Medicare legislation into law, Oberstar also sold his shares in HealthExtras (now Catalyst Health Solutions), a pharmacy insurance management services firm. After Bush signed, the stock lost close to 10% of its value.
The voters did throw Oberstar out in 2010. Although this was primarily due to the abandonment of his pro life voting record in order to support Obamacare. No quarrel was ever made with regard to his alleged use of political inside information to enrich himself. That’s the case for most of the practitioners of this dark art. The House and Senate do not police this issue themselves, their ethics committees have consistently looked the other way or approved of this behavior outright. And beyond the occasional reports that their Congressman is living in a mansion a thousand miles away from their district, the voters are left unaware that there’s something not quite right with how these people are conducting their financial affairs.
Hopefully Schweizer’s book will start to wake people up. It was the source of a 60 Minutes investigation and Schweizer has been promoting it all over talk radio. He’ll also be this week’s guest on the Hinderaker-Ward Experience podcast on Ricochet (to be posted tonight or tomorrow).
To get the full story, buy the book “Throw Them All Out”. It would make the perfect stocking stuffer for the Tea Party member in your life.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Pump It Up
Sometimes news comes out that details the various manners in which our benovolent government is taking care of us that they simply defy belief. In this partcular, the jokes more than write themselves. Quarter-Billion Taxpayer Dollars Spent on Penis Pumps:
According to data collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare has spent more than $240 million of taxpayer money on penis pumps for elderly men over the past decade, and will surpass a quarter of a billion dollars this year for costs since 2001.
The cost to taxpayers for the pumps more than quadrupled during that period, from a low of $11 million in 2001 to a high of more than $47 million in 2010. And these represent only the costs for external devices, technically classified as “Male Vacuum Erection Systems,” not implantable devices or oral drugs such as Viagra.
Remember this the next time you hear that spending is not the problem.
According to data collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare has spent more than $240 million of taxpayer money on penis pumps for elderly men over the past decade, and will surpass a quarter of a billion dollars this year for costs since 2001.
The cost to taxpayers for the pumps more than quadrupled during that period, from a low of $11 million in 2001 to a high of more than $47 million in 2010. And these represent only the costs for external devices, technically classified as “Male Vacuum Erection Systems,” not implantable devices or oral drugs such as Viagra.
Remember this the next time you hear that spending is not the problem.
SAINT PAUL INTERJECTS: I will remember that. And I will now also remember this as a tribute to the US taxpayer:
Monday, December 05, 2011
Gas In The Tank For The Long Haul
The WSJ had a special energy section today with a lead article on how Big Oil Companies Are Shifting Their Focus Back to the West (sub req):
Driving the change is the boom in unconventionals—the tough kinds of hydrocarbons like shale gas and oil sands that were once considered too difficult and expensive to extract and are now being exploited on an unprecedented scale from Australia to Canada.
The U.S. is at the forefront of the unconventionals revolution. By 2020, shale sources will make up about a third of total U.S. oil and gas production, according to PFC Energy, a Washington-based consultancy. By that time, the U.S. will be the top global oil and gas producer, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia, PFC predicts.
That could have far-reaching ramifications for the politics of oil, potentially shifting power away from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries toward the Western hemisphere. With more crude being produced in North America, there's less likelihood of Middle Eastern politics causing supply shocks that drive up gasoline prices. Consumers could also benefit from lower electricity prices, as power plants switch from coal to cheap and plentiful natural gas.
Got that? In less than a decade, the United States will become the world's largest energy supplier. Besides the ones listed in the article, this change will also have even larger global political ramifications. Those who predict that our best days are behind and that the days of the United States as a military and economic superpower are numbered have more than likely not accounted for what this energy boom will mean.
If-and I realize it's a big one-we can get our fiscal house in the order in the next few years, there is no reason that the United States should not continue to lead the world economically for years to come. We definitely will have the energy to do it. The question is do we have the will?
Driving the change is the boom in unconventionals—the tough kinds of hydrocarbons like shale gas and oil sands that were once considered too difficult and expensive to extract and are now being exploited on an unprecedented scale from Australia to Canada.
The U.S. is at the forefront of the unconventionals revolution. By 2020, shale sources will make up about a third of total U.S. oil and gas production, according to PFC Energy, a Washington-based consultancy. By that time, the U.S. will be the top global oil and gas producer, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia, PFC predicts.
That could have far-reaching ramifications for the politics of oil, potentially shifting power away from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries toward the Western hemisphere. With more crude being produced in North America, there's less likelihood of Middle Eastern politics causing supply shocks that drive up gasoline prices. Consumers could also benefit from lower electricity prices, as power plants switch from coal to cheap and plentiful natural gas.
Got that? In less than a decade, the United States will become the world's largest energy supplier. Besides the ones listed in the article, this change will also have even larger global political ramifications. Those who predict that our best days are behind and that the days of the United States as a military and economic superpower are numbered have more than likely not accounted for what this energy boom will mean.
If-and I realize it's a big one-we can get our fiscal house in the order in the next few years, there is no reason that the United States should not continue to lead the world economically for years to come. We definitely will have the energy to do it. The question is do we have the will?
Friday, December 02, 2011
Beer of the Week (Vol. CXXVI)
Another edition of Beer of the Week brought to you by the warm-hearted folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help you find the wine, whiskey, and beer to keep your fires burning.
We continue our survey of the wonderful beers of winter with a selection from Oregon’s Deschutes Brewery. It’s their Jubelale:
A dark, malty celebration ale with layered flavors and beautifully balanced hopping. Jubelale pours deep garnet in color, medium bodied, with notes of chicory, earth, spice and fruit. To beer lovers, it’s like Yule fire and family.
The collaborative art of Central Oregon artists Cara Thayer and Louie Van Patten adorns this year's label.
Retails for $8.99 a six-pack. 12oz brown bottle with hops etched on neck. Label has a seasonal red border with a well-rendered scene of a man enjoying the namesake ale and readying a snowball for chucking.
STYLE: Winter Ale
Alcohol by Volume: 6.7%
COLOR (0-2): Dark auburn brown. 2
AROMA (0-2): Sweet malts with a whiff of vanilla. 2
HEAD (0-2): Off-white color, fluffy with good volume and lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Roasted caramel malts blend nicely with piney hops. You can also pick up nuts, coffee, cinnamon, and just a wee bit of smoky peat. Very nice flavor profile that comes together nicely. While you can feel a little heat it’s fairly smooth and rather drinkable. Medium-bodied with a dry finish and creamy mouthfeel. 4
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Rich and lasting. 2
OVERALL (0-6): An excellent winter offering that will help take some of the edge off the chilly evening air. Jubelale has a unique mix of flavors which are balanced and complimentary. It’s got the richness you want in a winter seasonal but it’s not so heavy as to be bloated. Another quality beer from Deschutes. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 16
We continue our survey of the wonderful beers of winter with a selection from Oregon’s Deschutes Brewery. It’s their Jubelale:
A dark, malty celebration ale with layered flavors and beautifully balanced hopping. Jubelale pours deep garnet in color, medium bodied, with notes of chicory, earth, spice and fruit. To beer lovers, it’s like Yule fire and family.
The collaborative art of Central Oregon artists Cara Thayer and Louie Van Patten adorns this year's label.
Retails for $8.99 a six-pack. 12oz brown bottle with hops etched on neck. Label has a seasonal red border with a well-rendered scene of a man enjoying the namesake ale and readying a snowball for chucking.
Alcohol by Volume: 6.7%
COLOR (0-2): Dark auburn brown. 2
AROMA (0-2): Sweet malts with a whiff of vanilla. 2
HEAD (0-2): Off-white color, fluffy with good volume and lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Roasted caramel malts blend nicely with piney hops. You can also pick up nuts, coffee, cinnamon, and just a wee bit of smoky peat. Very nice flavor profile that comes together nicely. While you can feel a little heat it’s fairly smooth and rather drinkable. Medium-bodied with a dry finish and creamy mouthfeel. 4
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Rich and lasting. 2
OVERALL (0-6): An excellent winter offering that will help take some of the edge off the chilly evening air. Jubelale has a unique mix of flavors which are balanced and complimentary. It’s got the richness you want in a winter seasonal but it’s not so heavy as to be bloated. Another quality beer from Deschutes. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 16
Real Science Doesn't Settle
Daniel B. Botkin on why Absolute Certainty Is Not Scientific:
I was also one of a small number of scientists—mainly ecologists, climatologists and meteorologists—who in the 1970s became concerned about the possibility of a human-induced global warming, based on then-new measurements. It seemed to be an important scientific problem, both as part of the beginning of a new science of global ecology and as a potentially major practical problem that nations would have to deal with. It did not seem to be something that should or would rise above standard science and become something that one had to choose sides in. But that's what has happened.
Some scientists make "period, end of story" claims that human-induced global warming definitely, absolutely either is or isn't happening. For me, the extreme limit of this attitude was expressed by economist Paul Krugman, also a Nobel laureate, who wrote in his New York Times column in June, "Betraying the Planet" that "as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason—treason against the planet." What had begun as a true scientific question with possibly major practical implications had become accepted as an infallible belief (or if you're on the other side, an infallible disbelief), and any further questions were met, Joe-McCarthy style, "with me or agin me."
Not only is it poor science to claim absolute truth, but it also leads to the kind of destructive and distrustful debate we've had in last decade about global warming. The history of science and technology suggests that such absolutism on both sides of a scientific debate doesn't often lead to practical solutions.
Note that Botkin doesn't say where he comes down on the issue. In fact, I have no idea what his views are on global warming. But his point is that we should be able to discuss and argue the matter and acknowledge that neither side knows the absolute truth. The reality is the debate isn't over and the science isn't "settled." Because true science never is.
I was also one of a small number of scientists—mainly ecologists, climatologists and meteorologists—who in the 1970s became concerned about the possibility of a human-induced global warming, based on then-new measurements. It seemed to be an important scientific problem, both as part of the beginning of a new science of global ecology and as a potentially major practical problem that nations would have to deal with. It did not seem to be something that should or would rise above standard science and become something that one had to choose sides in. But that's what has happened.
Some scientists make "period, end of story" claims that human-induced global warming definitely, absolutely either is or isn't happening. For me, the extreme limit of this attitude was expressed by economist Paul Krugman, also a Nobel laureate, who wrote in his New York Times column in June, "Betraying the Planet" that "as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason—treason against the planet." What had begun as a true scientific question with possibly major practical implications had become accepted as an infallible belief (or if you're on the other side, an infallible disbelief), and any further questions were met, Joe-McCarthy style, "with me or agin me."
Not only is it poor science to claim absolute truth, but it also leads to the kind of destructive and distrustful debate we've had in last decade about global warming. The history of science and technology suggests that such absolutism on both sides of a scientific debate doesn't often lead to practical solutions.
Note that Botkin doesn't say where he comes down on the issue. In fact, I have no idea what his views are on global warming. But his point is that we should be able to discuss and argue the matter and acknowledge that neither side knows the absolute truth. The reality is the debate isn't over and the science isn't "settled." Because true science never is.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
When Barney Met Newt
Earlier this week Barney Frank announced he will be leaving office at the end of his current term, wrapping up a crisp 30-year career in Congress. Amid his self-congratulatory remarks summing up his record of public service, Frank found room for this comment about one his old House colleagues:
That kind of “please, please nominate this clown” comment is not uncommon from the opposite party during the primary season. I remember a lot of Republican activists saying similar things about both Al Franken and Mark Dayton when they were still but gleams in the DFL’s eyes. The comment strikes me as disingenuous. If activists really thought Candidate X was ballot box poison, they wouldn’t be doing their opposition the favor of telling them. Instead, this comment is usually more of a tell that the person being mocked is probably the most feared by the opposition. Not necessarily feared in terms of electability, but feared in terms of the person they could least tolerate if they actually won. So it’s better to try and kill them off in the primary by using scare tactics than allow for an even remote possibility that the person could win the whole thing in the general election.
Gingrich seems to fit this profile for Democrats, especially those who were around in the 1990’s. Newt is responsible for the biggest conservative victories of the past 20 years. He created the strategies to achieve power and enact reforms and often executed them brilliantly, against great odds. As we all know, it didn’t end well for Newt in Congress. But the memory of his unexpected and overwhelming success against the entrenched Democratic power structure has to linger among those who suffered as a consequence. All of you Republicans who were tempted to heed the sage advice of Barney Frank on who you should nominate to be President may want to keep this in mind.
Of course, Barney Frank has other reasons to throw hatchets at Gingrich. I have to believe a certain episode from the summer of 1990 has something to do with it. As you may recall, there was a series of revelations that Frank (then a fresh faced, 9-year incumbent) had intimate relations with a male prostitute (who also was a convicted drug dealer and sex offender), had his apartment used by said prostitute to ply his trade, used his influence as a Congressman to fix dozens of parking tickets for said prostitute, and wrote a letter on official US House stationery attempting to help said prostitute get preferential treatment in a parole hearing.
“I did not think I lived a good enough life to see Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee,” the 30-year House veteran said. “He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater ... It’s still unlikely, but I have hopes.”
That kind of “please, please nominate this clown” comment is not uncommon from the opposite party during the primary season. I remember a lot of Republican activists saying similar things about both Al Franken and Mark Dayton when they were still but gleams in the DFL’s eyes. The comment strikes me as disingenuous. If activists really thought Candidate X was ballot box poison, they wouldn’t be doing their opposition the favor of telling them. Instead, this comment is usually more of a tell that the person being mocked is probably the most feared by the opposition. Not necessarily feared in terms of electability, but feared in terms of the person they could least tolerate if they actually won. So it’s better to try and kill them off in the primary by using scare tactics than allow for an even remote possibility that the person could win the whole thing in the general election.
Gingrich seems to fit this profile for Democrats, especially those who were around in the 1990’s. Newt is responsible for the biggest conservative victories of the past 20 years. He created the strategies to achieve power and enact reforms and often executed them brilliantly, against great odds. As we all know, it didn’t end well for Newt in Congress. But the memory of his unexpected and overwhelming success against the entrenched Democratic power structure has to linger among those who suffered as a consequence. All of you Republicans who were tempted to heed the sage advice of Barney Frank on who you should nominate to be President may want to keep this in mind.
Of course, Barney Frank has other reasons to throw hatchets at Gingrich. I have to believe a certain episode from the summer of 1990 has something to do with it. As you may recall, there was a series of revelations that Frank (then a fresh faced, 9-year incumbent) had intimate relations with a male prostitute (who also was a convicted drug dealer and sex offender), had his apartment used by said prostitute to ply his trade, used his influence as a Congressman to fix dozens of parking tickets for said prostitute, and wrote a letter on official US House stationery attempting to help said prostitute get preferential treatment in a parole hearing.
Given the Puritanical, uptight, hate-fueled mores of the time, some in Congress wanted to sanction Frank for his behavior. Suggestions ranged from a mild reprimand to outright expulsion. The GOP settled on a middle course, the dreaded censure and the job of making the case fell to the fresh-faced House Minority Whip, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
We turn now to July 26, 1990 and a grim Gingrich takes to the well near the end of a heated and acrimonious 3-hour floor debate.
We turn now to July 26, 1990 and a grim Gingrich takes to the well near the end of a heated and acrimonious 3-hour floor debate.
Newt plays the Diet of Worms card at the end! No wonder why Frank is still hacked off. Bracing stuff from Newt though, showing that mix of command and fire that made him such an imposing figure during his rise.
Gingrich haters out there howling about the hypocrisy of Newt criticizing Frank for his behavior when he himself had infidelities later in his life can stow it. Although neither man can be proud of his moral record, Newt's wayward behavior in his personal life in no way equates to what Frank was found guilty of doing to violate his office.
Speaking of Barney, he was next to take the dais on that day in 1990, right after Newt spoke. It’s not all that interesting, lots of lawyerly obfuscation and misdirection amid the crocodile tears. But in the interest of equal time, we turn to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts.
Ultimately, Barney Frank’s arguments won the day in that Democratically held body and he was only given a reprimand. What he did really wasn't that bad, and Republicans were motivated by hate anyway, so they could be ignored. Frank's constituents didn’t bother to hold him accountable either, he received a 66% mandate in the 1990 election, and Frank went on to a another 21 years of gloriously serving the public.
If you want to learn more about Barney Frank's indiscretions and how each party reacted, the full 3 hour debate is here.
(BTW, this entire post has been an excuse to use CSPAN’s cool editing and embedding features from their extensive video library. Oh, the places we'll go with this!)
Have To Admit It's Getting Better
With the pervasive doom and gloom talk about the economic and societal decline of the United States and Europe, it's easy to overlook the remarkable progress that continues to be made in the developing world. Poverty Rates Fall In Latin America (WSJ-sub req):
While the U.S. and Europe struggle with weak economic growth, poverty rates in Latin America have fallen sharply in the past 20 years thanks to rising household incomes, the United Nations reported.
From 1990 to 2010, the poverty rate in Latin America dropped by 17 percentage points to 31.4% from 48.4%, according to the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.
The region has also made strides in reducing its notorious income inequality mostly thanks to a more equitable distribution of labor income as well as government cash transfer programs for the needy, the agency said in its annual review of the region.
"Poverty and inequality continue to decline in the region, which is good news, particularly in the midst of an international economic crisis," said Alicia Barcena, head of the agency, in a statement.
In absolute terms, the region still has 174 million inhabitants who live in poverty, but that is well below the peak of 225 million in 2002, the agency said.
The drops in both the rate and absolute numbers of people in poverty in Latin America are impressive and are matched if not superceded by similar progress against poverty in Asia. Parts of Africa have also shown positive trends in recent years after decades in which in seemed the continent was doomed to never escape the mire. While the economies of the West appear to have entered a era of stangnation and limited growth, much of the rest of the world continues to move grow and more and more people are being lifted out of poverty. That's good news that we should not ignore.
While the U.S. and Europe struggle with weak economic growth, poverty rates in Latin America have fallen sharply in the past 20 years thanks to rising household incomes, the United Nations reported.
From 1990 to 2010, the poverty rate in Latin America dropped by 17 percentage points to 31.4% from 48.4%, according to the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.
The region has also made strides in reducing its notorious income inequality mostly thanks to a more equitable distribution of labor income as well as government cash transfer programs for the needy, the agency said in its annual review of the region.
"Poverty and inequality continue to decline in the region, which is good news, particularly in the midst of an international economic crisis," said Alicia Barcena, head of the agency, in a statement.
In absolute terms, the region still has 174 million inhabitants who live in poverty, but that is well below the peak of 225 million in 2002, the agency said.
The drops in both the rate and absolute numbers of people in poverty in Latin America are impressive and are matched if not superceded by similar progress against poverty in Asia. Parts of Africa have also shown positive trends in recent years after decades in which in seemed the continent was doomed to never escape the mire. While the economies of the West appear to have entered a era of stangnation and limited growth, much of the rest of the world continues to move grow and more and more people are being lifted out of poverty. That's good news that we should not ignore.
From Hell to Hero
Here's a You Tube video that accompanied a story on my uncle's experiences as a POW in North Vietnam that appeared in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram on November 6th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)