New York Times: "A Critic Finds Obama Policies a Perfect Target "

During Bush's term in office, I personally wasn't above emailing a few of my friends an animation I'd run across of W. morphing into Hitler, and I still feel that way. But if one drops all pretense of nuance in the public arena, then all you get is the nutty left battling the nutty right, and woe unto all of us if either one wins. Bush was all for gaining total power, on a credit card yet. Obama wants to make sure all Americans have health coverage, which seems like a bare minimum of returning something to the American people for all of the tax dollars we do spend, while hopefully making the whole project pay for itself. He wouldn't even be trying to do this if the insurance companies weren't doing such a crummy job in the first place. If we don't want the government to do this stuff for us, then we'd better grow up and start pursuing "enlightened" capitalism, entrepreneurship that has a true social conscience, not just the veneer of one, rather than all wishing we could be robber barons like the ones who have tens of millions of dollars and more tucked away.

Which is all to say, I think the Bill Wilson in this article sounds like a nut to me, more interested in winning some ideological battle than in what the actual outcome will be for democracy.

New York Times: Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary

There's a real tension here. Speech should be as absolutely free flowing as possible. I'd certainly like to think I can say what I want about a campaign candidate, and use what resources I have to disseminate my sincere feelings about that person and their relationship to the issues. However, with sufficient power and money, it is possible to overwhelm the airwaves and drown out the opposition. This may sound impossible. However, the so-called "conservative" (really corporate and would-be totalitarian) strategy for the past several years has been to activate the reptilian brains of its most loyal and unquestioning followers, using infantile arguments to whip them into a frenzy of anger and, above all, noise, that makes rational thinking and debate extremely difficult, magnifying the power of the distribution of a given broadcast or article. To the conservative thinkers out there: don't be offended, the preceding comment doesn't apply to you if you actually think, and believe in thinking and rational debate. Another perquisite that comes with corporate wealth and power is the ability to hire a lot of people to write propaganda and push it on the media. Often they even own the media, or heavily sponsor it, as Noam Chomsky points out in "Manufacturing Consent". Corporations don't care, if a corporation can do such a thing as "care", about the origins or private lives of a candidate. They care about being free to maximize profits, and they don't want to be bothered with regulations that force them to do anything, including taking proper care of their workers or reducing pollution. But they are happy to paint candidates as crawling from corrupt ooze if that will inflame people to not vote for the person who might want to actually limit corporate power. We're all afraid of government getting too big and powerful, but it is the big corporations that really dominate our lives, and who are all too happy to own the government as well, if allowed to do so.

NYT: "Judges’ Dissents for Death Row Inmates Are Rising"

Executing innocent human beings is not law and order. It is murder. Or at least manslaughter, if one wants to get technical about it.

BBC Asks "Is an ageing population a good thing?"

If it is comfortable and satisfying, long life is a great thing. After all, we only get a little time out of eternity. But of course having more people alive also further strains our planet's resources, and eventually, as Kurt Vonnegut pointed out in "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow", tempers as well. So if we're going to stick around a long time, we should either think about how to extend resources without overtaxing our planet any further, about having fewer children, or colonizing the moon.

Another Prisoner to Be Released from Guano

But One Question Still Remains For the Raving Moderate

Glad to see work being done on closing Guantanamo. Thank you, President Obama. But once again, where exactly is the possible reasonable balancing of justice with paranoia in this limbo category of "can neither be tried nor released"?? They call it "Gitmo" for short, but I still sense that "Guano" might be more appropriate in this regard.

Evan Bayh Votes for the (fortunately defeated) Thune Amendment

Response sent to Evan Bayh's Office (http://bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/) after Bayh voted for this amendment -

Can't believe you voted for the Thune Amendment. The carrying of concealed guns would be nothing but a prelude to shootings breaking out in bars and on city streets, not to mention bringing cases of road rage one step closer to catastrophe. Let's keep in mind the first half of the Second Amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". The right to bear arms is in light of this necessity, and to be kept "well regulated".

Frankly, Indianapolis, Gary, South Bend and other cities in Indiana are dangerous enough already.

Perhaps this was one of those votes that wasn't going to make a difference anyway, so might as well as please a few Libertarians and Independents. Well, core Democrats have noticed, too. I like and often agree with Libertarians and Independents, but occasionally we need to keep individuals from infringing on each others' liberties, just as we more often need to keep government and large corporations from doing so. Concealed weapons will make the streets more dangerous, not safer.

New York Times: Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests

My feeling was always that, bottom line, Bush and Cheney simply wanted unfettered power, with no limits and no accountability. The legal stuff was just a smokescreen for that, or at best a hurdle to be cleared. If innocent people were rounded up alongside terrorists, better that they should just disappear than ever have the chance to tell their stories. Why else would Bush and Cheney have feared Habeas Corpus for prisoners? Don't we, a constitutional democracy that holds itself up as a role model for the world, care just a little whether people in prison are really who we suspect them of being? Their argument was always to put a label on them, terrorists, enemy combatants, unlawful combatants, and then say that such people weren't entitled to any rights. But they didn't even seem to care whether or not the label actually fit, begging the question. At least a large part of the reason that our Constitution gives rights to criminal suspects is that they might actually be innocent. Using labels that begged this question was a huge erosion of this principle, since increasingly anyone could be labeled and immediately placed outside of Constitutional protection.

Note Sent to Senator Kennedy in response to NY Times "Kennedy’s Absent Voice on Health Bill Resonates"

All my best wishes to the Senator. The New York Times has described the mutual frustration felt by both Senator Kennedy and the Senate itself, that the Senator cannot be present for the current debate on the health care bill. I would like to suggest that when Senator Kennedy feels up to it, he should record his comments via video, and have those sent to the Senate floor, and of course invite C-Span to show them to the American people as well. His voice would be powerful at this time. I would also remind the Senator that, as shown in Michael Moore's movie, Sicko, and as I have experienced myself when visiting Scandinavia, health care in much of the industrialized world is simply covered. It is paid for by taxes to be sure, but no one in those countries need ever worry about being bankrupted by a health crisis such as the Senator is experiencing at this time, one which is well covered by the Senate's own plan for itself, but one which, even for a middle class family, could easily be financially devastating to most Americans, on top of the other pain it causes. I thank and congratulate the Senator for his years of tireless work and the historic point to which it has helped to bring us, and, again, wish him all the best.

The Economist on "The underworked American"

Once again, the Raving Moderate once again comes down squarely in the middle of the debate about whether Europeans or Americans are truly lazier...

I'm all for American style endless summer vacations for our kids. I'm all for European style, liberal leave policies, too. People need to have time to get to know and/or remember what a little bit of freedom is like. It's worth the educational and economic costs, in my opinion, if it doesn't actually make up for them. Besides, we're all so damn competitive without really having any idea what the point is.

Thanks to Bob Knight for posting the article (linked to the headline above) on his Facebook page!

"N. Korea Sentences 2 U.S. Journalists to 12 Years of Hard Labor "

We need to differentiate nations from their leaders. North Korea is a nation of human beings like any other. Their current leadership, however, appears to be exceptionally lacking in maturity. But the idea that we must retaliate militarily, and it will just be "their fault" also lacks maturity of vision. I hope that any confrontation does not escalate to the point where the people of any nation must suffer from it.

No Habeas at Bagram?

Update on June 8 - no reply, although the form had a checkbox letting one specify that no reply is needed, a box which I didn't check off.


I just submitted the following comment at whitehouse.gov:

The New York Times states as follows: "In a court filing last month, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration position that 600 prisoners in a cavernous prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan have no right to seek their release in court." (Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss). I personally don't see how any, and I mean any, prisoner should be denied habeas. There can always be mistakes where an innocent person is imprisoned, which is a horrible fate. This may occur despite the best intentions of the authorities involved. Furthermore, such intentions should not be taken for granted in a situation as serious as the detention of human beings. Even in a POW situation, a bystander may be mistaken for a combatant. There may be such cases where habeas needs to be streamlined, due to sheer numbers. But I seriously believe it should never be shortchanged. Please let me know where I may read a copy of the filing referred to in the Times article. I will be posting this question on my blog at ravingmoderate.com, and very much look forward to your response, so that I may understand how this filing is consistent with the Administration's apparent desire to stand on principle, and not just legalisms. I appreciate the apparent progress that has been made so far in this regard. Thank you.

Layoffs in an Economic Downturn

(This is a response to the New York Times article linked above)

For decades we've been told that in the long run laissez faire capitalism will produce the best economy. This type of situation (massive layoffs in an economic downturn) illustrates the tension between the former and the latter. Our economy needs more people to be put to work; the capitalists would rather lay people off to keep their stockholders happy, and indeed may need to do so in order to keep their companies solvent. Even our government is asking the auto companies to trim their payrolls in return for bailout money, at the same time as the stimulus package is supposed to be largely for the purpose of producing jobs.

Coburn Amendment to Freeze Arts Out of Stimulus Package

See:
LA Times and

San Francisco Chronicle

Commentary:
The arts are certainly not a "waste", nor "non-stimulating" to the economy. Music in particular almost literally "stimulates" the economy by creating a pleasant, "stimulating" atmosphere for working and shopping (aka spending money back into the economy). Live music makes an even greater attraction for special events that stimulate spending, whether it's a night at the opera, a festival, a show at a club, or a ribbon cutting for a new hardware store. Music has been shown to stimulate developing brains, and may help us turn out better engineers as well as musicians. Music is used for therapy for the ill and even the dying. No waste here, Mr. Coburn, nothing elitist, nor ultimately frivolous, about any of it. Some specific proposals may be better than others, but that's true in any area of endeavor, and is the reason that we have screening processes for grants and loans.

Sure there's a lot of serious business to do out there. But the arts help make life worthwhile, and, as in some of the musical examples I've just given, can provide a playful yet effective approach to serious concerns. A non-musical example might be a book or a play that serves to illustrate and help us understand important truths that we might otherwise miss.

It's one thing to leave the arts out of the package due to arguably more pressing concerns. It's quite another to slip a gratuitous insult to the Arts community into the package at the same time. Personally, I think the Arts are a crucial part of our infrastructure, and that artists have too long been undervalued because they are so much more eager than most to work very hard at making their contribution to the community - i.e. it's too easy to get them to work practically for free. If we all stopped working (I'm a musician as well as a blogger), the economy would feel the effects.

Letter to My Congressman on the Stimulus Package

My Congressman, Baron Hill, today wrote his consituents, asking "I would like to hear your thoughts about the overall recovery package, particular provisions you are concerned with or support, and any ideas you have about how best to stimulate our economy. While I cannot promise a prompt response, I will certainly take your thoughts and suggestions into account while considering my next vote on this legislation." The letter also opened by saying "As you know all too well, we currently find ourselves in a very grave situation. The national economic climate is dismal." Here is my response.

Dear Congressman Hill,

My feeling is that whatever money is spent should be viewed as an investment that produces a return beyond just putting it out there into somebody's hands to "stimulate" the economy. Ideally, it would be calculated to be "revenue neutral". That is to say, it would produce at least as much revenue for the government as it costs, so as not to increase the deficit and the national debt to the point where the "stimulus" would eventually be the cause of another crisis for the American people. Politically, this would be accomplished most easily by stimulating the economy to the point where it produced additional tax revenues to compensate for the outlay, without raising tax rates. Some types of stimuli that might produce this result and/or have other beneficial results:

1. Infrastructure improvements. E.g. better roads would increase taxable commerce, while also providing jobs (which will also result in a partial rebate to the government of their stimulus dollars by way of tax revenues).
2. National healthcare would produce a return in healthier, more productive workers, who, again, pay taxes.
3. Environmental expenditures and tax incentives. Again, healthier environment, healthier workers. Green industries also pay taxes.
4. Loans to stimulate business - will theoretically get paid back, with interest, and create a taxpaying business.
5. More efficient use of bailout moneys. Here are some suggestions I posted earlier on my blog at ravingmoderate.com to that effect:

I would suggest that rather than giving industries direct bailouts, we increase the incentives for Americans to patronize their companies while also benefiting society, the economy, and/or the environment. Case in point: the auto industry. If we gave a truly sizable tax exemption to anyone who buys a particularly environmentally friendly automobile that is made in the U.S.A., the industry would be forced to build the cars to meet the increased demand, and the money would still wind up in their pockets, while people could drive newer cars while cutting down on emissions. We would get a lot more for our tax dollar this way.

Similarly we should have bailed out mortgagees, not loan companies. The money would still have wound up in the companies' coffers, enabling them to stay in business, but at the same time more people could have stayed in their homes - for the same buck.

Again, fewer homeless people, more people likely to go back to work - and pay taxes. More tax revenues from the auto industry…

6. I also suggested on Raving Moderate that there is a psychological component to this crisis. No doubt there is a strong, fiscal component as well. But everyone is being told we're in a crisis that is made to sound so bad that everyone is afraid to try anything, so they are just staying home and hoarding their money, if they have any. So I suggest that we try not to wallow in too much "dismal"-ness. It's also worth noting that Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech is widely considered to be one of the pivotal reasons, along with the hostage crisis in Iran, for his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980. I think we need a little more "Yes We Can" -- Obama himself needs to be reminded of this as well!
7. Businesses receiving stimulus money must keep their jobs in America in order to return the stimulus to the American economy. I don't believe in protectionism, and I want all people everywhere to have good jobs in a global economy; but we are also first responsible for keeping our own house in order.
8. At the same time as all of this, for the sake of our resources and our environment, both national and global, we should consider the virtues of living with somewhat less. A bigger economy isn't always the best economy.

Sincerely,

Tom Marshalek

Thoughts From the Fringe...

A few years back, maybe we thought the Internet was a vast network of documents. Actually, it was we who were being networked.

Caps on Executive Pay to Bailout Recipients "Not Draconian"

A $500,000 cap on pay to executives of companies receiving bailout money is "draconian", according to James F. Reda, quoted in the New York Times article linked above. That's very funny. Mr. Reda is not living in the real world. We're talking about giving these companies the tax money of people who mostly make a tiny fraction of that very comfortable salary, so that the companies can pay that salary. If the company can afford to pay tens of millions of dollars to their CEO's, then it's their business, but they don't need OUR bailout money. Incidentally, to reiterate some of my previous posts, bailout money should only go indirectly to corporations, so the money can do more good. For example, the financial bailout could have directly made payments on mortgages, which would have saved homes at the same time that the money ends up with the banks. The auto bailout could instead have been a tax incentive to buy American (and preferably ecological) cars, etc. Instead, we're just giving them the money, and what do they do? Horde it for themselves, and then expect to keep paying their CEO's ridiculously huge salaries.

On the "Racial Significance" of the Nomination

Click the link above for the NY Times article to which this is in part a response (emailed a draft of this to Carl Hulse of the Times).

I find the phrase "racial significance" to be interesting. I think part of the significance of President Obama's election and inauguration is that it begins to affirm, or reaffirm, that so-called "race" is not significant. The significant problem has been that we have pretended or believed that race is significant. Allowing that people may identify themselves to a degree by their cultural heritages, and that differences in heritage can also be medically significant at times, I choose to believe that the very word "race" nevertheless tends to overstate the case, and that there is only one human race.

---

Incidentally, Viva Obama!