THE BOGUS ECONOMIST
August 18,2008
Now that our two major presidential candidates have dutifully bowed before the altar of Orange County's Saddleback Baptist Church in an effort to win the votes of Christian evangelicals, perhaps we can step back and ask a couple of pertinent questions about our political system. Pastor Rick Warren, by now even more of a household word than previously, hosted Barack Obama and John McCain in the first face-to-face comparison of views on abortion, the economy and lots of other matters important to Evengelicals, including those who supposedly agree that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.
There were lots more minutes taken up with the economy and abortion than with the war or, for that matter, God. This is understandable, since Christianity prohibits killing in no uncertain terms and mentions something about rich men and camels both having trouble getting through eyes of needles and/or into heaven. These topics are pertinent since Pastor Warren is under pressure to disavow one of his more well-off congregants, Rupert Murdoch, for his alleged ownership of a number of European porn channels (no comments) and everyone knows starting wars on doubtful grounds isn't as immoral as adultery. That said, we have to give the gold (and silver) medal to Mr. McCain for his ringing statement that life begins "at conception."
If I were a lawyer listening to the Saddleback Warren Report, I'd take my wife out to dinner and buy a new outfit for each of my kids. Nothing since Affirmative Action brought the promise of so much legal action as McCain's position on pro-life. Consider a couple of possible cases:
1. Joanne "Bubbles" Murphy and her new husband, Harold, celebrate their honeymoon by checking into the Hotel Hotshot. They reserve the Honeymoon Suite and order the finest dinner and breakfast package the hotel offers. The next morning, after a highly passionate night, they come down for their honeymoon champagne breakfast, which was served by George after being prepared by Charles. Unbeknownst to "Bubbles," she is pregnant.
Anyone who has hefted a bottle of champagne (or beer) knows what's written on the label. Drinking alcohol for pregnant women carries the risk of birth defects. Inside "Bubbles" is a human being who, because of the champagne, is at risk of being born deformed. Could Joanne be arrested for child abuse? How about endangerment? Was George an accomplice? How about Charles? Perhaps Harold could be taken in, too, for escorting her into the bar. Multiply something like this by millions. What a bonanza for the legal profession!!
2. A couple of months after the honeymoon, a group of women at Joanne's workplace decide to throw a baby shower. Ten of them get together with the mother-to-be for a couple of hours of festivity, hors d'oeuvres and gossip. Some of them are smokers and the weather is lousy, do they don't go out on the porch.
You know what's written on the pack. Cancer, emphysema and lots of other stuff. Oh, yes, there's something there about pregnant women. How many of the ladies should go to the hoosegow?
See what I mean? Lawyers of the world, unite! There's a gold mine here. If life begins at conception, there's no way of knowing how many people should be charged when a lady gets on the bus. Are all children free or only those who have been born? Where's the cut-off age? Some places charge for all children. Does a person have an obligation to declare her pregnancy before going through the turnstile?
I know some of this sounds pretty silly, but have you checked out some of the laws we have on the books? In Cedar City, Utah, it's against the law to drink beer if your shoelace is untied. You need a hunting license in Cleveland to catch mice. You can't tie a giraffe to a streetlight or telegraph pole in Atlanta. And you think people won't go crazy if Uncle John's ideas catch on?
Frankly, I'm a little tired of all the dancing about what people believe in God-wise. That's their own business. If evangelicals want to invite McCain or Obama to answer questions, let them have the candidates make a CD and distribute it at Sunday services. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
I'm more interested in what these guys are going to do about the skyrocketing cost of food, the colossal rip-offs by tax cheats and the insane foreign policies that are passing for leadership. I have a great idea. How about rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's?
God knows that would be a relief.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Hope Doesn't Spring Eternal
THE BOGUS ECONOMIST August 13, 2008
I've had it.
Eery four years, I arouse myself and try to imagine we're going to have an intelligent debate about the leadership of the free world and every four years I get shot down. This time, I was actually beginning to believe Barack Obama would be different - really different - and at last we would have someone with enough guts to tell us that not only is the holiday over, but we're going to have re-thinking who we are. Mr. O is still holding back. I'm seeing expediency sliding into the campaign driver's seat and bold initiatives moving to the back of the bus.
Sure, telling the truth might not be the way to get elected, but we've seen what happens when a candidate chooses the opposite. The last eight years should have taught us a lot.
Look, everybody, we're not the epitome of civilization, nor are we the only hope of the world. Our way is not the only way, nor is it even the best way for some people. We're citizens of a country that used to be based on something besides the almighty power of "business," and that's what made us great. Under the wreckage of 9/11, some of us discovered gold. Under perhaps the most benighted leadership we've ever had, we seem to have forgotten almost every moral and ethical principle we owned and abandoned the lot to the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater. The number of people who have suffered due to the weakening of governmental regulation are astronomical, including the folks who've lost their houses because of the tentacles of the banking "business," the people who have been screwed by the phamaceutical "business" and the possible extinction of human life through the manipulation of the energy "business."
Now we find out by courtesy of the General Accounting Office (GAO) that two-thirds of large corporations with sales revenues of more than two trillion dollars didn't pay income taxes every year and some didn't pay them at all. Here's what the GAO said:
"In 2005, after collectively making $2.5 trillion in sales, corporations gave a variety of reasons on their tax returns to account for the absence of taxable revenue. The most frequently listed included the cost of producing their goods, salary expenses and interest payments on their debt, the report said. The GAO did not analyze whether the firms had profits that should have been taxed."
The report went on that probably none of this was illegal. That burns me up more than the theft. The reason it's legal is that our legislators put "good business" ahead of the welfare of the United States ppopulation.
Reminder: If the corporations don't pay taxes, guess who does? Or is borrowing better?
Mr. Obama is now experiencing what most Republican candidates knew very well: you can talk about being a voice of the people, but it's the big boys who call the shots. Contributions to the Obama campaign, most of which used to come in dribs and drabs from Charlie and Mike, are now coming in large globs from Mr.Jones or Dr. Smith. More and more names have "CEO" after them.
If "the chief business of the United States is business," as president Calvin Coolidge once said, then it seems the sacrifices we're making are really a waste of human life. The people who identify the American Dream in terms of the size of their flat screen have bought into this and shame on them.
Reading about the billions of profits being made out of American lives doesn't do much for the phrase, "Business as usual." Dammit, it's business as usual that got us into the war to begin with. Putting profits ahead of principle runs against everything this nation is supposed to be.
Mr. Obama started off as a candidate who seemed to understand this. Now I'm starting to wonder.
-30-
I've had it.
Eery four years, I arouse myself and try to imagine we're going to have an intelligent debate about the leadership of the free world and every four years I get shot down. This time, I was actually beginning to believe Barack Obama would be different - really different - and at last we would have someone with enough guts to tell us that not only is the holiday over, but we're going to have re-thinking who we are. Mr. O is still holding back. I'm seeing expediency sliding into the campaign driver's seat and bold initiatives moving to the back of the bus.
Sure, telling the truth might not be the way to get elected, but we've seen what happens when a candidate chooses the opposite. The last eight years should have taught us a lot.
Look, everybody, we're not the epitome of civilization, nor are we the only hope of the world. Our way is not the only way, nor is it even the best way for some people. We're citizens of a country that used to be based on something besides the almighty power of "business," and that's what made us great. Under the wreckage of 9/11, some of us discovered gold. Under perhaps the most benighted leadership we've ever had, we seem to have forgotten almost every moral and ethical principle we owned and abandoned the lot to the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater. The number of people who have suffered due to the weakening of governmental regulation are astronomical, including the folks who've lost their houses because of the tentacles of the banking "business," the people who have been screwed by the phamaceutical "business" and the possible extinction of human life through the manipulation of the energy "business."
Now we find out by courtesy of the General Accounting Office (GAO) that two-thirds of large corporations with sales revenues of more than two trillion dollars didn't pay income taxes every year and some didn't pay them at all. Here's what the GAO said:
"In 2005, after collectively making $2.5 trillion in sales, corporations gave a variety of reasons on their tax returns to account for the absence of taxable revenue. The most frequently listed included the cost of producing their goods, salary expenses and interest payments on their debt, the report said. The GAO did not analyze whether the firms had profits that should have been taxed."
The report went on that probably none of this was illegal. That burns me up more than the theft. The reason it's legal is that our legislators put "good business" ahead of the welfare of the United States ppopulation.
Reminder: If the corporations don't pay taxes, guess who does? Or is borrowing better?
Mr. Obama is now experiencing what most Republican candidates knew very well: you can talk about being a voice of the people, but it's the big boys who call the shots. Contributions to the Obama campaign, most of which used to come in dribs and drabs from Charlie and Mike, are now coming in large globs from Mr.Jones or Dr. Smith. More and more names have "CEO" after them.
If "the chief business of the United States is business," as president Calvin Coolidge once said, then it seems the sacrifices we're making are really a waste of human life. The people who identify the American Dream in terms of the size of their flat screen have bought into this and shame on them.
Reading about the billions of profits being made out of American lives doesn't do much for the phrase, "Business as usual." Dammit, it's business as usual that got us into the war to begin with. Putting profits ahead of principle runs against everything this nation is supposed to be.
Mr. Obama started off as a candidate who seemed to understand this. Now I'm starting to wonder.
-30-
Friday, August 01, 2008
Celebrate
Aug.1, 2008
THE BOGUS ECONOMIST
January 20, 2009 will be a great day for the United States, not to mention the world.
Not only will George W. Borrow finally leave the White House, but we'll actually get a president who can speak coherent English, listen to ideas that don't emerge solely from (Dead Eye) Dick Cheney and actually consider taxing corporations as if they were people (which the law considers them to be). Good news, indeed. But how will we (and the world) mark the occasion?
One suggestion is a sober day of thanksgiving in which we express our gratitude to God that the country we love has actually survived eight years of avarice, corruption and constitutional destruction. True, we're in a recession, our fifth year of war and seeing increasing inflation and a housing crisis, but at least we're still reasonably sane with the exception of some of our lawmakers and a couple of our Supreme Court justices. This kind of solution would satisfy the religious Left and perhaps be a rallying point for those who were seeking a good reason to return to the Fold. I, being less of a religious mind set, have an alternative.
I propose January 20th, 2009 be set aside for the world's biggest party. The name of the celebration would be the Global Goodbye Bush Bash (GGBB). In it, people from the four corners of the earth would be invited to guzzle beer, kill chickens, dance, sing or otherwise mark in their own unique cultural manner the end of the Bush era. We might see camel races in parts of the Middle East, pasta contests in Italy, wine-drinking sprees in France or bull fights in Spain. All over the world people would have a chance to rejoice in the end of Bushiness and, hopefully, the start of new era of political sanity in the leadershp of the Free World.
It's clear that not everyone is going to be happy with the GGBB. Republicans who don't remember what conservatism used to be may shed a tear or two, CEOs at firms like Halliburton may try to drown their sorrows, dictators who have been propped up by U.S. taxpayers in the name of the War on Terror aren't going to be pleased and Ann Coulter will be absolutely miserable, but that's the way the ball bounces. Some countries may not participate out of genuine confusion. China won't know whether to tell its people to be happy or sad and may settle for just telling them to shut up. Pakistan will really have a problem as will Egypt.
India may not notice since they will be too busy making money and grooming themselves for world leadership, aided by American companies who are making out like bandits thanks to India's low wages.
In America, the Bush Bash should be a real occasion. Since less than 25% of the people like the way their president is running things and even fewer approve of his VIce-president ("So?"), we should see some genuine whing-dings. It's an open question whether Texas, the home of tailgate barbeques, will join in, but there are encouraging signs. It's agreed that Tom DeLay won't participate, nor will Harriet Myers. Karl Rove isn't expected to show up, either.
In other states, we probably won't get much response from Michael ("Heck of a job, Brownie") Brown, Alberto Gonzales may stay at home and Donald Rumsfeld isn't expected to show, even though everyone knows he's the life of the party.
All together, it should be a humongous thing. Tell your friends about it. Write to people overseas, have a Goodbye Bush Bash house party, write letters to editors. Spread the word. Just remember something like this doesn't happen often.
Only when we get sick and tired of second-rate leadership, tired platitudes and lies.
-30-
THE BOGUS ECONOMIST
January 20, 2009 will be a great day for the United States, not to mention the world.
Not only will George W. Borrow finally leave the White House, but we'll actually get a president who can speak coherent English, listen to ideas that don't emerge solely from (Dead Eye) Dick Cheney and actually consider taxing corporations as if they were people (which the law considers them to be). Good news, indeed. But how will we (and the world) mark the occasion?
One suggestion is a sober day of thanksgiving in which we express our gratitude to God that the country we love has actually survived eight years of avarice, corruption and constitutional destruction. True, we're in a recession, our fifth year of war and seeing increasing inflation and a housing crisis, but at least we're still reasonably sane with the exception of some of our lawmakers and a couple of our Supreme Court justices. This kind of solution would satisfy the religious Left and perhaps be a rallying point for those who were seeking a good reason to return to the Fold. I, being less of a religious mind set, have an alternative.
I propose January 20th, 2009 be set aside for the world's biggest party. The name of the celebration would be the Global Goodbye Bush Bash (GGBB). In it, people from the four corners of the earth would be invited to guzzle beer, kill chickens, dance, sing or otherwise mark in their own unique cultural manner the end of the Bush era. We might see camel races in parts of the Middle East, pasta contests in Italy, wine-drinking sprees in France or bull fights in Spain. All over the world people would have a chance to rejoice in the end of Bushiness and, hopefully, the start of new era of political sanity in the leadershp of the Free World.
It's clear that not everyone is going to be happy with the GGBB. Republicans who don't remember what conservatism used to be may shed a tear or two, CEOs at firms like Halliburton may try to drown their sorrows, dictators who have been propped up by U.S. taxpayers in the name of the War on Terror aren't going to be pleased and Ann Coulter will be absolutely miserable, but that's the way the ball bounces. Some countries may not participate out of genuine confusion. China won't know whether to tell its people to be happy or sad and may settle for just telling them to shut up. Pakistan will really have a problem as will Egypt.
India may not notice since they will be too busy making money and grooming themselves for world leadership, aided by American companies who are making out like bandits thanks to India's low wages.
In America, the Bush Bash should be a real occasion. Since less than 25% of the people like the way their president is running things and even fewer approve of his VIce-president ("So?"), we should see some genuine whing-dings. It's an open question whether Texas, the home of tailgate barbeques, will join in, but there are encouraging signs. It's agreed that Tom DeLay won't participate, nor will Harriet Myers. Karl Rove isn't expected to show up, either.
In other states, we probably won't get much response from Michael ("Heck of a job, Brownie") Brown, Alberto Gonzales may stay at home and Donald Rumsfeld isn't expected to show, even though everyone knows he's the life of the party.
All together, it should be a humongous thing. Tell your friends about it. Write to people overseas, have a Goodbye Bush Bash house party, write letters to editors. Spread the word. Just remember something like this doesn't happen often.
Only when we get sick and tired of second-rate leadership, tired platitudes and lies.
-30-
Sunday, July 20, 2008
THE BOGUS ECONOMIST July 19, 2008
BUSHNESS AS USUAL
I've been trying to figure out the Bush/Cheney mindset for the last eight years. To label Cheney as Machiavelli and Bush as Alfred E. Newman seemed to explain it at first, but as we took troops away from a war with something to win (hearts and minds- Afghanistan) and sent them to a war we started because we might have something to lose (oil reserves- Iraq), I began to suspect I was being much too simplistic. I became totally convinced when Mr. Bush began to use the phrase "vital American interests."
Sure, most people understood that the most "vital" thing about the war was black and sticky, but when we killed Saddam's kids and finally hung their dad, a lot of Americans were ready to be convinced we were really after a democratic form of government in Iraq and the oil was going to pay us back for the billions we spent seeing that statue go down. As the war dragged on and our casualties went into the thousands and Iraqi civilians were getting mowed down by the hundred thousands, we got tired of waiting for the guys we were helping to stop shooting at us, even if they really meant to shoot each other.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney continued to lead the cheering section for the war, even after the stories of graft, corruption, "collateral damage," Abu Graib and general moral decay began appearing in the papers. Our leaders continued to say that we were sacrificing our troops to bring "democracy" to Iraq. They're still saying it after the democratically-elected president of Iraq said he wants us out.
The only answer I can find for this seemingly endless stupidity and cupidity is that Bush and Cheney are sincerely trying to bring their idea of democracy to Iraq. The problem is they don't have the faintest idea what it is.
The confusion between capitalism and democracy is almost as old as the country itself. The extermination of the Indian tribes, slavery and almost every war we fought could be traced to a desire to make people rich, not free. A by-product of this, of course, was to build a powerhouse of production and a people who believed money was a symbol of success, which, of course, it is. Eventually, money came to be THE symbol of success.
When the Soviet Union emerged as a threat, we didn't use the word "dictatorship" to describe it. The leaders of the USSR were just as much dictators as the German one had been. The word used to describe the Soviet threat wasn't their political system, but their economic one - communism. In other words, we were told not to be as worried about how the Russians were being governed as who owned their factories.
If you should ask a hundred Americans - even today - what the opposite of democracy is, I'd bet ninety-eight of them would reply, "Communism." Wrong. Russia could have a free election tomorrow and the Communist Party would win in a landslide. They'd have a democratic communism.
Bush and Cheney identify our country with the system that made them rich - capitalism. As capitalists, they realize that the more shares of stock you have, the more votes you get. This explains Cheney's response to a statemen that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. I'm sure you remember his answer: "So?" We see an extension of what Charles Wilson, CEO of General Motors and later Secretary of Defense, said more than fifty years ago - "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." America means business- to some, literally.
The only two explanations I can come up with for the attempted demolition of the Constitution in pursuit of oil, power and private profit (see Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.) is either Bush and Cheney are traitors to our country and should be brought to trial or they really honest-to-God don't understand what this country was intended to represent.
When you're raised in a penthouse, you don't understand the tenement. When you never have understood the concept of equality under the law, you don't strain yourself to enforce it. If the end justifies the means in business, why not make it national policy.
This new understanding doesn't mean I like either Mr. Bush or Mr.Cheney one little bit more than I used to. It just means I understand a little better why I dislike them as much as I do.
-30-
BUSHNESS AS USUAL
I've been trying to figure out the Bush/Cheney mindset for the last eight years. To label Cheney as Machiavelli and Bush as Alfred E. Newman seemed to explain it at first, but as we took troops away from a war with something to win (hearts and minds- Afghanistan) and sent them to a war we started because we might have something to lose (oil reserves- Iraq), I began to suspect I was being much too simplistic. I became totally convinced when Mr. Bush began to use the phrase "vital American interests."
Sure, most people understood that the most "vital" thing about the war was black and sticky, but when we killed Saddam's kids and finally hung their dad, a lot of Americans were ready to be convinced we were really after a democratic form of government in Iraq and the oil was going to pay us back for the billions we spent seeing that statue go down. As the war dragged on and our casualties went into the thousands and Iraqi civilians were getting mowed down by the hundred thousands, we got tired of waiting for the guys we were helping to stop shooting at us, even if they really meant to shoot each other.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney continued to lead the cheering section for the war, even after the stories of graft, corruption, "collateral damage," Abu Graib and general moral decay began appearing in the papers. Our leaders continued to say that we were sacrificing our troops to bring "democracy" to Iraq. They're still saying it after the democratically-elected president of Iraq said he wants us out.
The only answer I can find for this seemingly endless stupidity and cupidity is that Bush and Cheney are sincerely trying to bring their idea of democracy to Iraq. The problem is they don't have the faintest idea what it is.
The confusion between capitalism and democracy is almost as old as the country itself. The extermination of the Indian tribes, slavery and almost every war we fought could be traced to a desire to make people rich, not free. A by-product of this, of course, was to build a powerhouse of production and a people who believed money was a symbol of success, which, of course, it is. Eventually, money came to be THE symbol of success.
When the Soviet Union emerged as a threat, we didn't use the word "dictatorship" to describe it. The leaders of the USSR were just as much dictators as the German one had been. The word used to describe the Soviet threat wasn't their political system, but their economic one - communism. In other words, we were told not to be as worried about how the Russians were being governed as who owned their factories.
If you should ask a hundred Americans - even today - what the opposite of democracy is, I'd bet ninety-eight of them would reply, "Communism." Wrong. Russia could have a free election tomorrow and the Communist Party would win in a landslide. They'd have a democratic communism.
Bush and Cheney identify our country with the system that made them rich - capitalism. As capitalists, they realize that the more shares of stock you have, the more votes you get. This explains Cheney's response to a statemen that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. I'm sure you remember his answer: "So?" We see an extension of what Charles Wilson, CEO of General Motors and later Secretary of Defense, said more than fifty years ago - "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." America means business- to some, literally.
The only two explanations I can come up with for the attempted demolition of the Constitution in pursuit of oil, power and private profit (see Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.) is either Bush and Cheney are traitors to our country and should be brought to trial or they really honest-to-God don't understand what this country was intended to represent.
When you're raised in a penthouse, you don't understand the tenement. When you never have understood the concept of equality under the law, you don't strain yourself to enforce it. If the end justifies the means in business, why not make it national policy.
This new understanding doesn't mean I like either Mr. Bush or Mr.Cheney one little bit more than I used to. It just means I understand a little better why I dislike them as much as I do.
-30-
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The Big Conspiracy
THE BOGUS ECONOMIST
July 12, 2008
The Big Conspiracy
I've always loved conspiracies. They're always so exciting and fraught with intrigue. The Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy, for instance, can be presented in so many different lights that we can see villains no matter where we look. The CIA is always good. Lyndon Johnson looks a little villainous. Castro, the Mob and the Miami Cubans come in for a share of suspicion and everyone has a great time and goes to bed convinced SOMEBODY HAD IT IN FOR JACK. It's pretty obvious Lee Harvey Owswald did, but the rest is just wheel-spinning, good old American conjecture.
The Iraq War Conspiracy was too simple. Bush was an idiot. Cheney was a power-mad fanatic, Rumsfeld was – Rumsfeld, and the Congress was too frightened of being thought guilty of original thinking to do any investigating on its own. This conspiracy idea barely lasted eight years before settling down to a dull pain in the butt of democracy. Now, frighteningly, the Bogus Economist has envisioned a scenario that, if it actually occurred, could keep us wondering for decades. I want to make it clear that I earnestly hope I'm so full of it my eyes turn brown, but I can't get the thought out of my mind.
When Barack Obama goes to Iraq, it will be an historic occasion to which the whole world will be tuned. For the first time in almost a decade, someone will be going to the Middle East to present something besides bombast and baloney. After the Bush era, millions of people may begin to get the idea that America stands for something besides Big Oil and Getting More. Furthermore, present and future enemies – who are convinced the U.S. is an enemy not only of Islam, but anyone and anything that differs from its own notion of the world as it should be, may be drawn into dialog.
Now look at a couple of troubling factors while Mr. Obama is getting ready to go to the Middle East:
1.Anyone with more intelligence than a doorknob knows there are those in this Administration who are after Iran's oil just as they were after Iraq's.
2.People who are betting on the Republicans to avoid an election disaster are also receiving weekly visitors with the permission of their doctors.. They are forbidden to have sharp objects, but can receive candy and flowers. They also cut out paper dolls.
With these in mind, what single event could turn the situation around, prep the American people for war and assure a Democratic defeat in November? How about this?
As Obama is addressing an Iraqi crowd, as he well might do, some semi-deranged nutcase tries to shoot him. Perhaps a bomb goes off. Panic ensues. The President makes a speech bewailing the attempt and broadly hints that it was Iran, not Iraq, behind the action. The fleet, which has been staging maneuvers in the Gulf, steams into position and begins preparations for military action. Vice-president Cheney gears up his propaganda machine, bringing Karl Rove back from Fox News, and, with the help of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and other non-combatant war buffs, stirs up the American people with a rehash of the Axis of Evil theory. Only people who understand the nature of bad people can save the United States from the Iranian Menace. This is no time for appeasement. This is the time for Republican leadership.
If anyone thinks no one in Washington is capable of something so rotten, think again. Recall the Bush primary campaign of 2000, where McCain, running strongly against Bush, was accused of having fathered an illegitimate black baby and of showing cowardice while in enemy hands. Remember Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in combat, but was defeated for a Senate seat by a Republican who accused him of not showing sufficient patriotism. Who turned Swift Boat into a verb?
The long shadow of Richard Nixon is still present in White House halls. A little trick like this could be a piece of cake.
What happened to Mr. Obama would not be as important to the schemers as what could be done with the resultant rage of the American people. And nobody is capable of manipulating that rage better than the crew that has turned doublespeak into an art where it's bad to pay for things, but fine to borrow; where tax breaks for the wealthy are good for the economy, but better working conditions and better health benefits are inflationary.
This is what I meant when I wrote that I've never wanted more to be wrong. I don't like thinking like this. As someone who loves his country, I've seen what can happen when a bunch of tunnel-visioned would-be despots believe the end justifies the means. I don't think many of the people who have been active in despoiling our democracy are even aware of what they're doing. They probably think it's just part of doing business. It's a kind of Bottom Line.
I'm old enough to remember a group of gangsters who staged a fire in the German Reichstag which they blamed on communists, resulting in the rise of a strong leader who would put things right. I want my country to be better than that. I wish I could forget the stories about Weapons of Mass Destruction and an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda that got us into the longest war in our history. I wish I could believe again.
-30-
July 12, 2008
The Big Conspiracy
I've always loved conspiracies. They're always so exciting and fraught with intrigue. The Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy, for instance, can be presented in so many different lights that we can see villains no matter where we look. The CIA is always good. Lyndon Johnson looks a little villainous. Castro, the Mob and the Miami Cubans come in for a share of suspicion and everyone has a great time and goes to bed convinced SOMEBODY HAD IT IN FOR JACK. It's pretty obvious Lee Harvey Owswald did, but the rest is just wheel-spinning, good old American conjecture.
The Iraq War Conspiracy was too simple. Bush was an idiot. Cheney was a power-mad fanatic, Rumsfeld was – Rumsfeld, and the Congress was too frightened of being thought guilty of original thinking to do any investigating on its own. This conspiracy idea barely lasted eight years before settling down to a dull pain in the butt of democracy. Now, frighteningly, the Bogus Economist has envisioned a scenario that, if it actually occurred, could keep us wondering for decades. I want to make it clear that I earnestly hope I'm so full of it my eyes turn brown, but I can't get the thought out of my mind.
When Barack Obama goes to Iraq, it will be an historic occasion to which the whole world will be tuned. For the first time in almost a decade, someone will be going to the Middle East to present something besides bombast and baloney. After the Bush era, millions of people may begin to get the idea that America stands for something besides Big Oil and Getting More. Furthermore, present and future enemies – who are convinced the U.S. is an enemy not only of Islam, but anyone and anything that differs from its own notion of the world as it should be, may be drawn into dialog.
Now look at a couple of troubling factors while Mr. Obama is getting ready to go to the Middle East:
1.Anyone with more intelligence than a doorknob knows there are those in this Administration who are after Iran's oil just as they were after Iraq's.
2.People who are betting on the Republicans to avoid an election disaster are also receiving weekly visitors with the permission of their doctors.. They are forbidden to have sharp objects, but can receive candy and flowers. They also cut out paper dolls.
With these in mind, what single event could turn the situation around, prep the American people for war and assure a Democratic defeat in November? How about this?
As Obama is addressing an Iraqi crowd, as he well might do, some semi-deranged nutcase tries to shoot him. Perhaps a bomb goes off. Panic ensues. The President makes a speech bewailing the attempt and broadly hints that it was Iran, not Iraq, behind the action. The fleet, which has been staging maneuvers in the Gulf, steams into position and begins preparations for military action. Vice-president Cheney gears up his propaganda machine, bringing Karl Rove back from Fox News, and, with the help of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and other non-combatant war buffs, stirs up the American people with a rehash of the Axis of Evil theory. Only people who understand the nature of bad people can save the United States from the Iranian Menace. This is no time for appeasement. This is the time for Republican leadership.
If anyone thinks no one in Washington is capable of something so rotten, think again. Recall the Bush primary campaign of 2000, where McCain, running strongly against Bush, was accused of having fathered an illegitimate black baby and of showing cowardice while in enemy hands. Remember Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in combat, but was defeated for a Senate seat by a Republican who accused him of not showing sufficient patriotism. Who turned Swift Boat into a verb?
The long shadow of Richard Nixon is still present in White House halls. A little trick like this could be a piece of cake.
What happened to Mr. Obama would not be as important to the schemers as what could be done with the resultant rage of the American people. And nobody is capable of manipulating that rage better than the crew that has turned doublespeak into an art where it's bad to pay for things, but fine to borrow; where tax breaks for the wealthy are good for the economy, but better working conditions and better health benefits are inflationary.
This is what I meant when I wrote that I've never wanted more to be wrong. I don't like thinking like this. As someone who loves his country, I've seen what can happen when a bunch of tunnel-visioned would-be despots believe the end justifies the means. I don't think many of the people who have been active in despoiling our democracy are even aware of what they're doing. They probably think it's just part of doing business. It's a kind of Bottom Line.
I'm old enough to remember a group of gangsters who staged a fire in the German Reichstag which they blamed on communists, resulting in the rise of a strong leader who would put things right. I want my country to be better than that. I wish I could forget the stories about Weapons of Mass Destruction and an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda that got us into the longest war in our history. I wish I could believe again.
-30-
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Ready, Aim.....
THE BOGUS ECONOMIST
June 28, 2008
On Sept. 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden sprang a surprise on America which resulted in the deaths of over 3000 innocent people and spelled the beginning of the end of Patrick Henry's immortal (?) phrase, "Give me liberty or give me death."
As George W. Fierce demonstrated his determination to exterminate Osama by pulling troops out of Afghanistan to start a war in Iraq, he also revealed his revision of Henry's thoughts - "To hell with liberty, give me safety."
Somehow, under Bush, the whole principle of sacrifice for a noble cause turned into an undignified scramble for shelter in the face of a possible attack by a religious fundamentalist who confesses a genuine hatred of a civilization that features sex and luxury rather than prayer and asceticism. Fundamentalists on our side rushed into the fray with their own recipe for getting into heaven and outlined why their side was evil while ours was good.
Finally, with more dead in Iraq and Afghanistan than perished in the World Trade Center, Americans began clamoring for a little more logic and a little less rhetoric in how to articulate our principles to the world (the good side), which did not include murder and torture, which were weapons of the bad guys (the evil side).
Meanwhile, while continuing to pee on Henry's sentiments, the President and the Congress kept dreaming up new ways to keep us safe. We had our nail clippers confiscated. We took our shoes off. We let the government open our mail and intercept our electronic conversations. When the Bush boys wanted to tap our phones in order to see if any of us were talking to the Nasty People, we said O.K. Keep us safe, we begged. Nero fiddled while the Constitution burned.
Only one thing was exempt from this rush to safety. Guns. Everybody knows a nail clipper or a pair of cuticle scissors was far more dangerous than a .357 Magnum. Besides, the clippers and scissors people didn't have several million dollars to "influence" legislators to keep anti-gun laws off the books.
Liberty, then, could best be retained by letting us have our firearms because the Second Amendment said we should. So while we bowed to the Second, the First was going to hell in a handbasket.
Maybe it's because I'm old, but I think I'd rather die free than live constrained. I've lived long enough to know that once people have power, they don't like to let go of it and once citizens get used to being told "It's for your own good," they tend to get used to that, too.
I'm ready for more than change in presidents, although that will be pretty good all by itself. I'm ready for an America that's ready to pay higher taxes, cut back on consumption and even risk another 9/11 if it means keeping our head up and showing the world what we showed them during WW II. It's not just a vote against the policies of George W.
It's a vote for Patrick.
-30-
June 28, 2008
On Sept. 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden sprang a surprise on America which resulted in the deaths of over 3000 innocent people and spelled the beginning of the end of Patrick Henry's immortal (?) phrase, "Give me liberty or give me death."
As George W. Fierce demonstrated his determination to exterminate Osama by pulling troops out of Afghanistan to start a war in Iraq, he also revealed his revision of Henry's thoughts - "To hell with liberty, give me safety."
Somehow, under Bush, the whole principle of sacrifice for a noble cause turned into an undignified scramble for shelter in the face of a possible attack by a religious fundamentalist who confesses a genuine hatred of a civilization that features sex and luxury rather than prayer and asceticism. Fundamentalists on our side rushed into the fray with their own recipe for getting into heaven and outlined why their side was evil while ours was good.
Finally, with more dead in Iraq and Afghanistan than perished in the World Trade Center, Americans began clamoring for a little more logic and a little less rhetoric in how to articulate our principles to the world (the good side), which did not include murder and torture, which were weapons of the bad guys (the evil side).
Meanwhile, while continuing to pee on Henry's sentiments, the President and the Congress kept dreaming up new ways to keep us safe. We had our nail clippers confiscated. We took our shoes off. We let the government open our mail and intercept our electronic conversations. When the Bush boys wanted to tap our phones in order to see if any of us were talking to the Nasty People, we said O.K. Keep us safe, we begged. Nero fiddled while the Constitution burned.
Only one thing was exempt from this rush to safety. Guns. Everybody knows a nail clipper or a pair of cuticle scissors was far more dangerous than a .357 Magnum. Besides, the clippers and scissors people didn't have several million dollars to "influence" legislators to keep anti-gun laws off the books.
Liberty, then, could best be retained by letting us have our firearms because the Second Amendment said we should. So while we bowed to the Second, the First was going to hell in a handbasket.
Maybe it's because I'm old, but I think I'd rather die free than live constrained. I've lived long enough to know that once people have power, they don't like to let go of it and once citizens get used to being told "It's for your own good," they tend to get used to that, too.
I'm ready for more than change in presidents, although that will be pretty good all by itself. I'm ready for an America that's ready to pay higher taxes, cut back on consumption and even risk another 9/11 if it means keeping our head up and showing the world what we showed them during WW II. It's not just a vote against the policies of George W.
It's a vote for Patrick.
-30-
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Hellova job, Chu Kow
Contrasting the earthquake in China with the hurricane in Louisiana and Mississippi may seem silly since the United States is the most technologically advanced, wealthiest and efficient nation on earth while China is a nation struggling to keep its people fed under a communist dictatorship while also battling outmoded machinery and top-heavy bureaucracy. Right?
After an aftershock frightened survivors of a major disaster, the Chinese government managed to evacuate 800,000 people from the threatened area while still searching for possible survivors and laying out plans for rebuilding three weeks after the tragedy. In New Orleans, after three years, hundreds (the luckier ones) are still living in tent cities while thousands have been forced out of their makeshift mobile homes by poisonous amounts of formaldehyde. While hundreds of thousands of Chinese young people are giving up free time to administer aid to the homeless of Sichuan province, organization or provision for help by U.S. students was late, listless and lax.
President Bush's man on the job (several days after) was political appointee Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown. Just preparing a list of screw-ups by Mr. Brown would require another column, but before he was removed from the scene, (not fired), the president made his immortal comment, "Bronie, you're doing a hellova job." This was while some bodies still had not been recovered.
So does this mean that China has finally succeeded in rubbing our noses in our own inferiority, or does it signify that we had a lousy leader and, with someone competent, we sould have done it as well as the Chinese? The Bogus Economist, as usual, has a view.
First, I have to concede Goerge W. Bush's response to emergencies is about as fast as reaching Customer Service. On September 11, 2001, he spent seven minutes in a semi-daze as he continued reading "A Pet Goat" to a bunch of kindergartners. When Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, he decided to continue his vacation, visiting the Pueblo El Mirage RV and Golf Resort in El Mirage, Ariz.
The Chinese don't work that way. "Losing face" is an unforgiveable thing to do, so if for no other reason, Chinese leaders had to act - and act fast - to convince the people they knew what to do and how to do it. Apparently, in the U.S., our leaders don't feel the need to convince people except around election time. As far as losing face, they can always blame it on somebody else. This is one reason why Congress has an approval rating of 11, twelve points under President Bush.
Another factor is what happens to crooks in China as opposed to over here. We've seen countless instances of manipulation, kickbacks, fraud and graft with the only consequences being a slight slap on the wrist, a golden handshake or two and good old Chapter 11. In China, when the government says, "Heads will roll," one gets the feeling they aren't kidding.
Now, the Bogus is not advocating mass executions for the weasels who ignored scientific data about the New Orleans levees or the sloppy work done by overpaid private contractors to milk every possible buck out of the taxpayers. I would be happy, though, if some of them were wearing numbers across their chests. I'm not holding my breath.
I'd be even happier if we were living in a country where contractors, builders, doctors, teachers, mechanics and major corporations set aside their drive for money and said. "It doesn't matter where the disaster struck - it's part of my country."
That was a quote I heard last night from a Chinese high school girl.
Maybe we've been innoculated so many times with the confusion between money and virtue, we no longer can tell the difference. You'll remember how America was #1 in the estimation of the world after 9/11 and you may reflect on where we are now. In response to the Chinese disaster, the United States has contributed under three billion dollars. Saudi Arabia has given over fifty billion. If we spent one-tenth of the money we're spending on killing people to help people, we might earn the respect of the world as China, with the echo of its Tibetian policy still fresh in our minds, is doing now.
Hell of a job, China.
After an aftershock frightened survivors of a major disaster, the Chinese government managed to evacuate 800,000 people from the threatened area while still searching for possible survivors and laying out plans for rebuilding three weeks after the tragedy. In New Orleans, after three years, hundreds (the luckier ones) are still living in tent cities while thousands have been forced out of their makeshift mobile homes by poisonous amounts of formaldehyde. While hundreds of thousands of Chinese young people are giving up free time to administer aid to the homeless of Sichuan province, organization or provision for help by U.S. students was late, listless and lax.
President Bush's man on the job (several days after) was political appointee Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown. Just preparing a list of screw-ups by Mr. Brown would require another column, but before he was removed from the scene, (not fired), the president made his immortal comment, "Bronie, you're doing a hellova job." This was while some bodies still had not been recovered.
So does this mean that China has finally succeeded in rubbing our noses in our own inferiority, or does it signify that we had a lousy leader and, with someone competent, we sould have done it as well as the Chinese? The Bogus Economist, as usual, has a view.
First, I have to concede Goerge W. Bush's response to emergencies is about as fast as reaching Customer Service. On September 11, 2001, he spent seven minutes in a semi-daze as he continued reading "A Pet Goat" to a bunch of kindergartners. When Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, he decided to continue his vacation, visiting the Pueblo El Mirage RV and Golf Resort in El Mirage, Ariz.
The Chinese don't work that way. "Losing face" is an unforgiveable thing to do, so if for no other reason, Chinese leaders had to act - and act fast - to convince the people they knew what to do and how to do it. Apparently, in the U.S., our leaders don't feel the need to convince people except around election time. As far as losing face, they can always blame it on somebody else. This is one reason why Congress has an approval rating of 11, twelve points under President Bush.
Another factor is what happens to crooks in China as opposed to over here. We've seen countless instances of manipulation, kickbacks, fraud and graft with the only consequences being a slight slap on the wrist, a golden handshake or two and good old Chapter 11. In China, when the government says, "Heads will roll," one gets the feeling they aren't kidding.
Now, the Bogus is not advocating mass executions for the weasels who ignored scientific data about the New Orleans levees or the sloppy work done by overpaid private contractors to milk every possible buck out of the taxpayers. I would be happy, though, if some of them were wearing numbers across their chests. I'm not holding my breath.
I'd be even happier if we were living in a country where contractors, builders, doctors, teachers, mechanics and major corporations set aside their drive for money and said. "It doesn't matter where the disaster struck - it's part of my country."
That was a quote I heard last night from a Chinese high school girl.
Maybe we've been innoculated so many times with the confusion between money and virtue, we no longer can tell the difference. You'll remember how America was #1 in the estimation of the world after 9/11 and you may reflect on where we are now. In response to the Chinese disaster, the United States has contributed under three billion dollars. Saudi Arabia has given over fifty billion. If we spent one-tenth of the money we're spending on killing people to help people, we might earn the respect of the world as China, with the echo of its Tibetian policy still fresh in our minds, is doing now.
Hell of a job, China.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The Glories of Competition
The Bogus Economist
May 13, 2008
The news story about the couple from Mumbai, India, who were planning their dream home, a 400,000 square foot skyscraper costing about two billion dollars and employing a staff of six hundred, precipitated huge screams of protest from the Left and vast approval from the Right. The Bogus Economist finds himself, as usual, somewhere in the middle.
Sure, there is a somewhat gritty taste in the mouth at the thought of something like this in the midst of some of the most crashing poverty in the world, but everyone knows India is profiting mightily as the Best and the Brightest, having gotten a fine education at American colleges and universities, journey back to the Land of the Ganges to make some serious money at companies that have deserted the U.S. for even lower taxes and even cheaper labor.
One of the more serious consequences of the George W. Borrow presidency has been the upending of the traditional world view of America as the land of innovation and experimentation. As we relied more and more on foreign banks to prop up our unending pursuit of profit, we have employed less and less of the priceless "American Know-How" that once set the pace for the world. Whereas we once relied on the competitive spirit to produce products that could change and improve the lives of our citizens, we now prooduce carbon copies of what has already proven successful, adding only the phrase "all-new" to the ad copy.
Consider our automobiles, once the standard of the world. When I was a kid, I prided myself on being able to tell the make and year of almost anything on the road. Now, they all look basically alike, primarily because they're mostly made in the same place - somewhere else - and/or owned by multinational corporations who are scared crapless to do anything new until polls have assured them the public will buy what they're selling. Next, they have to buy enough legilators to make sure that the government (taxpayers) will reimburse them if they make a mistake and lose money. The easiest way to get this done is to pursuade the lawmakers to consider alll those poor workers who won't be able to support their families if, for example, Bear Stearns is allowed to go under. Considering the poor CEO, who walks away with a few million dollars worth of golden parachute, doesn't enter into it.
Competition, except among the super-large corporations, is mortally ill and in danger of extinction. This is why the two billion dollar home in Mumbai is just what the system needs. Think of it this way:
We seem to be living in a society where there's a one-to-one relationship between human worth and net worth. The more you have, the better you must be. The guy with the Bentley wants the Rolls. If my car costs $150,000, it must be better than yours at $125,000. Yachts keep getting bigger since 150 feet is better than 100. Therefore, when word of the two-billion buck pad starts spreading, the old competitive juices start flowing. If Man A is the fifth richest person in the country and builds a 400,000 square-foot house, the guy who is the fourth richest starts thinking, "Four hundred thousand? That's a doghouse! He wants big, I'll show him big!" Whereupon he assembles his architects to start designing the 600,000 square-foot residence across from the Taj Mahal in the shape of a gigantic "I."
The third richest, looking on with interest, decides building something that big takes too long, so he simply purchases the Los Angeles Colliseum and has it shipped.
The second richest, sensing that he's in danger of being eclipsed, buys Australia and has a dome put up over it.
By the time the contest is finished, hundreds of thousands of people are employed by some of the richest people in the world whose main desire is only to get richer than the next guy. The system benefits immensely since an entirely new layer is constructed over the old, tired labels of "millionaire," "dekamillionaire," "centimillionaire" and "billionaire." Now we can have "mansionnaire," "chateauner," "palacite," "skyscrapian" and "trumper."
As for the richest guy, he has to think a lot, but finally comes up with his own solution. Above the entrance to his own, private city-state, he puts up a sign:
"Let Them Eat Cake."
-30-
May 13, 2008
The news story about the couple from Mumbai, India, who were planning their dream home, a 400,000 square foot skyscraper costing about two billion dollars and employing a staff of six hundred, precipitated huge screams of protest from the Left and vast approval from the Right. The Bogus Economist finds himself, as usual, somewhere in the middle.
Sure, there is a somewhat gritty taste in the mouth at the thought of something like this in the midst of some of the most crashing poverty in the world, but everyone knows India is profiting mightily as the Best and the Brightest, having gotten a fine education at American colleges and universities, journey back to the Land of the Ganges to make some serious money at companies that have deserted the U.S. for even lower taxes and even cheaper labor.
One of the more serious consequences of the George W. Borrow presidency has been the upending of the traditional world view of America as the land of innovation and experimentation. As we relied more and more on foreign banks to prop up our unending pursuit of profit, we have employed less and less of the priceless "American Know-How" that once set the pace for the world. Whereas we once relied on the competitive spirit to produce products that could change and improve the lives of our citizens, we now prooduce carbon copies of what has already proven successful, adding only the phrase "all-new" to the ad copy.
Consider our automobiles, once the standard of the world. When I was a kid, I prided myself on being able to tell the make and year of almost anything on the road. Now, they all look basically alike, primarily because they're mostly made in the same place - somewhere else - and/or owned by multinational corporations who are scared crapless to do anything new until polls have assured them the public will buy what they're selling. Next, they have to buy enough legilators to make sure that the government (taxpayers) will reimburse them if they make a mistake and lose money. The easiest way to get this done is to pursuade the lawmakers to consider alll those poor workers who won't be able to support their families if, for example, Bear Stearns is allowed to go under. Considering the poor CEO, who walks away with a few million dollars worth of golden parachute, doesn't enter into it.
Competition, except among the super-large corporations, is mortally ill and in danger of extinction. This is why the two billion dollar home in Mumbai is just what the system needs. Think of it this way:
We seem to be living in a society where there's a one-to-one relationship between human worth and net worth. The more you have, the better you must be. The guy with the Bentley wants the Rolls. If my car costs $150,000, it must be better than yours at $125,000. Yachts keep getting bigger since 150 feet is better than 100. Therefore, when word of the two-billion buck pad starts spreading, the old competitive juices start flowing. If Man A is the fifth richest person in the country and builds a 400,000 square-foot house, the guy who is the fourth richest starts thinking, "Four hundred thousand? That's a doghouse! He wants big, I'll show him big!" Whereupon he assembles his architects to start designing the 600,000 square-foot residence across from the Taj Mahal in the shape of a gigantic "I."
The third richest, looking on with interest, decides building something that big takes too long, so he simply purchases the Los Angeles Colliseum and has it shipped.
The second richest, sensing that he's in danger of being eclipsed, buys Australia and has a dome put up over it.
By the time the contest is finished, hundreds of thousands of people are employed by some of the richest people in the world whose main desire is only to get richer than the next guy. The system benefits immensely since an entirely new layer is constructed over the old, tired labels of "millionaire," "dekamillionaire," "centimillionaire" and "billionaire." Now we can have "mansionnaire," "chateauner," "palacite," "skyscrapian" and "trumper."
As for the richest guy, he has to think a lot, but finally comes up with his own solution. Above the entrance to his own, private city-state, he puts up a sign:
"Let Them Eat Cake."
-30-
Friday, March 28, 2008
I Liked Ike
Vol.2 No. 87 March 28, 2008
The Bogus Economist
I liked Ike
There's good news and bad news. The bad news is more people lost their homes so far this year than at any comparable period in the last twelve years. The good news is Exxon-Mobil made over forty billion dollars in 2007, the highest yearly profit for any corporation in United States history. Whether or not you're cheering depends on how you view the opinions of a famous Republican president.
Last year, the papers were full of the hot debate in the House of Representatives about whether to turn off the ten-billion-plus-dollars-a-year spigot in taxpayer-financed tax breaks for Exxon and other energy companies. Some argued that this would be grossly unfair to Exxon shareholders and could put a crimp in our nation's oil supply. Others pointed out making Exxon a target would be alarming since our generous government provides over a hundred billion dollars in corporate tax breaks and if it fenced off one section of the trough, it would be a threat to the other diners.
While we were able to listen to the hard-driving, albeit short-lived, campaign of John Edwards, we heard the theme: “Why is the government in the business of wet-nursing corporations when millions of individuals are in deep trouble?” That's an interesting question.
In choosing between government and free-market solutions, Republican candidates, to a man, invoke the spirit of Ronald Reagan to justify the opinion that the government is not the answer, but the problem. These people favor the “invisible hand” of the market to make things right. Conspicuously absent are the words of another Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower: “As we peer into society's future," he said, “we must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
I voted for Mr. Eisenhower in 1952, largely in support of ideas like these. I wore an “I Like Ike” button. This was the guy who was offered the nomination for President by both parties. He was the general who led allied troops to victory in World War II. Sixty-three years later, we might still want to pay attention.
Would Ike would be cheering the news about Exxon? I suspect, in normal circumstances, he would. Good Republicans cheer successful companies as they cheer successful people. Whether he would cheer so loudly if he knew Exxon's profits were due in no small part to the taxes of people who could be losing their homes is another question. Although businesses were a lot smaller in his day, Eisenhower knew the dangers of allowing either commerce or the military to assume too much of a role in America's future. In his most famous speech, he called this danger “the military-industrial complex.”
Today, the role of government versus private industry is more in the front of our presidential campaign than ever. It might be a good idea to examine the thoughts of a man who had the support of everybody from General Motors to the guy fixing bicycles: “I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”
Putting our requirements and desires in order isn't an easy job. For instance, everyone agrees that private companies are generally more efficient than government agencies, mostly because private companies can pick whom they serve while government agencies can't. How do we want to choose?
As an example, we're getting to the point where we're going to have to make some tough decisions on health care, mostly about who gets what. There will be considerable argument about costs, especially considering the War on Terror. Well, General Eisenhower had something to say about our priorities, too: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Was Ike a “liberal?” Try this one: “In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?” Sounds like common sense to me.
But maybe what he said about the basis on which we should pick our leaders is my favorite: “The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.”
I liked Ike.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: To all those who follow this column, I regret telling you this is my last one for the News-Times. Thank you for the more than 150 letters and e-mails and for your encouragement and support. It's been fun and I'll miss it.
Dick Brandlon
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
The Bogus Economist
I liked Ike
There's good news and bad news. The bad news is more people lost their homes so far this year than at any comparable period in the last twelve years. The good news is Exxon-Mobil made over forty billion dollars in 2007, the highest yearly profit for any corporation in United States history. Whether or not you're cheering depends on how you view the opinions of a famous Republican president.
Last year, the papers were full of the hot debate in the House of Representatives about whether to turn off the ten-billion-plus-dollars-a-year spigot in taxpayer-financed tax breaks for Exxon and other energy companies. Some argued that this would be grossly unfair to Exxon shareholders and could put a crimp in our nation's oil supply. Others pointed out making Exxon a target would be alarming since our generous government provides over a hundred billion dollars in corporate tax breaks and if it fenced off one section of the trough, it would be a threat to the other diners.
While we were able to listen to the hard-driving, albeit short-lived, campaign of John Edwards, we heard the theme: “Why is the government in the business of wet-nursing corporations when millions of individuals are in deep trouble?” That's an interesting question.
In choosing between government and free-market solutions, Republican candidates, to a man, invoke the spirit of Ronald Reagan to justify the opinion that the government is not the answer, but the problem. These people favor the “invisible hand” of the market to make things right. Conspicuously absent are the words of another Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower: “As we peer into society's future," he said, “we must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
I voted for Mr. Eisenhower in 1952, largely in support of ideas like these. I wore an “I Like Ike” button. This was the guy who was offered the nomination for President by both parties. He was the general who led allied troops to victory in World War II. Sixty-three years later, we might still want to pay attention.
Would Ike would be cheering the news about Exxon? I suspect, in normal circumstances, he would. Good Republicans cheer successful companies as they cheer successful people. Whether he would cheer so loudly if he knew Exxon's profits were due in no small part to the taxes of people who could be losing their homes is another question. Although businesses were a lot smaller in his day, Eisenhower knew the dangers of allowing either commerce or the military to assume too much of a role in America's future. In his most famous speech, he called this danger “the military-industrial complex.”
Today, the role of government versus private industry is more in the front of our presidential campaign than ever. It might be a good idea to examine the thoughts of a man who had the support of everybody from General Motors to the guy fixing bicycles: “I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”
Putting our requirements and desires in order isn't an easy job. For instance, everyone agrees that private companies are generally more efficient than government agencies, mostly because private companies can pick whom they serve while government agencies can't. How do we want to choose?
As an example, we're getting to the point where we're going to have to make some tough decisions on health care, mostly about who gets what. There will be considerable argument about costs, especially considering the War on Terror. Well, General Eisenhower had something to say about our priorities, too: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Was Ike a “liberal?” Try this one: “In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?” Sounds like common sense to me.
But maybe what he said about the basis on which we should pick our leaders is my favorite: “The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.”
I liked Ike.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: To all those who follow this column, I regret telling you this is my last one for the News-Times. Thank you for the more than 150 letters and e-mails and for your encouragement and support. It's been fun and I'll miss it.
Dick Brandlon
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
Monday, March 03, 2008
Pants on Fire
Vol. 2 No. 84 Feb. 29, 2008
The Bogus Economist
Pants on Fire
It's been over a month since we first heard the report of 935 false statements by the Bush Administration in the two years after 9/11 and I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Administration didn't talk much about it, which can be understood, but neither did the Loyal Opposition, which seems to be more loyal than opposition. Charging an Administration with lying a country into a war doesn't seem to be minor news. Of course, the report could have been just another load of horse puckey, in which case it deserved to be ignored, but being dropped didn't kill it.
Like a seed, the thing went dormant for a couple of weeks, sent down tiny roots and, by the end of February, stuck its first little shoot above ground, where an alert Bogus Economist spotted it and, like any good investigator, submitted it to an interview.
“Good morning, Mister or Miss Shoot,” I said, “What brings you to our fair land?” The shoot consulted its notes and replied in a distinctly Eastern accent that since it couldn't get a hearing on TV, it was taking its case directly to the people.
“I've got a list of almost a thousand fibbies scattered by the White House in the two years after 9/11,” said the shoot, “including 532 statements linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. These statements left no room for argument. They were definite. Over two hundred fifty of them were made by the President.”
“But that means Mr. Bush led the country into war under false pretenses,” I gasped.
“Right,” agreed the shoot, “Now excuse me, I've got to continue growing.”
Naturally, I was taken aback by this information since the shoot was correct in saying his/her charges had not been widely broadcast by the media. Could the shoot be part of a smear campaign against Mr. Bush to balance the ones Karl Rove used so effectively against the Democrats and even against John McCain? Where did the story start? Maybe it was in the left corner of somebody's basement. I went to Google.
I found the authors of the study were Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith and that it had been published on the website of the Center for Public Integrity. Was this a fly-by-night outfit? Back to Google. Well, it seems Mr. Lewis started the Center in 1989 after an eleven year career in television journalism, including a job as a producer for “60 Minutes.” The Center has published over 250 investigative reports, fourteen books, including “The Buying of the President ,“(1996) (2000) (2004) and “The Buying of Congress.” Concerning its accuracy, it had won awards from the Society of Professional Journalists, the National Press Foundation and several others. The Center might be tilted a bit left, but it had solid credentials.
After the charges were made, Presidential Press Secretary Dana Perino was indignant. “I hardly think that the study is worth spending time on. It is so flawed, in terms of taking anything into context or including, I mean, they only looked at members of the administration, rather than looking at members of Congress or people around the world.” I see. That makes it O.K. Thanks, Ms Perino, I feel a lot better.
Whoever is right, we're certainly entitled to know if the guy who won the presidency not once, but twice, told us a stack of whoppers. The Center's judgment was harsh: “The Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.” This is strong stuff and deserves our attention. After all, deliberately lying to advance a political cause that causes damage to Americans isn't in the same league as jaywalking.
Heaven knows lying isn't new. Politicians have been lying since the time of Federalists and Whigs, although words like “spin” were invented lately to make it sound friendlier. In recent times, I can think of Reagan fibbing about arms sales to Iran, George H.W. Bush's forked-tongue pledge on taxes, Clinton's fairy tales about you-know-what and our present president's myth about his military service. A good percentage of people believe they can tell a politician is lying because his lips are moving. However, while a lie is one thing; nearly a thousand of them in two years by one administration is another. These are big time Liar-Liar-Pants-on-Fire numbers.
The American way of settling things isn't to fight about whether or not Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney “spun” us into war, but rather to find somebody who can look into the whole matter fairly, render a decision and, if the Center (and the shoot) are right, have a trial to determine the extent of the deception. If they were wrong, we should raise hell and demand a public retraction and a very public apology, complete with front page headlines. It's simple as pie. People a lot smarter than we are have already told us how it should be done. You can find it in the Constitution. If you don't remember how it works, ask Bill Clinton.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
The Bogus Economist
Pants on Fire
It's been over a month since we first heard the report of 935 false statements by the Bush Administration in the two years after 9/11 and I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Administration didn't talk much about it, which can be understood, but neither did the Loyal Opposition, which seems to be more loyal than opposition. Charging an Administration with lying a country into a war doesn't seem to be minor news. Of course, the report could have been just another load of horse puckey, in which case it deserved to be ignored, but being dropped didn't kill it.
Like a seed, the thing went dormant for a couple of weeks, sent down tiny roots and, by the end of February, stuck its first little shoot above ground, where an alert Bogus Economist spotted it and, like any good investigator, submitted it to an interview.
“Good morning, Mister or Miss Shoot,” I said, “What brings you to our fair land?” The shoot consulted its notes and replied in a distinctly Eastern accent that since it couldn't get a hearing on TV, it was taking its case directly to the people.
“I've got a list of almost a thousand fibbies scattered by the White House in the two years after 9/11,” said the shoot, “including 532 statements linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. These statements left no room for argument. They were definite. Over two hundred fifty of them were made by the President.”
“But that means Mr. Bush led the country into war under false pretenses,” I gasped.
“Right,” agreed the shoot, “Now excuse me, I've got to continue growing.”
Naturally, I was taken aback by this information since the shoot was correct in saying his/her charges had not been widely broadcast by the media. Could the shoot be part of a smear campaign against Mr. Bush to balance the ones Karl Rove used so effectively against the Democrats and even against John McCain? Where did the story start? Maybe it was in the left corner of somebody's basement. I went to Google.
I found the authors of the study were Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith and that it had been published on the website of the Center for Public Integrity. Was this a fly-by-night outfit? Back to Google. Well, it seems Mr. Lewis started the Center in 1989 after an eleven year career in television journalism, including a job as a producer for “60 Minutes.” The Center has published over 250 investigative reports, fourteen books, including “The Buying of the President ,“(1996) (2000) (2004) and “The Buying of Congress.” Concerning its accuracy, it had won awards from the Society of Professional Journalists, the National Press Foundation and several others. The Center might be tilted a bit left, but it had solid credentials.
After the charges were made, Presidential Press Secretary Dana Perino was indignant. “I hardly think that the study is worth spending time on. It is so flawed, in terms of taking anything into context or including, I mean, they only looked at members of the administration, rather than looking at members of Congress or people around the world.” I see. That makes it O.K. Thanks, Ms Perino, I feel a lot better.
Whoever is right, we're certainly entitled to know if the guy who won the presidency not once, but twice, told us a stack of whoppers. The Center's judgment was harsh: “The Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.” This is strong stuff and deserves our attention. After all, deliberately lying to advance a political cause that causes damage to Americans isn't in the same league as jaywalking.
Heaven knows lying isn't new. Politicians have been lying since the time of Federalists and Whigs, although words like “spin” were invented lately to make it sound friendlier. In recent times, I can think of Reagan fibbing about arms sales to Iran, George H.W. Bush's forked-tongue pledge on taxes, Clinton's fairy tales about you-know-what and our present president's myth about his military service. A good percentage of people believe they can tell a politician is lying because his lips are moving. However, while a lie is one thing; nearly a thousand of them in two years by one administration is another. These are big time Liar-Liar-Pants-on-Fire numbers.
The American way of settling things isn't to fight about whether or not Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney “spun” us into war, but rather to find somebody who can look into the whole matter fairly, render a decision and, if the Center (and the shoot) are right, have a trial to determine the extent of the deception. If they were wrong, we should raise hell and demand a public retraction and a very public apology, complete with front page headlines. It's simple as pie. People a lot smarter than we are have already told us how it should be done. You can find it in the Constitution. If you don't remember how it works, ask Bill Clinton.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Sales
Vol.2 No. 83 February 15, 2008
The Bogus Economist
Sales
Ever since I wrote about our government being for sale, I've been a lot more sensitive to sales, generally. Over the last three months, I've been bombarded by Pre-Christmas Sales, Post-Christmas Sales,, End-of-the-Year Sales, Beginning-of-the Year Sales and some more imaginative ideas like Santa Sale, Kick Back Sale, Employee Pricing Sale and This is It Sale. It wouldn't have surprised me too much to see a Les Schwab Scratch-and-Sniff Tire Sale or a Two for One event at the local mortuary.
According to my trusty dictionary, a sale is “the exchange of a commodity for money.” However, the way we seem to hear the word is “the exchange of a commodity for far, far less money than it's worth.” Presto! A bargain! Hence, lots of sales.
The Law of Unintended Consequences dictates any action will set off an unwanted reaction. One of my strongest reactions to Big Sales is “If an item is selling at a fifty percent discount, how much was I ripped off when it was full price? If a store is still making money at half of what it was, how much have they made on stuff that was sold for twice what I could have paid later?”
That's one question. Another is the paradox of infinite expandability. I saw a sign advertising “Huge Discount Sale – up to 70% AND MORE!” Hold on. What does “up to” mean if there's MORE? If I were in a building and the elevator went up to the thirtieth floor AND HIGHER, would I eventually reach Heaven? Would going down to the Bargain Basement AND LOWER lead me to perdition? I can hardly wait for a “Hundred Percent and More Sale” where they'll give me money to take the stuff away.
I discussed sales with a real, honest-to-goodness economist, Dr. John Cooper, a former professor at Lewis and Clark College and, at present, a successful real estate broker. He talked about the differences between products that are socially useful and products we are taught to want through advertising, which Dr. Cooper says drives our consumption. So who's driving the drivers?
Once, the villain was often pictured as an old man rubbing his palms together. “Ah,” he was chortling, ”Here is a new design that looks like a pregnant fireplug. All I have to do is pin a French-sounding label on it, mark it at $450.00 and advertise it at thirty percent off. The women will knock down the doors.” Women are smarter nowadays, but both sexes will shell out $6.99 for something they won't touch for seven bucks. It's not spending the extra penny, either. Research shows that we ignore the pennies and concentrate on the dollars. Seven is more than six. If there is a sign reading “BIG SALE!! Two dollars apiece – three for $6.99,” there are some who will buy three.
The “Nothing Down” sale is fun, especially when you don't have to make a payment until 2009 or so. If there's anything more absurd than making you pay for something until it's worn out, it's making sure it's worn out before you have to pay for it. This leaves you needing a replacement, which can be bought with nothing down and no payments until 2011.
Does the Bogus Economist advocate the end of sales? Heavens, no! Trying to economize and get as much as possible for a shrinking dollar is becoming a way of life for more and more of us. All The Bogus wants is for the value to be real and for the buyer to be aware of what he or she is getting for the buck. This is called Truth in Lending and has been fought tooth and nail by many manufacturers because they're mortally afraid consumers might discover the money goes for the packaging instead of the product. If you don't believe me, check the labels of some headache remedies. When a sale seems like a chance to get something for much less than you've been told it's worth, the key word is “told.”
There wouldn't be any problem at all with sales if we knew what the price of the product was to start with. For instance, I know cotton candy is composed roughly of a spoonful of sugar and some air. The cost of the product, including mechanical wear and tear, is about a nickel. The last time I bought cotton candy it set me back a dollar. This is a huge profit margin, but I don't mind. I know how much the stuff costs. I like cotton candy and I'll pay it. But how about an iPod or a Starbuck's mocha? Or a box of cereal? Or a Barbie? Should the buyer be told the cost of manufacture? How about the wholesale price?
There have been a number of efforts to get this information out, but all have been defeated on the grounds that telling customers how much profit the companies were making would reveal proprietary secrets to competitors. Instead, we get the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP), which allows dealers to “slash” prices in order to offer great – SALES!!!!
Ready for Mothers' Day? Fathers' Day? Fourth of July? Don't worry. You can practice on Presidents' Day. It's just around the corner.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
The Bogus Economist
Sales
Ever since I wrote about our government being for sale, I've been a lot more sensitive to sales, generally. Over the last three months, I've been bombarded by Pre-Christmas Sales, Post-Christmas Sales,, End-of-the-Year Sales, Beginning-of-the Year Sales and some more imaginative ideas like Santa Sale, Kick Back Sale, Employee Pricing Sale and This is It Sale. It wouldn't have surprised me too much to see a Les Schwab Scratch-and-Sniff Tire Sale or a Two for One event at the local mortuary.
According to my trusty dictionary, a sale is “the exchange of a commodity for money.” However, the way we seem to hear the word is “the exchange of a commodity for far, far less money than it's worth.” Presto! A bargain! Hence, lots of sales.
The Law of Unintended Consequences dictates any action will set off an unwanted reaction. One of my strongest reactions to Big Sales is “If an item is selling at a fifty percent discount, how much was I ripped off when it was full price? If a store is still making money at half of what it was, how much have they made on stuff that was sold for twice what I could have paid later?”
That's one question. Another is the paradox of infinite expandability. I saw a sign advertising “Huge Discount Sale – up to 70% AND MORE!” Hold on. What does “up to” mean if there's MORE? If I were in a building and the elevator went up to the thirtieth floor AND HIGHER, would I eventually reach Heaven? Would going down to the Bargain Basement AND LOWER lead me to perdition? I can hardly wait for a “Hundred Percent and More Sale” where they'll give me money to take the stuff away.
I discussed sales with a real, honest-to-goodness economist, Dr. John Cooper, a former professor at Lewis and Clark College and, at present, a successful real estate broker. He talked about the differences between products that are socially useful and products we are taught to want through advertising, which Dr. Cooper says drives our consumption. So who's driving the drivers?
Once, the villain was often pictured as an old man rubbing his palms together. “Ah,” he was chortling, ”Here is a new design that looks like a pregnant fireplug. All I have to do is pin a French-sounding label on it, mark it at $450.00 and advertise it at thirty percent off. The women will knock down the doors.” Women are smarter nowadays, but both sexes will shell out $6.99 for something they won't touch for seven bucks. It's not spending the extra penny, either. Research shows that we ignore the pennies and concentrate on the dollars. Seven is more than six. If there is a sign reading “BIG SALE!! Two dollars apiece – three for $6.99,” there are some who will buy three.
The “Nothing Down” sale is fun, especially when you don't have to make a payment until 2009 or so. If there's anything more absurd than making you pay for something until it's worn out, it's making sure it's worn out before you have to pay for it. This leaves you needing a replacement, which can be bought with nothing down and no payments until 2011.
Does the Bogus Economist advocate the end of sales? Heavens, no! Trying to economize and get as much as possible for a shrinking dollar is becoming a way of life for more and more of us. All The Bogus wants is for the value to be real and for the buyer to be aware of what he or she is getting for the buck. This is called Truth in Lending and has been fought tooth and nail by many manufacturers because they're mortally afraid consumers might discover the money goes for the packaging instead of the product. If you don't believe me, check the labels of some headache remedies. When a sale seems like a chance to get something for much less than you've been told it's worth, the key word is “told.”
There wouldn't be any problem at all with sales if we knew what the price of the product was to start with. For instance, I know cotton candy is composed roughly of a spoonful of sugar and some air. The cost of the product, including mechanical wear and tear, is about a nickel. The last time I bought cotton candy it set me back a dollar. This is a huge profit margin, but I don't mind. I know how much the stuff costs. I like cotton candy and I'll pay it. But how about an iPod or a Starbuck's mocha? Or a box of cereal? Or a Barbie? Should the buyer be told the cost of manufacture? How about the wholesale price?
There have been a number of efforts to get this information out, but all have been defeated on the grounds that telling customers how much profit the companies were making would reveal proprietary secrets to competitors. Instead, we get the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP), which allows dealers to “slash” prices in order to offer great – SALES!!!!
Ready for Mothers' Day? Fathers' Day? Fourth of July? Don't worry. You can practice on Presidents' Day. It's just around the corner.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Vol. 2, No. 82 Feb. 1, 2008
The Bogus Economist
Got Change?
As Iowa and New Hampshire's caucuses and primaries become history, South Carolina and Florida's pass into the past and the February 5 “tsunami” looms large on the horizon, I have to confess – I'm confused.
I'm not confused about the Democratic candidates. Their aims seem to be pretty clear, i.e. be whatever George W. Bush isn't. If that fails, they can summon up the image of Dick Cheney, contrast his horns and tail with the wings and halos of the nearest Democrat, and move on. It's the Republican candidates who puzzle me.
Every G.O.P. hopeful, from Rudy Guiliani to Ron Paul, is calling for change. If the political campaign were to have a slogan, it could be “Got Change?” There are more appeals for change than you get walking through downtown Portland. I can understand Democrats yelling for change, but I don't understand the Republicans.
Change, just in case I'm missing the point, implies that something needs to be fixed. If something needs to be fixed, it has to be broken. If it's broken, someone broke it. Democrats agree the breaker was George W. Bush. What confuses me is who was the “someone” for the Republicans?
One doesn't expect anybody running for office to come right out and say the leader of their party was flat out wrong. The Democrats didn't say it for Lyndon Johnson and the Republicans didn't say it for Richard Nixon, although history shows both of them definitely were. But here we have McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Paul et. al. calling for a “change of direction,” a “change of focus,” and a “change of strategy.” Whose strategy needs changing?
In the last seven years, during six of which they controlled Congress, Republicans have been marching side by side with Mr. Bush in his efforts to implement his version of compassionate conservatism. They've praised his strength of character, singleness of vision and unwillingness to compromise. They've strenuously backed his tax cuts for higher incomes, fewer regulations for corporations, increasing government surveillance of private correspondence in the name of national security and his conviction that bringing American-style democracy to the world would be greeted with cheers and celebrations. In the face of an obvious absence of cheers, we also had a curious absence of boos.
In the words of Mr. Bush, you're either for him or against him. Therefore, anyone still backing the Bush policies should have the intestinal fortitude to say so, as John McCain is doing in the case of the Iraq war. The same goes for opposing them, as Ron Paul does. Merely bleating for change doesn't mean beans. In the words of Shakespeare, it's “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
So how about the Democrats? During the years the public approved of the Bush policies, Democrats were quiet as mice, with occasional exceptions like the 2000 and 2004 elections, which were bad years for mice. Now, since 2006, all the Democandidates (new word) have been dogfighting about which one was against Bush's policies first. Suddenly we have roaring mice.
Meanwhile, confusion deepens. No fewer than three Republican candidates have called for “restoring American prestige in the world.” Using the Bogus argument, before you can restore something, you have to lose it. If American prestige has been lost, who lost it? It's not only the mice that should be smelling stale cheese.
Explanations are called for, but I'm not hearing any. Instead, I'm told to consider Clinton's teary eyes or whether Obama did drugs when he was a kid. A group calling itself Vietnam Veterans Against McCain is accusing the Arizona senator of collaborating with the enemy during his years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam (sound familiar?). O.K. Do we want a robot who doesn't cry? Should doing drugs disqualify a president? (Oops) Would McCain have been better off with five Vietnam deferments? (Oops, again) Enough nastiness. Let's talk about issues.
If we want change, let's point out what led to the need for change. For instance, if globalization is threatening jobs and putting U.S. workers into a race for the bottom, let's figure out where it started, say, with Clinton's NAFTA proposals and how it continued unchecked through Bush's CAFTA and so on. This is strictly bi-partisan stuff.
We should find out whom globalization is benefitting. Are the workers or the companies getting the most out of the deal? Are the countries trading with us coming out better, or are we? Is globalization responsible for lowering our national standard of living? If we don't like the answers, we can move on to the next item: elect someone who can figure out how to change it.
To me, the main issue is getting back to a world where we're looked up to and respected for what we represent. We're certainly not there now. My personal opinion is this is mostly because we've had inferior leadership. Therefore, I'm planning to campaign for a change in that leadership.
If we're willing to work toward the kind of government we want, we might get a set of people in Washington who can put the country ahead of political party or special interest cash and legislate for the people who elected them – for a change.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
The Bogus Economist
Got Change?
As Iowa and New Hampshire's caucuses and primaries become history, South Carolina and Florida's pass into the past and the February 5 “tsunami” looms large on the horizon, I have to confess – I'm confused.
I'm not confused about the Democratic candidates. Their aims seem to be pretty clear, i.e. be whatever George W. Bush isn't. If that fails, they can summon up the image of Dick Cheney, contrast his horns and tail with the wings and halos of the nearest Democrat, and move on. It's the Republican candidates who puzzle me.
Every G.O.P. hopeful, from Rudy Guiliani to Ron Paul, is calling for change. If the political campaign were to have a slogan, it could be “Got Change?” There are more appeals for change than you get walking through downtown Portland. I can understand Democrats yelling for change, but I don't understand the Republicans.
Change, just in case I'm missing the point, implies that something needs to be fixed. If something needs to be fixed, it has to be broken. If it's broken, someone broke it. Democrats agree the breaker was George W. Bush. What confuses me is who was the “someone” for the Republicans?
One doesn't expect anybody running for office to come right out and say the leader of their party was flat out wrong. The Democrats didn't say it for Lyndon Johnson and the Republicans didn't say it for Richard Nixon, although history shows both of them definitely were. But here we have McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Paul et. al. calling for a “change of direction,” a “change of focus,” and a “change of strategy.” Whose strategy needs changing?
In the last seven years, during six of which they controlled Congress, Republicans have been marching side by side with Mr. Bush in his efforts to implement his version of compassionate conservatism. They've praised his strength of character, singleness of vision and unwillingness to compromise. They've strenuously backed his tax cuts for higher incomes, fewer regulations for corporations, increasing government surveillance of private correspondence in the name of national security and his conviction that bringing American-style democracy to the world would be greeted with cheers and celebrations. In the face of an obvious absence of cheers, we also had a curious absence of boos.
In the words of Mr. Bush, you're either for him or against him. Therefore, anyone still backing the Bush policies should have the intestinal fortitude to say so, as John McCain is doing in the case of the Iraq war. The same goes for opposing them, as Ron Paul does. Merely bleating for change doesn't mean beans. In the words of Shakespeare, it's “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
So how about the Democrats? During the years the public approved of the Bush policies, Democrats were quiet as mice, with occasional exceptions like the 2000 and 2004 elections, which were bad years for mice. Now, since 2006, all the Democandidates (new word) have been dogfighting about which one was against Bush's policies first. Suddenly we have roaring mice.
Meanwhile, confusion deepens. No fewer than three Republican candidates have called for “restoring American prestige in the world.” Using the Bogus argument, before you can restore something, you have to lose it. If American prestige has been lost, who lost it? It's not only the mice that should be smelling stale cheese.
Explanations are called for, but I'm not hearing any. Instead, I'm told to consider Clinton's teary eyes or whether Obama did drugs when he was a kid. A group calling itself Vietnam Veterans Against McCain is accusing the Arizona senator of collaborating with the enemy during his years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam (sound familiar?). O.K. Do we want a robot who doesn't cry? Should doing drugs disqualify a president? (Oops) Would McCain have been better off with five Vietnam deferments? (Oops, again) Enough nastiness. Let's talk about issues.
If we want change, let's point out what led to the need for change. For instance, if globalization is threatening jobs and putting U.S. workers into a race for the bottom, let's figure out where it started, say, with Clinton's NAFTA proposals and how it continued unchecked through Bush's CAFTA and so on. This is strictly bi-partisan stuff.
We should find out whom globalization is benefitting. Are the workers or the companies getting the most out of the deal? Are the countries trading with us coming out better, or are we? Is globalization responsible for lowering our national standard of living? If we don't like the answers, we can move on to the next item: elect someone who can figure out how to change it.
To me, the main issue is getting back to a world where we're looked up to and respected for what we represent. We're certainly not there now. My personal opinion is this is mostly because we've had inferior leadership. Therefore, I'm planning to campaign for a change in that leadership.
If we're willing to work toward the kind of government we want, we might get a set of people in Washington who can put the country ahead of political party or special interest cash and legislate for the people who elected them – for a change.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Vol. 2 No. 82 Jan 18, 2008
The Bogus Economist
Money Talks
We live in a monied age. I was reading about Steve Jobs, the fabled co-founder and CEO of Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer), biggest stockholder of Walt Disney Corporation, former head of Pixar (“Finding Nemo,””Ratatouille”) and number 95 on Time Magazine’s list of the 100 most influential Americans. One would expect a man with such a resume to collect a substantial paycheck. Yes and no. For the record, Jobs earns a dollar a year – a salary barely enough for a real apple, let alone a 24-inch super-duper iMac with iDisk, iPhone, iTouch and iWant. But Forbes Magazine last spring declared Jobs the highest paid CEO in the United States. Factoring in a little thing called “stock options,” the right to buy stock at a future time at a fixed price, Jobs' yearly income totaled $646,000,000 or, roughly, one million, eight hundred thousand dollars a day. That's a lot of apples.
Forbes figured the CEOs of America's 500 biggest companies, including some whose companies actually lost money, got raises last year averaging more than seven million dollars. Meanwhile a Pew Charitable Trust report shows just six percent of American children whose family income ranked in the bottom fifth in 1976 were able to work their way into the top fifth in 2006. Forty-two percent of kids born into that lowest fifth were still stuck there, having been unable to climb a single rung of the economic ladder in the same time period. Either we have an awful lot of lazy people among the poor or the American Dream has become the American Mirage.
It's one thing to know in your head that something is true. It's different when you start sensing it in your innards. Like many Americans, I feel something's wrong with the promise of the country – that's it's a little off kilter – there's something out of whack. I think the Pew Trust report helped me nail it down: we're burying democracy with the shovel of unrestrained greed.
Think about it: in America today, which is more important, money or people? I've asked that of folks ranging from doctors to garbage collectors and not one has picked people. I've read countless examples of decisions which impact the lives of families and were justified by “Nothing personal – it's just business.” Two months ago, a couple committed suicide after their house was foreclosed. Just business? Nothing personal?
While doing our income tax, my wife and I discovered the government is willing to allow forty-four and a half cents a mile for business travel, but only eighteen cents for medical travel. Why is it more than twice as important to drive to a stockholders' meeting than to take your kid to the doctor? We also found that federal penalties for copying a commercial video tape range up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, a harsher penalty than some states demand for manslaughter. We entrust the lives of airplane passengers to highly-trained professionals and pay them in excess of $100,000 a year. We entrust the lives of our children to anyone with a bus driver's license and pay them ten to twelve dollars an hour. Do we have a priority problem?
What else is for sale? How about our privacy? Remember the Bush decision to wiretap citizens without warrants? Well, the telecom companies have turned off the tap, so to speak. The FBI hasn't been paying its bills. "It seems the telecoms, who are claiming they were just being 'good patriots' (sic) when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind on its bills," said former FBI agent Michael German, national security policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Is the presidency itself for sale? The estimated tab for this year's campaigns on both sides is approaching one billion dollars. With five major corporations owning almost 90% of the nation's media, should we be surprised if they want to maximize their profits via the publicly-owned airwaves with a wave of sponsored debates?
In a column three years ago, I proposed adding “Anything for a Buck” to our list of national mottoes. This was truly dumb since it implied our willingness to push aging Aunt Mabel off the nearest cliff for her insurance. So how about “Money Talks?” We've all heard the tune: If you're in the class labeled “the working poor” or “the retired poor,” you're going to have a hard slog. Them that has, gets. People who have the gold make the rule. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
That's not the way we were meant to be. That's not the way most of us are.
A wise person once said it's not money that's the root of all evil – it's the love of money. The older I get, the more I agree with him (or was it her?). Money talks, but sometimes we find when we listen to it too much, we can't hear anything else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I end this, I want to wish good luck to Gail Kimberling, who is leaving for better days. She's been my mentor and my editor and I'll miss her.
-30-
The Bogus Economist ©2008
The Bogus Economist
Money Talks
We live in a monied age. I was reading about Steve Jobs, the fabled co-founder and CEO of Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer), biggest stockholder of Walt Disney Corporation, former head of Pixar (“Finding Nemo,””Ratatouille”) and number 95 on Time Magazine’s list of the 100 most influential Americans. One would expect a man with such a resume to collect a substantial paycheck. Yes and no. For the record, Jobs earns a dollar a year – a salary barely enough for a real apple, let alone a 24-inch super-duper iMac with iDisk, iPhone, iTouch and iWant. But Forbes Magazine last spring declared Jobs the highest paid CEO in the United States. Factoring in a little thing called “stock options,” the right to buy stock at a future time at a fixed price, Jobs' yearly income totaled $646,000,000 or, roughly, one million, eight hundred thousand dollars a day. That's a lot of apples.
Forbes figured the CEOs of America's 500 biggest companies, including some whose companies actually lost money, got raises last year averaging more than seven million dollars. Meanwhile a Pew Charitable Trust report shows just six percent of American children whose family income ranked in the bottom fifth in 1976 were able to work their way into the top fifth in 2006. Forty-two percent of kids born into that lowest fifth were still stuck there, having been unable to climb a single rung of the economic ladder in the same time period. Either we have an awful lot of lazy people among the poor or the American Dream has become the American Mirage.
It's one thing to know in your head that something is true. It's different when you start sensing it in your innards. Like many Americans, I feel something's wrong with the promise of the country – that's it's a little off kilter – there's something out of whack. I think the Pew Trust report helped me nail it down: we're burying democracy with the shovel of unrestrained greed.
Think about it: in America today, which is more important, money or people? I've asked that of folks ranging from doctors to garbage collectors and not one has picked people. I've read countless examples of decisions which impact the lives of families and were justified by “Nothing personal – it's just business.” Two months ago, a couple committed suicide after their house was foreclosed. Just business? Nothing personal?
While doing our income tax, my wife and I discovered the government is willing to allow forty-four and a half cents a mile for business travel, but only eighteen cents for medical travel. Why is it more than twice as important to drive to a stockholders' meeting than to take your kid to the doctor? We also found that federal penalties for copying a commercial video tape range up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, a harsher penalty than some states demand for manslaughter. We entrust the lives of airplane passengers to highly-trained professionals and pay them in excess of $100,000 a year. We entrust the lives of our children to anyone with a bus driver's license and pay them ten to twelve dollars an hour. Do we have a priority problem?
What else is for sale? How about our privacy? Remember the Bush decision to wiretap citizens without warrants? Well, the telecom companies have turned off the tap, so to speak. The FBI hasn't been paying its bills. "It seems the telecoms, who are claiming they were just being 'good patriots' (sic) when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind on its bills," said former FBI agent Michael German, national security policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Is the presidency itself for sale? The estimated tab for this year's campaigns on both sides is approaching one billion dollars. With five major corporations owning almost 90% of the nation's media, should we be surprised if they want to maximize their profits via the publicly-owned airwaves with a wave of sponsored debates?
In a column three years ago, I proposed adding “Anything for a Buck” to our list of national mottoes. This was truly dumb since it implied our willingness to push aging Aunt Mabel off the nearest cliff for her insurance. So how about “Money Talks?” We've all heard the tune: If you're in the class labeled “the working poor” or “the retired poor,” you're going to have a hard slog. Them that has, gets. People who have the gold make the rule. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
That's not the way we were meant to be. That's not the way most of us are.
A wise person once said it's not money that's the root of all evil – it's the love of money. The older I get, the more I agree with him (or was it her?). Money talks, but sometimes we find when we listen to it too much, we can't hear anything else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I end this, I want to wish good luck to Gail Kimberling, who is leaving for better days. She's been my mentor and my editor and I'll miss her.
-30-
The Bogus Economist ©2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Vol. 2 No. 80 January 4, 2008
The Bogus Economist
Resolutionless
Resolution for 2008: I shall make no resolutions.
For the last seventy-eight years on my birthday, January 1, people all around me have been making resolutions and for the last seventy or so, I have joined in. This year, after spending decades chasing around trying vainly to keep resolutions, I have arrived at the point where I can't even remember them. So, to spare myself hours of remorse and guilt, I simply won't make any. Read my lips.
All in all, this hasn't been a good year for resolutions anyway. Bullets and a bomb took care of any possibilities for a resolution in Pakistan. In an article written for Mother Jones magazine, an assortment of Iraq experts conclude there isn't one there. In Afghanistan, things don't look much better. Resolution for our economy, if there is one, seems to be hiding. If you have one for the Middle East, let me know. My conclusion, therefore, is simple: if there are more storm clouds than sunshine in the forecast from one direction, look elsewhere.
Next November, we should have a Bushless ballot. For the last twenty out of twenty-eight years, this hasn't happened. We should probably, then, be thinking about the chores for our next president after he or she is done picking up the policy droppings from our current Administration, whose leader has proven conclusively that one man can, indeed, make a difference.
I worry, with all the noise of campaigning, we may lose sight of the kind of superhero who would want to be the Leader of the Free World for a salary only a tad higher than that of an NBA rookie. Some might say the prerequisite is insanity. Consider the problems our next POTUS will have to face, including our per capita debt of over $29,000 – the base price of a Mercedes C-class. And that's just for starters.
In his or her spare time, our next president will have to think about squaring the need of agribusiness to find folks to pick fruits or vegetables with the stuff about the tired and poor written on the Statue of Liberty. If we kick out the tired and poor, we'll have to find people to pick the fruits and vegetables among the rested and rich, which will be a challenge.
Our next POTUS will have to consider another way of saying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is universal health care, better legal protection and a first-class educational system, although saying it that way costs a lot more money. Finding a person to do this isn't like picking a student for Safety Patrol, especially when we send a bunch of mixed signals as to exactly what we want. An example is the voter who likes Mike Huckabee because he is “a good Christian,” but worries that he's too nice. “I don't want somebody to turn the other cheek,” the voter said, ”I want somebody who'll haul off and punch 'em in the mouth.” Now there's a thought you can take to church.
By the time this column sees the light of day, the first of the primaries will be over and pollsters will be pontificating about what the voters in Iowa really thought about the candidates. I anticipate something like “The voters have spoken and this probably means the end of the presidential hopes of (fill in names here) and the beginning of the hardest part of the race for (fill in more names here). Exit polls show Democratic voters are most concerned about (fill in any one of a huge number of things here) and feel (one name) is best equipped to deal with them. Of course, the future depends on how much money can be raised from (fill in labor union, consumer protection group, etc.) as well as the support of the New York Times. On the Republican side, (one name) has most successfully deflected criticism about his (pick from several) and hopes to raise (fill in number) million dollars from (fill in major corporation, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) as well as the support of Fox News.”
Pollsters, listen up – I don't give a hoot about the religion, personal resources, marital woes or spendy haircuts of the people who want to take over as Head of State. If I had to choose between a gay, atheistic, smart, poor black woman and a straight, church-going, rich, white, male numbskull, there wouldn't even be a contest. Do you hear me, pollsters? And please don't tell me which choice is more likely.
Instead of resolutions, I'm going to make plans. Although both can lead to a change in behavior, plans are a lot more effective than resolutions. You can resolve to stop smoking, but without a plan to follow, your chances aren't too good. Therefore, I'm going to plan for 2008 by setting aside a portion of time to try being more useful. I'm going to plan on de-emphasizing the acquisition of stuff. I'm going to plan on investing some of myself in making the planet more livable. I'm going to plan to be a little less bogus.
Maybe it will help this year be better than last. And happier. And may it be so for everyone.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
The Bogus Economist
Resolutionless
Resolution for 2008: I shall make no resolutions.
For the last seventy-eight years on my birthday, January 1, people all around me have been making resolutions and for the last seventy or so, I have joined in. This year, after spending decades chasing around trying vainly to keep resolutions, I have arrived at the point where I can't even remember them. So, to spare myself hours of remorse and guilt, I simply won't make any. Read my lips.
All in all, this hasn't been a good year for resolutions anyway. Bullets and a bomb took care of any possibilities for a resolution in Pakistan. In an article written for Mother Jones magazine, an assortment of Iraq experts conclude there isn't one there. In Afghanistan, things don't look much better. Resolution for our economy, if there is one, seems to be hiding. If you have one for the Middle East, let me know. My conclusion, therefore, is simple: if there are more storm clouds than sunshine in the forecast from one direction, look elsewhere.
Next November, we should have a Bushless ballot. For the last twenty out of twenty-eight years, this hasn't happened. We should probably, then, be thinking about the chores for our next president after he or she is done picking up the policy droppings from our current Administration, whose leader has proven conclusively that one man can, indeed, make a difference.
I worry, with all the noise of campaigning, we may lose sight of the kind of superhero who would want to be the Leader of the Free World for a salary only a tad higher than that of an NBA rookie. Some might say the prerequisite is insanity. Consider the problems our next POTUS will have to face, including our per capita debt of over $29,000 – the base price of a Mercedes C-class. And that's just for starters.
In his or her spare time, our next president will have to think about squaring the need of agribusiness to find folks to pick fruits or vegetables with the stuff about the tired and poor written on the Statue of Liberty. If we kick out the tired and poor, we'll have to find people to pick the fruits and vegetables among the rested and rich, which will be a challenge.
Our next POTUS will have to consider another way of saying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is universal health care, better legal protection and a first-class educational system, although saying it that way costs a lot more money. Finding a person to do this isn't like picking a student for Safety Patrol, especially when we send a bunch of mixed signals as to exactly what we want. An example is the voter who likes Mike Huckabee because he is “a good Christian,” but worries that he's too nice. “I don't want somebody to turn the other cheek,” the voter said, ”I want somebody who'll haul off and punch 'em in the mouth.” Now there's a thought you can take to church.
By the time this column sees the light of day, the first of the primaries will be over and pollsters will be pontificating about what the voters in Iowa really thought about the candidates. I anticipate something like “The voters have spoken and this probably means the end of the presidential hopes of (fill in names here) and the beginning of the hardest part of the race for (fill in more names here). Exit polls show Democratic voters are most concerned about (fill in any one of a huge number of things here) and feel (one name) is best equipped to deal with them. Of course, the future depends on how much money can be raised from (fill in labor union, consumer protection group, etc.) as well as the support of the New York Times. On the Republican side, (one name) has most successfully deflected criticism about his (pick from several) and hopes to raise (fill in number) million dollars from (fill in major corporation, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) as well as the support of Fox News.”
Pollsters, listen up – I don't give a hoot about the religion, personal resources, marital woes or spendy haircuts of the people who want to take over as Head of State. If I had to choose between a gay, atheistic, smart, poor black woman and a straight, church-going, rich, white, male numbskull, there wouldn't even be a contest. Do you hear me, pollsters? And please don't tell me which choice is more likely.
Instead of resolutions, I'm going to make plans. Although both can lead to a change in behavior, plans are a lot more effective than resolutions. You can resolve to stop smoking, but without a plan to follow, your chances aren't too good. Therefore, I'm going to plan for 2008 by setting aside a portion of time to try being more useful. I'm going to plan on de-emphasizing the acquisition of stuff. I'm going to plan on investing some of myself in making the planet more livable. I'm going to plan to be a little less bogus.
Maybe it will help this year be better than last. And happier. And may it be so for everyone.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
Friday, December 21, 2007
Clawed
Vol.2 No. 79 December 21, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Clawed
My exclusive interview with Santa Claus was the most frustrating thing that has happened to me since I tried to pin down Vice-president Cheney on the fine points of quail-hunting. It wasn't that Santa isn't a great guy – he is – and his wife bakes pies like you couldn't imagine. It was that Claus is too nice. By the way, Santa isn't his name – it's a title that comes from the word Saint, as in Saint Nicholas. His real name is Claud (not Fred). He told me this was a source of irritation for him in grade school since the guys all spelled it “Clawed Claws,” which was depressing.
Claud was busy working when my plane landed near the Pole, so I was picked up by a little guy in a funny outfit who told me his name was Shorty and that he was an elf. During the drive to Headquarters, he confided there were labor problems due to a shortage of elves. To fill the ranks, Claus, Inc. was hiring dwarves and gnomes for the grunt work. This caused a lot of outrage since only a few of the newcomers could speak Elvish and even fewer elves could get along in Dwarfish or Gnomish. A movement was underway urging the deportation of all non-elves and the construction of a high fence around the North Pole.
Claud greeted me at the door of the workshop and ushered me into his spacious office. In one corner, there was a high stack of letters with a sign marked “War Toys” right next to another stack marked “First-Person Shooters.” Boxes of iPods nudged boxes of Blackberrys, Razrs, Chocolates and iPhones. Most of them were made in China.
The interview started off with my asking Claud what was the most popular request he was receiving this Christmas. He replied this depended on where the request was coming from. The letters he was getting from Third World countries primarily had to do with food and medicines while the ones from the industrial countries generally centered around large electronic products, GPSs and such. Government agencies asked for more accurate weapons, sophisticated listening devices and alternatives to water boarding.
When I pointed out this didn't seem particularly Christmas-like, Claud smiled. “Look, I don't like it any more than you do, but I'm in the business of answering demand. If kids want paintball guns and their parents want cases of bourbon, who am I to tell them what they should have?” Claus went over to the refrigerator and took out a diet Coke. “I've been the Nice Guy for a few hundred years and I'm not going to start being nasty now,” he continued, “Anyway, what should I be giving them?”
I glanced out the window at a couple of polar bears feeding quarters into the ice machine and suggested Santa Claus might be delivering more copies of “An Inconvenient Truth.” At this, Claud broke into a laugh. “Are you kidding? The last thing I should be is political. If I start sending out books by Al Gore, people will think I'm a Democrat and that would lose me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and most of the deep South. I got into hot water before when I sent out some Al Franken stuff. Fox News reamed me out for not putting in more Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. You can't get people mad.”
“But what about world peace?” I asked, “Shouldn't you push books about getting along and respecting each other?” Claud thought for a moment, then replied, “There's nobody who likes world peace more than I do,” he said, “but it's pretty plain that the people in charge don't really want it. If they wanted peace, they wouldn't start wars. There just was a report that Iran wasn't really planning on making nuclear weapons and you didn't hear any changes in the speeches, did you?”
“As far as getting along with each other, have you been watching campaign ads lately? I actually overheard a lady saying she'd never vote for Barack Obama because she heard he was a closet Muslim and his name rhymes with 'Osama.' Everybody's calling everybody names.”
I glanced at my watch and was astounded to see I had spent more than an hour with Claud and I was feeling guilty. I got up and thanked the old gentleman, but he motioned me back into the chair. “One more thing, Mr. Bogus,” he said, “this is off the record, but I have to deal with all sorts of people, not just the nice ones,” He then gave me ten minutes of some of the most shocking details about entertainment figures, politicians and sports stars I have ever heard. Naturally, I can't reveal any of them.
As I got back on the plane after being driven to the airport by Shorty, I reflected on what I had learned. Santa Claus was caught in a bind between what he really wanted for the world and a desire to please. I guess it's really us who determines what Christmas is – whether it's peace on earth and good will to men or endless heaps of merchandise. Santa's just going to do what we want him to do.
Merry Christmas.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Clawed
My exclusive interview with Santa Claus was the most frustrating thing that has happened to me since I tried to pin down Vice-president Cheney on the fine points of quail-hunting. It wasn't that Santa isn't a great guy – he is – and his wife bakes pies like you couldn't imagine. It was that Claus is too nice. By the way, Santa isn't his name – it's a title that comes from the word Saint, as in Saint Nicholas. His real name is Claud (not Fred). He told me this was a source of irritation for him in grade school since the guys all spelled it “Clawed Claws,” which was depressing.
Claud was busy working when my plane landed near the Pole, so I was picked up by a little guy in a funny outfit who told me his name was Shorty and that he was an elf. During the drive to Headquarters, he confided there were labor problems due to a shortage of elves. To fill the ranks, Claus, Inc. was hiring dwarves and gnomes for the grunt work. This caused a lot of outrage since only a few of the newcomers could speak Elvish and even fewer elves could get along in Dwarfish or Gnomish. A movement was underway urging the deportation of all non-elves and the construction of a high fence around the North Pole.
Claud greeted me at the door of the workshop and ushered me into his spacious office. In one corner, there was a high stack of letters with a sign marked “War Toys” right next to another stack marked “First-Person Shooters.” Boxes of iPods nudged boxes of Blackberrys, Razrs, Chocolates and iPhones. Most of them were made in China.
The interview started off with my asking Claud what was the most popular request he was receiving this Christmas. He replied this depended on where the request was coming from. The letters he was getting from Third World countries primarily had to do with food and medicines while the ones from the industrial countries generally centered around large electronic products, GPSs and such. Government agencies asked for more accurate weapons, sophisticated listening devices and alternatives to water boarding.
When I pointed out this didn't seem particularly Christmas-like, Claud smiled. “Look, I don't like it any more than you do, but I'm in the business of answering demand. If kids want paintball guns and their parents want cases of bourbon, who am I to tell them what they should have?” Claus went over to the refrigerator and took out a diet Coke. “I've been the Nice Guy for a few hundred years and I'm not going to start being nasty now,” he continued, “Anyway, what should I be giving them?”
I glanced out the window at a couple of polar bears feeding quarters into the ice machine and suggested Santa Claus might be delivering more copies of “An Inconvenient Truth.” At this, Claud broke into a laugh. “Are you kidding? The last thing I should be is political. If I start sending out books by Al Gore, people will think I'm a Democrat and that would lose me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and most of the deep South. I got into hot water before when I sent out some Al Franken stuff. Fox News reamed me out for not putting in more Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. You can't get people mad.”
“But what about world peace?” I asked, “Shouldn't you push books about getting along and respecting each other?” Claud thought for a moment, then replied, “There's nobody who likes world peace more than I do,” he said, “but it's pretty plain that the people in charge don't really want it. If they wanted peace, they wouldn't start wars. There just was a report that Iran wasn't really planning on making nuclear weapons and you didn't hear any changes in the speeches, did you?”
“As far as getting along with each other, have you been watching campaign ads lately? I actually overheard a lady saying she'd never vote for Barack Obama because she heard he was a closet Muslim and his name rhymes with 'Osama.' Everybody's calling everybody names.”
I glanced at my watch and was astounded to see I had spent more than an hour with Claud and I was feeling guilty. I got up and thanked the old gentleman, but he motioned me back into the chair. “One more thing, Mr. Bogus,” he said, “this is off the record, but I have to deal with all sorts of people, not just the nice ones,” He then gave me ten minutes of some of the most shocking details about entertainment figures, politicians and sports stars I have ever heard. Naturally, I can't reveal any of them.
As I got back on the plane after being driven to the airport by Shorty, I reflected on what I had learned. Santa Claus was caught in a bind between what he really wanted for the world and a desire to please. I guess it's really us who determines what Christmas is – whether it's peace on earth and good will to men or endless heaps of merchandise. Santa's just going to do what we want him to do.
Merry Christmas.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 77 December 7, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Strike One
The writers' strike caught me flat-footed. On the one hand, I was a writer and so should immediately stop writing, even if I didn't write for television. If I stopped writing, moreover, I could omit sending checks to creditors and Christmas cards to people I haven't seen since the Depression. On the other hand, if I didn't write, the newspaper would stop supplying me with my bi-weekly supply of gruel and cracker jack, which they told me is the usual currency for columnists.
Gruel won. I posted a column and sat back to enjoy the spectacle of whole bunches of actors standing there with their mouths open and nothing coming out. That was the beginning of November. Now it's Pearl Harbor Day and I'm still waiting.
The reason actors are still talking is explained by the mystery of re-runs. Somewhere in dark back rooms are thousands of sitcoms, interviews and documentaries that have enjoyed their fifteen minutes (or two hours) of fame and been tenderly tucked away in cans, presumably forever, but are now waiting for another bow. The opening scenes of “My Mother, the Car” are as available as “Mr. Ed,” “The Munsters” and “Cheers.” The fact nothing new is being written is immaterial since the plots of the “new” shows are hard to distinguish from the old ones. Cynics say the same thing about news.
A country without writers, however, means a country without speeches. How can you have stump speeches when all you have are stumps? Sound bites will be toothless. How can there be “gotchas” with nobody to write the getchas? Since very few public figures seem able to put a sentence together without help from someone else, what's left when that someone isn't there? Without the ventriloquists, all you've got left are the dummies.
This, of course, brings us to the unpleasant question of why people with alleged intelligences have to rely on other people to tell them what to say. Bob Newhart had a terrific routine in which Lincoln's speech writer was trying to coach Honest Abe on how to orate the Gettysburg Address - “No, Abe, trust me, do the speech the way Charlie wrote it – it's funny.”
I've often wondered what would happen if somebody put “Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah” on the teleprompter. Would the immaculately groomed news men and women who are supposed to be journalists improvise their way through the crisis, or would they look right into the camera, smile their immaculate smiles and solemnly declare ”Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah?”
The Bogus Economist, not being a television writer, might find himself tempted to become one, cross the picket line and make a ton of money. This is a distant possibility. First, I don't have the stomach to write some of the stuff I use my remote to avoid. Second, I don't cross picket lines. Third, from what I hear, writers don't make a ton of money. The last contract in 1988, signed by writers who evidently had their heads in a dark place, gave them a pittance on home video sales. They don't want to repeat this mistake with e-commerce. Producers say they can't afford to pay any more since profits are down and everybody knows writers are greedy bums anyway. The net result is that nobody writes, nobody makes money and the forecast for broadcast quality is “probably much lower,” as if this is an easily achievable goal. I can't envision television getting much worse without the screens cracking.
One possible outcome from the writers' strike is a decrease in drama and news and an upsurge in “reality” shows, which require little scripting – or anything else, in my opinion. Fox, with “American Idol,” is in a super position if this happens, so I should offer the other networks – at no charge – my own ideas for reality scenarios:
1.“Potty Talk.” People are trapped in a bathroom and have to figure out ways to pass the time until help arrives. The situation gets worse when the toilet begins to overflow.
2.“Ants.” A picnic in the park becomes alarming as giant ants are released by stagehands. Various strategies have to be employed either to kill the creatures or train them as substitutes for the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes.
3.“American Idle.” A bunch of teenagers compete to determine which one can spend the most time doing absolutely nothing. Cots, hammocks, Tempurpedic mattresses and vibrating chairs would be donated by corporate sponsors.
I really don't see what's so hard about television writing, as can be easily proven by the above suggestions. In romances, all you need are a few “I love you's” and lots of groans and sighs. On a “talking head” show, the only trick is finding the right head. “Action” shows demand lots of fake blood and donated cars to be reduced to scrap metal. It's different in sports, where you have to use intelligence, crackling wit and humor:
“Yes, Chuck, he hit the ball.” “You're right, Bill. Look, he hit it again.” “I can't see the ball, Chuck.” “It went in the hole, Bill.”
“Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Strike One
The writers' strike caught me flat-footed. On the one hand, I was a writer and so should immediately stop writing, even if I didn't write for television. If I stopped writing, moreover, I could omit sending checks to creditors and Christmas cards to people I haven't seen since the Depression. On the other hand, if I didn't write, the newspaper would stop supplying me with my bi-weekly supply of gruel and cracker jack, which they told me is the usual currency for columnists.
Gruel won. I posted a column and sat back to enjoy the spectacle of whole bunches of actors standing there with their mouths open and nothing coming out. That was the beginning of November. Now it's Pearl Harbor Day and I'm still waiting.
The reason actors are still talking is explained by the mystery of re-runs. Somewhere in dark back rooms are thousands of sitcoms, interviews and documentaries that have enjoyed their fifteen minutes (or two hours) of fame and been tenderly tucked away in cans, presumably forever, but are now waiting for another bow. The opening scenes of “My Mother, the Car” are as available as “Mr. Ed,” “The Munsters” and “Cheers.” The fact nothing new is being written is immaterial since the plots of the “new” shows are hard to distinguish from the old ones. Cynics say the same thing about news.
A country without writers, however, means a country without speeches. How can you have stump speeches when all you have are stumps? Sound bites will be toothless. How can there be “gotchas” with nobody to write the getchas? Since very few public figures seem able to put a sentence together without help from someone else, what's left when that someone isn't there? Without the ventriloquists, all you've got left are the dummies.
This, of course, brings us to the unpleasant question of why people with alleged intelligences have to rely on other people to tell them what to say. Bob Newhart had a terrific routine in which Lincoln's speech writer was trying to coach Honest Abe on how to orate the Gettysburg Address - “No, Abe, trust me, do the speech the way Charlie wrote it – it's funny.”
I've often wondered what would happen if somebody put “Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah” on the teleprompter. Would the immaculately groomed news men and women who are supposed to be journalists improvise their way through the crisis, or would they look right into the camera, smile their immaculate smiles and solemnly declare ”Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah?”
The Bogus Economist, not being a television writer, might find himself tempted to become one, cross the picket line and make a ton of money. This is a distant possibility. First, I don't have the stomach to write some of the stuff I use my remote to avoid. Second, I don't cross picket lines. Third, from what I hear, writers don't make a ton of money. The last contract in 1988, signed by writers who evidently had their heads in a dark place, gave them a pittance on home video sales. They don't want to repeat this mistake with e-commerce. Producers say they can't afford to pay any more since profits are down and everybody knows writers are greedy bums anyway. The net result is that nobody writes, nobody makes money and the forecast for broadcast quality is “probably much lower,” as if this is an easily achievable goal. I can't envision television getting much worse without the screens cracking.
One possible outcome from the writers' strike is a decrease in drama and news and an upsurge in “reality” shows, which require little scripting – or anything else, in my opinion. Fox, with “American Idol,” is in a super position if this happens, so I should offer the other networks – at no charge – my own ideas for reality scenarios:
1.“Potty Talk.” People are trapped in a bathroom and have to figure out ways to pass the time until help arrives. The situation gets worse when the toilet begins to overflow.
2.“Ants.” A picnic in the park becomes alarming as giant ants are released by stagehands. Various strategies have to be employed either to kill the creatures or train them as substitutes for the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes.
3.“American Idle.” A bunch of teenagers compete to determine which one can spend the most time doing absolutely nothing. Cots, hammocks, Tempurpedic mattresses and vibrating chairs would be donated by corporate sponsors.
I really don't see what's so hard about television writing, as can be easily proven by the above suggestions. In romances, all you need are a few “I love you's” and lots of groans and sighs. On a “talking head” show, the only trick is finding the right head. “Action” shows demand lots of fake blood and donated cars to be reduced to scrap metal. It's different in sports, where you have to use intelligence, crackling wit and humor:
“Yes, Chuck, he hit the ball.” “You're right, Bill. Look, he hit it again.” “I can't see the ball, Chuck.” “It went in the hole, Bill.”
“Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 76 Nov. 23, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Turkey
The most fun assignment I ever had in an English class was given to me by a gifted high school teacher named Elizabeth Force. It was Thanksgiving, 1944, and we were asked to write a story about the holiday from the standpoint of the turkey.
I recall writing about Mrs. Turkey's advice to her son, Tom, on Thanksgiving Eve: “Tom, this country is built on what is called 'The American Dream.' For millions of living creatures, this means that if you apply yourself, follow the rules, work hard and plan for the future, you will succeed. For you, however, the American Dream means that if you eat a lot and put on weight, especially around the chest and legs, somebody will pick you up, decapitate you, stuff you with dressing and serve you on a big plate to people who have applied themselves, followed the rules, worked hard and planned for the future. Good luck.”
These are dark days indeed for turkeys. Millions of people have spent hours dreaming of slicing Tom into strips and using their digestive juices to turn him into calories, but Mrs. Force's assignment has steered me in a different direction. What would Tom, the Bogus, think?
If I were the turkey, I'd probably spend time before the axe fell musing on what might have been. For instance, had Ben Franklin been a little more persistent, I, rather than the eagle, might have become the national bird. After all, I was far more “American,” having been around from the start of the colonies and, besides, I don't eat carrion which in my mind would put me in the same class as vultures and buzzards, including the turkey buzzard (no relation). The only drawback to having me as America's fowl would be in the opening of the Colbert Report.
If the turkey were to be America's national bird, there probably would be a groundswell of debate on state birds as well. There would be a demand for individuality. Oregon's Western Meadowlark is O.K., but why have a bird that's also the avian symbol of Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming? How about being the innovative and inventive state we know Oregon to be? For a state bird, we could select the condor or the blue-footed booby, which would attract attention as well as tourists. Or how about the duck? If it's good enough for football, why not a whole state?
Consider how our menus might change. Since we don't serve bald eagles for Thanksgiving – and it's actually a crime to kill one – it would follow that serving a turkey (if it were the national bird) would be an act of disrespect. This means we'd have to find something else as a main dish for ravenous families. Condors and boobies are also protected species and the duck is a bird completely devoid of white meat. An ostrich has plenty of white meat, but the refrigerator isn't big enough for the leftovers. Ditto for the emu.
Other parts of the country would no doubt chime in with their own choices for Thanksgiving National Dish. Some of these potential suggestions can easily be discarded. Louisiana would probably vote for the crawdad, but the thought of one of these on a large plate, possibly holding a tiny sprig of parsley, is laughable. A Thanksgiving lobster doesn't cut it, ham has already been appropriated for Easter and carving up a buffalo is more of a chore than most of us would want. Beavers are inedible, even when made into beaverburgers. Pigeons are too small.
So how about a fish? The salmon is a logical choice. Picture a whole salmon, fresh off the grill, with orange or honey glaze, served with sweet potatoes and green vegetable. Is this something to be thankful for or not?
So let's get behind the Thanksgiving Salmon. We'll begin with a salmon television campaign, since this is plainly the best way to convince America to do something different. I suggest a Thanksgiving salmon debate, with representatives from each culinary school presenting recipes for the perfect way to cook the fish. By the time viewers find out all of them taste the same, we will have picked our next chief chef. Vote now, complain later.
Next, we should find a number of famous people, from different fields, to be videotaped smacking their lips over a King or a Coho. What being a champion wrestler or auto racer has to do with buying a fish is beside the point, but if it works for bathroom products, cosmetics and breakfast cereal, it should work for salmon.
Of course, this is all speculation. The salmon is not our national fish, the turkey is not our national bird and I am not a turkey, despite the opinions expressed in some of my mail. Folks are still going to sit around a table, carve up Tom (or Theresa), give thanks and get indigestion. After they eat, they'll split into two groups with one sitting in front of a large screen, drinking beer and watching people knock other people down, and the other in the next room talking about the people watching the large screen.
Me? I'm here – in the sandwich. Hear that, Mrs. Force?
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Turkey
The most fun assignment I ever had in an English class was given to me by a gifted high school teacher named Elizabeth Force. It was Thanksgiving, 1944, and we were asked to write a story about the holiday from the standpoint of the turkey.
I recall writing about Mrs. Turkey's advice to her son, Tom, on Thanksgiving Eve: “Tom, this country is built on what is called 'The American Dream.' For millions of living creatures, this means that if you apply yourself, follow the rules, work hard and plan for the future, you will succeed. For you, however, the American Dream means that if you eat a lot and put on weight, especially around the chest and legs, somebody will pick you up, decapitate you, stuff you with dressing and serve you on a big plate to people who have applied themselves, followed the rules, worked hard and planned for the future. Good luck.”
These are dark days indeed for turkeys. Millions of people have spent hours dreaming of slicing Tom into strips and using their digestive juices to turn him into calories, but Mrs. Force's assignment has steered me in a different direction. What would Tom, the Bogus, think?
If I were the turkey, I'd probably spend time before the axe fell musing on what might have been. For instance, had Ben Franklin been a little more persistent, I, rather than the eagle, might have become the national bird. After all, I was far more “American,” having been around from the start of the colonies and, besides, I don't eat carrion which in my mind would put me in the same class as vultures and buzzards, including the turkey buzzard (no relation). The only drawback to having me as America's fowl would be in the opening of the Colbert Report.
If the turkey were to be America's national bird, there probably would be a groundswell of debate on state birds as well. There would be a demand for individuality. Oregon's Western Meadowlark is O.K., but why have a bird that's also the avian symbol of Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming? How about being the innovative and inventive state we know Oregon to be? For a state bird, we could select the condor or the blue-footed booby, which would attract attention as well as tourists. Or how about the duck? If it's good enough for football, why not a whole state?
Consider how our menus might change. Since we don't serve bald eagles for Thanksgiving – and it's actually a crime to kill one – it would follow that serving a turkey (if it were the national bird) would be an act of disrespect. This means we'd have to find something else as a main dish for ravenous families. Condors and boobies are also protected species and the duck is a bird completely devoid of white meat. An ostrich has plenty of white meat, but the refrigerator isn't big enough for the leftovers. Ditto for the emu.
Other parts of the country would no doubt chime in with their own choices for Thanksgiving National Dish. Some of these potential suggestions can easily be discarded. Louisiana would probably vote for the crawdad, but the thought of one of these on a large plate, possibly holding a tiny sprig of parsley, is laughable. A Thanksgiving lobster doesn't cut it, ham has already been appropriated for Easter and carving up a buffalo is more of a chore than most of us would want. Beavers are inedible, even when made into beaverburgers. Pigeons are too small.
So how about a fish? The salmon is a logical choice. Picture a whole salmon, fresh off the grill, with orange or honey glaze, served with sweet potatoes and green vegetable. Is this something to be thankful for or not?
So let's get behind the Thanksgiving Salmon. We'll begin with a salmon television campaign, since this is plainly the best way to convince America to do something different. I suggest a Thanksgiving salmon debate, with representatives from each culinary school presenting recipes for the perfect way to cook the fish. By the time viewers find out all of them taste the same, we will have picked our next chief chef. Vote now, complain later.
Next, we should find a number of famous people, from different fields, to be videotaped smacking their lips over a King or a Coho. What being a champion wrestler or auto racer has to do with buying a fish is beside the point, but if it works for bathroom products, cosmetics and breakfast cereal, it should work for salmon.
Of course, this is all speculation. The salmon is not our national fish, the turkey is not our national bird and I am not a turkey, despite the opinions expressed in some of my mail. Folks are still going to sit around a table, carve up Tom (or Theresa), give thanks and get indigestion. After they eat, they'll split into two groups with one sitting in front of a large screen, drinking beer and watching people knock other people down, and the other in the next room talking about the people watching the large screen.
Me? I'm here – in the sandwich. Hear that, Mrs. Force?
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 75 Nov. 9, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Ring the Bell
Now that we've finished the prelims, America is getting ready for the main event. Each boxer is in his or her corner (all sixteen of them) and all are getting last-minute briefings from their handlers, complete with styptic pencils to stop the bleeding.
Yes, the sparring season is upon us, only a year before the fight. Candidates are pledging to abstain from personal attacks while putting horseshoes in their gloves. Did Willard (Mitt) Romney once defend abortion? Pow! Did Fred Thompson get free airplane rides from a drug dealer? Pow! Did Hillary waffle on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens? Pow! Tell me, Mr. Edwards, is how you style what's on top of your head more important than what's inside it? Too bad about those ears, Mr. Kucinich. Pow! Pow!
Surely there must be something better than this slugfest/auction we throw every four years. In the just-completed off-off-year eBuy, we still had bidding, but the stakes were lower – with the exceptions of the huge chunks of dough sucked up by Measures 49 and 50. To be honest, the way we select our leaders gives me gas. Take the presidential sweepstakes – please.
Our continuing farce of “debates” makes me wonder who could answer questions like, “Our health system in in bad shape. Give us the details of your plan to fix it. Oh, yes, you have 45 seconds left to reply.” Thinking the world's problems can be solved with one-minute answers is one of the world's problems. Assembling eight or twelve people behind nicely decorated podiums for an hour or so is a great way to trivialize the election and further contribute to the epidemic of bumper-sticker thinking that, to some extent, got us into our current political septic tank to begin with. By the way, I'd also like to hear from two or three candidates at a sitting instead of a bunch that looks like a well-dressed, out of shape softball team.
Before we start having primaries, it would be nice to find out – in depth – what each candidate proposes. I'd like to hear how much each of their programs is going to cost and where the money is going to come from to pay for it. I'd like to get an idea who the candidates think would contribute most to their cabinets. This is very hard to discover in the four or five sound bites each person gets in a “debate.”
How about candidates being accorded equality in terms of free air time on radio and television? After all, these are public airwaves. Maybe banning election ads under a minute to prevent 'bumper-sticker”-type arguments? No opinion polls published for a stated time before the elections? Each candidate given spending limits, campaigns to be either completely financed with public funds or taken from a pool donated by citizens or corporations for the advancement of democracy? Why not?
What are the chances of just two election dates – both of them national holidays – one for primaries and one for the general election? Or does it make more sense for each state to push to the front of the line in order to “make a difference?”
Once elected, shouldn't a president have to conduct open press conferences or better, have an open Q&A session weekly with Congress so that the public can see and hear what's going on?
For those who are rolling their eyes and thinking what an absolute dork is passing for a Bogus Economist, let me add that everything I mentioned is – in some form - already law in some countries. In France, the rules about commercials and campaign financing are already in place. The time between their first election and final one is two weeks. Here it's ten months. In several European countries, all political parties are allocated equal funds. They figure having the best government money can buy isn't such a hot idea. Here, we make a contest over who hustles the most dough.
On C-Span, you can watch the near-weekly encounter between the British Prime Minister and Parliament in the House of Commons. Questions from both sides are fired quickly and usually answered the same way. The P.M. has to display a knowledge of a large number of problems with backup facts and figures as well as names of those delegated to work on them. This takes brains. The Parliament is usually packed. In Congress, you could shoot a cannon with little fear of hurting anybody. Everybody's out raising money. On the other hand, I suppose it's good there aren't many questions being asked because there's nobody there to answer them. It's not a mark of genius to suspect some things in government need changing.
As we gear up for the championship bout, we might reflect on what improvements we can still make in time for 2008. Congress could pass campaign financing laws now. It could begin a process to force those holding broadcasting licenses to use the public airways for pubic information prior to elections. It could use moral persuasion to require the president to face the media on a regular basis. A few well-placed letters or e-mails would help. We fight fans deserve the best. Everyone to their corners.
O.K. Ring the bell.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Ring the Bell
Now that we've finished the prelims, America is getting ready for the main event. Each boxer is in his or her corner (all sixteen of them) and all are getting last-minute briefings from their handlers, complete with styptic pencils to stop the bleeding.
Yes, the sparring season is upon us, only a year before the fight. Candidates are pledging to abstain from personal attacks while putting horseshoes in their gloves. Did Willard (Mitt) Romney once defend abortion? Pow! Did Fred Thompson get free airplane rides from a drug dealer? Pow! Did Hillary waffle on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens? Pow! Tell me, Mr. Edwards, is how you style what's on top of your head more important than what's inside it? Too bad about those ears, Mr. Kucinich. Pow! Pow!
Surely there must be something better than this slugfest/auction we throw every four years. In the just-completed off-off-year eBuy, we still had bidding, but the stakes were lower – with the exceptions of the huge chunks of dough sucked up by Measures 49 and 50. To be honest, the way we select our leaders gives me gas. Take the presidential sweepstakes – please.
Our continuing farce of “debates” makes me wonder who could answer questions like, “Our health system in in bad shape. Give us the details of your plan to fix it. Oh, yes, you have 45 seconds left to reply.” Thinking the world's problems can be solved with one-minute answers is one of the world's problems. Assembling eight or twelve people behind nicely decorated podiums for an hour or so is a great way to trivialize the election and further contribute to the epidemic of bumper-sticker thinking that, to some extent, got us into our current political septic tank to begin with. By the way, I'd also like to hear from two or three candidates at a sitting instead of a bunch that looks like a well-dressed, out of shape softball team.
Before we start having primaries, it would be nice to find out – in depth – what each candidate proposes. I'd like to hear how much each of their programs is going to cost and where the money is going to come from to pay for it. I'd like to get an idea who the candidates think would contribute most to their cabinets. This is very hard to discover in the four or five sound bites each person gets in a “debate.”
How about candidates being accorded equality in terms of free air time on radio and television? After all, these are public airwaves. Maybe banning election ads under a minute to prevent 'bumper-sticker”-type arguments? No opinion polls published for a stated time before the elections? Each candidate given spending limits, campaigns to be either completely financed with public funds or taken from a pool donated by citizens or corporations for the advancement of democracy? Why not?
What are the chances of just two election dates – both of them national holidays – one for primaries and one for the general election? Or does it make more sense for each state to push to the front of the line in order to “make a difference?”
Once elected, shouldn't a president have to conduct open press conferences or better, have an open Q&A session weekly with Congress so that the public can see and hear what's going on?
For those who are rolling their eyes and thinking what an absolute dork is passing for a Bogus Economist, let me add that everything I mentioned is – in some form - already law in some countries. In France, the rules about commercials and campaign financing are already in place. The time between their first election and final one is two weeks. Here it's ten months. In several European countries, all political parties are allocated equal funds. They figure having the best government money can buy isn't such a hot idea. Here, we make a contest over who hustles the most dough.
On C-Span, you can watch the near-weekly encounter between the British Prime Minister and Parliament in the House of Commons. Questions from both sides are fired quickly and usually answered the same way. The P.M. has to display a knowledge of a large number of problems with backup facts and figures as well as names of those delegated to work on them. This takes brains. The Parliament is usually packed. In Congress, you could shoot a cannon with little fear of hurting anybody. Everybody's out raising money. On the other hand, I suppose it's good there aren't many questions being asked because there's nobody there to answer them. It's not a mark of genius to suspect some things in government need changing.
As we gear up for the championship bout, we might reflect on what improvements we can still make in time for 2008. Congress could pass campaign financing laws now. It could begin a process to force those holding broadcasting licenses to use the public airways for pubic information prior to elections. It could use moral persuasion to require the president to face the media on a regular basis. A few well-placed letters or e-mails would help. We fight fans deserve the best. Everyone to their corners.
O.K. Ring the bell.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
General math
Vol. 2 No. 74 Oct. 26, 2007
The Bogus Economist
General Math
Math is not my favorite topic, especially since I learned that in base two, I am 101101 years old. Considering the barrage of debate over our presence in Iraq, however, I feel it's time to smother my natural disinclination toward math and do the proper economic thing, i.e. subject the Iraq debate to the intense scrutiny of mathematical models and analysis. Or, as one of my former friends said to me, “Since you need analysis, why not the war?”
The catalyst for this momentous decision on my part came about as retired General Ricardo Sanchez fired some good-sized mortar shells at the media (which I feel needs lots more of them), his lack of definite orders while he was in charge of Abu Graib prison and the ham-handed incompetence of the Administration in understanding very well what they wanted to do, but not having a snowball's idea in Hell of how to do it. He describes Iraq as “A nightmare with no end in sight.” Not bad from a former commander of coalition forces in the whole country.
It is clear, however, General Sanchez feels it would be a calamity to withdraw troops from Iraq since this would result in “chaos,” a concept this column has dealt with before. The concept of “winning” the war has also been written about. The picture General Sanchez paints is grim and he's not the only painter in town. Fundamentally, the argument boils down to a relatively simple problem: Is what we're doing in Iraq reducing the number of terrorists and thus increasing our safety? Can we “win?” Enter the math.
The papers recently have recounted a large number of raids by the U.S. Army on suspected Al Qaida members in various towns and villages in Iraq. Here's one from MSN: “U.S. troops backed by attack aircraft killed 19 suspected insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, in an operation Thursday targeting al-Qaida in Iraq leaders northwest of Baghdad, the military said. An initial airstrike struck a 'time-sensitive target,' killing four insurgents in the Lake Tharthar area after intelligence reports indicated senior members of al-Qaida in Iraq were meeting there, according to a statement...Subsequent airstrikes were called in. Ground forces secured the area and determined '15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed,' a statement said. Two suspects, one woman and three children also were wounded and one suspected insurgent was detained, it added.”
O.K., let's turn on the math machine. First, let's assume all nineteen of the “suspected insurgents” were actually Al Qaida members, although the official statement mentioned only four. Assume our intelligence was correct, however, and there were really nineteen. That's (-19) in mathspeak. Another two suspects were wounded, so let's assume they're also out of action. That makes (-21). Another was detained (-22).
Now let's go over to the other side. We killed fifteen civilians, including nine kids. It didn't say in the report whether some of the adults were the parents of any of the children. There were also three children and another woman injured, The total non-insurgents, then, is (+19). So, on the surface, we seems to have disabled a total of three more bad guys than good guys (-3).
Here's where the math starts to tell a story. The average Iraqi family is numerous, thanks to a system of kinship where sometimes several generations live under the same roof. In some villages, kinship extends to virtually every inhabitant. Using an arbitrary number, it's pretty safe to say fifteen dead civilians represents up to a few hundred other “relatives” who escaped killing.
It's also safe to say the kin of the dead civilians were not pleased to find their sisters, mothers, brothers, fathers, uncles or significant others mistakenly dispatched during an air strike. Nor would they be mollified when told it was a shame, but worth it because nineteen suspected terrorists were also killed.
It's wise to bear in mind here the Arab culture is big on revenge. It's a matter of family honor to even scores, especially when an offense involves lots of members of the family. Since it's almost impossible to find out which individuals actually dropped the bombs during the air strike, it's much easier to swear revenge at the country whose insignia decorated the aircrafts' wings.
Totaling up, this means the air strikes in question produced a net gain of roughly two hundred or so people who would love to see the Great Satan (that's us, folks) get his come-uppance. Call it (-200). Adding the noneteen who might have been members of Al Qaida, the two wounded and the one detained, we're left with roughly 222 suspected terrorists or terrorist wannabees, nineteen of them dead. It's all so clear. We get nineteen – maybe – and they get two hundred three.
Continuing with the math, let's multiply this figure by the number of our air strikes and the recently reported trigger-happiness of the hired cowboys in our private security armies and you might conclude General Sanchez is guilty of understatement when he calls Iraq a “nightmare.” Let's be charitable and say it doesn't exactly add up to winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis. It didn't win General Sanchez'.
It sure doesn't win mine.
-30
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
General Math
Math is not my favorite topic, especially since I learned that in base two, I am 101101 years old. Considering the barrage of debate over our presence in Iraq, however, I feel it's time to smother my natural disinclination toward math and do the proper economic thing, i.e. subject the Iraq debate to the intense scrutiny of mathematical models and analysis. Or, as one of my former friends said to me, “Since you need analysis, why not the war?”
The catalyst for this momentous decision on my part came about as retired General Ricardo Sanchez fired some good-sized mortar shells at the media (which I feel needs lots more of them), his lack of definite orders while he was in charge of Abu Graib prison and the ham-handed incompetence of the Administration in understanding very well what they wanted to do, but not having a snowball's idea in Hell of how to do it. He describes Iraq as “A nightmare with no end in sight.” Not bad from a former commander of coalition forces in the whole country.
It is clear, however, General Sanchez feels it would be a calamity to withdraw troops from Iraq since this would result in “chaos,” a concept this column has dealt with before. The concept of “winning” the war has also been written about. The picture General Sanchez paints is grim and he's not the only painter in town. Fundamentally, the argument boils down to a relatively simple problem: Is what we're doing in Iraq reducing the number of terrorists and thus increasing our safety? Can we “win?” Enter the math.
The papers recently have recounted a large number of raids by the U.S. Army on suspected Al Qaida members in various towns and villages in Iraq. Here's one from MSN: “U.S. troops backed by attack aircraft killed 19 suspected insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, in an operation Thursday targeting al-Qaida in Iraq leaders northwest of Baghdad, the military said. An initial airstrike struck a 'time-sensitive target,' killing four insurgents in the Lake Tharthar area after intelligence reports indicated senior members of al-Qaida in Iraq were meeting there, according to a statement...Subsequent airstrikes were called in. Ground forces secured the area and determined '15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed,' a statement said. Two suspects, one woman and three children also were wounded and one suspected insurgent was detained, it added.”
O.K., let's turn on the math machine. First, let's assume all nineteen of the “suspected insurgents” were actually Al Qaida members, although the official statement mentioned only four. Assume our intelligence was correct, however, and there were really nineteen. That's (-19) in mathspeak. Another two suspects were wounded, so let's assume they're also out of action. That makes (-21). Another was detained (-22).
Now let's go over to the other side. We killed fifteen civilians, including nine kids. It didn't say in the report whether some of the adults were the parents of any of the children. There were also three children and another woman injured, The total non-insurgents, then, is (+19). So, on the surface, we seems to have disabled a total of three more bad guys than good guys (-3).
Here's where the math starts to tell a story. The average Iraqi family is numerous, thanks to a system of kinship where sometimes several generations live under the same roof. In some villages, kinship extends to virtually every inhabitant. Using an arbitrary number, it's pretty safe to say fifteen dead civilians represents up to a few hundred other “relatives” who escaped killing.
It's also safe to say the kin of the dead civilians were not pleased to find their sisters, mothers, brothers, fathers, uncles or significant others mistakenly dispatched during an air strike. Nor would they be mollified when told it was a shame, but worth it because nineteen suspected terrorists were also killed.
It's wise to bear in mind here the Arab culture is big on revenge. It's a matter of family honor to even scores, especially when an offense involves lots of members of the family. Since it's almost impossible to find out which individuals actually dropped the bombs during the air strike, it's much easier to swear revenge at the country whose insignia decorated the aircrafts' wings.
Totaling up, this means the air strikes in question produced a net gain of roughly two hundred or so people who would love to see the Great Satan (that's us, folks) get his come-uppance. Call it (-200). Adding the noneteen who might have been members of Al Qaida, the two wounded and the one detained, we're left with roughly 222 suspected terrorists or terrorist wannabees, nineteen of them dead. It's all so clear. We get nineteen – maybe – and they get two hundred three.
Continuing with the math, let's multiply this figure by the number of our air strikes and the recently reported trigger-happiness of the hired cowboys in our private security armies and you might conclude General Sanchez is guilty of understatement when he calls Iraq a “nightmare.” Let's be charitable and say it doesn't exactly add up to winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis. It didn't win General Sanchez'.
It sure doesn't win mine.
-30
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Vol.2 No. 73 Oct. 12, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Measure 50
Shortly after mailing my last column to this paper's ever-patient editor, I received three (count them) pieces of mail informing me our Oregon Constitution was in mortal danger and I could save it. Wow! Who could be against saving the Oregon constitution? I quickly picked up the first piece entitled “Taxpayers oppose Measure 50 because laws are supposed to solve problems – not create them.” I also oppose laws that create problems. At the bottom of the page it added, “Please join us.” I was ready – who's “us?”
On page two, I was told “Our State Constitution deserves more respect.” Again, I agreed. The second piece was headlined, “Measure 50 would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for Oregon's State CONSTITUTION” (their caps). Here, I found out that a retired professor of law thought Measure 50 would “limit the rights of voters while making a particular tax policy a constitutional mandate.” On the facing page was a distinguished-looking unidentified man next to a caption again reminding us Measure 50 “deliberately evades” constitutional taxpayer protections. Under that, a blurry cartoon warns Measure 50 could “open a Pandora's Box of future tax increases.” Finally, I was told our constitution should not be amended to promote the political agendas of “...special interest groups.”
By this time, I was champing at the bit. Who is “us?” Which special interest groups would Measure 50 promote? Does Pandora have a political agenda? What kind of campaign uses blurry cartoons? This was the biggest soap opera of the year. I plunged on.
My first clue came when I read some small print on the back of the second piece. “Major funding provided by Philip Morris USA.” Aha! It must be tobacco! I looked through the pamphlet for the word “tobacco.” I didn't find it. I went back to the first piece. There it was! On the top of the second page, it said Measure 50 would amend our constitution, a document that “should not be amended casually...,” to increase taxes on tobacco! Right on! No casual amending!
Now I knew who “us” is. Now how about “special interests?” For this, I turned to the third piece, ostensibly written by a a non-smoking first-grade teacher named Ben Matthews. He bitterly opposed Measure 50 because only 30% of the money would actually go for the Healthy Kids Program, which is the title of the Measure. Almost seventy percent would go to “whatever health care expense it (the state) wants.” Mr Matthews called Measure 50 “a blank check that will probably be written to state health care contractors like HMOs, health insurance companies or hospitals for bigger reimbursement payments.” Probably. Possibly. Well, maybe. Or maybe not.
Speaking of blank checks, I found – small print at the bottom of the page – a notice that Oregonians Against the Blank Check (OATBC) provided the resources to help Mr. Matthews share his thoughts. OATBC, I discovered, is almost wholly supported by Reynolds America, parent company of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company. So much for special interests.
R.J. Reynolds, by the way, was among the companies whose CEOs solemnly sat in front of a congressional committee and swore under oath nicotine was non-addictive and there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. They stuck to this story under questioning despite their noses having grown long enough to knock over objects on adjacent desks. After getting off with nary a perjury charge, they promised to do what they could to persuade young people not to buy their products. Their noses by then were sprouting small flowering plants.
I've written about snus, little porous packets of tobacco to be placed between cheek and gum, allowing users to experience the kicks (and cancer) of the stuff without having to spit. They're now on sale in Portland. Answering complaints that a product like this will be welcomed with cheers by kids who realize they can not only use tobacco in school, but use it two seats from the teacher's desk, the butt companies reacted with shock. Kids? Goodness, no! However, Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris, Inc, is also quoted as saying about snus ,“This is a growth opportunity for us.” This is also known as “getting replacement users”.
I realize amending the Oregon constitution to cement in a tobacco tax is something to be careful about, but whether talking about smokeless cancer or the people who sell it, both seem to warrant Measure 50. Airing pious commercials warning kids not to smoke while coming out with flavored snus including cola, mint, and spice, isn't convincing. Nor is Mr. Matthews. Nor is Mr. Phelps. Frankly, I wouldn't believe the tobacco companies under oath - their noses tell me so. The pamphlets said to make up my own mind. I did.
In the eyes of the Bogus Economist, Measure 50 is only one of a set of essential ways to pay for the things we need, like children's health care – or any other kind of health care. Ronald Reagan, who acted as spokesman for Chesterfield cigarettes for years (“Not a cough in a carload”), joined his wife in telling kids considering a toke or two during the '80's to “Just Say 'No'.” On Measure 50, I intend to “Just Say 'Yes'.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Measure 50
Shortly after mailing my last column to this paper's ever-patient editor, I received three (count them) pieces of mail informing me our Oregon Constitution was in mortal danger and I could save it. Wow! Who could be against saving the Oregon constitution? I quickly picked up the first piece entitled “Taxpayers oppose Measure 50 because laws are supposed to solve problems – not create them.” I also oppose laws that create problems. At the bottom of the page it added, “Please join us.” I was ready – who's “us?”
On page two, I was told “Our State Constitution deserves more respect.” Again, I agreed. The second piece was headlined, “Measure 50 would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for Oregon's State CONSTITUTION” (their caps). Here, I found out that a retired professor of law thought Measure 50 would “limit the rights of voters while making a particular tax policy a constitutional mandate.” On the facing page was a distinguished-looking unidentified man next to a caption again reminding us Measure 50 “deliberately evades” constitutional taxpayer protections. Under that, a blurry cartoon warns Measure 50 could “open a Pandora's Box of future tax increases.” Finally, I was told our constitution should not be amended to promote the political agendas of “...special interest groups.”
By this time, I was champing at the bit. Who is “us?” Which special interest groups would Measure 50 promote? Does Pandora have a political agenda? What kind of campaign uses blurry cartoons? This was the biggest soap opera of the year. I plunged on.
My first clue came when I read some small print on the back of the second piece. “Major funding provided by Philip Morris USA.” Aha! It must be tobacco! I looked through the pamphlet for the word “tobacco.” I didn't find it. I went back to the first piece. There it was! On the top of the second page, it said Measure 50 would amend our constitution, a document that “should not be amended casually...,” to increase taxes on tobacco! Right on! No casual amending!
Now I knew who “us” is. Now how about “special interests?” For this, I turned to the third piece, ostensibly written by a a non-smoking first-grade teacher named Ben Matthews. He bitterly opposed Measure 50 because only 30% of the money would actually go for the Healthy Kids Program, which is the title of the Measure. Almost seventy percent would go to “whatever health care expense it (the state) wants.” Mr Matthews called Measure 50 “a blank check that will probably be written to state health care contractors like HMOs, health insurance companies or hospitals for bigger reimbursement payments.” Probably. Possibly. Well, maybe. Or maybe not.
Speaking of blank checks, I found – small print at the bottom of the page – a notice that Oregonians Against the Blank Check (OATBC) provided the resources to help Mr. Matthews share his thoughts. OATBC, I discovered, is almost wholly supported by Reynolds America, parent company of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company. So much for special interests.
R.J. Reynolds, by the way, was among the companies whose CEOs solemnly sat in front of a congressional committee and swore under oath nicotine was non-addictive and there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. They stuck to this story under questioning despite their noses having grown long enough to knock over objects on adjacent desks. After getting off with nary a perjury charge, they promised to do what they could to persuade young people not to buy their products. Their noses by then were sprouting small flowering plants.
I've written about snus, little porous packets of tobacco to be placed between cheek and gum, allowing users to experience the kicks (and cancer) of the stuff without having to spit. They're now on sale in Portland. Answering complaints that a product like this will be welcomed with cheers by kids who realize they can not only use tobacco in school, but use it two seats from the teacher's desk, the butt companies reacted with shock. Kids? Goodness, no! However, Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris, Inc, is also quoted as saying about snus ,“This is a growth opportunity for us.” This is also known as “getting replacement users”.
I realize amending the Oregon constitution to cement in a tobacco tax is something to be careful about, but whether talking about smokeless cancer or the people who sell it, both seem to warrant Measure 50. Airing pious commercials warning kids not to smoke while coming out with flavored snus including cola, mint, and spice, isn't convincing. Nor is Mr. Matthews. Nor is Mr. Phelps. Frankly, I wouldn't believe the tobacco companies under oath - their noses tell me so. The pamphlets said to make up my own mind. I did.
In the eyes of the Bogus Economist, Measure 50 is only one of a set of essential ways to pay for the things we need, like children's health care – or any other kind of health care. Ronald Reagan, who acted as spokesman for Chesterfield cigarettes for years (“Not a cough in a carload”), joined his wife in telling kids considering a toke or two during the '80's to “Just Say 'No'.” On Measure 50, I intend to “Just Say 'Yes'.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
