Category Archives: Politics

Earthquakes and Cyclones are a small part of a much more tragic story

Posted on by
3

Some would say it’s cruel or inappropriate to suggest that the big tragedies are the daily death toll from disease and malnutritioon even more than the horrible scenes we’ve been seeing on TV from Burma/Myanmar and China as a result of the Cyclone and the earthquake that will take between 100,000 and 150,000 lives when all the reports are in.  

However I’m compelled to point that out because TV news and our own human inadequacies at processing math and information mean that the silent catastrophes of easily preventable diseases – which kill some 20,000-30,000 people per day – are the real catastrophes on this planet yet they go largely unreported and ignored because we focus our attention on the spectacular problems rather than the more pressing ones or interesting ones.     You don’t have to trivialiize the tragic loss of life in violent conflicts or natural disasters to recognize that there is a *far greater* loss of life in the day to day problems we largely ignore.   No, these do not “keep those populations in check” as some poorly informed folks suggest.  On the contrary rising the standard of living is one of the surest ways to reduce birth rates barring the draconian type of approach taken in China with the “one family one child” policy which has also worked.

What would work to a solution to the real tragedies?  First, we need to do a little math and recognize that the daily death tolls from preventable, solvable problems are huge compared to the death tolls from the things many people worry a lot about yet cannot influence much (Middle East Conflicts) if at all (Earthquakes).  

After recognizing we can save millions of people *monthly* from a shift in resources we need to view national security in broader terms, recognizing that a greater measure of global stability – the primary goal of our US military projection throughout the world – would be more easily attained with strategic spending on simple and preventable education and disease programs combined with a modest marketing program to make sure those assisted recognize who the good guys really are.     Currently the USA spends a subtantial amount (though it is tiny compared to our capacity) helping fight poverty the third world.  Yet we get little if any credit for this.   Unfortunate because this does not inspire more of the type of assistance that creates global win-win situation where people can thrive and the US can help maintain global stability at a fraction of the cost of military approaches.

Why aren’t others seeing this?    US politics have created a crisis of economic and military stupidity.   Liberals insist – naively and with little research to back them up – that globalized corporate capitalism hurts the poor more than it helps them.    There are regional exceptions, but if you look around you note that where there are multinational skyscrapers and multinational influence (New York, Hong Kong) there is … a lot more prosperity and a lot less poverty than where global business is banned (Myanmar, North Korea).

Meanwhile most conservatives remain sadly and stupidly hypocritical when it comes to funding our bloated military, which currently accounts for well over half of all global spending.  People who should know how to balance a checkbook abandon all fiscal reason in an ego and emotionally driven fervor to fund every weapon they can get their hands on, often leaving veterans to fend for themselves where this type of spending is clearly an essential obligation of the country to support those who have served.

COMMENTS are VERY WELCOME, even if you think I’m totally full of sh** on this!   

9 killings over the weekend. In Iraq? No, Chicago.

Posted on by
5

As somebody who believes that real math and reason should govern our perceptions about the world, it is difficult to reconcile how people become almost obsessively concerned with certain categories of death or destruction while ignoring others.

For example regardless of how you view the war in Iraq, the death toll appears to be comparable to …. shootings in the USA.    Obviously  there are caveats needed for this simplistic comparison – US is larger, civilian deaths in Iraq are not as well documented and down from the past, etc.   But my point is that if deaths are what bother you then you should familiarize yourself with key death statistics, and you should advocate US spend accordingly.   The most important stat is that *tens of thousands* of  people die around the world every day from easiily preventable illnesss such as Malaria, AIDS, Intestinal viruses, and more.  Unlike violent deaths, which often spring from irreconcilable ethnic, economic, religious, or cultural tensions, deaths from disease are almost universally considered to be “undesirable”.   Also, research has made it clear that lowering death rates generally lowers the birth rate.  The notion that saving people just creates more people to save is …  not supportable.   Yet we (yes, I mean YOU!) continue to pour *trillions* into military and low ROI social programs while a fraction of that amount would create massive infrastructure improvements and save tens of millions of lives.  

I don’t understand the aversion to sensible spending, but I think it stems from some key defects of our human species:

1) We are programmed and designed to respond more to single instances of things rather than massive instances, and to respond locally rather than globally.  Thus we will work harder to save a single child in need of a heart transplant than a whole village in India dying from lack of sanitation.   This focus was functional evolutionarily but now is breaking down in our big world where disaster can loom large for huge numbers of people.

2) We (yes, I mean YOU!)  suck at math.   Many people in power don’t even grasp the chasm of difference between a million and a billion dollars.  Contractors in the military exploit this fundamental math ignorance of people in congress and military decision makers on a daily basis.   The answer of course is to follow the advice of the founders (and even Gen Dwight Eisenhower!) and take this massive and inappropriate military spending out of the hands of bureaucrats and politicians.   In fact the answer is to massively curtail military spending immediately by 50% to 90%.   The security implications are minimal, but people refuse to do the analyses.  I’m absolutely *stunned* by how ignorant and sheepish most of my fellow fiscal conservatives are about the waste in the military.  It is glaring, massive, and preventable – even more than the massive levels of waste in the US social services sector.

That ends my rant for the day.  We now return you to our regularly scheduled blogging…

 

Clinton Wins Pennsylvania

Posted on by
Reply

The networks aren’t calling it but I can because you can get the results from the CNN exit polls with a little extra math:

Based on the exit polls, Clinton will win 52% to 48% and that close margin means this is almost certainly going to the convention.  

Clinton Wins Pennsylvania

The networks are not calling it yet but the exit polling makes it clear Hilary Clinton will win the Pennsylvania Primary.

CNN’s Exit poll data indicates the results will be as follows:

Clinton Male Vote %: .42 x .47 = 20%
Clinton Female Vote %: .58 x .55 = 32%

Clinton Total vote: 52%

Obama Male: .42 x .53 = 22%
Obama Female: .58 x .44 = 26%

Obama Total Vote 48%

Update:  With 99% now in Clinton won 55% to 45%.   This is enough of a margin that no candidate can really argue for any clear democratic consensus, and clearly the convention could be a very lively event.

Money is now a key factor in that Obama has lots and Clinton does not.

 

You call the $13 billion in pork barrel projects wasteful spending? It’s a whimper to the Military’s Bang Mega-Budget!

Posted on by
6

Taxpayers, many in Congress, and all three presidential hopefuls are all ranting against the stupidity of earmarking in congress – the process AKA porkbarrelling where congress people insert unnecessary projects into spending bills and/or other legislation such that we taxpayers pay for projects that are usually wasteful and sometimes scandalous.    Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” is the current poster child, which was allocating tens of millions to build a bridge that would service a tiny Alaska village of something like a few dozen people.

Yes, of course these projects are stupid, but to focus on them to the exclusion of the _real_ waste in Government spending is nonsense.    It’s like complaining that the president makes $400,000 a year when he would work for less.    This earmark money is *chump change* in a federal budget of trillions, where the things we should focus on are how to reduce the insanity of spending too much on wasteful social services projects (insert pretty much any one here) and most importantly our military budget, which is incomprehensibly large and incomprehensibly foolhardy:

Military $550,000,000,000.     Over half the world’s military spending is ours, and much of it is unnecessary.   Note the current Air Force tanker fleet fiasco where on the one hand Democrats argue this staggering contract should go to more expensive Boeing which as a US company would preserve more jobs, while Republicans argue who knows what about this.    The right answer is scale this back – significantly – because US security no longer depends on massive capitalized military juggernaut.    If there is a *single* lesson we should learn from Iraq it is that the USA cannot use massive military superiority to keep the peace.   In fact Iraq may demonstrate the opposite – our massive superiority is one of the factors that insurgents use against us, and is a major reason that the Iraq government has little incentive to get their own military providing better security for the people of Iraq.    

But even if our trillions bring security to Iraq it has been a fools bargain.    The same spending for infrastructure improvements in USA and around the world would have changed the global landscape in a significant way – certainly more than even the most optimistic scenario for Iraq independence.

Contrary to some of the nonsense spouted by modern “conservatives” and many hawkish Democrats as well, the founders of the USA believed in low military spending, very weak federal control, and in very cautious global dealings.    Until we return to those sensibilities we risk everything with the continued reckless military (and social service) spending spree.     

The proposed US Defense Budget is an outrage

Posted on by
5

As a fiscally responsible guy I had to chime in on the proposed US Defense budget which is, in a word, indefensible.     

At $515,000,000,000  this amount is conspicuous for several reasons, and I find it incomprehensible that people who call themselves fiscal conservatives continue to support the insane levels of inappropriate military spending.

One of the biggest reasons the proposed budget is irrational is the very low ROI on military spending.    Unlike infrastructure spending, the military spend does not leave you with more bridges, roads, and buildings.   It’s only justifiable to the extent it *protects value* and protects the national interests.     One need look no further than the Iraq war to see how questionable it is to suggest that spending 500 billion plus there has “protected” much of anything.   

One could probably make a strong case for the WWII military effort as it clearly rescued much of the world from the tyrannical grip of Nazi domination, but note that this spending came *after* the hostile actions.    I think GW would argue that spending now is a preventative measure for much greater spending later if regions like the middle east explode into much greater instability than now.   This is an arguable point, but I’d like to see his ROI calculations on this.     When you are talking about spending hundreds of billions annually you can reshape the entire planet with infrastructure improvements, and it is very hard to see how the military protection advantages would trump the tax, infrastructure, and good will advantages of redirecting military spending to other things or – probably more appropriately – lowering taxes and letting that help the economy and individuals.

I’d sure like to see the type of cost benefit analysis you’d do if the US was run more like a business than a bureaucratic empire, but one of the defects of our two party democracy is that neither party is interested in fiscal responsibility – they both want to spend irresponsibly and recklessly but on different things.    

This amount is more than all other nations combined, and more than half the entire global military budget.   It is true the US has historically born much of the expense of trying to maintain global stability  (for complex reasons), so simply noting this is half all defense spending does not explain enough.  However this amount still is highly questionable because many nations like Japan should be footing their own defense bills.

Note that this budget does not include funding for Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Much will go for bloated, advanced weapons systems that have little place in a world where most of the threats are from asymetric warfare practiced by fundamentalists with 12th century sensibilities.

It is about time for people who call themselves fiscal conservatives to stop their sheep-like, bleeting support of these huge military budgets and start applying the same (correct) standards they apply to other government spending to the defense budget.  

In Memoriam: Benazir Bhutto

Posted on by
6

The tragic murder of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistani moderate and champion of democracy, is yet another reminder of the instability in so many parts of our challenged world.  It is not clear to me how other countries will react if Pakistan falls into chaos.  Bhutto’s assassination, and the ongoing attacks on General Musharaff, bring that possibility closer as Pakistan’s hopes for a quality democracy drift again into the shadows.  

Strategically wise or not, I do not think the US, and perhaps even India, would tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of some of the Pakistani  fundamentalist groups.  India and Pakistan have been very antagonistic towards each other since Pakistan’s fiery birth soon after Indian independence from Britain.  Disputes over the Kashmir region, claimed by both countries, flare up regularly.

Instability favors the extremists and those who support them.   The irony of extremist actions is that they rarely bring the changes desired by the extremists – rather they waste lives and resources, waste blood and treasure that could have been used to help those in need, and consolidate power in the hands of non-extremist but still questionable groups.

Facebook and Politics do mix?

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times  reports that ABC and Facebook have developed a plan to cover the US Presidential campaign debates that come just before the New Hampshire primaries.    The January 5 event promises to allow Facebookers to participate very actively in the events, most notably interacting directly with reporters covering the candidates.

Despite some skepticism that Facebook users care much about politics, clearly this is another minor milestone in social networking and the effect of the online world …on the offline world.

Save the Children

Posted on by
Reply

Charlie Rose is hosting Cokie Roberts of ABC news and former Senator Bill First who both are working for children around the world as part of the superb efforts of “Save the Children” which is working for global health, poverty, and education for all children.  Roberts is pointing out the fact that is routinely and tragically overlooked – helping reduce poverty in the developing world will *decrease* births and is thus likely to *increase* standards of living for everybody.     Many fiscal conservatives fail to “do the math” on global development – an excersize that leads you to fund development efforts at very high levels rather than funding military efforts which generally have very dubious returns on the investment.

Frist, when asked why he wasn’t running for President, said he wanted to focus on his work to save children for the next few years.  Bravo to him and to Save the Children for this excellent work.

Cousins

Posted on by
1

My cousin Judy Glick-Smith is blogging now which is great.   We’ve got a warm and wonderful family rooted in the fertile Shenandoah Valley of Virginia – now spread out over most states and several countries.   With 48 first cousins and all their kids, plus our celebrated older generation, our reunions get pretty busy.   This year we’ll gather near Lancaster PA at Black Rock, a really nice retreat center owned by the Mennonites.

Now, if we could only get more of the cousins and their kids blogging I think we might be able to influence the elections.   Of course the problem might be that the family politics run from far left to far right so I’m not how our collective opinion would shake out.  But one think I love about this family is that family rises above politics.   Well, at least 80% of the time and the rest is spent in fun arguments.

Know your Senators!

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a great list from Wikipedia.org of US Senators with info pages for each one.  Contrary to what many think, even national politicians are pretty easy to meet if you are a constituent of theirs and attend local events where they are speaking (these seem to be most common in the year before an election),  or visit the local office or visit Washington D.C. while they are in session.   I’d say D.C. is the worst way to try to meet your Senator since they’ll be super busy there.

AL: Shelby (R), Sessions (R)
AK: Stevens (R), Murkowski (R)
AZ: McCain (R), Kyl (R)
AR: Lincoln (D), Pryor (D)
CA: Feinstein (D), Boxer (D)
CO: Allard (R), Salazar (D)
CT: Dodd (D), Lieberman (ID)
DE: Biden (D), Carper (D)
FL: Nelson (D), Martinez (R)
GA: Chambliss (R), Isakson (R)
HI: Inouye (D), Akaka (D)
ID: Craig (R), Crapo (R)
IL: Durbin (D), Obama (D) IN: Lugar (R), Bayh (D)
IA: Grassley (R), Harkin (D)
KS: Brownback (R), Roberts (R)
KY: McConnell (R), Bunning (R)
LA: Landrieu (D), Vitter (R)
ME: Snowe (R), Collins (R)
MD: Mikulski (D), Cardin (D)
MA: Kennedy (D), Kerry (D)
MI: Levin (D), Stabenow (D)
MN: Coleman (R), Klobuchar (D)
MS: Cochran (R), Lott (R)
MO: Bond (R), McCaskill (D) MT: Baucus (D), Tester (D)
NE: Hagel (R), Nelson (D)
NV: Reid (D), Ensign (R)
NH: Gregg (R), Sununu (R)
NJ: Lautenberg (D), Menendez (D)
NM: Domenici (R), Bingaman (D)
NY: Schumer (D), Clinton (D)
NC: Dole (R), Burr (R)
ND: Conrad (D), Dorgan (D)
OH: Voinovich (R), Brown (D)
OK: Inhofe (R), Coburn (R)
OR: Wyden (D), Smith (R) PA: Specter (R), Casey (D)
RI: Reed (D), Whitehouse (D)
SC: Graham (R), DeMint (R)
SD: Johnson (D), Thune (R)
TN: Alexander (R), Corker (R)
TX: Hutchison (R), Cornyn (R)
UT: Hatch (R), Bennett (R)
VT: Leahy (D), Sanders (I)
VA: Warner (R), Webb (D)
WA: Murray (D), Cantwell (D)
WV: Byrd (D), Rockefeller (D)
WI: Kohl (D), Feingold (D)
WY: Vacant, Enzi (R)