a true miracle: a conservative commentator praising Obama.
May there be more than a few miracles on November 4. VOTE!
Friday, October 31, 2014
An Airplane Without Walls?
Well, not really, but the next best thing, and an interesting approach to making flying better, cheaper and greener. What do you think? I like it.
"We Will Continue"
Yes, we will, in spite of the Antares explosion. Exploration is in our wiring, and our destiny. I'm glad to see this piece affirm that.
Think That the Media Aren't Driving An Election-Year Narrative?
Think again. Obama's popularity "hasn't plummeted," except to the reporters (and their bosses) with an ax to grind.
And Don't Forget ...
... that the Supreme Court, and the possibility of reversing and correcting decades of horrible jurisprudence, is directly at stake. If you fail to raise your voice when it is needed, you will be responsible for the results.
How Efficient Is "Shareholder Capitalism"?
As further grist for the mill of your thinking as Tuesday's election approaches, I offer the following, from Robert Reich by way of Bill Moyers. It's an interesting analysis of a movement that Reich characterizes as "stakeholder capitalism," as distinguished from what he calls "shareholder capitalism."
Stakeholder capitalism, as described in the examples Reich provides, may not seem all that unique or even special to most of you. It simply refers to the practices of companies that essentially view themselves as "partners" with other related constituencies--their clients/customers, their employees, the communities in which they operate, and so on. At its heart, it requires the capitalists who practice this approach to understand that they do not operate and make money in a vacuum--that how much they make, and how they make it, have an impact on people both internal and external to the enterprise who depend on it in one form or another, and has a concomitant effect on the enterprise's ability to exist.
To me, this is not something that requires a special label such as stakeholder capitalism. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm pretty sure that there was a time in the not-too-distant past where this basic philosophy would have resided neatly under the label of common sense. If John Dunne knew all the way back in 1623 that no man is an island, why should the rest of us not know it, too?
The problem, unfortunately, is that the so-called "Reagan Revolution" launched the beginning of the idea, promoted heavily by Milton Friedman, that the proper application of capitalist principles to an enterprise meant the naked pursuit of the business' fair market value in dollars. Nothing else mattered, and every constituency that could be shafted to create more of that value, by any means necessary, could and should be shafted. And, to create that "value," at least for a limited time, shaft they did. They bought out competitors. They laid off millions of employees. They devastated, in the process, the economies of thousands of cities and towns, dozens of states and, ultimately, the nation as a whole.
And they did all of this through so-called "leveraged buyouts" of what were in many cases perfectly viable businesses. Thus, even the "value" that they were creating was little more than an accounting illusion, one that left the liabilities being created for the future to sort out. We are living in that "future" now, and we are sorting it out by devoting the lion's share of our productive resources to paying down the debt that was created.
In light of all this, it seems fair to question whether shareholder capitalism can truly be justified on the grounds of efficiency, the grounds that, as Reich notes, are often cited by its defenders. Where is the efficiency in depriving the marketplace of competition? In depriving consumers of meaningful choices, not only of where to spend but also of where to earn? In saddling our economy with massive amounts of debt that, as was the case in 2008, threaten to destroy the entire country and required massive government intervention to stop (which in turn, deprived the government of resources needed to fulfill its own obligations)?
Shareholder capitalism has, in fact, no justification by way of efficiency. Nor does it have any justification in morality. If capitalism has any morality at all, it is the morality of failure. Honest work and service are rewarded; dishonest, inefficient or corrupt conduct is punished. At least, in theory, that's the way it should be. That's the morality of Adam Smith, not Milton Friedman. But how is the morality of failure even possible in a world that encourages a handful of sharks to borrow their way into seemingly uncontested control of the economy, with the politicians they've bought along the way backstopping them at every turn?
On the other hand, stakeholder capitalism, by virtue of its design, restrains corruption, enriches everyone, and ensures a world of honest competition in which everyone, to varying degrees is empowered. Thus, it is actually the more efficient approach. And, certainly, the more moral one.
Again, when it comes to a partisan analysis of which party is aligned to which approach, the choice could not be clearer. And staying at home isn't one of them.
Stakeholder capitalism, as described in the examples Reich provides, may not seem all that unique or even special to most of you. It simply refers to the practices of companies that essentially view themselves as "partners" with other related constituencies--their clients/customers, their employees, the communities in which they operate, and so on. At its heart, it requires the capitalists who practice this approach to understand that they do not operate and make money in a vacuum--that how much they make, and how they make it, have an impact on people both internal and external to the enterprise who depend on it in one form or another, and has a concomitant effect on the enterprise's ability to exist.
To me, this is not something that requires a special label such as stakeholder capitalism. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm pretty sure that there was a time in the not-too-distant past where this basic philosophy would have resided neatly under the label of common sense. If John Dunne knew all the way back in 1623 that no man is an island, why should the rest of us not know it, too?
The problem, unfortunately, is that the so-called "Reagan Revolution" launched the beginning of the idea, promoted heavily by Milton Friedman, that the proper application of capitalist principles to an enterprise meant the naked pursuit of the business' fair market value in dollars. Nothing else mattered, and every constituency that could be shafted to create more of that value, by any means necessary, could and should be shafted. And, to create that "value," at least for a limited time, shaft they did. They bought out competitors. They laid off millions of employees. They devastated, in the process, the economies of thousands of cities and towns, dozens of states and, ultimately, the nation as a whole.
And they did all of this through so-called "leveraged buyouts" of what were in many cases perfectly viable businesses. Thus, even the "value" that they were creating was little more than an accounting illusion, one that left the liabilities being created for the future to sort out. We are living in that "future" now, and we are sorting it out by devoting the lion's share of our productive resources to paying down the debt that was created.
In light of all this, it seems fair to question whether shareholder capitalism can truly be justified on the grounds of efficiency, the grounds that, as Reich notes, are often cited by its defenders. Where is the efficiency in depriving the marketplace of competition? In depriving consumers of meaningful choices, not only of where to spend but also of where to earn? In saddling our economy with massive amounts of debt that, as was the case in 2008, threaten to destroy the entire country and required massive government intervention to stop (which in turn, deprived the government of resources needed to fulfill its own obligations)?
Shareholder capitalism has, in fact, no justification by way of efficiency. Nor does it have any justification in morality. If capitalism has any morality at all, it is the morality of failure. Honest work and service are rewarded; dishonest, inefficient or corrupt conduct is punished. At least, in theory, that's the way it should be. That's the morality of Adam Smith, not Milton Friedman. But how is the morality of failure even possible in a world that encourages a handful of sharks to borrow their way into seemingly uncontested control of the economy, with the politicians they've bought along the way backstopping them at every turn?
On the other hand, stakeholder capitalism, by virtue of its design, restrains corruption, enriches everyone, and ensures a world of honest competition in which everyone, to varying degrees is empowered. Thus, it is actually the more efficient approach. And, certainly, the more moral one.
Again, when it comes to a partisan analysis of which party is aligned to which approach, the choice could not be clearer. And staying at home isn't one of them.
And, Just In Case You Need Yet Another Reason To Get Out And Vote On Tuesday ...
... here's an incredibly important one: there's a very good chance that the election will be a stolen one.
Because Republicans steal elections. Especially presidential ones.
Yes, I said elections, not an election. Everyone knows about 2000. Bush, Gore, the hanging chads and the recount that was aborted by the Supreme Court, with the decision that began the Court's long decline into injustice. I have no intention of re-hashing all of that here. It's far too painful for me to even think about, especially since it almost certainly led to the 9/11 attacks, the loss of thousands of lives here and overseas, and a corrupting of our civil liberties that may never be reversed.
But here's something you may not know: It wasn't the first time.
In 1980, the month before the presidential election that launched the current Reign of Error (and Terror), Jimmy Carter had an agreement with the Iranian government to bring home the hostages being held in the American embassy in Tehran. There were rumors about it in the media, but it was in fact a done deal. As a consequence, Carter's re-election prospects were strengthened. Until suddenly, mysteriously, the deal fell apart, and the election momentum shifted in the direction of the Great Dissembler, Ronald Reagan. The rest, as the say, is sadly irreversible history.
Except that the collapse of the deal, while sudden, was no mystery. Rather, it was a blatant act of treason on the part of Reagan's campaign--and, for that matter, Reagan himself, assuming that he was in charge of his own campaign. A covert deal between Republican operatives and the Iranians scuttled the deal that Carter had negotiated, with the promise that Tehran would get a better deal form a Reagan-led administration. The Iranians agreed, the deal was scuttled, a good and decent man and the country he led were both betrayed, and we began our nightmare descent into nineteenth-century politics.
Oh, yes, and the Iranians got their better deal, It was called Iran-Contra. Enough said.
Don't believe me? Take a look here. And then, once you've done that, take a look here, and realize that even Reagan's perfidy was not the first time. In fact, it was a perverse case of history repeating itself. And, both times, with all due respect to Tolstoy, tragedy rather than farce was the result.
How much additional suffering did the embassy hostages, their families and friends have to endure needlessly? How much additional suffering did the people of Indochina have to endure needlessly? Is it even possible to calculate the cost of this treachery to the American people? In ruined lives? In bankrupted businesses and governments? In the very processes that give the word "democracy" whatever real meaning it has for us?
Remember this when you see video of Nixon declaring that he's not a crook. Or Reagan, telling you that America is back. Or Dubya, declaring "Mission Accomplished."
This election is not simply a debate between clashing philosophies. It is a debate between one party that still recognizes philosophical differences and values democracy's ability to sort them out, and a party that has become a monster devoid of anything except an appetite for more power.
The choice is yours. God help us all if you make the wrong one. And, by "wrong one," I'm including staying at home.
Because Republicans steal elections. Especially presidential ones.
Yes, I said elections, not an election. Everyone knows about 2000. Bush, Gore, the hanging chads and the recount that was aborted by the Supreme Court, with the decision that began the Court's long decline into injustice. I have no intention of re-hashing all of that here. It's far too painful for me to even think about, especially since it almost certainly led to the 9/11 attacks, the loss of thousands of lives here and overseas, and a corrupting of our civil liberties that may never be reversed.
But here's something you may not know: It wasn't the first time.
In 1980, the month before the presidential election that launched the current Reign of Error (and Terror), Jimmy Carter had an agreement with the Iranian government to bring home the hostages being held in the American embassy in Tehran. There were rumors about it in the media, but it was in fact a done deal. As a consequence, Carter's re-election prospects were strengthened. Until suddenly, mysteriously, the deal fell apart, and the election momentum shifted in the direction of the Great Dissembler, Ronald Reagan. The rest, as the say, is sadly irreversible history.
Except that the collapse of the deal, while sudden, was no mystery. Rather, it was a blatant act of treason on the part of Reagan's campaign--and, for that matter, Reagan himself, assuming that he was in charge of his own campaign. A covert deal between Republican operatives and the Iranians scuttled the deal that Carter had negotiated, with the promise that Tehran would get a better deal form a Reagan-led administration. The Iranians agreed, the deal was scuttled, a good and decent man and the country he led were both betrayed, and we began our nightmare descent into nineteenth-century politics.
Oh, yes, and the Iranians got their better deal, It was called Iran-Contra. Enough said.
Don't believe me? Take a look here. And then, once you've done that, take a look here, and realize that even Reagan's perfidy was not the first time. In fact, it was a perverse case of history repeating itself. And, both times, with all due respect to Tolstoy, tragedy rather than farce was the result.
How much additional suffering did the embassy hostages, their families and friends have to endure needlessly? How much additional suffering did the people of Indochina have to endure needlessly? Is it even possible to calculate the cost of this treachery to the American people? In ruined lives? In bankrupted businesses and governments? In the very processes that give the word "democracy" whatever real meaning it has for us?
Remember this when you see video of Nixon declaring that he's not a crook. Or Reagan, telling you that America is back. Or Dubya, declaring "Mission Accomplished."
This election is not simply a debate between clashing philosophies. It is a debate between one party that still recognizes philosophical differences and values democracy's ability to sort them out, and a party that has become a monster devoid of anything except an appetite for more power.
The choice is yours. God help us all if you make the wrong one. And, by "wrong one," I'm including staying at home.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Time Is Not On The GOP's Side
No matter what happens next Tuesday, it may be as good as it gets for the Republicans. As I've said before, politics is more generational than it is local. And the generational tide runs against everything conservatism now stands for. No amount of gerrymandering, "dark money," and screaming heads on Fox can change that.
Ranking By Body Count?
An interesting way of appraising U.S. presidents, with some surprising results.
If You Think They're "Illegal" ...
... then don't accept the money they pay into the Social Security system. That, of course, would be the money they'll never get to collect.
Don't Doubt That It Matters Which Party Is In Power
It matters a lot. It often means everything. This is something that means everything for workers. Keep it up, Mr. President. And do something similar with immigration, for crying out loud.
If You're Just Finding Out About This ...
... that probably reflects the inclination in the media, especially older media, to slander first and exonerate never. Especially when a Democrat is the object of the slander. But you can always count on the Internet to correct that, so here it is: Obama did NOTHING wrong with regard to Benghazi.
Aren't you surprised? Yeah, neither was I.
Aren't you surprised? Yeah, neither was I.
Stop Corporate Traitors!
You can do it, Mr. President. All you have to do is have the courage. And, if it comes to pass, don't let losing the Senate stop you. That's all the more reason to stand up to the interests that financed that loss.
And One Tool They're Counting On To Keep You Away From The Polls
The polls themselves. Not the ones you should go to on November 4, but the ones you see on almost a daily basis (or, if you're as much of a political junkie as I am, that you inflict on yourself via Web-surfing on an almost hourly basis). Party polls. Media polls. Pollster polls. And, as I've followed them over the past several months, I've noticed a discrepancy between the numbers in all of these polls, and the narrative for this election cycle that has been pushed in the media, especially by "traditional" media outlets (print and broadcast).
That narrative, of course, is that this is a year of destiny for the Republicans, especially in the Senate races. You've heard the basics by now many times. Most of the seats up this year are in red states. Obama's popularity is in the tank. The voters registered with the party controlling the White House don't show up for midterms and, on top of that, there's a "six-year-itch" in two-term Presidencies that drives unaffiliated voters to vote for the "out" party in that circumstance. Historically, all true. And, if history was inclined to repeat itself, then surely the poll numbers would reflect that.
Except that they aren't.
A little bit of context. By this time four years ago, the polls were producing across-the-board numbers that pointed to a major GOP wave. You have only to look back at those numbers to see that. And, thanks to the data available on the Real Clear Politics Web site, we can do just that. By this time four years ago, the RCP average across polls for party preference in Congressional elections favored Republicans by 6.5%. Today, however, they only have a 3.0 lead. A statistical tie, for all practical purposes.
And even that is inflated by off-the-chart Republican leads from polls produced by three "old media" outlets: CBS, ABC News/Washington Post, and Associated Press/GfK. Take those out, and the difference between the parties is zero. And, frankly, there's every reason in the world to take them out. In the digital age, old media have lost almost all but their oldest viewers, the ones that more typically vote Republican. The other pollsters, while in some cases biased by the source (e.g., Fox, Rasmussen), without exception show no more than a one or two percent lead for either party. There's little doubt that they are trying to achieve a true demographic balance in building their samples.
If that's true, it shatters one more myth about midterm elections: that they are dominated by older voters. The absence of a true Republican "wave" in this year's polls suggest that 2014 might not run true to that form. There's yet another reason to think that. Namely, that the pollsters themselves are fearful that they might be undercounting younger, Democratic-leaning voters. Both The Huffington Post Pollster and The New York Times have recently raised this as a possibility. Again, this is a problem related to the demographics of communications; younger voters are harder to reach by telephone than older voters, so pollsters always run the danger of oversampling the latter. The problem, however, is that, at present, there's no statistically valid way to "correct" for that.
What does all this ultimately mean for November 4th? Jump ball, in my opinion, with each party's ground game being the key to success. This election certainly will test whether Obama and his organizers really have found a way to revolutionize getting progressive voters to the polls.
You, of course, can do your part to help prove that they have done it. Vote. Not because the polls tell you to do it, but because your values make you do it.
That narrative, of course, is that this is a year of destiny for the Republicans, especially in the Senate races. You've heard the basics by now many times. Most of the seats up this year are in red states. Obama's popularity is in the tank. The voters registered with the party controlling the White House don't show up for midterms and, on top of that, there's a "six-year-itch" in two-term Presidencies that drives unaffiliated voters to vote for the "out" party in that circumstance. Historically, all true. And, if history was inclined to repeat itself, then surely the poll numbers would reflect that.
Except that they aren't.
A little bit of context. By this time four years ago, the polls were producing across-the-board numbers that pointed to a major GOP wave. You have only to look back at those numbers to see that. And, thanks to the data available on the Real Clear Politics Web site, we can do just that. By this time four years ago, the RCP average across polls for party preference in Congressional elections favored Republicans by 6.5%. Today, however, they only have a 3.0 lead. A statistical tie, for all practical purposes.
And even that is inflated by off-the-chart Republican leads from polls produced by three "old media" outlets: CBS, ABC News/Washington Post, and Associated Press/GfK. Take those out, and the difference between the parties is zero. And, frankly, there's every reason in the world to take them out. In the digital age, old media have lost almost all but their oldest viewers, the ones that more typically vote Republican. The other pollsters, while in some cases biased by the source (e.g., Fox, Rasmussen), without exception show no more than a one or two percent lead for either party. There's little doubt that they are trying to achieve a true demographic balance in building their samples.
If that's true, it shatters one more myth about midterm elections: that they are dominated by older voters. The absence of a true Republican "wave" in this year's polls suggest that 2014 might not run true to that form. There's yet another reason to think that. Namely, that the pollsters themselves are fearful that they might be undercounting younger, Democratic-leaning voters. Both The Huffington Post Pollster and The New York Times have recently raised this as a possibility. Again, this is a problem related to the demographics of communications; younger voters are harder to reach by telephone than older voters, so pollsters always run the danger of oversampling the latter. The problem, however, is that, at present, there's no statistically valid way to "correct" for that.
What does all this ultimately mean for November 4th? Jump ball, in my opinion, with each party's ground game being the key to success. This election certainly will test whether Obama and his organizers really have found a way to revolutionize getting progressive voters to the polls.
You, of course, can do your part to help prove that they have done it. Vote. Not because the polls tell you to do it, but because your values make you do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)