Gross National Happiness

In Eric Weiner's The Geography of Happiness he talks of the nation of Bhutan, its efforts to maintain its history and culture, but mostly of its policy of Gross National Happiness.

 

The first two words in that phrase should sound familiar enough.  Even if you don't know what  they mean, Gross National Product or Gross Domestic Product should be phrases you've heard before.  Often, the terms are used to describe not just the wealth, but the overall health of a nation. Bhutan has a different take on this.  Instead of measuring their worth, their government's worth, and their national policies by measure of what they produce (and, of course, by association, what they consume) they've chosen to rate themselves on a policy of national happiness.

 

"But," you think to yourself,  "you can't measure happiness." 

 

"Why not?" says Weiner and a growing number of phsychologists, sociologists, magazine editors and jounalists.  In a recent Business Week survey, Bhutan was rated the eighth happiest nation in the world.  It made Weiner's list of places to check out because he had seen the survey and was familiar with the work of a psychologist from the Netherlands who spoke of it, and because he wanted to find a place that was relatively poor by most standards but still made everyone else's lists of happy places.

 

What intrigued me about Weiner's description of the place was the fact that the underlying idea behind Bhutan's otherwise VERY idiosyncratic methods of achieving Gross National Happiness was the idea that living within one's means virtually guarntees the policy's success. Before having a local explain this to him directly, Weiner notices a road sign on which the following is hand painted:

 

When the last tree is cut

When the last river is emptied

When the last fish is caught

Only then will Man realize that he can not eat money

 

Ok, ok, so they're all tree huggers?  Well, not really.  Some of their dedication to preservation, at least in the form of preventing littering, comes to them much more honestly... via superstition or faith, if you prefer.  Weiner relates the story of three hikers walking past a lake into which they've thrown their trash.  Without warning a dense fog enveloped the area and caused the hikers to get lost.  Only one of them was ever found.  Legend has it that the spirit of the lake took the other two hikers as punishment for their "sins."  Folks in Bhutan don't litter now.  And sure, they're not above animism, but it's not the ONLY reason they believe in sustainability.

 

When he finally manages to track down a government official who is initially "too busy" to be interviewed for the book, Weiner asks him why he has just seen graphic footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a presentation the official has just hosted.  The official's response sums up the policy:

 

"I truly believe that a country that is committed to happiness cannot be bellicose; if we don't pursue a sustainable way of life, we will be fighting for resources.  Not just for oil and not necessarily between nations.  It might be a fight for water between San Diego and Los Angeles."

 

While this official's answer doesn't exactly address the footage about which Weiner inquires, it does represent the essence of Bhutan's policy:  they're frickin nuts!

 

Just like every era-marking idea in the history of man.

 

Only when someone, somewhere, has the balls to say or think or try something totally nuts is history made.  Only when the common thinking is challenged in a way that allows a new idea, a new way of thinking, a completely different view of the world to gain some traction are problems we've never foreseen on the verge of being solved.

 

In the case of Bhutan, an entire nation has bought into this madness.  According to Weiner, they owe much of their current thinking to an ancestor who came along about 500 years ago named Drupka Kunley.  Natives sometimes call him the Divine Madman.  Weiner compares him to Woody Allen and Howard Stern.  He was a bit of a drunk, a womanizer, apparently had what some might call a flatulence problem, and he laid down the ideals for a nation that now places the happiness of its people above the wealth of its people.

 

The Bhutanese have done this in some strange ways, not all of which sound all that great, but doesn't every plan run into some roadblocks?  While they still keep a very strict limit on tourism, forgoing potential millions, they have added cable TV, hospitals, schools, and even a few "roads" if you use the term loosely.  Men are advised (but not forced) to meditate at some point in their lives for three years, three days and three months and not too long ago, the government ran power lines up into the Himalayas to provide a village just for this meditation.  There's no profit involved.  It doesn't cost anything to go and meditate there, and there's little financially to be derived from any phase of the ordeal, but that wasn't a consideration.

 

I'm leaving out many of the details, but you can read Weiner's book (it really is interesting and it looks at  a lot of other places in the world while doling out digestible chunks of data driven "happiness research" along the way) or you can just Wiki Bhutan for yourself.  My point, and I do have one, is that regardless of how nutty this particular nation of people may be, the fact that they still exist, and by most standards are doing just fine, seems to indicate that the time has come for their crazy idea to be recognized by others.

 

This means a shift in thinking.

 

Nietzche says something like this in Daybreak: 

 

"It is not enough to prove something, one also has to seduce or elevate people to it.  That is why the man of knowledge should learn how to speak his wisdom: and often in such a way that sounds like folly."

 

Plenty of smart people have told us for a long time that money can't buy happiness, that it's not a true measure of wealth or health.  That nations cannot be measured solely by it and yet, for the last twenty years of my life and long before, I suspect, every indication of where we are and where we are going as a nation has been in terms of the mighty dollar.

 

Weiner poses a riddle early on in his chapter on Bhutan.  It's as if he's having trouble wrapping his brain around the nation's crazy ideas even though he went there for the sole purpose of grasping them.  The riddle goes like this: 

 

What do the following have in common:  The War in Iraq, The Exxon Valdez, and the rise in the U.S. prison population?  The answer, of course, is that they all contribute to... favorably contribute to our Gross Domestic Product.  In pure economic terms, that makes all three of these items "good."

 

Now look, I'm not saying that Bhutan has all the answers, nor does Weiner.  In fact, he bemoans the lack of a good cup of coffee just about everywhere in the country and notes that many of the "cafes" his tour guide drops him in serve only instant... bad instant. And I'm not saying we could suddenly drop the economy that currently has our nation chugging along so briskly and wonderfully overnight.  But I am saying that the staying power of this idea is a sign that we're ready to evolve as a species into a higher form of managing ourselves and our world.

 

Though plenty of people WAY smarter than me have told us many times before that money isn't everything, we've never been seduced to any alternatives.  We've never been elevated to any new way of thinking about it.  Eric Weiner's book has thrown some sand under our wheels as they spin on the financial ice.  Dr. Ruut Veenhoven, Professor of Happiness Studies and his World Happiness Database in the Netherlands, Positive Psychology programs popping up at Clarmont University in California, and now Penn State, surveys by Business Week, and a whole lot of searching for a better way HAVE elevated us to this idea.

 

It is rarely enough to prove something.  We must be elevated to it.  It must be presented to us as folly, so we are forced to consider it over and over until something about it strikes us as real.

 

The Geography of Happiness speaks this truth as though it were pure folly.  It is entertaining in its most biographical purposes,  pleasantly enlightening  in its dissemination of research, but most importantly, it elevates us to an entire shift in thinking.  It introduces us to guests standing at our doorway who appear a little scary compared to the guests we're used to, but dammit, I think it's time we let them in, offer them something to drink, some good conversation, and just see if we can't enjoy what we have to learn from them for a while.

 

What have we got to lose?

By the way, while cleaning up the 'blog, I found an old post lying around in draft form, realized how overdue a new post was and though it's probably too late, I thought maybe this might remind us all, on the day after a historic inauguaration, that it is in fact time to move on... that and I'm pissed I never got around to posting it when the time was right (when Mary Tillman's book came out almost a YEAR ago!! ) so if you're like the three other regular readers of HorsePoup, and you're jonesing for something else to read while waiting for the paint to dry, click on May 2008 and check out another "new" post full of piss and vinegar over the different treatment of two grieving mothers who lost sons in OEF/OIF.

Luth,

Out

Bailouts

I was digging around the archives looking for a post I thought I'd created, but it must have just been an email I sent to the die hard fans on my mailing list.  It was my proposal for the banking industry bailout and it went something like this: 

If you want my money, these are the rules: (for PUBLICLY OWNED/TRADED COMPANIES)

1.  Salaries of all "c-level" employees (CEO, CFO, CIO...) are not to exceed 20 times the average salary of your full-time employees, or, if you prefer, not to exceed 30 times your lowest paid employee including part-timers.

2.  C-level benefits packages must be available to all full-time employees at similar proportions of their incomes.  

3.  No other form of compensation (options, parachutes, trusts) may be provided to C employees that are not also available to and resonably attainable by all other full time employees.  

4.  You can return to your ridiculous pay structures as soon as you've paid back all principal and interest.  

If you don't like these terms, don't take the money.  Four rules.  Simple as that.

Remember,  it's you bastards who got rich while the rest of us lost our homes and our jobs over the last seven years.  Don't wait too long for us to come to your rescue.

These rules were part of my proposal for publicly-owned and traded companies, but especially for those financial companies who sit at the top of the funnel, up through which all of America's money passes.  

To that I'd like to add that it's time the people on top of that funnel, where the entire nation's wealth is concentrated should be subject to THE MOST scrutiny and REGULATION of any other industry in America.  That's ALL of OUR money up there.  They skim the most of it off and keep it for themselves as it is, and that's fine as long as their practices are sound.  You don't have to be a financial genius to know that naked short selling isn't sound and shouldn't even be legal.  WTF!?

But what pissed me off the most about the whole deal was that these are the same people who call welfare, adequate public education funding and universal healthcare "socialism" but when the money goes the other direction it's "vital to our economic stability."

These bailouts are welfare.  Plain and simple.  The only difference is that the tax money is going straight to the top... as if even the welfare must now trickle down to save us.  Our money just wasn't getting funneled up fast enough -  Bush's plan to sell out middle Amercia to Big Corporate wasn't working fast enough, so now we'll print more money than we have, hand it directly over to those at the top of the chain and put the bill on the middle Americans who actually manage to keep their jobs... and their kids and grandkids.  The dollar goes down, the debt goes up and the guys who got us into this mess walk away with fat wallets, as usual.  That's the only "economy" we're saving.  The pressure and the deadline (fear tactics) for the billions we handed over to the banks came straight out of the "we must invade Iraq" playbook.  And though raising taxes is a horrible idea, every man, woman and child in America is now strapped with an additional 3-grand to pay back at some point... but it's not a tax, so that's cool.  We don't want to raise taxes 'cuz it would kill the economy!

So now we're contemplating bailing out the auto industry as well.  There are certainly a lot of perspectives from which to approach this.  As an Ohioan, whose household income has been comprised in parts varying from 2/3 to 1/2 from the auto industry over the years, it's a tough line to walk.  The funny thing is, the employers providing that income have been either German or Japanese since the early 90's.  Those German and Japanese employers' biggest customers have been Ford, GM, and Chrysler, but they've also made parts for Honda, Toyota, Nissan and a few others here and there.  My wife and my brother both currently work for German companies whose primary customers are the Big Three.  Fortunately for both of them (and me) their companies also supply the OTHER American auto industry, so while their business has slowed with the economy, their fates don't rest solely with the Big Three.

Having lived in the shadow of the Honda Engine plant in Anna, OH, I'm amazed at how many large companies and mom and pop shops spring up to support that operation.  What's so amazing is how so many jobs can be ignored by so large a segment of America.  Whenever I hear someone tell a Honda driver to "buy American" I wonder what they're talking about.  I don't know if it's true anymore, but the Ohio-built Honda Accord was for a number of years the MOST American of any car "made in America."  Show me a car company that has invested more in Ohio jobs in the last 20 years than Honda?  Show me a plant newer than the Marysville assembly or Anna engine plants.  My point is, the auto industry in America, and especially in Ohio, isn't dead, there are just a few new names.

There are plenty of viable automotive manufacturers employing thousands of Americans across the U.S.   They don't need bailed out and sales of some of their models have even increased.  Their business model is slightly different than the Big Threes' models. They anticipate and build to the market (what a novel idea to let the market dictate) rather than just building cars that won't be bought to satisfy ill-advised union contracts accepted when times were good. They pay decent wages in a clean, safe environment, and best of all, they pay taxes.  Their employees pay taxes, and they and their employees are likely to survive this recession. That union part is a whole other post, but the business model is a key part of my plan for the auto industry bailout... so now that I've told that story, I can tell this one:

I will add only one modification to my bank bailout rules for the auto industry and it is this:  auto industry execs need not apply.

Don't patronize me with your $1 annual salary offers.  And don't bother telling me you'll now do what Jimmy Carter warned you about in 1977.  We probably shouldn't have done it for the banks either, but two wrongs won't make it right.

Ford says they can weather this storm, having finally acted on Carter's pleas about 28 years later.  Yep, they started building a more fuel efficient product line about three years ago.  They can meet payroll and suffer through until about 2011 according to them, so they don't need it.

Chrysler already had their chance.  I don't know what their prospects are and I've given up trying to understand how much of it belongs to Mercedes, so someone will have to enlighten me on that, but they're out anyway.

The best thing that could happen to GM is to declare bankruptcy and start over.  I'm not sure what effect that will have on the entire U.S. economy, but it's a long time coming.  This is a company who had a production electric car on the market more than ten years ago.  Do you know how many of those they could have sold had they continued to work on that and have, say 100,000 of them perfected and ready to go last spring when gas prices topped $4 a gallon?  Gas will cost that much again, and how much closer to having that old idea ready to go will GM be? They put their money into Hummers, full-size trucks and SUVs not because that's what they predicted the market would bear next year or five years from now, but because that's what was profitable right here and right now.  Now that moment has passed and they find themselves in a bit of a pickle.  Well, you get what you pay for... and what we've paid for all this time.  Don't ask us for more.

My advice to GM is to stick to the small government manifesto that they preached to congress 30 years ago:  let the market run its course.  (actually, they said what's good for GM is good for the nation, but the point was "leave us alone")  So we should heed that point now.  If your business plan accounts for that market, you'll be just fine.  If not, the market will correct itself and you and in the long run we'll all be better for it.  Maybe they should ask their buddies in Big Oil for some extra cash.

I'm sure it will cause quite a ripple if the big G really fails and I'm not sure how comfortably my household will survive it, but like the evil drill sergeant always said during PT, "you can pay me now or you can pay me later."  Might as well pay him now cuz it sure looks like we're all screwed anyway.  Why prolong it?

It doesn't make much sense to offer loans to a company we know can't pay us back when we can buy a majority stake in that company for about 10% of what they seek in loans.  I was an English major, but that's not tough math.  I have to agree in part with Michael Moore - Detroit born and raised, former UAW employee - when he says the best plan for GM would be for the gov't to take it over, convert its facilities to start retrofitting America for mass transit, and when it turns a profit, pay ourselves back and sell it off the highest bidder.  (I know, I know, his arguments are usually just the left version of Rush Limbaugh's... oversimplified, etc. but hey, why not start up a New Deal kind of CCC - Obama's been talking about it anyway.  As soon as we're done in Iraq, we've got a couple a billion a week to pour into it!)

I've heard the argument that cities like LA, who needs it most, were built before true, efficient mass transit was a real concern and that it just won't work there, but I have only one thing to say to that: Rome.  It may not have been built in a day, but it was around a long time before the first commuter train ever appeared.  There's no reason we can't line every major commuter path in American with light rail, skyrocketing the economy and reducing our dependence on so much oil all in the same public works/GM project.  How many frickin jobs will that create?

All right, it's way past my bed time and I've covered more than enough topics for one post.

Laters

Luth

 

Abortions, movie reviews, big government

Well, you couldn't have avoided it on the news. A baby born in Saudi Arabia was pregnant with the fetus with whom she'd previously shared her mother's womb. The Saudi doctors interviewed for the Pravda article I read weren't sure how common, or uncommon this was, but they were sure it was the first time they'd seen it.

Turns out, according to that same Pravda article, it's more common than we might think. By that, I mean the article listed a few other examples of it happening in the recent past - which makes the phenomenon more common than I thought, anyway!

So the natural question that follows, on this blog anyway, is whether or not aborting this "baby" is murder. It's been conceived already so it's a life, but that's not how the medical experts in the Pravda article describe it. Here's a paragraph from the article:

A fetus in fetu can be considered alive, but only in the sense that its component tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. Thus, the life of a fetus in fetu is inherently limited to that of an invasive tumor. In principle, its cells must have some degree of normal metabolic activity to have remained viable. However, without the gestational conditions attainable (so far) only in utero with the amnion and placenta, a fetus in fetu can develop into, at best, an especially well-differentiated teratoma; or, at worst, a high-grade metastatic teratocarcinoma. In terms of physical maturation, its organs have a working blood supply from the host, but all cases of fetus in fetu present critical defects, such as no functional brain, heart, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or urinary tract. Accordingly, while a fetus in fetu can share select morphological features with a normal fetus, it has no prospect of any life outside of the host twin. Moreover, it poses clear threats to the life of the host twin on whom its own life depends.

It's alive, but only in the sense that its tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. In addition to posing a threat to its "twin host" it is described as a tumor. Which leads me to wonder... how different is that "tumor" from a single fertilized egg in a normal pregnancy? (alive, in the sense that its tissues have not yet died or been eliminated) How about in a pregnancy resulting from rape... in a 12 year old? It poses very similar immediate physical threats in addition to the lifelong less physical threats of raising the child.

It's been explained to me by some very intelligent Catholics that the miracle of conception is the precise moment at which this mass of cells becomes a life worthy of protecting. That's when the soul is... well, whatever... you need faith, not science to follow that part of the explanation. Prior to conception, no problem, but once conceived, whole new ballgame. So the doctors who saved the pregnant Saudi baby's life are murderers. Likewise the doctors who removed the very human remains from a 36 year-old Indian farmer or the 6 month-old Indian boy noted in the same article... murderers all. Well, actually the farmer was the murderer in that case since his body refused to host his former twin for 36 years. His doctors can only be accused of removing the "still-born fetus" from the farmer's abdomen after he finally complained of stomach pains. But enough about that from me... for now.

MOVIES

Took a break from Christmas shopping/holiday travels to see Four Christmases with the Mrs. Luth this weekend. This in spite of a review that said something like: "their difference in height far surpasses their chemistry" referring to Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon's characters. This kind of blather is exactly why I continue to spew my nonsense here. At least I don't expect to be paid for it. While I will agree with that particular reviewers 2.5 of 5 stars overall, I have to wonder if the the reviewer even watched more than about ten minutes of the movie.

Initially, the two main characters offer little more dialogue than the practiced lines about why they've been together for three years but have no plans to get married or have children. They've delivered the practiced lines so many times that it's clear neither of them really believes them anymore. They're just reading from the anti-marriage script and flaunting their selfish crap about not wanting to get bogged down in the legality or the labels. Mistaking that for a lack of chemistry was a pretty clear indication to me that this reviewer didn't know what he was watching.

Two of the four Christmases portrayed could have been shortened considerably, but they had their moments and the other two were downright funny. One in particular relied too heavily on a ridiculous send up of a mega church Christmas eve service. (the warm up music was Gary Glitter's Rock and Roll part 2) That's only funny if you don't already find all that pomp and circumstance ridiculous to begin with. Vaughn is the guy you expect - funny, vulnerable, macho, stupid, clever, tough and wimpy at the same time. Witherspoon is pretty much the same character from Legally Blonde without so much over-blondeness, which is to say, mildly attractive and funny too, so what else did you expect or want from them?  I mistakenly assumed Jon Favreau cast himself in a larger role than usual in the movies he directs, but he was hilarious as the not quite professional cage fighter brother in two of the Vaughn family Christmases.  The scene where he and his equally red-throated wife dominate a game of Taboo was a highlight, but the actual director was Seth Gordon, who, unlike Favreau, resisted the temptation to insert himself as a character.

As a break from the holiday hustle and bustle, it was well worth the money and it made for an enjoyable and rare night out without the kids. I'm not sure it would have fared too well had it had any real competition though. I wasn't really surprised to hear that it took in nearly 40 million in its first weekend, beating out only a kids movie and a vampire movie.  Although it did manage to top a James Bond movie and a third installment of Transporter!! for the weekend take anyway.  

We went, partly to see if it might replace National Lampoons Christmas Vacation among our holiday traditions, but alas, Vacation remains unseated at the top of the Luther Family Christmas traditions.  This reviewer's recommendation: it'll entertain you, but it'll wait for the DVD too.

BIG GOV

My boss is retiring. While cleaning out her office, she ran across the summary report Al Gore prepared for Bill Clinton before they left office that detailed their efforts to reduce, revamp or eliminate government positions, agencies and in general both the size and the scope of federal government. Backed by OBM dollar figures and OPM body counts, it was a pretty amazing look at the party of big government's largely successful efforts resulting in a budget surplus and the smallest gov't since well before the Reagan years. Which begs the question, on this blog anyway, how in the heck can anyone claim to be a Repub these days because they want smaller, more efficient government? I'll try to remember to dig around for a link to the summary report somewhere cuz you have to read it for yourself. But given the cost of gov't over the last 8 years, the price we paid in interest rates, unemployment and inflation after the Reagan-Bush years, and the numbers in the report, it has to be obvious to anyone not blinded by party loyalty that, just like the Party of Lincoln, the roles and goals of the parties have changed quite a bit over the years.

It's stuff like that that helps me justify true independence. I may be liberal, but liberal ideas can be found on both sides of the aisle if you're willing to look with your eyes open. Allowing them to be closed by the blinders of strong party affiliation is what, IMHO, has led us into the quagmire politics has become.

I want better. If they're gonna hook me for 25% of my income, dammit, I want better. I don't care what party brings it as long as it gets brung.

Luth

Out

Illini

It's been over 20 years since I've been in Champaign/Urbana, Illinois. Or is it Champaign-Urbana? Either way, it was about what I remembered... overcast, cold, windy. But it was a lot colder in Memorial Stadium for Illini fans on Saturday since the Buckeyes stomped them to win back the Illibuck (a wooden turtle substituted after the live one expired)(oh yeah, and the Illini juniors won't actually hand it back to their Buckeye counterparts until next year... kind of a weird trophy/ritual, eh?)

Anyhoo, had I given much more thought than I did to this trip when I first learned I was invited back in September - when it was still quite warm and the 5-hour bus ride after my 3-hour drive to Sidney was still months away - I probably would not have gone, but it turned out to be pretty cool.

I went with two brothers- and a father-in-law and though we were all rather tired after beginning the bus trip at 5 am, and all pretty much passed out by (some of us, like me, well before) 9 pm Saturday night, it turned out to be a good time thanks to the Buck's victory and that team from up north's loss. A hatred of that team up north seems to be universal throughout the Big 10 as the entire stadium cheered in unison when the Northwestern score appeared on the scoreboard.

There were at least as many people in scarlet and gray on our side of the field as there were in orange and blue, and most of us were civil, even cordial with each other throughout. There's always that one fan though... and this poor guy got paid back in spades when he left with 2:30 left on the clock. He had just announced loudly an Illini fumble recovery for a huge gain, but when the play was reviewed, overturned, and the ball returned to Ohio State so we could just run out the clock, he and his buddy (who apologized for this guy's behavior all day) got up and left as though no one would notice. That was the loudest the crowd got throughout the game. Cracked me up... the guys next to me too, and they were Illinois fans! I really didn't think the guy was being that obnoxious. I was entertained, but apparently he'd pissed off a lot of others and they were glad to return the favor when he left.

Anyhoo, it was a great game, the rain held off, there was beer for breakfast supplied by our hosts on what was billed as a "non-alcoholic trip," I got my picture taken with a Woody Hayes impersonator, I slept for about 12 hours before the long ride home Sunday morning, and life was, in almost all respects, good.

Except for one thing that's bugging me. I hear Obama has made it clear that he won't support so-called "sagging pants ordinances" like those made famous in Florida. He considers them a waste of time at a time when our nation has bigger fish to fry.

I'm disappointed in his judgment. If we as a nation won't enforce laws upholding common decency, it won't be long before everything goes to hell in the old basket. There will be guns, drugs, crime, unemployment, witches and all kinds of evil overrunning us. For the love of Bob, man do something about the PANTS!

Luth,
Out

Yes we can

I wonder if the way I felt last night and this morning is what people felt when Kennedy was elected. I've never been as excited, and a little scared, over a presidential election in my life.

I remain amazed that people whose parents were born into slavery were able to vote for America's first black president. I was alive to see that. I participated in that. I am proud of my country today... proud in spite of the vitriol Rush Limbaugh is already spewing about the 50 million voters who didn't vote Obama. Rush needed to pay a little more attention to Senator McCain's speech last night.

The fear I feel is the same kind of fear when I take on something new at work... something I'm not sure I can do. It's that fear that makes we want to try it. Without that fear once in a while, I'd be looking for another job. That fear is what gets me out of bed in the morning. The work part is just beginning and I hope that we are ready for it.

For some the hardest part will be throwing away the old model - this is not to say that everything W has done is wrong. He actually got some things right in the second term, quietly, without ever admitting they were wrong in the first term, but what I mean is the model that says government is meant to be tolerated rather than is supposed to serve. Perhaps that's why the line about "government that governs least governs best" is so popular. I don't disagree, necessarily, but if government was really helpful (say, for instance, like VHA!) wouldn't we want it to do more? Anyway, that old model... the fear mongering, the divisive party sniping, has got to go if we're ever to solve the large and complex problems facing us. I'm not saying Obama can lead us through this any better than any other candidate... well, OK, maybe better than Palin, but rather, the enthusiasm, the turnout, the depth of involvement in our political system that he inspired in so many people CAN bring about change that we never imagined possible. We've got to start believing that.

If all we expect from our government is that it doesn't interfere too much with our lives and it doesn't screw up too much, then why would we be surprised if that's all we ever get from our government. I truly feel that Obama's history-making win is a sign that we're ready to expect more... that we believe something better can and should come from government. I believe it means we've decided it's time our government worked in a way that makes us actually want more of it.

I admit I'm not a history buff, but I don't ever remember hearing of a presidential candidate who energized people the way Obama and his campaign did. He is often criticized for having never lead anything bigger than a senate staff or the Harvard Law Review. Not that those aren't impressive credentials, but they pale by comparison to the campaign he pulled off. The money he raise, largely in small contributions, the numbers he motivated to turn out, the absence of game-changing mistakes and the 50-state effort should put to rest the idea that he is not ready to lead a nation. He already has.

Now if that nation is ready to be lead, to believe that we can once again be what our dreams tell us we can, and if Obama can do in office what he managed on the campaign trail, then I don't think we can be stopped. There was a lot of talk during the last few years about how every empire eventually falls and that our time seemed close, but I don't think we're ready for that just yet. I think we've got a little more of a run.

For such a relatively young nation, America often comes off as arrogant... arrogant beyond its years. But so do naive kids. The upside of this is that the same youthful naivete also makes youngsters quick learners and less resistant to change. Kids learn fast because they don't worry as much about embarrassing themselves. (and they'e not afraid of bumps and bruises) They can adapt more readily because they aren't trapped in ruts. I believe the results of this election prove our young nation has exhibited those positive youthful traits. I think we're ready. I think change is beginning. It'll be a little scary. It will take some work. It will probably involve a little arguing, but I think we're worth it. I also think what we can offer the rest of the world once we get back on track might erase some of the years it would otherwise take to fix our reputation outside our borders.

Dropping the old model will be tough for many. Creating a better replacement will be even tougher. But it's worth it.

I think it's an exciting time to be alive. Who's with me?

Luth,
Out

Tomorrow's the big day/Luth's tax plan

Will we decide we're ready to get on with our lives, that government should serve us and not just be tolerated by us? Who knows. I'm sure the changes we're all holding our collective breath for are beyond the reach of any one president, but I'm also pretty sure another rich white guy who doesn't seem to know what he stands for and who's running mate is less qualified than my father-in-law (seriously) to run the country ain't the answer.

I had hoped to discuss a lot of things on here before now. I had hoped to give a brief lesson on the Laffer Curve, made most famous outside of economic circles in Ferris Beuhler's Day Off by Ben Stein's character... and how even conservative economists all but shot it down within its first year in public light because, among various other problems with it, one interpretation is that if it's true, and if we haven't reached the peak point of taxation, then MORE taxes are the answer to economic growth, not less. Another problem is that there was never enough data to suggest this wasn't the case. Turns out it's almost impossible to follow up on the theory of such a dynamic issue using only static data. That's why the theory is discredited among economists but works so well in a campaign wherein the greatest virtue seems to be being just like Joe the (insert trade of choice here)rather than having some complex vision for our future. If you don't have to think it through, it sounds great. It's Limbaugh Logic and it polls all too well with Joe Six Pack!

I had hoped to talk more about how or why John McCain somehow escaped the scrutiny faced by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry or John Edwards. I still don't get that. Since the primaries started, I've been amazed by what I've learned about Senator McCain. As I've made abundantly clear, I really thought he was one of few congressmen earning his keep, but looking back over his career (military and political) now makes him look a lot more like someone who simply latched on to what would gain him some ground for his next election. And I get that you have to win before you can do anything else, but if his plan is different from W's, then he hasn't really proposed anything else yet... except a McCain victory, which, based on his career history, is about all he's planned.

I don't know if a president has the ability to truly shape our economy, but I know that the guy who turned the place over to W left him some extra money, a warning about Bin Laden, and a rolling economy. Eight years later we're back in the extrapolated Reagan era - big business is rolling in it while the rest of us are wondering what we'll have to cut next... still waiting for the trickle. It didn't work for Reagan in most senses and it isn't working now.

I have an economic theory that those of us in the bottom 95% really make up more of our economy than we're given credit for. Even in these economic times, we still have to fill our tanks, buy groceries, pay the bills. That day to day spending IS the American economy. Yacht, mansion, and Bentley orders may be down, but we still have to get to the store weekly to keep the cupboards full, even if the economy means they're full of peanut butter, jelly and store brand bread. The bottom 95% of income earners in America are the ones who buy the products that the top 5% are selling. The last eight years have proven that they can only rob from us for so long before we don't have any money left to buy anything anymore. That's when the economy collapses. That's where we are. That's why a progressive tax makes at least as much sense as the Laffer Curve as an economic principle.

A progressive tax plan says simply that those who benefit most from the resources government provides pay the most for those resources. Is it really that crazy? Is that really socialist? (maybe in the sense that FDR, Warren Buffet, Allan Greespan and John McCain are, well used to be, socialists) I drive one car on the road, have one house that needs fire protection, draws electricity off the public grid, etc. and so on. Should I really pay a larger portion of my income for those roads, power, etc. than Sam Walton (for instance), who as a result of using the entire country's roads, power grids, sewers, etc. also pockets more profit than I ever aspire to? There's nothing wrong with him making as much money as he has, but it comes with a tax liability equal to if not in excess of my own. Is it really crazy to think otherwise? I'll share that burden with him in the form of sales taxes and abatements to defray the cost of him opening up a new store, but after that, he's on his own. Is that really too much to ask? Is that perspective so crazy?

Look at it this way: I have a house, he has a house. I have an income, he has an income. I have a job, he has a job. So far we're equal and we're taxed equally. but Sam also has a fleet of trucks spread out across the American highways. He's got stores and warehouses scattered over every state. Each one requires government funded roads, power, water, sewer, police and fire protection. Given that I don't profit from all of those assets, why should I share the tax burden they require?

Jobs you say? Sure those assets of Sam's provide jobs... for people who also pay income taxes, shop at Wal-Mart and pay sales taxes. The only guy left out of the picture here in the Laffer Curve model is the owner of that vast network. The burden is his. It is NOT a penalty for his success, it's his responsibility. Let me repeat that, it is NOT a penalty for his success. It is his RESPONSIBILITY. It is the part of the American dream that begets future American dreams. If Sam's stuff sucks up more of those services we're all paying for, then Sam needs to pay more than those of us who aren't sucking up more of the services. It is selfish to think otherwise. It is unpatriotic to think otherwise. It is greedy to think otherwise. It is illogical to think otherwise. That burden is Sam's. That burden can only be shouldered by the bottom 95% of American taxpayers for so long. We're reaping the results of the flawed Laffer Curve model being the basis of our economy for 20 of the last 28 years. How much longer must we test a theory we know to be flawed. How much more of "the wealth" must be redistributed from the bottom 95% to the top 5% before we can no longer afford those roads, power grids, services any longer?

Redistribution of wealth isn't some abomination of a libertarian tax plan in a capitalist society, it's one of the primary reasons for taxes. Taxes fund government and government provides the basic services that would be unreasonable for individuals, including individual corporations, to provide on their own. Asking those who use and benefit most from those services to pay the most for them isn't socialist. In fact little could be more American. We all pay our own way here... except for all those things we share the cost of that government provides. Why shouldn't Sam pay his share of that?

I doubt anyone who would be swayed by my ramblings will read this before they head to the polls tomorrow, but there's always 2012.

Here's to a bright new America, starting Wednesday!

Luth,
Out

What it really boils down to

I know I promised to plagiarize more of the Tom Dickinson article that lays out why one more rich white guy shouldn't be president, but I'm tired of playing the game of arguing over things as presented by the two party system that most Americans actually agree over about 99% of the time between elections.

So here it is: I want a president who is thoughtful, intellectually curious, even-tempered, firm in resolve, but not afraid to admit he (or she) doesn't know everything and who is not ruled strictly by ideology or party politics. That's it. I'll deal with just about everything else... party, issues stance, you name it. I just want someone who can and has made sound decisions as opposed to someone who fancies himself "the decider."

Given those requirements, I obviously have to be willing to accept things about that president that I may not agree with. I'm OK with that. I guess that's the liberal in me. But it's worth it to me to buy off on a few issues in exchange for someone who considers more than one option before stubbornly choosing a path the rest of us must follow... and pay for.

There's only one candidate in this race who fits that description. His past performance is a long list of evidence of this mild mannered curiosity both in his personal and public lives and he's demonstrated it throughout the campaign as well. His opponent, on the contrary, has made of career of just the opposite, which, contrary to his claims, makes him exactly like the president we've lived under for that past two terms. How's that workin' for ya. But this post isn't about him.

I wonder if being a self-made man (or woman), acquiring one's wealth and fame (or notoriety) in one's own generation, by one's own efforts is what makes this kind of candidate? Now that I think about it, Bubba Clinton fits that part of the description. Few other candidates have. Most rich white guys that we elect come from legacies they didn't have to earn. In fact, the most recent, if left to their own decisions, would likely have squandered those legacies guaranteeing that no good came of them and that their offspring didn't get the benefit of them.

Barack Obama knows better. He's made his own way. He knows that this nation provided him the opportunities he's taken full advantage of by his own efforts - the definition of the American dream. If he were a Republican, I'd vote for him. If he were pro-life, I'd vote for him. I think too much has been made of his faith, but I'm going to vote for him.

I like the fact that his financial support comes largely in $10 - $100 amounts. Sure, he has the same big contributors that all candidates of his stature have these days, but he's got more grass roots, small contributors than anyone in our era. He's won hearts and wallets one citizen at a time. That may not mean much to everyone, but to me, it means he's beholden to citizens from all walks, not just the big time contributors. He's kind of like the NPR of candidates. They've got their big sponsors, but they can't survive without the little guys too, and they deliver based on that understanding.

I expect the same of my president. Four years from now, we'll check in and see how things went, but I'll put my money on the thinking man (or woman) any time.

Luth
Out

I am not George Bush

That's a pretty good line, and while it may be true in most respects, like, say, the names on the birth certificates, much of their lives, political and otherwise, are so similar that they could both be the same character in Oliver Stone's largely fictionalized new movie about W. Or is it about McPain?

Both are political opportunists whose platforms change with what they think it will take to get elected. Often, McCain's sole purpose in distancing himself from Bush (though he backs the war and the tax policies he once voted against) is purely where the polls say such a stance will put him.

Both spouted the "we will be greeted as liberators" crap, but now say they knew all along it would be a long, difficult process.

Both have associated with - and McCain was even reprimanded for it - shady, convicted fundraisers.

Both have defended contributing CEOs who run their companies into the ground, bail out under golden parachutes, and then deny any accountability to their shareholders. (and both like to use the term "accountability" when it comes to $28,000/year teachers!)

Both are third generation prodigies who squandered every opportunity provided them by their privileged births and yet, in spite of the failures in their wake, always seemed to end up better off than they were before the screw-up, due not to their own abilities to land on their feet (neither of them usually did) but rather because of their fathers' and grandfathers' stature.

Both have histories of drug or alcohol influenced, occasionally violent, womanizing episodes they rarely speak of these days. In fact, McCain lost all favor with the Reagans when he divorced his first wife, although that didn't stop him from invoking Uncle Ronnie on the campaign trail. Nancy's endorsement of McCain, long after he was named the party's candidate was a brutally limp, "Well, obviously, this is the nominee of the party." (and he STILL claims he's a Reagan Republican!) (and to be fair on this aspect, Bush seems to have at least put his marital life in order)

Both have, at least at some points in their careers, alternately spoken out against and in favor of campaign finance laws, negative campaigning, deregulation of industry, smaller government and balanced budgets.

Both used their fathers' influence to map out their military careers. McCain used his father's influence to actually participate in a war that Bush used his father's influence to avoid. But both were self serving motivations. McCain saw his quickly fading chance to gain command in the Navy rapidly slipping by unless he somehow parlayed his less than stellar flying record into a combat mission in Vietnam. (At that point, he'd succeeded only in destroying two U.S. Navy planes, and, to be fair, he would later even that record out by destroying two parked Russian MiGs) Most pilots lose that privilege after destroying the first U.S. plane. McCain got two chances and a shot at some medal-worthy missions after that.

To be fair to Bush, he was apparently a better pilot than McCain, but (and to be fair to McCain) due to Bush's cushy assignment to a plane that would never be deployed in Vietnam, we'll never really know) To be fair to McCain, he fulfilled his enlistment and has the paperwork to prove it... a rather long, though undistinguished Navy career compared to Bush's prematurely-ended-without-documentation Air National Guard Career. So yeah, there are some significant differences when it comes to military records to balance out some of the striking similarities. In fact, McCain's record almost makes Bush seem like the honorable one.

Both got into grad school - McCain to War College and Bush; Harvard - in spite of very poor academic performance, due to their pedigrees. In spite of these privileges, both would always suffer the Oedipal curse of never living up to their fathers' examples. And both would parlay their mediocre (at best) military histories to a base of voters who will believe anything the right candidate tells them as long as it sounds macho and especially if it involves fighter planes or Alaskan babes who shoot large animals.

McCain's Navy history really sheds some light on his true character. If you ask him, or listen to his campaign, he is a hero for having ignored protocol, getting shot down, and having been taken prisoner. I'll give him all due respect for surviving the prisoner part, but his previous flying record shows a history of bad decisions in the cockpit consistent with many of his colleagues' stories about how he probably should have (and his aircraft could have) avoided being shot down.

Then there's his story about how he refused the offer of early release, a story McCain has used to build his hero status. Again, all due respect for having survived that ordeal, but so did 600 fellow captives (as well as thousands of others) refuse the offer... in accordance with the Code of Conduct which forbids making deals with one's captors or making statements against the U.S., which was one of the conditions of his early release. This deal was most likely offered to all of McCain's fellow captors and all refused. Yet only one of them is touting it as a qualification to become president. (It should be noted that only one of them received medical care when his captors realized - somehow - that he was the son of a top admiral in the U.S. Navy) McCain himself admits that his POW experience provides him with "a good story to sell." Says retired Air Force Lt. Colonel John Dramesi, also a Vietnam POW, "McCain says his life changed when he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man, but he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

Dramesi's memory of McCain includes a conversation they had shortly after finishing their stints in military graduate school. (McCain the National War College thanks to dad, Dramesi; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, without a dad's influence) Both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for graduates so they can gain a little shadowing experience with more experienced military officers on duty overseas. Dramesi told McCain he chose the Middle East because he expected it would play into the nation's future. McCain told him he was crazy... that he was going to Rio where he'd "stand a better chance of getting laid."

Yep, just like he said at the convention...service above self, honor, duty, country... you know, that old chestnut.

I must disclose the source of all of this revelation - Tom Dickinson's article in March 29's Rolling Stone. And I must tell you that I'm disclosing it because much of Matt Taibbi's recent stories for the same magazine about McPalin include tons of unverified reports that come from the likes of liberal versions of O'Reilly and Limbaugh and which were later destroyed by FactCheck.org... but only after being spread throughout the liberal blog world like documented Alaskan history. But where Taibbi is fun to read due to his blatant, but spot on editorializing about how stupid we are as voters, that same editorializing warns you fairly that he's writing a column, not a hard news story. Dickinson's piece warns you fairly that if you've fallen for McCain's "I'm not George Bush" bullshit, you should really watch something besides Fox News for just a few minutes per day. Start slow... maybe with Sesame Street, and work your way up. Maybe even read a few lines from Faith of My Fathers... who am I kidding, like their president, these people don't read books!

I must also disclose that Dickinson's main source was McCain's books (Faith of My Fathers and !! (since McCain's camp never returned Dickinson's calls) in addition to interviews with former colleagues.

Over the next few days, I hope to hit on some of the other sections of Dickinson's article in order to provide his take on McCain's "character" before election day.

Dickinson cites quite a few Republicans who feel McCain simply is not suited to be president... some even question whether or not he should be a senator. My purpose in posting this is to pass on some information I've never seen before regarding a man's career I once looked favorably upon. I didn't blame Colin Powell for not seeking the presidency in 2000 cuz I wouldn't want to subject my family to this kind of scrutiny, but McCain apparently has no qualms about it even if it looks like he won't stand the test of it.

Now where is the liberal media on this seemingly easy to hit hanging curveball?

Hey, come to think of it, McCain has something in common with Obama too - they "pal around with terrorists." McCain not only co-chaired a committee with Iraqi exile, Ahmad Chalabi, he named him his foreign policy advisor.

That's not all he shares with Obama. In 1993, McCain opposed US involvement in Somalia and, get this, sponsored an amendment to CUT OFF FUNDING FOR US TROOPS there! (I'm pretty sure he said that was unpatriotic when Obama refused to vote for a bill that lacked a timeline... which is a far cry from sponsoring an amendment!) Oh, and they've both been against "trading American blood for Iraqi blood" (McCains words... Obama's vote, though, to be fair, McCain has apparently changed his mind about this too)

Oh man... this is HUGE! I can't wait until the liberal media gets hold of this stuff. It's going to be all over CNN, MSNBC, the networks, all cable except Fox. Those liberal bastards are going to be all over this. It will destroy McCain in the polls and they won't even have to bring up his womanizing like they did with ol' Bubba. When the liberal press finds out about this stuff, most of which is covered in McCain's books or has been a matter of record since the 70's.... hey, wait a minute. What the hell has happened to the vast liberal bias of our press?!

Luth,
Out