Tea Party, Mosque, Palin

A friend asked me some questions, to which these are my answers.

I agree with Obama about the Ground Zero Mosque -- its builders have every right to build there, and its opponents have every Fist Amendment right to protest it.

I think our immigration laws are a joke -- they are even less enforced than our drug laws -- and it's immoral to have laws on the books you don't intend to enforce, or that you enforce only sporadically or selectively.

I think Sarah Palin is one of the most demonized people on the planet, and if you took an honest look at her, you'd agree she's a perfectly nice human being who has no business being President.

The Tea Party folks with whom I actually spend time are nothing like what's portrayed in the media -- I find them largely tolerant and extremely nice and pleasant. My alliance with the Tea Party is based on my belief that the greatest human happiness comes when people live under the just laws of an honest and limited government, and the Tea Party is the best hope we have of restraining the awesome power of the US Federal government.

When your Opponent isn't Evil Enough

I'm enjoying reading this meta-analysis of American politics, and realized we've seen this movie before -- when partisans try to frame their opponents as even worse than they already really are.

Specifically, the case of Jason Levin, who hates the Tea Party so much, and was so frustrated that they weren't acting out the racism that he knows they secretly harbor, that he advocated that progressives should make and carry racist signs while pretending to be Tea Party members.

Obama's Slow BP Cleanup - Incompetence or Malice?

So, is the Jones Act really slowing the BP clean up? Some folks want you to think it's not:

Experts agree: Jones Act has no effect on Gulf oil response

GOP's false talking point: Jones Act blocks Gulf help

Note how carefully the pro-Administration pieces are worded. Because there are 15 foreign-flagged vessels working the spill, this proves that the Jones Act "hasn't blocked anything."

No, it's only proof that it's not preventing 100% of foreign assistance. The operative question is, would we get any MORE assistance if it were waived? Put another way, why are there still state of the art oil skimming ships NOT working the spill, whose owners say they want to?

[Fox News quote]

Some of the best clean up ships – owned by Belgian, Dutch and the Norwegian firms are NOT being used. Coast Guard Lt. Commander, Chris O’Neil, says that is because they do not meet “the operational requirements of the Unified Area Command.” One of those operational requirements is that vessels comply with the Jones Act.
"Yes, it does apply,” said ONeil,“ I have heard no discussions of waivers.”

[...] And today, the Obama White House said waivers might again be considered. “If there is the need for any type of waiver, that would obviously be granted,” said White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs. “But, we've not had that problem thus far.”

Democratic Senator Bill Nelson is not so sure about that. He’s hearing from the folks back home in Florida, where they want all the skimmer ships they can get. He sent a letter to Admiral Thad Allen today which read in part:

“Admiral, I believe the orange mousse of oil that is now in Florida’s waters is more than enough evidence that we need to take advantage of every appropriate global resource. Please advise as to whether we are taking full advantage of the offers of assistance from other countries.”

[end Fox News quote]

I do think the Obama Administration should be proactively calling these ship owners and finding out what it would take to get them on scene. If it's a misunderstanding, clear it up. If it's a waiver, get the waiver.

[ABC News quote]

Within days of the spill, unsolicited a dozen countries and international organizations offered assistance to the US. That later expanded to 17 countries, and today the State Department announced that an 18th country, Qatar, has offered containment boom.

Of those countries, the US has accepted aid so far from four nations: Mexico, Canada, Norway, and the Netherlands.

[...]

According to a State Department official the 18 countries and four organizations that have offered assistance thus far are: Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, UAE, UK, Vietnam, the European Maritime Safety Agency, the European Commission’s Monitoring and Information Center, the International Maritime Organization, the Environment Unit of the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the United Nations Environment Program.

[end ABC News quote]

Maybe it's not the Jones Act at all -- maybe it's just the Administration saying "no" -- I can't tell, and I don't see the Administration clarifying it. What is clear is the Obama Administration is not doing "everything possible." I don't think it's because the economies being hurt are primarily Red State economies -- I think it's incompetence. Find me a better explanation.

Don't like these sources?  Perhaps you'd prefer Time Magazine:

[Time quote]

Fox News reported yesterday that the government was turning away foreign help in cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Is this the truth, or a partisan meme?

Shockingly, it's true. The Jones Act (or, more accurately, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) mandates that ships working in U.S. waters must have been made in America and crewed by Americans. The administration has generally gotten around this requirement by transferring foreign technology to US ships, but the act's provisions mean that offers of Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian skimming ships have been rebuffed.
[end Time quote]

Not good enough? Try the Dutch newspaper De Standaard:

[De Standaard teaser text in translation]

"U.S. oil fighting with outdated technology"
Monday, June 7, 2010 Author: (lc)

BRUSSELS - Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to fight. But the "Jones Act "forbids them to work in the U.S.

[end De Standaard teaser text in translation]

A little more background on the Administration's refusal even to admit it got offers of aid, from Foreign Policy:

[Foreign Policy]

When State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley refused to tell reporters which countries have offered assistance to help respond to the BP oil spill, the State Department press corps was flabbergasted.

"As a policy matter, we're not going to identify those offers of assistance until we are able to see, you know, what we need, assess the ongoing situation. And as we accept those offers of assistance, we will inform you," Crowley said.

Reporters pointed out that the Bush administration identified assistance offers after the Katrina disaster, so what is this, a new policy? They pressed Crowley, but he refused to budge.

Then they mentioned Iran's offer of assistance, through its National Iranian Drilling Company. Crowley said there was no Iranian offer of assistance, at least in any official capacity. The reporters kept on it, asking why it was taking so long to figure out what was needed in the first place? That's the Coast Guard's decision, Crowley explained.

Late Wednesday evening, the State Department emailed reporters identifying the 13 entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

"These offers include experts in various aspects of oil spill impacts, research and technical expertise, booms, chemical oil dispersants, oil pumps, skimmers, and wildlife treatment," the email read.

"While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."

The Obama administration has been relentless in its messaging that it is doing everything possible to aggressively respond to the oil spill. But for the record, the current message to foreign governments is: Thanks but no thanks, we've got it covered.

A State Department official, speaking on background, said that the decision not to initially release the names of offering countries came directly from the State Department leadership.

[end Foreign Policy]

I've got a dozen papers, foreign and US, quoting foreign ship owners saying the Jones Act is preventing them from helping. Maybe Murdoch owns all those foreign ships? Or all the foreign papers?

Finally there's this report that of 2,000 skimmers in the US, only 400 have been used in the Gulf, with federal rules preventing transfer of others.

If you want to label this competence, go ahead. I can't.

NRA Sellout

Lars Larson wrote:

I'm a life member of the NRA...a fact I've always been proud of. But I'm not proud of the NRA's deal with the Devil (congressional democrats) to withdraw its opposition to the DISCLOSE act...which robs Americans and institutions like the NRA of political free speech. 

I replied:

Excellent point, Lars.

In reality, the NRA is using the power of government to handicap its rivals (GOA) and is becoming a client of Big Government -- seeking out special treatment for itself.

Starting now, the NRA will be subject to pressure by lawmakers who need only threaten their special status to get them to bend.

As soon as you accept special treatment -- for yourself, for your company, for your group -- as a gift from Big Government, you're making a pact with the devil, and you're the junior partner. Now you're going to defend Big Government in order to defend your special status. You become part of the problem.

The same thing happens with Regulatory Capture and all the other ways people use the power of government for their private enrichment.

-Tom

Lincoln on Kagan

Abraham Lincoln, writing about the nomination of Salmon P. Chase for the Supreme Court:


"[W]e wish for a Chief Justice who will sustain what has been done in regard to emancipation and the legal tenders. We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore we must take a man whose opinions are known."


The cipher that is Elena Kagan is somewhat disturbing to me on that front -- we don't know what or how she thinks.


(Hat tip to the Volokh Conspiracy.)

Don't Be Too Certain

A friend had an assignment to argue a side of a debate with which he does not agree.

By the time he was done, he was starting to see some of the other side's arguments as legitimate.  He jokingly said this was "scary."  I wrote back:

Not scary. If you're utterly 100% convinced of every element of your world view, you're nuts and closed-minded.

It takes intelligence and maturity to accept that our understanding is limited, contingent, and may contain elements of paradox or contradiction or balanced yet competing forces.

I think the practical case for free markets is a "preponderance of the evidence" case -- separate from the moral case for it, which is absolute, but only if you accept a Natural Rights philosophy of right and wrong.

Cheers.

Paul Ryan's comments re ObamaCare

By PAUL D. RYAN

The following are remarks made by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, about the cost of the House and Senate health-care bills at President Obama's Blair House summit on health care, Feb. 25:

Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.

Mr. President, you said health-care reform is budget reform. You're right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That's $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents' generation, our generation, our kids' generation. Medicaid's growing at 21 percent each year. It's suffocating states' budgets. It's adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for . . .

Now, you're right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation. And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you basically said—and I totally agree with this—I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.

Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill, because it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.

And if you take a look at the CBO analysis—analysis from your chief actuary—I think it's very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health-care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.

Now let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day—very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors.

Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That's $2.3 trillion.Now, what do I mean when I say that? Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.

[The Senate bill] does [a] couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits.

It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That's the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.

The Senate Budget Committee chairman [Kent Conrad] said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does [is treat] Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.

. . . [A]ccording to the chief actuary of Medicare . . . as much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors . . . who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.

You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting.

And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.

. . . [P]robably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. We don't think we should cut doctors [annual federal reimbursements] 21 percent next year. We've stopped those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years.

We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit . . . that provision was taken out, and it's been going on in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn't add up.

. . . I'll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?

Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we're bending it up. He's claiming that we're going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.

And so, when you take a look at this, it's really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really is a difference between us.

. . . [W]e've been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it's basically this. We don't think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the big difference.

Now, we've offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year. Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It's got to get fixed.

It's bankrupting families. It's bankrupting our government. It's hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this.

But we don't think that this is the . . . the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.

Now, I'll just simply say this. . . . [W]e are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I've got to tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you're not listening to them.

So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean-sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring down health-care costs and not raise them. And that's basically the point.

Dorchester 2010

Going to Dorchester 2010 today -- right after I guest-host for Jayne Carroll on AM-1360 KUIK -- wow, what a day this is shaping up to be.

Mug Shot

This has some personal significance:
http://www.daviesscojail.org/InmateList/InmateView.aspx?ID=2093189

Not sure I want to blog about it right now.  I do want to save the link.

Risk, cognitive bias, and the role of government

Humans are terrible at estimating risk.  Bad enough that I'd be willing to call it an area of potential market failure -- i.e. people will underestimate the risks they face, under-prepare for them, and then be over-impacted by them. 

Take my world view from about 1986, when I felt everyone should be accountable for all their decisions without exception, and it was morally acceptable for me to contemplate a worker (a) choosing not to be insured under WC, (b) getting injured on the job, and (c) impoverishing himself and his family.  So sacred was his choice that I was willing to see any negative outcome unfold.  As long as he'd chosen his actions, I was okay with his fall.

Now, reading Cialdini and numerous other sources on the horrific list of cognitive biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) to which the human mind is susceptible, I'm much more willing to embrace at least some "coercive" rules such as mandatory workers' comp insurance. 

The big risk here, for me, is that as soon as I empower someone -- almost always the government -- to use coercion to "fix" the cognitive errors of the population at large, the concept (or illusion) of individual autonomy  and "consent of the governed" can break down, and the legitimacy of the government can break down. 

Doubly so because the government is no less susceptible to error, being made up of humans, and while I can easily correct my personal errors by changing my behavior, it's very hard for me to either change or opt out of the erroneous coercive mandates of a nanny state.

The graceful way forward may be to use cognitive bias in our favor, by allowing people to "opt out" of certain things if it matters to them a lot, while making the default choice be the one that has greater social protection.  For example I'm in favor of making everyone an organ donor by default, while allowing anyone who really cares strongly to opt out.

The mindset of a Leftist

Just had an amazing conversation (well, a series of Facebook comments) with an apparent union troll who insists that Measures 66 and 67 are fabulous and wonderful.

Here's the absolute gem of a quote:

"It's impossible for a democratically elected government to 'steal' from you." - Mark Bunster, government employee, 28-Dec-2009

Wow.  It's not theft if the government does it. NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.  Bills of Attainder?  Okay with Mark, apparently.

Wow.

Why a 'no' vote on 66-67 is both wise and safe

I keep hearing that we have to raise Oregon taxes to save key services from cuts. Looks like that argument is false.

Read on.

-Tom

Detailed Back to Basics Budget is a better plan for Oregon

Salem, OR – Senate Republicans announced a revised Back to Basics Budget Tuesday, saying that there were other alternatives to raising taxes or drastically cutting services in the midst of a historic recession.  Republicans have been presenting alternative budget proposals to Democrats since last May. 

“Republicans want to create jobs for the thousands of Oregon families that are struggling to find work, and at the same time we want to avoid service cuts during these difficult times,” said Senator Chris Telfer (R-Bend).  “This budget says, ‘hey, there are other options that don’t involve business choking tax increases or service cuts.’”

The Back to Basics Budget plan consists of eleven points where savings and efficiencies through the remainder of the budget cycle can be used to balance the budget, instead of job-choking tax increases.

Back to Basics Budget:

1)      Ask state employees to pay for their health care at the

same rate teachers currently do                                                                 $131 million

2)      Roll back the pay raises granted to state employees                                           $160 million

3)      Eliminate Department of Revenue costs to administer the tax increases            $1.5 million

4)      Eliminate duplicate funding for the Bureau of Labor and Industries                     $1 million

5)      Eliminate state funding to the Portland Art Museum                                             $0.31 million

6)      Use over-collected funds from the Government Ethics Commission                 $0.5 million

7)      Suspend part of the BETC credit                                                                $85 million

8)      Suspend General Fund Spending on new “Autos & Aircraft”                       $5 million

9)      Transfer some money from the State’s Risk Assessment Account                       $13 million

10)  Use part of the $ 3 billion in “Other Fund” Ending Balances                       $133 million

11)  Use part of the Education Stability Fund / Rainy Day Fund                            $203  million

TOTAL            $733 million

“Should voters reject the tax increases, we can still protect our most important priorities like funding K-12, community colleges, universities and social services,” said Telfer.  “For many voters, removing $733 million out of the economy and cutting another 70,000 jobs is a tough pill to swallow.  This list of ideas I believe makes that point that there are other options out there.  If we think creatively, we can protect jobs and core services.” 

Last session, Republicans built a Back to Basics Budget using a philosophy that funds the most important, core services first.  After creating a starting point that holds services like K-12 education, higher education, public safety agencies and human services providers harmless from any cuts from their 2007-09 funding levels, Republicans made targeted funding additions to protect vulnerable and needy Oregonians and ensure that new state troopers can continue patrolling streets and neighborhoods. 

###

<< DETAILED ENDING FUND BALANCE LIST AVAILABLE ON REQUEST>>

Back to Basics Budget:

A Better Plan for Oregon

When lawmakers return to Salem in February they could be looking at a $733 budget hole.  The hole can be filled while still funding education, from K-12 though community colleges and universities, at levels approved by the Legislature in 2009.  The goal is to reduce the cost of government without reducing services to Oregonians.

The Plan:

12)  Ask state employees to pay for their health care at the

same rate teachers currently do                                                                 $131 million

13)  Roll back the pay raises granted to state employees                                           $160 million

14)  Eliminate Department of Revenue costs to administer the tax increases            $1.5 million

15)  Eliminate new funding for the Bureau of Labor and Industries                     $1 million

16)  Eliminate state funding to the Portland Art Museum                                             $0.31 million

17)  Use over-collected funds from the Government Ethics Commission                 $0.5 million

18)  Suspend part of the BETC credit                                                                $85 million

19)  Suspend General Fund Spending on new “Autos & Aircraft”                       $5 million

20)  Transfer some money from the State’s Risk Assessment Account                       $13 million

21)  Use part of the $ 3 billion in “Other Fund” Ending Balances                       $133 million

22)  Use part of the Education Stability Fund / Rainy Day Fund                            $203  million

TOTAL            $733 million

Other Savings                                                                                                 Approx $500 million

Back to Basics Detail

1)      State Employee Benefits - $131 Million - Much has been made of the fact that Oregon Public Employees do not contribute toward their health insurance premiums.  The same cannot be said for teachers.  The average teacher contributes $187.07 per month toward their health insurance.  According to DAS, 47,054 employees receive fully paid health insurance.  If each of those public employees paid the same as the average teacher, the state of Oregon would save $211 million per biennium or $131 million in what is left of the current biennium.  Oregon is one of the only states that continues to offer fully paid health insurance to state employees.  Elected officials at the state level are also included in this plan.

2)      State Employee Pay raises - $160 million – Eliminate the pay raises granted by the Governor without legislative input. Would apply moving forward.

3)      Tax Administration - $1.501 million – Eliminate the funding to the Department of Revenue to support additional work driven by an increase in corporate taxes.  The money will not be needed if the taxes fail (House Bill 5054 – 2009).

4)      Bureau of Labor and Industries Appropriation - $1 million – Remove appropriation from the Bureau of Labor and Industries that was given to the Commissioner’s Office, the Civil Rights Division, the Wage and Hour Division and Apprenticeship and Training.  House Bill 5024 (2009) originally eliminated the funding.  This money is in addition to the $642,861 appropriated to the Department of Justice for Civil Rights work (House Bill 5054 – 2009).

5)      Portland Art Museum - $0.31 million – Remove appropriation to the Portland Art Museum from February 2009 forward.  The original allocation was $500,000 (House Bill 5054 – 2009).

6)      Reallocate Over-Collection by the Ethics Commission - $0.5 million – According to The Oregonian, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission is collecting $600,000 more during the 2009-11 biennium than they are authorized to spend.  Reallocating $500,000 leaves the OGEC with $100,000 in reserve.

7)      Suspend Part of the Business Energy Tax Credit - $85 million – Projections from the Legislative Revenue Office show the Business Energy Tax Credit will cost the state $167 million during the 2009-11 biennium.

8)      Suspend General Fund Spending on new “Autos & Aircraft” - $5.497 million – The 2009-11 budget allocated $5.497 million in General Fund revenue for the capital purchases of “Automotive and Aircraft.”

9)      State Risk Assessment Account - $13 million - $20.2 million was swept from this fund in 2009 and the fund is projected to have an ending balance of $63.5 million at the close of the 2009-11 biennium. 

10)  Transfer Excess Other Fund Balances - $133 million – With the release of the 2009-11 revised Other Fund Ending Balance we believe there are approximately $133 million, out of approximately $3 billion, that can be reallocated.  Lawmakers reallocated $82.9 million in 2009 the plug another budget hole.

11)  Education Stability Fund / Rainy Day Fund - $203 million – The Education Stability Fund and Rainy Day Fund are expected to contain $185 million and $127 million respectively at the close of the 2009-11 biennium.

Other Savings

The Department of Human Services has embarked on a plan to save over $500 million.  The plan, called the Transformation Roadmap, has already saved $40 million and DHS should be encouraged to speed up the process.  At the same time other state agencies should launch similar plans.  What other efficiencies and savings could be found?  It makes sense to increase efficiencies before we ask Oregonians to send more money to the state. 

Obama's Executive Style

This is an impressive piece of journalism, and it reveals what I see as a solid executive style by Obama.  That's especially significant due to his relative lack of prior executive experience.

What's to like?

• Acknowledging when someone you disagree with is right
• Not blaming people and instead focusing on systems
• Willingness to listen and be flexible in approach while maintaining constancy of goals

Not a bad collection of attributes.  We could all of us do worse.

On being open-minded, or trying to

A friend wrote me to say:

I love you man, but some of the people you have in your corner are about as far removed from reality as can be possible. I know you and I have had many discussions in the past on numerous topics and I respect your intellect and ability to be open to new ideas and concepts. However, the views that are being espoused by your followers are lacking the foresight and lucidity I've grown to expect from you and your arguments.

This troubles me. I don't think you fit in with this crowd. You are too tolerant, open, and richer in life experiences.

Your thoughts welcome.

I replied:

I make a point of continually exposing myself to (oops, that sounds wrong -- try "reading and listening to") very different viewpoints.  It is extremely easy to tune in to folks who mostly agree with me, and then I start to be unable to perceive the world view of others.

Once we start to pick and choose our "facts" and data based on how well they agree with what we already believe, we build mental echo-chambers where we only hear our own conclusions.

For me the antidote is to always listen to folks on many sides, always try to understand how their world view has internal consistency, and resist the temptation to write them off as fools, knaves, etc.

When I find myself dismissing anybody as being "removed from reality" that's a warning sign that I'm starting to fall into that trap.  It often happens when I either mistaken (or I admit sometimes deliberately) mis-understand someone's position, and then I find it emotionally rewarding to pretend that that's their actual position.  The more absurd I make them in my head, the easier it is to dismiss them, rather than face the daunting task of refuting them on the merits.

True tolerance is not for sissies, nor is it for the lazy.  Maybe it's Sisyphean.  Let's just say, that's how I roll. ;-)

Obama and Race

NY Times covers Obama's rejection of race as the "lead cause" of criticisms of his policies.

What I love about the article, and about Obama, is that he's doing what I loved him for during the race -- being noble, taking the high road, and opening the door to mutual understanding.  It's awesome.

Obama could yet tack to the middle, get 80% of his agenda through Congress in his first year in office, and become a legendary President.  (I hope he doesn't because I oppose most of that 80% -- I'm talking about what's possible, not what I prefer.)

When you mis-state your opponent's motives, you make it almost impossible to persuade him.  That's why I've loved the anti-town-hall, anti-tea-party rhetoric -- it's utterly condescending and dismissive, which hardens the opposition. 

Surveys consistently show much higher levels of racism by white Democrats than white Republicans, which is why I'm not worrying about racism as a driving force within the Tea Party movement.  (I stay alert to be sure closet racists do not try to join any groups I'm in.)  My opposition to several of Obama's policies is based on opposing those policies.

You'll recall how frantic the Democratic Party operatives were, running up to the 2008 general election, about visiting blue-collar heavily Democratic districts, giving speeches and disseminating talking points through the unions to urge THOSE voters to vote for Obama even though he was black.

Democrats had good reason to worry.
http://falconscrest.blogspot.com/2006/06/miserly-republicans-unprincipled.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201474_pf.html
http://hangrightpolitics.com/2006/06/20/another-democratic-myth-exposed/
http://hangrightpolitics.com/2006/06/14/those-racist-and-intolerant-republicans/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_7_06_BB.html
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/archives/002533.php

Reaction to Obama’s school speech is tragic, sinister and sickening

This is my response to the column found here.

Dear Bob Ray -

Thank you for your courage in writing about a tough topic, and more courageously, admitting your ignorance.

Fortunately, the key to your enlightenment is at hand.

You start off assuming that the folks you disagree with are "frightened, misguided and hate-filled".  When you assume your opponents are irrational, it takes the burden off of you to see how and why their world view might make sense to them.  You don't take the time and trouble to see what subset of the facts they are focused on.  And you thus have no way to speak to them in their own terms.

This used to be the problem the Bush administration was accused of having with regard to the Middle East -- our opponents were all "evil" and understanding them wasn't necessary or desirable.  That Bush mindset, to the extent it guided foreign policy, codified intolerance.

And now you're doing it to your fellow Americans.

Tell me that, if Bush 43 had issued a lesson plan instructing children to write themselves letters regarding how they could support him, you seriously would have thought that was normal, standard, and unremarkable.  I would have found that creepy and overreaching.

As Hillary Clinton so eloquently put it, it's very American to dissent, debate and disagree.  It's not very American to have a President telling teachers to tell our children to write themselves letters listing ways they can support the Dear Leader.  Very North Korean, maybe.

If you can accept the possibility -- just the possibility -- that folks on the other side from you are actually motivated by love of their children, love of their country, and a different interpretation of some key facts, you can love them and respect them enough to figure out how to talk to them and about them in ways that will actually connect with them.  Maybe you'll even become persuasive.

Until then, the most intolerant person in this picture is still you.  You've got to be the change you want to see.

I think you can do it.

Cheers.
 -Tom

Tax Referral

A friend wrote to ask me:

Tom I spent 6 hours last Saturday in front of Aloha Post Office helping get signatures on two petitions which constituted the recently passed tax increase for Oregonians. One of our patrons use to work in accounting for Nike Inc. She was very convincing in accusing Nike of not paying any taxes at all some years, and many years paying less than the average family of 4. She said it is shameless and unethical the games many corporations play to keep from having to pay taxes. If this is so, perhaps the bill concerning changes to corporations taxes is a much needed overhaul. I don't know what to think. Are we the small people being manipulated by invisible connections with corporations to fight their battle to protect their unethical tax avoidance games????

What hard core information does Tea Party have? Do we have any tax attorneys or CPA's who can address what I've heard and speak to this problem?

Good for you for investing the time to roll back the tax increases.

It's typical of big-government types to criticize businesses for FOLLOWING the rules. When a Leftist creates a maze of incredibly complex rules, and then discovers that the result isn't what he expected, he accuses other people of being "unethical" or evil. In fact, Nike would be vulnerable to shareholder lawsuits if it failed to use every available lawful opportunity to lower its tax burden.

I have no doubt that Nike's tax liability was legitimately zero in Oregon in many years -- they do a lot of deductible R&D here, and don't have all that many sales here. Income tax is based on profit, not spending or activity, and state taxes are limited to your activities inside a given state.

The hard reality is that businesses never pay taxes, they only collect them. And yes there is a disparate impact when a bigger company can hire expensive talent to understand all the rules -- and lobby for loopholes -- when smaller firms cannot.

I know one small, family owned oil company that will make ZERO profit for 2008 and 2009 and will have to pay $30,000 under the new tax. How is that fair by any stretch of the imagination?

Finally, all of these tax increases were unneeded -- the state of Oregon is sitting on $4.9 billion in cash of which $3.5 billion is unrestricted. They had no legitimate need to raise taxes $2 billion.

Oregon Jobs cost $371k per year?

Fun with math -- the Democrats in Salem are desparate to claim they're creating jobs with taxpayer dollars. The numbers tell an ugly story of waste and inefficiency.

Among other things, according to an Associated Press analysis, they claim as a "job" work that lasted on average 35 hours. That's not the definition used anywhere else -- the standard definition is a 2,000 hour job (40 hours a week x 50 weeks a year).

So one Oregon "job" is 35/2000 or 0.0175 (about 1/57) of a real job.

On top of the lying, we have the waste -- apparently taxpayers are paying $185 an hour for government-created jobs that pay workers a whole lot less than that. Perhaps the rest is being eaten up in administrative costs?

Tea Parties support Iranians

I'm very proud that our Fourth of July events included a moment when the hundreds who had gathered all put on green ribbons and posed for photos, to show we support the people of Iran. The Iranians deserve a voice in their government. We have not forgotten them.

Foolish Pink Prescription

Forgive me for saying -- I find this Wharton puff piece embarrassingly shallow and trite. Pink is telling groups who pay him to speak and write -- largely the education bureaucracy -- what they want to hear and want to believe.

He ignores completely the fact that education is cumulative, and that rote learning of (say) reading and math is foundational to problem-solving. My daughter is constantly being put into "teams" (mere groups) with other students to create work products, which is fine except the entire process is utterly unlike any you would see in a modern or future workplace. She ends up doing much of the work herself, and a quarter of her cohort are functionally illiterate or innumerate. (Should school teach good teamwork, or just reinvent the broken team dynamics of the worst modern workplaces?)

Pink also depends heavily on the discredited "left-right-brain" imagery from the 1980s. Modern brain science has debunked this, however it's a useful shorthand for weak thinkers, so it lives on:

Pseudoscientific exaggeration of the research

Hines (1987) states that the research on brain lateralization is valid as a research program, though commercial promoters have applied it to promote subjects and products far out of the implications of the research. For example, the implications of the research have no bearing on psychological interventions such as EMDR and neurolinguistic programming (Drenth 2003:53), brain training equipment, or management training. One explanation for why research on lateralization is so prone to exaggeration and false application is that the left-right brain dichotomy is an easy-to-understand notion, which can be oversimplified and misused for promotion in the guise of science.^[18] The research on lateralization of brain functioning is ongoing, and its implications are always tightly delineated, whereas the pseudoscientific applications are exaggerated, and applied to an extremely wide range of situations.

Once he loses his cute brain-sidedness concept, Pink is left with suggesting that modern problems and future employment will depend on soft skills, complex skills, and other things not currently taught in schools. Duh.

Pink fails to point out that ALL of the skills he pimps -- "design, storytelling, synthesis, empathy and pattern recognition" -- depend on an underlying set of basic skills (literacy, numeracy, listening skills) that ARE supposed to be taught in modern schools, and largely are not, as well as human skills (work ethic, manners, self discipline, thrift, punctuality, respect for others, or overall emotional intelligence) today taught neither in schools nor many homes.

If this is the state of the art of advanced thinking about basic education, we're in big trouble.