I have been hearing two diverse comments concerning the upcoming elections. One is that they will be a referendum on the Obama administration. The other is that they will be a choice between Democrats and Republicans.
Obviously, the administration has decided in favor of the latter view. I concur that, given the destructive nature of the Republican Party at this time, this will maximize the chances for Democratic survival.
To sum it up, the progressives are not inclined to a suicide pact.
So those of us who supported Obama in the past will mostly support the Democrats in 2010. This does not mean that we are happy about all of the administration's deal making with the very powerful groups who have been bleeding the nation white and their loyal bought legislators. These people will not make deals that are not in their interests but, it seems, the administration is unwilling to fight them.
OK, even pragmatists can have differences of opinion. However, in a transparent administration, differences can be freely discussed.
Much of the really gritty reality of this administration has been hidden. When that lack of "change we can believe in" is criticized, we get a Lardnerism: "shut up", he explained. That kind of snotty elitism could be interpreted as a lack of good character and, moreover, gutless.
Do you plan to continue in this manner - or will you shape up?
It's no sweat to me. I am 86 years old and I've seen enough for one bf lifetime.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Political Science 101, Part 2
In part 1, I observed that, in order to create a humane, productive and relatively stable civilization, we must culturally mold individual motivations that are more in line with the common good. We are far from that point today.
The evidence for that is clear. The ancient habit of sacking cities, taking slaves, and killing everyone else is now relatively well contained but there are numerous alternatives that have been developed for controlling people's lives and mercilessly ripping them off. Among these are tribalism, nationalism, xenophobia, militarism, corporatism, free-marketism (ie, Randism), representative plutocracies, and know-nothing-ism. Perhaps there are others as well but these will do for a start.
The last four: corporatism, free-marketism, representative plutocracy, and know-nothing-ism are so fully in play in the USA today that only the deliberately blind can fail to see them. To be sure, many who do see these problems would like to find compromises that could, probably, mitigate them. American political institutions could make this possible but every step of the way will be hard fought. Human beings are not known to give up privilege without a struggle. Alas, that is one of the most difficult compromises to achieve: how does one engage in a hard fight without creating chaos? Political science must grapple with that, and it seems to present a moving target. Technology and commerce are evolving at an alarming rate, relative to even one human lifespan.
Representative plutocracy is the fundamental pathology while corporatism, free-marketism, and know-nothing-ism are its facilitators. In effect, the intimate and corrupt interaction between the wealth establishment and the political establishment maintains the trappings and institutions of a representative democracy while remaining in control of events. As one anonymous internet poster has complained, "first we elect them and then they get bought." That is a very correct observation but the details are quite complex.
By the "wealth establishment" I do not mean to point a finger at only the wealthy. On the contrary, many of them are quite decent citizens. What happens is that the concentration of capital has a life of its own and it feeds off the work of many who find that work seductively rewarding: money managers, lawyers, accountants, news media owners and employees, pr experts, bankers, corporate executives, and venal politicians. That is quite an army and it would be very naive to imagine that they are reluctant to exercise their power.
Unfortunately, the problem grows with the inevitably increasing concentration of wealth and it leads to political, economic and even environmental instabilities. Therefore, the central problem of political theory at this stage of development must be: how to put a brake on this process without serious disorders.
Some of the countries of Europe seem to be ahead of the USA at this time, probably because they are also ahead of the USA in cultural progress and education. I find it difficult to believe that the political problem can be solved in the USA without a serious educational effort.
virtue
The evidence for that is clear. The ancient habit of sacking cities, taking slaves, and killing everyone else is now relatively well contained but there are numerous alternatives that have been developed for controlling people's lives and mercilessly ripping them off. Among these are tribalism, nationalism, xenophobia, militarism, corporatism, free-marketism (ie, Randism), representative plutocracies, and know-nothing-ism. Perhaps there are others as well but these will do for a start.
The last four: corporatism, free-marketism, representative plutocracy, and know-nothing-ism are so fully in play in the USA today that only the deliberately blind can fail to see them. To be sure, many who do see these problems would like to find compromises that could, probably, mitigate them. American political institutions could make this possible but every step of the way will be hard fought. Human beings are not known to give up privilege without a struggle. Alas, that is one of the most difficult compromises to achieve: how does one engage in a hard fight without creating chaos? Political science must grapple with that, and it seems to present a moving target. Technology and commerce are evolving at an alarming rate, relative to even one human lifespan.
Representative plutocracy is the fundamental pathology while corporatism, free-marketism, and know-nothing-ism are its facilitators. In effect, the intimate and corrupt interaction between the wealth establishment and the political establishment maintains the trappings and institutions of a representative democracy while remaining in control of events. As one anonymous internet poster has complained, "first we elect them and then they get bought." That is a very correct observation but the details are quite complex.
By the "wealth establishment" I do not mean to point a finger at only the wealthy. On the contrary, many of them are quite decent citizens. What happens is that the concentration of capital has a life of its own and it feeds off the work of many who find that work seductively rewarding: money managers, lawyers, accountants, news media owners and employees, pr experts, bankers, corporate executives, and venal politicians. That is quite an army and it would be very naive to imagine that they are reluctant to exercise their power.
Unfortunately, the problem grows with the inevitably increasing concentration of wealth and it leads to political, economic and even environmental instabilities. Therefore, the central problem of political theory at this stage of development must be: how to put a brake on this process without serious disorders.
Some of the countries of Europe seem to be ahead of the USA at this time, probably because they are also ahead of the USA in cultural progress and education. I find it difficult to believe that the political problem can be solved in the USA without a serious educational effort.
virtue
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Dear Congressman Boehner
I have little expectation that you will put the national interest ahead of your own so I have had little reason to contact you. However, having read about your recent economic policy proposals, I am inclined to believe that I have underestimated you.
Yes siree, your proposal to couple a mildly stimulative extension of the Bush tax cuts with a job-killing reduction of Federal spending during a major recession is a stroke of political genius.
I have reached a higher state of enlightenment. I now understand your view that a large part of the electorate is cognitively challenged, bigtime. I cannot agree more. I know that you can represent them very well.
We Deliver
And now for something completely different.
Basie-Rushing
Yes siree, your proposal to couple a mildly stimulative extension of the Bush tax cuts with a job-killing reduction of Federal spending during a major recession is a stroke of political genius.
I have reached a higher state of enlightenment. I now understand your view that a large part of the electorate is cognitively challenged, bigtime. I cannot agree more. I know that you can represent them very well.
We Deliver
And now for something completely different.
Basie-Rushing
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Dear President Obama
I am 85 years old and my stake in the left-right political battle of the sound bites is minimal. But I do care very much about the struggle for a productive, humane and relatively stable society.
At this time, I find your contribution to that struggle to be minimal. I am of course not utterly shocked by the discrepancy between campaign rhetoric and actual performance. All the same, I cannot recall any previous instance when an administration spat in the faces of its most energetic supporters so publicly and unrepentantly.
If press sec Gibbs does not speak for the President then he should go. If he does, then this administration should not last beyond its present term.
Why? Because cutting deals with the very people who are bleeding the country white will not do what is necessary. It just prolongs the misery. Some battles are worth fighting even when the first battle is lost.
You just don't seem to get it.
I do not have the resources of the bankers or big pharma and my personal decision will have no significant effect on the next elections but I intend to do what is right in my own eyes.
Whatever I can contribute will be given solely to those progressive organizations who have not abandoned the fight for genuine change in Washington.
At this time, I find your contribution to that struggle to be minimal. I am of course not utterly shocked by the discrepancy between campaign rhetoric and actual performance. All the same, I cannot recall any previous instance when an administration spat in the faces of its most energetic supporters so publicly and unrepentantly.
If press sec Gibbs does not speak for the President then he should go. If he does, then this administration should not last beyond its present term.
Why? Because cutting deals with the very people who are bleeding the country white will not do what is necessary. It just prolongs the misery. Some battles are worth fighting even when the first battle is lost.
You just don't seem to get it.
I do not have the resources of the bankers or big pharma and my personal decision will have no significant effect on the next elections but I intend to do what is right in my own eyes.
Whatever I can contribute will be given solely to those progressive organizations who have not abandoned the fight for genuine change in Washington.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Macro-economics 101
See if you can connect the dots.
The number of poor is increasing.
The number of millionaires is increasing. Why?
Corporate executives, as a class, have been bleeding the country white. Bankers have been the most prominently successful. They did this not by creating value but by gambling with other people's money.
Congressional campaigns are very expensive.
The millionaires and, particularly, their corporate engines of wealth accumulation have much more influence over the Congress than do the rest of the public. One disgusted senator, referring to the banks, said "they own this place." OK, but this poses a serious economic problem by increasing the concentration of wealth.
The real rate of unemployment is about 16 percent.
Employers are not hiring enough people because they can meet all of the consumer demand with the ones they already have. Why?
Too many people are out of work or working for depressed wages. They are also in debt up to their eyeballs and don't have any discretionary income.
When the millionaires gather in more income, they can invest most of it. Some of it goes into US bonds and gold bullion. A bf part of it is invested abroad. Why?
Cheap labor and large reserves of natural resources are where the profits are to be found.
OK, our economy has a serious imbalance: lots of accumulated investment capital but too little consumer demand. What to do? Here are some possibilities.
Abandon the American people to privation and invest abroad. Problem: some of the people can see the big picture and they will tell the others. This strategy is exactly what has been in effect but it is not indefinitely sustainable - even with the undying loyalty of one political party and significant influence over the other.
Increase American consumption. Government can do this by building infrastructure and by subsidizing science and industrial R&D, and by subsidizing social services such as education and health care and by subsidizing certain large purchases such as automobiles, energy saving appliances, home improvements, and houses. This will make more government income necessary. It cannot be done forever on borrowed money. When more progressive taxes are enacted the Right will howl about "redistribution" and "class warfare."
OK, what's your alternative?
The number of poor is increasing.
The number of millionaires is increasing. Why?
Corporate executives, as a class, have been bleeding the country white. Bankers have been the most prominently successful. They did this not by creating value but by gambling with other people's money.
Congressional campaigns are very expensive.
The millionaires and, particularly, their corporate engines of wealth accumulation have much more influence over the Congress than do the rest of the public. One disgusted senator, referring to the banks, said "they own this place." OK, but this poses a serious economic problem by increasing the concentration of wealth.
The real rate of unemployment is about 16 percent.
Employers are not hiring enough people because they can meet all of the consumer demand with the ones they already have. Why?
Too many people are out of work or working for depressed wages. They are also in debt up to their eyeballs and don't have any discretionary income.
When the millionaires gather in more income, they can invest most of it. Some of it goes into US bonds and gold bullion. A bf part of it is invested abroad. Why?
Cheap labor and large reserves of natural resources are where the profits are to be found.
OK, our economy has a serious imbalance: lots of accumulated investment capital but too little consumer demand. What to do? Here are some possibilities.
Abandon the American people to privation and invest abroad. Problem: some of the people can see the big picture and they will tell the others. This strategy is exactly what has been in effect but it is not indefinitely sustainable - even with the undying loyalty of one political party and significant influence over the other.
Increase American consumption. Government can do this by building infrastructure and by subsidizing science and industrial R&D, and by subsidizing social services such as education and health care and by subsidizing certain large purchases such as automobiles, energy saving appliances, home improvements, and houses. This will make more government income necessary. It cannot be done forever on borrowed money. When more progressive taxes are enacted the Right will howl about "redistribution" and "class warfare."
OK, what's your alternative?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Political Science 101: Keeping it Simple, Part 1
Political science is not just political tactics or political organization. It is also about getting things done that are in the national interest. It is about governing a humane, productive, and relatively stable society. If you don't share that point of view, don't bother reading further.
Two things ought to be abundantly clear: any "science" that deals with human beings is not yet very well advanced and whatever institutions we have, or think we have, are not nearly ideal. We need to do some critical thinking, particularly, about the necessary compromises. First of all, we need to identify and define these compromises. In addition, We shall need to be objective and pragmatic about what we already know, or think we know. This is not an attempt to create yet another wacky ideological cult. Ideology can constrain thought to the point of egregious stupidity.
There are many wacky ideologies and some of them are widely held. I'll name just two of the less bizarre examples. One of them is the notion that the human species is the product of "intelligent design." Just open your eyes and see our world as it is.
Another one is based upon the confusion between free, meaning unregulated, markets and fair markets. It is true that "free" and "fair" are both four letter words beginning with "f", but we know that words fitting that description can have widely divergent meanings. The belief that the invisible hand of unregulated markets can produce beneficial economic and social consequences is a wacky triumph of deceit and delusion over bitter experience. As Thomas Hobbes wrote, the lives of men unregulated by law are likely to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Well, what do we know fairly reliably about most human beings?
IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN IT HAPPENS TO YOU.
I first heard this important principle about half a century ago from an MIT professor of engineering. I do not claim the truth of this assertion solely upon his authority; I have had about 50 years in which to evaluate it, based upon my own experience and that of others.
There is nothing mysterious about this. We are all the descendants of individuals who survived, reproduced, and evolved under the competitive rigors of natural selection and sexual selection during the roughly 200 million years of mammalian life. Pain and pleasure seem to have been the primary psychological driving forces during this period and we are immersed in them today. This shows up very clearly in the competition among teenagers for status in their groups by bullying and by setting up pecking orders. It also shows up clearly in the considerable prevalence of crime and in addictive sexual behavior and in drug addiction.
Obviously, the human psyche, left to its own devices, is not yet ready for prime time as a social entity. There is a clear contradiction between the needs of society and the innate needs of the individual. This is the salient point at which compromise is necessary.
Cultural evolution moves at a faster pace than biological evolution but, recently, technology has outpaced culture. Technology today is not what it was during my formative years. Therefore, we have yet another disconnect: we are reasonably well equipped for a tribal society of hunter-gatherers but, individually and culturally, not nearly so well adapted to a technologically modern and dynamic society.
Until we learn to engineer better people, our principal sociopolitical tools will have to be law, cultural engineering, and education. The principal use of these tools needs to be to develop personal motivations that more closely parallel what is socially desirable than is the case today. We have a long way to go.
Part 2 will address what seem to be some necessary compromises and massive political obstacles to achieving beneficial changes.
Two things ought to be abundantly clear: any "science" that deals with human beings is not yet very well advanced and whatever institutions we have, or think we have, are not nearly ideal. We need to do some critical thinking, particularly, about the necessary compromises. First of all, we need to identify and define these compromises. In addition, We shall need to be objective and pragmatic about what we already know, or think we know. This is not an attempt to create yet another wacky ideological cult. Ideology can constrain thought to the point of egregious stupidity.
There are many wacky ideologies and some of them are widely held. I'll name just two of the less bizarre examples. One of them is the notion that the human species is the product of "intelligent design." Just open your eyes and see our world as it is.
Another one is based upon the confusion between free, meaning unregulated, markets and fair markets. It is true that "free" and "fair" are both four letter words beginning with "f", but we know that words fitting that description can have widely divergent meanings. The belief that the invisible hand of unregulated markets can produce beneficial economic and social consequences is a wacky triumph of deceit and delusion over bitter experience. As Thomas Hobbes wrote, the lives of men unregulated by law are likely to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Well, what do we know fairly reliably about most human beings?
IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN IT HAPPENS TO YOU.
I first heard this important principle about half a century ago from an MIT professor of engineering. I do not claim the truth of this assertion solely upon his authority; I have had about 50 years in which to evaluate it, based upon my own experience and that of others.
There is nothing mysterious about this. We are all the descendants of individuals who survived, reproduced, and evolved under the competitive rigors of natural selection and sexual selection during the roughly 200 million years of mammalian life. Pain and pleasure seem to have been the primary psychological driving forces during this period and we are immersed in them today. This shows up very clearly in the competition among teenagers for status in their groups by bullying and by setting up pecking orders. It also shows up clearly in the considerable prevalence of crime and in addictive sexual behavior and in drug addiction.
Obviously, the human psyche, left to its own devices, is not yet ready for prime time as a social entity. There is a clear contradiction between the needs of society and the innate needs of the individual. This is the salient point at which compromise is necessary.
Cultural evolution moves at a faster pace than biological evolution but, recently, technology has outpaced culture. Technology today is not what it was during my formative years. Therefore, we have yet another disconnect: we are reasonably well equipped for a tribal society of hunter-gatherers but, individually and culturally, not nearly so well adapted to a technologically modern and dynamic society.
Until we learn to engineer better people, our principal sociopolitical tools will have to be law, cultural engineering, and education. The principal use of these tools needs to be to develop personal motivations that more closely parallel what is socially desirable than is the case today. We have a long way to go.
Part 2 will address what seem to be some necessary compromises and massive political obstacles to achieving beneficial changes.
Friday, April 30, 2010
O Giant Techbrains, Are You Listening?
This post is a customer's amused view of the interaction among three outstanding products of our hi tech culture: the Imac computer by Apple, the Pixma MP830 all-in-one printer-copier-fax by Canon, and the BE750G uninterruptable power supply by APC.
When I received my Imac I already had the printer. I found that the Imac Tiger OSX had a feature that allowed me to point and click a command that would put it to sleep, after which pressing a keyboard key would reawaken it in virtually the previous condition. I say "virtually" because there was a delay while it reacquired its wireless network. The successor OSX has the same feature.
Because my printer could be used independently as a copier or fax I turned it on while the Imac was asleep. Whoop-de-doo! When the printer turned on it woke the computer. So I put the Imac back to sleep and completed my work with the printer. Then I turned the printer off. The computer woke up again! I subsequently learned to turn the printer off before I put the Imac to sleep but I frequently forget that and it has been a nuisance but a livable one.
When I called Apple tech support about this I was told, after about half an hour for consultations, that tech help can't do anything about that and that I should address feedback on the Apple home site. No doubt this feature was built into a much earlier version of OSX before there were so many all-in-one printers in use and it just got grandfathered into every subsequent release.
The best is yet to come.
When my old APC power supply shuffled off this mortal coil I bought the BE750G. This new unit had two interesting features. It had software and a data cable for connecting to the computer so that, in the event of a power failure, the system could be powered down gracefully before the battery power was exhausted. Great! I attached the cable and called APC tech help for further guidance because the software disk gave me some unintellible gobbledigook about obsolete versions of OSX. Tech help explained to me that the software only worked with those obsolete releases and that it would be totally useless to me.
The second feature is that there are three outputs of the power supply that are contolled by the "master" output to which my computer is attached. When the computer is off or asleep, any peripherals plugged into these outputs would automatically also be powered down.
Great! I tested this by plugging my printer into one of the controlled outputs. The following results were obtained.
1) When the printer and the computer were both off, I could not turn the printer on without first turning on the computer.
2) When the computer and the printer were both on and I turned the printer off, that seemed to work OK.
3) When I subsequently put the Imac to sleep, both machines remained off but the power supply began to make a strange noise about every 6 seconds. It sounded roughly like a drop of water falling upon a metal tray. Possibly, some component in it was switching on and off periodically. I found this noise very distracting.
4) After that, when I woke the Imac, I found it impossible to turn the printer on.
5) When I put the Imac back to sleep, I could still not turn on the printer.
6) When I woke the Imac again, the printer finally could be started.
7) With both the Imac and the printer on, I then put the Imac to sleep and something really remarkable happened. First, the Imac went to sleep, then the printer went to sleep, then both the printer and the Imac woke up again!
I have gone into survival mode by disabling that APC feature.
I hold Canon innocent in this madness. It is a perfectly good printer. But - - -
Apple and APC, are you listening?
white rabbit
When I received my Imac I already had the printer. I found that the Imac Tiger OSX had a feature that allowed me to point and click a command that would put it to sleep, after which pressing a keyboard key would reawaken it in virtually the previous condition. I say "virtually" because there was a delay while it reacquired its wireless network. The successor OSX has the same feature.
Because my printer could be used independently as a copier or fax I turned it on while the Imac was asleep. Whoop-de-doo! When the printer turned on it woke the computer. So I put the Imac back to sleep and completed my work with the printer. Then I turned the printer off. The computer woke up again! I subsequently learned to turn the printer off before I put the Imac to sleep but I frequently forget that and it has been a nuisance but a livable one.
When I called Apple tech support about this I was told, after about half an hour for consultations, that tech help can't do anything about that and that I should address feedback on the Apple home site. No doubt this feature was built into a much earlier version of OSX before there were so many all-in-one printers in use and it just got grandfathered into every subsequent release.
The best is yet to come.
When my old APC power supply shuffled off this mortal coil I bought the BE750G. This new unit had two interesting features. It had software and a data cable for connecting to the computer so that, in the event of a power failure, the system could be powered down gracefully before the battery power was exhausted. Great! I attached the cable and called APC tech help for further guidance because the software disk gave me some unintellible gobbledigook about obsolete versions of OSX. Tech help explained to me that the software only worked with those obsolete releases and that it would be totally useless to me.
The second feature is that there are three outputs of the power supply that are contolled by the "master" output to which my computer is attached. When the computer is off or asleep, any peripherals plugged into these outputs would automatically also be powered down.
Great! I tested this by plugging my printer into one of the controlled outputs. The following results were obtained.
1) When the printer and the computer were both off, I could not turn the printer on without first turning on the computer.
2) When the computer and the printer were both on and I turned the printer off, that seemed to work OK.
3) When I subsequently put the Imac to sleep, both machines remained off but the power supply began to make a strange noise about every 6 seconds. It sounded roughly like a drop of water falling upon a metal tray. Possibly, some component in it was switching on and off periodically. I found this noise very distracting.
4) After that, when I woke the Imac, I found it impossible to turn the printer on.
5) When I put the Imac back to sleep, I could still not turn on the printer.
6) When I woke the Imac again, the printer finally could be started.
7) With both the Imac and the printer on, I then put the Imac to sleep and something really remarkable happened. First, the Imac went to sleep, then the printer went to sleep, then both the printer and the Imac woke up again!
I have gone into survival mode by disabling that APC feature.
I hold Canon innocent in this madness. It is a perfectly good printer. But - - -
Apple and APC, are you listening?
white rabbit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)