For the longest time we had a no-brain answer to the question of what is a Jew; namely, it's anyone with a Jewish mother.
But that really answers only the question of who is a Jew. So, with a moment of further thought, we answered that a Jew is anyone who is Jewish.
We weren 't getting very far, so we took another tack. We asked what is an Italian? Ans.: Anyone who is an Italian citizen. What about an Italian-American? Ans.: He, or she, is someone with roots going back to Italy. Okay, what's a Catholic? Ans.: Anyone who subscribes to Catholicism.
So, what's a Jew? Ans.: Anyone who subscribes to Judaism. Ah, ha, there's the rub. First, we have Christians who might say they subscribe to Judaism, as a first step. But then they say they've added Christto Judaism. So are Jews Christians sans Christ? There's a further problem; namely, some percentage of Jews don't believe in God. How then can they be Jews when the most central articulation of Judaism is the Shema (Hear O Israel, God is our Lord, God is One)?
The answer is that, while Judaism can be described as a religion, it is more than that. It is a peoplehood. It is people sharing a bond that goes beyond religion. Oppressors have rarely singled out a particular group of Jews. When they attack Jews, they attack all Jews, French Jews, German Jews, Italian Jews, etc.
Anti-Semites used to shout, "They have no country, but they control the world." Now, these same people shout, "They have only this tiny, inconsequential Zionist entity, but they control the world." And, these same people remain enamored of their blood libel. Before Israel, anti-Semites libeled Jews by alleging that Jews killed Christian children for the blood they allegedly used in preparing matza. Now, with Israel standing proud and tall, they allege that the IDF troops gather the organs of dead Muslims for transplanting into sick Jews. It never ends, and the target is always the same, Jews.
The Jews are a peoplehood because they share a common destiny. This is something especially important for young Jews to understand. From the Jewish texts, the world is admonished to beat their swords into plow shares, but one can hardly do away with one's swords when one's enemies threaten to wipe them off the map. Young Jews yearn to be citizens of the world, to help the oppressed wherever they might be. Unfortunately, this becomes a problem when it is the leadership of the oppressed who create misery for their own people. This is as true for the people in Gaza as it is for the natives of Zimbabwe, or the people of Darfur. The UN's General Assembly presumably represents the global community. How then is it that the nations of the world disregard the horrors of Darfur, and elsewhere, and focus their wrath on the only democracy in the middle east, Israel.
The history of the Jew is indeed unique. There's been a lot of suffering, but there's also been a solid record of achievement. If this is what you're connected to, your a Jew. If you reject it, what are you?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Eternal Question: Who Is A Jew?
I doubt the question will ever get answered in an entirely satisfactory manner. The most inclusive definition of who's a Jew was Hitler's. But, having him set our standards for who is a Jews is indeed repugnant.
Jews have traditionally agreed that anyone born to a Jewish mother is Jewish. Also, people who convert to Judaism are also accepted as being Jewish. However, as Jewish movements have splintered away from Orthodox Judaism, things have gotten more complicated. The Reform folks, for example, have adopted "patrilineal descent." They have added some conditions; namely, that the person so defined as a Jew, must accept his Jewishness. Also, they require that the person be given some Jewish education. But that has not won the support of non-Reform Jews. This, of course, leaves us with a situation where a person is Jewish for some Jews, but not for others.
Heretofore, this has been a question for Jews. (Others may watch, but not play.) But, now, in England, the game has changed. British law holds that religious schools can give preference to religious, but not ethnic factors. A lower court had ruled that JFS (Jews Free School) could give priority to children understood to be Jewish according to the JFS charter and the chief rabbis. This ruling was, however, overturned by the Court of Appeals, which held that the Jewish school could only use a "faith test" to determine whether a child was Jewish. Ethnicity (matrilineal descent) was not acceptable. A Supreme Court ruling is expected at the end of December 2009.
In the case at hand, a Jewish man had married a Catholic woman, who had converted to Judaism under Reform standards. The parents divorced and the father was now raising his son as a practicing Masorti (Conservative Judaism) Jew. (The Jewish Week, Dec 4, 2009)
Confusing? The mother converted to Reform Judaism, but is no longer in the picture. The boy is being raised in the Conservative Jewish tradition. And, none of this has any bearing from an Orthodox point of view. Into this stew, enters the court, which says, as a British subject, the boy has rights. This includes the right to a religious education. We, the court, find he's Jewish, so, if he meets their academic standards, the JFS must accept him.
That's what happens when Jews can't work out things on their own.
Jews have traditionally agreed that anyone born to a Jewish mother is Jewish. Also, people who convert to Judaism are also accepted as being Jewish. However, as Jewish movements have splintered away from Orthodox Judaism, things have gotten more complicated. The Reform folks, for example, have adopted "patrilineal descent." They have added some conditions; namely, that the person so defined as a Jew, must accept his Jewishness. Also, they require that the person be given some Jewish education. But that has not won the support of non-Reform Jews. This, of course, leaves us with a situation where a person is Jewish for some Jews, but not for others.
Heretofore, this has been a question for Jews. (Others may watch, but not play.) But, now, in England, the game has changed. British law holds that religious schools can give preference to religious, but not ethnic factors. A lower court had ruled that JFS (Jews Free School) could give priority to children understood to be Jewish according to the JFS charter and the chief rabbis. This ruling was, however, overturned by the Court of Appeals, which held that the Jewish school could only use a "faith test" to determine whether a child was Jewish. Ethnicity (matrilineal descent) was not acceptable. A Supreme Court ruling is expected at the end of December 2009.
In the case at hand, a Jewish man had married a Catholic woman, who had converted to Judaism under Reform standards. The parents divorced and the father was now raising his son as a practicing Masorti (Conservative Judaism) Jew. (The Jewish Week, Dec 4, 2009)
Confusing? The mother converted to Reform Judaism, but is no longer in the picture. The boy is being raised in the Conservative Jewish tradition. And, none of this has any bearing from an Orthodox point of view. Into this stew, enters the court, which says, as a British subject, the boy has rights. This includes the right to a religious education. We, the court, find he's Jewish, so, if he meets their academic standards, the JFS must accept him.
That's what happens when Jews can't work out things on their own.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Correction to my mention of the Ft Hood massacre
In my previous blog, where I mentioned the Muslim who murdered 13 of our service men, I said this event had occurred at Ft Bliss. This was, of course, an error. It was Ft Hood in Texas.
Also, I said none of the people at this base had had previous tours in Iraq. That was also an error.
However, these errors, while needing correction, in no way diminish the main point; namely, that it is the confusion as to what Islam is and how to distinguish radical Salafist Islamic thinking from the kind of moderate, or reformed, thinking practiced by many Muslims in America that needs to be better understood. To do all things possible to protect Americans from the radicals is entirely appropriate and in no way infringes on America's protection of religious freedom. Indeed, for this endeavor, we badly need the help of Americans of the Muslim faith who realize that Islam as taught in Saudi Arabia, or by the Brotherhood in Egypt, has no place in our country.
Also, I said none of the people at this base had had previous tours in Iraq. That was also an error.
However, these errors, while needing correction, in no way diminish the main point; namely, that it is the confusion as to what Islam is and how to distinguish radical Salafist Islamic thinking from the kind of moderate, or reformed, thinking practiced by many Muslims in America that needs to be better understood. To do all things possible to protect Americans from the radicals is entirely appropriate and in no way infringes on America's protection of religious freedom. Indeed, for this endeavor, we badly need the help of Americans of the Muslim faith who realize that Islam as taught in Saudi Arabia, or by the Brotherhood in Egypt, has no place in our country.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Political Correctness: It Kills
Freedom of religion; I suscribe to that, you say. Good, so do I. But, now, how do you interpret that freedom? If you say, it's okay to have four wives here in America, then, sorry, but I disagree. If you say, that, a Muslim taxi driver, has the right to deny service to a traveler carrying packaged liquor, then, sorry, I disagree. If, as a Catholic doctor, you think it's okay to divert a rape victim from having an abortion by not revealing your belief system and, by misleading the yourng victim, manage to deny her the procedure she so desparetly wants, then I must object. If, as an Orthodox Jew, you do not manage to get a woman out of a terrible marriage, because her husband won't give her a get, then, sorry, I disagree. If you excuse anyone, susbscibing to any belief system, of sexual abuse of others, especially minors, then, sorry, I not only disagree, but I protest.
I'm not making this stuff up. The situations mentioned above in general terms actually occurred in numerous specific situations.
The latest situation pointing to the harm that can come from political correctness is the murder of 13 of our troops in Ft. Bliss, TX. The perpetrator, or, perhaps I should say, since he hasn't yet been found guilty by trial, the "alleged" perpetrator is a Muslim fellow, born in this country and serving in our military as a psychiatrist. I should also mention that he has never been stationed out of the coutry. Also, he had not dealt with soldiers who had done a tour in the middle east.
We have here a person, who our people knew had written Islamic material of a radical nature in his blogs, and, who walked around the base in the gown and head covering of a devout Muslim. And, no one imagined he might act against our troops?
The signals coming from this fellow were in fact picked up, but no one dared take action. The risks of alienating his religious rights were considred more serious than what he might do to our men in uniform. Better to have 13 dead American soldiers than say to him, "Hey, buddy, you're acting contrary to our codes."
Oh, one thing more. This fellow went into the army right after high school. It was the army that sent him to medical school. Is this a great country or what?
I'm not making this stuff up. The situations mentioned above in general terms actually occurred in numerous specific situations.
The latest situation pointing to the harm that can come from political correctness is the murder of 13 of our troops in Ft. Bliss, TX. The perpetrator, or, perhaps I should say, since he hasn't yet been found guilty by trial, the "alleged" perpetrator is a Muslim fellow, born in this country and serving in our military as a psychiatrist. I should also mention that he has never been stationed out of the coutry. Also, he had not dealt with soldiers who had done a tour in the middle east.
We have here a person, who our people knew had written Islamic material of a radical nature in his blogs, and, who walked around the base in the gown and head covering of a devout Muslim. And, no one imagined he might act against our troops?
The signals coming from this fellow were in fact picked up, but no one dared take action. The risks of alienating his religious rights were considred more serious than what he might do to our men in uniform. Better to have 13 dead American soldiers than say to him, "Hey, buddy, you're acting contrary to our codes."
Oh, one thing more. This fellow went into the army right after high school. It was the army that sent him to medical school. Is this a great country or what?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Healthcare and the Public Option
I'm trying to understand what is being put together by the Congress as a Healthcare Bill. Some arguments I've heard is that this is nothing special. Think Social Security; do you like your Social Security? Another line of discussion says that we've got to insure everyone, so why not a plan on the lines of Medicare?
Let's begin with Social Security (SS), because I believe looking at this institution can provide valuable insights. Why have something like SS, when private companies can, and do, offer life insurance?
Ans: Because only the government can require citizens to pay premiums for such a policy, even when a citizen might prefer not to pay such a premium. In short, it's coercive. Is that good? Yes, in this specific case, I believe coercion is appropriate public policy. Young adults may feel they'll never grow old, or believe they'll be able to take care of themselves in their old age. But, more often than not, that's not what happens. SS helps mitigate the poverty that once dogged older citizens. It is good policy.
Does SS have a downside? Sure, it's under the management of Congress, a vital, but very flawed, institution. SS is nothing more than public live insurance. It requires the payment of a premium, it requires a reserve, and it must operate in a financially sound manner. It doesn't sound complicated, but unfortunately it's not easily done by most of our people in Congress.
However, the consequences of not doing it properly eventually become so severe that whether they like it, or not, in the end, they must raise the retirement age, if that's what's called for. Or, they can raise the premiums (this is generally less politically palatable).
Now, the question becomes as to whether this is equally true for the "public option," or to define it more properly, "a public health insurace program." Ans: Yes and no.
On the "yes" side, there's a great deal to be said for seeing to it that every citizen be able to receive the treatment he, or she, needs for whatever illness they come down with. Extracting from them a premium for such insurance, even thought many young people see themselves as being quite healthy and not needing such insurance would seem to be in the public interest.
But there is a down side. The cost of life insurance, or mandatory life insurance in the case of SS is relatively easy to calculate. It's pretty much all based on life expectancy. The cost of health insurance has been found to be wildly unpredictable and out of most everyone's control. The Medicare that is so widely touted, by some, as a wonderful model for healthcare for all citizens is in serious, serious trouble. It is being kept afloat largely by the great American printing press and, if you see no problem with that, talk to most any responsible economist.
It's all about cost, cost, cost. In America, the cost of medical procedures ranging from colonoscopies to heart surgery can, and does, vary by roughly 50%. In other words, procedures in some areas of the country are 50% more than they are in others, or, looked at another way, they are 33% less in some areas than in others. Either way you're looking at differences that are enormous. I, for one, do not believe this is a situation that can be managed by our legistlators.
What needs to be done, in my opinion, is the following:
1. Have the government step in and require all areas of the country to follow "best practices." If you think that's easy, consider the difficulty that has been encountered in some hospitals when they tried to get their doctors to wash their hands between patients and before approaching a patient. All medical recored should be put on a computerized national healthcare bank. (Yes, I know, everyone will be trying to crack into the president's data, but nevertheless the problem must be addressed.) There is a great deal more than can be said about "best practices," but that's for another blog.
2. Deal with the constant threat of lawsuits against doctors. What complicates this issues is that some doctors richly deserve to be sued out of their practices. Finding ways of weeding out the incompetents will be the challenge.
3. End of life. That's right. It comes to all of us. Call them "death panels" or whatever, but, for some, there will have to be a determination as to when enough is enough.
4. Make the medical insurance companies more competitive. End the barriers between states that prevent insurance companies from competing for business throughout our country.
5. Require all citizens to carry a minimum policy.
In other words, try to improve the healthcare system in our country by easy steps before letting the legistlators to pull out their knives and butcher things up in a way that will be almost impossible to remedy.
Let's begin with Social Security (SS), because I believe looking at this institution can provide valuable insights. Why have something like SS, when private companies can, and do, offer life insurance?
Ans: Because only the government can require citizens to pay premiums for such a policy, even when a citizen might prefer not to pay such a premium. In short, it's coercive. Is that good? Yes, in this specific case, I believe coercion is appropriate public policy. Young adults may feel they'll never grow old, or believe they'll be able to take care of themselves in their old age. But, more often than not, that's not what happens. SS helps mitigate the poverty that once dogged older citizens. It is good policy.
Does SS have a downside? Sure, it's under the management of Congress, a vital, but very flawed, institution. SS is nothing more than public live insurance. It requires the payment of a premium, it requires a reserve, and it must operate in a financially sound manner. It doesn't sound complicated, but unfortunately it's not easily done by most of our people in Congress.
However, the consequences of not doing it properly eventually become so severe that whether they like it, or not, in the end, they must raise the retirement age, if that's what's called for. Or, they can raise the premiums (this is generally less politically palatable).
Now, the question becomes as to whether this is equally true for the "public option," or to define it more properly, "a public health insurace program." Ans: Yes and no.
On the "yes" side, there's a great deal to be said for seeing to it that every citizen be able to receive the treatment he, or she, needs for whatever illness they come down with. Extracting from them a premium for such insurance, even thought many young people see themselves as being quite healthy and not needing such insurance would seem to be in the public interest.
But there is a down side. The cost of life insurance, or mandatory life insurance in the case of SS is relatively easy to calculate. It's pretty much all based on life expectancy. The cost of health insurance has been found to be wildly unpredictable and out of most everyone's control. The Medicare that is so widely touted, by some, as a wonderful model for healthcare for all citizens is in serious, serious trouble. It is being kept afloat largely by the great American printing press and, if you see no problem with that, talk to most any responsible economist.
It's all about cost, cost, cost. In America, the cost of medical procedures ranging from colonoscopies to heart surgery can, and does, vary by roughly 50%. In other words, procedures in some areas of the country are 50% more than they are in others, or, looked at another way, they are 33% less in some areas than in others. Either way you're looking at differences that are enormous. I, for one, do not believe this is a situation that can be managed by our legistlators.
What needs to be done, in my opinion, is the following:
1. Have the government step in and require all areas of the country to follow "best practices." If you think that's easy, consider the difficulty that has been encountered in some hospitals when they tried to get their doctors to wash their hands between patients and before approaching a patient. All medical recored should be put on a computerized national healthcare bank. (Yes, I know, everyone will be trying to crack into the president's data, but nevertheless the problem must be addressed.) There is a great deal more than can be said about "best practices," but that's for another blog.
2. Deal with the constant threat of lawsuits against doctors. What complicates this issues is that some doctors richly deserve to be sued out of their practices. Finding ways of weeding out the incompetents will be the challenge.
3. End of life. That's right. It comes to all of us. Call them "death panels" or whatever, but, for some, there will have to be a determination as to when enough is enough.
4. Make the medical insurance companies more competitive. End the barriers between states that prevent insurance companies from competing for business throughout our country.
5. Require all citizens to carry a minimum policy.
In other words, try to improve the healthcare system in our country by easy steps before letting the legistlators to pull out their knives and butcher things up in a way that will be almost impossible to remedy.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Apology
Typos are a curse and I must apologize for one I made in my last blog. There you will find a sentence, early on, that reads, "The desire to keep a buffer zone between their (China's) tremendously large nation (and a free and democratic state) is really the only thing that keeps a meglomaniac in power in North Korea.' Somehow, the word "it" found its way to a place between "is" and "really." Also, I neglected to put in "and a free and democratic state." I've made plenty of typos before, but this one was the worst.
Of course, I should also have begun the sentence with "Their desire" instead of "The desire." But that weakness in the sentence is not as troubling as the placement of the "it" where it had no right to be.
Anyway, I am sorry.
Of course, I should also have begun the sentence with "Their desire" instead of "The desire." But that weakness in the sentence is not as troubling as the placement of the "it" where it had no right to be.
Anyway, I am sorry.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Does The World Love Us Any More Today Than It Did Last Night?
The NY Times had an item on October 14th which described Guinea Boasting of a deal with the Chinese. It's a story because Guinea's bloody junta stands to gain billions. China has become like some of our financial institutions; namely, too big to fail.
It's not really a new story. Their pursuit in Africa finds the Chinese furthering the interests of leaders with no compunction about murdering humans they find inconvenient. Their trade with Burma (Mynmar) keeps another set of murderers in power. Their desire to keep a buffer between their tremendously large nation, is it really the only thing that keep a meglomaniac in power in North Korea. Taiwan, a nation, that has made tremendous strides in forging a benign and democratic nation is denied its place in an assembly of nations that gives membership to many lands far less worthy for just one reason; China opposes Taiwan's claim to nationhood.
China is not the only abuser of it's size and military power. Russia continues to act like an uncivilized lout. It wants land in Georgia for its oil and gas pipelines so it rips out chunks of that country. You may recall the chunks; South Ossetia and Abkazia. Then there is Transnistra. It's population is 31.9% Moldovan, 30.4 % Russian, and 28.6% Ukrainian. It is by right (de jure) Moldovan, but de facto independent. That's the way Russia wants it.
If you really want to see the way Russia plays the game, study Chechnya. They've installed a puppet regime, which they fully support in all it's brutality.
Let's now turn to Africa where the countries of that continent installed Muammar al-Gaddafi as prime minister of the African Union (UA). They say people deserve the leaders they choose, but can people of any continent deserve this sort of leadership.
When one considers what goes on on planet earth, and that these very countries guide the actions of the UN, is it any wonder that this organization expresses nothing but hatred toward the only democratic government in the middle east? The Scandanavians harbor as much anti-Semitism as is to be found anywhere in Europe. When they give a prize to our president, I begin to worry.
It's not really a new story. Their pursuit in Africa finds the Chinese furthering the interests of leaders with no compunction about murdering humans they find inconvenient. Their trade with Burma (Mynmar) keeps another set of murderers in power. Their desire to keep a buffer between their tremendously large nation, is it really the only thing that keep a meglomaniac in power in North Korea. Taiwan, a nation, that has made tremendous strides in forging a benign and democratic nation is denied its place in an assembly of nations that gives membership to many lands far less worthy for just one reason; China opposes Taiwan's claim to nationhood.
China is not the only abuser of it's size and military power. Russia continues to act like an uncivilized lout. It wants land in Georgia for its oil and gas pipelines so it rips out chunks of that country. You may recall the chunks; South Ossetia and Abkazia. Then there is Transnistra. It's population is 31.9% Moldovan, 30.4 % Russian, and 28.6% Ukrainian. It is by right (de jure) Moldovan, but de facto independent. That's the way Russia wants it.
If you really want to see the way Russia plays the game, study Chechnya. They've installed a puppet regime, which they fully support in all it's brutality.
Let's now turn to Africa where the countries of that continent installed Muammar al-Gaddafi as prime minister of the African Union (UA). They say people deserve the leaders they choose, but can people of any continent deserve this sort of leadership.
When one considers what goes on on planet earth, and that these very countries guide the actions of the UN, is it any wonder that this organization expresses nothing but hatred toward the only democratic government in the middle east? The Scandanavians harbor as much anti-Semitism as is to be found anywhere in Europe. When they give a prize to our president, I begin to worry.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize
You've got to hand it to the left when it comes to generating positive publicity for their positions. Their support comes so frequently and so swiftly it's hard for their hero, Pres. Obama, to work up a response in a timely fashion. But, he does. He's got a really great team working for him.
Obama's response to winning the Nobel Peace Prize was brilliant.
The problem is that the media has focused largely on the recipient of the prize; what it will mean for him; what it means for his policies. For the president, it makes for good print, but it misses the more important story; namely, what it is that the Nobel Peace Prize is all about? Who are the people who choose the recipients? When Obama, in laudable modesty, asks whether it wasn't a bit premature to award him a peace prize when he hasn't yet served a year in his office and when his achievements have yet to be achieved, asking what these Nobel committee members had in mind when they made this award becomes unavoidable.
The only way this award can be understood is on the basis of politics. And, that's fine. Nobel committee members have every right to express themselves as they see fit. But, the idea of this prize having anything to do with accomplishment is now clearly dead. Getting the Nobel prize is more meaningful than finding oneself on the cover of Time in only one way; with the Nobel prize you also get $1 + million.
Clearly, the Swedes have debased their prize. But this is nothing new. Didn't they also award it to Arafat and Carter? Carter got his for what was little more than a photo op. And the award to Arafat demonstrates that perhaps it would be best to wait until someone dies before awarding him this kind of prize.
Obama's response to winning the Nobel Peace Prize was brilliant.
The problem is that the media has focused largely on the recipient of the prize; what it will mean for him; what it means for his policies. For the president, it makes for good print, but it misses the more important story; namely, what it is that the Nobel Peace Prize is all about? Who are the people who choose the recipients? When Obama, in laudable modesty, asks whether it wasn't a bit premature to award him a peace prize when he hasn't yet served a year in his office and when his achievements have yet to be achieved, asking what these Nobel committee members had in mind when they made this award becomes unavoidable.
The only way this award can be understood is on the basis of politics. And, that's fine. Nobel committee members have every right to express themselves as they see fit. But, the idea of this prize having anything to do with accomplishment is now clearly dead. Getting the Nobel prize is more meaningful than finding oneself on the cover of Time in only one way; with the Nobel prize you also get $1 + million.
Clearly, the Swedes have debased their prize. But this is nothing new. Didn't they also award it to Arafat and Carter? Carter got his for what was little more than a photo op. And the award to Arafat demonstrates that perhaps it would be best to wait until someone dies before awarding him this kind of prize.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Politicians; So Predictable
This story, the details of which appeared in the NY Times on September 25, 2009, describes the underside of our political system as well as anything I've read recently.
The cast of characters include Sen. Robert Menendez, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., Rep. Stephen R. Rothman, ReGen Biologics, and the FDA.
The item that precipitated this scandal is a C-shaped pad used to repair a torn or damaged meniscus. It's called a Menaflex and costs $3,000. A clinical trial of the device failed to show that it had worked any better than routine surgery. It was further alleged, according to the NY Times, that the device has often failed and when this happens patients are forced to get another operation.
The FDA's scientific reviewers repeatedly and unanimously, over many years, decided that Menaflex was unsafe. And, that's when the fan began getting hit. A report issued by the FDA claimed that they began to come under "extreme," " unusual," and persistent pressure from the four New Jersey politicians mentioned above. In response to that pressure, the FDA commissioner, Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, overruled the scientists and approved Menaflex for sale in December. Dr. von Eschenbach resigned in January of '09.
In a conference call with reporters, the FDA's current principal deputy commissioner, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein said that, "The message here is that there were problems with the integrity of the FDA's decision-making process that have solutions." Indeed, a report issued by the FDA said that Dr. von Eschenbach became, as a result of political pressure, "Personally engaged in the details of a process usually coordinated" by scientific staff. One agency manager concuded that Dr. von Eschenbach "was demading not only an expedited process but also an outcome in favor of ReGen."
The politicians claimed they did no more than what they would do for any constituent. Be that as it may, the politicians collected the following from Regen:
Robert Menendez _
Oct 28, 2007 $2,000 (to the New Millennium PAC ccontrolled by Mr. Menendez)
Mar 2008 $7,100 for the Menendez campaign account
Stephen R. Rothman
Dec 4, 2007 $500
Feb 14, 2008 $8,200 for his campaign account, and $2,600 to Renewing Opportunity, Trust
& Hope, a Rothman PAC (You gotta love the names these politicians give their
PAC's)
Frank Pallone, Jr
Dec 2007 $2,300 from a ReGen executive
Oct 2008 $1,000 from a ReGen executive
Frank Lautenberg
May 2008 $2,300 from a ReGen executive
Naw, these guys didn't do it for the money. They did it to help a constituent. Believe that and I've got a bridge across the East River I'd like to sell you.
But, it's not just this ReGen thing that's so troubling. What we've got to realize is that this sort of behavior can occur when politicians decide that, for purposes of social engineering, the unskilled and unemployed should be given mortgages, or that the military should buy equipment they don't need, because constituents in their districts have factories they want to keep busy. Sure, big business needs watching. Our military needs watching. Our banking system needs watching. But more important than anything else is the need for us to keep our eyes on our politicians.
The cast of characters include Sen. Robert Menendez, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., Rep. Stephen R. Rothman, ReGen Biologics, and the FDA.
The item that precipitated this scandal is a C-shaped pad used to repair a torn or damaged meniscus. It's called a Menaflex and costs $3,000. A clinical trial of the device failed to show that it had worked any better than routine surgery. It was further alleged, according to the NY Times, that the device has often failed and when this happens patients are forced to get another operation.
The FDA's scientific reviewers repeatedly and unanimously, over many years, decided that Menaflex was unsafe. And, that's when the fan began getting hit. A report issued by the FDA claimed that they began to come under "extreme," " unusual," and persistent pressure from the four New Jersey politicians mentioned above. In response to that pressure, the FDA commissioner, Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, overruled the scientists and approved Menaflex for sale in December. Dr. von Eschenbach resigned in January of '09.
In a conference call with reporters, the FDA's current principal deputy commissioner, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein said that, "The message here is that there were problems with the integrity of the FDA's decision-making process that have solutions." Indeed, a report issued by the FDA said that Dr. von Eschenbach became, as a result of political pressure, "Personally engaged in the details of a process usually coordinated" by scientific staff. One agency manager concuded that Dr. von Eschenbach "was demading not only an expedited process but also an outcome in favor of ReGen."
The politicians claimed they did no more than what they would do for any constituent. Be that as it may, the politicians collected the following from Regen:
Robert Menendez _
Oct 28, 2007 $2,000 (to the New Millennium PAC ccontrolled by Mr. Menendez)
Mar 2008 $7,100 for the Menendez campaign account
Stephen R. Rothman
Dec 4, 2007 $500
Feb 14, 2008 $8,200 for his campaign account, and $2,600 to Renewing Opportunity, Trust
& Hope, a Rothman PAC (You gotta love the names these politicians give their
PAC's)
Frank Pallone, Jr
Dec 2007 $2,300 from a ReGen executive
Oct 2008 $1,000 from a ReGen executive
Frank Lautenberg
May 2008 $2,300 from a ReGen executive
Naw, these guys didn't do it for the money. They did it to help a constituent. Believe that and I've got a bridge across the East River I'd like to sell you.
But, it's not just this ReGen thing that's so troubling. What we've got to realize is that this sort of behavior can occur when politicians decide that, for purposes of social engineering, the unskilled and unemployed should be given mortgages, or that the military should buy equipment they don't need, because constituents in their districts have factories they want to keep busy. Sure, big business needs watching. Our military needs watching. Our banking system needs watching. But more important than anything else is the need for us to keep our eyes on our politicians.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
God, A Metaphysical Entity
Many years ago, as my reading expanded, I came across the word, "metaphysical." I looked it up in the dictionary and felt I understood what it meant. But, where exactly would one ever have need of such a word. Things "supernatural" seem more appropriate to Halloween, than to anything with real relevance to one's life. But, now, suddenly, I feel this word is the best one yet to describe the nature of God.
God is occasionally mentioned in a Hofstra study group for seniors that I attend, and most generally arises when a new book on God, or the absence of God, comes up for discussion. The back and forth will at times become a bit heated. But, here is what I've figured out:
There both is a God, and their isn't. It depends on how you look at it. If this seems nonsensical, consider religion. In high school, where I was first exposed to the pagan culture of the early Greeks, I loved the stories of their Gods. But, I was troubled by one question; namely, could their beliefs be described as a religion. How was that possible?
Years later, I got it. It was religion, because religion is culture. Understand culture and you understand religion. Take an Irishman and compare him with an Italian. How alike are they? Consider but one situation; namely, how they grieve. Does an Irish wake look anything like an Italian wake? Or, let's consider Jews. The differences between an Orthodox Jew and a Reform Jew are so great it would take a full length book to do them justice.
Often religious leaders seek to deny the spectrum of behavior that characterizes their coreligionists. "We all look to the Pope for spiritual guidance," say Roman Catholics. "We all worship the Torah," say the Jews. "We stand by the Bible," say the Protestants. But, of course we have all observed the realities. And, the reality is that God is who, or what we say, It, or She, or He, is. In other words, God is a projection of our intellect.
That is not to say God is not real. An entity one would die for, or, in other ways, make serious sacrifices for, is indeed real. But, as we struggle to understand God, it is possible that we will refine our understanding of the world around us. And, as our thinking is refined, is it not possible that God, as we understand Him, will also become modified?
Is there a God; of course. But, tomorrow, his image for me might well be a bit different than it was today. Will God have changed, or will I have changed? Perhaps we will both have changed.
God is occasionally mentioned in a Hofstra study group for seniors that I attend, and most generally arises when a new book on God, or the absence of God, comes up for discussion. The back and forth will at times become a bit heated. But, here is what I've figured out:
There both is a God, and their isn't. It depends on how you look at it. If this seems nonsensical, consider religion. In high school, where I was first exposed to the pagan culture of the early Greeks, I loved the stories of their Gods. But, I was troubled by one question; namely, could their beliefs be described as a religion. How was that possible?
Years later, I got it. It was religion, because religion is culture. Understand culture and you understand religion. Take an Irishman and compare him with an Italian. How alike are they? Consider but one situation; namely, how they grieve. Does an Irish wake look anything like an Italian wake? Or, let's consider Jews. The differences between an Orthodox Jew and a Reform Jew are so great it would take a full length book to do them justice.
Often religious leaders seek to deny the spectrum of behavior that characterizes their coreligionists. "We all look to the Pope for spiritual guidance," say Roman Catholics. "We all worship the Torah," say the Jews. "We stand by the Bible," say the Protestants. But, of course we have all observed the realities. And, the reality is that God is who, or what we say, It, or She, or He, is. In other words, God is a projection of our intellect.
That is not to say God is not real. An entity one would die for, or, in other ways, make serious sacrifices for, is indeed real. But, as we struggle to understand God, it is possible that we will refine our understanding of the world around us. And, as our thinking is refined, is it not possible that God, as we understand Him, will also become modified?
Is there a God; of course. But, tomorrow, his image for me might well be a bit different than it was today. Will God have changed, or will I have changed? Perhaps we will both have changed.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Mirage That Is Peace Between Israel and Abbas
It is dark humor indeed to hear folks talking about how, if each party were to compromise a bit, peace would emerge between Israel and the Palestinians. Regrettably, no one ever presents the picture in all its stark truth. Many have the false notion that the Jewish State is something that emerged after WWII, when Hitler attempted to eradicate as many Jews as he could gather up in his net; that if the Jews hadn't emerged as boney stick figures from Nazi concentration camps there would never have existed the impulse to create a Jewish State.
The truth is quite different. Herzl, a central figure in the movement for a Jewish State realized, after seeing a loyal French officer sent to Devil's Island, because of false and anti-Semitically motivated charges, that Jews, as a people, could only escape bigotry and humiliation if they had a country of their own. These events played out between the period the 1890's to 1900; considerably earlier than WWII and, indeed, before WW I.
Through the efforts of Chaim Weizmann, the Jews received the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The declaration was related to the gratitude felt towards Dr. Weizmann for having developed a method of producting acetone, essential for the explosive referred to as "cordite." This was something that had importance in WW I.
It should also be noted that in WW I the Ottoman Empire was a member of the axis and, that its empire, such as it was at the time, was dismembered into various national entities after the war by the allied powers. The Jews in Palestine (the Yishuv) had joined in the fight against the Turks. (The "yishuv" was a term for the Jews in Palestine that came into use in, or around, 1880. ) The Arabs, it should be noted, fought on the side of the Turks.
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Palestine were all entities whose boundaries were created by the Allies; mainly the English and the French. There was no Jordan. That country was originally part of Palestine and, in keeping with their promise to the Jews, Palestine was to be divided between the Arabs and the Jews. But then Churchill belatedly discovered an Arab friend to whom he felt he had to give a country. What country? Well, you know, he answered, the one across the Jordan. And so it was that map makers suddenly found themselves with a new country, Trans-Jordan. That, at any rate, is what it was called in my geography book when I attended grammar school. And, so now, only the sliver of land remaining became Palestine and it was this that was to be divided between the Jews and the Arabs.
It's interesting to note that, in those long ago days, everyone in Palestine was a Palestinian. Even the Jews were Palestinians. Two events then occurred which lead directly to today's problems; namely, (a) rejection by the Arab states of the UN's declaration that Palestine was to be divided into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state and (b) UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency) set up to provide for the Palestinian Arabs dispersed throughout the middle east.
The rejection of the Arab states of the UN's declaration was made manifest by Arab countries such as Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt sending their armies to destroy the Jews and the Jewish state. To everyone's considerable surprise, the Jews prevailed against the far larger and better equiped Arab forces. After the Six Day War, the Arab states met in Khartoum and on September 1, 1967 passed their famous resolution containing the "three no's"; no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiation with Israel. It was not until the defeat of the Egyptians in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 that Egypt and Israel entered into a peace agreement. That was subsequently followed by an agreement with Jordan.
The PLO was founded only in May of 1964. It was, however, only a fragile organization that was established to provide "some boots on the ground" for larger Arab nations such as Egypt. With Egypt's defeat in '73, it became the primary vehicle for action against Israel. It's leaders, such as Arafat, who was born in Egypt, were largely drawn from outside Palestine.
The Islamic states arrayed against Israel now gave their support to Arafat and later Abbas. But, whereas Ben Gurian and Menachem Begin were able to find common ground, the same does not seem to have been true for Arafat and his allies. At one point, the behavior of his followers caused them to be ejected from Jordan at a considerable loss of blood. They then went to Lebanon where they entered into fierce battles with the Maronites. With time, Palestinian leaders gained a reputation for corruption. The Hamas victory in the Gaza elections is generally credited to the perceived corruption of Fatah.
Today, the support of their allies has metamorphed into something different. Hamas is supported by Hezbollah, which in turn is supported by Iran and Syria. Abbas and Fatah, is supported by the Saudis, the Egyptians and other Sunnis. This all has a bearing on Israel being able to reach peace terms with Abbas. Reaching a peace agreement with Hamas, considering that their support comes from Iran and Syria, is just not going to happen.
But reaching a peace agreement with Abbas is also problematical. Unlike Jordan and Egypt, the Palestinians on the west bank prosper at the sufferance of the Saudis and the Egyptians. Corruption remains a problem. But, more than that, the Saudis have no motivation to see Abbas make peace with Israel. They are like a super-rich child having supplicants like Abbas do their bidding. Abbas understands the game and is willing to play along as long as it brings prosperity to his clan -- which it does.
Israel recognizes this and has decided to get on with its life. And, it has been doing very nicely. In 2010, it will be recognized as a "developed nation" with an economy as large as either Denmark or Brussels. (Previously it was designated as a "developing nation.") It is a nation recognized for its leadership role in medicine and the sciences.
As to UNRWA: Here we have a case of good intentions leading to hell. Jewish refugees from Arab countries was every bit as numerous as the Arab refugees from Palestine. But, there was a difference; the Arab refugees ran away of their own accord, the Jewish refugees were forced out. Be that as it may, Jews from all over the world worked together to care for the Jewish refugees and integrate them into various Jewish societies. Most of these Sefardic refugees went to Israel.
The Islamic nations acted differently to the refugees. They let them squat as refugees for a period now greater than 60 years. UNRWA, created to care for these refugees, became their chief employer, and their dispenser of food, medicine, and other necessities. No Arab country gives them citizenship. Indeed, Jordan recently took their Jordanian citizenship away from them. Saudi Arabia which brings workers in from India and the Phillipines has little use for them. Any good person, and that includes many Jews, feels badly for these people. They are true victims. But, you've got to ask who it was that made them victims? Clearly, it was their fellow Arabs and UNRWA.
Had the Palestinian refugees been incorporated into Arab society the Israelis and the Palestinians that remained could far more easily have arrived at peace. But, clearly, that is not what most Islamic nations wanted.
So, if you're hoping for peace, dream on.
The truth is quite different. Herzl, a central figure in the movement for a Jewish State realized, after seeing a loyal French officer sent to Devil's Island, because of false and anti-Semitically motivated charges, that Jews, as a people, could only escape bigotry and humiliation if they had a country of their own. These events played out between the period the 1890's to 1900; considerably earlier than WWII and, indeed, before WW I.
Through the efforts of Chaim Weizmann, the Jews received the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The declaration was related to the gratitude felt towards Dr. Weizmann for having developed a method of producting acetone, essential for the explosive referred to as "cordite." This was something that had importance in WW I.
It should also be noted that in WW I the Ottoman Empire was a member of the axis and, that its empire, such as it was at the time, was dismembered into various national entities after the war by the allied powers. The Jews in Palestine (the Yishuv) had joined in the fight against the Turks. (The "yishuv" was a term for the Jews in Palestine that came into use in, or around, 1880. ) The Arabs, it should be noted, fought on the side of the Turks.
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Palestine were all entities whose boundaries were created by the Allies; mainly the English and the French. There was no Jordan. That country was originally part of Palestine and, in keeping with their promise to the Jews, Palestine was to be divided between the Arabs and the Jews. But then Churchill belatedly discovered an Arab friend to whom he felt he had to give a country. What country? Well, you know, he answered, the one across the Jordan. And so it was that map makers suddenly found themselves with a new country, Trans-Jordan. That, at any rate, is what it was called in my geography book when I attended grammar school. And, so now, only the sliver of land remaining became Palestine and it was this that was to be divided between the Jews and the Arabs.
It's interesting to note that, in those long ago days, everyone in Palestine was a Palestinian. Even the Jews were Palestinians. Two events then occurred which lead directly to today's problems; namely, (a) rejection by the Arab states of the UN's declaration that Palestine was to be divided into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state and (b) UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency) set up to provide for the Palestinian Arabs dispersed throughout the middle east.
The rejection of the Arab states of the UN's declaration was made manifest by Arab countries such as Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt sending their armies to destroy the Jews and the Jewish state. To everyone's considerable surprise, the Jews prevailed against the far larger and better equiped Arab forces. After the Six Day War, the Arab states met in Khartoum and on September 1, 1967 passed their famous resolution containing the "three no's"; no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiation with Israel. It was not until the defeat of the Egyptians in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 that Egypt and Israel entered into a peace agreement. That was subsequently followed by an agreement with Jordan.
The PLO was founded only in May of 1964. It was, however, only a fragile organization that was established to provide "some boots on the ground" for larger Arab nations such as Egypt. With Egypt's defeat in '73, it became the primary vehicle for action against Israel. It's leaders, such as Arafat, who was born in Egypt, were largely drawn from outside Palestine.
The Islamic states arrayed against Israel now gave their support to Arafat and later Abbas. But, whereas Ben Gurian and Menachem Begin were able to find common ground, the same does not seem to have been true for Arafat and his allies. At one point, the behavior of his followers caused them to be ejected from Jordan at a considerable loss of blood. They then went to Lebanon where they entered into fierce battles with the Maronites. With time, Palestinian leaders gained a reputation for corruption. The Hamas victory in the Gaza elections is generally credited to the perceived corruption of Fatah.
Today, the support of their allies has metamorphed into something different. Hamas is supported by Hezbollah, which in turn is supported by Iran and Syria. Abbas and Fatah, is supported by the Saudis, the Egyptians and other Sunnis. This all has a bearing on Israel being able to reach peace terms with Abbas. Reaching a peace agreement with Hamas, considering that their support comes from Iran and Syria, is just not going to happen.
But reaching a peace agreement with Abbas is also problematical. Unlike Jordan and Egypt, the Palestinians on the west bank prosper at the sufferance of the Saudis and the Egyptians. Corruption remains a problem. But, more than that, the Saudis have no motivation to see Abbas make peace with Israel. They are like a super-rich child having supplicants like Abbas do their bidding. Abbas understands the game and is willing to play along as long as it brings prosperity to his clan -- which it does.
Israel recognizes this and has decided to get on with its life. And, it has been doing very nicely. In 2010, it will be recognized as a "developed nation" with an economy as large as either Denmark or Brussels. (Previously it was designated as a "developing nation.") It is a nation recognized for its leadership role in medicine and the sciences.
As to UNRWA: Here we have a case of good intentions leading to hell. Jewish refugees from Arab countries was every bit as numerous as the Arab refugees from Palestine. But, there was a difference; the Arab refugees ran away of their own accord, the Jewish refugees were forced out. Be that as it may, Jews from all over the world worked together to care for the Jewish refugees and integrate them into various Jewish societies. Most of these Sefardic refugees went to Israel.
The Islamic nations acted differently to the refugees. They let them squat as refugees for a period now greater than 60 years. UNRWA, created to care for these refugees, became their chief employer, and their dispenser of food, medicine, and other necessities. No Arab country gives them citizenship. Indeed, Jordan recently took their Jordanian citizenship away from them. Saudi Arabia which brings workers in from India and the Phillipines has little use for them. Any good person, and that includes many Jews, feels badly for these people. They are true victims. But, you've got to ask who it was that made them victims? Clearly, it was their fellow Arabs and UNRWA.
Had the Palestinian refugees been incorporated into Arab society the Israelis and the Palestinians that remained could far more easily have arrived at peace. But, clearly, that is not what most Islamic nations wanted.
So, if you're hoping for peace, dream on.
Rod Blogojevitch: The Governor Who Got In Front Of A Bulldozer
Blogojevich did the unforgiveable; he said "no" to the godfather. And, that ended the service to the State of Illinois of this twice elected governor. Do I love Blogojevich? Can't say that I do; or, that I don't. I really don't know all that much about him. From the network news and newspaper accounts, he seemed like a typical Chicago politician.
But, there he was getting himself impeached. The Illinois legislators, by near unanimous vote agreed to dump good ol' Rod. But why? And, that's the puzzle. What exactly did he do? As far as I can figure out, he appointed a person to fill the seat vacated in the Senate by Obama. And, in the process of doing that, he let it be known that he wanted to gain something for his appointment. Is that wrong?
I'm not a lawyer, but whether Blogojevich was wrong or right in seeking to gain something for appointing an interim Senator depended on whether it was cash he sought, or whether it was enhanced political power. If he asked for cash, it would, as far as I know, have been illegal. Indeed, it would have been criminal. If what he was seeking was enhanced political power, it would not have been illegal. It would not only have not been illegal, he would have been acting pretty much the way every other governor in the U.S. behaves under like circumstances.
But, here is the thing: They impeached Blagojevich, but they did not presecute him. He has not been brought to trial and, as far as I can tell, there has been virtually nothing done to bring him to trial. Is there something going on that you and I don't know about? Rod's humiliation by late night comedians has been pretty thorough. At the time of Blogojevech's fall, Jay Leno always managed a cheap laugh by referring to Rod as "Blogo-son-of-a-bitch." There never seems to be a politician so injured without the benefit of a trial that good ol' Jay can't run his Hummer over him one more time. (Now that he's on from 10 to 11, it seems Jay is beginning to understand what that feels like.)
As far as I can tell, Blagojevech's fatal sin was not acquiescing to Obama's choice for filling this Senatorial position. Emmanuel told Rod what was expected to him and Rod wouldn't listen. Didn't Rod know why Emmanuel is called Obama's "muscle"? Apparently not.
Rod will never be brought to trial because if that were to happen, Emmanuel's role in this sordid saga would become transparent. Enforcers always do their best work behind a curtain. And, of course, if Emmanuel's role were to be made clear, so would Obama's. No, it is unlikely that Rod will ever be charged with a crime. Emmanuel and Obame have already meted out what they see as political justice. More than that other politicians have watched the drama and learned what happens when you say "no" to Obama.
But, there he was getting himself impeached. The Illinois legislators, by near unanimous vote agreed to dump good ol' Rod. But why? And, that's the puzzle. What exactly did he do? As far as I can figure out, he appointed a person to fill the seat vacated in the Senate by Obama. And, in the process of doing that, he let it be known that he wanted to gain something for his appointment. Is that wrong?
I'm not a lawyer, but whether Blogojevich was wrong or right in seeking to gain something for appointing an interim Senator depended on whether it was cash he sought, or whether it was enhanced political power. If he asked for cash, it would, as far as I know, have been illegal. Indeed, it would have been criminal. If what he was seeking was enhanced political power, it would not have been illegal. It would not only have not been illegal, he would have been acting pretty much the way every other governor in the U.S. behaves under like circumstances.
But, here is the thing: They impeached Blagojevich, but they did not presecute him. He has not been brought to trial and, as far as I can tell, there has been virtually nothing done to bring him to trial. Is there something going on that you and I don't know about? Rod's humiliation by late night comedians has been pretty thorough. At the time of Blogojevech's fall, Jay Leno always managed a cheap laugh by referring to Rod as "Blogo-son-of-a-bitch." There never seems to be a politician so injured without the benefit of a trial that good ol' Jay can't run his Hummer over him one more time. (Now that he's on from 10 to 11, it seems Jay is beginning to understand what that feels like.)
As far as I can tell, Blagojevech's fatal sin was not acquiescing to Obama's choice for filling this Senatorial position. Emmanuel told Rod what was expected to him and Rod wouldn't listen. Didn't Rod know why Emmanuel is called Obama's "muscle"? Apparently not.
Rod will never be brought to trial because if that were to happen, Emmanuel's role in this sordid saga would become transparent. Enforcers always do their best work behind a curtain. And, of course, if Emmanuel's role were to be made clear, so would Obama's. No, it is unlikely that Rod will ever be charged with a crime. Emmanuel and Obame have already meted out what they see as political justice. More than that other politicians have watched the drama and learned what happens when you say "no" to Obama.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
TIME Gives Glenn Beck a Big Boost
Sometimes, you don't know whether to cheer or cry; to boo or cheer. This situation is best exemplified by TIME's article on Glenn Beck. (They even put Beck's picture on their cover.)
I first learned of what TIME's intentions were when I tuned in to "Morning Joe." I then read the article online thanks to a link from the Drudge Report.
Clearly TIME wants it's readers to know that it doesn't approve of Glenn Beck. Their article says he's a recovering alcoholic, that he's afflicted with ADHD, and that he was traumatized by his mother's suicide.
They suggest that his broadcasting has led to the ouster of one of Obama's czars and the defunding of Acorn. (These are bad things?)
But, the article also told me things about Glenn Beck I hadn't known (because I don't really watch him all that much). The TIME article says that Beck said that, if it were up to ordinary American people, the Twin Towers would have already been rebuilt.
That really hit me. After the tragedy of 9/11, that was one of my first thoughts; namely, let's rebuild those towers just the way they were. Let's show those SOBs they can hurt us but they won't have the final victory. And, here I see Glenn Beck expressing the same sentiments. In fact, he even suggested that we now make these towers maybe 25 stories higher. I'd be willing to bet lots of Americans felt, and continue to feel, exactly the same way.
The article suggests that Beck panders to the abstract fears and disassociated angers of Americans. The accusation suggests that there is no basis for such anger. But there is. Some days earlier, I was reading in the NY Times where some developer wanted to put up a building next to, or near, the MoMA. Some self-appointed archetectual critics put the cabash on the developer's plan, because they felt that the building would be too tall. Its size would distort the New York skyline and would create conflicts with the City's traditional look. The planned building would be as big as the Empire State building.
Really? Who are these critics? Who appointed them? Who needs them? Had we had them at the time we were developing plans for the Empire State Building, it is reasonable to believe we would never have built this grand structure. Americans, and, in this case, New Yorkers, have a right to be angry with the stupid critics who impose their will over our skyline. Incidentally, what they've recently done to Lincoln Center is also a crime. Thank goodness for someone like Glenn Beck to give us ordinary citizens a voice.
I first learned of what TIME's intentions were when I tuned in to "Morning Joe." I then read the article online thanks to a link from the Drudge Report.
Clearly TIME wants it's readers to know that it doesn't approve of Glenn Beck. Their article says he's a recovering alcoholic, that he's afflicted with ADHD, and that he was traumatized by his mother's suicide.
They suggest that his broadcasting has led to the ouster of one of Obama's czars and the defunding of Acorn. (These are bad things?)
But, the article also told me things about Glenn Beck I hadn't known (because I don't really watch him all that much). The TIME article says that Beck said that, if it were up to ordinary American people, the Twin Towers would have already been rebuilt.
That really hit me. After the tragedy of 9/11, that was one of my first thoughts; namely, let's rebuild those towers just the way they were. Let's show those SOBs they can hurt us but they won't have the final victory. And, here I see Glenn Beck expressing the same sentiments. In fact, he even suggested that we now make these towers maybe 25 stories higher. I'd be willing to bet lots of Americans felt, and continue to feel, exactly the same way.
The article suggests that Beck panders to the abstract fears and disassociated angers of Americans. The accusation suggests that there is no basis for such anger. But there is. Some days earlier, I was reading in the NY Times where some developer wanted to put up a building next to, or near, the MoMA. Some self-appointed archetectual critics put the cabash on the developer's plan, because they felt that the building would be too tall. Its size would distort the New York skyline and would create conflicts with the City's traditional look. The planned building would be as big as the Empire State building.
Really? Who are these critics? Who appointed them? Who needs them? Had we had them at the time we were developing plans for the Empire State Building, it is reasonable to believe we would never have built this grand structure. Americans, and, in this case, New Yorkers, have a right to be angry with the stupid critics who impose their will over our skyline. Incidentally, what they've recently done to Lincoln Center is also a crime. Thank goodness for someone like Glenn Beck to give us ordinary citizens a voice.
Morning Joe
This is a show I really like. But be warned, it goes on at 6 am EST and runs until 9 am. I'm 75 and I watch the show mainly because, at about 6 am, I often have to make a bathroom call. If you're anywhere around my age, chances are you know what I'm talking about. And, since I often find I can't get back to sleep, I'll go into another room and turn on MSNBC.
Joe's regulars include Mike Barnacle, Willy Geist, Amika, Pat Buchanan. He also has a parade of stimulating guests. One thing you begin to realize is that a lot of people who gravitate to "the talking heads" business seem to be well connected. But I guess that's true of life in general.
Amika, for example, is the daughter of Zbignew Brezinski (please excuse me if I misspell any names). Amika and Joe do their little Punch and Judy routine adding a touch of levity to an otherwise fairly serious show.
Willy Geist's father apparently was a mover and shaker in the media business, though I'm not sure of the details. Mike and Pat are, as far as I can tell, self-made men, which is also true of Joe, a one-time Congressman from Florida. He certainly brings a lot of political knowhow to the show and, without skewering them, doesn't allow guests to get away with delivering nothing more than prepackaged answers to important political questions. Joe's about as fair as you're ever going to get on TV.
But even Joe has his weaknesses. They discussed Glenn Beck and it was pretty clear that Joe, and certainly Amika, didn't have much respect for Beck. I'm not in love with Glenn Beck but respect must be given where respect is due. It was on Beck's show that I first became aware of film that had been shot surreptitiously at various Acorn offices. The footage was dynamite and couldn't be ignored by the other networks. If it hadn't been for Fox News and Glenn Beck, it is possible the film would never have seen the light of day. The other networks showed it only days later when this information could no longer be ignored.
Sure, Beck goes off on silly tangents. For example, I saw his piece on how the communist muralist Diego Rivera (hope I've got that right) sold works to Standard Oil people for installation in the Rockefeller Center complex. The art was great; the message not so great. But, that was ages ago. It's not that I don't appreciate wonderful insights to history. But that was then and things like Acorn are now.
I'm glad Joe's got Pat Buchanan on his show on a more or less regular basis. As a Republican, I appreciate much of what Pat says. And, when he suggested that Levi Johnson be taken down to the stream, and have his head held under water until the thrashing stopped, I did get a good laugh. However, as one who appreciates the true merit of the State of Israel, Pat's attitudes and misperceptions regarding this marvelous nation do grieve me.
Be that as it may, "Morning Joe" is a great show.
Joe's regulars include Mike Barnacle, Willy Geist, Amika, Pat Buchanan. He also has a parade of stimulating guests. One thing you begin to realize is that a lot of people who gravitate to "the talking heads" business seem to be well connected. But I guess that's true of life in general.
Amika, for example, is the daughter of Zbignew Brezinski (please excuse me if I misspell any names). Amika and Joe do their little Punch and Judy routine adding a touch of levity to an otherwise fairly serious show.
Willy Geist's father apparently was a mover and shaker in the media business, though I'm not sure of the details. Mike and Pat are, as far as I can tell, self-made men, which is also true of Joe, a one-time Congressman from Florida. He certainly brings a lot of political knowhow to the show and, without skewering them, doesn't allow guests to get away with delivering nothing more than prepackaged answers to important political questions. Joe's about as fair as you're ever going to get on TV.
But even Joe has his weaknesses. They discussed Glenn Beck and it was pretty clear that Joe, and certainly Amika, didn't have much respect for Beck. I'm not in love with Glenn Beck but respect must be given where respect is due. It was on Beck's show that I first became aware of film that had been shot surreptitiously at various Acorn offices. The footage was dynamite and couldn't be ignored by the other networks. If it hadn't been for Fox News and Glenn Beck, it is possible the film would never have seen the light of day. The other networks showed it only days later when this information could no longer be ignored.
Sure, Beck goes off on silly tangents. For example, I saw his piece on how the communist muralist Diego Rivera (hope I've got that right) sold works to Standard Oil people for installation in the Rockefeller Center complex. The art was great; the message not so great. But, that was ages ago. It's not that I don't appreciate wonderful insights to history. But that was then and things like Acorn are now.
I'm glad Joe's got Pat Buchanan on his show on a more or less regular basis. As a Republican, I appreciate much of what Pat says. And, when he suggested that Levi Johnson be taken down to the stream, and have his head held under water until the thrashing stopped, I did get a good laugh. However, as one who appreciates the true merit of the State of Israel, Pat's attitudes and misperceptions regarding this marvelous nation do grieve me.
Be that as it may, "Morning Joe" is a great show.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Free Trade: China vs. America
This is about free trade, but it's also about lousy reporting. First, let me tell you where I stand on the issue of free trade -- I'm for it. I'm for NAFTA, I'm for trade with China. But, if I'm for free trade, I'm also for fair trade. If it's not fair, it means the market isn't fair. That undermines everything.
This matter came to mind regarding the current kerfuffle about America slapping a tariff on Chinese tires. At first glance, you might think, "Well, I can certainly understand that. Why is America undermining free trade --because that is, in essence, what happens when you apply tariffs on imports. Also, when the Chinese threaten to retaliate by halting the importation of chicken "paws" (the feet) from the U.S., you may think, "That's understandable."
"You only begin to get a glimmer of insight into the real problems in the very last paragraphs, of an article on this subject in the Sept 14 issue of the NY Times, where it reads, "The bigger risk for China, economists and corporate executives have periodically warned, is that trade friction could cause multinationals to rethink their heavy reliance on Chinese factories in their supply chains. The Chiness targeting of autos and chickens affects two industries that may have the political muscle in the US to dissuade the Obama administration from aggressively challenging China's policies. (I believe that refers to China's unfair trade policies.)
"General Motors sees much of its growth coming from its China subsidiary, the second-largest auto company in China after Volkeswagen. And the farm lobby in the US has long pressed for maximum access to a market of 1.3 billion mouths.
"But spotlighting automotive trade may be risky for China. G.M. and Ford both rely mostly on local production to supply the Chinese market, while China is rapidly increasing auto parts shipments to the U.S."
What exactly is meant by that last paragraph? Here is what I do know, although it's not mentioned in the article: Cooper Tire wants to have a factory in China. And the reason is obvious; namely, to get lower cost. And, here is what China tells Cooper Tire. Go ahead and build your factory here in China. We think that's great. However, all your production must be exported. You may not sell any of the tires from your new China factory within China.
To me, that's not free trade. China is saying it's fine to manufacture in China, but don't even think about competing in the Chinese market. That would be like us telling Toyota they could assemble cars in the U.S. made from U.S. parts, but that none of the cars could be sold here. They'd all have to be sold in Japan, or wherever.
That's not free trade. And, that leaves me with only one question; namely, why can't the NY Times with greater lucidity?
This matter came to mind regarding the current kerfuffle about America slapping a tariff on Chinese tires. At first glance, you might think, "Well, I can certainly understand that. Why is America undermining free trade --because that is, in essence, what happens when you apply tariffs on imports. Also, when the Chinese threaten to retaliate by halting the importation of chicken "paws" (the feet) from the U.S., you may think, "That's understandable."
"You only begin to get a glimmer of insight into the real problems in the very last paragraphs, of an article on this subject in the Sept 14 issue of the NY Times, where it reads, "The bigger risk for China, economists and corporate executives have periodically warned, is that trade friction could cause multinationals to rethink their heavy reliance on Chinese factories in their supply chains. The Chiness targeting of autos and chickens affects two industries that may have the political muscle in the US to dissuade the Obama administration from aggressively challenging China's policies. (I believe that refers to China's unfair trade policies.)
"General Motors sees much of its growth coming from its China subsidiary, the second-largest auto company in China after Volkeswagen. And the farm lobby in the US has long pressed for maximum access to a market of 1.3 billion mouths.
"But spotlighting automotive trade may be risky for China. G.M. and Ford both rely mostly on local production to supply the Chinese market, while China is rapidly increasing auto parts shipments to the U.S."
What exactly is meant by that last paragraph? Here is what I do know, although it's not mentioned in the article: Cooper Tire wants to have a factory in China. And the reason is obvious; namely, to get lower cost. And, here is what China tells Cooper Tire. Go ahead and build your factory here in China. We think that's great. However, all your production must be exported. You may not sell any of the tires from your new China factory within China.
To me, that's not free trade. China is saying it's fine to manufacture in China, but don't even think about competing in the Chinese market. That would be like us telling Toyota they could assemble cars in the U.S. made from U.S. parts, but that none of the cars could be sold here. They'd all have to be sold in Japan, or wherever.
That's not free trade. And, that leaves me with only one question; namely, why can't the NY Times with greater lucidity?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
American Foreign Policy in Latin America -- Beyond Weird
How does one begin to understand the incomprehensible. Okay, let's suppose, we impeached an American president (this is hypothetical and is not intended to point to any specific president) in a procedure that complied with rulings of the Supreme Court and was instituted by a vast majority of the members of our Congress. Let's suppose, further, that the EU disapproved of our impeaching this president and removed the right of members of our Supreme Court, and of our interim president, and members of our military to visit any European country.
A fantasy, you say. Okay, let's turn to what really did happen as reported in the NY Times on 9/13/09, on page 14, in an article less than 1/24 th the size of the full page. I quote from this half buried article, "Interim President Roberto Micheletti said that his United States dipolmatic and tourist visas had been revoked in response to the June 28 coup in which President Manuel Zelaya was forced into exile
"Later on Saturday, his spokeswoman, Marcia de Villeda, said that the United States revoked the visas of 14 (Honduran) Supreme Court judges, the foreign relations secretary, the country's attorney general and the armed forces chief on Friday."
Really? What is going on here?
For those who haven't followed this story, let me say that Honduras, in order to have a more democratic government, instituted term limits on the presidency even before Mr. Zelaya came to power. But, Mr. Zelaya didn't like term limits. He proceeded to takes steps to have the county's laws circumvented. To counter his actions, Mr. Zelaya was forced into exile.
I don't have every detail of this situation, but I think it's clear enough that this is (a) an internal Honduran matter and (b) that term limits are considered a good thing by the majority of Hondurans. What I don't understand is what in Sam Hill we're doing sticking our nose in this business.
But, maybe there are some clues. For example, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is an ally of Mr. Zelaya, the ousted Honduran president. You recall Mr. Chavez, the man who is buying missiles from Russia and offering Ahmadinejad of Iran gasoline and perhaps hoping to acquire nuclear technology in return. Yep, that Mr. Chavez.
Other friends of Mr. Zelaya include Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega, the leftist, who heads up Nicargua.
So, just what are we doing in the company of these thugs and dictators? The only one who can possibly answer that is our President. I'd like to support Obama in all he says and does, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to understand just how he's got his head screwed on.
A fantasy, you say. Okay, let's turn to what really did happen as reported in the NY Times on 9/13/09, on page 14, in an article less than 1/24 th the size of the full page. I quote from this half buried article, "Interim President Roberto Micheletti said that his United States dipolmatic and tourist visas had been revoked in response to the June 28 coup in which President Manuel Zelaya was forced into exile
"Later on Saturday, his spokeswoman, Marcia de Villeda, said that the United States revoked the visas of 14 (Honduran) Supreme Court judges, the foreign relations secretary, the country's attorney general and the armed forces chief on Friday."
Really? What is going on here?
For those who haven't followed this story, let me say that Honduras, in order to have a more democratic government, instituted term limits on the presidency even before Mr. Zelaya came to power. But, Mr. Zelaya didn't like term limits. He proceeded to takes steps to have the county's laws circumvented. To counter his actions, Mr. Zelaya was forced into exile.
I don't have every detail of this situation, but I think it's clear enough that this is (a) an internal Honduran matter and (b) that term limits are considered a good thing by the majority of Hondurans. What I don't understand is what in Sam Hill we're doing sticking our nose in this business.
But, maybe there are some clues. For example, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is an ally of Mr. Zelaya, the ousted Honduran president. You recall Mr. Chavez, the man who is buying missiles from Russia and offering Ahmadinejad of Iran gasoline and perhaps hoping to acquire nuclear technology in return. Yep, that Mr. Chavez.
Other friends of Mr. Zelaya include Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega, the leftist, who heads up Nicargua.
So, just what are we doing in the company of these thugs and dictators? The only one who can possibly answer that is our President. I'd like to support Obama in all he says and does, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to understand just how he's got his head screwed on.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Explaining Cuba to My 15-yr Old Grandchild
The kid sends me an e-mail in which she writes, "Today, a friend came over. She recently returned from Cuba. She told us a lot about it. She said the hotel seemed nice, but the second you step outside...... The dogs and cats are emaciated -- not to mention the people. The store is two shelves with a tootbrush and rice. The ancient buildings are lived in by many families. the buildings, you could tell, were magnificant. But, since there's no maintenance, they're falling apart.
"A young girl came over to her and asked her for a tooothbrush and pencil.
"The doctors there are amazing and people come from other countries to be treated by them. They do eye surgery and help with breast cancer. They charge around $400, which for them is a five year salary.
"She said that when she spoke to some people and mentioned 'communisnm,' they said, 'no, no, it's socialism.' They are so naive ....... bainwashed ...... to think that they are well taken care of.
"They have the old cars which they paint flashy colors. Gas is free. To go see a doctor or dentist is free; but, there are no toothbrushes! Things are free but there are no things to be had.
"No one is allowed to leave the country!!! What kind of messed up place is this???"
"P.S. Have you ever been to Cuba? My friend says that the beach is stunning and their fruit, such as mangos, are big and delicious."
To which I replied, "Yes, I was there in the August of 1955. That was before Fidel Castro. It was a lot better then than it is now. However, it was ruled by a corrupt military man named Batiste. Also, US mobster families wanted to run gambling casinos there and do other anti-social things. Batiste was their man. Because of the corruption, many in the US and Cuba welcomed Castro when he overturned Batiste.
"Also, Castro said he was no communist. He lied.
"To understand what's going on with countries like Cuba, Zimbabwe and other failed states, you've got to understand two tiings; namely, economics and political power.
"1. Political power: The difference between socialism and communism is mainly the distribution of political power. In socialism, it is shared among various political parties and it is shared based on the will of the people, as expressed in fair elections. In communism, there is no sharing of power. It is held entirely by the one party (generally referred to as the communist party) and that party has one leader. In the case of Cuba, it is Fidel Castro. When he dies, the power will probably go to his brother, Rauel.)
"Regardless of what they call themselves, China, North Korea, and Cuba are clearly communist countries.
"2. Economics: Economics is the study of how resources are distributed; namely, who gets the money, who gets the land, who gets medical care, who gets to farm what, etc. To undersand this subject, you've got to understand the thinkers and philosophes who have come up with their various theories. You've also got to undertand that the world keeps changing. For example, when the U.S. was only 13 colonies, ours was mainly an agricultural economy. Today, the fastest growing part of our economy is intellectual property, e.g. computer software, and entertainment. (Don't get me wrong; we still have plenty of the other kinds of economic activity.)
"Each type of economy has different needs. Alexander Hamilton understood our country's need for a central bank. Andrew Jaackson did not. Hoover was a nice man who didn't understand the how credit worked. FDR had the advice of people like John Maynard Keynes, perhaps the first of the modern economists.)
"There have been really very differnt understandings of how an economy works. There is Adam Smith and then there is Karl Marx. How do you know who is right? You wait to see how contries following each school of economic thought makes out. Today, it's become pretty obvious that Marx has failed. Communism, as an economic theory, doesn't work. Free mardets do. (Although Adam Smith was the first to outline the importance of free markets, the latest great economic theoretician of free markets was Milton Freedman. )
"It's a big subject and I believe I should end it about now. But when you look at countries you can see some interesting things. China is a communist country that has come to realize that a free economy works best. what they now seem to be trying to do is run their country with all political power being centralized, but where their markets are allowed to allocate resources freely and without interference by the cental government. It might take a while to see if this actually will work.
"Cuba still doesn't get it. And Zimbabwe is run by a thug."
"A young girl came over to her and asked her for a tooothbrush and pencil.
"The doctors there are amazing and people come from other countries to be treated by them. They do eye surgery and help with breast cancer. They charge around $400, which for them is a five year salary.
"She said that when she spoke to some people and mentioned 'communisnm,' they said, 'no, no, it's socialism.' They are so naive ....... bainwashed ...... to think that they are well taken care of.
"They have the old cars which they paint flashy colors. Gas is free. To go see a doctor or dentist is free; but, there are no toothbrushes! Things are free but there are no things to be had.
"No one is allowed to leave the country!!! What kind of messed up place is this???"
"P.S. Have you ever been to Cuba? My friend says that the beach is stunning and their fruit, such as mangos, are big and delicious."
To which I replied, "Yes, I was there in the August of 1955. That was before Fidel Castro. It was a lot better then than it is now. However, it was ruled by a corrupt military man named Batiste. Also, US mobster families wanted to run gambling casinos there and do other anti-social things. Batiste was their man. Because of the corruption, many in the US and Cuba welcomed Castro when he overturned Batiste.
"Also, Castro said he was no communist. He lied.
"To understand what's going on with countries like Cuba, Zimbabwe and other failed states, you've got to understand two tiings; namely, economics and political power.
"1. Political power: The difference between socialism and communism is mainly the distribution of political power. In socialism, it is shared among various political parties and it is shared based on the will of the people, as expressed in fair elections. In communism, there is no sharing of power. It is held entirely by the one party (generally referred to as the communist party) and that party has one leader. In the case of Cuba, it is Fidel Castro. When he dies, the power will probably go to his brother, Rauel.)
"Regardless of what they call themselves, China, North Korea, and Cuba are clearly communist countries.
"2. Economics: Economics is the study of how resources are distributed; namely, who gets the money, who gets the land, who gets medical care, who gets to farm what, etc. To undersand this subject, you've got to understand the thinkers and philosophes who have come up with their various theories. You've also got to undertand that the world keeps changing. For example, when the U.S. was only 13 colonies, ours was mainly an agricultural economy. Today, the fastest growing part of our economy is intellectual property, e.g. computer software, and entertainment. (Don't get me wrong; we still have plenty of the other kinds of economic activity.)
"Each type of economy has different needs. Alexander Hamilton understood our country's need for a central bank. Andrew Jaackson did not. Hoover was a nice man who didn't understand the how credit worked. FDR had the advice of people like John Maynard Keynes, perhaps the first of the modern economists.)
"There have been really very differnt understandings of how an economy works. There is Adam Smith and then there is Karl Marx. How do you know who is right? You wait to see how contries following each school of economic thought makes out. Today, it's become pretty obvious that Marx has failed. Communism, as an economic theory, doesn't work. Free mardets do. (Although Adam Smith was the first to outline the importance of free markets, the latest great economic theoretician of free markets was Milton Freedman. )
"It's a big subject and I believe I should end it about now. But when you look at countries you can see some interesting things. China is a communist country that has come to realize that a free economy works best. what they now seem to be trying to do is run their country with all political power being centralized, but where their markets are allowed to allocate resources freely and without interference by the cental government. It might take a while to see if this actually will work.
"Cuba still doesn't get it. And Zimbabwe is run by a thug."
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Lessons from Our Financial Meltdown
There's been a lot written on this subject. And, that's good. But, many still don't get it. They ask, "what can we do to keep greed in check?" Or, "how can we apply controls to keep this from happening again." Or, "why have we given money so freely to support banks and yet have been so free with tough love for the car people who employ so many Americans?"
It's a little like asking why can't I make a machine that produces more energy than it consumes? To answer that, you need to know something about physics. When you're discussing banks, you need to know something about economics. It doesn't excite a lot of people. But, since economics does impact jobs, our ability to save, or maybe even to get rich, it's a subject well worth discussing.
American needs a strong banking system. Alexander Hamilton understood that. Andrew Jackson did not. We can't let our banking system fail; not if we want continued growth in America's standard of living.
Cars are important, but (and you may not like to hear this) they're not as important as banks.
For a business to succeed, it must compete. In other words, it must find buyers in an open market. For many years (and this is history) we didn't have much of an open market for cars. What we had was a market dominated by the Big 3 (GM, Ford, and Chrysler). When you dominate a market, you can often get away with lesser quality and higher market costs.
But when the market opens to competition, the tide can change and generally does. The Big 3, who had caved in to every UAW demand suddenly found themselves having to charge about $2,300 more per car than their Japanese competitors, even though the Japanese were assembling their cars in the U.S. using American made parts. It didn't necessarily follow that the price of a Big 3 car had to cost that much more in terms of sticker price. But, if the price was kept the same, it meant that the Japanese car could offer better features. American car makers had nowhere to go but down. Today's union give-backs were inevitable. But, did it require the demise of the American auto industry? Couldn't the union to see that their wages and benefits were unsustainable?
What has any of this to do with America's banking system? Almost nothing, so stop trying to equate what was needed for our automakers with what was needed for our banking system.
What banks must do is provide liquidity (money) for economic growth. We won't go into the ways the federal government does this. Suffice it to say that if they "grow" the money too quickly we will get inflation and devalued money. On the other hand, if the growth of money is insufficient, we will wind up with deflation and hard times. To put it in childish terms, the porridge shouldn't be too cold, or too hot. It should be just right. And, getting it "just right" is one of the key functions of a central bank.
The liquidity so important to an economy is provided through the bank's lending function. It takes some skill, but they generally manage it reasonably well. In other words, they assess risk and give loans to endeavors likely to succeed and withhold it from endeavors that are problematical. And, of course, they earn money by charging interest on the loans.
How much a bank can lend depends on how much money they're sitting on. They can actually lend more money than they have (that's called leverage), but they do need to be holding a certain amount.
I've used the term "money" in a broad way. Liquid assets, such as bonds that can be easily sold off, will do just as well as actual cash. But, when valued assets turn to dirt, a bank can find itself not only unable to make further loans; it might actually cause the bank to fail. And, that's what happened in the great bank disaster of 2008. The banks' assets, based on bundled mortgages, suddenly proved to be malodorous dirt. Assets that had been the foundation of our banking system suddenly slithered down the drain.
So now we have the great blame game. It's sometimes worthwhile having a great failure so as to be able to enjoy the blame game that follows. In this instance the players are as follows:
1. The bankers. (It should be noted that we have a considerable number of entities that provide credit, but are not recognized as "banks." However, these quasi banks were just as involved in this sorry mess as the "bank" banks.)
2. Insurers of securitized mortgages.
3. Mortgage brokers
4. The Federal Reserve
5. The SEC and a myriad of other controlling agencies.
6. Congress; specifically, the committees that provided oversight to the banking and finance industry.
7. Investors
8. The public
We can quickly knock off a number of people on this list. The public, for example, is, and largely remains, clueless. Sure, many have lost their jobs and many have lost a great deal of their savings. But, they then turn around and elect the same imbeciles who got us into this mess in the first place.
"Investors" is really too inclusive a term to be really meaningful. The small investor usually gets his clock cleaned in a financial tsunami like the one we've just experience. But, you do have a few giants like George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Secretary Henry Paulson (the list is actually somewhat longer) who really know money and economics and realize what's happening before most everyone else. They always come out okay. (And that my dear reader is why you should get to know as much about economics as posssible.)
"Mortgage brokers" includes people who sell securities, or in this case mortgages to the public. It's a job and someone's got to do it. In the old days, banks gave mortgages to people wanting to buy homes. It was a loan with the house as security for the loan. And, it was the interest charged by the bank that privided the bank with income.
Two things happened to change this pretty picture. First, for a period of time, interest rates began going up, and going up fast. To give a mortgage paying the bank 6% when the money cost the bank 8% was clearly a losing proposition. Second, banks learned that they could sell their mortgages and thereby earn a fee. This merry-go-round spun ever faster when someone figured out that the mortgages could be "securitized." In other words, they were bundled to gether and sold like shares in a mutual fund.
And, didn't the government guarantee the mortgages? And, didn't we have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to become the buyer of last resort for so many of these securitized mortgages?
And, if the government said "this was good," why wouldn't a hallowed rating organization give the resulting security a triple A rating? And, if it was worth a triple A rating, why wouldn't a company like AIG rush in to reinsure the security even further? There was something in it for everyone; namely, fees -- lots and lots of fees. And, for these fees banks paid lots and lots of commissions.
Unfortunately, all these high powered people forgot something many of try to teach our children; namely, "if it's too good to believe, it ain't." The mortgage brokers weren't bad people. They were simply people at the front of the food chain.
Let's see. In the last few paragraph we've covered the mortgage brokers, the bankers and the insurers (or reinsurers) of these mortgages. That just leaves The Fed, the various regulating agencies, and Congress.
Let's look at the regulating agencies like the SEC. It's obvious that they were a bunch of nincompoops. People came to them with one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in the history of this country and they didn't have a clue as to what to do with evidence handed over to them on a silver platter. It seems the SEC was a kind a finishing school for bankers and lawyers. Rich kids graduating from Yale and Harvard would go to the SEC and other regulatory bodies where they would acquire the professional gloss that would allow them to fit in more easily when, after a year or two, they'd move over into the banks they were supposed to have been regulating. The regulators didn't seem to appreciate that 10 young, good-looking, but inexperienced lawyers aren't worth a single, fat, middle-aged accountant.
But members of this fraternity house do know how to stick together, so, it is unlikely that this situation will change any time soon.
It's hard to know what to say about the Fed. About the only thing I can say is that, for an organization that's supposed to know all about credit and how credit is generated, it's hard to see how someone like Alan Greenspan missed this one. How could he have allowed this disaster to slip in under his radar?
And, finally, we come to the Congress. There's a reason this elective body scores so poorly in public opinion polls. They are worse than Liliputians. They're like five-year olds. As the mother stands at the door, struck dumb by the sight of one of her children lying in a pool of blood with a bullet in its head, she hears the other saying, "It wasn't me. I was just looking at daddy's gun when it went 'bang.'"
These elected officials twisted the arms of banks to give out loans to people with no income, no assets, no jobs and very poor prospects of ever getting a job. What in the world did they think would come from such social engineering? (These were the same public officials who used quasi governmental bodies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give jobs to their loved ones.)
Quite frankly, it's not misguided communists or socialists that worry me. What worries me are the heads of our Congressional finance committees.
It's a little like asking why can't I make a machine that produces more energy than it consumes? To answer that, you need to know something about physics. When you're discussing banks, you need to know something about economics. It doesn't excite a lot of people. But, since economics does impact jobs, our ability to save, or maybe even to get rich, it's a subject well worth discussing.
American needs a strong banking system. Alexander Hamilton understood that. Andrew Jackson did not. We can't let our banking system fail; not if we want continued growth in America's standard of living.
Cars are important, but (and you may not like to hear this) they're not as important as banks.
For a business to succeed, it must compete. In other words, it must find buyers in an open market. For many years (and this is history) we didn't have much of an open market for cars. What we had was a market dominated by the Big 3 (GM, Ford, and Chrysler). When you dominate a market, you can often get away with lesser quality and higher market costs.
But when the market opens to competition, the tide can change and generally does. The Big 3, who had caved in to every UAW demand suddenly found themselves having to charge about $2,300 more per car than their Japanese competitors, even though the Japanese were assembling their cars in the U.S. using American made parts. It didn't necessarily follow that the price of a Big 3 car had to cost that much more in terms of sticker price. But, if the price was kept the same, it meant that the Japanese car could offer better features. American car makers had nowhere to go but down. Today's union give-backs were inevitable. But, did it require the demise of the American auto industry? Couldn't the union to see that their wages and benefits were unsustainable?
What has any of this to do with America's banking system? Almost nothing, so stop trying to equate what was needed for our automakers with what was needed for our banking system.
What banks must do is provide liquidity (money) for economic growth. We won't go into the ways the federal government does this. Suffice it to say that if they "grow" the money too quickly we will get inflation and devalued money. On the other hand, if the growth of money is insufficient, we will wind up with deflation and hard times. To put it in childish terms, the porridge shouldn't be too cold, or too hot. It should be just right. And, getting it "just right" is one of the key functions of a central bank.
The liquidity so important to an economy is provided through the bank's lending function. It takes some skill, but they generally manage it reasonably well. In other words, they assess risk and give loans to endeavors likely to succeed and withhold it from endeavors that are problematical. And, of course, they earn money by charging interest on the loans.
How much a bank can lend depends on how much money they're sitting on. They can actually lend more money than they have (that's called leverage), but they do need to be holding a certain amount.
I've used the term "money" in a broad way. Liquid assets, such as bonds that can be easily sold off, will do just as well as actual cash. But, when valued assets turn to dirt, a bank can find itself not only unable to make further loans; it might actually cause the bank to fail. And, that's what happened in the great bank disaster of 2008. The banks' assets, based on bundled mortgages, suddenly proved to be malodorous dirt. Assets that had been the foundation of our banking system suddenly slithered down the drain.
So now we have the great blame game. It's sometimes worthwhile having a great failure so as to be able to enjoy the blame game that follows. In this instance the players are as follows:
1. The bankers. (It should be noted that we have a considerable number of entities that provide credit, but are not recognized as "banks." However, these quasi banks were just as involved in this sorry mess as the "bank" banks.)
2. Insurers of securitized mortgages.
3. Mortgage brokers
4. The Federal Reserve
5. The SEC and a myriad of other controlling agencies.
6. Congress; specifically, the committees that provided oversight to the banking and finance industry.
7. Investors
8. The public
We can quickly knock off a number of people on this list. The public, for example, is, and largely remains, clueless. Sure, many have lost their jobs and many have lost a great deal of their savings. But, they then turn around and elect the same imbeciles who got us into this mess in the first place.
"Investors" is really too inclusive a term to be really meaningful. The small investor usually gets his clock cleaned in a financial tsunami like the one we've just experience. But, you do have a few giants like George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Secretary Henry Paulson (the list is actually somewhat longer) who really know money and economics and realize what's happening before most everyone else. They always come out okay. (And that my dear reader is why you should get to know as much about economics as posssible.)
"Mortgage brokers" includes people who sell securities, or in this case mortgages to the public. It's a job and someone's got to do it. In the old days, banks gave mortgages to people wanting to buy homes. It was a loan with the house as security for the loan. And, it was the interest charged by the bank that privided the bank with income.
Two things happened to change this pretty picture. First, for a period of time, interest rates began going up, and going up fast. To give a mortgage paying the bank 6% when the money cost the bank 8% was clearly a losing proposition. Second, banks learned that they could sell their mortgages and thereby earn a fee. This merry-go-round spun ever faster when someone figured out that the mortgages could be "securitized." In other words, they were bundled to gether and sold like shares in a mutual fund.
And, didn't the government guarantee the mortgages? And, didn't we have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to become the buyer of last resort for so many of these securitized mortgages?
And, if the government said "this was good," why wouldn't a hallowed rating organization give the resulting security a triple A rating? And, if it was worth a triple A rating, why wouldn't a company like AIG rush in to reinsure the security even further? There was something in it for everyone; namely, fees -- lots and lots of fees. And, for these fees banks paid lots and lots of commissions.
Unfortunately, all these high powered people forgot something many of try to teach our children; namely, "if it's too good to believe, it ain't." The mortgage brokers weren't bad people. They were simply people at the front of the food chain.
Let's see. In the last few paragraph we've covered the mortgage brokers, the bankers and the insurers (or reinsurers) of these mortgages. That just leaves The Fed, the various regulating agencies, and Congress.
Let's look at the regulating agencies like the SEC. It's obvious that they were a bunch of nincompoops. People came to them with one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in the history of this country and they didn't have a clue as to what to do with evidence handed over to them on a silver platter. It seems the SEC was a kind a finishing school for bankers and lawyers. Rich kids graduating from Yale and Harvard would go to the SEC and other regulatory bodies where they would acquire the professional gloss that would allow them to fit in more easily when, after a year or two, they'd move over into the banks they were supposed to have been regulating. The regulators didn't seem to appreciate that 10 young, good-looking, but inexperienced lawyers aren't worth a single, fat, middle-aged accountant.
But members of this fraternity house do know how to stick together, so, it is unlikely that this situation will change any time soon.
It's hard to know what to say about the Fed. About the only thing I can say is that, for an organization that's supposed to know all about credit and how credit is generated, it's hard to see how someone like Alan Greenspan missed this one. How could he have allowed this disaster to slip in under his radar?
And, finally, we come to the Congress. There's a reason this elective body scores so poorly in public opinion polls. They are worse than Liliputians. They're like five-year olds. As the mother stands at the door, struck dumb by the sight of one of her children lying in a pool of blood with a bullet in its head, she hears the other saying, "It wasn't me. I was just looking at daddy's gun when it went 'bang.'"
These elected officials twisted the arms of banks to give out loans to people with no income, no assets, no jobs and very poor prospects of ever getting a job. What in the world did they think would come from such social engineering? (These were the same public officials who used quasi governmental bodies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give jobs to their loved ones.)
Quite frankly, it's not misguided communists or socialists that worry me. What worries me are the heads of our Congressional finance committees.
Healthcare in America -- An Additional Thought
The President is going to speak this evening, so maybe this should wait. Then again, why be chicken? Let me share now.
It's about the single payer system for national health care. Maybe it deserves a second look.
We know health care costs vary all over the country. We also know that "outcomes" often seem to vary inversely with the cost of the healthcare. And, finally, we know that the very system is distorted when primary care physicians are diminishing in numbers because it's the least remunerative kind of medicine to practice despite being perhaps the most important kind for the nation.
Maybe a single payer could tackle this situation, better than any other kind of a structure. But, before buying into this argument, let's consider the negatives.
1. Medicare hasn't been able to do much to keep down costs. But, then, maybe, though it's big, it isn't as comprehensive as a single payer system might be.
2. Every system has someone on top. Corporations have CEO's. Government entities have Congressional committees. These committees haven't done too well. Committees headed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had no clue that the country was headed into a financial tailspin despite the fact that they headed important financial oversight committees. And, let's not gloss over the abysmal performance of the SEC in failing to uncover Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme years earlier even after people came to them with evidence in hand.
Who is the poor taxpayer to trust? Congress? The administration? We're in a really scary situation.
It's about the single payer system for national health care. Maybe it deserves a second look.
We know health care costs vary all over the country. We also know that "outcomes" often seem to vary inversely with the cost of the healthcare. And, finally, we know that the very system is distorted when primary care physicians are diminishing in numbers because it's the least remunerative kind of medicine to practice despite being perhaps the most important kind for the nation.
Maybe a single payer could tackle this situation, better than any other kind of a structure. But, before buying into this argument, let's consider the negatives.
1. Medicare hasn't been able to do much to keep down costs. But, then, maybe, though it's big, it isn't as comprehensive as a single payer system might be.
2. Every system has someone on top. Corporations have CEO's. Government entities have Congressional committees. These committees haven't done too well. Committees headed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had no clue that the country was headed into a financial tailspin despite the fact that they headed important financial oversight committees. And, let's not gloss over the abysmal performance of the SEC in failing to uncover Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme years earlier even after people came to them with evidence in hand.
Who is the poor taxpayer to trust? Congress? The administration? We're in a really scary situation.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
American High Schools
When you talk about "American High Schools," you've got to generalize. A city like New York has more high schools than many countries, and some are among the finest high schools you'll find anywhere. Regrettably, these schools don't define our high school system as a whole.
So what's wrong with our average high school. They don't teach much math (based on test scores) and they suffer from high drop out rates. Should you have the opportunity to make an unannounced visit, you'll often find the classroom environment non conducive to learning.
There's really not much to chuckle about other than the irony of NYC having a mayor who made improving the educational levels in the city as one of his prime objectives. This was to be the jewel in the crown of the legacy he had hoped to establish. Oh, well . . . . . . . .
It was a worthy goal. However, I suspect he came to office not really knowing all that much about education. Business was his background. And, there, no one can question his expertise. But the business paradigm doesn't quite work in education. And, perhaps the main reason for this is one that escaped the good mayor; namely, there's no way to quality control the kids coming into the school.
If you make a toaster (something GE knows something about), you give your sheet metal supplier the specs you expect him to meet on the stuff he ships to your factory. If the chromed metal comes in off spec you reject it. You can't do that with kids. Some minds work faster than others. Some minds have been preconditioned for learning, whereas others have been woefully deprived of positive conditioning. If the mayor understood this, he has given no indication of it to his subjects.
His first target seemed to be the UFT. And, there is indeed logic to that. It's the membership of the UFT that we find on the front lines. It's the teachers who work with the kids in the classroom. Few appreciate exactly how demanding a teacher's work can be; or, how rewarding. The question, of course, is how responsive the UFT is to the needs of its own members. (If this question shocks you, think: teamsters, or dock workers.) True, the UFT did raise teachers from what now, as we look back, appears to have been a condition of servitude. But, that's far behind us.
And, while pay and and retirement benefits now seem ample, working conditions are often arguably worse. Benefits too have declined. New hires, for example, get less in their retirement than the old timers.
But, it's not the economic benefits of teaching that I want to focus on, but rather on what they face in the class room. They generally have 30 students in a class and they're expected to teach five classes a day. That's 150 students they've got to work with. One hundred and fifty names they'd better get to know within perhaps five days. You need stamina and good kidneys.
People who aren't teachers don't generally realize that stuffing information into the heads of their pupils, also known as "transferring content," is just one thing the teacher is expected to be good at. There is also the very important ability to achieve good "classroom management," which can also be described as keeping order among the inmates. It's a bit like being in the circus and putting the tigers through their paces. That last simile might seem a bit over the top, but keep in mind that the students are studying the teacher for any possible weakness or shortcoming to be exploited on a suitable occasion.
A new teacher doesn't enter his or her classroom on their first day with a full command of all the skills needed to do a good job. The same could be said of a soldier not yet tested by battle, or a salesman on his first day in the field. (There used to be something called "student teaching," but that seems to have been chucked a long time ago.) And, yet, that's what schools expect of their "green" teachers; namely, skills that often take more than a year to really learn well.
Now, if you have any sort of understanding of what's called for in a teacher, you can begin to understand how much more is needed in a principal. And, yet, under the guidance of our mayor, people are made principals who haven't taught a day in their life. They tend to be young people who have gone through his Leadership Academy. With what they've picked up there, they are now put in a position of overseeing teachers doing difficult things that they themselves have never experienced. One can only pity the teachers working under such inexperienced managers.
Teachers colleges aren't much help either. The get grants for innovating "new techniques," such as heterogeneous grouping. (That may no longer be a new technique. But whether new, or slightly used, it's still nonsense.) In the first grade, putting slow students with fast learners will create no great problems. But try teaching algebra to 30 students, where 10 are over-achievers and 20 really don't want to be in school. Here you can only pity the poor teacher.
The failure of teaching colleges is a subject unto itself. Let's return to the main problem facing many high schools; namely, the student, or, more precisely, our attitude toward the student population. If we were to put our students into various categories and attempt to put them in schools where the curriculum and the teaching staff focused on the need of that category, we'd be doing more for the students than seems to be possible under our current system. But we can't do that. It's not possible. It's called "tracking" and it's politically incorrect.
Thank goodness that, in medicine, antibiotics haven't been declared politically incorrect. Were that to happen, we'd be back to bleeding patients.
So what's wrong with our average high school. They don't teach much math (based on test scores) and they suffer from high drop out rates. Should you have the opportunity to make an unannounced visit, you'll often find the classroom environment non conducive to learning.
There's really not much to chuckle about other than the irony of NYC having a mayor who made improving the educational levels in the city as one of his prime objectives. This was to be the jewel in the crown of the legacy he had hoped to establish. Oh, well . . . . . . . .
It was a worthy goal. However, I suspect he came to office not really knowing all that much about education. Business was his background. And, there, no one can question his expertise. But the business paradigm doesn't quite work in education. And, perhaps the main reason for this is one that escaped the good mayor; namely, there's no way to quality control the kids coming into the school.
If you make a toaster (something GE knows something about), you give your sheet metal supplier the specs you expect him to meet on the stuff he ships to your factory. If the chromed metal comes in off spec you reject it. You can't do that with kids. Some minds work faster than others. Some minds have been preconditioned for learning, whereas others have been woefully deprived of positive conditioning. If the mayor understood this, he has given no indication of it to his subjects.
His first target seemed to be the UFT. And, there is indeed logic to that. It's the membership of the UFT that we find on the front lines. It's the teachers who work with the kids in the classroom. Few appreciate exactly how demanding a teacher's work can be; or, how rewarding. The question, of course, is how responsive the UFT is to the needs of its own members. (If this question shocks you, think: teamsters, or dock workers.) True, the UFT did raise teachers from what now, as we look back, appears to have been a condition of servitude. But, that's far behind us.
And, while pay and and retirement benefits now seem ample, working conditions are often arguably worse. Benefits too have declined. New hires, for example, get less in their retirement than the old timers.
But, it's not the economic benefits of teaching that I want to focus on, but rather on what they face in the class room. They generally have 30 students in a class and they're expected to teach five classes a day. That's 150 students they've got to work with. One hundred and fifty names they'd better get to know within perhaps five days. You need stamina and good kidneys.
People who aren't teachers don't generally realize that stuffing information into the heads of their pupils, also known as "transferring content," is just one thing the teacher is expected to be good at. There is also the very important ability to achieve good "classroom management," which can also be described as keeping order among the inmates. It's a bit like being in the circus and putting the tigers through their paces. That last simile might seem a bit over the top, but keep in mind that the students are studying the teacher for any possible weakness or shortcoming to be exploited on a suitable occasion.
A new teacher doesn't enter his or her classroom on their first day with a full command of all the skills needed to do a good job. The same could be said of a soldier not yet tested by battle, or a salesman on his first day in the field. (There used to be something called "student teaching," but that seems to have been chucked a long time ago.) And, yet, that's what schools expect of their "green" teachers; namely, skills that often take more than a year to really learn well.
Now, if you have any sort of understanding of what's called for in a teacher, you can begin to understand how much more is needed in a principal. And, yet, under the guidance of our mayor, people are made principals who haven't taught a day in their life. They tend to be young people who have gone through his Leadership Academy. With what they've picked up there, they are now put in a position of overseeing teachers doing difficult things that they themselves have never experienced. One can only pity the teachers working under such inexperienced managers.
Teachers colleges aren't much help either. The get grants for innovating "new techniques," such as heterogeneous grouping. (That may no longer be a new technique. But whether new, or slightly used, it's still nonsense.) In the first grade, putting slow students with fast learners will create no great problems. But try teaching algebra to 30 students, where 10 are over-achievers and 20 really don't want to be in school. Here you can only pity the poor teacher.
The failure of teaching colleges is a subject unto itself. Let's return to the main problem facing many high schools; namely, the student, or, more precisely, our attitude toward the student population. If we were to put our students into various categories and attempt to put them in schools where the curriculum and the teaching staff focused on the need of that category, we'd be doing more for the students than seems to be possible under our current system. But we can't do that. It's not possible. It's called "tracking" and it's politically incorrect.
Thank goodness that, in medicine, antibiotics haven't been declared politically incorrect. Were that to happen, we'd be back to bleeding patients.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Healtcare in America
Chuckle, because that's all you can really do when you listen to talking heads or politicians explain how the government will finally fix healthcare in America. Chuckle as you begin to see that they haven't got a clue.
When you express your doubts, they come back with something as inane as "do you want to give up your social security? Huh, do you?" Or, "do you want to do without your Medicare? Huh, do you?" Such is the level of discourse amoung our politicians and their flackes.
Anyone with a high school education can figure out that social security, medicare, and some kind of proposed healthcare system, all have one thing in common: they're forms of insurance. But, they are very, very different kinds of insurance with very different insurance problems.
Social security is the easiest kind of insurance. It's an annuity. You pay in so much until you reach a set age. Then you get an annuity. That's it. So why, if it's so simple, isn't it handled by private companies? Good question, but one with an equally simple answer. Early in their lives most people don't see the need to put away for their golden years. Then when they hit those golden years, they suddenly discover they have nothing to live on.
The government decided to do something about that. They decided to do what no private insurer could do. They decided to reach into our pockets and extract the premiums needed to pay for our future annuity. Paternalism? Sure. But, most of us now agree that it was a good thing.
Medicare, and healthcare insurance in general, is a far more complicated matter. Social security is essentially based on actuarial information as to when we are going to die. When it was first set up, most people died at 65. If you died before that, you got nothing. What you had paid into social security went to the annuities of those who outlived you.
With medical insurance, things are a lot more complicated. First, costs vary all over the lot. And, those costs can come at any time, although most do hit people in their last years. Cost control? Forget about it. It's a good idea, but Congress doesn't have the vaguest idea as to how to achieve it.
One fascinating point: Healthcare in some places in our 50 states is 50% less expensive than in other places. (You can check this fact in studies done by the Dartmouth School of Medicine.) But, what's really amazing is that the outcomes in the less expensive locations are not only equal to the more expensive places; they're generally better. One more thing to consider: the suckers in low-cost places like Rochester, MN, and Salt Lake City, UT are actually subsidizing Medicare for New Yorkers. But they don't mind. They get better care.
There is something else; namely, how we live does factor into our health costs. Eat too much, drink too much, smoke a pack a day, and develop a taste for recreational drugs and the care you will come to require will skyrocket. I hate to sound like an ogre, but why should I pay for the diabetes treatment of people addicted to cheeseburgers, or people who loose their livers to liquor, or who develop goodness knows how many illnesses from smoking? Is Congress giving any thought as to how to protect my standard of living from these idiots? I doubt it.
All insurance businesses can run into rough patches. The problem Congress faced with social security was that people were living longer. That cost the government's insurance business big time. But the solution wasn't that hard to find. Make people work beyond age 65, give them a small annuity, or make them pay a higher premium. In the end, they decided to make them work a bit longer. Congress, being Congress, diddled about this a long time before they came to the obvious conclusion. But Congress can afford to diddle. If the problem gets serious, they can simply print more money. Let's see a private insurer do that.
Healthcare is different. Here costs are entirely out of control. Private insurers are against the wall. You can try to squeeze the pharmaceutical companies, but there's only so much that can be squeezed. Put in a federal insurer and the private insurers will be out of business. Congress claims they don't want to do that. They want competition. Really? For a vibrant economy, economists claim the best thing is free trade. But with health insurance, the companies can't even cross state lines. (Is there some kind of special Mann Act for health care insurers?)
You don't need a crystal ball to see how this will end, if a federal health plan is instituted. And, it won't be government's insurance business that will fail. They have a time-tested safety device. It's called the printing press.
When you express your doubts, they come back with something as inane as "do you want to give up your social security? Huh, do you?" Or, "do you want to do without your Medicare? Huh, do you?" Such is the level of discourse amoung our politicians and their flackes.
Anyone with a high school education can figure out that social security, medicare, and some kind of proposed healthcare system, all have one thing in common: they're forms of insurance. But, they are very, very different kinds of insurance with very different insurance problems.
Social security is the easiest kind of insurance. It's an annuity. You pay in so much until you reach a set age. Then you get an annuity. That's it. So why, if it's so simple, isn't it handled by private companies? Good question, but one with an equally simple answer. Early in their lives most people don't see the need to put away for their golden years. Then when they hit those golden years, they suddenly discover they have nothing to live on.
The government decided to do something about that. They decided to do what no private insurer could do. They decided to reach into our pockets and extract the premiums needed to pay for our future annuity. Paternalism? Sure. But, most of us now agree that it was a good thing.
Medicare, and healthcare insurance in general, is a far more complicated matter. Social security is essentially based on actuarial information as to when we are going to die. When it was first set up, most people died at 65. If you died before that, you got nothing. What you had paid into social security went to the annuities of those who outlived you.
With medical insurance, things are a lot more complicated. First, costs vary all over the lot. And, those costs can come at any time, although most do hit people in their last years. Cost control? Forget about it. It's a good idea, but Congress doesn't have the vaguest idea as to how to achieve it.
One fascinating point: Healthcare in some places in our 50 states is 50% less expensive than in other places. (You can check this fact in studies done by the Dartmouth School of Medicine.) But, what's really amazing is that the outcomes in the less expensive locations are not only equal to the more expensive places; they're generally better. One more thing to consider: the suckers in low-cost places like Rochester, MN, and Salt Lake City, UT are actually subsidizing Medicare for New Yorkers. But they don't mind. They get better care.
There is something else; namely, how we live does factor into our health costs. Eat too much, drink too much, smoke a pack a day, and develop a taste for recreational drugs and the care you will come to require will skyrocket. I hate to sound like an ogre, but why should I pay for the diabetes treatment of people addicted to cheeseburgers, or people who loose their livers to liquor, or who develop goodness knows how many illnesses from smoking? Is Congress giving any thought as to how to protect my standard of living from these idiots? I doubt it.
All insurance businesses can run into rough patches. The problem Congress faced with social security was that people were living longer. That cost the government's insurance business big time. But the solution wasn't that hard to find. Make people work beyond age 65, give them a small annuity, or make them pay a higher premium. In the end, they decided to make them work a bit longer. Congress, being Congress, diddled about this a long time before they came to the obvious conclusion. But Congress can afford to diddle. If the problem gets serious, they can simply print more money. Let's see a private insurer do that.
Healthcare is different. Here costs are entirely out of control. Private insurers are against the wall. You can try to squeeze the pharmaceutical companies, but there's only so much that can be squeezed. Put in a federal insurer and the private insurers will be out of business. Congress claims they don't want to do that. They want competition. Really? For a vibrant economy, economists claim the best thing is free trade. But with health insurance, the companies can't even cross state lines. (Is there some kind of special Mann Act for health care insurers?)
You don't need a crystal ball to see how this will end, if a federal health plan is instituted. And, it won't be government's insurance business that will fail. They have a time-tested safety device. It's called the printing press.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)