Skip to content

Here’s hoping for failure

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

I urge anyone who comes across this to educate themselves on the proposed Pacific Rim Trade Agreement. More knowledgeable people than I have reported on this. You might start with Dean Baker's blog and work from there. Suffice to say that the United States is not just trying to engineer another massive corporate giveaway, it is attempting to hand international lawmaking authority over to the corporations and private tribunals they may establish.

This morning's Times reports that the agreement is stalled, as the rest of the international community is gagging on the United States demands. The Times, of course, carries water for the corporations, in the typical fashion in which our press slants the news.

The Times reports what “critics say”, and then goes on to report what the treaty does. But no one knows what the treaty does, as the Obama administration, in all too typical (for it) fashion, has conducted the negotiations in secret, not even allowing Congress to know what it is doing. In any event, as Dean Baker had endlessly pointed out, in such a context, it is more appropriate to report what each party “says” rather than report what they “believe” or “think”, and one should certainly not report what a treaty “does” when one has no idea what it says.

Contrast and compare this:

As the negotiators try to complete a deal, its supporters and opponents in Washington are waging intense lobbying campaigns. Much of the opposition comes from consumer, environmental and labor groups who argue that the deal might end up gutting American regulations, giving corporations too much power and moving jobs offshore.

With this:

The Pacific talks would reduce barriers to trade. The deal would cover a huge swath of the globe, nearly a billion people from New Zealand north through Asia, through Canada and the United States and down through Mexico to Chile. Other countries involved include Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru.

The opponents “argue”, but it is reported as fact that the agreements would reduce trade barriers. As Dean Baker has pointed out, these agreements reduce barriers to only certain types of trade. The barriers that are reduced are universally those that provide some protections to workers or the environment. Barriers designed to protect the professional classes or corporate interests are never even discussed.

But in the case of this agreement, there is little by way of barriers to be reduced. The U.S. is looking to increase barriers to trade, by, for instance, imposing stringent patent protections for drugs in the affected countries, thus spreading the benefits of outrageously high drug prices from our shores to those afflicted countries whose people are currently actually able to obtain low cost drugs. Of course, we are hearing the tired refrain about “job creation”, but somehow the jobs never get created, and on every front it seems that to get those ever illusive jobs, we must continue to shovel money at the rich. This agreement is nothing more than a corporate welfare program. We can only hope the U.S. will not be able to pressure the other countries to submit, or that Republican resistance to anything Obama will, for once, serve a useful purpose and save the rest of us from a world more completely controlled by the corporations.

Filed in Corporate Crime, Creeping Totalitarianism, Economics | | Comments (0)

Good News, Local Edition

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

The Groton Open Spaces Association has, over the years, been responsible for preserving a vast amount of open space here in Groton. I am especially indebted to the Association, as I live a short walk away from Haley Farm State Park, which would have become a site for tract housing had it not been for the Association, which got its start preserving the Farm. Since that time it has bought, or caused to be purchased, additional open space that roughly forms a greenbelt through the center of Groton from the Sound to, until recently, land just south of the Ledyard line.

GOSA just announced that it has purchased the Avery Farm, a beautiful piece of land that straddles the Ledyard-Groton border. The last dirt road in either town (at least I beleive that to be the case, and I have bicycled a good deal in Groton ) runs through this land. The road is closed in the winter, but I have taken to driving through it in the summer as I make my way home from work in Norwich.

You can read a full description of the property here, including information on the various flora and fauna that can be found there. Here's a few pictures I took there recently; they really don't capture the place-I was mainly fooling around with an ultra wide angle lens.

20131211-190941.jpg

20131211-190956.jpg

Groton has truly been blessed to have this group of people in its midst. Without them, a lot of our open space would have been lost to developers. I should add that they have done what they've done with little to no cooperation from local politicians of either party. Most of our politicos seem to subscribe to the view that no land should go unraped in our ceaseless quest for “economic development”, which never seems to consist of attracting business to the unused physical plant that already exists. But that's a post for another day. I'm looking forward to walking this land, now that it belongs to the people.

Filed in Good News, Local issues, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

A Postscript

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

A bit of a follow up to Sunday morning's post, in which I ranted about a Boston Globe article that referred to two extremes in Congress. Paul Krugman agrees.

In practice, left-wing cranks have never played a significant role in US politics, while right-wing cranks always have.

via Conscience of a Liberal

I'd go a bit further and say that perfectly coherent and realistic left wing views are systematically read out of the public discourse. We have freedom of speech in this country, but there is a wide range of views (almost entirely on the left) that the masters of our discourse will not allow themselves to hear.

By the way, the lack of recent posts is not because I lack brilliant things to say, but because my internet service has been frustratingly spotty. It works great at those times (say, 4:00 in the morning) when you don't want to use it, but goes on and off at random at other times. The problem is supposedly being addressed, but I am not holding my breath.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Sunday Morning venting

Sunday, December 8, 2013

I grow tired of this sort of thing. The Boston Globe reports that a number of political scientists got together to discuss ways of overcoming what they reportedly call a “democratic deficit” in this country. That deficit undoubtedly exists, and some of its causes, such as huge amounts of money from sources representing only one set of interests, and gerrymandered districts, were correctly identified. But, I cannot allow this to pass unnoticed:

No one suggested that democracy be replaced with some other system. But many urged that fundamental elements be reshaped to repair what they called the nation’s “democratic deficit,” aiming to make a Congress dominated by extremes better reflect the public’s more centrist viewpoint.

via The Boston Globe

Now, lets consider this. If Congress is “dominated by extremes” then it stands to reason that there is a powerful extreme right and a powerful extreme left. There certainly is a powerful extreme right. It is called the Republican Party. Where, I ask, is this extreme left that, presumably, would be to the left of the allegedly “centrist” views of the public? It would be helpful if the reporter sought to place any actual issues that are out there today on a left-right spectrum, and demonstrate how the public is allegedly in the “middle” between two articulated extremes. Rather, we are given a graph showing the distance between the “most liberal” and “most conservative” legislators, where we learn to our shocked surprise that Bob Casey is the most liberal person in the Senate. Thus, the “center” is explicitly defined as the mean distance between the most “liberal” (Casey?) and the most conservative member of each body, thus assuring that the “center” shifts ever rightward as the Republican Party grows more reactionary and the Democratic Party, at the behest of the Washington punditry and its Wall Street donors, grows ever more “moderate”.

Let's look at reality for a second. I’ll go with my favorite hobby-horse, Social Security. We all know that it is the fervent wish of the right to destroy Social Security root and branch. We know that they have been at it for years, ginning up a fake crisis, etc. We also know that Social Security has no short term problem, but in the long term, it will have to trim benefits if something is not done about its funding. The primary force driving that problem, by the way, is the fact that back in the 80s, when steps were taken to preserve Social Security's funding, the actuaries doing the math had no idea that income inequality would increase to the extent that it has. If incomes had been distributed as they expected (i.e., as incomes were distributed when the actuaries did the math), there would be no long term problem at all. Since so much income has been shifted to the top, and since those at the top only pay Social Security taxes on the first $100K of income, there is a long term funding problem.

The obvious solution is to raise or abolish the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes. This would hurt no one but the rich, and it would be the merest of scratches, and mostly to their pride. It's a given that the Republicans would oppose such an increase. It seems to stand to reason that it is exactly what the “extreme” on the other side should be proposing, and proposing loudly and vigorously. And, according to our intrepid reporter, who feels honor bound to honor the “two extremes” meme, the public should be somewhere in the middle. And yet…

There are Democrats who favor this approach, but they keep their mouths shut, or speak only in whispers (the “radical” Elizabeth Warren excepted). The President, the leader of our extremes apparently, sees the solution in cutting Social Security, by enacting the chained CPI, which has substantial support in (indeed was first proposed by) the rightward extreme.

So where does the public stand?

The public is quite comfortable with raising the Social Security tax. This means that the “centrist” public is to the left of almost every member of Congress.

How about the chained CPI, the theory that as the general public gets poorer, the elderly should be dragged down with them? How does the “centrist” public feel about putting granny on a catfood diet? The Globe reporter might be surprised to learn that once again, they either agree with the leftmost members of Congress, or are to the left of them. Granted, it's a bit closer here, because the issue is less fully understood. But those with the most interest in understanding it oppose it the most.

Even on health care, when one drills into the numbers, the opposition to Obamacare is as high as it is only because there is a substantial portion of the opponents who think it does not go far enough toward the system of single payer care that we deserve. Opponents to the law are usually lumped together and placed in a right wing bag, but that is not the case in reality.

In any event, the fact is, that there is no one with a semblance of power in this country articulating extreme left, or even doctrinaire left positions. I put the word “radical” in quotes when I referred to Elizabeth Warren not as a knock on her, but because the supposedly radical positions she is taking are positions that would have been considered unexceptional until recently. Prime among them is her “radical” proposal to reenact Glass-Steagall, which 83% of the centrist public supports and which will go nowhere, because it lacks support across the spectrum in this Congress. So where, I ask, is the extreme left in our Congress? Where are the legislators demanding a return to 1950's tax rates on the rich? But that's fairly moderate. Eisenhower was fine with those rates. Where are the legislators demanding confiscation of the vast fortunes stolen from the rest of us by the bankers and hedge fund managers? Where are the legislators demanding socialized medicine, never mind single payor? Who is standing up for the unions? Where, we finally must ask, are the guillotines? People who understand the meaning of the word “extreme” in the political context want to know.

Filed in Dysfunction, Rants | | Comments (0)

Grade inflation at Harvard

Thursday, December 5, 2013

The Boston Globe reports:

Harvard College is facing a new round of disapproval, and even ridicule, from some educators following news that the most common grade awarded is an A, more than a decade after professors pledged to combat grade inflation.

Critics say that making top grades the norm cheapens the hard work of the best students and reinforces the deluded self-regard of many members of the millennial generation.

via The Boston Globe

I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this one. Grade inflation is a problem in our high schools, and I'm certain it's a problem at some colleges. But, lets think about Harvard for a minute. There was a time when it was shot full of the pampered rich, and the “Gentleman's C” was, at least in legend, a common occurrence. But despite the preferences still given to legacies, things are a lot different at Harvard today. The average SAT scores at Harvard run from 700 to 800. It has a 6% admissions rate. Isn't it to be expected that the highest achievers in the nation will get A's? And in the case of Harvard students, while they may have a lot of self-regard (and believe me, they do), in their cases, is it fair to say they are “deluded”?

It would be profoundly unjust to grade these students on a curve. On a transcript, a Harvard C is worth the same as one from East Nowhere University. If you gave a C to the “average” Harvard student for work that would get him/her an A anywhere else, you would be essentially punishing him or her for getting into one of the best schools in the nation.

Turn it around. If the average grade handed out at Harvard were a “C”, wouldn't that engender criticism, likely from the same folks criticizing the school now.

Not that Harvard is perfect. In my own humble opinion, based on some personal knowledge, you can get a better education at any number of small liberal arts college, primarily because such places place more emphasis on education and less on the kind of networking that goes on at Harvard. But that doesn't change the fact that most Harvard students are there because they are very smart; have earned and deserved A's all their lives; and should be expected to perform well at Harvard or anywhere else they might have chosen to attend. It's just a shame so many of them go on to lead useless lives as consultants, bankers, or hedge fund managers.

Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)

Crime bosses complain

Thursday, December 5, 2013

This paragraph from this morning's New York Times put me in mind of a complaint Dean Baker often makes. The CFTC is considering rules that might prevent criminal syndicates banks from fixing LIBOR rates :

And it underscores increasing worries by large banks in general that the rules and regulations that have come in response to the recent spate of scandals and crises — requiring higher cash cushions, for example, and hiving off bank trading arms — will cause unneeded harm not just to the banks themselves but the broader financial climate as well. “None of this is going to catch the next London Whale or A.I.G.,” said Stephen O’Connor, the chairman of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, one of the three groups that brought the suit. “What we really need is a common international approach to these rules.”

At its heart, the challenge reflects a broad worry among industry activists and conservative lawmakers in Washington that the trading commission, under its aggressive chairman Gary Gensler, who is soon to step down, has gone too far.

via The New York Times

Dean would say, I'm sure, that the Times can report on what the bankers say, but not that they “are worried”, particularly about the effects of the rules on anyone but themselves. In fact, anyone with half a brain knows that they rarely worry about anything other than their own profits.

But here's a thought experiment. Let's suppose, for instance, that a regulatory agency were considering some new money laundering rules. Would the Times use language like this:

And it underscores increasing worries by large criminal organizations in general that the rules and regulations that have come in response to the recent spate of crimes — requiring record keeping of large cash deposits, implementing procedures to make money easier to trace — will cause unneeded harm not just to the crime families themselves but the broader financial climate as well. “None of this is going to catch the next Al Capone,” said Michael Corleone, the chairman of the International Drug Dealers and Gun Runners Association.

There really is no distinction. The large banks are criminal operations pure and simple. Yet we genuflect before them and give credence to their pious posturing.

Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

Here’s why I can’t get excited about reelecting Dan Malloy

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Stuff like this.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Zero brain policies being abandoned

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Just to show I keep my promises, I now present yet another installment of good news. The New York Times reports that school boards across the nation are re-thinking their zero tolerance policies. “Zero tolerance” is another way of saying that the adopting school boards have abandoned their obligation to use considered judgment in matters of discipline. The decision on punishment is made before the “crime” is committed.

I had some experience with “zero tolerance” during my brief service on the Groton Board of Education. The first defendant brought before us was a young boy who had brought a pocket knife to school. It was a tiny little knife. Nonetheless, it could have done real harm in the hands of a determined assailant, provided the victim fully cooperated. He said that he had forgotten he had it in his pocket, and we all believed him, but of course that was beside the point. It had been decided in advance that we were not to exercise any discretion whatsover in such cases. He had brought a “weapon” to school, and we were obligated to give him a ten day suspension (that's my recollection of the punishment; it may have been some other draconian penalty), whether the punishment fit the crime or no. After all, who were we to distinguish between a tiny little pocket knife and an assault weapon? That we must leave to god, I suppose, since people elected to exercise their judgment obviously should do no such thing. I don't recall anyone arguing that he deserved the punishment; only that we had no choice but to mete it out. None of the other cases we heard were much different; in none was there any indication that the boy involved had any intention of doing harm to anyone.

In a sane world our miscreant would have been required to stay after school, or pick up litter, or perform some other menial task that would have driven home the lesson that he should not do that again. Instead he received a punishment that did him no good, and no doubt taught him the lesson that he could not expect justice in this world. I suppose some might argue that was a lesson worth learning, given its truth, but I'd argue it's a lesson that is more profitably learned a bit later in life.

So, it's good news that zero tolerance is being zeroed out. Now, if only the voters would adopt a zero tolerance policy toward crazy, we might be able to improve things in the Congress.

Filed in Good News | | Comments (0)

Nothing succeeds like failure

Friday, November 29, 2013

Who can ask for a better way to make a living than one in which repeated failure only improves your reputation? That's the world of Washington “experts” and pundits, today's example being one Michael O'Hanlon, who, in today's Times shares his expertise once again, explaining why the U.S. government should ignore Hamid Karzai's threats and continue with its plans to remain mired in Afghanistan.

You may remember Mr. O'Hanlon from the early years of the Iraq War, when he was one of those hawkish “liberals” that cheered on the Bush lie machine. In O'Hanlon's case, he then spent several years claiming that he did not say all those things he said, and take all those positions he took.

Well, O'Hanlon need hardly worry whether the Obama Administration will take his advice. Whether it calls Karzai's bluff or not, it will stay in Afghanistan. It would be nice if it would tell Mr. Karzai, who is surely, in actuality, frightened to death that the U.S. might leave (who would prop him up if we left?), that it totally respects his position and will leave, lock, stock and barrel as soon as it can. Give the Russians credit: they got completely out. We, on the other hand, prefer to remain enmeshed in an area that has been the death of Empires since the beginning of written history. It will all come to no good, as it always does, but what of that. No doubt a few years from now Mr. O'Hanlon will be telling us that he knew all along that we should get out.

As Paul Krugman has pointed out repeatedly lately, everyone makes mistakes and everyone gets it wrong sometimes. Problems arise when one refuses to admit one's mistakes; either by ignoring them, or by insisting, as did Mr. O'Hanlon, that one never made those mistakes in the first place. We learn from our mistakes only when we accept that they are mistakes.

But as we see in today's paper, it really doesn't pay for pundits to admit error. Chances are if O'Hanlon had done so, he'd never have gotten the chance to bloviate in today's Times. Nothing succeeds in Washington like repeated failure, so long as you never admit a mistake.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Good news for the week

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Each of our political parties is under attack. The Republicans are besieged by ever growing numbers of voters of all hues, but most frighteningly, for them, those of a brownish hue. They have responded to the attack in a most simple and direct fashion: by depriving those voters of the right to vote. They have done this without shame and have done it aggressively. They have taken effective action against voters, shutting them out of polling places in red states and those blue tinged states in which they gained temporary power. They have been particularly effective and aggressive in those states, such as Texas, in which they fear the oncoming demographic brown tide the most.

The Democrats are under attack by the forces of reaction, led by rich folks such as the Kochs, backed by frightened, ignorant aging whites. What they lack in numbers they make up in money, and their chosen instrument for gaining power is the 501(c)(4) non-profit supposedly devoted to “social welfare” but which really devote themselves to partisan politics pure and simple. The administration, you may recall, beat a hasty and craven retreat when it was discovered that the IRS was slow walking requests from such groups for certification that they were in fact legitimate. The right claimed that it was being targeted because the IRS looked for words like “tea party” in an organization's name when deciding who needed special attention. It turned out that they were searching for liberal buzzwords too. No matter, the people responsible for this eminently reasonable course of conduct were obliged to resign.

So what, you may ask, is the good news? It looks like business as usual; Republicans using power to maintain power; Democrats cringing and allowing their opposition to run roughshod over them.

Except, maybe, the Democrats, at least some in the Obama administration, are growing a spine:

New rules proposed by the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service would clarify both how the I.R.S. defines political activity and how much nonprofits are allowed to spend on it. The proposal covers not just television advertising, but bread-and-butter political work like candidate forums and get-out-the-vote drives.

Long demanded by government watchdogs and Democrats who say the flow of money through tax-exempt groups is corrupting the political system, the changes would be the first wholesale shift in a generation in the regulations governing political activity by nonprofits.

The move follows years of legal and regulatory shifts, including the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010, that have steadily loosened the rules governing political spending, particularly by those with the biggest bank accounts: corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.

…

Under current rules, promoting social welfare can include some political activity, along with unlimited amounts of lobbying. Some of the largest political nonprofits — like Americans for Prosperity, backed by the conservative philanthropists Charles and David Koch — have used that provision to justify significant expenditures on political ads.

But under the new proposal, a broad swath of political work would be classified as “candidate-related political activity” and explicitly excluded from the agency’s definition of social welfare. Those activities include advertisements that mention a candidate within 60 days of an election as well as grants to other organizations making candidate-related expenditures.

“Depending on the details, this could be dramatic,” said Marcus S. Owens, a former chief of the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division.

via New York Times

Of course, Republicans are already counterattacking, but my guess is that the Administration will stick to its guns. If the Democrats had any sense, they'd mount a propaganda campaign in support of this as noisy as the Republican’s incessant claims that we must eliminate voter fraud by eliminating voters. Once again, as is so often the case, the Democratic argument would have the virture of truth. These organizations are polluting our political system. There are ways to make that point take hold with voters. It is necessary in the first instance to be loud and proud about what you're doing. I’d be happy to see the odd progressive 501(c)(4) disappear if we can also get rid of, or at least hamstring, the Koch Brothers and ALEC. So here's hoping they won't back down, and that's the good news for this week.

Filed in Good News | | Comments (0)