Category Archives: Politics

Syria, the Spanish Civil War, and NATO

Posted on by

I’ve read two separate warnings about Syria that make that civil war even more frightening. The first by Patrick J. Buchanan observes that the Spanish Civil War was “…the Great Rehearsal for World War II. He asks in his title whether the Syrian conflict is a “Dress Rehearsal for a Mideast War?” The other warning is that NATO might be drawn into the conflict if Turkey pursues retaliation against Syria for shooting down one of its planes.

The brutal Spanish Civil War began in 1936 and lasted three years. It pitted Franco’s Fascists against an agglomeration of Socialists, Anarchists, and both Stalinist and Trotskyite Communists. Stalin sent emissaries and officers to command the Nationalists (while he emptied the Spanish treasury of gold as payment for the help). Mussolini sent troops to fight with Franco and Hitler sent his Condor Legion. The planes of the Condor Legion gave air support to Franco and also firebombed the non-military town of Guernica.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt publically claimed neutrality about the war, primarily because he did not want to lose the Catholic vote. Some factions of the Nationalists were persecuting, torturing, and murdering Catholic priests. FDR said, “We shun commitments which might entangle us in foreign wars…” FDR did approve shipments of military supplies to France and understood that they would be sent to the Spanish Nationalists.

The NATO connection is the source of the other recent warning that history could be in the process of repeating. Politicians had established vast national alliances in the early 1900s in what was thought to be a counterbalance against the threat of war. The alliances instead caused the domino effect leading to World War I when Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914. I’ve always had trouble mentally following the complicated series of events that followed. The assassination led to the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia and Serbia appealed to its Russian ally for help. Russia began mobilizing its army. Germany took the mobilization to be a threat and declared war on Russia. They attacked France through neutral Belgium because France was Russia’s ally. The violation of Belgian neutrality brought Great Britain into the war. The United States joined the war a bit later.

NATO was originally established to oppose the now defunct Warsaw Pact. Turkey, a member of NATO has called for a full meeting to discuss the Syrian downing of a Turkish fighter jet and claims that another was fired on by the Syrians. Syria has a formal defense pact with Iran and is heavily supplied and supported by Russia. The Russians and Chinese have blocked all UN efforts to take action against Syria.

The news out of Syria today does not encourage that the situation will improve. Three senior government officials have been killed in a bombing, creating speculation that others will probably now chose to join the defectors in Turkey. There is a prediction that Assad will go into hiding or to a country that would harbor him “within 36 hours.”Russia is thought to believe a collapse of the Assad regime would be an opening for the U.S. to gain power in the Mideast. I don’t know that I agree. Iran, al Qaeda, and Hezbollah are probably ready to fill any vacuum.

The Syrian army recently was reported to have pulled chemical weapons out of storage. An escalation of hostilities has the ominous possibility of some desperate Syrian commander deciding Saddam Hussein was justified in using chemical weapons against Kurdish villages.

I won’t speculate about the outcome, but I have this disturbing image of someone intentionally carelessly smoking inside an ammunition bunker.

The Righteous Mind

Posted on by

Reviewed by Kathy London

This book by Jonathan Haidt is sub-titled “Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion”. This strikes me as one of the most important social topics today. I found the book to be enjoyable and accessible. Haidt’s style is conversational, with little jargon. I got a real sense of human beings, not just data. If you find your blood pressure rising at some points, you’ll be happy to know the book lays out the evidence in detail and is thoroughly footnoted so you can do your own evaluation.

I’ve often listened to pundits on cable-TV ask “why?” Why is the political opposition so hypocritical, so biased, so wrong? Haidt argues that disagreements do not reflect good and evil – the “other side” is composed of good people with something important to say. He hopes to give Americans a new way to think about politics and religion, to drain the anger and make conversations more civil, and more fun. I think this is important, so this article is both a book report and a review.

I suggest you read the introduction, at least the “What Lies Ahead” portion. While Haidt draws heavily on science, his message can be found in ancient texts: Whether an 8th Century Zen Master Sen-ts’an: “If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against”; or a more familiar quote: “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” Matthew 7:3-5.

Haidt draws on everything from philosophers to bumper stickers to illustrate his points, but the book’s core is data-driven. He says that hypotheses are cheap; theories are useful when tested, supported, and corrected. (You can participate in the research at the YourMorals web site.) My own style tends to be analytical, so I appreciate this approach. I enjoyed reading the many psychology experiments, though if you don’t need to be convinced of a particular point you could skim them. Each chapter ends with an “In Sum” section. You might want to read the chapter summary first, and then decide where you want to read carefully. You may even want to read the “Conclusion” chapter first, so you’ll know where to watch for surprises.

A lot of animal analogies are used in the book. One favorite says we are each a passenger riding on an elephant: the elephant is our intuitive reactions and the rider offers post hoc rationalizations. The title of the second chapter says it more simply: “The Intuitive Dog and Its Rational Tail”. This tail does not wag the dog.

On religion, Haidt shows how our obsession with righteousness is the normal human condition. It has produced large cooperative groups that kinship would not justify. Religion is not just “believing” but also “doing” and “belonging”. He thinks the “New Atheists” miss the point that religion has helped people create communities with shared morals that reduce violence and cruelty.

Haidt describes “moral capital” as an “interlocking set of values, virtues, norms…and institutions” that mesh with human psychology and “enable a community to regulate selfishness and make cooperation possible”. Everyone understands economic capital – the things we need (money, tools, and workers) to produce goods and services. Moral capital is also needed for successful individuals, companies, and communities. Conservatives understand this better than liberals and detect threats to moral capital that liberals do not see.

The core of the book is the Six Moral Foundations. Think of them as analogous to taste receptors in your tongue. Everyone has the same taste receptors, but we don’t all like the same foods. Similarly, everyone has six “moral receptors”. But we don’t all rely on them to the same extent or in the same way. Here, I think, is Haidt’s explanation for why people are “hypocritical”. What triggers the foundations, and to what intensity, is complex and intuitive.

Care: People despise suffering and cruelty. We want to help the under-dog and the victim. This foundation is so strong, we even apply it non-human things, such as baby animals.

Fairness: People have a deep, intuitive sense of karma; rewards and punishments should be proportional to actions. We will punish a cheater, even if it means harming ourselves. (I found the studies demonstrating this to be especially interesting.)

Loyalty: People trust and reward those on their team, whether the team is a small group or a nation. Traitors are viewed as worse than enemies.

Authority: People respect hierarchy. Authority must take on responsibility for order and justice in society. We should fulfill the obligations of our place within the group. This sort of awareness is even encoded in some languages that have different verb-forms for polite and familiar speech.

Sanctity: People know that some things are noble and pure, others are degrading and base. Sacred values, including symbols and ideas, bind groups together. This can be expressed through traditional religion, but also through other concerns, such as for the environment.

Liberty: People hate bullies. Powerful elites must know their limits and authorities must earn trust. We are vigilant against signs of tyranny and will band together against illegitimate restraints.

People who identify as conservative, liberal, or libertarian share these foundations, but rely on them to different extents. This is where the book begins to feel important and not simply interesting.

Libertarians are most sensitive to Liberty, to the extent that they call on the other foundations very little. But markets really are miraculous. They bring supply, demand, and ingenuity together, and the rest of us should listen.

Haidt says he is a liberal, so he spends time analyzing where liberals go wrong. Liberals are most sensitive to Care, Liberty, and Fairness, but willing to trade fairness to protect victims. In their zeal to help victims, liberals often push for changes that weaken groups and actually hurt the people they are trying to help. Yet, liberals have some good points. They are experts in Care, and see the harm done to individuals before conservatives do. Some big problems really can be solved by government regulation.

Conservatives use all six foundations, which Haidt says gives them a political advantage, makes them more numerous and more likely to understand others. They rely more on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity than liberals. While they are willing to trade care of individuals for other foundation values, they protect communities we all need to thrive.

Liberals and conservatives are more akin to yin and yang than good and evil. We need both perspectives, not just to be fair, but to create a successful country. To understand others, Haidt says you must consider all six Moral Foundations and which foundations relate to a controversy.

Haidt discusses where Americans have gone wrong in political life and how to address the issues. (Haidt presents more on this topic, including disagreements with his views on the CivilPoltics web site.)

Social relationships are necessary for people with differing foundations to trust and listen to each other. Haidt shows how, since the 1960s, Americans have been losing their social relationships across liberal/conservative groups. Political parties have become more purely liberal or conservative. Technology and lifestyle changes have been isolating: if you want to find people who voted for Obama, go to Whole Foods. If you want to find people who voted for McCain, go to Cracker Barrel. This kind of alignment of politics with seemingly unrelated views has always puzzled me. Haidt shows why this is so.

Friendly relations, commonality, and trust make it easier for people to listen to each other. Establish bonds with people before you try to convince them your position is right. You might both see the issue in a new light. Conversations might become more respectful and more constructive.

Haidt offers us this advice: “If you really want to open your mind, open your heart first.”

It’s My Fault

Posted on by

Art Buchwald (bless him) wrote an unforgettable article apologizing that the Vietnam War was his fault. The gist of the article was that several people warned him that there would be a full scale shooting war in Vietnam if he voted for Barry Goldwater for President. I haven’t found documentation of the article, although I remember it quite well. What I have found is the introduction to a 1965 Time Magazine article that asks the question, “How would the U.S. have fared if Barry Goldwater had been elected President? The mind boggles to think of it, mused Columnist Art Buchwald last week in the New York Herald Tribune. Nonetheless, Buchwald did his deadpan best to guess how things really would have turned out under Goldwater. To begin with, he wrote, the Viet Cong would have blown up an American barracks. Goldwater would have immediately called for a strike on military bases in North Viet Nam and announce a ‘new tit-for-tat policy.’ Democrats would make speeches that Goldwater was ‘trigger-happy’ and was trying to get us into…”

Unfortunately, the link ends at that point and indicates, “To read the entire article, you must be a TIME Subscriber.” However, I will ask you to depend on my less-than-reliable memory. I recall what followed was humorous and thought-provoking. I remember that Mr. Buchwald apologized (in this or some other article), saying something to the effect, “They told me there would be a war in Vietnam if I voted for Goldwater. I voted for Goldwater, and they were right. It’s my fault.”

That brings us to the current political situation. I was told that several bad things would happen if I didn’t vote for Barrack Obama. I was told the economic condition of the country would not improve. I was told that the unemployment rate would continue to exceed eight percent (not counting people who are underemployed or have given up on finding a job). I was told Guantanamo would remain the imprisonment site for suspected terrorists. I was told Guantanamo and military tribunals that would be held there would be the source of recruitment of others who wanted to commit terrorist acts against the U.S. In summary, I was told there would be many, many bad things that would happen if I didn’t vote for Barrack Obama. I ignored the warnings and didn’t vote for Obama. How can I possibly atone for my mistake?

I’ll end the sarcasm with the observation that I understand politicians will say many things to be elected. Newly elected Presidents then sit at the desk in the Oval Office and begin to receive classified intelligence briefings which explain why some of their promised policies might not be wise. They also apparently learn (perhaps to their dismay) that they do not control the legislative branch of government or the private economy. They are the leader of the most powerful country in the world, but there are limits for even them. I suggest we all keep that in mind as the Presidential campaign, which is predicted to be the most vicious in at least recent memory, proceeds.

Common Sense in 2012: Prosperity and Charity for America

Posted on by

This book was written by Art Robinson, and in his words, “…for the voters of Congressional District 4 in Oregon. It explains, to the best of my ability, the issues facing us all in the 2012 elections.” A copy of the book was mailed to all subscribers of Dr. Robinson’s newsletter “Access to Energy” along with a request for donation. I donated despite the fact that I am a resident of Colorado. I believe it is important to support someone offering to serve as a citizen volunteer in Congress who promises to use common sense. His son Matthew is running against the incumbent Peter DeFazio in the Democratic primary. Dr. Robinson judges that Oregon’s District 4 will have a significantly better representative regardless of the general election outcome should Matthew win the primary.

I’ve followed developments in Oregon District 4 since Dr. Robinson and his family began his campaign for the 2010 election. I donated to that campaign in hopes of helping an honorable and ethical scientist who was willing to take the slings and arrows of a long time politician. The back cover of the book provides endorsements of Dr. Robinson from several renowned scientists. However, to illustrate my point about what he faces, the back cover ends with a quote from opponent Peter DeFazio, “Robinson is a ‘pathological nut job’.” I suggest readers consider donating to the campaign to replace DeFazio and request a copy of Dr. Robinson’s book.

The book is provides details of the Constitutional. Countless quotes by the Founders and other great thinkers explain Dr. Robinson’s positions. The erosion of liberty created by growth in government is documented with several examples. There is a graph that shows the percentage of U.S. population with jobs. Jobs began to be lost by the year 2000 “…in an economy that was gradually being strangled by Big Government.” Government has expanded relentlessly since taxing of income began in 1913. Manufacturing jobs have been hit especially hard. Reference is given to the astonishing mass of regulations that have been created that has made the U.S. increasingly unfriendly to all businesses. The federal debt “…has grown so large that service of this debt is draining away huge amounts of resources that are needed for the production of goods and services by American industry and workers.”

Chapter 1 is titled “Who is Art Robinson,” and introduces him as “…a successful scientist, businessman, and father. He lives with his family on their family farm…and works at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” He introduces his wife Laurelee and their six children. The children were all home schooled and developed a home schooling curriculum that has been used by 60,000 American children for grades 1 through 12. The family business, which also publishes children’s books, has allowed the children to put each other through college and graduate school.

Laurelee tragically died after a 24 hour illness in 1988, but the strength of the family’s belief in each other and God led to “A silent, almost eerie calm…” I challenge anyone to read about the family and their successes and not be both touched and impressed.

It also is not difficult to be the opposite of impressed with the Congressional opponent. There was a billboard prominently displayed that showed Art Robinson and the words “Energy company CEO’s shouldn’t pay taxes.” The only very thin thread that connects this statement to the truth is that Dr. Robinson had suggested solving a national energy crisis by “…forgoing taxes on the industries and workers required to solve this problem…” It is true that CEOs are energy company employees. DeFazio, in the same vein as saying “Robinson is a ‘pathological nut job’,” also said that he lived in a “survivalist compound” and his campaign was supported by “money launderers.” In fact 99.3% of Robinson’s campaign contributions came from individuals. DeFazio also said that Robinson wanted to allow drinking water to be contaminated with nuclear waste.

There are some personal stories in the book that are quite interesting. Some are sad stories. One of those is about the Robinson’s research on “metabolic profiling,” which could have had significant impact on diagnosis of disease. They learned years later that a competing scientist entered the laboratory and scrambled the labels on the samples, which of course destroyed the experiment. You can almost feel the pain as Dr. Robinson wrote that the research “…could have saved Laurelee’s life in 1988, by getting her to surgery in time, and the lives of countless other people.”

There are also some fun stories. I particularly enjoyed one about Dr. Robinson being stopped by an officer who asked to see the permit for the wide load he was hauling. The officer inquired why the map for the route wasn’t attached to the permit. He was told it had been taken apart to allow the map to be unfolded and read. When asked where the staple was that had been removed to separate the map, he was told that the staple hadn’t been saved. Dr. Robinson was allowed to proceed if he promised he would get a staple at the next station. He was stopped again, and informed, “We know all about you. We heard about you on the radio. You’re the guy without the staple.”

Another quite sad story is the targeting of the Robinson children at Oregon State University. The remarkable academic achievements are listed for each of the Robinson children. Three of the children are in graduate studies at Oregon State University, and after Dr. Robinson began his campaign against DeFazio, “…DeFazio supporters at OSU seriously interfered with their graduate work. The actions against them were, in my experience, unprecedented in American academia.”  It was difficult to misrepresent Dr. Robinson’s academic achievements when “Everywhere DeFazio looked there were Robinson young adults with doctorates…or earning doctorates at Oregon State University.” An OSU professor stepped in to assist the three students, and was blackballed. “An outpouring of public support for the students and Professor Higginbotham made the rescue of the students possible.” Dr. Robinson writes that he did not want to make this public, but was forced to do so when he learned that one of his children and the professor were in immediate danger of permanent dismissal without cause from OSU.

There are always two sides in a dispute, and I’ll be open to considering the other side when Mr. DeFazio publishes his book. In the interim, I suggest you donate to Art Robinson’s campaign and request a copy of his book.

Health Care Law Status

Posted on by

The legal battle about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, which is commonly called “Obamacare,” has reached the Supreme Court. An article in the Washington Post by Robert Barnes leads with the Obama administration telling the Supreme Court, “Congress was ‘well within’ its constitutional powers when it decided that the way to resolve a crisis in health-care costs and coverage was to mandate that Americans obtain insurance or pay a fine…”  Lower courts have been just about evenly “…split on whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to require individuals to buy something they may not necessarily want.” Two judges wrote, “We are unable to conceive of any product whose purchase Congress could not mandate…” if the individual mandate is ruled constitutional.

There are many who do not believe the Supreme Court will actually rule on that issue at this time of high political drama, and the Obama administration is maneuvering separately to disarm some of the arguments against the law. Robert J. Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post that Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebilius is doing what she can to make Obamacare disappear as a liability for the President. She has decided to delegate the final decision on defining “essential health benefits” for minimum health insurance coverage to the states. That decision is crucial to answering the question of how 35 million Americans who are currently uninsured will receive subsidized health insurance by 2016. Millions more who receive coverage in individual and small group insurance markets also will be affected.

Sebelius has disarmed the criticism that Obamacare imposes “one-size-fits-all” by requiring each state to define “essential health benefits.” However, the question of how broad the coverage that is required has been scattered to 51 debates. The two goals will obviously be broad and affordable coverage, and those two goals are in direct conflict. Broader coverage will increase the cost to government to pay for the subsidies. Many expect that employers could begin to freeze raises and cost of living increases to cover their costs for the new health insurance benefits that will be required.

The states apparently can base their decision on ten existing plans. “The choices include, for example, ‘the largest plan by enrollment in any of the three largest small group insurance products in the state’s small market group’.” I have no idea what that means but hopefully the 51 states have a better understanding of that and the other nine possibilities. The “good news” is that states that can’t figure out what to do can be granted waivers beginning in 2017, and perhaps that would be the best approach.

The best article I’ve read to try to understand this issue is titled “Dissecting the Health Care Case, Election-year debate makes this term a mirror of the New Deal era” by Mark Walsh. I suggest you clink on the link to this article and read the second page. My quick summary is that the Court might (or is likely to) rule that the current challenge is premature. “Under this view, the law’s individual mandate may not be challenged until individuals who refuse to buy health insurance have to pay a penalty.” One Court of Appeals threw out a challenge to the health care law on that basis. The Supreme Court did not take up that ruling, but “…it did accept the Obama administration’s suggestion to consider the Anti-Injunction Act issue.”  The issue will be argued for one hour on March 26.

There are strong opinions on both sides of the issues, and I believe the key is whether Congress can mandate that individuals must buy something. However, as the article describes, there are politics involved beyond what is constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled some of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal laws unconstitutional. My personal favorite was a ruling in Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States in which the Court ruled that (simplistically) the poultry processor had not intentionally sold unhealthy chickens. However, the Court began to uphold his programs in 1937 to stave off FDR’s court packing plan to gain friendly rulings.

I believe the best thing government can do is to get out of the way, and laws that sound as if they are based on good intentions are generally destructive. Obamacare has already distracted the country from the most important issue, and that is how to create a better economy that will employ more people. I also believe the law has already been detrimental in discouraging entrepreneurs from having the courage to launch new businesses. I know I would question my sanity if I decided to begin a new business with the uncertainty of both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank standing ready to crush it with both costs and bureaucracy.

Back to the likely outcome of the Supreme Court and Obamacare, Professor Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court historian, writes, “I cannot imagine that John Roberts intends to go down in history as the chief justice who struck down one of the most significant statues in American history.” My prediction is that the Supreme Court will avoid such a contentious ruling by accepting that the current challenges are premature. The Anti-Injunction Act requires that a challenge is not allowed until “…individuals who refuse to buy the health insurance have to pay a penalty.”

What does all of this mean? Elections matter and the American people elected a President and dominantly Liberal Congress based on anger and fear in 2008. Laws that were intended to “protect and serve” were passed and signed, and now we must deal with the consequences.

Warren Buffet and his Secretary’s Taxes

Posted on by

Warren Buffet’s secretary was in the spotlight at President Obama’s State of the Union Address after Mr. Buffet repeated his comments that she is the one paying the higher taxes. I know that Mr. Obama believes this is unfair, because I received a four page letter (perhaps robo-signed) that asks the question, “Do you think it is fair that Warren Buffet’s secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffet?” He then gives the answer, “I don’t and neither does Mr. Buffet.”

Mr. Buffet believes he and other millionaires should paying higher taxes on their individual returns, but he apparently doesn’t feel the same about Berkshire Hathaway. He owns a big share of that company, and it pays considerable amounts in corporate taxes. However, the company’s annual report discusses the running dispute it has with the IRS about how much it owes. This isn’t new; the IRS has been actively contesting whether Berkshire Hathaway is paying enough for almost a decade.

There are several interesting factors at play in this story. First, do his secretary and everyone else in Mr. Buffet’s office really pay more than Buffet? The answer is obviously no. The secretary does pay a higher rate on her estimated $200,000 salary, although I can’t find how she is paying the reported 35.8 percent of her income. There is a link to a tax calculator that shows a single person with taxable income of $200,000 would pay $50,897 in federal taxes, or 25.45%. A married person filing a joint return with the same taxable income would pay $44,070 or 22.03%. Perhaps Nebraska has really high state taxes or Omaha adds several percentage points for some sort of municipal tax.

Buffet reportedly pays federal income taxes at 17.4 percent of his taxable income, because much of his income is from capital gains that are taxed at a maximum of 15%. The disparity between his tax rates and those for his secretary is what has created outrage and earned her the adoration of those who champion higher taxes for millionaires. I haven’t seen it mentioned in many places that Mr. Buffet pays an estimated seven million dollars on his personal return, which my rudimentary math tells me that he reported about 40 million dollars of income. He wouldn’t have to wait for tax laws to be changed to address his outrage that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. He could simply donate another 7 million dollars to the government and there wouldn’t be an issue that needs national attention. I don’t know whether he could claim that donation to reduce his taxable income for the next year. Perhaps he doesn’t really want to send the IRS more of his personal income because his 23% share of the Berkshire Hathaway disputed corporate taxes is over five billion dollars.

It isn’t a surprise that Mr. Buffet is a big fan of Mr. Obama. The President’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline provides a big boost to earnings of Berkshire Hathaway. The pipeline was to transport oil from the Bakken oil fields in the Dakotas along with Canadian oil, but now much of that oil will have to be moved in railway tank cars operated by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company. Berkshire Hathaway already owns 22% of that company and has an offer to buy the rest.

Let’s think about Keystone XL for a bit. The pipeline had been cleared as having minimal environmental impact in a three year study. It would have provided jobs to people making the pipe and installing it. It would have brought large quantities of oil to U.S. refineries that didn’t originate in countries that don’t like us very much. It also would have increased the amount of Bakken oil that would also move to those refineries. Apparently none of those positives would have justified irritating the people who call themselves environmentalists.