PRESIDENT'S BIPARTISAN COMISSION ON DEFICIT PROPOSES A RETURN TO A CATFOOD DIET FOR ELDERLY

My wife and I saw Judy Woodruff's conversation with Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky (D, Ill) on Channel 13's PBS Newshour (11-22-10). Representative Schakowsky said succinctly what I have been thinking after Bowles and Simpson released their plan to rape and pillage the poor, the elderly and the middleclass. "Right On" Congreswoman!" we both shouted out to the TV screen.See: http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=529805&

What did she say? Schakowsky who is a popular Congresswaman in the 9th Illinois Congressional District, who has won there handily for a number of terms now, was appointed to the Commission by Speaker Pelosi. She spoke eloquently and clearly and what she said made a lot of sense. She has just released her own plan for deficit reduction that differs substantially from the Erskine Bowles --Alan Simpson plan. Schakowsky's plan would wipe 440 billion out the deficit column by 2015, but not cut Social Security and Medicare, which the Bowles-Simpson plan carve away at. Schakowsky's plan relies on closing tax breaks for big corporations, it cuts $110 billion from the bloated "defense" budget and generates other income by new revenues including taxing capital gains as ordinary income.See: http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2010/11/12/krugman-dissects-catfood-commission-recomendations/


The so-called "bipartisan" commission was a bad idea from the start and President Obama was careless and shortsighted in dumping the problem on such a group. To begin with, any "bipartisan" plan in Washington is likely to fail since it must find middle ground between the likes of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. Whenever the progressives attempt to "compromise" they are dealing with colleagues who are so far removed from reality they end up having to re-invent the wheel and introduce the idea of fire to their comrades on the other side of the aisle. The commission has begun to be termed the "Catfood Commission" since its solutions are apparently aimed at getting the elderly and indigent to have to go on a catfood diet to survive.


Schakosky stated: “I thought it was important to put forth a proposal that says we don’t have to go after the middle and lower classes in our country in order to pay for deficit and debt that they had nothing to do with creating, and that we yet could take this problem seriously down the road to reduce the deficit and the long-term debt.” (Transcript from PBS Newshour)
See: http://www.zagasi.com/democratic-rep-jan-schakowsky-says-social-security-not-part-of-the-deficit-problem/221126/

Economist Paul Krugman (and NYT columnist) sees the Bowles-Simpson proposal this way:
"Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans — the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest — and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate."

Beyond that the idea that our workers must work to the age of 69 years...rather than 65 strikes Krugman as unfair. It might not be bad for an office worker or accountant but a laborer? Also he states:" But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age"

Krugman ends with" It’s no mystery what has happened on the deficit commission: as so often happens in modern Washington, a process meant to deal with real problems has been hijacked on behalf of an ideological agenda. Under the guise of facing our fiscal problems, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson are trying to smuggle in the same old, same old — tax cuts for the rich and erosion of the social safety net."

So this is where Madam Schakowsky's proposal is so important. It at least puts the Bowles-Simpson proposal out there where it belongs--a right wing wish list. Ms Schakowsky's propsal presents a yardstick for the nation to gauge the commission's formal presentation. It helps to put it in its place...somewhere out with Genghis and Atilla.

Kudos Congresswoman Schakowsky!

Do you get the picture--now?

rjk

THE FED PRINTS UP MONEY AND CALLS IT QUANTITATIVE EASING

On a recent tour of our local stores Mrs. K. has been annoyed to discover that one of her favorite house-hold products, normally stocked on the shelves of several local stores is no longer available. The product--a stove-top cleaning agent-- was formally easily procured and widely available. But not so now.

“Why can’t I find this item any longer?” she asked with the annoyance.

“Well that product may not have a lot of demand, so Green’s, Walmarts, CVS, True Value, etc. do not wish to replace their stock so quickly, when they are gone. They are reducing or eliminating the shelf-stocks of products that don't sell quickly. It's just one way to reduce overhead," I said.

“So this is just a response to the bad economy then?”

“Yes, it’s a sign of low demand.”

"Yeah, that low demand may be the result of the fact that a good portion of the population is under or unemployed. Less money out there…less demand for stove-top cleaners and other stuff.”

Right now it is jobs, jobs, jobs that are on everyone’s mind. Today, I read in Portfolio.com, with some alarm that there are five applicants for every job that opens. Also, that there are some 15 million Americans out of work right now, and that nearly half a million have quit trying to find work. The formal joblessness rate is recorded as 9.6%, but that would be much worse were it not for the those, nearly 500,000 who simply just quit looking.

Also the inflation rate has dropped down to 1.1% and has been holding steady at this rate for some months. That is well below the 2% rate that is considered desirable.

“That doesn’t sound too threatening. Why should I be concerned with the fact that prices are not rising much?”

“Well the problem is that such a low rate of inflation is and indicator of low consumer demand for goods and services.

“So that’s why I can’t find that “cook top” spray cleaner, I like to use”?

“Exactly!“

“Some products which are not your big sellers are in lower demand anyway…and are simply eliminated off the shelves, as a way to reduce costs and raise profits.“

“That’s one way to control expenses, but it makes me mad!“

“But more importantly, these circumstances of low demand may develop into what the economists call a “vicious deflationary cycle” in which low consumer demand causes product prices to fall, (or they may be simply eliminated as your cook top cleaner), this causes shoppers (like you and me) to retard purchases since they anticipate the continuing fall in prices (Why should you pay more for some product today when you can get some product cheaper tomorrow?). Then the store-owner, responding to low demand, may decrease prices further, while the products manufacturer or producer who is faced with less orders for his product, sells his stock at lower prices since he has too much of it, and, as well, may decide to slow production. These results exacerbate the problem and result in lower demand for labor in both the production end and in the sales end of the economy, resulting in lay offs, and firings. But job losses and reduced employment only tend to decrease money in circulation, and thus depress demand even further. The end result is a continual spiral downward of demand, as prices fall and employees are laid off. This deflationary spiral can be described as a classic “vicious cycle” or a process which tends to exacerbate the cause or causes which generate it.

What can the Fed do? I read recently that Ben Bernanke is planning to decrease long term interest rates and stimulate growth by having the Fed purchase (“soak up”) Treasury Bonds. Bernanke will buy them with money he just freshly printed at the Treasury. That sounds like a nice way to say we are just printing money as we need it. But here’s how it works.

Treasury Bonds are safe but they do not make much interest. So to get the attention of buyers, the government has to keep interest rates at a level high enough to encourage sales. These practices will costs us in the long run. By buying up Treasury Bonds, a cash infusion is put directly into government coffers. Since the government would have less urgency to sell bonds, they need not encourage buyers by raising interest rates. This action would tend to decrease the value of the dollar, since in effect by creating money ex nihilo, the government is in effect is decreasing the value of its currency.

That might make the Chinese angry….since they hold so much of our debt they will be paid back in inflated currency.

But I’ve not heard anyone one claim that we are just printing up money as we need it. No the polite term for this process is called quantitative easing (QE). Formally this describes a policy used by central banks like the Fed to increase the supply of money. To do this they increase the excess reserves of the banking system. Quantitative Easing is resorted to when other “normal” methods of nudging the economy along have failed. Prior to QE you may remember the Fed lowered bank interest rates, and the interbank interest rate (or discount rate). But sine these are at or close to zero….there is only one other “tool” to try that is falling back on the printing presses.

In fact it is even simpler than that. The central bank simply credits own account with money it creates out of thin air (ex nihilo---out of nothing). Then using this account it purchases financial assets, including government bonds, debts, mortgage backed securities, corporate bonds and other assets. This process is referred to as “open market operations”. Once the funds are out there, it is hoped that banks will have more reserves so they can use these funds to lend out to firms or individuals.

From Japan article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/asia/17japan.html?src=me&ref=general


Still, as political pressure builds to reduce federal spending and budget deficits, other economists are now warning of “Japanification” — of falling into the same deflationary trap of collapsed demand that occurs when consumers refuse to consume, corporations hold back on investments and banks sit on cash. It becomes a vicious, self-reinforcing cycle: as prices fall further and jobs disappear, consumers tighten their purse strings even more and companies cut back on spending and delay expansion plans.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/17/is-this-what-america-faces-if-the-tea-party-triumphs/

US A BANANA REPUBLIC?

A few days ago, I read Nicholas Kristof's piece in the NY Times (November 6, 2010) wherein he likens the US, to a "Banana Republic". In these nations the wealthiest one-percent of the population may garner as much as 20 percent of the economic resources leaving only 80% to be divided among the 99% of the rest of the population. The term "banana republic" (think of Honduras or Guatemala as typical examples) are countries where powerful foreign companies exploit a nation for its agricultural output, pay-off elected officials and corrupt the legal government as a means to maximize profits. The United Fruit Company of the 1930s comes readily to mind. In such circumstances it is only to be expected that the chosen few elites who cooperate and collude with the foreigners are those who typically garner the lion's share of the wealth. Thus the hope for a reasonably humane life in such places is restricted --where basic infrastructure, medical care, housing, public transportation and other services are all lacking or severely limited since the elite and the foreigners care little for these benefits. But how can Kristof describe the conditions in OUR country as a banana-republic? Anyone I ask about wealth distribution and banana republics either have no clue about our wealth distribution, see themselves as "quite well off" and see no relationship between the USA and Guatemala. Those that have an opinion indicate that "perhaps the top wealthy 20% of the population may control about that much or a little more of the nation's income and goods. (I did get one interesting comment from a friend who lives in Manhattan. He was one of the few who was even aware of the purchasing power of the super wealthy. He used a count of the number of Christian Louboutin women's shoes he observed on Manhattan sidewalks as a rough measure of the local economy. Since the shoes are easily identifiable by their shiny red-lacquered soles, the exorbitantly priced footwear---some costing well over $2,500 a pair--are easy to spot. He was the only one I encountered who had some remote idea of the disparity in wealth in the City, his own modest economic status and the high level of others.

In an interesting study conducted in 2005, researchers from Duke and Harvard Universities probed the perceptions of wealth distribution in the USA by interviewing a large representative sample and posing the question: how much should the top twenty percent of the population earn?

"The report concludes, that 92 percent of the respondents....believed that the top 20 percent of a population should own only 32 percent of a nation's wealth. More than 90% of the respondents said they'd rather live in a country with a wealth distribution in which the wealthiest should not own more than about a third of the nation's wealth." (See:"Building a Better America -- One Wealth Quintile At A Time" by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School from Huffington Post 9-23-10 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/americans-support-wealth-redistribution_n_736132.html). (rjkspeaks author's note: In Sweden the top 20% own about 32 % of that nation's wealth, this is not unusual. In France the top 20% control about 40% of the nation's wealth. In Italy the top 20% control 36% of that nation's wealth, while in Germany the top 30% control about 51% of the wealth.)

But today, the USA, the richest nation in the world, is very much unlike Sweden (or other modern democratic industrialized nations for that matter). The way wealth and income are distributed in the US does resemble a banana republic as Kristof claims. Today, the richest Americans--those in the top one-percent take home about 24% of the nation's "pie" leaving only 76% of the wealth for the remaining 99% of the population. If we examine the top 20% of present-day American wage-earners, we learn that they garner about 84% of the total wealth leaving only 16%!!!!!! of the national pie to be divided up by the remaining 80% of the population. That does not seem fair does it? No, it is not fair and even seems un-American! In most modern, western industrialized nations...these USA figures stand out in contrast like a sore thumb.

But things were quite different here in the USA not so long ago. Back in 1976, the same 1%group at the top took home only 9% of the total nation's income (rather than the 24% of today). But since then, in little more than three decades, their "take" increased nearly three-fold. How did this great "condensation of wealth" occur? (See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Social_cohesion)


Paul Krugman of the NY Times states that one cause of inequality of wealth distribution in the USA is globalization (which has resulted in many higher paying jobs to disappear offshore), and to "fragmentation of means of production" where labor-intensive aspects of a manufacture process might be "farmed out" to nations where cheap labor can be used to reduce costs for production aspects, while engineering, marketing and advertising of a product might remain in the home country. Others argue that technological innovation and automation have reduced demand for labor.

How did this happen to the US?

One reason has been the American economic model which has been in place for these last decades. According to an off shore observer--German Finance Minister Wolgang Shauble (responding to a question regarding German export surpluses), states: "The American growth model.........is in a deep crisis. The United States lived on borrowed money for too long, inflating its financial sector unnecessarily and neglecting its small and mid-sized industrial companies. There are many reasons for America's problems, but they don't include German export surpluses." (Der Spiegle: November 6, 2010)

So how did we get here? Is Schauble correct?: Have we inflated our financial sector and neglected our small and medium sized businesses? Our small and medium sized firms are the traditional heart of our economy, the businesses which employ the vast majority of our working population...where decent salaries are earned...where benefits generally are substantial and which help generate the bulk of our federal taxes. But we ignored these firms to favor the more influential US financial sector. This is not good for the USA in general and not too smart.

Favoritism to the financial sector helps to explain why our unemployment figures (formally now at 9.6%) are so difficult to change. By neglecting our small and medium sized businesses the engines of income and employment we have set the stage for the present unhappy employment situation. Now, after decades of neglect, we have fewer of these businesses and fewer places to stimulate for increased employment.

The financial sector which we have favored over the last decades by reducing government oversight and by Reagan-encouraged deregulation have increased questionable loans to home-buyers. They lowered the standards for borrowers. They encouraged banks to make more loans to less qualified lenders. Then they took these mortgages, bundled them together to create "assets" or commodities which they sold as "bank stocks", then, using these created assets, they further diced up the bundled mortgages to create other "products" or derivatives which permitted banks to take bets on the fact that these manufactured assists were going to increase or decrease in value. When the economy faltered, and people defaulted on their loans...many of these mortgages became worthless paper---but where were they? They were sliced and diced into many products and sold to investors by our biggest banks. The result was that the entire house of cards came down around the banker's shoulders. The government responded with a massive bailout of the the banks called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). But that did not stop them from accepting TARP funds for their erroneous ways-- a program which paid them handsomely for their perfidy. Finally, it did not prevent banks and financial institutions from continuing to give out massive and embarrassing bonuses to their top staff members. These activities only exacerbated the uneven distribution of wealth...

That's how we got here.






.

A SHIP OF STATE IN NEED OF A COURSE CORRECTION

Like the oil gushing out of the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama Administration continues on the course of the last administration, sputtering and spouting, the viscous slime from the past is unable to be altered or abated as it poisons, suffocates and kills those who come in contact with it. The problems of gushing oil and drifting unchanging domestic and foreign affairs can to a large degree be related back to Bush era policies of imperialism, greed, single-minded devotion to business interests, deregulation, imperialism and the evisceration of even minimal environmental review. The Obama Administration inherited the policies, but appears helpless to alter them or their outcomes as it continues to drift on the current, taking the nation in the same general direction, as if the former defeated and delegitimized oil-smeared former captain remained somehow tethered to the helm, and the new captain is without the strength, determination, or will to pry the tiller from the old man’s oily grasp.

We had great hopes back in January 22, 2009 when CNN reported on a key promise made by Obama during the election which epitomized the hopw for real change-- the closing of the ill- conceived, infamous Guantanamo Bay Prison. “Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year. The president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."

What happened to restoring our core values and standards of due process?

Nothing much.

By June 25, 2010, the NY Times was reporting that closing Guantanamo and keeping the prison closing pledge has drifted out of the President’s agenda. In a piece entitled “Closing Guantanamo Fades as a Priority” The Times states “Stymied by political opposition and focused on competing priorities, the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013. When the White House acknowledged last year that it would miss Mr. Obama’s initial January 2010 deadline for shutting the prison, it also declared that the detainees would eventually be moved to one in Illinois. But impediments to that plan have mounted in Congress, and the administration is doing little to alter events.” See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat Chair of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee adds:“There is a lot of inertia” against closing the prison, “and the administration is not putting a lot of energy behind their position that I can see,” said Levin. He added that “the odds are that it will still be open” by the next presidential inauguration.

Though we have since learned that the costs of keeping Guantanamo open, obtained from a new Defense Department study of the costs of the facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, show that taxpayers spent more than $2 billion on the prison between 2002 and 2009. Administration officials argue that the cost of operations and personnel could be cut roughly in half – to about $150 million a year – if detainees were instead housed at an Illinois prison. But reason and savings (even in these desperate times) appear not to change many minds. See http://documents.nytimes.com/current-costs-at-guantanamo

So as Tomdispatch reminds us in http://www.tomdispatch.com, closing Guantanamo is just one of the obvious factors that indicate how little things have really changed, “It would have been hard to do then” states Dispatch. But it is even more so now, with the Gulf gushing oil, the economy teetering into a possible second dip, the market behaving uncertainly about its wish to be a bear or a bull, and Obama’s approval ratings dropping like a stone (down to 38% among Independents), as well as a summer heat-wave fogging Congressional minds even more than they are usually.

So what has changed? We do have a black president and a lovely black first family. That is a good form of change. But other than that, and some well-spoken sentiments and oratory from the talented and intelligent Obama, Washington has not changed much since Bush left. Oddly, as if to underscore the lack of change, our nation again suffers with a disaster off the coast of Louisiana—though this time it is worse—with effects both on shore and in the deep waters of the Gulf. On foreign policy, the war in Afghanistan is looking much like it was under Bush---but now with more troops and more fatalities. An examination of who is mostly conducting the War in Afghanistan appears to be not much different had Senator John McCain won. In Iraq that disastrous ill-conceived and conducted invasion and civil war is thankfully slowly atrophying, but at a pace set by its chief designers and avid supporters---of the last administration. No change there. We still have a Bush-style warrior Secretary of State in our inconsequential and ineffective Ms Clinton. We continue to be burdened by Bush holdovers such as Mr. Gates, the Bush era Secretary of Defense, and also National Security Advisor Mr. James Jones who is a close friend of John McCain. So not surprisingly, we are still bogged down in an unending and unsuccessful war in Afghanistan. That gusher has not been “top killed”.

Just to understand how far off course we are, mark this on your navigation chart. In recent testimony concerning our reason for being in Afghanistan Mr. Leon Panetta, Head of the CIA indicated that there are perhaps “50 to 100 Al Qaida in that nation” for which we taxpayers have spent a nearly $300 billion dollars to apprehend and/or neutralize. That is $3 billion dollars for each turbaned head! We are either very inefficient or we are spending these hundreds of billions for some other reason. My old friend Tony would always say…”Check out where the money goes!”

Finally, we have some agencies (I think here of Blackwater or Xe of Bagdhad fame and its recent shameful 200 million dollar Pentagon contract) which are in the war business and operate to see it sustained and expanded. For example our expanding CIA Drone War in bordering Pakistan. The agency continues to generate new Taliban and al Qaida sympathizers with their ill-informed and poorly aimed drone-attacks, often resulting in numerous “collateral” civilian deaths. The spill goes on.
So when are we going to plug that leak Mr. Obama?

END CIA DRONE ATTACKS

"How now? A rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!" Shakespeare

The UN Human Rights Organization has issued a report, under the direction of Philip Alston (Alston is an Australian by birth and a prominent international law scholar and human rights advocate. He is currently the John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions. The report is critical of the US CIA program of Predator drone attacks which have killed nearly 1400 Pakistanis in the Tribal Areas of northwestern Pakistan. See: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf

Note that the Predator Drone is an unmanned, high-flying, silent, hovering, small plane which carries a TV camera and is armed with powerful rockets.

Since 2004, President Obama has increased the use of drone attacks and has come under increasing criticism for his actions. According to the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) President Obama has given his permission "some 135 attacks in northwestern Pakistan … since 2004 which have killed between 944 and 1,398 individuals, about 30 percent of whom were "non-militants," according to the New American Foundation, which derived its numbers from media reports.” (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0603/US-defends-unmanned-drone-attacks-after-harsh-UN-report).

The not-so-secret campaign, perhaps used by Obama as a cudgel to defend his unsteady command of the CIA and his own military, and to satisfy the bloodthirsty Republican opposition, has been spoken of openly in Washington. Indeed, Obama himself has referenced the "secret program" in public when he made an inappropriate joke about the use of drones in a well-reported crack to a journalist at a recent White House Correspondent’s Dinner, stating with his characteristic broad smile: “You will never see it coming”. After which everyone in attendance laughed heartily, casually ignoring the four or five hundred unfortunate Pakistani civilians who were mistakenly targeted, or happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and "did not see it coming" either. To make matters worse (a too common occurrence in this Administration) Mr Obama has notoriously added an American citizen to his Predator drone “execution list". Recently, the New York Times (and other outlets) revealed that the Moslem Iman, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born and raised in New Mexico, but now resides in Yemen has been targeted by Obama for extrajudicial execution...This is a Moslem Imam, and an American citizen(See:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html.) Al-Awlaki resides in Yemen and is not in or remotely near an American battleground. He has been implicated indirectly in the Fort Hood massacre and in the Christmas "underwear" bomber plot. Though, as an American citizen does he not have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law? No one has proof of his guilt, no one has even interviewed this man. The Obamanians are too willing to take the law into their own hands. In their willingness to execute this citizen outside of the law they threaten us all and make a mockery of our Constitutional rights.

This UN report should make Administration insiders and the President think more carefully about extrajudicial executions. How would they like it if China or Russia took up the same habit? Though, in fact it has been going on for some while..routinely practiced by Israel which nonchalantly eliminates its various foes this way. But the USA is not Israel!!

The Alston report questions the legality of the actions and the “play-station” mentality of the CIA agents who—sitting far from the battlefield in front of a console in a cushy air-conditioned module somewhere in a secret Nevada location…press a button and kill, kill, kill! These men and women who exterminate others from afar are not military personnel and as such have no military immunity (Such immunity is reasonable considering that on the battlefield combatants are more or less equal-- in their intent to harm or neutralize each other—and their equal exposure to dismemberment and death). But this is not so with the CIA's drone “play-station-joy-stick jockey” who presses a button to make a "kill" thousands of miles away safely sitting in front of a console--there is no exposure to retaliation or harm---thus making the act of distant killing--- a simple case of state sanctioned murder --the unlawful killing of another human being without just cause or excuse.

The CSM piece quotes Jane Mayer, (from The New Yorker) who wrote "that the appeal of drones has increased as public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has waned: “It’s easy to understand the appeal of a “push-button” approach to fighting Al Qaeda, but the embrace of the Predator program has occurred with remarkably little public discussion, given that it represents a radically new and geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force. And, because of the C.I.A. program’s secrecy, there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war.”

The CSM piece also quotes Micah Zenko, who states” that insurgents appear to be adapting to drone attacks and their usefulness may be waning. But he also argues that drone attacks remain an "essential tool for killing terrorists" even if their use should be more carefully scrutinized.”

Zenko’s chilling statement that drones are “an essential tool for killing terrorists” sounds familiar. I have heard that or similar sentiments used by the neocons in the last Bush Administration. That is the crux of the matter. Zenko’s assumption that the target is indeed a ”terrorist”. How do we know they are terrorists? What is the proof? Who makes the decision? Sine there is no legal decison--these are called “extrajudicial” executions. They are outside of any legal framework.

The CSM piece states that “targeted Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents in northwest Pakistan have responded to the increasing efficiency of the drone strikes by developing standard defensive tactics. [They've begun] killing suspected informants who provide intelligence, destroying communication towers that can better intercept satellite and cell phone signals; they've dispersed into smaller cells; they've moved into heavily populated areas where it is very unlikely that the United States will attempt strikes. So they've adapted defensive strategies in response...” The battle goes on.

Alston concludes that these “operators” (when and if they become known to appropriate authority) could be held accountable by the states in which the killings took place, or here in the USA where applicable laws apply. Such an outcome would serve well the interests of justice---and humanity.

Get the picture?

rjk

THE US SENATE, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

The last 14 months of haggling, partisanship, gridlock and stalling over the Obama health care reform bill provided the nation with a primer on how the US Senate can waste time and money as it stymies legislation. (See "Unprecedented obstruction in Congress" April 26, 2010 http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/04/senate_obstruction.html). After all that time, the President and his Party finally did get "a bill"...but it was so mauled that many who supported it in Congress could not recognize the final product. The victory for health care touted by the Democrats as "victory" was limited and hollow. As I write this, the Senate is making a repeat performance, this time concerning legislation proposed to reform banks and financial institutions. This takes place as we struggle to pull ourselves out of the Great Recession, a veritable hole which was largely caused by the bank's and the avarice and malfeasance of the great financial houses.

In a recent case of Senatorial haughtiness and abuse of power (February 4, 2010), one Honorable Richard Shelby (R, AL) put a "blanket hold" on all 70 nominations President Obama had sent to the Senate. Shelby--all by himself--held the President and the Nation hostage until the Obama administration decided to move to permit passage of two very costly projects Shelby wants approved in his home state.

Just this last Thursday, (May 13, 2010) with oil still gushing into the Gulf from the twisted and shattered Deepwater Horizon riser pipe, Senator Robert Menendez sought unanimous consent for a bill entitled "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010". This proposal would raise the liability cap on oil spills from a meager $75 million (which would not cover the expenses for the first few days of the now month-long Gulf Spill) up to a more reasonable, but still less than what is necessary, $10 billion dollars liability. Its passage would have acted as a deterrent and warning to those who would attempt to drill in risky places. And it would have surely passed. But "Big Oil" needed only one Senator to raise an objection and fend off those who want fair compensation for people affected by the underwater gusher in the Gulf and other disasters in the future. Big Oil found their Senator in Lisa Murkowski. Ironically, Senator Murkowski represents the State of Alaska, the site of what was until now considered the nation's most disastrous oil spill, the Exxon Valdez disaster (See http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/05/13/murkowski-blocks-oil-spill-liability-cap-increase/).

Senator Murkowski stated: “I don’t believe that taking the liability cap from $75 million dollars to $10 billion dollars… isn’t where we need to be right now.” Her unreasoned objection, was all that was necessary to hold the bill up from consideration and end its possibility of being brought up on the floor of the Senate.

Does that kind of obstructionism make sense in a modern state?

Certainly Not!

Overhearing our discussion about the above issue, my grandson asked, "What is the Senate good for, Poppy?" I stammered a bit, mumbling something about "checks and balances", and "its a place where they have time to fully debate complex issues", but that did not seem to wipe the quisssical expression from his face.

Later I thought, L\little "TJ" had a good question:"What is the Senate good for?"

The Senate is the upper house of our bicameral system. The concept of "bicameralism" has a long history. The Founding Fathers appear to have had two paradigms in mind when they established the form of our government. One of the historic threads leads all the way back into first century Rome, the other derived from 18th century Britain.

The "Senate" is derived from late-Republican Rome-- which had a political body called the Senate. Perhaps, we can "blame" our Senate on the writings of Marcus Tulius Cicero (106BC-43BC), a Roman Senator , an orator, attorney, and successful politician who lived and wrote prolifically during the latter days of the Roman Republic. His frequent letters, full of accounts of events and gossip in Rome were written to Atticus, a boyhood friend and confidant. Atticus lived lived in Athens, Greece where the letters survived into modern times, perhaps because they were valuable historic documents so interesting to historians and so well-written. Cicero's musings and historical notes became an integral part of a classical English liberal education, and consequently were well-known by our Founding Fathers.

Marcus Tulius Cicero was a "new man" from the provinces who made good as a talented orator and attorney. His point of view, that of a political outsider, who had finally gained entrance to a special club (the Roman Senate). Cicero tended to emphasize the positive side of the Senate. He took the side of the optimates (the conserative party of that time) and touted the advantages of Roman Republicanism. Perhaps unfortunately for us, Cicero's biased views were adopted as whole cloth by the founders, who failed to see the other side of the coin--how the obstructionism of the ancient Roman Senate was a major factor in the fall of the Republic, to the descent of the state into dictatorship, to a disastrous civil war, and finally into corrupt imperialism of the Augustinian age. Thus, our Senate has as one of its historic roots in a failed political system. Not a good beginning.

The other historic thread leads us back to the English House of Lords. The late 18th century Founders believed with most Englishmen of the time that the "their" political system..comprising (1) a monarch, as head of the state, with limits to its power, (2) the House of Lords (the Lords) , an entity which represented the established church, the nobility and large landowners. and (3) finally the House of Commons, a body elected by the people. The founders, (almost) all English men of wealth, position and culture of the time saw this system as ideal. One in which the political tension between the King (or Queen) and "the Lords" prevented either one acquiring too much power. The popularly elected body, the House of Commons, had the least politcal power. It could voice the concerns of the people, but did not have the power to implement their wishes without the consent of the other two bodies.

The British had a long and turbulent history. There were brief periods of ascendancy of the the people's elected body and times when it was in decline. In the 1640s, at the close of the British Civil War, the government defeated the King and his forces and put the King (Charles I) to death. In 1649, the Commonwealth of England was declared. The House of Lords was reduced to a largely powerless body, with Cromwell and his supporters in the Commons dominating the Government. Then in 1649, the House of Lords was abolished by an Act of Parliament, which declared that "The Commons of England find by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England.

But in thime it grew back like a recurrent cancer. Finally, the cure came in the early 20th century when the upper house was extirpated after it proved to be so obstructionist that it threatened the economy and survival of the state. As is clear from this history, Great Britain has slowly evolved from a monarchy to a bicameral system and finally, to essentially a unicameral parliamentary government. today it is stable and its government is representative of the people's wishes .

Thus, the two paradigms upon which the US Senate was based were both failures. Both led eventually to a gridlocked government and in one case decline into dictatorship and corruption and in the other to a slow evolution away from bicameralism toward a more modern, equitable and democratic unicameral system.

The parliamentary system of government is now almost a universal in all modern, industrialized western states. All of western Europe and most modern industrial states elsewhere are of this type but the US (nearly alone among modern industrialized states) remains a bicameral republic as does most of south America.


Thus the modern USA struggles along with an antiquated antidemocratic reactionary system--the Senate--that has been repudiated by most modern polities.

So what is it good for? Nothing that I can fathom --except that it grants extrodianry political power to the elite, the wealthy, the powerful and the enfranchised--a group which is well represented elsewhere in our society.

But reforms of the Senate are always being proposed, particularly by those who are either running for a Senate seat or just have just entered the Senate. Somehow at that jucnture they are not corrupted by the perks, hauture and clubbiness.

See (http://bennet.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=3b89b24a-c81e-4d6d-a4ec-0d3f5b91e728)

Some (see Senator Bennet's proposal above) suggest previously proposed nostrums-- such as a Senate salary freeze. Bennest suggests that perhaps the freeze in incrases to the Senate should last until jobs are actually available to the homeless and unemployed. Another proposes a reduction in perks like those of excessive travel on private jets, or expansive health care, and massive offices and mobs of specialized staff. Others want to tinker with the corrupt practices of the Senate such as elimination of anonymous "holds" (Such as that described above by Senator Murchoski--unbelievable ain't it?), restrictions on how long a "hold" can be in effect, others plead for an end to the filibuster, and of course the notorious the sixty vote supermajority. Others wish to tweak the rules such as eliminating the "revolving door" between government service and lobbyist jobs for former outed Senators, or their staff or their wives or family, while other rules would put controls on the amount of money a Senator could accept, and limits as well as the funds Senators could accept from foreign sources (Can you believe that?). These are all worthy of consideration and one wonders how no one has objected more vociferously before this. But these are only moving the deck chairs around on an ocean liner that is heading into shoal waters. The over-all question remains.

Other than acting as a further constraint on our democracy, a bulwark against the legitimate will of the people, and as a salaried body of advocates for large corporations, wealthy individuals and other oligarchs, what is the Senate good for?

My response is similar to the 17th century House of Commons in Britain which found the the House of Lords "useless and dangerous to the people". The US Senate is indeed "useless and dangerous" to the people of the US.

Support a constitutional amendment that would abolish the US Senate. Put all those (with a few exceptions such as my home-state of Vermont-- and perhaps Wisconsin too) dithering blow-hards and bald-headed, multi-term-serving, oatmeal dribblers and time-wasters --out to pasture. Save the people's money, avoid the corruption of a political body up for sale to the highest bidder, prevent duplication of effort, save time, make government more responsive to the needs of the people, eliminate another layer of administration which simply acts to obstruct the people's will. We too can evolve into a real democracy. The Romans failed to curb their Senate and they fell into civil war, chaos, imperialism and final decline. The British evolved into a modern, effective, responsive, unicameral democratic system...we can too.


Get the picture?

rjk

"A CASE OF SIMPLE DEDUCTION, WATSON!"

Or was it?

Classic induction proceeds “at once from . . . sense and particulars up to the most general propositions." Francis Bacon


I believe Sherlock Holmes (if Conan Doyle ever really had him state that response to Watson) was wrong. Holmes characteristically made observations and formulated conclusions from those specific experiences and thus probably did not use deductive reasoning (deduction) to arrive at his conclusions--but rather induction.

Tonight, (May 18th 2010) I listened to a program on MSNBC in which the journalist Jonathan Alter, spoke about his new book concerning President Obama's first year. Alter stated that he had interviewed over 200 people for the book which is entitled "The First Year". In response to a question by Joe Scarborough (whom I paraphrase here): "How does the President really 'think', and is he really so abrupt--perhaps sharp tongued-- with his staff as some say?" asked Scarborough. Alter responded that the President was "self confident" and agreed that the President probably most often sees himself as the "smartest guy in the room". As to his reasoning power, Alter stated that Obama tends to think "inductively" while, in comparison, former President Clinton was likely to be more "deductive" of a thinker. What did he mean?

We often get these concepts--induction and deduction confused.
But I suspect Alter was probably correct in his general characterization. Obama is more rational and methodological and Clinton was more emotional--more likely to have a gut rather than a cerebral response. But is that what inductive and deductive actually mean? Let's see.

Aristotle was actually the first to give us the word induction and deduction. His philosophical premise that all knowledge came from sensory experience required a set of terms to explain his process. The concept of empiricism (from the Greek word "ἐμπειρία" (empiria) translates as: "experience". In epistemology (the study of how we "know") empiricism is the theory that states that knowledge arises from our senses. Aristotle(as opposed to his near contemporary, Plato, who espoused the concept of "innate ideas" divorced from experience)emphasized the role of experience and physical observational evidence, especially sensory evidence in the formation of ideas. A fundamental tenet is that a priori knowledge (knowledge independent of experience) such as intuition,dreams,revelation, imaginings are by definition excluded from consideration. Modern science is thus strictly empirical in nature.

Aristotle also was the first to use the term "induction" which in Greek is επαγωγή(epagogi) which translates as variously as "inductance", "induction", or "inference", but it is unlikely that he used it in its present meaning, since he differentiated between "epagogi" or inferential thought and "reasoning" which he termed "σνλλογισμÒς"(syllogismos). Thus, Aristotle considered inductive reasoning only as a preliminary process, a means of moving mentally from some particular concept to universal statements which then could be inserted into a rational thought process or actual human reasoning which he had distilled into the well known syllogistic form from which actual conclusions could be derived. If you accept the premise (below) the conclusion follows necessarily. This Aristotle considered "reasoning".

Such as this syllogism (an example of deductive reasoning):

All Republicans are biased meatheads,
Ralph is a Republican,
Therefore: Ralph is a biased meathead.

A general statement to a specific conclusion. The end product is a logical progression but is it valid? Ahh that is another question all together.

In the Middle Ages, Aristotle's concepts were worked over and modified by others.
There were also significant developments in the Middle East by Arab scholars.

In Europe, Roger Bacon 1214-1294 was a Franciscan monk,philosopher,writer, and scientist who was born in Ilchester, Somersetshire,about 1214 and died at Oxford, perhaps on 11 June, 1294. Bacon joined the Franciscan Order in 1256.

Roger Bacon elaborated on Aristotle's empiricism and use of induction and deduction. He used a method of investigation which he described as a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and independent verification. He recorded the way he had conducted his experiments in precise detail, perhaps with the idea that others could reproduce and independently test his results. Pope Clement IV (1265) granted Bacon (who was under a general proscription to write for publication) a specific commission to advise him on scientific matters. Within two years Bacon has written three major works(Opus Major, Minor and Tertium)and submitted them to the Pope. In these treatises Bacon discusses the four causes of error: "authority, custom, bias opinion of the unschooled, pretense of knowledge."

InductionBacon also evaluates the four causes of error: "authority, custom, the opinion of the unskilled many, and the concealment of real ignorance by a pretense of knowledge". He distinguishes between speculation and experimental science. Science he states, verifies its conclusions by direct experiment, and thus has the potential to open knowledge of the past and future.

So what we may conclude is that both inductive and deductive reasoning are essential in logical thinking. Inductive reasoning is based on specific observations which can lead to general statements. These generalities (after exhaustive testing) may lead to general rules or laws. Other statements may then be confidently "deduced" from these general laws to specific examples by deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning --gathering observations or experience--and generalizing from those experiences are very natural to humans and certainly must have contributed to our ascendancy over unthinking beasts in prehistoric times.

So yes Holmes used inductive reasoning not deductive reasoning.

If as Alter states, Obama tends to think "inductively" (i.e. from specific observations to general) while, in comparison, former President Clinton was likely to be more "deductive" of a thinker (i.e. from general principles or laws to specific details) Was he correct? I think not. More likely he like many of us simply confused the two terms. My impression is that Obama is the more deductive thinker...beginning with general principles and arriving methodically by following an almost syllogistic structure at answers to specific conclusion. While Clinton was the more inductive thinker..beginning with specific observations and experiences and arriving at general conclusions. Who is better....we need them both.